Sitting of 19 June 2002

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

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second Time on Wednesday 26 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Residential Care
    Mr. Mark Prisk: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the funding of residential care in Wales. [59906]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I discuss the national health service and other health issues on a regular basis with the First Minister, and I spoke on this issue earlier today with the Minister for Health and Social Services of the Welsh Assembly.
    Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply. Last night, however, BBC Wales revealed that up to 10 residential care homes in Wales are now closing every week. Can the Secretary of State confirm that figure? Given the obvious distress that that causes to vulnerable pensioners, who does he think is to blame?
    Mr. Murphy: I saw the BBC programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and it is a cause of great regret that beds are being lost in the care sector in Wales. First, however, some £17 million extra has gone into the care home sector in Wales. Secondly—he and his party should reflect on this point—hundreds of million of pounds will go into the national health service and other related areas in Wales as a result of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. Thirdly, only weeks ago I issued and signed a regulatory order to ensure that local authorities can transfer more funds into the care home sector. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that the Minister in the Welsh Assembly has set up a care home strategy that brings together all the relevant partners in Wales in this area of activity. I hope—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me—that that will mean
    260
    that more and more people will be cared for in their own homes, as well as in care homes. I believe that that partnership in Wales is working.
    Adam Price: The Secretary of State mentions £17 million, but he will know that Carmarthenshire county council alone faces a bill of £20 million to reach the new standards demanded by the Care Standards Act 2000. As a result of that shortfall, local authorities throughout Wales are having to privatise their homes. Can he not understand the distress that elderly residents and their families feel at the prospect of being placed at the mercy of a private sector that is in crisis?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman, too, knows that not only has £17 million extra already gone into that sector in Wales but, through the Chancellor's Budget some weeks ago, an awful lot more money will go into the health and social services sector in Wales. He referred to regulations, and he will also be aware that as a result of the close working relationship and partnership in Wales between the care home sector, the local authorities and the National Assembly, there is a transitional system and arrangement to deal with those issues. I am not underestimating the problem—far from it—but the National Assembly, local authorities and the independent care sector in Wales are working together to achieve a solution to this problem, simply because more and more people are living longer—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy.
    Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend will know that the Nantgwyn respite care home in my constituency, which was to have been closed by the Plaid Cymru council, will, after protests from us, remain open. Not only will it remain open but a new facility will be built in my constituency for children with acute disabilities. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that it has state-of-the-art equipment, and that we continue to welcome the opportunities that respite care homes give to children and their families.
    Mr. Murphy: I understand that there are plans to repair and refurbish the building to which my hon. Friend refers. I also emphasise, however, that it is ultimately a matter for local authorities in Wales to decide how to deal with their social services. I take my hon. Friend's point about her local authority.
    Mr. Roger Williams: The National Assembly has made clear its intention to provide free long-term personal care for the elderly. I know that the Secretary of State is firmly committed to devolution. Will he make use of his position in the Cabinet to make sure that parliamentary time is found for the legislation that will be necessary for the National Assembly for Wales to deliver that long-term care?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that these matters were debated in the National Assembly some weeks ago. However, in addition to the point that he has just made, the Assembly is considering more than 100 recommendations on how to deal with the strategy for older people in Wales, and at least a dozen of the

    261
    recommendations relate to matters that are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. I will, of course, look very carefully at the Minister's letter and will respond to it in due course. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the Government's position.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State talks about millions of pounds, but many elderly people in Wales face misery. I recently visited Plas y Dre, a local authority care home in Llandudno that is now facing closure, and met many of the residents. They are in their 90s and are anxious about the prospect of their home being closed, being parted from their friends and being cast away to other places all over the town. Is the Secretary of State now saying that there is no local authority or private care home that has to close because of the want of money?
    Mr. Murphy: I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not simply a question of money. It is an extremely important issue. I am sure that he will support the Government on measures such as the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which will ensure that we can reform the health service, but he did not support the Budget this year, which put literally hundreds of millions of pounds back into the health service and social services in Wales. That is what ultimately matters, and I would like to hear a commitment from him that the Conservative party would give as much money to health and social services in Wales as the Government are giving.
    Mr. Evans: What I will not do is to promise at a general election that things can only get better, only for them to get decidedly worse for people throughout Wales.
    The Secretary of State is hopelessly complacent. We have already heard that the BBC programme "Week In Week Out" has stated that 10 care homes a week are closing in Wales. Headlines in the Daily Post, which is fighting a valiant campaign, refer to "A cruel slap in the face for our OAPs", and a headline in The Western Mail a couple of months ago said, "Care homes head for meltdown". A Cardiff GP, Andrew Dearden, who is chairman of the British Medical Association's committee on community care says:
    "Community services for the elderly are falling apart. They are abysmal and getting worse."
    Care home operators are fed up with increased Government regulations and inadequate funding. Will the Secretary of State now stop the spin and meet local government officials and councillors as a matter of urgency, to ensure that the shabby treatment of the elderly is stopped and they get the first-class services that they need?
    Mr. Murphy: It seems to me that the only one to have spun is the hon. Gentleman. He understands that in dealing with such hugely important issues, simply to talk as he does is of no help. At the end of the day, homes need more money—that is now happening—and they need proper regulations. Is he suggesting that he disagrees with proper regulations and standards for care homes in Wales? Of course we have to have them. Indeed, when the standards were agreed in Wales, they were agreed both with the Assembly and with the independent care home sector. Together they agreed on the standards, and those
    262
    standards have to be in place. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that because more and more people are living longer and have to be accommodated, we have to look at the issue sensibly and carefully, which includes dealing with the elderly who wish to stay at home—and that is what the Assembly and the Government will do.
    Mr. Evans: If the Secretary of State and his Government introduce new regulations, they should ensure that there is proper and adequate funding for them.
    Another example is the Chancellor's announcement that national insurance contributions will go up next year by 1 per cent. I have received replies from local authorities throughout Wales, and the increase will add another £460,000 a year to costs in Blaenau Gwent; in Flintshire the figure will be £500,000, in Denbighshire it will be £500,000, and Carmarthenshire will have to find an extra £1 million because of the increase in national insurance contributions. Will the Secretary of State now have urgent talks with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that in the block grant next year, sufficient funding will come forward to ensure that local authorities do not need to close their homes?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I shall discuss those issues with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We are in that process at the moment. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman needs to tell the House whether he agrees with the amount that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the National Assembly for Wales to increase by hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds the funding for the health service and other services in Wales. What the hon. Gentleman does not understand is that in Wales, there is a partnership between the independent homes care sector, local authorities and the National Assembly to ensure that we treat our old people properly.

    Non-departmental Public Bodies
    Llew Smith: If he will make a statement on the number of NDPBs in Wales (a) in 1999 and (b) in 2002. [59907]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): In 1999 there were 38 Assembly-sponsored public bodies. This followed the merger of the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales with the Welsh Development Agency, and the abolition of Tai Cymru. At the end of May 2002 there were 36 such bodies.
    Llew Smith rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is still far too much noise in the House.
    Llew Smith: Does the Minister remember the commitment given to the people of Wales that if they voted yes to a Welsh Assembly, the Assembly would make a bonfire of the quangos? Bearing in mind the figures that he just announced, does he accept that there has been no bonfire? Instead, it has been very much a damp squib. When he next meets the First Secretary of the Assembly, will he request that he apologise on its behalf for that publicity stunt, and for its failure to make

    263
    a bonfire of the quangos? Will he suggest that the Assembly's time would be better spent making a bonfire of the quangos, instead of being involved in the publicity stunt of telling the Welsh Rugby Union how it should do its job?
    Mr. Murphy: I have no intention of making any such comment on the Welsh Rugby Union. However, I reassure my hon. Friend that his robust views will be reported in full to the First Minister. What has happened is that those bodies are now much more locally accountable in Wales than they ever were, and appointments to them are much more open and transparent than they ever were under the previous Administration. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees with that.
    Mr. James Gray: In the Minister's substantive answer a moment ago he appeared to mention the abolition of Plaid Cymru. Was that wishful thinking?
    Mr. Murphy: I was referring to the abolition of Tai Cymru.

    Manufacturing
    Paul Flynn: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about measures to assist manufacturing industry in Wales. [59908]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular discussions with my ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including manufacturing, which has of course experienced difficulties this year. However, I am pleased to note that the fall in unemployment in Wales is one of the fastest of any region or country in the United Kingdom, and Wales now has lower unemployment than Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Canada and the United States.
    Paul Flynn: My right hon. Friend will agree that part of that success story has been the brilliant record of local entrepreneurs, particularly in the high-tech sector and especially in the city of Newport. Does he realise that one very successful high-tech company—although still in its embryo stage, it will certainly sell its unique product throughout the world—is in some difficulty because it is outside the objective 1 areas? Alcan had a similar problem in Newport, and is it not true that the present objective 1 map distorts priorities, to the detriment of places such as Newport?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but he knows that Newport now has an urban regeneration corporation, which is the work of the Welsh Development Agency and the local authority. There will be opportunities to help firms such as Alcan because of the money—some £20 million—that the corporation will be able to generate. I also think that the new city of Newport is a great place for companies to invest in, and I wish it well.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: After the right hon. Gentleman's Freudian slip in which he said that he had abolished Plaid Cymru, although we are unabolished at the present time, will he ensure that the £170 million public expenditure cover is allowed for in
    264
    this year's comprehensive spending review, and that the £100 million that should come to Wales does come there, so that we can draw down as much as possible under objective 1—or will he be complacent, as he was last year?
    Mr. Murphy: I did not make any Freudian slip about Plaid Cymru—but the hon. Gentleman should be careful over the next 11 months, because we might well see, if not the abolition, the demise of his party.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's question, I have said that I am in discussion with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary regarding the spending review, and he cannot expect me to comment on the detail of those discussions at the moment. The Government and the Assembly are not complacent about objective 1. We regard it as vital in regenerating two thirds of the land mass of Wales. We believe that it is working well, and that after seven years Wales will be a much better place because of it.
    Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposed closure of Federal Mogul in my constituency, which would lead to the loss of 75 jobs, mainly in manufacturing? Although the economy in Cardiff is buoyant, as my right hon. Friend said, it will be difficult to replace those jobs because of the loss of employment in manufacturing. Will he do all that he can to assist manufacturing in the area?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I will. I am well aware of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. She knows that we have to manage a changing economy in Wales and that there are unfortunate cases of firms having to close down and move away. She will also be aware that there are now 3,000 more people in work in Wales than there were this time last year, so the overall picture is good. Of course that does not help her constituents, and she can rest assured that I will raise the matter with the Economic Development Minister in the Assembly and the First Minister—although she might get there first.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the independent report in the Financial Times yesterday that shows increased productivity in manufacturing? Is not that recognition that the sector is moving forward?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I welcome that. We are now seeing an increase in manufacturing activity in Wales, including in my hon. Friend's constituency, where unemployment has come down by nearly 44 per cent. since 1997.

    Bovine TB
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What recent discussions he has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on badger movements across the Welsh border. [59909]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The Secretary of State and I have regular and wide-ranging discussions with ministerial colleagues in DEFRA and the National Assembly for Wales. Our officials also maintain contact

    265
    with officials in DEFRA and the National Assembly concerning the issue on which the hon. Gentleman has tabled his question.
    Mr. Wiggin: Today Members of the European Parliament are investigating foot and mouth and its handling in Wales. Wales now faces a similar crisis with the bovine tuberculosis microbacterium. Does the Minister agree that it is a disgrace and a display of contempt for the rural community that the Labour Administration have appointed Mike German, a Liberal Democrat, to handle their rural affairs brief?
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman had trouble keeping a straight face when he was asking that question—whereas the Government take the problem of bovine TB in Wales very seriously. In partnership with our colleagues in the Assembly, we are making available extra resources and extra staff to tackle the problem. As for the appointment of Mr. Mike German to his position in the National Assembly, that is a matter for the First Minister, not for me.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What recent discussions he has had with Assembly Secretaries concerning drug abuse in Wales. [59910]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I discuss a range of issues with Assembly Ministers, including drug abuse.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister, along with other south Wales MPs, will recently have got a letter from South Wales police saying that heroin and crack cocaine in south Wales have never been as available or as cheap as they are at present, that there are 7,700 problematic heroin and crack cocaine users, and that a conservative estimate is that in 2000, more than 270 people died of drug abuse in south Wales alone. Is that evidence of a drug policy that is working, or one that is failing? Will the Minister note that in Holland, which has a population of 17 million, just 61 people died in the equivalent period? Does he agree that that is testimony not only to the evil of drug pushers but to the cowardice of British politicians from various parties, who prefer to have drugs policies that sound tough rather than ones that work?
    Mr. Touhig: I recall that during a debate in Westminster Hall on 22 May, my hon. Friend made a similar point when he said that we should be treating heroin users as a drug problem, not a criminal problem. I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said, in response to the Home Affairs Committee report on our national drugs strategy, that he wants an appropriate extension of the prescription of heroin, but there are no plans for injecting rooms. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will respond to that report before the summer.
    I share my hon. Friend's concern about the explosion in the use of crack and heroin in the Welsh valleys. The crime reduction director for Wales, David A'Herne, recently met Welsh MPs and warned of the severe dangers and problems that that will cause. It is important that all
    266
    the agencies of the Government here, and of the Assembly and agencies in Wales, work together with the police to tackle the problem. I do not believe, however, that letting up in any way on our drive to crack down on drug pushers and those who sell drugs sends the right message. We should not send young people the message that we condone their using drugs—that is quite the wrong line to take. The Government must stick to the policy that they have already enunciated.
    Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept that it is becoming perfectly obvious that simply attacking the drug pushers does nothing to reduce drug usage in a demand-led industry? Many Liberal Democrats and members of other parties believe that it is now time we tried an alternative approach of prescription to recorded addicts, which would undermine the drug pushers and improve the prospects of treatment. Is the hon. Gentleman willing to speak to the Home Secretary about setting up some sort of experiment to test such a policy where it matters most—in the communities that are suffering the most?
    Mr. Touhig: As I said in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), the Home Secretary has made it absolutely clear that where appropriate he would consider the extension of prescribing heroin, but that is a matter that will be considered when he responds to the Home Affairs Committee's report. We have to wait for that.
    The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) mentioned drug pushers; drug pushers are parasites on our society who exploit our young people and change them from the sort of children we knew into the sort of children we do not want to know, and it is important that we take a tough line against them. At the end of the day we need a co-ordinated approach, or we will end up with a society that most of us do not want to live in.

    Sports Funding
    Simon Hughes: What discussions he has had since June 2001 with the National Assembly and others about national lottery funding for sport in Wales. [59911]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet colleagues regularly to discuss a range of issues, including lottery funding for sports.
    Simon Hughes: Do Ministers accept that there is a direct link between the amount of provision for sport and other constructive activity for young people in Wales, and the ability to distract them from crime and other destructive activity? Given that at this very moment the Welsh team is preparing for the Commonwealth games, and presumably the Welsh football team is preparing for the World cup finals in four years' time, can Ministers assure us that throughout the whole of Wales—we on the Liberal Democrat Benches all speak as the beneficiaries

    267
    of sporting provision in Wales—young people can have access to sport in increased measure and at all ages from now on, and for the next four years?
    Mr. Touhig: Yes, indeed. The Government are committed to using funds through the lottery to enhance the sporting abilities of our young people and to provide opportunities, especially in deprived areas of the United Kingdom, and in Wales in particular. The hon. Gentleman and the Government are on the same wavelength in that respect.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Chris Bryant: If he will make a statement about the recent effect in Wales of Government measures to create job opportunities for unemployed people. [59912]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Government's long-term ambition is that by the end of the decade there will be a higher proportion of people in work than ever before. The Government have seen success both in reducing unemployment to nearly its lowest for 20 years, and in increasing employment, with 1.5 million more people in work than in spring 1997. I am pleased to tell the House that the latest figures for Wales, published last Friday, showed an increase of 3,000 in the total number of people in work in Wales compared to a year before.
    Mr. Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be especially delighted to know that since 1997 unemployment in the Rhondda has fallen by more than 50 per cent. However, there are still many problems facing local industry, which complains that it is difficult to understand the process whereby it can get assistance from the Welsh Development Agency, and is worried that young people do not emerge from school with the entrepreneurial skills that are needed. Will he talk to his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly to ensure that we improve our record on those matters?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course I will. My hon. Friend is right to stress that his constituency has benefited—perhaps more than any other in Wales—from the changes, and that he has a committed work force in the Rhondda. I look forward to being with him in the Pop factory in Porth on Friday, where we will celebrate the industrial heritage of the Rhondda and a great future for his valleys.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms Claire Ward: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Ms Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that globalisation can bring real benefits to all of us, but that it must not be allowed to do so at the expense of the poorest in this world? Today there are thousands of people demanding that the Government use their influence to change the World Trade Organisation and the trade rules to ensure that developing countries benefit and are not exploited. Will my right hon. Friend listen to those representations today, and will he lead the debate for change when he attends the Heads of Government meeting?
    The Prime Minister: I met representatives from my constituency and others today in Downing street over that very issue. The Trade Justice movement will get a great deal of support for its basic principles from the Government and, I hope, all Members of the House. It is important to point out that over the past few years we have increased the aid budget by 45 per cent. in real terms, and we have been leading the cause of writing off the debt of the poorest countries. We have also been making sure that we focus the aid that we do give on poverty reduction. The people of this country can be very proud of the commitment that they have given to some of the poorest people in the world. We need to make sure that as well as giving aid and writing off debt, we are giving access to our markets so that those countries can compete properly and fairly.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I take this opportunity to extend my condolences and those of my party to the families of the victims of the terrible suicide bomb in Jerusalem yesterday?
    Two years ago the Prime Minister said that it was time to give police the powers
    "to impose curfews on children and time to use them".
    Can he tell us how many curfew orders have been issued since then?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the exact number of curfew orders, but I can say that curfews in respect of offenders have been used in thousands of cases.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Perhaps the Prime Minister ought to check his figures. The answer is that not one single child curfew order has been issued in the past three years, despite the Prime Minister's speech. He also introduced child safety orders for the under-10s, apparently to stop them drifting into crime. That was four years ago, and only 12 such orders have been issued since. He promised that there would be 5,000 antisocial behaviour orders every year, and there has been a total of only 500. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many more crimes there are each day than there were a year ago?
    The Prime Minister: We do not yet have the full recorded crime statistics, but they will show a rise in recorded crime in the past year. However, on the same

    269
    day, we will also have the British crime survey. Perhaps we should wait for the results of both those surveys. In any event, crime will be down from where it was five years ago when we came to office.
    I return to some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made on curfew orders. There have been about 1,500 juvenile curfew orders, about 14,500 adult curfew orders, 6,500 drug treatment testing orders and 12,500 reparation orders, particularly for young people, so it simply is not the case that none of those orders is being used. The critical point is that we are taking measures, particularly to deal with street crime. Overall crime has fallen in the past five years. That stands in stark contrast to the Conservative Government who, when they were in office, doubled the rate of crime.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I know that the Prime Minister does not like to answer the question, but the question was about child curfew orders. Two years ago he said that he would issue them, but not one child curfew order has been issued. Crimes are up by 850 a day in the past 12 months. Overall crime is now rising for the first time in a decade, burglaries are up for the first time in eight years, and violent and street crime is rocketing. It is no good the Prime Minister sending his chairman and his Home Secretary out to attack the press merely because their spin is backfiring. Does he understand that what the people require is action, not words?
    The Prime Minister: I agree. However, let us get the facts straight. Overall, police numbers are now at their highest level ever. They were falling in the last years of the past Government. Since we came to office, burglary is down by 35 per cent., and vehicle crime by 24 per cent. We have halved the time that it takes to get persistent juvenile offenders to court. We have increased dramatically the cuts in court delays, which have caused so much distress. A huge amount of work is being done in the White Paper on criminal justice and on juvenile crime.
    Surely the comparison is this: in the past five years, crime overall has fallen under this Government. There is much more to be done, and we are doing it. Crime under the previous Conservative Government doubled. We have increased the numbers of police officers. It is only as a result of the additional investment that we are putting into the criminal justice system that we will get further results in future.
    If it is the case that we need more police and we need more investment in our criminal justice system, we have committed ourselves to make that investment. Will the right hon. Gentleman reverse the Conservative party's position and support that investment?
    Mr. David Borrow: Tesco will soon be opening a £20 million store in Leyland in my constituency, and it is using the new deal partnership to guarantee jobs for the long-term unemployed in the area. I have recently met some of the 80 trainees who have finished a 13-week course that was run by Runshaw college and Age Concern. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating them on completing their course and
    270
    wish them luck in their new jobs? Can he assure me that similar schemes will be available for those of our citizens who find it difficult to get back into work in future?
    The Prime Minister: In my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere, the new deal has had a huge impact in cutting unemployment. In the long term, youth unemployment has declined by about 75 per cent. in the past few years. We have put about 650,000 people through the new deal. Literally hundreds of thousands of people who were without hope and any chance of a decent prospect in life finally have job prospects and a potential career to go to. I remind the House that when we introduced the new deal, it was opposed every inch of the way by the Conservative party. We will continue with the new deal because it is right for the country and right for the people who are benefiting from it.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given that the Prime Minister is meeting the President of France later today, will he be raising with him the continuing illegal ban on British beef importation? Has he yet been able to ascertain whether the incoming French Administration intend to end this illegal ban?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course I will raise the issue with the President. We are also raising it at a government level. There is a new Government in place, and we very much hope that they will come into line with their legal obligations.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister confirm also that British beef is produced to the most stringent health, safety and quality standards, which match those of the rest of the world? Given that the illegal ban remains unacceptable, will he launch a fresh promotional campaign for British beef? Will he also seek compensation from the French authorities for the damage that has been done to our farmers in the interim?
    The Prime Minister: First, we must ensure that if the French Government will not change their position, the European Commission will take the necessary infringement action, because the ban on British beef is wholly illegal.
    The incidence of BSE in this country is falling, and has fallen dramatically. The incidence in France has been rising. There is no reason, in science, common sense or law, for the ban to remain. We will continue to do everything that we can. Through the red tractor campaign, we are doing our best to promote British beef—it is among the safest and the finest quality in the world—and British produce generally.
    Ann McKechin: Given the huge response to the trade justice lobby today, will the Prime Minister assure the House that this Government will work for reform of the EU common agricultural policy to end the tariffs and subsidies that are throwing millions of people into continued poverty?
    The Prime Minister: We will press for that reform. I hope that the European Union realises not merely that it is the right thing to do, but that reform of the common agricultural policy is inevitable, given that enlargement is

    271
    going to happen. We must argue the case for free trade and access to markets not only in the European Union, but in the world trade round, the G8 and elsewhere, because it is the right thing to do. What many of the poorest countries need is not simply more aid, but access to our markets. If they were given the chance to sell into our markets, many of the people who are living in poverty today would not be living in that poverty.
    Mr. John Baron: Why did the Prime Minister endorse the takeover of Express Newspapers by the pornography king Richard Desmond and, indeed, accept a large donation from him? Was it because all other interested parties were committed to keeping the pound and he was simply lying back and thinking of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that that is what passes for forensic questioning by the Conservative party nowadays. The takeover bid was handled entirely in accordance with the proper rules, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the World cup has helped to highlight UNICEF's call for a global movement for children to combat extreme poverty, provide universal primary education and combat the devastating effects of HIV and AIDS? Will he work with the leaders of the affluent countries to adopt those aims as part of a strategy to achieve global social justice?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly push for the global targets on poverty to be met. They will be met by a combination of action from the developed world and—this is what is particularly important—from the developing world itself. That is why the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which will be discussed at the G8 next week, is so important. It will set down clear benchmarks not only for aid on issues such as health and education, but for action on issues such as governance and the proper commercial and legal systems from African countries, so that the money that we put into such programmes is properly used for the benefit of the people.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Last year, the Prime Minister told the House that the tax on pension funds that his Chancellor imposed was justified because
    "of the buoyancy of the stock market".—[Official Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364. c. 285.]
    Does he now regret that statement?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I know that the Chancellor has his best interests at heart, so when he whispers in the Prime Minister's ear, it is only for his own personal good. The fact is that the stock market has fallen by £300 billion in the space of one year, so will the Prime Minister please tell the House how much longer—I would not listen to
    272
    the Chancellor much longer; he will only get him into more trouble—a man of his age will now have to work to receive a decent pension?
    The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend was saying was that the stock market rose £520 million before the recent fall, but the fall to which the right hon. Gentleman refers still leaves the stock market in a net balance up of £250 billion. If he disputes that, perhaps he will say so.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It really is difficult for the Prime Minister; he really should not listen to his neighbour, because he genuinely does not have his best interests at heart. I asked him a specific question: how much longer? This may come as a bit of a blow to the Chancellor, but a man of the Prime Minister's age will now have to work four years longer than planned. That is because the pensions industry is in crisis. Does he accept that, as a direct result of the imposition of his pensions tax, millions of people's retirement plans are now in ruins?
    The Prime Minister: I may be working for four years, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have to work for about 40 years before he has any chance of crossing the Floor. As for pension funds, it is absurd to say that the Chancellor is responsible for the fall in the stock market. Yes, the stock market has fallen, but it is still massively up on where it was five years ago. As for the issue of pensions, we are putting £6 billion more into pensions every year. We have got the pension credit coming up, the stakeholder pension and the new measures on the state second pension. What pensioners in this country remember is the last Conservative Government and the mis-selling of pensions scandal, about which they did absolutely nothing. Whether it is my longevity or his that is the issue, I do not think that a Conservative Government is the answer.
    Hon. Members: More.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Tony Cunningham: May I tell the Prime Minister that we have a brand new police station in Workington, which was officially opened last week? Superintendent Steve Turnbull is delighted with the new facilities, but he has asked me to raise with the Prime Minister the particular issue of special constables. Will my right hon. Friend look seriously at an initiative in west Cumbria to pay special constables to patrol Workington town centre? If that pilot scheme is successful it could well be used in other parts of Cumbria and the rest of the country.
    The Prime Minister: I offer my best wishes to Mr. Turnbull in his new station. The way we attract more people to become special constables is a real issue. The Home Office is looking at paying them an allowance, but obviously that has to be looked at together with other priorities. However, the existence of the new station, plus the neighbourhood warden scheme, will make a great difference to crime in my hon. Friend's community. I hope very much even at this late stage that the House

    273
    will unite behind the proposals for community safety officers to work alongside the record numbers of police to give our communities the chance of a safer future.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Could I ask the Prime Minister to muscle in on another area of policy? Presumably this country gives international aid to assist development, ease suffering and stop people dying. Would it not he immoral to use that as a weapon to dragoon developing countries into changing their asylum policies, particularly as two thirds of the refugee problem lies within those countries? Would it not be doubly immoral, not to say pathetic and embarrassing, to go to the Seville summit and ask other European countries to follow that course of action?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree at all. It is not a question of dragooning people but of saying that if we are worried, as we are, about the number of people coming here as illegal immigrants—I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that they are often subject to illegal people-trafficking conducted by organised criminals, some of their lives are at risk and large sums of money are taken off them—there is nothing wrong whatever in us and other European countries working with countries with which we have a substantial relationship, whether in aid, trade or any other matter, and saying to them, "Let's sit down and work out a proper system of co-operation so that people who come into this country do so in the right way." That is a perfectly sensible and laudable objective, which is no doubt why the Scottish National party disagrees with it.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Did my right hon. Friend notice that when Senegal got through to the quarter finals of the World cup a national public holiday was declared? Does he agree that countries like Senegal, the USA, South Korea and the Republic of Ireland have made this the most wonderful World cup that we can remember since 1966? In the event of England beating Brazil on Friday, we stand a very good chance of going through to the World cup final, which would be a national event of great significance. Under those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend consider declaring a public holiday in the United Kingdom on Monday 1 July so that we can all enjoy the experience or, as it were, get over our disappointment?
    That is worth thinking about because, after all, this country is at the bottom of the European league for public holidays. I have tabled an early-day motion, which is supported by five Scottish Members of Parliament as it applies to the whole country. If we get into the World cup final the Prime Minister must go to Japan. If he does so, will he take me?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his very interesting submission which I shall consider carefully. Shall we first get over the hurdle of beating Brazil on Friday?
    Chris Grayling: The Prime Minister promised Britain a transport system fit for the 21st century. Can he explain why, on the rather paltry list of road and rail projects approved since the general election, according to the Department for Transport 25 per cent. have been in his own constituency? More important,
    274
    if the Government cannot be trusted on transport matters, does not that underline the importance of having a robust and fair-minded Select Committee to scrutinise what they are doing?
    The Prime Minister: The best answer to the transport problems is the programme of investment over the next 10 years. Of course, that programme of investment is supported by Members on this side of the House and has been opposed by the Conservative party. Whatever the answers to the problems of our transport system, they are not the answers of the Conservative party, which are, first, to cut back on investment in our transport system and, secondly, to ensure that the botched privatisation that gave rise to Railtrack remains in place. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like to be reminded that that is their policy, but it is.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the plea by President Mandela that the Lockerbie prisoner be transferred to a Muslim country being considered?
    The Prime Minister: The agreement that we made was that he would come to a Scottish prison—in fact, that anyone who was convicted would come to a Scottish prison. I have to say that I see no reason to change that decision.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that while the Conservative Front-Bench team and the vast majority of its Back Benchers are wholly united in their attitude to the European currency, there is growing concern that the Government appear to be disunited, confused and unable to make up their mind? Can he try to resolve the issue by saying clearly and specifically when the five economic tests will be carried out and, if the result is affirmative, how soon thereafter the referendum will take place? If he gives a straight answer to that question he will deal with the issue, but if he again does not, that will simply add to the confusion. The Government cannot make up their mind what to do.
    The Prime Minister: First, it is and always has been the case that we will carry out the assessment within the first two years of this Parliament. Secondly, the Conservative party may be a little more united today than it was a few years ago, but that is only because it has driven out anyone of any sense on the Conservative Benches. The vast majority of people believe that a sensible position on the single currency is that if the economic tests are passed and it is in this country's economic interests to join, we should. It would be disastrous for this country if we adopted the hon. Gentleman's true position—he is right that he probably does speak for many people in the Conservative party—and withdrew from the European Union. Our position is that we should remain in Europe and get the best out of Europe for Britain, because Britain's role is as a key player in Europe, not on the sidelines of Europe.
    Phil Sawford: In the course of the recent intensive truancy campaign, 12,000 young people were stopped. Twenty-six per cent. of the secondary school children and 83 per cent. of the primary school children were with their parents, and half were

    275
    deemed to have no good reason to be away from school. In the light of that, and given the links between antisocial behaviour, crime and truancy, will my right hon. Friend encourage more local authorities to carry out such truancy sweeps, and will he impress on parents the importance of attendance at school?
    The Prime Minister: The truancy sweeps have been successful, and the link between truancy and antisocial behaviour and crime is clear. Two other steps are necessary, however. First, we must make it clear to parents that they can be liable to penalties if their children are truanting without good cause. Secondly, it is vital that children who are excluded from school should not be truanting, but should be in proper full-time education. As a result of the additional investment that we are putting into our school system, by the end of this year those who are permanently excluded will be in proper full-time education instead of having a couple of hours' education a week, which obviously leaves them free to roam the streets.
    Mr. Mark Francois: The people of Gibraltar have strong support across Britain, including in this House. Given the rumours that the Anglo-Spanish talks have faltered, can we expect a statement before the summer recess, ideally confirming that the Government have relented on this issue and that we in Britain will show the same trust and loyalty to the Gibraltarians that they have always shown to us?
    The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that there will be a statement when negotiations and discussions are concluded. The Brussels process, which began under the Conservative Government, is sensible and right and in the interests of Britain, Spain and the people of Gibraltar. However, we have always made it clear that there can be no change to Gibraltar's constitutional status without the consent of the people there. Getting more acceptable relations between Britain, Spain and Gibraltar is in everybody's interest.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: In view of the recent report of record profits by Jarvis, the company that maintains the rail track at Potters Bar, and by the rail division of Balfour Beatty despite reports that maintenance of the track is a shambles, does my right hon. Friend agree that the culture of complacency shown by the contractors is unlikely to be replaced by one of safety until and unless rail maintenance is brought back in-house to Railtrack?
    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Transport met Mr. Armitage, the chief executive of Railtrack, and raised those issues with him last week. There is a clear understanding that the situation must improve; Lord Cullen made recommendations on the matter that will be implemented. Anybody—those in-house or contractors—must abide by minimum standards and rules, and there are penalties for those who fail to abide by them. Although it is understandable that such issues are being raised, it is important to say that, on the whole, rail safety has improved, not declined in the past few years. Collisions are down by some 12 per cent., derailments by 22 per cent. and SPADs—signals passed at danger—last year are the lowest recorded. That does
    276
    not mean that there is not a great deal more to do, but we need the facts about the recent tragedy before we pass judgment on the contractors as a whole.
    Norman Baker: In the light of the—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the support. In the light of the recent fiasco between the Prime Minister's Office and Black Rod, would the right hon. Gentleman describe Mr. Alastair Campbell's position as unassailable? Is there any truth in the rumour that Mr. Campbell has suggested that, when we win the World cup, the Prime Minister should be on hand with Mr. Beckham to hold the cup aloft?
    The Prime Minister: I wondered what the hon. Gentleman would ask. I realised that it would be something trivial that said far more about him than me. I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the subject.
    Ql1. [59946] Mr. Robert N. Wareing: President Bush has authorised American Special Services to dispose of the President of Iraq by any means, including assassination. Surely my right hon. Friend could not agree with that policy, could he?
    The Prime Minister: I am not responsible, believe it or not, for United States policy. I urge my hon. Friend not to rely completely on media speculation about it.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: It is now impossible to get a national health service dentist in Market Harborough. What are the Government doing about that?
    The Prime Minister: It is correct that it is difficult to get a national health service dentist in some areas of the country. However, the sheer brass neck of any Conservative Member who raises that issue is extraordinary. The changes that we have made mean that anyone who wishes to do so can contact NHS Direct or other NHS services and get the name of an NHS dentist whom they can visit. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has examples of constituents who are unable to do that, perhaps he will pass them to the health authority. I am sure that it will be able to do something about the matter.
    Mr. John Lyons: My right hon. Friend knows that schools throughout the UK will break up for the summer holidays in the next few weeks. Schoolteachers and pupils will welcome that. However, school cleaners and catering staff will not welcome it. They have no holiday pay for seven or eight weeks, and no right to unemployment benefit. Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?
    The Prime Minister: We know that there is a problem with support staff. Of course, the matter is devolved and must be negotiated on that basis. Discussions about it are

    277
    continuing, but it would be a mistake if we tried to deal with it nationally. I point out that, thanks to the working families tax credit and other measures, some of the lowest-paid support staff receive at least some proper protection and additional payments under the Government. However, when we pay tribute to teachers, it is important to remember that a lot of work is done by support staff, who do a magnificent job.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware that members of the American Congress have been taking evidence in this place relating to Gulf war syndrome. Will he give us an assurance that Parliament and our researchers will work even more closely with the Americans than they have in the past to
    278
    get to the root cause of the syndrome, bearing in mind that it could affect our citizens in the near future, particularly if there are further operations in that area?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the concern over this issue. It is correct that we are working with the Americans. I speak from memory, but I think that we are spending somewhere in the region of £7 million on our own research. The important point to stress is that we need to know what the scientific evidence really shows us, and it would not be right or proper to act on behalf of the Government until we have that evidence. This issue obviously arose years before we came into office, but we have made additional provision for research. We will do our best to get to the truth of the matter, and we will act on the scientific truth one way or another.

Prescriptions (Chronic Diseases)
3.31 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in relation to prescribing for those suffering from chronic diseases.
The Bill will review the prescription charges levied against the chronically ill, to make the system fairer and more equitable. It will also seek to raise awareness to increase the take-up of the current pre-paid certificates by the chronically ill, and—in the light of a review that recommended free prescriptions—to ensure that there is full take-up.
In 1968, the British Medical Association approved a list of medical conditions whose sufferers should be exempt from prescription charges. Some of the decisions on those conditions were based on medical knowledge current at the time. For instance, children with cystic fibrosis were not expected to live to see adulthood, so children were exempt but not adults. Today, more than 1,000 adults with cystic fibrosis are penalised by the state for living longer. In today's NHS, that is unfair.
Yesterday, I met Janine, a 21-year-old sufferer of cystic fibrosis. She has to work for seven to eight hours each day with her carers to be fit enough to walk up a flight a stairs and do the things that we all take for granted. She is a courageous person who spends her time as an advocate for other CF patients.
Desiree Eriksson Hills had a heart transplant 14 years ago after developing dilated cardiomyopathy at the age of just 17. But, for a transplant recipient, the operation is not the end of the story—quite the contrary. Desiree and others like her have to take drugs for the rest of their lives. It is not right that they have to pay prescription charges. As Desiree says,
"We cannot live without these drugs, so we are paying a tax on our very existence. That's just wrong."
Thirty-eight-year-old Lorraine Ellard is living with long-term asthma, which is so severe that it prevents her from working, shopping and even socialising. In spite of these factors and the disruption to her life, Lorraine has to pay for her asthma medication. She claims incapacity benefit of £369 per month, but faces a massive monthly prescription bill of £124. If Lorraine is short of cash, the drugs have to be forfeited, but without them she is liable to face a flare-up, with asthma symptoms that could lead to her being rushed into hospital, which represents an added and avoidable cost to the NHS. Without the drugs, Lorraine is placed in a perilous position, as asthma is a matter of life and death. Likewise, someone who suffers from multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, certain types of epilepsy, or even myalgic encephalopathy will have to pay for prescriptions for basic medicines. For someone living in the fourth richest nation in the world, in the 21st century, that is patently unfair and unjust.
According to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, as a result of the glaring anomalies in the current system, about 750,000 prescribed items are never dispensed because people cannot afford them. Pharmacists and GPs say that many patients ask which is the most important item on a prescription, because they can afford only one. It is argued that those with chronic conditions can limit such costs by buying season tickets,
280
but an initial outlay of £89 is too great for many on low incomes. Over the years, the cost of such season tickets can run into many hundreds of pounds. NACAB also discovered that 27 per cent. of those who could benefit from season tickets did not even know of their existence.
The National Asthma Campaign has described prescription charges as an
"unfair tax on people with asthma".
The Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust has also condemned such charges. Typically, it is the poorest in our society who have the worst medical conditions, yet the Government demand that they must pay. For example, students with chronic conditions are told that they should pay for their medical drugs out of their student loan. That is discrimination of the worst kind, and it is perpetuated by this Labour Government.
The Government have not researched the number of chronically ill patients who have to pay for prescriptions, and the Bill would require such a review to be conducted. The anticipated cost of prepaid prescriptions is some £43 million, and a further £40 million would be required to cover those who cannot afford such prescriptions and those who have not even heard of them. The total cost would therefore be £83 million, but that should be set against the billions of pounds that the Chancellor has raised through tax increases for the NHS. Such a sum is surely a small price to pay for justice for the chronically ill. Liberal Democrats say that the chronically ill are a priority and deserve support.
In 1992—10 years ago—Labour said in its manifesto that
"chronically sick patients will be a higher priority."
In 1994, Labour said:
"We will seek to provide free medication as part of ongoing treatment or long-term requirements."
It even cited the example of cystic fibrosis sufferers. In 1996, the then Leader of the Opposition—the current Prime Minister—said that Labour would tackle health inequalities because he believed in a
"universal health care system paid for by taxation that gives every citizen the best health care based upon need not ability to pay".
The then shadow Health Secretary said in 1996:
"I want to see greater fairness between patients; the crucial NHS principle of equity has vanished in recent years."
Labour's 1997 manifesto proclaimed:
"We will save the NHS…Labour commits itself anew to the historic principle that if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay."
Hear, hear. I cannot understand why, five years after the election of a Labour Government, nothing has changed for the chronically ill.
Even as recently as 1998, in anticipation of the comprehensive spending review, the then health Minister—he is now Secretary of State for Health—promised a review of the
"list of medical conditions exempt from prescription charges".—[Official Report, 5 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 350W.]
What was the outcome? A point-blank refusal to change this blatant unfairness. Recently, the Wanless report stated that
"the present system of exemption for prescription charges is not logical, nor rooted in the principles of the NHS".

281
Labour has reneged on 10 years of promises to the chronically ill, and has allowed this unfairness to continue for five years. Liberal Democrats are determined to make Labour face up to such injustice. The money is there in the form of the Chancellor's tax increases. Liberal Democrats believe in an NHS free at the point of delivery and based on need, rather than the ability to pay. We will speak up for the chronically ill because it is clear that both Conservative and Labour Governments have failed them.
Even last week, the Prime Minister said in relation to prescription charges that the Government were
"aware of the things that were said previously and we intend to honour them."—[Official Report, 12 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 864.]
The words "honour" and "new Labour" do not sit comfortably together, coming from a Prime Minister who has more spin than Spiderman. The Liberal Democrats will maintain this campaign for the chronically ill until we get justice for those patients.
No more promises, no more maybes and no more excuses. People like Janine, Desiree and Lorraine need help now.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Marsden, Dr. Richard Taylor, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. David Amess, Sandra Gidley, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. Paul Burstow, Rev. Martin Smyth, Dr. Jenny Tonge and John Barrett.

Prescriptions (Chronic Diseases)
  PRESCRIPTIONS (CHRONIC DISEASES)
  Mr. Paul Marsden accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in relation to prescribing for those suffering from chronic diseases: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 151].
Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  World Poverty
  Mr. Speaker: Before the debate commences, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.41 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
  That this House shared the concerns of the Trade Justice Movement about the plight of the poorest people in the world, and congratulates them on bringing these matters to the attention of the public; notes with great concern the increasing levels of hunger and poverty in many developing nations; further notes that international development targets are not being met in Africa; recognises the depth of public concern on this issue; believes that increasing levels of international trade offer the greatest hope for the alleviation of hunger and poverty in history; further believes that the removal of trade barriers will promote economic growth, trade and investment in poor nations; supports the liberalisation of trade; is concerned that the Common Agricultural Policy is failing both British farmers and consumers, and harming farmers in poor countries; is also concerned at the rising levels of farm subsidies in America; and calls on the Government to use the forthcoming G8 Summit in Canada, the EU Heads of Government Meeting, and future World Trade Organisation meetings to further the liberalisation of international trade to promote the alleviation of poverty and combat hunger and starvation amongst the poorest people on earth.
  Before I begin my speech, I should like to welcome the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) to her new post as Under-Secretary of State for International Development. I very much look forward to debating international development issues with her. I enjoyed my debates with her predecessor, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary's knowledge of South Africa will be a great asset to her.
  Given that 10,000 people from every corner of the United Kingdom have come to lobby Parliament today, I am delighted that Her Majesty's official Opposition have chosen to debate an issue that clearly matters to British people. We congratulate the Trade Justice Movement on bringing the matter to the attention of the public. We may not agree with everything for which the movement calls, but we share its concern for the plight of the poorest people in the world. The movement recognises that trade can play an important part in reducing poverty and improving our quality of life. It can generate jobs and wealth.
  Conservatives believe that trade could be the greatest force for poverty reduction in history. There is no question but that the opening up of markets and increased trade from developing countries would dwarf any contribution that could be made from overseas aid. That is not idealism, but common sense.
  Tariff barriers cost poor countries £100 billion a year—twice as much as they receive in aid. We firmly believe that trade restrictions are the main barrier to development. There is a danger that seeking to impose controls on overseas investment in developing countries may make it less attractive for companies to invest, which would deprive people in the developing world of the jobs and trading opportunities that they desperately need.

  283
  Much progress has been made in reducing poverty over the past 50 years, but it has been patchy. A whole continent—Africa—is being left behind. It is the only region in the world that is completely off target when it comes to meeting the millennium development goals on health, education and poverty.
  That is why we have called for the debate today. Despite the onward spread of globalisation, the World Bank has found that many of the poorest countries are in danger of becoming marginal to the world economy. As it pointed out in a recent report, incomes in those countries have been falling, poverty has been rising, and those countries participate in trade less today than they did 20 years ago.
  This is our challenge: the Government and the whole international community must do more to allow countries currently excluded from international trade to reap the immense benefits that it offers.
  Much pressure has been placed on poor countries to open their markets and liberalise trade, but rich countries—including Britain—are reluctant to practise what they preach. Telling poor countries to end subsidies and open their markets is like sitting in a glasshouse throwing stones, and today we want to address such hypocrisy.
  We can alleviate world poverty by freeing up trade, and I want to set out how it can be done. First, it can be done by market access. If Africa were to increase its share of world exports by just 1 per cent., it would generate £70 billion—approximately five times what the continent receives in aid. Conservatives believe that free trade is the engine of poverty reduction. Several case studies show the beneficial effects of increased global trade. The number of rural poor in China declined from 250 million in 1978 to just 34 million in 1999. The level of absolute poverty in Vietnam has been halved in 10 years. India and Uganda have also enjoyed rapid poverty reduction as they have integrated into the world economy. Poverty in Uganda fell by 40 per cent. in the 1990s, and school enrolment doubled. More has been done to address poverty in the past 50 years than in the past 500, but there is much more to do.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Lady explain the Conservative position on the Tobin tax, which would raise trillions of pounds a year on international currency speculation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer blows hot and cold about the measure, and is in a cold phase at the moment. It would be nice to know where the Conservatives stood on the matter.
  Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not think that one measure will fix the problems of global poverty. The underlying problem that the measure seeks to address is currency instability, to which many factors contribute. That is the key point.
  How does globalisation work to reduce poverty? It increases inward investment and drives economic growth. It has meant that, for the first time, poor countries have been able to harness the potential of their abundant labour to break into global markets for manufactured goods and services. In fact, manufactured goods amounted to less than a quarter of developing countries' exports in 1980, but by 1998 they had soared to 80 per cent.
  Poor countries' comparative advantages can be realised when they are able to export freely without unnecessary hindrance. For many people—indeed, for an entire
  284
  continent—the picture seems less rosy. Many billions of people remain excluded from the process of globalisation, for which a number of factors are responsible, including conflict, sickness and poor government. However, many of them are excluded from trade by the prevailing trade systems. As Kofi Annan pointed out last year, poor countries are caught in a vicious circle—they need foreign investment but can offer little to attract it. In order to break out of that cycle, poor countries need to export and to open markets in which their goods can compete.
  Here is the authentic voice of business. The chairman of Unilever wrote in the Financial Times last week:
  "For all their talk of development, western nations in effect exclude many African exports from their markets."
  That is from the chairman of a company that has been in Africa for more than a century.
  Rich countries continue to impose barriers to trade on their poor neighbours. The most obvious are the punitive tariffs imposed on imported goods. Possibly the most well-known example is the recent decision by the United States to raise tariffs against steel imports, but the USA is not the only culprit. According to an Oxfam report published on 11 April this year, the European Union is more protectionist in respect of poor countries than are the United States, Japan or Canada. In fact, only New Zealand has fully opened its markets to products exported by least developed countries.
  The least developed countries lose an estimated £2.5 billion a year in potential export earnings as a result of high levels of tariff protection in Canada, the EU, the United States and Japan. Without tariffs and quotas, poor countries could generate an 11 per cent. increase in their exports.
  Hugh Bayley: Does the hon. Lady welcome the European Union's everything but arms initiative, which removes tariffs from everything but arms for the poorest countries? Does she think that that is at least a move in the right direction and will she explain why it did not happen while the Conservative party was in power?
  Mrs. Spelman: I will discuss in some detail what the European Union has done to help and where it could do more. When the Conservative party was in power that initiative had not been proposed, but there is no doubt that it represents progress and I shall say so.
  It is difficult to quantify the benefits that would accrue to developing countries if there were total import liberalisation. Some estimates have predicted gains of more than $3 billion each for India, China and Brazil and more than $14 billion for Latin America in total. The Government have pledged a number of times to reduce the import tariffs that face poor countries. Progress has been made. The initiative to which the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) referred made a start in providing that free access to poorer countries, but the EU still maintains some of its highest tariff peaks on a large number of imported goods. Canada is another example, as 30 per cent. of poor countries' exports to Canada face peak tariffs.
  On a slightly different note, another injustice is that typical exports from developing countries, such as agricultural and labour-intensive products, face far higher tariff barriers when they enter major northern markets than industrial products.

  285
  The Prime Minister announced in his speech to the Labour party conference that we would offer Africa access to our markets, to practise the free trade that we are so fond of preaching. Are we extending free access to Africa? Perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify how market access is to be extended to Africa. What are the tangible steps to better market access? Which countries do we want to help? What objectives have we set and how will we measure success?
  At the EU Heads of Government meeting—
  Tony Worthington: Does the hon. Lady agree that sugar should have been included under the everything but arms initiative?
  Mrs. Spelman: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, he has questioned me on a subject about which I know quite a lot as I worked for sugar beet growers for more than 15 years. I wish to give him an informed reply and not a simple yes or no. It is not a simple question. Perhaps he is not aware that, under the protocol signed by African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, many developing countries benefit from the same price as that received by farmers in this country. Automatically removing those preferential terms would create very real problems in the sugar industry of those countries. While I am sure that reform is needed in that area, we must be very careful that it does not hurt our farmers—we must find reforms that will work for them—or have damaging consequences for the most vulnerable farmers.
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Everyone is in favour of free and fair trade until it comes to specifics. The hon. Lady has worked in sugar and sugar beet, where there are quotas that privilege certain of the poorest countries. The sugar beet farmers of the United Kingdom and farmers in some of those countries ran a campaign to weaken the everything but arms initiative and access for sugar from the least developed countries, and they succeeded to a degree. The hon. Lady is telling us that we should open our markets to the poorest countries, but she wants a position for the sector in which she has worked that is not as good as the one that she proposes overall. The Government's position was that we should have opened the markets fully to the least developed countries. The compromise was reached because, with the help of many Tory Members, who lobbied—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State will wait her turn.
  Mrs. Spelman: It should be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that 50 per cent. of the UK market for sugar is supplied from developing countries, which is unique among the member states of the EU. The Government have a lot of work to do with other EU member states that do not have such an accepting compromise with the developing world and do not allow free trade both from and to such countries.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: I want to proceed on this point. We have had an exchange on sugar, and I do not wish to be
  286
  accused of allowing the issue to dominate the debate. This is a short debate, a number of Members want to contribute, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be successful later in catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
  At the EU Heads of Government meeting in Seville later this week, the Prime Minister should promote the agenda of furthering free market access for poor countries. Could he make public the list of EU negotiating demands on the general agreement on trade in services, which have to be decided before the end of this month? Hon. Members have a real interest in that. Promoting genuinely free trade should also be high on the agenda in Canada later this month, when G8 countries meet. They have the greatest influence in changing trade rules. At the moment, the World Trade Organisation seems remarkably impotent at tackling human ingenuity in avoiding rules that are designed to free up trade. Reform is needed of the WTO so that it is even more effective. We could do more to tackle the scepticism among developing nations, however, as the WTO does not appear to serve them well.
  Here is a practical suggestion for the Secretary of State—could we not provide a panel of lawyers and advisers to help developing nations make the rules of the WTO work better for them?
  Roger Casale: The hon. Lady is making the case for free trade as a motor for development, on which we can agree. Does she repudiate the experience of the previous Conservative Government, however, in tying trade to aid? That left a situation in which developing countries, far from being free to trade, were forced to import goods and services, and, often, arms from this country, which they did not want and did not need.
  Mrs. Spelman: I am not here to repudiate and analyse history. The important thing is that we gave our support to the International Development Bill—now the International Development Act 2002—which untied aid. As part of that, we recognised the important focus of poverty reduction. I hope that, in everything I have said today, I have made it perfectly clear how committed the Conservative party is to reducing global poverty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is left in no doubt about that.
  Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
  Mrs. Spelman: I will give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), if his contribution is on a wider point. I know that this is a short debate, Mr. Speaker.
  Simon Hughes: On the wider issue of trade barriers, will the hon. Lady first tell us for the record whether the Conservative party is in favour of majority voting in the WTO? Secondly, is it in favour of majority voting in the European Union? One of the reasons that subsidy and trade barriers in agriculture have continued is that the veto in the European Union has kept them in place.
  Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman may know that I spent a great deal of time working with different member states of the European Union on agricultural policy. I discovered that it is very difficult to make headway in

  287
  negotiations when member states lack the good will to work together for the best result internationally, for Europe as a trading bloc, and, as I hope that I have made clear today, for poorer nations. All too easily, national interest can be over-used. I have seen it used and abused. There are times, however, when the national interest is an issue and when Governments would be expected to argue for the national interest of their country. In the past, the trouble has been that it has been used injudiciously, not by our country specifically, but by a number of other countries that have strong vested agricultural interests. That has led to the use of the national interest to defend a country's position being brought into disrepute. I am therefore wary of making a sweeping generalisation about whether it should or should not be used.
  I want to move on to reform of the subsidies, which is a very important area. It is another matter that the Prime Minister should discuss in Seville later this week. Some of the worst distortions of trade are caused by the subsidy systems used by countries to bolster their domestic production. When it comes to subsidy, there is no way in which poor countries are able to compete with the power of wealthier nations.
  In dollar terms, agricultural subsidies in countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are more than two thirds of Africa's total GDP. They account for more than a quarter of farm output in the United States, rising to 40 per cent. in the European Union and to more than 60 per cent. in Japan.
  The Trade Justice Movement has provided us today with the example of rice growers in Haiti, who produce rice for local markets. However, as rich countries, notably the US, have subsidised their rice exports, Haiti has been flooded with cheap rice imports so that Haitian farmers are unable to find a market for their crops.
  I have worked in agriculture for most of my working life, and I deeply sympathise with the problems that our farmers—particularly dairy farmers—face. The irony is that the common agricultural policy is meant to provide a reasonable standard of living for farmers in the EU, but it does not even provide a living wage for our dairy farmers and directly affects the viability of farmers in the developing world.
  Recently, I went to India with Oxfam and Members may not be aware that India is the world's largest producer of milk. However, it cannot compete with subsidised milk surpluses from the EU that are exported to the growth market of the middle east. That is despite the fact that India is the second lowest cost producer in the world after New Zealand.
  At the last ministerial meeting of the WTO in Doha, countries agreed to launch a new trade round, including the liberalisation of agricultural subsidies. That was certainly progress, and I hope that it comes to fruition. Nevertheless, the decision came after much foot dragging by the EU, and the scepticism of poor countries results from rich countries' reluctance to keep their side of the bargain in the past.
  I am sure that the whole House abhors the decision by the US Congress to vote through an additional £100 million worth of subsidies for American farmers. Total US agricultural subsidies will then amount to £388 dollars per head, which represents a staggering 67 per cent. increase in farm subsidies. However, we should not kid ourselves that those sums get through to poor farmers.
  288
  Americans may be our staunchest allies in time of war but, on trade, that increase is a retrograde step for the principles of liberty that their nation espouses. The move will cause incalculable damage to the lives of farmers in the developing world as well as to the livelihoods of farmers in this country. I clearly recall the outrage that resulted from the US decision to impose tariffs on its steel imports, but have the Government expressed similar condemnation of the US Farm Bill? When the Prime Minister goes to Canada for the G8 summit, I hope that he will use his good relations with the US President to make plain the damage that the Bill will do.
  The US is not the only culprit. EU agricultural subsidies amount to $276 a head—to use the same currency—compared with $338 in the US. The last thing that we want is the equivalent of an arms race in farm subsidies. To prevent that, the CAP must be reformed. Some 1.6 million Africans live on less than $2 a day but every cow in the EU is subsidised to the tune of $2 a day.
  Roger Casale: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Government White Paper on globalisation pledged to push for significant reform of the CAP, but that has not happened. The CAP must be reformed in a way that will ensure a reasonable living for British farmers and reasonable opportunities for their counterparts in poorer nations. Farmers in Britain face huge problems and they are not well served by the CAP. Conservative Members would like the Government to make a far greater effort to reform the CAP. In their White Paper, they said that they would use every opportunity to work for change to the CAP. When the Prime Minister attends the EU summit later this week, will he try to persuade other EU leaders to agree to a timetable for CAP reform?
  There also needs to be reform of double standards. Rules that appear to benefit only the rich at the expense of the poor should not be tolerated. Those groups that accuse the developed world of double standards are right. I recognise that people may think that trade liberalisation is a one-way street for richer countries to get richer, but it does not have to be. I see it far more as a two-way street, with trade going both ways. The Government should tackle trade injustice with more vigour. We are calling on them to show leadership. If any poor nation behaved in the way that America recently did in passing its Farm Bill, it would have faced the wrath of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It is one rule for some and another rule for others.
  Later this month, the G8 will meet in Alberta, Canada. There has been much rhetoric about it being a development summit. The New Partnership for Africa's Development is high on its agenda. NEPAD is a partnership, and on our side that should mean free and fair market access. Partnership is a two-way process, however. In return for opening our markets, we can press for economic, political and social reform in those countries that want to trade with us. There is no doubt that corruption is one of the greatest impediments to development in such countries. One of the most important things that could be achieved in the summit would be a commitment from the G8 to address the imbalances in the trade system.

  289
  Some 10,000 people have come to lobby Parliament today on the issue of trade. There can be no doubt that increasing levels of global trade offer hope to millions of people living in poverty. The Secretary of State has strongly defended globalisation in the face of its critics, some of whom are on Labour's Back Benches. The Government's White Paper on globalisation is called "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor", but billions of people are still marginalised by the process. The challenge now is to make globalisation work on a global scale.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State to speak, I must tell hon. Members that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  4.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the lobby of Parliament by the Trade Justice Movement and increased recognition of trade as a key component to reducing global poverty; welcomes also efforts made to draw public attention to these important issues; recognises trade has an important role to play in helping countries achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); is aware that to achieve this a multilateral trading system is needed giving developing countries a fair deal; recognises that the Government is committed to working with developing country partners, and other bilateral donors and multilateral organisations to achieve this; believes that the development challenges faced in Africa require the international community, working together with African countries, to make additional efforts to secure progress towards the MDGs; welcomes the Government's commitment to turning the agreement reached at Doha in November last year into a meaningful 'Development Round' and to achieving real progress on market access and in areas of importance to developing countries; will continue to support efforts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and reduce trade-distorting subsidies; will support preferential access to developing countries through the Generalised System of Preferences aid to least developed countries through the Everything But Arms initiative; recognises developing countries themselves must undertake effective policy measures to integrate into the global trading system; supports these efforts and engagement in a broad range of activities to help countries participate more effectively in the multilateral trading system; and further welcomes the Government's commitment to doubling support for trade-related capacity building from £15 million in 1998–2001 to £30 million in 2001–04.".
  This is a happy day for me. It marks a real shift in the development movement in the United Kingdom and, indeed, in the position of Her Majesty's official Opposition. Different groups have come to understand that more equitable trade rules are essential to create the opportunity for the poorest countries to grow their economies and for the poor of the world to work their way out of poverty. It is important to have such a strong new consensus across the development movement in the UK and across the Floor of the House. That is a significant change and it enables us to try to use our influence on the world stage to bring about the policy for which we all jointly argue.
  My Department and I have been working to get the development lobby to take on the case for more equitable trade rules since the Department was established in 1997. Importantly, its powers were enlarged beyond being an organiser of the UK aid budget to include an analytical role
  290
  in trade, agricultural reform, fisheries, environmental agreements, debt, conflict, humanitarianism and so on. The objective was not just to run a good UK aid budget that was as large as possible, but to get the rules of the international system more equitable so that the planet could be run in a more equitable and sustainable way for all.
  I should like to pay tribute to the quality of officials in the Department. It is respected as one of the most high-quality development organisations in the world in both its delivery and its analytical capacity. It is staffed by highly motivated high-quality officials. My first permanent secretary, Sir John Vereker, is no longer with us, but he made an enormous contribution to establishing the new strengthened Department. The UK should be proud of the quality of the people who lead development work for us across the world.
  The new Department was established in 1997 with the remit to consider trade and development. Our first hurdle was posed by the Department of Trade and Industry. The official, now retired, who led on trade in that large Department was struck with apoplexy at the thought that the Department with responsibility for development dared to have views about trade. There was an enormous battle between the trade part of the DTI and my Department. Up to then, the DTI had been asked to promote only UK trade interests, and suddenly we were changing the grounds for discussion by saying that it was in the UK's interest to have an equitable set of international trade rules that allow the poorest countries to grow their economies.
  That change has taken place. There was a lot of joint work and a lot of research, and by the time we got to Doha, DTI representatives—Ministers and officials—were more progressive than trade representatives from most other OECD countries because they saw more equitable global rules as being in everybody's interests. Today we are celebrating a long journey, and the first part of it involved legitimising the DTI's concern with the global management of trade rather than the simple duty to promote UK trade interests, regardless of the interests of others.
  From there we moved forward to Seattle. Everyone will remember that almost every lobby and force, including the whole British NGO development movement, was opposed to a new trade round at Seattle. Many voices called for the WTO to be closed down. We had a debate in the House of Commons—I see the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) nodding—in which a few of us argued that the WTO is a useful organisation that gives us a chance to strengthen global trade rules and make them more equitable.
  The Clinton Administration, particularly President Clinton himself, the entire international trade union movement, led most strongly by the US but including Britain, the whole British development lobby and all the British environment NGOs were completely opposed to a new trade round. They believed that the WTO was a reactionary organisation that wanted to add to trade rules and conditions on labour and environmental standards, making it impossible for developing countries, which of course want to raise those standards, to meet the rules and have access to global markets. At that time, the trade spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition did not mention, in explaining the party's position, the interests of developing countries.

  291
  Let us remember where we have got to. Today, with the movement of Churches and development NGOs, there has been an important shift forward. The last time there was trade competition in the world and countries were erecting barriers against each other, as we see with steel and with the US Farm Bill, was in the 1930s, when there was depression in some parts of the world. Country after country imposed tariffs, which threw the entire world economy into the most terrible depression. That led to the second world war and to fascism and all that flowed from that.
  Following the second world war, we started off with the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I believe that the first trade round after the war was called the Torquay round, which is rather sweet. Not as many countries were members of GATT, and the negotiators were blocs of rich countries. There were rounds of trade talks to try to reduce the tariffs that remained from the 1930s. That was a worthy process, and it was better than what it took over from, but following the Uruguay round, the WTO was born. It is only five or six years old, and it really was an advance.
  The WTO is an organisation which countries join by choice, and which is based on rules that apply equally to all. It negotiates by consensus. I do not think that any hon. Member will agree with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that the WTO should make decisions by majority. These matters so deeply affect the interests of individual countries that we have to move forward by consensus. It is remarkable that, in negotiating multilateral agreements on the environment and trade at Doha and elsewhere, we manage to reach global consensus.
  In my view, and I think that this position is now more widely recognised, the shift to the WTO gave us a chance to get more equitable trade rules. Now, the majority of WTO members are developing countries, and if they come together in a trade round and work together, they will make gains. It is possible now to have a set of global rules that are fair and that give developing countries the chance to grow their economies.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Secretary of State comment on an article in the Financial Times this morning which reports that the WTO trade negotiations are faltering badly and there is not much optimism that an agreement will be reached?
  Clare Short: To be honest, I read the headline, not the whole article, but it appeared to suggest that because of the moves on steel and the US Farm Bill, there was a real danger that the Doha development agenda, which is an agenda for a trade round, would not be taken forward and we would not get a trade round, and that would grossly weaken the WTO. I agree that taking the WTO as an institution for granted would be a grave mistake. If the Doha agenda is not taken forward, the WTO will start to break up and lose its authority, which depends on consensus in the international system. We could easily end up with the rich countries making regional and bilateral trade agreements and the poorest countries being squeezed out of the rule making on international trade. If that danger were realised, it would be a terrible loss for the world and for developing countries.
  Mr. David Curry: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the reasons why it is
  292
  essential to maintain agreement by consensus in the WTO is that without it the disputes procedure, which arbitrates in extremely difficult cases and is widely respected, simply could not continue to operate?
  Clare Short: I agree. It gives one pause for thought to consider that whereas in national politics we have the conflictive style of politics that we all know and love, on crucial matters such as multilateral environment agreements and world trade agreements, all the world's countries are represented in a set of negotiations and manage to reach agreement by consensus. That is the only way to enforce such agreements—there is no world army that can make any country that gets out of line get back into line. Only through consensus and everyone understanding that it is in the world's interests that we all play by the rules and accept fair ways of decision making can we equitably manage the current phase of human history. I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
  There is no doubt that in the run-up to Seattle there was a general view among developing countries that they had achieved less by the Uruguay round than had been promised, and there was resistance to a new trade round as a result. That was understandable: many of the agreements made during the Uruguay round were more difficult to implement than countries had understood when they made them. The rules of world trade are now enormously complicated, and they are difficult for all countries to implement and individual Ministers to grasp and negotiate. The agenda is now extremely complex and extended in scope.
  The argument that we advanced prior to Seattle—I made a speech to this effect in early 1999 at the UN conference on trade and development—was that if world trade rules were unfair to developing countries, the only way to make them fairer was to have another trade round. My mother would have said that we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we said that we would not have another trade round because the rules were unfair. A lot of work went into building momentum so that developing countries, rather than feeling hurt and aggrieved by the consequences of the Uruguay round, would agree that another trade round was in their interests. The South African Government have played an important role in building an international coalition of developing countries. They started their efforts in the run-up to the Seattle conference and continued that work on the way to Doha.
  To help developing countries to advance their interests, my Department announced—in 1998, I think, during a prime ministerial speech at the WTO in Geneva—a big increase in UK funding on trade capacity building. That is not a large part of development aid spending, but it is important technical work that enables countries to consider economic strategies—to see in which sectors they have a comparative advantage that will enable them to expand their economy and take up trading opportunities, giving them the capacity to enter the international system and negotiate to advance those trade interests. We have done a great deal of work in that area. It helped many developing countries to build the confidence to advance their interests at Doha and demand the sort of development agenda that was agreed there.
  We also worked hard—this is an interesting story, which answers one of the questions from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—to build a legal advisory

  293
  centre in the WTO to provide advice from trade lawyers to the poorest countries free and to low income countries extremely cheaply—a law centre to enable low income countries to exercise their rights under the rules of the World Trade Organisation. When we tried to promote the proposal early on, we met massive resistance, first within our own Government, which we overcame in the ways that I described earlier. [Interruption.] It is all part of a process to get everyone to globalise their minds and look for a way of running the world that takes account of everybody's interests. It is a movement that is taking place in political analysis across the world, rather more rapidly in some places than in others.
  Then we encountered resistance in Brussels, where we were told that we could not give countries money so that they could get advice, which might mean that they would take action against an EC country under the WTO. I said, "We give legal aid to murderers." There was a ferocious battle. It was interesting to see the two mindsets on trade. Do we want a rules-based, fair system under which everyone can apply the rules and has rights? Trade lawyers cost a fortune. Anyone who thinks lawyers are expensive should look at the bills of trade lawyers. Poor countries would be unable to exercise their legal rights without some support.
  The resistance to setting up a legal advisory centre was an interesting example of the way in which people regard trade as their vested interest against someone else's vested interest, as opposed to our joint interest in growing the global economy and giving the poorest countries the chance to grow their economies, which is not against our interest. It is in our interest. If the poor of the world had the capacity to consume more, the people employed in industry and manufacturing in this country would have opportunities to produce and export, which would be beneficial to them and everyone else.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As usual, the Secretary of State is being honest and open with the House. Will she tell us which countries caused the most trouble? [Interruption.]
  Clare Short: That would be very honest. The hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that it is incredible that the world reaches agreement by consensus in the global negotiations that are more and more important to us. The "globaphobes" attack all those intergovernmental meetings and say that there is no proper democratic accountability, but the proper accountability is to each democratic Government's Parliament and civil society. We each send our representatives to global meetings to reach agreement and there are many difficulties on the way, but we frequently make progress. That is remarkable.
  We are at a turning point in history. I am not in favour of globalisation, and I am not against globalisation. Globalisation is history, and it is stupid of anyone to be for or against it. It parallels what the industrial revolution meant for Europe—an opportunity to spread technology, trade, economic growth and investment across the world. The question is how we are to manage it and who will benefit. Will everyone be included or are some countries to be marginalised? It is one of the leading tasks of politics to bring about a more just world and a more sustainable and stable world for future generations.
  294
  The first big, violent outing of the anti-globalisation protesters was Seattle, where they called on everyone to oppose trade and claimed that poor countries cannot afford to open their markets and do not want to be exploited by multinational capital. They said that the WTO is dominated by multinational capital trying to impose its rules on the poor of the world. That was the rhetoric. There were massive demonstrations, with many legitimate groups on the streets, as well as the groups that went around smashing up windows in Seattle.
  I believe that after Seattle, if one had gone down most high streets and spoken to decent, caring people, most of them would have said that the WTO is an evil organisation that is trying to exploit the poor of the world. It is a danger of these times if the anti-globalisers are seen to be the ones who care about the poor. They advocate policies that will harm and divide the world and harm the interests of developing countries. That is why our own dear development NGOs' move to calling for equitable trade, instead of opposition to developing countries opening their markets to trade or having the opportunities to attract foreign direct investment, is a very important change. It puts the UK in a strong position to advocate for a more just, equitable and sustainable world.
  I pay a tribute to the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats on trade and industry. He has written a pamphlet or small book on globalisation. At the time of the Seattle talks, he was speaking strongly—the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was another, but there were not many others—in the spirit that I am putting before the House, which I think now has cross-party consensus. This is an important day and the unity in the country is important. The shift of development organisations is important.
  I shall say a word on behalf of Mike Moore, the retiring director general of the World Trade Organisation. One of the reasons for the Seattle talks going wrong was the delay in agreeing who should take over that post—whether it should be Mr. Supachai or Mike Moore. After a long delay, during which we should have been preparing for the Seattle talks, there was an agreement that they should divide the job, I think for three years each.
  The two men have worked well together. Mike Moore worked extremely hard to get us to Doha and to the Doha development agenda. In the past few days I read a savage attack on Mike Moore in a newspaper. It came from Kevin Watkins, of all people, from Oxfam, who is usually a reasonable person. He suggested that Mike Moore had no concern for developing countries. That is completely false, untrue and unfair. Mike Moore worked hard to enable the world to reach a consensus. I pay tribute to him and to the incoming Mr. Supachai. They have worked well together and they will take the world forward.
  I am optimistic because it is possible to take on complex issues when we do not have agreement in our own countries. It is necessary to arrive at global agreement if we are to take the world forward. In a relatively short period we can see a big shift in public opinion. If these moves can be made, we can take ourselves forward into an era of better management of the global economy.
  After Seattle, we were working with the World Bank to ensure that the bank took more interest in trade and the need for developing countries to make advances in trade access to improve their economic position. There was

  295
  slowness and reluctance, but since then the World Bank has undertaken more work and produced the statistics that are quoted about how trade opening and trade liberalisation would be much more beneficial to developing countries than increases in overseas development assistance, although we need that to create institutions in developing countries that will enable those countries to run their economies and public services properly, and then to take advantage of trading opportunities and the opportunity to move their economies forward.
  The considerable task that remains is to move the world forward into implementation of the agenda that was agreed at Doha. On the way to the world summit on sustainable development, which will take place at the end of August into the beginning of September at Johannesburg—that is 10 years on from the Rio UN conference on the environment—a preparatory meeting took place recently in Bali. It was the cause of great derision. Happily I did not go to Bali, so I do not have to be criticised. I have been there under my own steam, having paid for myself. The meeting went sour, but that did not mean that it was a disaster. It went sour largely because the G77, having seen the action on steel tariffs and the US Farm Bill, is ceasing to believe that the world meant what it said at Doha and then at Monterrey about finance for development.
  We have been building up a fantastic consensus throughout the world, from the millennium development goals to the UN millennium assembly. At Doha, there was a round of talks to make trade rules fairer. At Monterrey, finance was discussed, and what would be a sensible reform agenda for a proper balance between the public sector and the role of markets. There was a commitment to a reversal in the decline in development assistance that is available to the world.
  We want to go on to Johannesburg to integrate the environment in the analysis and to overcome hostility between OECD countries, environmentalists and developing countries. Instead of environmentalists saying, "We don't want development", we want them to say, "We want sustainable development, and we must guarantee development to the poor in a way that is sustainable for the world." That is the only way that we will keep the world united.
  Our commitment to implement what was agreed at Doha is absolutely crucial if we are to keep the sort of consensus that we have been building to drive forward progress towards a more just world. That will not be easy. As I am sure that hon. Members know, it was very difficult for France to agree to the commitments made at Doha on reduction of subsidies and reform in the agricultural sector. It held out until the end, and that was the most difficult part of the agreement. Changes have taken place in the US and some of our European Union colleagues have difficulties with holding to what was agreed at Doha.
  We now have a fantastic consensus in this country, but we need to appeal to all our parties in all our networks throughout the world and to all the NGOs and faith organisations that are mobilised so impressively here today. We need to ask them to reach out to their networks in Europe and especially in the United States. Through the Church networks in particular, they need to say to the United States, the biggest economy in the world, "Please don't think that you can run the world without multilateral
  296
  rules." To achieve a just and sustainable world, we need the US to work with other countries to give everyone the chance to grow their economies.
  There is a lot left to do, but this is a very important moment for the UK to have built the sort of agreement that we have got. It now suits our country very well for us to go out to bat on the world stage for more just rules for trade and in other areas, in order to make the world safer and more sustainable and decent.
  4.31 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the official Opposition for securing this debate. This is a very good day on which to have it; I am only sad that they could not negotiate the 7 o'clock slot, because many hon. Members are outside enjoying the Mexican wave and the trishaws that I was lucky enough to enjoy yesterday. They are out there meeting their constituents, so it would have been much better to have had the debate afterwards so that they could have participated.
  Today's lobby is one of the biggest ever; it is estimated that 10,000 people are out there in the sunshine. The Jubilee 2000 campaign was successful because it was a broad coalition that attracted all-party support. Likewise, I know that the Trade Justice Movement is a fantastic coalition of more than 40 non-governmental organisations that is attracting all-party support. The Liberal Democrats will certainly support the motion and also the Government amendment. Hon. Members can make of that what they like, but that is what we will do, as we do not want any division on these issues.
  I have received hundreds of postcards from my constituents and thousands more have flowed in to all MPs during the past few weeks. An all-party early-day motion on this subject has been tabled today and I hope that all hon. Members will sign it. We know that the European heads of state are meeting very soon this month, the G8 summit is at the end of June, the world summit on sustainable development will take place in Johannesburg in September and the world trade talks are continuing all the time. This is a vital time for developing countries.
  We all know that many factors affect developing countries. We have rehearsed them many times in the Chamber. They include civil war and conflict, the arms trade, lack of education, health care, AIDS, HIV, lack of clean water, environmental disasters—to which our greedy consumption in the west often contributes—a lack of decent Governments, and corruption. The list goes on. We distribute aid, but not nearly enough. The proportional increase in the aid given to developing countries is very welcome, but the amount is not yet nearly enough. To introduce a dissenting note, I am still very disappointed that the Conservatives seem to have abandoned the 0.7 per cent. of gross national product target on aid for developing countries. That is very sad and I hope that they review the matter in due course.
  Wherever I go in the developing world, I hear the same message: "Your aid is welcome, but if only you would let us have free and fair trade"—I emphasise the word "fair"—"we would develop more quickly."
  Throughout the 19th century, we exploited our colonies, using them for labour, raw materials and things that could make our lives better. The rich countries continue to exploit them through unfair trade agreements. The European Union and the USA in particular have a

  297
  duty to lift the developing world out of poverty. The connections between 11 September and poverty have often been rehearsed. It is no longer only right to help the poorest countries, but in our own interests too. It took an event like 11 September to teach us that lesson.
  A 1 per cent. increase in trade for African countries would generate £70 billion or five times what Africa receives in aid. Import tariffs cost developing countries £100 billion, which is twice as much as they receive in aid. What nonsense—we give with one hand and we take away with the other. Last July, in Zanzibar, prior to the World Trade Organisation meeting in Doha, developing countries called on the rich countries to abolish subsidies for their products and open their markets, but there has been little progress on that. The Uruguay round, which the Secretary of State mentioned, was good news at the time because it committed developing countries and rich countries to a reduction in tariffs and subsidies. With the general agreement on trade in services—GATS—it got the developing countries to open up their services to private companies.
  To a large extent the developing countries have done so. But did the rich countries keep their side of the bargain? Did they heck. One problem is that tariffs and subsidies remain, and GATS is still a subject of great contention. However, I do not agree that services such as supplying water must always be controlled by the public sector. I recently visited Ghana to look at its Government's proposal to privatise the water supply in Accra. The public sector there is certainly not delivering clean water to the people of the city. The situation is appalling, because 52 per cent.—a rather optimistic estimate—of the water supply is lost or goes to cowboys who sell it to the poor at extortionate prices. The argument that a multinational company may make water even more expensive for the poor does not wash, if that is the right word. I think that it could be cheaper under a privatised system.
  Clare Short: I have had a briefing on this. GATS is a bottom-up agreement—countries open up services as they wish, and there is no requirement to privatise education and health care. Privatisation is the only way to get the investment that those countries need in things like banking, tourism, telecommunications and services such as water under good regulatory arrangements. I agree that the campaign saying that there should not be a voluntary scheme to open up services in that way is misguided.
  Dr. Tonge: I thank the Secretary of State for her contribution. The key to privatising Accra's water supply is the regulatory service. I admit that I was worried about that, and the Ghanaians will need assistance in regulating services to provide water.
  The common agricultural policy is a bone of contention. It is another gross violation of international justice. The European Union spends $41 billion on agricultural subsidies. Rich farmers in rich countries continue to be subsidised and to flood developing countries with their produce, forcing their poor farmers out of business. I hope that we shall get some good news on that front in due course, because it is time that the common agricultural policy was looked at.
  298
  As the Secretary of State told us, the European Union introduced the everything but arms initiative to give at least 49 of the least developed countries tariff-free and quota-free access to our markets. However, it quickly became the everything but arms, rice, sugar and bananas initiative, thus re-erecting barriers to some of the main exports from developing countries. Before Conservative Members get too self-righteous and pleased with themselves about their newly discovered philanthropy, I remind hon. Members that it was lobbying by many Conservative Members on behalf of the sugar beet industry that led to sugar being excluded from the EU initiative. We shall not forget that, and it is worth remembering. They cannot preach free trade and call for trade liberalisation, as they are doing today, while lobbying to protect our own domestic interests.
  Why does that remind me of the United States? In May, the US, having acknowledged that poverty indirectly leads to terrorism, passed a Farm Bill that will increase subsidies to American farmers by 70 per cent. over the next 10 years. As I discovered on my recent visit to Ghana, northern Ghana used to produce lots of rice, which was eaten by people all over Ghana. Urban Ghanaians now eat American polished white rice, which is ludicrous. Their farmers have no markets at home or abroad and are in poverty. In 1998, 68 per cent. of Ghana's labour force was in agriculture. What are they to do in the short and medium term to fill that gap? It is a mad, mad situation.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend agree that protectionist elements in Europe give the American Administration an excuse for introducing their Farm Bill? This morning, I had a conversation with an American Congressman who was here in the House, and he said that the protectionism adopted by several European states through the CAP provides an alibi for the Farm Bill. That is a problem.
  Dr. Tonge: I agree. I do not exclude Europe from blame. Both the European Union and the US have to search their souls on this issue. If we mean what we say about opening up our markets and bringing developing countries into the real world to share in its prosperity, we have to give a little on our side. That cannot be done if we continually protect our own interests. I accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in so far as sugar beet farmers would have a tough time if their market fell, but could we not consider other things that they could grow? The biofuels industry represents one possibility.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dr. Tonge: I shall not at the moment.
  We have alternatives that may not be available to developing countries, and we must do something about that.
  Mr. Curry: I hope that the hon. Lady tried to disabuse the American Congressman by pointing out that when the United States introduced its Freedom to Farm Bill, which liberalised the American system, the CAP was a great deal

  299
  more protectionist than it is now, and that the Farm Bill has been introduced at a time when the CAP is being liberalised rather more than many people think.
  Dr. Tonge: That point has already been made, and I want to move on. However, I emphasise that we must all recognise that something has to give if developing countries are to be relieved of their poverty.
  I shall not have time to deal with many other aspects of world trade and its effect on developing countries, such as joined-up government. This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) noted that there is no point in the Department for International Development having wonderful policies based on sustainable development when there are shenanigans such as those between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence. Barclays bank and British Aerospace on the air traffic control system for Tanzania. We must tackle that aspect of trade and ensure that all Departments tackle the core theme of sustainable development. We cannot relieve Tanzania of debt only to plunge it immediately in £28 million more debt by selling it an inappropriate system that will benefit our industry but not Tanzania.
  I shall not go into the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, because I confess that I do not understand the ramifications of the TRIPs agreement. The arguments about the problems have been well rehearsed. Many Liberal Democrats worry that the part privatisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation has caused it to take its eye off the ball in the interests of attracting shareholders. Agriculture, especially agribusiness, in the poorest countries has consequently suffered.
  The activities of the multinational companies require a debate. Such companies probably constitute one of the greatest forces for good or evil in the world. Huge companies that wield massive power and also make much needed investment in developing countries to improve their trade are part of globalisation. However, we need to ensure that they behave decently and sensibly, and stick to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines wherever they operate.
  I want to speak about an important factor that the Secretary of State mentioned. Developing countries must be helped to participate more effectively in the World Trade Organisation and the WTO must commit itself with the rest of the world to the international development targets. I understand that only 30 of the poorest countries are members of the WTO. All developing countries face major difficulties representing themselves there. They do not have the capacity or expertise, and I welcome the initiatives by the Secretary of State and the Department to try to build such capacity in sub-Saharan Africa and its regional organisations. I hope that when the Minister sums up, she will tell us more about the enhanced integrated framework pilot schemes, which will operate in Cambodia and Madagascar, and how those countries can represent themselves better.
  In the north, we get increasingly richer by protecting our markets while forcing the poorest countries to open theirs to our trades and services, making them poorer. We have declared a war on terrorism when what we really want is a war on poverty.
  4.48 pm
  Hugh Bayley: I begin by congratulating—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  Hugh Bayley: I shall use my nine and a half minutes wisely, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I congratulate John Whitworth and his team of supporters from York who have joined the lobby today and whom I have had the benefit of meeting. I do not say that simply as a courtesy, although I am glad to see constituents coming all the way from York to Westminster. We all need—this includes Parliament and the Government—a grass-roots campaign that backs our actions. The Secretary of State made it clear that we have to argue our corner in international institutions such as the EU and the WTO. It is important to show that a fan club exists for development and the actions of the Secretary of State and other members of the Government.
  Until recently, trade policy was one of those dry-as-dust subjects that interested only a few underpaid development agency workers and a few extremely overpaid international lawyers who argued disputes at the World Trade Organisation. In recent years, however, it has become a battlefield. The Secretary of State is right to say that there has been a sea change since Seattle, which was quite literally a battlefield, but there is still conflict between pro and anti-globalisers. We must ensure that the world's poor are not crushed by those contending forces.
  Trade is not a panacea, but it is true that the countries with the smallest share of world trade—a share that is still declining—are those with the largest proportion of their population living in absolute poverty. Trade can lift people out of poverty, but it will succeed in doing so only if trade growth is supported and complemented by good pro-poor development policies.
  I want to emphasise three things to the House. First, trade creates wealth; it makes people richer. It increases production and, therefore, consumption; for most people living on the breadline, consumption is a measure of their disposable income and their standard of living. The World Bank showed, in its publication "Can Africa reclaim the 21st century?", that if Africa had the same proportion of world trade now that it had at the time of decolonisation in the 1960s, it would have an income of some $70 billion a year more. In other words, its income would be about 20 per cent. higher. One of the things that we need to achieve, therefore, is an increase in the volume of trade with the poorest countries.
  Secondly, trade does not necessarily result in a reduction of inequality, even in the regions where the volume of trade is increasing. The benefits of trade do not necessarily trickle down to the poor. That is why we need to change the terms of trade, as hon. Members have already mentioned. That requires policy change in developed countries such as ours—most notably a change in the common agricultural policy, in the case of Europe—and in developing countries.
  That also means that trade policy needs to be embedded in development policy, and needs to appear in the country strategies—for example, those being drawn up by our

  301
  Government and by the World Bank—for developing countries. Trade policy needs to be mainstreamed into development policy just as the environment, gender and other matters have been in recent years.
  Thirdly, I would like to remind the House that trade takes place not between countries but between companies. Trade policy must encourage investment in private companies and entrepreneurship, and must recognise the role of the private sector in international trade.
  Why has Africa lost some of its share of world trade in the decades since the 1960s? As hon. Members have stated, it is in part because the rich world—the developed countries—has been far from generous in its trade relations. We have been protectionist—above all, in relation to the commodities that the poorest people in the poorest countries have some possibility of exporting to us, particularly in agriculture.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Textiles, too.
  Hugh Bayley: Textiles and clothing, too, as my hon. Friend rightly says.
  Also, many sub-Saharan African countries have followed poor policies themselves, which helps to explain why their trade performance has been poorer than those of some other developing countries, such as those in east Asia. Our policies need to change, and their policies need to change. That is why I am so excited by the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which recognises that if we both change things, life will change for the poorest people in the poorest countries.
  One of the things that the developing countries in Africa got wrong in the past was setting fixed exchange rates that overvalued their currencies. When I visited Uganda in the early 1980s, the official exchange rate was 120 Ugandan shillings to the pound, but the real market exchange rate on the street was 600 or 650. What did that mean in practice? The Ugandan elite could import Scotch whisky for a quarter of its real cost, and Ugandan farmers had to export bananas or any other agricultural products at four times their real value. It is therefore not surprising that it was difficult for the poor to export from Uganda and other such countries.
  There were further problems with fixed interest rates. They were fixed by African Governments for the good reason that, in their view, setting a low interest rate made borrowing more affordable. However, borrowing is assisted only if a rate is set that encourages people to invest. Many African countries had an interest rate that was lower than the inflation rate. The resulting real-terms negative interest rates meant that no money was put into banks, or that it was put into banks in the developed world, rather than into African banks. Those economic policies need to change. Such failures reduced exports, squeezed out investment, and fuelled the growth of corruption as people tried to get round the policies enforced by their Governments.
  Hon. Members have spoken eloquently about the contradiction between what we in the west preach on free trade, and our practice of agricultural protectionism. If we are to make the Doha trade round a development round, we certainly need to reduce the level of subsidy for
  302
  European Union agricultural exports, and for domestic production. We need also to address the timetable for CAP reform. As I understand it, the Commission has agreed to complete the CAP negotiations by 2006, yet at Doha all WTO countries offered a commitment to complete the round by the end of 2004. If we are to make the necessary contribution to the Doha round in terms of CAP reform, we need to advance the CAP timetable.
  In many ways, it was the events of 11 September that brought the world together to agree a deal at Doha. Compromises were made on all sides. France agreed for the first time to negotiate on the elimination of farm subsidies; India backed off from outright opposition to negotiations on public procurement and investment; and the United States agreed to consider negotiating the anti-dumping rules that were used in recent weeks in relation to steel. Those compromises made the Doha round a development round, but to keep it that way, it is essential that the WTO sign up to the millennium development goals. Target 12 of those goals calls for
  "an open. rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system."
  That cannot happen unless the WTO makes that its policy. Targets 7 and 8 pledge to halt the increase in incidence of HIV/AIDS and malaria, but that will not happen unless the WTO agrees to change the current rules for patent protection for the pharmaceutical industry, under the trade-related intellectual property rights agreement.
  4.59 pm
  Tony Baldry: I want to make three brief points. First, considerable consensus exists in the UK on these matters, and we should build on it. Given that we all agree on the motion before us, it seems a little crazy that the rules of the House require us to divide on it. However, that is something for the usual channels to work out.
  Today, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry welcomed the Trade Justice Movement, and acknowledged that
  "international trade rules should work to the benefit of developing countries."
  Before she went to Doha, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
  "Halving protection in agriculture, industrial goods and services could boost developing country incomes by around $140 billion a year—three times the value of all aid budgets put together…We recognise that inequities remain in the international trade system and want to make sure that this round fully addresses the needs and concerns of developing countries…The next round"—
  that is, the Doha round—
  "provides an opportunity for further opening of agricultural markets and significant reductions in the level of trade-distorting agricultural subsidies. With a majority of the poor in developing countries living in rural areas, this would make a substantial contribution to the UK's commitment to eradicate poverty."
  Responding to a recent debate in Westminster Hall on fair trade, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said:
  "However, the subsidies given to farmers in the north—both in Europe and the United States—amount to more than the total combined gross domestic products of sub-Saharan Africa…Today, rich countries pay out $1 billion a day to their farmers in agricultural subsidies. Annually, the figure is more than four times all the development assistance that goes to poor nations."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1121–22WH.]

  303
  I do not think that there is any dispute about what the issues are, and there is agreement across the House about some of the issues that need to be addressed. However, my second point is that painstaking work will have to be done. No big headline quick fixes can be done: painstaking work will have to be done to reform the CAP and during the Doha process.
  The European Commission is scheduled to produce proposals under the CAP mid-term review in late June or early July. I think that the latest date for that is 10 July. That will not be easy. Many hon. Members present represent agricultural constituencies. We know from discussions with others that it will be difficult to persuade colleagues from other EU states that have been bribing farmers for votes even longer than we have that there needs to be substantial CAP reform.
  I hope that, in the process of the CAP reform and World Trade Organisation negotiations, we will be able to do some work on the development box in the WTO agreement on agriculture. Little reference has been made to that this afternoon. I suspect that a lot of work at official level is still needed to determine whether a development box on agriculture in the WTO agreement would work to protect farmers in developing countries.
  When the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and for City of York (Hugh Bayley), and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and I were in Ghana and Nigeria recently we were struck by the fact that, in Ghana—a country that produces huge numbers of fantastic tomatoes—all the tomatoes in the supermarkets are tinned tomatoes from Italy. That is completely crazy. When one asks people whether there is not a tomato processing plant in Ghana, they say that there used to be one but that it fell into disrepair and that no one has been prepared to invest in it.
  We need to see whether more can be done within the WTO rules to protect countries like Ghana from the dumping of EU agricultural surplus. I am agnostic as to whether that should be done through a development box in the WTO agreement, but I hope that more work can be done on the matter by officials. When the Under-Secretary of State for International Development winds up the debate, I hope that she will tell us what the Government line is on the subject. It is important that we have some understanding of whether such a course of action could help and protect people.
  My third point is that we need to support reformers in developing countries. We hear a lot about the bad guys, and we hear incessantly about Mugabe. It is quite right that we should, but there are also some good guys. I make no apologies, in the remaining couple of minutes, for reading a piece that I saw when several of us were in Washington the week before last to lobby members of the US Senate and Congress to do more on international development.
  The piece appeared in the Washington Post, and it is worth sharing with the House. It stated:
  "Media coverage of the protests against globalisation has diverted attention from what may well be a more striking and historic development: the growing consensus between African countries and their Western partners on the importance of trade in overcoming global poverty."
  It is not simply a consensus in the United Kingdom, it is a consensus between us and our African partners. The article continued:
  304
  "From President Bush to the rock star Bono…to the leaders of the 54 African countries represented in the Organization of African Unity, there is now a broad agreement that no national or international strategy for addressing poverty can be successful unless it promotes expanded trade and investment.
  For too long, Africans and their partners in the West have looked to international aid as the answer to the poverty and economic challenges confronting developing countries…While well-intentioned, this over-emphasis on aid has actually handicapped Africa by promoting a dependency mentality and the impression that African countries could not compete in the global economy.
  By itself, aid cannot transform societies. Only trade can foster the sustained economic growth necessary for such a transformation…Africa does need development assistance, just as it needs debt relief from its crushing international debt burden. But aid and debt relief can only go so far…We Africans are no longer looking for handouts. Rather, we are asking for the opportunity to compete, to sell our goods in Western markets, to be considered for private investment funds, and to participate more fully in the global trading system. In short, we want to trade our way out of poverty".
  That was written by Mr. Museveni, the president of Uganda. I thought that it was a gripping article, worth sharing with colleagues. He also said:
  "we Africans must do more to put our own houses in order."
  We must remember that, for every Mugabe, there are reformers in Africa, whether they be in Uganda, Ghana or South Africa, whom we should support.
  Mr. Museveni has also been reported as saying:
  "The biggest request we are making of Western countries is to open their markets…Debt relief has saved us some money, but the real money will come from trade. Give us the opportunities, and we will compete."
  Today's lobby has been fantastic; it will ensure that international development and related issues stay high on the political agenda in this country and that everyone has the confidence to take them seriously. I think that the House and everyone of good will has come to a consensus on what needs to be done. We need to turn to the detailed, painstaking work that has to be done to reform the common agricultural policy and the Doha round. Much of that work will be complicated and very tetchy, as the earlier exchanges on sugar and other commodities have demonstrated. We must also give strength and support to reformers in Africa because, with their help, we can ensure that many countries can trade their way out of poverty.
  5.8 pm
  Glenda Jackson: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and Opposition Front Benchers for not being here for the beginning of the debate. I was with my constituents, on the other side of the River Thames, listening to the concerns that they expressed with great lucidity and cogency. It is a most wonderful rally or demonstration, whatever we want to call it. However, as I said to my constituents, I wondered why they were here, preaching to the converted, and not campaigning outside certain foreign embassies in the capital.
  It seems to have been a comparatively short time—certainly a decade—since the feeling in the country at large and in the Chamber has moved from the idea that we can transform poverty, eradicate disease, introduce education and actively assist countries to develop exclusively by increasing the amount of aid that we pour

  305
  into the begging bowl. The posters this afternoon were entirely different from those that would have been seen 10 years ago.
  Clare Short: Two years ago.
  Glenda Jackson: Indeed. Then, they would have been about aid, while today's are about fair trade—fair being the operative word.
  Without exception, my constituents paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor for putting the eradication of poverty at the top of the world's agenda.
  There are still areas about which my constituents are very concerned. I was interested in my right hon. Friend's view of globalisation, with which I concur. One cannot be for or against it, but one must acknowledge that it is here and that it is not going to go away. The question is how it is best managed in the interests of the vast number of people in the world who seem to have absolutely nothing.
  Within the public perception of what the Government are doing on their own and in concert with European Governments and the wider world community, there is a view that we are not acting speedily enough or delivering enough results because we still talk about fair trade. Some believe that the best way to eradicate poverty is to keep people in a sort of village environment, where nothing to do with machinery or the crudities of the developed world will ever impinge on the tranquil and pastoral nature of their lives. I have visited some of the countries where there is a pastoral nature to people's lives. I have stood beside representatives of non-governmental organisations who, on hearing a group of people singing a traditional song, have lamented to me that it seems a shame that teaching their children to read will interfere with their culture. I am sorry, but I think that that view is crazy. To deny anyone the right to read is the antithesis of what today's demonstration outside was about and of what we have been cogently arguing for in this Chamber for a considerable time.
  We talk easily about the problems of the developing world, but it seems to me that the problems are essentially of the developed world. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, said, we have to begin to examine what we are prepared to give up. I will give a precise example of what I mean. One of my young constituents raised with me the privatisation of water in India and Ghana. I find it deeply offensive that someone should argue that the largest democratic society in the world—India—or any other independent nation state should be told by the developed world whether it may begin to privatise its utilities. Those concerns were not expressed to me when New Zealand privatised its water supply, or when Australia or any other country in the developed world did so.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) that we have to take this opportunity to make this a grass-roots, committed change on the ground.
  Clare Short: On non-governmental organisations, Blake's poems opposing the industrial revolution in the
  306
  United Kingdom are an equivalent. We still sing "Jerusalem", but it was written to oppose industrialisation and the wealth to which that led.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: It is a great hymn.
  Clare Short: It is an interesting parallel.
  Ghana has not privatised; it has asked a private company to manage under a regulated arrangement a more efficient system of delivery in urban areas. Christian Aid is campaigning against that democratic decision of the previous Government, supported by the Opposition, to deliver water to people who did not have it—it had to be brought to them by the bucket at great expense. That is a mistaken approach and we must resist it.
  Glenda Jackson: That is my final point. It is beholden on us all to make it abundantly clear to people out there, who work extremely hard for what they believe in—let us not diminish what they do—that many of their ideas will not produce the results that they desire. It is certainly not for us or any other democratic nation to attempt to impede the decisions that, in the two examples that I gave, will, we hope, deliver clean, affordable water to people who have none at the moment.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Michael Portillo: I find myself speaking in a House full of hon. Members who are experts in the subject, and I am anything but. My purpose today is mainly to congratulate those on the Conservative Front Bench for raising this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) made an elegant and splendid speech and I wish that we had many more people like her who were able to make such speeches.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on showing clearly that there is no reason why any party in the House should have a monopoly on compassion. She demonstrated that the Conservative party feels strongly the pressures and difficulties faced by developing countries. My hon. Friend also expressed very ably the reason why trade and globalisation are part of the answer to the question, and there appears to he consensus on that point.
  I also wish to congratulate the Secretary of State, because she has attacked as nonsense the position of those who argue against globalisation—an important stand. She took that stand at a time when to do so was not straightforward, and it was very influential, because of where she comes from on the political spectrum.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House argue that the liberalisation of trade will be effective in eliminating poverty and raising living standards all around the world. We have evidence of vast transfers of wealth from the rich world to the poorer world in the form of investment, equity and commercial loans. We also have evidence that such direct investment often helps to underpin struggling democracies or to topple dictators, and brings increased living standards in such simple things—to our eyes—as access to telephones for hundreds of millions of people. With all those proven benefits and what we have seen of the ways in which living standards have been transformed—especially in China and other countries of the Asia-Pacific region—it is extraordinary that we still have a vocal lobby against globalisation.

  307
  In this debate, I have been concerned that the amount of consensus in the House leads us to underestimate the extent to which an irrational argument is going on outside. The anti-globalisation point of view appeals to a surprisingly large number of people. In the examples of Seattle and Genoa, I was struck not so much by the demonstrations and violence on the streets but by the fact that an incoherent argument could strike a chord with such a broad spectrum of public opinion. That is true of public opinion in Britain and in much of Europe, and to a lesser extent in the United States.
  Today, we have a broad-based commentariat who are influential in creating public opinion. In this country, we have a large middle class, of which only a small minority is involved in the process of wealth creation. As a result, the anti-globalisation movement, and the echo that it has in public opinion, is a demonstration of a widespread lack of understanding—even a distrust—of enterprise, commerce and business.
  My second purpose in speaking in the debate is to propose to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they should go further than the step that they have taken today. There is an important battle to be fought to win the case for free trade, enterprise and wealth creation, because the amount of hostility to wealth creation generated by the anti-globalisation movement is merely symptomatic of a broader misunderstanding of wealth creation and a mistrust of the way in which companies perform.
  I do not claim that there are no examples of companies behaving badly, even disgracefully. Indeed, because what happens here and what happens in developing countries are linked in people's minds, business often does itself no favours. The frequent flurries that we have over executive pay are just one example that makes it difficult to explain to people on low incomes in our own country, let alone those in other countries, why the enterprise system is valid. Today, there has been another rumpus over executive pay at Vodafone. On each occasion, the problem is not that executive pay cannot be justified; it is that people are unwilling to be transparent about their policies on executive pay.
  The same is true of the development question. One of the reasons why anti-globalisation has struck a chord with a broad group of people is the sense of a growing lack of accountability in all sorts of areas. There is a feeling that more and more of our lives, and of the lives of people around the world, are being determined by people who, in the end, are not answerable to voters and are not accountable.
  Some of the fire has been directed at international institutions. For example, the International Monetary Fund is now in an extraordinarily strong position to impose policies that have very severe political consequences, such as changing Governments. Sometimes, those policies change Governments that are very bad—in my view—into better Governments. That is not a justification in itself, however, as an organisation that has that kind of power, and that makes decisions that have such consequences, needs to be transparent and accountable. I would like my hon. Friends to argue for that.
  Let us take the example of an organisation such as the World Bank. The criticism that has largely been made of the World Bank is not so much that it has gone around the world being high-handed but that it has been attracted to faddism—it has followed different initiatives of different non-governmental organisations.
  308
  While we are talking about accountability, let us include the NGOs in that discussion. I am pleased that those questions have been raised in several Labour Members' speeches. People who work for NGOs, for Oxfam or for Christian Aid now wield great influence, but they have a duty to account for their positions and their legitimacy in arguing cases that may simply be matters of personal political opinion or prejudice that have no democratic legitimacy. Indeed, the benefits that they bring to the people in developing countries whom they claim to represent may be questionable or not to their benefit at all.
  Clare Short rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I have only a couple of minutes left. I hope that the right hon. Lady will forgive me if I continue.
  In the same way as it was Richard Nixon who could go to China, I believe that parties of the right—the Conservative party is one, but there are other such parties in other countries—can do the most to persuade business of its obligations and responsibilities. The strongest case exists for arguing that free enterprise will be the greatest influence in reducing poverty, raising living standards and reducing inequalities. There are powerful examples of companies that, through their investment, have lifted and improved the living standards of people who were previously held in much worse conditions of employment by local mafias and groups of thugs. We know that this is a complicated matter, as developing countries do not wish us to impose labour standards on them that will be protectionism in disguise.
  That is another reason for transparency. My party and other right-of-centre parties should be working with enterprise and the private sector to persuade them to be very transparent, to adopt codes of practice, and to open them up to scrutiny, discussion and monitoring. That will demonstrate that enterprise is the solution to poverty in the world and not the cause.
  There is a very broad battle to be fought and won. In the end, it is not only a question of development. As long as a vast section of our commentariat—our middle classes—distrusts business, it will be difficult for our enterprise system to function successfully, as it should.
  5.24 pm
  Tony Worthington: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) for two reasons. First, although there is a lot of consensus in the House, we are all struggling to find our way forward. He approached the topic with a very welcome openness. I shall return to his second point on transparency and its importance in causing development.
  I want to return to the Secretary of State's opening remarks on rejoicing about today, the movements that have been made, and what those movements meant. We have moved from a development model in which a development Minister goes around the world opening her purse or his wallet and disbursing an ever-diminishing amount of money. Development policy must now be Government policy.
  The chairman of the Select Committee is present and he will remember what happened the first time members of the Select Committee visited the department of the

  309
  Trade Commissioner in Brussels. That was enormously important and would not have happened in the past. Why should members of the International Development Committee visit the commissioner? We were greeted with pleasure because the relevance of our visit was recognised. I am delighted to say that Pascal Lamy, the Trade Commissioner, will come to speak to us next week about development. That is an enormous step forward because, in the past, the commissioner's job was seen as building fortress Europe. The man responsible for the everything but arms initiative will come here to talk about how he can assist development.
  I congratulate the Opposition on choosing this theme. We should take an important step forward and work with the British people. Many of them have realised that appalling trade rules are in place and that such rules benefit the wealthiest companies and the wealthiest countries and poison the future of the poor.
  I return to the point about transparency, but wish to refer to an issue that has not been mentioned. It is not part of the Trade Justice Movement campaign, but it involves the most fundamental kind of trade justice. We should take action to stop corrupt rulers and elites robbing countries of their natural resources and condemning their people to poverty.
  Simple transparent changes in the accountancy rules and financial regulations for our companies—particularly those that work in extractive industries, such as oil, diamonds and gold—would make an enormous difference. We should require oil companies and others to publish what they pay to the Governments of the countries in which they work. That would curtail the looting that impoverishes developing countries. The campaign, "publish what you pay", has been launched by George Soros, Global Witness and some of our best companies and non-governmental organisations. It would simply require companies to say what they pay to countries in the developing world.
  Let me give a personal example. I have been going to Nigeria for about a dozen years, and I had been looking forward to going with the Select Committee to see for the first time Nigeria under a democratic Government. Previously, the country was run by deeply corrupt military dictatorships, and the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will share my views on that. It was a deeply disillusioning experience to go there.
  Nigeria discovered oil and plunged into poverty. There is not the slightest doubt that it is a wealthy country that achieved deep poverty because it discovered oil and because Nigerians robbed their country of its resources. When I went there, it was clear that the gravy train continued. It was a democratic society, and it was clear that the politicians had learned their scripts about the forgiving of debt and returning the Abacha money. However, they could not answer a single question about how much money was going from the oil companies into the Nigerian Exchequer. The oil companies and the Government do not say.
  After three years of democratic Government, it should have been possible to point to the schools, the clinics and the services that were there because democracy was in place. However, not one politician or civil servant could point to the improvements that had occurred and that
  310
  would have resulted if 90 per cent. of the oil resources—or whatever the figure may be—had gone into the Nigerian economy.
  I do not question the credentials of President Obasanjo, but he is imprisoned by the system within which he has to work. We have probably all worked in circumstances that were mildly corrupt and in which the whistleblower was everyone's enemy. The whistleblower might even fear for his life. The fact that it has been relatively peaceful in Nigeria at a central Government level indicates that the gravy train continues. That will not change until we help by changing our rules. We need to say to BP, Shell, Exxon, Elf Aquitaine and other companies that work in those areas, "Publish what you pay." That would be an enormous step forward.
  I back the campaign by George Soros, Global Witness, Oxfam and many of our best companies. BP wants to declare what it pays, but Sonangol, the Angolan company, threatened it with losing future rights if it did. Companies must declare what they pay because then the people will know what resources are in their countries.
  Let us take Angola. We rejoice that Savimbi has gone. He was sustained by diamonds. The dos Santos Government in Angola were sustained by oil. But the people of Angola were sustained by nothing. In 2001, the UN had great difficulty raising the $200 million necessary to feed 1 million Angolans who were dependent on emergency food aid. In the same year, Global Witness calculated that more than $1 billion—about a third of state revenue—went missing in unaccountable loans and in paying for highly overpriced military goods, which came in particular from Russia.
  We can have no faith that Angolan politicians will put that right on their own. We have to help by ensuring that developed world companies are not part of the problem. About 90 per cent. of Angola's revenue comes from oil. Whereas in the developed world it would be routine for BP, Shell or any other company to publish what it was paying to the Government, that is not the case everywhere.
  Global Witness has done wonderful work around the world. I see colleagues in the Chamber who visited Cambodia, where we heard that the forest would be gone within about three years because the military was robbing the country of its forests. There are no resources there.
  Global Witness is doing great work in Sierra Leone and Liberia. The simple measure of requiring companies worldwide to say what they put into a developing country would give the people of those countries the power to hold their Governments to account. At the moment, they cannot, and I commend the work of Global Witness and the campaign, "publish what you pay". We all agree about aspirations, but we need concrete specifics on what we should do.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. David Curry: I shall concentrate on the agricultural aspects of trade because they have featured heavily in our debate.
  When people returned from Doha eight months ago after reaching what was an unexpected agreement, a great deal of optimism was in the air. After all, we had pulled it off. The French had had difficulties but they finally produced acceptable phraseology, although subsequently

  311
  it was slightly disputed, and the Commission said that we had agreed to achieve an accord on the modalities of common agricultural policy reform. Modality does not mean the framework but the detail—the nitty-gritty—of CAP reform, which is to be achieved by May 2003. It is important to realise that we are talking about trade-distorting subsidies. No one is talking about eliminating agricultural subsidies. The Government are talking about transferring subsidies to achieve other public good purposes, however they are defined, away from trade-distorting or production-related subsidies. It is important to be precise about that.
  We then had the body blow of what happened in the United States. There is no point in blaming President Bush; the initiative was started by Democrats in Congress. Republicans ran with it and the President did not want to argue against it. Given the characteristic honesty of the Secretary of State, I am surprised that the Government motion does not mention the American Farm Bill. After all, it has been the villain of the piece throughout this afternoon's discussions, and rightly so.
  It is envisaged that the Bill will give $190 billion over 10 years to 2 million American farmers. The interesting thing is how the Americans chose to defend it, because Ann Veneman, the Secretary for Agriculture, effectively said, "Over the past four years, we have piled additional appropriations into agriculture year after year. This is not a unique example of sin. We have been doing it all along and we have put in some $30 billion—you just didn't notice it." Now that the big numbers are there, we have suddenly noticed the context, which is the impact on the world trade round.
  It is true that the so-called American "cap" in the WTO is just over $19 billion, so the American expenditure falls below that. However the problem is that the Americans seem to be moving towards that almost as if it were a target, whereas other major regimes have made an effort to wind down some forms of support and change their purpose. The Europeans were dragged kicking and screaming into the Uruguay round, but in fact the greatest influence on reform of the CAP has been the restrictions that are in place, which still persist in the Uruguay round, and the demands of retailers and consumers.
  What is happening in America is horribly counterproductive. The measure represents a deficiency payment, so increases will go straight through into land prices, and it will provide production incentives, which will keep world prices low. The Bill will not have a long-term benefit for American farmers; I think that it may be of greater benefit to the competitive position of south American farmers. However, it will have a much wider consequence for the rest of the world because the low level of world prices is one reason for the amount of competition on the world markets. That is why it is so easy to export to developing countries and to shut them out of some marketplaces.
  The second wider consequence is that President Bush's action in signing the Bill was manna for every protectionist throughout the world, as we can see from the speed and alacrity with which some of the farm lobbies jumped on it. Their dexterity was amazing to behold. The politicians have piled in on top. The odds of reaching agreement on CAP reform and in the WTO round seem to be much longer, and one reason is that the pretext has
  312
  been broadcast from Washington. Its action seemed to be so much at odds with the philosophy so habitually espoused by the Americans.
  I venture to say that there is a real challenge for those of us who are strongly pro-American and who instinctively think of America as our partner to persuade that great country to re-engage in collective action in all sorts of spheres across the globe. We have seen the United States apparently refusing that collective action—in discussions on climate change, on the alleviation of poverty, on mechanisms for international justice, on steel and then on the Farm Bill. There is a serious concern that, when we all accept the need for collective action to combat terrorism, such action should spread more widely throughout what we call the international community.
  I said that the American action would promote protectionism, so step forward, right stage, Jacques Chirac, who has just been re-elected President of France with an enormous majority. I am sure that the Prime Minister will welcome the defeat of a Socialist Government who were so resistant to liberal economic reforms, but I hope that he has no great faith in President Chirac's conversion to the liberal economic model, which has yet to be espoused with great enthusiasm by any French politician brought up in the Napoleonic tradition.
  The real significance is that we are facing the mid-term review of the CAP. Commissioner Franz Fischler is due shortly to produce his proposals. Those who say that the CAP does not change and that it is still a desperate aberration have not noticed what has happened over the years. I have spent almost all my political life fighting for reform of the CAP, and I continue to do so, but it has shifted enormously. It is moving away from production-related subsidies and towards the espousal of rural development more widely, which makes a great deal of sense, and that is one of the purposes of Mr. Fischler's reform.
  The Europeans are retreating from production-led subsidies just as the Americans seem to have reverted to production-promoting subsidies. It is extremely important that Mr. Fischler wins his battle with the Council of Ministers, but it now looks like a harder battle to win. President Chirac was a farms Minister, and his main complaint about the CAP is probably that there is not enough of it. It will be a difficult argument to get consensus and build a majority in the Council of Ministers in favour of promoting liberalisation.
  Liberalisation is in our interests. Some hon. Members might enjoy eating Polo mints. The sugar-free Polo mints are made by Nestlé Rowntree at York; the fruit-flavoured Polos are made in eastern Europe, because thus they escape the sugar regime and the costs it imposes on business. If hon. Members look at some of the oils produced by Cargill, they will find that investment is now going to Turkey or Ukraine, even though European prices in the grain and oilseed sector are now much closer to world prices and have become manageable.
  We have to face the fact that it is entirely possible that in Germany Mr. Schröder will be defeated, if there is indeed a rightward swing taking place across Europe. Edmund Stoiber is promising to liberalise, despite the tradition of Bavarian-run agriculture in Germany, and I doubt that he would be dragged along on French coat tails, as has too often been the story of German policy. However, the Germans want enlargement, and they cannot

  313
  afford enlargement unless there is reform of the CAP and their contribution decreases. There will therefore be pressure on Mr. Stoiber to maintain some form of liberal agenda.
  All those factors come together. CAP reform has implications for enlargement, and those two factors combined play into Doha. The important thing for all of us is to maintain that movement for reform so that we are able to benefit developing countries, which stand to gain from trade. The victim concept of world trade is incorrect and misguided. Liberalisation, domestic and international, has benefited developing countries and has reduced poverty. A 2002 World Bank study called "Globalisation, Growth and Poverty" has shown that most effectively.
  We need to reassert the WTO agenda. The Prime Minister is dining with Mr. Chirac tonight, and he is shortly to visit north America to discuss the broader issues. It is important that we make the point that liberalisation works. Whether we prefer to describe the case for helping developing countries as philanthropic or self-interested, all of us have a self-interest in ensuring the promotion of liberalisation, so that the world can continue to grow richer through the spread of liberal political philosophy.
  5.42 pm
  John Barrett: As several hon. Members have said, it is good to see so many people on the streets outside Parliament today. People from all parts of the country have travelled to London to make their voices heard and to hear what we have to say. I hope that we do them justice and that contributions from both sides of the House continue to be positive and constructive.
  The issue we are debating has struck a chord with many people from all walks of life and with hon. Members on both sides of the House. As with the Jubilee 2000 campaign to which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has referred, the number of people who have become involved in this issue, who have raised it with me during surgeries and who have written letters and sent postcards, is quite incredible. For thousands of people to come to London today, something is clearly wrong—so badly wrong that people feel a sense of outrage and injustice. People outside are not asking for a better deal for themselves. They are saying, "Give the poorest of the poor and the hungry and the starving of the world a fair deal—let them have a chance to help themselves, and end a trading system that kicks people when they are down."
  If life is about choices, the contrast between rich and poor has never been so stark. When shopping for food, we often have a choice of 20 different types of cheese, a wall of cereals, and teas and coffees from around the world; meanwhile others no less deserving than ourselves eat grass or sawdust, or starve to death. As if things were not bad enough for the poorest of the poor, the rules of international trade—those relating to the provision of the basics in life, such as food and water—seem to be designed to make them even worse off.
  If a Jaguar fighter bomber, a combat helicopter or submachine guns is required, the wheels of commerce with developing countries spin at great speed. We have only to look at the latest strategic export controls annual
  314
  report, which details arms deals approved by the Government in 2000, to see that poverty-stricken states such as Bangladesh, Malawi and Sudan are not kept out of the trade loop entirely.
  If finance and credit arrangements can be developed to fund some very dubious purchases, such as the £28 million air traffic control system for Tanzania, surely it is not beyond our capabilities to introduce fair trading rules for some of the most basic items that sustain life itself, but we have not done very well so far.
  We have developed a system that undermines the price of crops in developing countries so that farmers cannot sell on the world market, because wealthy nations of the world have subsidised crop prices to a point where their crops are effectively dumped on to the world market. We have a system that can leave the poor without drinking water, while tourists at expensive resorts nearby have their thirst quenched by a water system that has been priced out of the range of local people by a trade agreement which stops their Government providing socially desirable drinking water.
  We have a system under which farmers who for generations have used seeds to grow crops are told that the right to purchase that same seed is now owned by a multinational company which has purchased the patent, and that farmers must not only buy the seed from it, but must pay the new owner a royalty for using the seed. When we have such a system, we have a rotten system, and we had better do something about it, or the people outside will want to know why.
  What has outraged so many people outside Parliament today is that existing trade agreements and proposals around the corner are grinding the poorest of the poor into the dust, while improving the lot of the better off. The real tragedy is that it need not happen at all. The United Nations estimates that poor countries lose £1.3 billion a day because of unjust trade rules—14 times more than they receive in aid.
  Although there are moves to write off the debts of some of the poorest countries, and some progress is being made in that direction, the scale of the remaining problem is daunting. More than half of the heavily indebted poor countries are spending more on servicing debt than on primary education, and two thirds of the world's poorest countries are spending more on debt than on health care.
  In order to trade, those countries must have the shackles of debt removed at the earliest opportunity. In respect of countries to which loans have been provided, we should end the conditions that force them to open up their markets too quickly to the full strength of competition from industrialised countries, which can undermine local producers with subsidised goods or, in the case of farming, expose local farmers to competition from the relatively protected farmers of Europe and the United States. That can have a devastating effect.
  Hon. Members have mentioned examples from around the world, such as Ghana, where the market for rice collapsed while rice from the US was flooding in. In contrast, there are good examples as well. For instance, Mauritius adopted a positive trade regime which resulted in a wide range of products being exported, economic growth, a reduction in income inequality and an increase in life expectancy. A targeted trade policy with the right incentives can help exporters and produce a win-win result.

  315
  The World Bank estimates that the reform of the international trade rules for developing countries could lift 300 million people out of poverty. We must make a start. In Europe, we must reform the common agricultural policy to stop dumping and agree deadlines for doing that. Pressure should be maintained on all those who attend the ever-increasing number of summits, such as the world summit in South Africa later this year.
  There is no excuse for patenting any plant form that has been grown for generations, and changes must be made to stop that scandal. Markets must be opened up to developing countries and the practice of dumping agricultural products on world markets must be stopped. The EU has failed to provide access for all exports from the 49 poorest and least developed countries in the world, and that must change. Recently, as was mentioned earlier, the US Farm Bill increased subsidies to American farmers by 70 per cent. over 10 years, making it even harder for developing countries to compete or enter the US domestic market.
  Trade agreements should be developed to help the poor, to protect the environment and to be a force for positive change. If that development does not take place, we shall all suffer as we help to develop a world where the obese watch the poor starve to death on television. All that is being asked for is what is fair. We should settle for nothing else.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on recognising the importance of the issue by devoting the debate to it. I congratulate also the 10,000 people who have emphasised their concerns by coming to London and demonstrating on the streets of London. Somewhat unusually in an Opposition day debate, I congratulate the Secretary of State on a constructive and, in some ways, brave contribution, and one which I welcome.
  I was keen to participate in the debate because before I was elected to the House, when as my mother puts it, I had a proper job, I was for the best part of a decade involved in working on aid programmes in developing countries. I have always been concerned about these issues. I reached one conclusion overall as a result of those years of experience that was rather unfashionable at the time. That was that peoples in developing countries—I worked primarily in Africa, but also in Asia—can and will become prosperous in due course, as other countries have before them. by their own efforts and not as the result of aid provided for them by others. Aid has an important humanitarian role in dealing with famine and in supporting health and other infrastructure, but ultimately countries can and will develop through their own efforts.
  I had experience in developing countries and I was unable to identify an industrial project that could not be financed privately and that needed aid finance. Indeed, I undertook a study for the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. It was welcomed by that body, and it was so keen that it wanted to provide support for it. Such is the speed of bureaucracy that by the time it got round to it, every project that I had identified in countries that allowed free enterprise to operate had spontaneously been put into operation by local entrepreneurs, using local savings or employing outside investment.
  316
  These countries can develop themselves, but the speed and ease with which they do so will depend on the opportunities open to them, and above all the opportunities to trade with the already prosperous and developed countries.
  As the Oxfam report suggests, trade is far more important than aid in quantitative terms for the growth of developing countries. That is why the hypocrisy of the developed world, which pretends to be in favour of the development of less developed countries but reserves its most severe protectionist measures for the poorest countries and the poorest people in them, is so tragic. It is shameful to us as members of the European Union that the Oxfam report, in its double-standards index, singles out the EU as the worst hypocrite in that respect. Our tariffs and protectionist measures tend to focus on areas that are most important to the third world, such as agriculture, labour-intensive manufacturing and anti-dumping measures. They are focused on the products that are in the most competitive markets. There are about 145 EU anti-dumping measures against products from developing countries. There are a further 80 from the United States and 22 from Canada.
  I believe that such shameful hypocrisy is sustained by three fallacies. The first is the belief that trade is a zero sum game. It is thought that if someone does well, that is at the expense of someone doing badly. It so happens that a benign providence has ordained that both parties benefit from trade. We need to convince our colleagues, including our French colleagues, who are perhaps less familiar with this concept, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, that it is possible for both us and the developing world to benefit from opening our markets to them.
  The converse is that both sides suffer from protection. Protection is much the same as imposing an embargo on a country. I think that it was Winston Churchill who said that prohibiting access to imports is what we do to our enemies in times of war and to ourselves in times of peace. We must convince our colleagues in the EU that preventing our people having access to the products and services that those in developing countries can competitively provide us with is damaging to us as well as being cruelly damaging to them, and utterly indefensible morally.
  The second fallacy is the patronising belief that less developed countries cannot compete. That leads to a sort of new liberal imperialism, to a view that developed countries should be kept outside the global market, to be sustained by aid and hand-outs unless and until the rules can be changed to bias the system in their favour so that they can compete.
  That is often expressed in calls that contrast free trade with fair or just trade. That is an unwise mistake. For the developing countries, free trade in the sense of free access to our markets is what is fair and just and what they need. We must not offer an excuse to those who wish to delay the dismantling of protection by saying, "We cannot do that until we have fair trade, or just trade. Free trade is a wicked, dangerous liberal Anglo-Saxon invention."
  That approach is also dangerous in that it is used to justify the contrast between free trade and fair or just trade. It is used to justify the restrictions that are often upheld by the third fallacy that I wish to mention, which is almost the opposite of the second. It is the belief that

  317
  far from developing countries being unable to compete, they are able to compete with our industries unfairly because they are willing to accept subsistence or poverty wages, which are said to be an unfair means of competition that will have the effect of driving down pay in Europe to levels elsewhere.
  That argument is often used to justify anti-dumping restrictions on trade from countries where pay is extremely low, where employment conditions are inadequate or where environment standards are low. However, it is ultimately an absurd argument. It condemns people in developing countries who at least have minimal or dreadfully low rates of pay to have no pay, and no access to our markets until somehow, miraculously, they are in a position to receive higher pay.
  Pay reflects productivity. No one can charge more than the value of what he produces because he will price himself out of the market. Pay is low in developing countries because productivity is low. It is not because people are incompetent or inefficient. It is because they have not had time to accumulate the capital, both physical and intellectual, which works alongside the labour of developed countries and enables an individual to produce perhaps 10 times as much in value as those in developing countries.
  As developing countries are allowed access to our markets and build up and acquire capital—especially the intellectual capital of experience—they will increase their productivity and their pay will rise. The idea that they willingly accept low or subsistence wages and are prepared to continue doing so until they have driven us all out of business is nonsense and defies the experience of countries that have satisfactorily entered the world market, built up export markets and built up their own economies.
  We must fight these fallacies if we are to overcome the hypocrisy that unfortunately means that we impoverish the third world at the same time as diminishing our own well-being. We can convince the people of Europe, as of our own country, that it is in our interests as well as being our moral obligation to those in poor countries to open our markets to their goods, and that we shall benefit as they benefit. We can then do ourselves a good turn as well as fulfilling our obligation to the poor and needy of the world.
  6 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I should like to concur with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has just said in an excellent speech. As you have been in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think that you will have had the opportunity to go outside and see the huge number of people taking part in today's demonstration and lobby of Parliament. What is most impressive about the demonstration is that it shows how many people care deeply about world poverty. That is extremely important and very encouraging for us all. The Secretary of State said earlier in a sedentary intervention that the Conservative party had changed. She is quite wrong, as huge numbers of the people outside are Conservatives. Indeed, huge numbers of supporters of the NGOs have always been Conservatives, as I suggest she
  318
  knows full well. I do not know whether the majority are Conservatives, but there is certainly a great number of them. None the less, this is not partisan issue and there is general agreement throughout the House in all the speeches that have been made.
  Clare Short: I was not trying to speak in a sectarian spirit in raising the issue, but the record of the Conservative party in power is different from the welcome position that it has now adopted and to which the hon. Gentleman makes a big contribution. That is a very welcome change, but it is change none the less.
  Mr. Robathan: I shall not get into that argument in a 10-minute speech. I disagree with the Secretary of State on this issue, as on few others relating to development, although I disagree with her profoundly about many other matters. It is a pity that the Government have tabled an amendment to the motion, as it contains nothing that is offensive to them. I will be sorry if it forces us to a Division, because everybody who has spoken has generally agreed.
  The problem about speaking late in a debate, as I always tend to do, is that all the points that one had wanted to make have often been made already. I will not repeat them, but excellent points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about Italian tomatoes in Ghana, by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) about NGOs and how they sometimes wish to stifle changes in culture, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), who referred to the accountability of NGOs, which we should revisit as a House. My fellow member of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), spoke about the oil corruption that he saw in Nigeria, but which I did not see.
  I do not want to reiterate all the points that have been made, as it would bore the House, apart from anything else. I should like to stick with three issues. The first is the common agricultural policy, which was eloquently described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). The policy is changing, and that is all to the good. I should state that I have an interest, as I am a farmer. I probably should not be arguing for greater reform, therefore, but I do so, because I think that the way in which farming and export subsidies are given is absolutely outrageous. It is sometimes very difficult to look the developing world in the eye with regard to this issue, on which I think that the Government and the Opposition are at one. This dumping—some of what is happening is dumping—costs us almost half the European Union budget, at a cost of 41 billion euro, and works against the environment, the consumer, farmers, who are driven out of business, and the developing world.
  The second point, which was again raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, is about US farm subsidies, which are moving in entirely the wrong way, representing some $180 billion or $190 billion dollars over 10 years. In so far as one should support any foreign Government, I support the Government of George Bush, but I regret the decision. My right hon. Friend pointed out that it was a Democrat-led decision as much as anything else, but I think that we would all agree that it was a retrograde step.

  319
  Indeed, we can see the developed world getting richer. In my lifetime, it has become profoundly richer. We have bigger cars, we eat more and we have problems with obesity—problems that did not exist when I was born in 1951. We are all getting richer, and while that is happening, parts of the developing world, especially in Africa, are getting dramatically poorer. That is very disturbing and distressing. My third point is this: what are developing countries doing for themselves?
  I recently visited Sudan, and I visited the Congo last year. The sort of conflict that has taken place there destroys trade and deters inward investment. Besides killing people or making them starve, it exacerbates and causes poverty. From speaking about the Congo, one can move on to Zimbabwe, which has traditionally exported agricultural products, but is now starving. While it is starving, the kleptocracy of the military in Zimbabwe is looting the diamonds of the Congo. We are not responsible for that—those people are.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury mentioned tomatoes in Ghana—a country that is doing well and improving. I visited a tomato field there where four big pumps had previously been used to irrigate an area of about 45 hectares. At the time of my visit, however, only about eight hectares were being irrigated with one smaller pump. The reason was straightforward: nobody had bothered to invest in the pumps. There had been appalling management and a lack of investment—for all I know, there may also have been corruption—but it is no good blaming the developed world for that.
  I am afraid that such problems are due to lack of capacity. The Secretary of State talked about increasing capacity in developing countries and that is what we need to look at. I think that the plant was run by a co-operative, but it could just as easily have been a foreign-run company. We moved on from the unirrigated fields to the tomato processing plant, which had closed down two years before and was a derelict site. Again, that was not the fault of the developed world, but was purely a fact—so it appeared to us and so we were told—of inefficiency, maladministration and poor management.
  Oxfam raised the issue of rice in Ghana with me just before the visit, so while in Ghana I asked what had happened to the rice industry. The Ghanaians replied that the rice produced there was not very edible and that they preferred the imported rice. I do not know about that, but it appears to be the case. Again, we must not always blame the developed world.
  My real point about this issue—the Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear me say this, as we have been smiling at each other about it—concerns corruption. We have heard about Uganda and how poverty there fell by 40 per cent. in the 1990s. Why not Nigeria, the second country that the Committee visited this year, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie? I understand that in 1980, its GDP per capita was approximately US$1,200, but by 2000, it was down to not much more than $300. Yet that country has oil revenue of US$18 billion a year. Where is that money going? Why are two thirds of the population living on less than a dollar a day? I am afraid that it is very obvious where that money is going; it is being picked from the pockets of the poor by the kleptocracy that runs that country. As the hon. Member for Clydebank and
  320
  Milngavie—I hope that he is also a friend—said, it may call itself a democracy, but we need to see a lot more action there.
  Other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall end my speech with these final comments. Yes, we must make trade fair. That is absolutely essential. It must be equitable, but equity and fairness must extend and reach down to the very poorest in the developing world, because it is the poor who suffer most from poor governance. Let us ensure, of course, that our trade is fair, but let us also help the countries of Africa to develop good, open, fair and honest government. That is not easy, but it is absolutely essential.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. James Paice: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), I want to concentrate on food and agriculture issues, but I am in an unfortunate position, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has already dismissed part of my argument as an absurd fallacy. I hope that I can persuade him to retract at least slightly.
  As somebody who has spent most of his working life in or close to the world of agriculture and food production, whenever I visit any foreign country, but especially those in the developing world, I immediately consider that aspect of their world and their rural community. Like other hon. Members who have spoken from all parts of the House. I am often horrified to discover the amount of food that is being imported by a poor country that patently has the natural resources to produce that food itself. There are very few countries that could not meet most, if not all, of their basic requirements if the political and economic situation allowed them to do so. I do not think that many countries have such a natural disadvantage that they could not make a significant contribution.
  Clare Short: The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) mentioned the distortions of international trade and low prices. Commodity prices are still falling and falling, and that feeds into inefficiency. Allowing Africa to process its agricultural production, bring it into our markets and use its cheaper labour would create more efficiency. We are partly responsible for the gross inefficiencies because prices are so terrible.
  Mr. Paice: With respect, I am not quite sure of the point of the Secretary of State's intervention. I do not dissent from her argument, as I said that there are not many countries with natural disadvantages such as climate and soil that would prevent them from becoming largely self-sufficient. However, I shall come on to the many other reasons that may stop them.
  It is misguided to think that there may be simple solutions. All these countries face the dilemma of whether their priority should be to produce food for their own consumption and make sure that their own people have the necessary nutrition, or whether to earn money from exports, which go much wider than agriculture alone. That has been a dilemma for decades. Some of us are old enough to remember the abortive groundnut scheme which created a furore because it was aimed at exports rather than self-sufficiency.
  A few years ago, I visited Zambia with the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). We went to York farm, a large operation, developed by the

  321
  Commonwealth Development Corporation. It has since been sold, but it produced vegetables, primarily green beans, mangetout and so on, for export to supermarkets in this country. Many of its products were for the consumer who wanted to buy temperate vegetables all year round. Although it earned valuable income from exports, there was something almost obscene about the fact that the farm managers had to give all the workers a glass of glucose drink in the morning because they were so malnourished that they could not do a day's work without it. That is a sad indictment of the balance that we have managed to achieve in world trade.
  There is huge potential in Zambia and many adjoining sub-Saharan countries. Several hon. Members referred to Zimbabwe as a prime example of self-inflicted problems. Having once been a major producer of food, the country is now in dire straits. However, protection and protectionism are not the right way to proceed. There are a lot of siren voices and there is a superficial attraction in a protectionist attitude that allows a country's agriculture to develop free from cheap imports. That attraction, however, is short term and stifles initiative and progress. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, it smacks of preventing any development or advancement for people. There is no long-term future in peasant agriculture, and increasing affluence will lead people away from it of their own volition.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), the previous junior Minister in the Department for International Development, said:
  "Africa loses 40 per cent. of the savings that it generates each year. That money flees the continent every year.—[Official Report. Westminster Hall, 10 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 19WH.]
  I submit that that is partly because many people do not have the confidence to leave their money in Africa as a result of the political instability, corruption, maladministration and sheer bad economic management that are at the root of many its problems.
  On agricultural policies, as other hon. Members have said, the CAP is a major part of the problem, but it has changed and is changing. However, that change needs to go much further, as it does in agricultural policies in other parts of the world. I wholly support the need to eliminate export subsidies, which do much damage to indigenous agriculture. There is no dispute among hon. Members about that. There is no justification for any tariff barrier imposed directly on food products and I strongly support eliminating production subsidies. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly said, the Doha agreement refers to reductions in support that distorts trade, rather than reductions in all support. I share the concerns of many people about the hypocrisy of the United States in supporting the Cairns group in WTO talks for moving towards free trade on the one hand and on the other introducing the Farm Bill, which was rightly condemned by many hon. Members this evening.
  However, to pick up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, I have a major concern about fair trade, which should operate in two directions. There should be fair trade to developing countries and for our own businesses, which raises two distinct issues in food and farming.
  322
  The first is the safety of imported food products for human, plant and animal health. If we impose controls on our own producers, it is self-evident that the same controls should apply to any imported food. Those controls are provided, at least in theory, by Codex Alimentarius, the international plant protection convention, the Office of International Epizootics and the sanitary and phyto-sanitary agreement in the Uruguay round, but they should not be used as an excuse to adopt high levels of protection as a barrier against trade. In practice, there are grave doubts as to whether those controls are rigorously enforced.
  The second issue is production systems. Should we expect our own producers to compete with food produced using systems that are not allowed here? I am not referring, as my right hon. Friend did, to matters such as pay levels, on which we cannot pretend to compete, nor to climatic issues or other things that we cannot do anything about in this country. If we impose constraints—I am talking about agriculture, but this applies more widely—on animal welfare, it is not fair to expect our producers to compete with countries that do not have the same level of regulation. I used to advocate preventing those food products from coming in. I was wrong. The way forward—this is part of the reform of the CAP that I want—is translating production support, which is wrong, into direct support to compensate for the controls that we impose on our own producers and do not apply to the overseas producers who are entering our markets.
  It is no comfort to a battery hen to know that she will no longer have to stay in a battery cage in Britain if far more hens are kept in battery cages somewhere in the third world in far worse conditions. That is not in the interests of animal welfare nor of this country or the developing world. Our reforms should he directed at the public good and compensate for the controls that we impose on our own producers. That proposal was submitted to the WTO in 2000 and would have put payments in the green box, and thus outside the issue of production subsidies. I commend that strongly to Her Majesty's Government as part of the liberalising of trade that we support.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. John Lyons: Today has been unique, as people from all over the United Kingdom have come to the Commons to lobby Members. They are from various backgrounds and different age groups but every Member who has met them must have been struck by the number of young people who feel strongly about the issue.
  In the past, we have heard in debates in the House about young people's apathy and lack of involvement. Today, that argument was demolished, as those young people care deeply about this issue and want us to do something about it collectively. We must recognise that they do not want extensive speeches, articles and soundbites but progress and a proper response to their calls for action. In today's heat, the lobby was a breath of fresh air. People spoke with a passion that is sometimes missing in political debate. That was not a one-off just for today, but something for every day for a long time. We must try to ensure that we take on board the points that they are making.
  People have an almost absolute distrust of politicians in this respect. Those in today's lobby do not think that we will be serious about delivering on their objectives,

  323
  but that we will listen to them on the day and, once they have gone, completely forget about their campaign. We need to find a way of saying collectively, across the House, that that is not what we are about. We are all concerned not only to listen to the points that were made to us, but to take them on board and, hopefully, to end up with a political objective with which people will feel confident and comfortable. That is a major challenge to us all, irrespective of political background.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to listen to the Chancellor talk about globalisation, trade and poverty. As a Labour Member, of course I was going to be happy with what he said, but it was interesting that people of no political persuasion were delighted by the progress that is being made. However, they did not think that that was the end of the story—they wanted more progress. They wanted the Government to push even further and more strongly at every international level. The lobby is important and timely, given that the Seville European council and the G8 summit in Canada are coming up. Those conferences will be major platforms for the agenda of the people who lobbied us today. We need to find ways of ensuring that something concrete comes out of those conferences—not just a lot of talk, but developments that will enable people to say that, for a change, politicians have made genuine advances and improvements, or at least that they have an agenda that will build on the objectives of today's lobby.
  I find a common thread as I speak to people from various parts of the country, including my constituency. They call out for a new and different approach to replace the patched-up arrangements of the past—something more radical. They want an approach to food and farming that protects poor farmers. They want a reconsideration of plans to liberalise vital services such as water. That point was made strongly today. For third-world countries, water is an issue that can be dealt with very simply. I say that as an engineer. Desalination plants can be built in almost any European country and used to convert salt water into fresh drinking water for the third world. It is not a major problem, but we do not confront it and deal with it, and people will die as a result.
  We need to make progress on these issues as a House, not only as a Government, because broad support is required. We want to go to the conferences to argue for a position that will take matters forward, but we cannot avoid the fact that we need other countries—in Europe and in other parts of the world, such as Canada and America—to say and do the same thing, giving proper constructive support to our objectives. We do not want to be seen as having a different, broader agenda that will move forward faster—that would be a waste of time, because it will not move forward at all if we do not have a collective approach that takes people with us.
  It would also be a waste of time to have a debate about what went wrong in the past. We need to move on to talk about where we are now. People want us to continue to do what we are doing, but they want more of it—more aid and more practical support. The issue will not go away. The people who lobbied us today are nothing more than a representative group of the millions of people who feel the same. We feel that in our constituencies. I particularly salute the work of the Churches, which have played an outstanding role. Not long ago, a local church asked me to get involved in a sponsored day of famine. I said, "No problem: I can do that for 24 hours."
  324
  The wonderful thing was the number of schoolkids who were prepared to do the same because they felt so strongly about poverty and starvation.
  All across the country—age group and political background do not matter—millions of people want us to do something constructive. We need to do that across party lines by agreeing on the agenda and saying, "This is what we are after." It is not a matter of the UK acting alone, but of the UK leading the world and bringing in other countries to support our cause. If we do that, people will at last feel less distrust. They will be happier with politicians who are on board walking the walk and talking the talk, and will give us the proper recognition that is important to us.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Russell Brown: I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate. Like many hon. Members, I have been attending the lobby and listening to people. I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) said about that. Those people turned up from every corner of the country, and each and every one of them deserves thanks for what they have done. That said, no one from my constituency came. Whether that is because they trust me to act on their behalf or because they think I am a lost cause is up to them to determine.
  Two or three years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) came to my constituency, and we held an excellent meeting with local churches. It was attended not only by church members, but by young people from secondary schools, to whom this issue means a great deal. This afternoon, I spent a considerable time—perhaps more than they would have liked—talking to young students who wanted to do a question and answer session that they could take back to university with them. One of their questions was, "How much of an impact do you think all this will have?" As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said, everyone is saying the same thing, but—let's not kid ourselves—they are sceptical about how politicians respond. The students also wondered how much impact the lobby would have on the news. I had to say to them—and I hope I am wrong—that regrettably they will not get much coverage.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend referred to the young people who lobbied many hon. Members this afternoon. Does he agree that, at a time when we are told that the young are disillusioned with politics, it is extraordinarily cheering that they care so deeply that they come from every part of the kingdom to speak to us? Does he also agree that we must repay that fervour and commitment, otherwise we shall never be worthy of their support or their engagement in politics?
  Mr. Brown: I could not have put that better; I admire my hon. Friend's way with words. He is right that we need to repay that trust. Perhaps young people mistrust politicians rather than politics. However, they will not get news coverage. They tried to compare their actions today with the anti-globalisation demonstrations, but those got coverage because of the violence that occurred—anarchists were loose on the streets in different parts of the world—whereas today there was a structured and positive lobby, which bodes well.

  325
  Poverty and sustainable development must be the highest priority in the changes to world trade rules. We must carefully consider plans to liberalise vital services. On the simple matter—if I dare call it that—of water, the difference that it can make to some of the poorest countries is beyond belief. We must be careful about the way in which we manage that vital commodity.
  The Seville European Council this week and the G8 summit in Canada later this month present every nation with excellent opportunities to move the agenda forward. Our Government have promised to support fair trade rules, although, for some reason, others question our commitment to fair trade.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the 10 years since the Rio conference, the international community has not moved substantially? Does he accept that that is one of the reasons for the dissatisfaction among young people? Does he agree that it is important to take the opportunity at the next conference to do something constructive and positive?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. Our actions must be positive, constructive and tangible. We must take action that people can clearly perceive as making a difference.
  We want free and fair trade. We are committed to making globalisation work for the poorest countries. Hon. Members have said that rich nations' use of agricultural subsidies can harm the livelihoods of farmers in developing countries. Agricultural export subsidies must reduce rapidly, and dumping must end. As hon. Members know, at Doha, WTO members agreed to negotiate a new draft agreement on agriculture by March next year. The Government will work towards ensuring that it contains significant commitments.
  It is not right to insulate developing countries from global trade because that would undoubtedly limit their opportunities of achieving economic growth. Improved market access is a key component of ensuring that the agreement at Doha is a true development round. It is imperative that WTO members demonstrate a genuine commitment to opening markets that are important to developing countries, not least in agriculture. The EU already grants duty-free access to the least-developed countries under the everything but arms initiative.
  I am conscious of time and I simply want to end on the new global laws that may be needed to regulate the activities of international corporations. I believe that the Government support adopting a sensible combination of regulatory and voluntary approaches, which will harness the benefits of corporate social responsibility for all sections of society. We are leading efforts to legislate on this matter. For example, a recent amendment to pensions legislation requires trustees to disclose the extent to which they take ethical, social and environmental issues into account in their investment decisions. The OECD convention on bribery has also been incorporated into UK law.
  However, to avoid stifling innovation, caution must be exercised when imposing binding rules. The Government encourage companies to follow voluntary corporate social
  326
  responsibility strategies, which will allow them to respond flexibly to their circumstances and those of the country in which they invest. Such investment is needed.
  We all need to begin to deliver not only for young people but for everyone who has taken the time and made the effort to come here today. If we begin to deliver more substantially, people will realise that politicians can assist in tackling a major world issue.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: A rare event has taken place today—a debate that has been largely free of acrimony and a debate about ideas. I have been a Member of Parliament for more than 19 years, and I can say that views in both major parties have changed. I have no doubt that the way in which the Labour party has embraced the market constitutes a revolution, which I welcome. In 1983, some Conservative Members would have resented the fact that we were debating overseas aid, development and trade. I concede that changes have occurred on both sides.
  People outside the House will wonder why we are arguing about whether to have a vote. It will seem a little like debating the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. The usual channels display an amour propre on such occasions: it is our half-day debate and we have tabled a motion. We will, of course, support our motion. The Government's actions remain to be seen. Whatever happens, people will recognise that the debate has been remarkable.
  I was impressed by the way in which the Secretary of State abandoned her speech and spoke from the heart. It did not surprise me, but it impressed me and I liked some of the new phrases that she used. For example, she said that we should all globalise our minds and she spoke about the "globaphobes" who attack the consensus. She has provided some new ideas. She is right that we cannot be for or against globalisation; it is a fact of life and we must determine the way in which we manage it.
  I was grateful for the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and his deep knowledge of the subject. He spoke about the painstaking work of reforming the CAP and the Doha process, which will occupy us for at least two years. He also made a strong point when he said that we must support the reformers in the developing countries and that for every monster, there is someone who is trying to reform and bring a country into the international community.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) was right that no one has a monopoly on compassion and to stress the importance of the growing lack of accountability in some nongovernmental organisations. He also emphasised the need to promote accountability and transparency throughout development thinking.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) knows more than most of us about this subject. I was struck by his comments on the need to make it clear that liberalisation benefits developing countries as much as us.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) spoke about the hypocrisy of the developed world and the shameful attitude of our European Union in not accepting our responsibilities.

  327
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) drew on his personal experience in Sudan, a country that I feel strongly is one of the great forgotten conflicts and disasters of Africa. He also drew attention to the plight of the people of Zimbabwe who are starving while their own army loots diamonds elsewhere.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) spoke from great practical experience about the need to examine the issue of food safety, and to take on board the issues of animal welfare and of what is fair for British farmers as well as those in developing countries.
  I was struck by the common sense of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), who spoke of the breath of fresh air that today's debate represents, and of how hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have had to face up to the problem of distrust of politicians. The hon. Gentleman said that today's events must not be a one-day wonder, and that we must respect the wishes of the thousands of people from across the country who expect us to do our duty in the coming years, and to live up to the words that we have spoken.
  We have listened to some serious speeches in the House today, but we have also listened to and witnessed the mass lobby of Parliament that has taken place outside. The thousands of people who have come to London, including those from my own constituency and diocese of Salisbury, represent countless other citizens of all ages who mind very deeply about the state of the world and the plight of so many of its people.
  I share their anger that 800 million people do not have enough food to meet their basic nutritional needs. In a shrinking world of high technology and expanding opportunities, it is just not credible to ordinary people in the rich countries of the developed world that we cannot break the cycle of poverty, sickness and death from starvation that we witness every day. Most of us agree that we have a moral duty to seek ways of managing these humanitarian crises better. We may sometimes disagree on how to do that, although there has been precious little disagreement in this debate.
  Those who control the levers of economic and foreign policy—the Governments of the world and the international institutions—are staffed by professional advisers with laudable motives. But to the hungry world, it looks as if there are too many international arrangements, too many bodies with overlapping mandates, and too many duplicated responsibilities—not only in respect of food security but in the whole international apparatus for supporting human needs and development.
  That issue is underlined by the partners in the Trade Justice Movement. That remarkable coalition of organisations has organised today's lobby, and we must listen to it. All the organisations have grass-roots, everyday, personal experience of the poverty, sickness and death that are a reality for hundreds of millions of people. Those people are not prosperous, not educated, not secure and not safe. They are certainly not rich enough, nor relaxed enough, to watch the World cup on television and go to the pub to celebrate.
  We have listened to the messages of each of those 43 organisations—I think it is 43; the number has been going up in the last week or two—that make up the Trade Justice Movement. Last weekend, I visited every one of
  328
  their websites. It was a moving and enriching experience. Websites not only allow us to get the message direct, without the need for any press or media; they also reduce the spin. What we get is direct and unvarnished. The internet is a valuable and powerful tool, and we should harness that power, because power is what it is all about. The Trade Justice Movement is about empowering the worst-off in the world. The best-off must realise that it is in everyone's interest to move more quickly than we have done, to alleviate poverty and to combat hunger and starvation among the poorest and most vulnerable people on earth.
  Way back in 1996, under the Conservative Government, we agreed at the world food summit that it was intolerable that 800 million people did not have enough food to meet their basic needs. The world community concluded then that this was caused by poverty, conflict, and a lack of water, drains, roads and health care. We agreed to work to halve that number by 2015. It seems now that there is precious little prospect of achieving that goal. What has gone wrong?
  International trade has been the great driver of prosperity for 50 years, rising at double the rate of growth of the world economy. International investment is the force pushing forward global investment. Freer trade and foreign investment have enabled parts of south-east Asia to move from developing to developed status in a generation. Poor countries are generally more dependent on trade than rich countries; they receive eight times more each year from trade than they receive in aid. The UN conference on trade and development estimates that, by 2005, developing countries could earn $700 billion more each year from exports if tariff barriers were reduced.
  There is no simple way of promoting global economic development. We need to understand why investment flows to some developing countries and not to others. We must identify comparative advantage, create conditions for sustaining investment flows, and condemn corruption, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said. We must also build markets and support democratic political frameworks that lead to stability and prosperity.
  We agree with the Trade Justice Movement that current international trade rules hold back development in poor countries. Those countries cannot compete in the global market while the European Union and the United States subsidise our exports and impose tariffs on our imports. The market is distorted and reform is imperative.
  We hope, however, that the partners in the Trade Justice Movement will also listen to some of the gentle messages that we are offering them about accountability and openness. I believe that they are wrong to condemn the general agreement on trade in services. In many countries, water and sewerage infrastructure is sadly a low national spending priority. If private companies can provide or manage a service, where public infrastructure has collapsed or none exists, and if they are willing to invest—perhaps sharing the risk with the Export Credits Guarantee Department, which is currently having yet another review—then it is better that the GATS rules exist.
  I believe that the Trade Justice Movement should also be cautious in condemning the activities of international companies. It is demanding
  "new global rules to regulate and re-direct the activities of international business".

  329
  However, it has no idea who would write the rules or who would police them. The fact is that the multinational companies are already regulated by the national laws of every country in which they operate, and are subject to internationally agreed codes of practice. The evidence is that multinationals operate to a higher standard than most national businesses. They cannot afford to take chances or cut corners. Too much is at stake in their home country, from the Government and from their shareholders alike.
  We have had the world food summit of 1996, the Uruguay round, the Monterrey consensus and the Doha development agenda. Earlier, we even had the Torquay round. In Bali, we had the fourth preparatory committee for the world summit on sustainable development, which will take place in Johannesburg from 26 August to 4 September. Next weekend sees the EU Heads of Government summit in Spain. On 26 June, the G8 Summit will take place in Canada, where the member states will discuss the New Partnership for Africa's Development—NEPAD—focusing on conflict, trade, education, health, development assistance and debt, where G8 policies affect Africa.
  In this dizzy round of jet set wheeling and dealing, we ask the Government, on behalf of the most vulnerable in the world, and on behalf of all those the length and breadth of the UK who support the motives of the Trade Justice Movement, for action as well as words. We must remember daily so many people in Africa, especially in Zimbabwe and in Sudan, where my brave friend Archbishop Joseph Morona recently risked crossing the military front line in the Nuba mountains in the search for peace and food for his desperate people.
  We look forward to the response to this debate by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development. We know that she spent some years as a journalist in South Africa in the 1970s. She will have seen for herself real poverty and desperation in the eyes of children, just as I have in Mozambique, west Africa, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
  For goodness sake, the Department of Trade and Industry has eight Ministers. One of them should have been present at this debate, although I concede that they might not know as much about the subject as the Under-Secretary. On Sunday morning last, I listened to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry being interviewed. She was robust on the need for the EU to phase out export subsidies and to remove import tariffs from the poorest countries. She was firm in her call for African countries to dismantle the trade barriers that they erect between themselves. However, she was hesitant about the time scale, and admitted that the Doha talks would go on for two years. That is too long for millions of the 800 million starving people in the world, for many of whom two more years is a death sentence. Two years and counting: in June 2004, we will expect this Government to give us answers, not epitaphs.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): It is a privilege to reply to this debate, which has focused on a major issue of our time that is absolutely crucial to world justice and stability—a fact that is surely reflected in the
  330
  massive support for world trade reform from the voluntary sector and Church-based groups throughout the country. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the outset, such support from a mass movement—including large numbers of young people, as many hon. Friends have said—working with Government constitutes a real watershed.
  One in five of the world's population—some 1.2 billion people—live in abject poverty, and we recognise that current levels of sheer deprivation and inequality constitute one of the biggest challenges that we face. The Government have put the eradication of world poverty high on their list of priorities, and we recognise the key role that trade has to play in combating it. Indeed, we have not only recognised, but taken action on, several of the issues that hon. Members have raised, and I shall explain what we have done in due course. However, it will be virtually impossible to deal with all the points that were raised, and I shall of course write to those hon. Members whom I miss out.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the history of the thinking on trade and development. Our second White Paper on development makes two key policy commitments: to work with others to reduce poverty systematically, and to promote economic growth that is equitable and environmentally sustainable. This Government have steadily increased our overseas aid budget from the very low levels inherited from the previous Conservative Government, and we are committed to continue increasing it. This Government did not just talk about debt relief—we led the world on it.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Keeble: No, I have only a few minutes. In addition to debt relief, we have also provided opportunities for trade development for the poorest countries. This Government are also leading the world in seeking to change the rules, so that markets to developing countries will be opened up. In trade as in other areas, the paths of the poorest countries and the rest of the world have diverged in economic terms. For those countries that have seized the opportunity presented by increasingly open world markets to increase exports and attract inward investment, there has been real progress in reducing poverty. However, the poorest have become more marginalised, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) rightly pointed out. That is why reducing tariffs, reducing trade barriers between developing and developed countries, and reducing barriers between developing countries themselves, is so important.
  A fairer, rules-based system will ensure that developing countries have access to our markets, and that they are not consistently trapped at the low-value, impoverished end of a supply chain that culminates in some of the wealthiest consumer markets in the developed world. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and several other hon. Members raised that issue in relation to commodities, and it is one reason why the change in tariffs is so important. More processing must be introduced in developing countries. so that their produce can be moved higher up the value chain.
  This Government have led Europe in pushing for the CAP reform to which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) referred. It was an argument that we had

  331
  to win, and we did so with some difficulty. I accept that progress might seem glacial, but it must be made through consensus, and the everything but arms agreement and Doha do indeed constitute progress. As the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, it is a question not simply of caring, but of taking action. We must care enough to work through the systems, change the rules and produce the improvements that developing countries and the world's poor so greatly need. This Government have consistently done just that by working with Europe, and with world opinion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for City of York highlighted the need to embed trade in development policy, and, like several other hon. Members, he underlined some of the issues relating to governance. We need to ensure that financial, justice and land tenure systems are in place to provide the framework for trade, and to help developing countries attract investment. Such systems will ensure that the benefits of trade are recycled into building up the economies of developing countries, and do not simply disappear into foreign bank accounts, or into the back pockets of the elite. That is why my Department does so much work with developing countries on issues of governance, including justice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) was right to pay tribute to the real change in the climate of public opinion here and abroad, and to the role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in achieving that change. She was also right to say that wisdom does not rest entirely on one side of the argument; sometimes, we need to listen a little more to developing countries, and lecture a little less.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) mentioned retaining profits for investment in developing countries, and generating new funds for investment. My Department is working on those issues. For example, the emerging Africa enterprise fund has produced investment funds for major infrastructure projects. Several hon. Members rightly highlighted the change in UK legislation to ensure that companies that bribe people can be prosecuted, even when such offences are committed abroad—a point that deals with some of the issues of governance raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) mentioned trade reform. The Government welcomed the lobby on trade reform, and we worked with the non-governmental organisations and countries involved. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire highlighted some of the problems associated with agriculture, and I have already dealt with commodities and the process involved, and with land ownership systems. Of course, we recognise that 70 per cent. of the world's poor live in rural areas, and that agricultural issues are therefore central to dealing with world poverty and other millennium development goals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) said that we must ensure that we do not just talk and then forget, and I can assure him that this Government certainly will not forget about the world's poor. We are working with the NGOs that are leading this
  332
  campaign, and we will continue to do so. We are working with the American Government, European Governments and—importantly—developing countries to secure the necessary changes. Developing countries need not just handouts today to feed the poor, but a hand up to ensure sustainable development that will produce lasting changes.
  The linkages between trade, development and poverty reduction are important to us all, but they are absolutely crucial to the poorest countries—a point recognised by the trade lobby and by the Government. There are three key factors to achieving our goals.
  The first factor is a clear commitment across Government to the eradication of world poverty. The whole Government have signed up to that.
  The second factor is a clear commitment across the international community to make sure that developing countries are able to participate in world trade. As so many have recognised, we have a long way to go with that, but this country is leading the world. The third factor is massive public support.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you explain how it is possible under our rules for a vote to be taken against a motion of which virtually everyone who spoke in the debate approved?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. I would say only that the longer one stays here, the more it appears that anything is possible.
  The House having divided: Ayes 180, Noes 319.

  Division No. 276]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Cameron, David

  Amess, David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  (NE Fife)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Bacon, Richard

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Baker, Norman

  Chidgey, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Chope, Christopher

  Barker, Gregory

  Clappison, James

  Baron, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Barrett, John

  Collins, Tim

  Beggs, Roy

  Conway, Derek

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bercow, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brady, Graham

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brake, Tom

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Breed, Colin

  Doughty, Sue

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Burnett, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Butterfill, John

  Flook, Adrian

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  333

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ottaway, Richard

  Francois, Mark

  Paice, James

  Gale, Roger

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Prisk, Mark

  Gidley, Sandra

  Pugh, Dr John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Randall, John

  Gray, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Grayling, Chris

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Rendel, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Ruffley, David

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Harvey, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hayes, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Heald, Oliver

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heath, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hermon, Lady

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hoban, Mark

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Horam, John

  Spink, Bob

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Swire, Hugo

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Syms, Robert

  Keetch, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lamb, Norman

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Laws, David

  Trend, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Webb, Steve

  Loughton, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Luff, Peter

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Willetts, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Willis, Phil

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Goldfield)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Moore, Michael

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Norman, Archie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Oaten, Mark

  Mr. Laurence Robertson

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  and

  Öpik, Lembit

  Mr. David Wilshire.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Austin, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Ainger, Nick

  Baird, Vera

  Alexander, Douglas

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Bayley, Hugh

  (Swansea E)

  Beard, Nigel

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Benn, Hilary

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bennett, Andrew

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benton, Joe

  334

  Best, Harold

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Betts, Clive

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blackman, Liz

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Follett, Barbara

  Brennan Kevin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foulkes, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Bryant, Chris

  Gapes, Mike

  Burgon, Colin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burnham, Andy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cairns, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Goggins, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Challen, Colin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clelland, David

  Havard, Dai

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heyes, David

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hill, Keith

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hodge, Margaret

  Corston, Jean

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cox Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  (Copeland)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Doran, Frank

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Dowd Jim

  Joyce, Eric

  Drew, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kidney, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Efford, Clive

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Laxton, Bob

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  335

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Robertson, John

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Linton, Martin

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rooney, Terry

  Love, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie

  Lucas, Ian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Luke, Iain

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lyons, John

  Salmond, Alex

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salter, Martin

  McCabe, Stephen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCafferty, Chris

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sheridan, Jim

  McDonnell, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  MacDougall, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McFall, John

  Simon, Siôn

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McKechin, Ann

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Mallaber, Judy

  Southworth, Helen

  Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Squire, Rachel

  Mann, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marshall–Andrews, Robert

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stringer, Graham

  Merron, Gillian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Tami, Mark

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mole, Chris

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Morgan, Julie

  Timms, Stephen

  Morley, Elliot

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mountford, Kali

  Todd, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Tynan, Bill

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Olner, Bill

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Organ, Diana

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Owen, Albert

  Watts, David

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Weir, Michael

  Pearson, Ian

  White, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pike, Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Plaskitt, James

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Pond, Chris

  (Swansea W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wills, Michael

  Price, Adam

  Winnick, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wishart, Pete

  Purchase, Ken

  Wood, Mike

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rammell, Bill

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  336

  Woolas, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Joan Ryan and

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Mr. John Heppell.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the lobby of Parliament by the Trade Justice Movement and increased recognition of trade as a key component to reducing global poverty; welcomes also efforts made to draw public attention to these important issues; recognises trade has an important role to play in helping countries achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); is aware that to achieve this a multilateral trading system is needed giving developing countries a fair deal; recognises that the Government is committed to working with developing country partners, and other bilateral donors and multilateral organisations to achieve this; believes that the development challenges faced in Africa require the international community, working together with African countries, to make additional efforts to secure progress towards the MDGs; welcomes the Government's commitment to turning the agreement reached at Doha in November last year into a meaningful 'Development Round' and to achieving real progress on market access and in areas of importance to developing countries; will continue to support efforts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and reduce trade-distorting subsidies; will support preferential access to developing countries through the Generalised System of Preferences aid to least developed countries through the Everything But Arms initiative; recognises developing countries themselves must undertake effective policy measures to integrate into the global trading system; supports these efforts and engagement in a broad range of activities to help countries participate more effectively in the multilateral trading system; and further welcomes the Government's commitment to doubling support for trade-related capacity building from £15 million in 1998–2001 to £30 million in 2001£04.

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

    BROAD ECONOMIC GUIDELINES
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No 8389/02, Commission Recommendation for the 2002 Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community; and supports the Government's welcome for the publication of the Commission's Recommendation for the Guidelines, as giving operational content to the conclusions of the Lisbon and Stockholm summits, reflecting the importance of structural reform in tackling successfully the challenges of globalisation and competitiveness, and promoting employment and social inclusion; also takes note of European Union Documents Nos SN 1107/02, 1108/02, 1109/02, 1111/02, 1112/02, 1113/02, 1319/1/02 REV1, 1320/1/02 REV1, 1321/02, 1322/02, 1323/02, 1324/1/02 REV1, 1325/1/02 REV1, 1361/02, 1382/1/02 REV1, 1383/1/02 REV1 and 2002/C 51/06, Council Opinions and

    337
    Statements on the 2001 Stability and Convergence Programmes; and welcomes these Opinions and Statements as promoting the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.—(Fraser Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.

  House of Lords Reform (Joint Committee)
  7.14 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
  That the Lords Message [10th June] relating to House of Lords Reform be now considered.
  That this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution.
  That a Select Committee of twelve Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform

  (1) to consider issues relating to House of Lords reform, including the composition and powers of 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 pre-eminence of the House of Commons, such consideration to include the implications of a House composed of more than one 'category' of member and the experience and expertise which the House of Lords in its present form brings to its function as the revising Chamber; and

  (2) having regard to paragraph (1) above, to report on options for the composition and powers of the House of Lords and to define and present to both Houses options for composition, including a fully nominated and fully elected House, and intermediate options; and to consider and report on—

  (a) any changes to the relationship between the two Houses which may be necessary to ensure the proper functioning of Parliament as a whole in the context of a reformed Second Chamber, and in particular, any new procedures for resolving conflict between the two Houses; and

  (b) the most appropriate and effective legal and constitutional means to give effect to any new Parliamentary settlement;

  and in all the foregoing considerations, to have regard to—

  (i) the Report of the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform (Cm.4534):

  (ii) the White Paper The House of Lords—Completing the Reform (Cm.5291), and the responses received thereto;

  (iii) debates and votes in both Houses of Parliament on House of Lords reform; and

  (iv) the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Report The Second Chamber: Continuing the Reform, including its consultation of the House of Commons, and any other relevant select committee reports.

  That the Committee shall have power—

  (i) to send for persons, papers and records:

  (ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

  (iii) to report from time to time;

  (iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

  (v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

  That Janet Anderson, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Chris Bryant, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Dr. Jack Cunningham. Mr. William Hague, Mr. Stephen McCabe, Joyce Quin. Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Paul Stinchcombe and Mr. Paul Tyler be members of the Committee.
  This motion fulfils the commitment that I gave the House before the recess that we would establish a Joint Committee to take forward the next step in reform of the House of Lords and that we would put its proposals to a free vote in both Houses of Parliament. That commitment was broadly welcomed in this Chamber and in the wider media beyond Westminster, where a broad welcome these days is unusual. It puts Parliament itself in the driving seat on how we approach reform of Parliament's second Chamber.

  339
  Tonight's debate is on the narrow point of how we set up the Joint Committee. I am painfully aware that progress on reform of the House of Lords can be measured in centuries, but even in the context of House of Lords reform, three hours should be sufficient time in which to set up a Committee. I have no doubt that some Members will wish to use the debate to rehearse some of the wider questions on the future composition of the House of Lords, and I make no objection to that. Practice makes perfect, and the future debate, on a free vote, will be all the better the more that Members try out their arguments on us tonight. I simply remind Members that the debate to decide what we do with the House of Lords will be taken after we receive the report of the Joint Committee and not before we even appoint it.
  The House is fortunate that Members of great standing on both sides of the House have been willing to serve on the Joint Committee and to prepare its report.
  Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I will happily give way to any distinguished Member.
  Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. The Joint Committee of 24 people will consist of 12 members of the Government, seven Members from the Conservative party, three Liberal Democrat Members and two Cross Benchers of the House of Lords. The Cross Benchers represent no particular constituency and have no democratic mandate; the minority parties represent some 1.5 million people, yet we have no place on the Committee considering this vital constitutional reform. How can that be fair?
  Mr. Cook: May I gently correct the hon. Gentleman on one point? There are no members of the Government on the Committee, although it is perfectly true that there are 12 members of the Labour party. On the arithmetic, of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He and his party have been through this matter with me on a number of occasions and, as he knows, I do not have a closed mind. However, it remains the fact that 95 per cent. of the membership of this House belong to parties that are represented among the 12 members whom we are appointing from the House of Commons. As the minority parties represent, in total, 5 per cent. of the membership of the House of Commons, a pro rata division would entitle them to membership of a Committee of 20, not of 12. Traditionally, the minority parties were always dealt with using the same arithmetic and on the same basis as the Liberal Democrat party. The Liberal Democrats have one place on the Committee; it is up to the minority parties, if they so wish, to try to press the Liberal Democrats to give them that place.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: For someone who is making a reputation for himself as a defender of the interests of all parts of the House of Commons, does the Leader of the House not appreciate that, given that arithmetical logic, there will be no minority party representative on any Joint Committee that is set up in this Parliament? If 5 per cent. of the House of Commons with a democratic mandate are represented by the minority parties, should not there be at least one member
  340
  on a Committee of 24 to consider a matter of such vital interest? Can the right hon. Gentleman not find it within himself to agree and do something about it?
  Mr. Cook: I am not responsible for the 24 members of the Committee. I am responsible, and my motion is responsible, for the 12 members from the House of Commons, and 5 per cent. of 12 does not really add up to a place. However, I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point. Indeed, it is precisely so that we can get the broadest possible coverage across the House that the Committee is so large, with 24 members. Over the totality of a Parliament, I think that it would be entirely reasonable for minority parties to look for representation on a Joint Committee, but they cannot, on the basis of the arithmetic, demand a place on any one Joint Committee when that Committee has only 12 members.
  I should like to make progress. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is right that it is my role to defend all interests in the House, and I have defended the place of 95 per cent. of the membership of the House of Commons who are represented on the Committee. From the Opposition Benches, we have the nomination of a former Conservative Leader and a former candidate for Conservative Leader. I am gratified that the Liberal Democrats regard the Joint Committee as so important that they have proposed my shadow to the Committee. On the Labour side, our nominations are headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has the double distinction of having been a Cabinet Minister in this Government and of being one of only half a dozen serving Members who served as Ministers in the Callaghan Government.
  The Labour members also include a number of those who have followed our debates on the House of Lords closely over the past year, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who has come close to being the shop steward for those who favour reform. I am pleased that the list includes my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who was my number two on foreign affairs for a number of years in opposition and in government. The House can have full confidence that that distinguished membership will discharge the duty that we are placing on it with care and commitment.
  Before I turn to the task that we are asking of Committee members, I will deal with the issues raised in the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), which would impose a timetable on the proceedings of the Joint Committee. At the time of my statement to the House last month, I said in response to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that it would be wrong for us to predetermine a specified date by which the Committee had to respond. It is for the eminent members of that Committee to determine the speed at which they can make progress on the remit. For that reason, the motion does not impose an external limit on their proceedings.
  Moreover, even if it were thought acceptable in principle to impose a deadline, the timetable set out in the amendment would be tough—it would require a report by 17 July, which might not be realistic given that the Joint Committee will not even meet until July. Having said that, the Government would welcome the Committee tackling its task with expedition. Members of the Public Administration Committee, nearly all of whom have

  341
  signed the amendment, provided a sterling example of such expedition. They commenced their study of the Government's proposals in mid-November and published a report in mid-February. They demonstrated that it is not necessary for a Committee, to borrow the phrase of Harold Wilson, to take minutes and to last years, even on this topic.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I almost entirely follow the reasoning of the Leader of the House, but will he say whether there is any length of time that might expire during the deliberations of the Committee that he might eventually regard as unacceptable? Would he be prepared to keep an eye on its deliberations and perhaps come back to the House at some point if he feels that it is dragging on for too long?
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will keep both eyes firmly on the Committee's proceedings. I have no doubt that if hon. Members felt that the process was continuing for an unreasonable period of time, they would bring the matter before the House even if I did not.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Cook: I seem to be inundated with demands to intervene. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase.
  Tony Wright: The Public Administration Committee decided to take evidence only in December and it reported in February, so it was even quicker than my right hon. Friend suggested.
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the statements that he made to the House on 13 May, when he said that
  "the best thing that we can all do in the next two months is to ensure that we find a way forward that establishes a centre of gravity that can be supported in both Chambers."
  Later in the debate, he said
  "A vote before the summer recess is certainly possible if the Joint Committee gets down to work quickly, and presents us with the options in good time."—[Official Report, 13 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 525–28.]
  Surely the amendment tabled in my name and that of other members of the Public Administration Committee is merely trying to give effect to his own words.
  Mr. Cook: I very much apologise if I understated the expedition with which my hon. Friend's Committee tackled its task. I am glad that we got on the record the speed with which it is possible to reach a consensus.
  On whether a report could be produced by the end of the summer, I do not resile from anything that I said at that time. It certainly remains possible. However, my hon. Friend's deadline would make it mandatory, which is a different kettle of fish altogether. I am aware that a number of the hon. Members who will serve on the Joint Committee are present in the Chamber and I welcome the fact that they will understand from our proceedings the urgency with which hon. Members wish them to approach
  342
  the task. Indeed, it is for that reason that the motion gives the Committee the remit to sit during the recess, should it choose to do so.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Leader of the House accept that if the Joint Committee is to have any chance of carrying the House with it, which is necessary if we are to move forward, it is important that it is not operating under too many time constraints? Does he also accept that just as the Public Administration Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), thought it proper to take evidence, we hope that the Joint Committee will feel that it has the time to take evidence and to consider it.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman expresses the view that I have put to the Chamber—that it would not be right for us to impose an external deadline. However, we are entitled to invite members of the Joint Committee to have regard to the House's view that we should proceed with all expedition. The Committee will, of course, have the power to take evidence—that is provided for in the motion. Whether it does so and how much it wishes to call is a matter for the Committee.
  Mr. David Clelland: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the expedition with which the Public Administration Committee delivered its verdict may not necessarily be a virtue, given that some of us think that it came to the wrong conclusion?
  Mr. Cook: The report was never put to the House and my hon. Friend is right to point out that it would not necessarily have commanded the unanimity in the House that it commanded in the Committee. Having said that, I remind him that the first task of the Select Committee is not to recommend a preferred option but to put before the House the options on which the House can vote. Certainly, in the first stage, that will be a simpler task than that undertaken by the Select Committee.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend anticipated the point that I was about to make, but I will say it again. Had I been appointed to the Joint Committee—[Interruption. I would have been prepared to sit throughout August and September. Does he expect this important Committee, full of distinguished Members of Parliament, to sit during the summer so that we can have the options as soon as we come back?
  Mr. Cook: We did not require a signed undertaking from those named in the motion that they would sit during August, but we have provided them with the option that they can meet during the recess. I anticipate that they will want to have a break and a holiday. Indeed, I am sure that their deliberations will gain from any holiday or time for reflection that they have. However, it is open to them to meet during the recess; they do not need to wait until the House returns.
  Kevin Brennan: My right hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way. Given his remarks, will he say whether he still stands by his statement on 13 May, in which he made two comments? The first was that he agreed that he could have had the options ready by about 7 pm that evening if he had been

  343
  charged with the task and locked in a room; and the second was that there was nothing new to say about the composition options for the House of Lords.
  Mr. Cook: I was not inviting the House to lock me in a room and throw away the key. Any one of us could probably write down what those options might be. I am not sure whether it is possible for 24 people to reach agreement with the same speed as I could achieve in an empty room. It is worth putting one matter on the record, however. The Joint Committee will, of course, have the immense advantage, in making good speed, that it is not starting with a blank sheet of paper. On the contrary, as the motion spells out, it is starting out with a small library of previous publications: the report of the Wakeham commission, the recent White Paper and the report of the Public Administration Committee.
  Brian White: The Leader of the House has just answered my question, which was whether he would ensure that the Committee did not reinvent the wheels of the evidence of that commission and the Public Administration Committee.
  Mr. Cook: I apologise if have already taken the lines of hon. Members, but I am glad that there is so much agreement among us. Honourable Members who have been appointed to the Committee will be aware of the need for a business-like approach. It is worth putting on the record that we will be able to legislate in the next Session only if we receive a final report by the turn of the year. The longer into spring that the Joint Committee deliberates, the more difficult it will be for us to produce a Bill in the next Session. I am sure that that will help concentrate the minds of the Joint Committee on the need to approach the task with care and deliberation, but also with expedition.
  I referred to previous reports on the question. It is worth reminding ourselves that there is a lot of common ground in all those reports.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Leader of the House said that if the Joint Committee does not reach agreement by the end of the year, we will not get legislation in the next Session. Is not that a huge sting in the tail and an opportunity for delay and prevarication by those on the Committee who would prefer not to have any legislation? Does not that argue strongly in favour of establishing a timetable?
  Mr. Cook: I said that the longer it takes to produce a report, the more difficult it will be to introduce a Bill. That is self-evident. We can all work that out for ourselves, so it will not come as a blindingly new piece of information to anyone who has contemplated the matter. I am not in favour of an external limit. We propose to trust the 24 members of the Committee, from this House and the other place, to apply themselves with expedition and commitment. As I said earlier, members of the Committee are very distinguished, and I have full confidence that they will wish to apply themselves diligently and, having heard these exchanges, with expedition.
  The three reports that I cited contain much common ground. They have established a broad consensus on most aspects of the future of the second Chamber, with which
  344
  the great majority of Members of this Chamber would agree. First, there is broad agreement on the role of the second Chamber. It should be a deliberative assembly with the role of revising legislation and supporting the Commons in the scrutiny of the Executive. Secondly, it is common ground that the Commons should continue to be the pre-eminent Chamber. The test of legitimacy of the Government for Britain shall continue to be whether they can command a majority in the Commons. Thirdly, all three documents are agreed on the powers of the new second Chamber. It should have the power to delay legislation and to prompt second thoughts, but it should not have the power to frustrate the will of the majority in the Commons, nor to oppose the mandate of the elected Government.
  It is right that the Joint Committee should be invited by the motion to consider the powers of the second Chamber, but it would be surprising and contentious if it came up with an answer different from all its predecessors. Its first task will be to define the options for the composition of the new second Chamber, particularly the balance between elected and appointed Members. It will be difficult to make progress on other questions of reform of the second Chamber until the issue of composition is resolved. It is for that reason that the remit will not require the Joint Committee to present one comprehensive report, but to report from time to time. That will enable the Joint Committee to present an interim report on the options for composition in advance of its considered report on other aspects of reform. It would assist with the debate on reform if the Joint Committee could establish a consensus on composition, but it will not be required to do so by the terms of the remit. It is required to recommend the options on which both Houses can decide on a free vote. It is set out in the remit that these options should include a fully nominated House, a fully elected House and at least one intermediate option.
  Thereafter, there are a number of further issues on which there is no established consensus and on which the advice of the Joint Committee would be of value in the light of the decisions of both Houses on composition. For example, what will be the precise electoral system used for any elected element? How do we ensure that it is clear that those elected have no specific constituency role that would compete with the representative function of this Chamber? Should any such elections take place on the same day as the general election or any other established polling day?
  Most of those who expressed a view in the consultation period on the size of the new second Chamber were concerned that it would be too large. We would welcome the views of the Joint Committee on what might be the optimum size of a reformed second Chamber. We would be grateful if it could also explore the transitional arrangements that would take us to a reformed, smaller membership of the second Chamber.
  There have also been some new developments since the White Paper. For example, the recent White Paper on regional government has proposed elected assemblies in those regions of England that want them. It is open to the Joint Committee to revisit the regional dimension to a reformed second Chamber in the light of that development.
  Reform of the House of Lords has been long in gestation. It is more than 90 years since the preamble to the Parliament Act called for the House of Lords to be

  345
  placed on a more popular, representative basis. Those years include 18 years in which the Conservative party was in power and never once proposed a single elected peer. They also include a further four years when the Conservative party resisted every suggestion we made to break the block vote of the hereditary peers. However, I come to this debate as a member of a generous and fair-minded party. We are willing to overlook that dismal record of recalcitrance, and make common cause with the Conservatives in a Joint Committee to find the way forward. We invite them now to join us in the search for a broad parliamentary consensus for reform. I put this motion before the House, not as the basis for any delay, but in order that we can make the fastest possible progress to the broadest possible consensus. It is in that spirit that I hope that the Members nominated in the motion will accept their mandate and it is also in that spirit that I commend it to the House.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I happily pick up the challenge that the Leader of the House has laid down. The official Opposition welcome the motion, not least because it is something that we have urged on the Government for some time. Although I understand the courteous but firm reprimand that the Leader of the House has just offered us, I could reciprocate and say that I welcome the Government's late conversion to the idea of a Joint Committee as the way forward. It is sad that it has taken the Government so long to realise that, but I welcome their late conversion to something for which we have long argued.
  I also welcome the terms of reference, which are appropriate. They are appropriately broad, and at the same time they are appropriately focused. That is the right approach. I would differ from them only in one small but important regard—and this is a personal point, rather than on behalf of my party. I make my point as a self-confessed anorak and lifelong devotee of the House of Commons. I have devoted the past 19 years of my life to the House of Commons and, indeed, many of those present may feel that I have spent too much time here. The Leader of the House mentioned the pre-eminence of the House of Commons and said that most Members of this House accept that almost without argument. However, I regret to say that I believe that even that principle should now be considered. To the extent that the role of the Commons has been diminished—and I believe that it has been—and its primary role is now the provision of, and support for, the Government of the day, there is at least an argument for an enhanced role for a reformed upper House, with stronger powers to offset the diminution of the role of this House in the scrutiny of the Government. I put the point no more strongly than that, but I wished to add that footnote to the debate and leave it to the members of the Joint Committee whether they want to pursue that issue.
  In that respect and in others, it will be interesting to see whether the joint membership of the Committee will bring a different perspective to its considerations than the single-dimensional focus of Members of this House, who readily accept the idea that the House of Commons should be pre-eminent in all legislative matters.
  It is with some slight regret that I say that I cannot recommend to my colleagues that they should support the amendment tabled in the name of the Chairman and
  346
  members of the Public Administration Committee. As the Leader of the House said, we should at this stage be prepared to allow the Joint Committee to perform its task in the way it sees fit. An arbitrary time limit on its deliberations would therefore not be appropriate at this stage. However, we should also make it clear that the House will feel free to return to the issue if the Committee appears to be delaying unnecessarily or unduly in its deliberations. We are giving the Committee an important remit and responsibility and it is right to respect its freedom of action at this stage. As the Leader of the House has said, however, and as I would wish to endorse, it is not unreasonable, given the amount of work that has already been done, not least by Committees of the House, and the amount of deliberation in both Houses, to expect their work to proceed with proper expedition.
  On membership, I hope that the House will accept that the Members of the House and of another place that the official Opposition have put forward reflect the seriousness with which we take this Committee's work and deliberations. The Leader of the House has been kind enough to pay respect to those Opposition Members and I would like to reciprocate, as the Labour Members and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) are of sufficient seniority and seriousness—with a leavening of freshness, if I may say so, with regard to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant)—that we can expect proper weight to be given to the Committee's work.
  I was intrigued that the press contained speculation about who might be the Chairman of the Committee. Does the Leader of the House know something that the rest of us do not? I presume that the Committee is free to establish its own chairmanship. I have noticed that the name of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has been mentioned in this regard. I would imagine that his qualifications for being Chairman are many. I looked up his entry in "Who's Who", and, first, I saw that he has a PhD in chemistry, which, in a peculiar way, might suit him well to guiding the Committee in its deliberations. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman was shadow Leader of the House in a previous existence, which surely must give him the qualifications to add to the lustre of the Committee and its proceedings.
  Most intriguingly, however, the last recreation that the right hon. Member for Copeland lists in "Who's Who", after fell walking, fly fishing, gardening, classical and folk music and reading—which must keep him very busy, although not too busy, I hope, to spend a lot of time on the work of the Committee—is listening to other people's opinions. I shall leave the House and, more appropriately, the Committee to decide whether that is a qualification for chairmanship. It will, at least, give members of the Committee something to work on if the right hon. Gentleman should emerge as their choice for Chairman. I am sure, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to concede that there are other Members on the Committee with almost equal seniority and experience in parliamentary matters.
  Having said all that, I am sure that we all wish the Committee, its members and whoever becomes its Chairman well. We are placing a great responsibility on the members of the Committee. They will be in no doubt—and they will still be in no doubt, I suspect, by the end of the debate—about the seriousness of the task that faces them and the expectations that we lay on them. I hope that they will be able to discharge their

  347
  responsibilities fully but reasonably quickly. I hope that we will see the first products of their deliberations—it will be a multi-phase process, as has been laid down—in the very near future.
  The Leader of the House has given an interesting hint—if I may so describe it—about the possible constraints on the timing of the Committee's deliberations. I cannot and would not want to add to that. We should all listen carefully, however, to what the Leader of the House has said and consider what is in his mind.
  Having said that, I thoroughly commend the resolution to the House. As this is a free vote, being on a House of Commons matter, I hope that my hon. Friends will support the resolution. Sadly, however, I would recommend that, if it is put to the vote, they do not support the amendment that has been selected.
  7.44 pm
  Tony Wright: This is not a moment to explore the substance of the issues in relation to the House of Lords. It is the moment, however, to say a few words about process.
  I commend the final section of the report of the Public Administration Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, which is simply called, "Getting from here to there". Historically, getting from here to there has been the most difficult thing of all. There has been no difficulty in coming forward with schemes for House of Lords reform; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to Harold Wilson and the 1960s. The lesson of all that is that one can easily not achieve reform. The task and challenge for the House is whether we can devise a process that will get us to where we would like to be from where we are now, given the diversity of opinions.
  Without intending to seem churlish, I want to express a note of regret that it has not been thought possible to include a member from the Public Administration Committee on the Joint Committee. I can think of Members from all parties who were represented on the Committee who have developed a good deal of expertise in this area. That expertise would have been well put to the service of the House.
  I also want to offer the experience of the Public Administration Committee's deliberations to the Joint Committee. When we began our work, we felt a sense of urgency, as one of the paradoxes is that we were told from the beginning that reform of the second Chamber was very urgent. Hon. Members will remember that the Wakeham commission was told that it had to proceed with enormous urgency. Indeed, it was told that it had to report within a year—by the end of 1999—because reform of the second Chamber was so urgent. It has all gone funny since then.
  We must reclaim that spirit of urgency now. The Public Administration Committee felt an obligation to be urgent in our deliberations and to come to a conclusion that would be helpful to the House so that the process of reform could continue. We also felt an obligation not simply to repeat previous positions. There we were, representing the three major parties, all with different views. Some people wanted to abolish the second Chamber; some wanted a wholly elected second Chamber; some wanted a wholly appointed second Chamber; and some wanted a variety of intermediate positions. The
  348
  question was: would we simply repeat our previous views, or would we seek to reach a position that would enable the process of reform to continue? I say "process" deliberately, because, if one thinks that one is concluding the process of reform, one will not be successful. So much is changing in the wider landscape that all that one can hope for is to achieve a reasonably secure next phase of second Chamber reform.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the fact that we may be moving to an era of seriously devolved government inside England as well as in the wider United Kingdom. If that is the case, different kinds of options will become available in the longer term as to how we might compose a second Chamber, and there will he different reasons for doing so.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has just outlined how devolution might properly impact on what the second Chamber might do. Does he therefore have faith in the membership of the Committee, given that the Government in Northern Ireland are not represented on it, the Opposition in Wales are not represented on it, and the Opposition in Scotland are not represented on it? How can the Committee consider the impact of devolution in the nation states of the United Kingdom if there is no way for the minority parties in those constituent parts of the UK to feed in their views?
  Tony Wright: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that he wants to make. I do not believe that the Committee will avoid the obligation to think widely. I entered my note of regret, and he must enter his own.
  My point, however, is that, despite a wide spectrum of views, it was possible, nevertheless, to seek to ascertain in a reasonably serious way what Members of the House felt was their preferred direction of reform and to take that into account in framing our position. It was also possible, in seeking to reconcile such initially different positions, to produce a position that might provide a basis for the House to move forward to a next stage of second Chamber reform. If that is the spirit in which the Joint Committee engages with the work, we have a prospect of success.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the next stage of second Chamber reform and, earlier, he suggested that there would not be a finishing point. Is not one of the most important objectives to settle the status of the other place, so that it is not an issue for party political bickering and perhaps one in which parties move around—I hope that they will not—for party political advantage?
  Tony Wright: The hon. Gentleman runs two points together. There is no need to bicker about these things. It is perfectly possible to have sensible discussion while acknowledging that we may not have the final answer. That is a sensible way to approach the matter.
  We know very much what the key principles are, and we do not need to explore them now. We do not want a second Chamber that is a rival to or a replica of the first Chamber, but we want a Chamber that has enough legitimacy to be taken seriously and enough independence to secure expertise and a different kind of input. That led me and the Select Committee eventually to think that a mixture would be the right way to achieve our aims. The question is what sort of mixture should that be.

  349
  I offer the Joint Committee one piece of evidence only. It does not come from our report, but from evidence that was submitted in response to the Government's consultation document. Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth was not only a member of the Wakeham commission, but the official most centrally involved in making the proposed reforms of the 1960s work. In his response to the consultation, he says:
  "In the previous Lords reform attempt, in 1968–9, the reformers were unwilling to reconsider their plans in the light of criticisms, notably after the collapse of the Inter-Party talks, and again after the debates in the two Houses on the White Paper. In retrospect I think this was a mistake (although I must take a share of the blame)."
  I give credit to the Government on that point. They have understood the deluge of criticism that their proposals have received and that has enabled them to move forward or to give the House the opportunity to more forward in a slightly different direction.
  Sir Michael's second point is absolutely central. He says:
  "A second failure was not to recognise that it was essential to have the wholehearted support of government backbenchers in the Commons. Inter-Party consensus was thought to be the key to a constitutional reform of the kind intended while in fact what mattered was the support of the party in the Commons. Historically most constitutional reforms have been carried on a party vote…and then accepted by all".
  That is an important observation from someone who was engaged in the last abortive attempt to reform the second Chamber. The conclusion to be drawn is that we must know what the will of the House of Commons is. We must know the direction of advance that it would like to take place. Around that, the House of Lords will have a chance to respond, and we can construct reasonably durable proposals.
  It is significant that, when we took evidence on the views of Members of Parliament, we found that 75 per cent. of them across the parties wanted a composition that was 50 per cent. elected or more. We therefore have to be clear about that before we begin to do what we have to do on the other issues. That is why it is crucial to have an initial vote on composition as soon as possible. Unless we have that vote as soon as possible, it is unreasonable to expect the Joint Committee to carry out the second stage of reform. That would simply not be possible, because so much of the reform package hangs together. We must know what the key buildings blocks are before we can begin to erect the larger architecture.
  That is not a pedantic point, but one that is designed to get the process under way. I shall not explore the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about being able to do things by 7 o'clock in the evening, but the fact is that we know what the options are. We know that some favour the option of a wholly elected second Chamber, that others favour the option of a wholly appointed one and that there are several intermediate options. It is not difficult to bring to the House an initial menu of options for Members to vote on. I simply do not understand how the Joint Committee can begin to do its work seriously until the choice about the fundamental options has been resolved. I have not heard anyone explain to me how it will be possible to proceed without having done that.
  350
  Someone seeing our amendment and seeing the date on it rather unkindly pointed out that no year was attached to it. Some people have suggested that that is all part of the picture whereby we do not hear much about the issue again. When some people saw how the Joint Committee was being constructed, they were given encouragement in thinking that that we might not hear much more about the issue. I do not share that view. At one time I probably did, but I now believe that the Government want to make progress to bring the issue to a conclusion. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wants to do that, and he could not have made that point clearer.
  This is the moment when we have to stop talking about reforming the second Chamber and have to start doing it. A crucial part of doing it is making sure that we have a timetable under which some form of reform can take place.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). I accept precisely what he has said about process and timing. Although I cannot speak for all my colleagues because it will be a free vote, I think that they will be minded to support the amendment that he and his colleagues have tabled. We believe that we should make progress as fast as possible.
  Although I would be happy for the Joint Committee to meet in August or September—as long as it came to Cornwall—that should not be necessary. We should be able to complete the first phase of the process and come back with clear options to the House by the date that has been suggested.
  Before I come to the issue of process, I wish to refer briefly to some of the misapprehensions about the choices before the Joint Committee and that will eventually be before the House. The Lord Chancellor said in the other place:
  "It would be wrong and dangerous to put the pre-eminence of the House of Commons at risk by having this House wholly or substantially directly elected so that it could maintain that it had the same, or substantially similar, political legitimacy as the House of Commons."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 564.]
  That view is misguided—it ain't necessarily so. The link suggested between the proportion of Members elected and any challenge to this House is entirely wrongly thought through. In setting up the Joint Committee, we must clear out of the way some of the misunderstandings that have grown up.
  I pay tribute not just to the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase but to the Government. The consultation exercise was as thorough and as effective as that on any public issue that I can recall in my time in the House. In particular, the report on the consultation will be extremely helpful to the Joint Committee. We do not start from scratch; it is not a blank piece of paper. It does not even mean looking at the history books because we can look at the position here and now. Public opinion as well as Members' opinions have been reflected.
  The response makes it clear that 89 per cent. of the respondents thought that the other House should be at least 50 per cent. elected. There should be a degree of majority rule in that sense. That is extremely important

  351
  but, equally, it should not be seen as a challenge to this House or as a problem. It should be an opportunity that provides a new strength in Parliament's relationship with the Executive. That is why the type of election, to which the Leader of the House referred, and the cycle of elections are so important.
  Significantly, the second largest response rate on any of the issues in the consultation process was on the method of election. Some 56 per cent. said that the single transferable vote was their preferred method. A further 10 per cent. stated that they preferred an unspecified form of proportional representation. Those are big figures. Some 6 per cent. preferred an open-list system. That type of system was clearly in people's minds, as it was in the mind of the Select Committee. Incidentally, only 2 per cent. of respondents favoured the first-past-the-post system, and for good reasons.
  STV has huge advantages in the context of the second Chamber. I am not arguing that it is right for any other type of assembly or in any other election. It maximises voter choice and minimises the power of the parties because they do not prioritise who should be at the top of the list. The voter does that and the parties cannot pre-empt that choice. STV enables voters to cast their votes so that they can ensure that there is a truly representative second Chamber, especially in terms of area, gender and ethnic background. It is the best system that can be devised for that purpose for that assembly. Most important of all, STV encourages independence of mind in the Members who are elected.
  By contrast, the House of Commons Library established that were first past the post used at the same time as the 2001 election for this House, the Labour party would have had a majority of 60 per cent. in the other place on a 41 per cent. poll. I am surprised that the Conservative party is in favour of that outcome and hope that it will think again.
  The most important issue to consider is that first past the post would inevitably replicate the constituency representation that we have in this House. Those Members who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies will be aware that duplication and overlap can be embarrassing. That is a problem not just when Members who are elected by different means come from different parties, but when they are elected from the same party. It is extremely important that the second Chamber of this Parliament does not replicate the constituency responsibilities of Members of this House. That is the inevitable result if first past the post is used.
  Mr. Forth: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to accept that the American experience demonstrates that it is possible that voters can take a sufficiently discriminating attitude to elections? One state in the United States can have one balance of representation in the House of Representatives, a different or mixed representation in the Senate, which has a different electoral cycle and different voters, and yet another in the governorships. Those are all elected on the first-past-the-post system. What he is saying is not necessarily true. The one template we have suggests that it need not be the case.
  Mr. Tyler: I understand that and I will look with interest at what evidence is put before the Committee. However, if we elect on the same day to both Houses on
  352
  the same system, we are likely to end up with the same results. That would challenge not just this House as a whole but each and every Member of the House because someone else at the other end of the building could claim the same mandate. That would be extremely dangerous and I hope that the Committee will look hard at the problem. The issue is important and is mentioned in all the documents that will come before the Committee.
  Kevin Brennan: While I may have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments, does he agree that although the issue is important, it is certainly not the first one that needs to be tackled? If his first contributions to the Committee reflect his obsession with a minutiae of the electoral system, the process will turn out to be as long as the trial of Warren Hastings and we will never get a result.
  Mr. Tyler: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am trying to remove a major misunderstanding. It is not just the number of people who are elected to the other House that could challenge the pre-eminence of this House. The challenge also comes from the way in which they are elected and the time when they are elected. Problems will arise if they are elected on the same day as the general election. Incidentally, I was first elected to the House in February 1974. There was another election in October, when I am afraid I was unelected. Is it being suggested that every time this House has an election the other House has to have an election too? Surely that does not make sense.
  I am in favour of an electoral cycle that is not directly related to the election to this House and the election of a Government. That is important. I would prefer the election to take place on the same day as the elections for the devolved Assemblies, every four years. In due course, we will no doubt have English regional elections every four years, too. We could elect one third of the other place every four years and also have a 12-year one-term election. However, it is for the Committee to consider that idea. The false analysis by the Lord Chancellor is dangerous and I hope that it will gather no currency.
  Both the timing of the election and the way in which Members are elected are important. However, we may decide that we want to hold back on the issue of indirect elections until the devolved regional assemblies are up and running. It would be absurd if Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London could elect indirectly to the second Chamber, but other parts of the country could not because regional devolution has not rolled out in England. If a number of Members of the second House are not going to be directly elected, we may need to reconsider indirect elections in due course by the devolved Assemblies, not from them. The principle of a dual mandate has become discredited in this country and there may be a good case for looking at that suggestion.
  As I intimated, I am sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase and his colleagues on the Committee. There is a great deal of material on the subject and we should be able give the House clear options before the summer recess. I cannot anticipate what the Joint Committee will decide, but there will have to be options. I cannot believe that we need to wait for months to get those. Surely we can clear away some of the debris from previous considerations and produce the options.

  353
  This is a defining moment. I know that politicians and the media always say that, but if we get it right both ends of the building will do their job together more effectively. That is the challenge. It is not a challenge between the two Houses, but of the two Houses together, with complementary powers and responsibilities. The challenge that we face is not among ourselves, but with the Executive.
  If we can get that right, the Government, this House and the other House will have taken a great opportunity to demonstrate that in the 21st century we can develop and evolve a more effective pluralist parliamentary democracy. If the process gets bogged down, however, members of the Executive—not us—will go home laughing because we will have failed to create a genuinely effective scrutinising Parliament to ensure that they do their job properly.
  I hope that tonight and in the next few weeks we will complete the work that the Leader of the House put his hand to in 1997 in the discussions that led up to the agreement between our two parties on constitutional reform. We have a great opportunity. We can ensure that we not only guarantee better scrutiny of legislation and Executive action but, by so doing, improve the governance of this country.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I am very pleased to speak in this debate, and I am delighted that the Joint Committee is being set up. Many months ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister, among others, suggesting this approach. I also asked to be a member of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Yes, although I did not ask that of the Prime Minister. As my name is among the suggested members on the Order Paper, it will come as no great shock to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to hear that if the matter is forced to a Division, I will be voting with him.
  I feel very strongly about this issue because, as I have said many times in the House, even way back in the 1980s, Britain has a remarkable history of reforming its constitution. We did so year after year, decade after decade, and in that way we managed to preserve our freedoms very well. Suddenly, at the beginning of the 20th century, we stopped, and that is tragic. Throughout the 20th century, there was no significant change to the constitution after the pre-first world war Liberal Government, until the special exception of the Single European Act, introduced by Margaret Thatcher. That was an enormous constitutional measure, but I do not think that she saw it as such at the time. The Conservatives have changed their view since then.
  While we were not reforming our constitution in the way that we had in previous centuries, we were writing constitutions for other countries, and some of them were incredibly successful. One of the points that I shall go on to make about process concerns one such successful constitution, that of West Germany after 1945.
  Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman said that there were no major constitutional changes after the last Liberal Government. I suppose those who saw the creation of Northern Ireland and the independence of Eire might take a different view, as might those who benefited from the
  354
  extension of universal suffrage to women in 1918 and 1928, and all the life peers along the Corridor, whose position was created in 1958.
  Mr. Soley: The example of women's suffrage is powerful, but frankly I think that the other changes are more decorative than real. The life peers changed the system, but they are an example of the problem that we got into, and particularly of the problem that the Labour party got into. The failure to reform was primarily a Conservative failure because the Conservatives were the party in government throughout most of the 20th century, but our failure was to promise to get rid of the hereditary peers but not to do it until a few years ago.
  The present Government took a big step forward by avoiding the trap that Michael Foot and others, with enormously good intentions, had fallen into by arguing all the time about the details of the change but not making the first, vital change of getting rid of the hereditary peers. By smashing up the shop, the Government have created a situation in which we must reform the second Chamber. I have never shared the anxieties of some of my colleagues that we will not go on to reform. We will have to go on reforming the second Chamber, whether under this Government or a future one, because it will not stay as it is for much longer, and most of us know that. Sooner or later, it would run into a crisis.
  The argument for reform is won. The problem is getting there. I say to the Leader of the House that I have every interest in seeing this done quickly. I do not want delays and I will not be working for them. If it is any help to my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, I am prepared to sit during the recess, although I exclude August, which would be vetoed by my children because they are anticipating a holiday. August is out but anything else is in.
  Having said that, I also want to get this right because it is no good saying that we must simply come back here with a set of options. Any one of those options could box us in on a particular reform. If we get that wrong, we will be sad and sorry that we rushed the process. I shall be pushing to get through the business effectively and efficiently, but I also want to return to this place with a number of options, any one of which, with any refinements that we wanted to make, would work.
  On a point that fits with what I was saying about the history of reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said that reform cannot stop here, and I agree that it must go on. I do not want to lay out a blueprint for any one of the options or for a group of options. If I end up being a member of the Committee, as I hope, I ought to go in with an open mind to discuss the various proposals that are made.
  Turning back to the West German constitution, however, which we wrote so effectively, I point out that we inserted in that document representation of local government, the Lander. We did so with good reason—to prevent authoritarian Government arising again. For the past 15 years, I have argued in the Chamber and at Labour party conferences that the second Chamber ought to include representation of local government, and now also regional and devolved Government. Indeed, I would argue the case for considering European representation too. As my hon. Friend said, the changing constitutional situation

  355
  means that it will be even more difficult for us to stand still in future. The House needs to have methods by which we can continue to examine and evolve our constitution.
  Kevin Brennan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Soley: In a moment. I want first to finish this point, because it is linked to my earlier remarks.
  I sat on the Modernisation Committee in the last Parliament because I felt that the other thing that we had failed to reform in the 20th century was the procedures in this place. Consequently, in several ways, we allowed this place to become devalued and, at some stages, a laughing stock. We failed to get through any of the reforms that we wanted. There is an awful lot of devil in the detail in this matter, and one approaches what one thinks is the obvious question, but it turns out not to be.
  As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who was very helpful on this matter, will be aware, the Modernisation Committee in the last Parliament spent a lot of time, probably too much, trying to work out how we could deal with the ridiculous problem of voting, speaking and passing legislation in the early hours of the morning. After a number of those meetings, I came to the conclusion that we were asking ourselves the wrong question. We needed to ask ourselves how we could get some of this Chamber's business out of the Chamber. I then wrote a paper on what I called, rather inelegantly, the "Primary Committee", which the clerks, in their infinite wisdom and subtlety, finally called Westminster Hall. That is where the idea came from, as the hon. Gentleman will know, and it came about for reasons of time.
  When considering reform of the Lords, we must ask ourselves whether it is simply a revising Chamber. I have no doubt that it ought to be, in part, a revising Chamber, but I also believe strongly that part of its activities must focus on protecting and enhancing aspects of our constitution. That is why I highlight the importance of having representation of organisations such as local government. We cannot rush through such consideration, which is why I think that 17 July is nonsense, but that does not mean that we should drag our feet. I am sorry, I have moved on a bit since the point at which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) tried to intervene.
  Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is making very thoughtful points, but does not he accept that many of the issues that he is raising have been covered in great detail by the Wakeham commission? A big difference in West Germany, whose constitution we helped to write, is that it was a Federal Republic, with a federal constitution that included a lower Chamber elected by proportional representation.
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right on the latter point, but he ought to bear it in mind that some aspects of our actions, on devolution in Scotland and Wales, make this country federal. [Interruption.] I agree that it is not federal, and I did not say that it was, but it has federal aspects.
  Because we do not have a written constitution, the British have been very good at making things up as we go along. That is messy but it works quite well, which is
  356
  why I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that we should not leave things there but continue to move forward. We should not do what we did in the 20th century—stand still and tell ourselves that we have a wonderful Parliament, the best in the world, while everybody else is overtaking in the fast lane.
  I acknowledge that a lot of the legwork has been done, although I am not such a fan of the Wakeham commission's report as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) seems to be. I am not knocking its work: some of it was good, although I am less keen on other parts. However, some of the other things that have been written and said do offer us a way forward. What I am trying to say is, yes, I want the work to be done as fast as possible, but I also want workable solutions that recognise the complexity of the issues.
  The unspoken argument—of which we as party politicians are all aware but do not talk about much—is that as much as we want Parliament to be a good Parliament that holds Governments to account and all the rest, we know that if we win an election on a party manifesto, we expect to be able to carry out that manifesto without the second Chamber constantly blocking us, which is what happened to Labour Governments throughout the 20th century. We had better come up with a system that recognises that; to do otherwise would be to put the parliamentary aspects wholly above the party aspects, whereas the reality that we have to take on board, whether we like it or not, is that no modern democracy works without political parties.
  We want it to be possible to govern effectively and we want the second Chamber—and, I might add, the first—to be able to hold the Government to account, but we also want the second Chamber to be able to protect and enhance aspects of the constitution. The aspect about which I feel strongly is local government, because—unlike some of my hon. Friends, although people outside certainly saw it—throughout the 1980s I watched Governments smash up local government, abolish local government, and impose the poll tax.
  I learned a lesson when I entertained a group of West Germans who were fascinated about docklands. Having heard how Michael Heseltine, then Secretary of State for the Environment, had overruled all the local authorities to build docklands, even though the local authorities were all saying no, they asked me how he had the power to do that, saying, "Under West Germany's constitution, he would not have been allowed to do that—yet you wrote our constitution for us." I did not say it at the time, but I thought of the magic saying that the British occasionally utter, "Don't do as we do, do as we tell you."
  The issues are complex. That is an argument not for delay, but for very clear and hard thinking. That thinking should focus on matters such as the role of the second Chamber—what it exists to do. I think that it should not only act as a revising Chamber, but serve to protect and enhance parts of the constitution. We might need to take a more radical approach from time to time if we are to avoid falling into the trap that claimed the Modernisation Committee when it spent several meetings considering how we could change the times that this House sat, not focusing on the central issue which was how to get some of the time-consuming business out of this Chamber and into what is now Westminster Hall.

  357
  I am very proud of Westminster Hall. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) thinks that we devalued Parliament in creating Westminster Hall, but I think that it has done wonderful things for Back Benchers. In the long term, it will enable us to enhance the role of this Chamber—but that will only happen when other parts of the constitution are reformed.
  I have spoken for longer than I intended. I do not want to lay down blueprints, but I ask hon. Members to recognise the importance of the steps that we are taking and to understand the need for an ongoing process of constitutional reform. We must not get stuck as we did in the 20th century. However much the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) thinks I underestimate some of the reforms that occurred then, historians looking back at the past four centuries would regard the 20th century as the one of least movement.
  8.24 pm
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for being called and pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley)— I almost said for Hammersmith. I shall not follow him down the corridor of his views on our changing constitution and what the role of the second Chamber should be. Instead, I shall concentrate on the terms of the motion, which is to do with setting up a Joint Committee.
  I recently joined the Select Committee on Public Administration. I wish that I could take credit for having been a member of the Committee when it published its original report, but I was not. On a personal note, I greatly regret that the Chairman of that Committee, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), is not to be a member of the Joint Committee, but I realise that not everybody can be.
  I support the amendment, but I hope that members of the Public Administration Committee will allow me to point out that I support it to make a consensus. I strongly believe that there should be a limited time scale for the deliberations of the Joint Committee, but I should have preferred a requirement that it report by the end of the current Session, or, for want of a better description, by the end of October. None the less, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we really should be able to get a decision on the composition of the second Chamber and the element of election to it, if that is to be the case, first and then we can sort out the other matters. I hope that the members of the Joint Committee will bear that in mind.
  I started the debate believing that a timetable was preferable. Having heard the Leader of the House, I believe that a timetable is essential. As he put it, it will be necessary for the Committee to report and this House—and, presumably, the other House—to make a decision if legislation is to be presented in the 2002—03 Session. I hope that that might encourage the Joint Committee to act faster rather than slower.
  I have one or two, perhaps over-simplified, observations to make. We are all modernists now—
  Mr. Forth: No we are not.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Well, almost all of us are, although I include myself in the minority.
  358
  I understand that from next Session the House is to sit in September as a matter of course. I think it would be an extraordinarily good thing to have a dry run by inviting the Joint Committee to sit in September.
  I apologise in advance for the fact that my next point is slightly party political in nature. The Government, rightly or wrongly, have adopted a procedure whereby before every Bill goes into Committee, its Committee stage is timetabled, as are remaining stages. I should have thought that that made more powerful the case for setting a timetable for the Joint Committee.
  There is also something injudicious in the fact that while we in the Commons can see the point of reaching conclusions sooner rather than later, I imagine that Members of the other place—on the principle that turkeys do not vote for an early Christmas—might think that they need to take a long time to determine all the options that they should present to the Commons and the Government.
  In trying to adopt an all-party approach, if that is possible, let me refer to the point made by the Scottish National party Members. I might be wrong, but looking at the 12 Members of the House of Commons who have been proposed as members of the Joint Committee, it seems to me that all the regions are covered, with the exception of Scotland. I am more concerned that there is not a Scottish MP on the Committee than that a particular party is not represented.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush would join me in reminding the House that, in population if not in size, London is considerably larger than Scotland. From a party political viewpoint, I feel strongly that the second party in London should have a representative on the Joint Committee, but I realise that its size makes it impossible to achieve the balance needed to satisfy all the interests.
  As the Leader of the House said, there is general consensus on the need for a second Chamber and on its having the sort of powers that the other place currently has. Essentially, the argument centres on composition and what degree of election or appointment there should be to that revised second Chamber.
  If it was the responsibility of the Joint Committee to draw up the blueprint for the second Chamber, it would need longer to deliberate. But as it is required to put options, whether there are two or a range—my experience is that there are as many views as there are Members of the House about exactly what the second Chamber should be—the Joint Committee can and should come to its conclusions sooner, rather than later. In short, we all know the arguments. We have rehearsed them for years, particularly over the past year or two. Now it is time to reach decisions.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: The terms of the motion are very narrow indeed—to agree or reject the membership and to consider an amendment concerning the timetable. I supported the establishment of the Joint Committee and the Government's decision to leave the matter to Parliament. I did so because the Government's track record on the issue is particularly poor.
  The Wakeham commission was a disaster. Anyone who read the responses to the Wakeham report realised that Wakeham got it completely wrong. We all know that the

  359
  Lord Chancellor was living on another planet when he presented his preferred options. He was not speaking for the parliamentary Labour party or the Labour party but for a very few Members of the House of Lords.
  We had the disaster of the people's peers, proposed by my own Government, to huge ridicule. The House of Lords Appointments Commission was ridiculed. The whole episode has been a disaster, so I welcome the decision by the Prime Minister to leave the matter to Parliament.
  We have picked over the issue endlessly, and I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and others by rehearsing the options. We know broadly what they are, but I enter a caveat. My heart sank when my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), I think, mentioned new developments: the regional dimension. Goodness me! We are still consulting on the regions. The regional Green Paper is out to consultation until August. The Government's proposals for the regions are opaque.
  It is a characteristic of the Government that on certain difficult issues—this is a difficult issue—there never comes a point where matters crystallise and we are asked to decide. There is always more consultation, more navel-gazing. It is depressing and debilitating. What people out there want, and what I want from my own Government, is clarity of vision and purpose.
  I attached my name to the amendment because it concerns me—less so now than before the debate started—that no time frame is mentioned in the motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase mentioned, when we tabled the amendment we made the mistake of not specifying the year. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), speaking for the Liberals, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush both told the House that they believe, as we believe, that it is possible to bring forward options by 17 July. We are not asking people to go back to the drawing board and produce a blueprint—
  Mr. Soley: With respect to my hon. Friend, I said that 17 July was a nonsense date.
  Mr. Prentice: Forgive me, I am confusing my hon. Friend with another hon. Member—I shall call him my hon. Friend on the Public Administration Committee—the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). He said, I think, that it should be possible to bring forward options at an early date.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I said that I went along with the consensus of the Committee in specifying the date of 17 July, but I personally would have preferred to submit a report by the end of the Session—say, by the end of October.
  Mr. Prentice: I have got it all seriously wrong. Clearly, I am speaking of what I want to happen. This is a kind of Vulcan mind meld. I do not know whether we are all Trekkies, but some of us are.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he would help
  360
  himself by talking about what he wants, rather than recapitulating what other hon. Members have been saying?
  Mr. Prentice: It should be possible to bring forward proposals by the end of July. I have no doubt about that. Anyone who reads the Public Administration Committee report would be convinced that it is possible to find a consensus where, perhaps, it was thought previously that none existed.
  That is the case in the report from the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase reminded the House that we started to take evidence in December and I think that we produced our report on 14 February. No doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong. The Select Committee encompassed a range of views, but we settled on a recommendation of 60 per cent. directly elected. We thought in our wisdom that that would find favour with the Government, although we state in the report:
  "Had we started with a clean slate…the majority preference on the Committee would have been for a wholly elected and much smaller second chamber",
  which is my preference.
  I have no problems with the membership of the Joint Committee. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that its members are all distinguished and of great standing. However, we need to consider how the members of Joint Committees are selected in future. I had not realised, until my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush told the House, that he had applied. I made a very public application last Thursday to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I thought that he was seriously considering it, but there we are.
  Finally, I return to the matter that I touched on earlier—the centre of gravity. I do not want people from the other end inventing their own centre of gravity. I want them to look at the evidence. The Conservative party's position is that 80 per cent. should be elected and 20 per cent. indirectly elected or nominated. The Liberal party's position is that 80 per cent. should be elected, and 20 per cent. nominated. The Public Administration Committee recommended that 60 per cent. should be elected.
  Perhaps I was expecting too much of the Joint Committee in hoping that it could meet during the summer. Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I believe that a realistic deadline for a final report would be the turn of the year, so that legislation can be introduced. I hope that the House will endorse that approach.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The only issue that I agree with so far is that we are discussing a key constitutional matter that needs to be settled. As the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said, reform of the House of Lords is essential because the present situation is untenable. The Government have interfered with processes in the other place and they now have to finish the job. That should be a matter for Members of this place rather than for the Government. The Government have failed miserably to take Back-Bench Labour Members with them, let alone the rest of the House.

  361
  Unless one is a member of one of the three largest parties in the House, the motion is entirely unacceptable. It contains no recognition of the minority parties in the House. The Leader of the House danced on the end of a pin to justify the motion in terms of logistics and statistics. He ignored the fact that there will be a Committee of 24, a number that would legitimately require a minority party member to be on it. He said that 12 members will be nominated by the House, and only the 12 will count. By that logic, no Joint Committee will ever have a minority party Member on it. We will never count in those terms. That is unacceptable for Members of minority parties, and I suggest that it should be unacceptable for anyone who takes the Chamber seriously and for the process of democracy.
  The Leader of the House has suggested that these Joint Committees should become a more obvious feature of our constitutional arrangements in the House, and that we should be doing more jointly with the other place. When we arrive at a reformed House of Lords that will contain at least a majority of elected Members, I expect that we will work much more closely with it. As a member of the Catering Committee, which is my highest standing in this place at present, I know that we cannot agree with the House of Lords about co-ordinating the opening and shutting of our catering facilities. There is much to do to improve relations between this place and the other place. Future Joint Committees have had a worrying precedent set this evening.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: There are already differences between this place and the other place, as there are between parties in this place. What special or unique bearing would a minority party bring to the debate? Surely the purpose of a Joint Committee is the recognition that there are differences within parties in this place, and that we are seeking consensus.
  Mr. Thomas: That was a disappointing intervention. It suggests that minority parties never bring anything to this place. If the hon Gentleman's logic is taken to a reasonable conclusion, representation does not count. Yet we represent 1.5 million voters. In opposing the motion, I am arguing that representation of the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom should be reflected in the Committee. I do not mind whether it is a member of my party, the Scottish National party, the two Unionist parties or the Social Democratic and Labour party. I want the House to recognise that there is a representational role in respect of the individual nations that form the United Kingdom that has not been reflected in the proposed Committee.
  It has been pointed out that there will no representative of a Scottish constituency on the Committee. I have a slightly more sophisticated argument than that because there will be a Welsh Member. I may not want him to be on the Committee, but at least he is there. I know that his views will be different from those that I would like to be explored. I shall explain why I take that view.
  There has been an underlying debate about the House of Lords interacting in some way with regional devolution in England and national devolution in Northern Ireland,
  362
  Wales and Scotland. That argument has been advanced by two senior Members who will be members of the Committee if the motion is agreed to: the hon. Members for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). That means that there is a crucial role for the minority parties in this place because we stand for election in only one country in the United Kingdom.
  We are minority parties not because of the votes that we receive but because we concentrate on only one area of the United Kingdom. I do not represent a minority party in Wales because my party is the official Opposition in the National Assembly for Wales. We got within a whisker of the Labour party's vote in the European elections.
  The SNP is not a minority party in Scotland because it is the official Opposition in the Scottish Parliament. The Ulster Unionists and the SDLP are not minority parties in Northern Ireland but parties of government that are essential to the process there.
  Ms Meg Munn: Surely the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. It is not the purpose of the Committee to produce a solution. It is a mechanism that will enable all Members of this place, from whatever party, to express their views on composition. The motion may be regrettable from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but his view will be able to be expressed as will mine or that of any Member who is not on the Committee.
  Mr. Thomas: I think that the hon. Lady has missed the point. I regret that the view that I have tried to get across has gone over her head. The clear message from the motion is that there is no place for any minority party on a Joint Committee. That is the message and the dangerous precedent that is being set. She may be right in terms of the Committee's report, as we will all have a chance to debate it. However, I shall say a little more in a moment about why I think that she is incorrect even on the narrow point that she made.
  The logic of the dangerous precedent that is being set is that of excluding the minority parties from constitutional debates, and we can see the same thing in another area. We were told recently that the Prime Minister will soon grace the Liaison Committee with his presence. The Committee, which I think has 34 members, will therefore cross-examine and question the Prime Minister about his work, but no member of any minority party will be present, as we have no Chairmen. We have never had a Select Committee Chairman in this place, so we have had no role on the Liaison Committee. Therefore, a Committee of 34 members, which should have at least one, if not about 1.6, minority party members, does not have any minority party representation. I ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) whether that is an acceptable situation. The Liaison Committee is being promulgated by the Government as a huge, modernising step forward—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can understand an allusion to that matter, but it is outside the terms of the motion that we are discussing. May I urge the hon. Gentleman back to the confines of the motion on the Order Paper?
  Mr. Thomas: I shall certainly return to the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was trying to deal with the

  363
  dangerous precedent that is being set. Until then, I had confined my remarks to the establishment of the Joint Committee. I shall not even touch on what the recommendations should be, as that is another matter that we will come to in future.
  Kevin Brennan: I understand why the hon. Gentleman and his party might feel left out of the process, because they are not represented, but is he really saying that his commonality of interest is so powerful that he would be happy to be represented by the Democratic Unionist party on the Committee that is dealing with such an important constitutional matter?
  Mr. Thomas: I am arguing for inclusion on the Committee and other Joint Committees—and, indeed, the Liaison Committee—of a member of a minority party. Once the principle is accepted that Joint Committees of more than 20 members should include a minority party member, I am sure that as more Joint Committees are established, the time for Plaid Cymru will come, just as for the Scottish National party and the SDLP. I am not concerned about which party takes the one place in question now, because I am arguing about the principle and not individual membership.
  I do not blame the Leader of the House or the Opposition for the current situation, as I think that it is a result of the abject failure of the reform process and the way in which we go about our business in the House and select Select Committee members. We all recall the stitch-up of a few weeks ago, when proposals made by the Leader of the House, which I fully supported, were scuppered by the underhand actions of the Whips Office. The stitch-up was cooked in the Whips Office and served up by compliant Back Benchers.
  Mr. Robin Cook: It was not cooked up.
  Mr. Thomas: It was undercooked, but served up by compliant Back Benchers who were anxious to be seen to be doing the Whips' bidding in a so-called free vote. I am not surprised that we have not got the arrangements right for the House properly to select members of Select Committees, Joint Committees, the Liaison Committee and whatever other Committees. I am very concerned, as are hon. Members from all the minority parties of this House—
  Kevin Brennan: Where are they?
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will see them when we vote.
  I am very concerned about the precedent that we are establishing. I thought that even the narrow point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley was incorrect because we know already what the options are. One option is a fully elected House and another is a fully nominated House. It is the third option that we are charging the Committee to propose, and that is the crucial option. because whatever side of this spectrum we are on—I am on the fully elected side—we know that it will somehow carry the day, as it will be the only one that can muddle through the processes that we have established to decide these matters. We will use it to make the final decision on the proportion of elected Members in the House of Lords and it will be produced by the Joint
  364
  Committee. We have heard protestations all along that the Joint Committee will not come up with a blueprint, but it will. Once it does, the pragmatic reality is that the third option is the only one likely to go through.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman may have misread the motion before the House which talks about a number of intermediate options. There will not necessarily be just a third option, but a fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth option if the Joint Committee recommended that.
  Mr. Thomas: I did not misread the motion. The reality is that a preferred option will sneak its way through, so the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley falls. Whether we have just one option or the number of options to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred, the Joint Committee will produce the blueprint. The lack of any representation of any minority party on that Committee is a backward step in the modernisation the House. It fails both devolution and our representational and territorial role as minority parties in these debates.
  8.51 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: I congratulate the Government on ditching the White Paper, with its scandalous accusations that elections would be a bad thing for the second Chamber. They have accepted the weight of public and parliamentary opinion that that solution would not be acceptable and would stick in our throats. In revising the constitution, the Government need to bring Parliament and the public with them.
  I urge swift progress towards a vote for options on the composition of the second Chamber. Some people suggest that deciding composition is a secondary matter deriving from the powers of the second Chamber. At present, we are going about that in the right way. There is a broadly settled view about powers. The proposals and reports produced every decade since the beginning of the last century on reform of the second Chamber overwhelmingly endorse a second Chamber which is a deliberative, revising Chamber that contributes to scrutiny of the Executive. There are marginal variations at different periods, but that is the continuing theme of reports and proposals from Governments of all parties for reform, most of which have not got anywhere.
  Mr. McCabe: I want to agree with my hon. Friend, but the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has a different view on the powers of the second Chamber. If his view commanded a broader majority in the Conservative party, would that not mean that the consensus on which my hon. Friend is relying would not exist? In those circumstances, to argue about composition before we have agreed on functions, role and powers would be an error.
  Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is jumping into a trap created by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. That is something that the right hon. Gentleman frequently does with great charm and aplomb. He takes one position one day and another the next day to wind us up, and at the moment he is succeeding. That makes him very happy. I suggest that we should not fall into his trap and should not be wound up. It is interesting to watch the right hon. Gentleman's journey on this

  365
  subject. It has consistently reflected his commitment to this Chamber—which is deeply held—and to Parliament, but it is also about how he can do the best thing for his party. That is not an unrespectable position to take, and it is not one that he has always taken, but it is the role that he plays as shadow Leader of the House. We should enjoy watching it, but not fall into his heffalump trap.
  History shows that although the function is broadly a settled question, the issue that has caused controversy in every decade, especially recently, is that of where the second Chamber derives its authority from. That is the underlying issue in respect of composition. There needs to be a clear decision about the source of that authority. Does it come from the people, through voting; from other institutions of civic society—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) suggested in terms of the involvement of local government—or from the appointment of the great and the good, following on from life peerages and people's peers?
  That seems to be a chronically unsettled question, yet in practice it is settled both in public opinion and in the opinion of the House. Every time the public are consulted, it is clear that they think that the people should give permission and authority to legislators in the second, as well as the primary, Chamber of the House. The view of this House has been made clear by the breadth and depth of support for early-day motion 226, tabled by me and some of my hon. Friends, which has gained more than 300 signatures—a clear majority of the 571 Members of Parliament who are neither Ministers nor Government Whips.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Lady talks about public opinion. Does it surprise her to learn that of the 60 million or so people in this kingdom, fewer responded to this consultation than to a consultation by Isle of Wight council on the pedestrianisation of Newport high street?
  Fiona Mactaggart: Not at all. That is not because people are not interested in how they are governed, but, I am afraid, because the White Paper was rightly treated with derision by the public as it was such a flawed piece of work. The grown-up aspect of what the Government are doing—it is unusual for a Government, and worthy of praise—is to say, "We were wrong; we are prepared to look again and think again on this matter." Public opinion is not often expressed in specific responses to a consultation on a deeply flawed White Paper. It is expressed in other ways, and every time that it has been measured on this subject it has been clear.
  Let me urge the Committee, in giving us the opportunity speedily to achieve what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House called a centre of gravity in relation to the composition of the second Chamber and the source of its Members' authority, to take a leaf from the book of those of us who tabled early-day motion 226—that is, to concentrate on finding what we agree on rather than what divides us. If we consider the history of the debate, we realise that the search for perfection has been the enemy of progress.
  We are parliamentarians and we therefore hold opinions. I urge members of the Joint Committee, who will all approach their deliberations with a view of the
  366
  perfect solution, to submerge perfection and build consensus, which can be the platform for progress. Unless we do that, we shall simply be this decade's example of failure to make progress on an important constitutional question.
  The debate about the irrelevance of politics and about politicians being self-serving, boring and more interested in whether they can outflank the royal family will be fuelled by our failure to take responsibility and say that we can improve the way in which the country is governed. We have a duty and an opportunity to do that now. I wish the Joint Committee well, but warn it not to delay. We must act now.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I have been an Opposition Member since 1997 and it is therefore refreshing to listen to speeches from all parties with which I can largely agree. I hope that that happens more often in future.
  I congratulate the Government on introducing the proposal. The Leader of the House has done a marvellous job in getting the motion on the Order Paper today. I support the motion, for which I shall vote if there is a Division. I have been pressing my party and arguing in the House for such an approach for more than five years. I am delighted that we have got this far.
  That leaves the question of whether to support the amendment if it is pressed to a Division. I do not instinctively support restrictive timetabling for measures of constitutional reform; I sympathise with the views of the shadow Leader of the House on that. However, I have listened carefully to the arguments tonight and I believe that I am persuaded of the case for the amendment, for three reasons.
  First, it deals only with the need for clarity on the narrow issue of composition, which is the basic building block for subsequent reform. Without that, we cannot proceed far. Secondly, composition has been aired and debated fully. There is no need for extensive further consultation and hearings by the Committee. It already has the requisite information to draft a proposal to put before the House. Thirdly, and most important, some Committee members—their names are on the Order Paper—will be determined to prevent meaningful progress. Indeed, several members have said on the record that they do not support any change and will be obstructive. Lord Weatherill said that keeping the status quo was,
  "a consummation devoutly to be wished."
  I have no reason to believe that he has changed his view.
  Mr. Forth: Given our current position and that the measure has to go back to another place for final resolution before the Committee is formally established, is it reasonable to expect the Committee to meet for the first time, elect its Chairman, settle its procedures, survey the progress made today and determine sensible options for the House by the date that the amendment specifies? Does my hon. Friend, with his customary thoughtfulness, truly believe that?
  Mr. Tyrie: I thank my right hon. Friend for his final remark. I believe that a month is a reasonable time for determining the basic point. However, if hon. Members

  367
  agree with my right hon. Friend, perhaps the time could be extended until the end of the Session. I should certainly support that, too. We have, however, reached the point at which we must push this matter forward. There has been interminable delay on every aspect of this reform, as other hon. Members have pointed out.
  I would like clarification on one point, and I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Cannock Chase would nod his head if I am correct in assuming that I am supporting an amendment that refers to direct elections rather than just elections.
  Tony Wright: indicated assent.
  Mr. Tyrie: I am getting the affirmation that I was looking for, and I can therefore wholeheartedly—or, at least, reasonably heartedly—support the amendment.
  I have one other brief point to make to the hon. Gentleman, which comes under the heading of "Getting from here to there". Whether or not his amendment is passed, I hope that, in an effort to speed things up, the Public Administration Committee would consider submitting a draft proposal to the Lords Committee, setting out how the proposal for voting could be implemented by both Houses of Parliament. I suggest that his Committee do some of the work right away—in a sense to disprove the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has just made—to show that this work can be done expeditiously and that it is relatively simple to draft the motion on composition.
  I recommend that the hon. Gentleman and his Committee draft that motion and submit it as a proposal of a Select Committee of the House to the Committee on House of Lords reform. That would concentrate the minds of the Lords Committee on the need to get on with this, even if we do not get the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I hope that he will give consideration to that proposal. I realise that he and his Committee might have other investigations under way, but it is not asking a great deal of the Committee to consider such a draft.
  I have one last point, which I want to communicate to the members of the Committee as they think about what to do. In this attempt at Lords reform, we are in new territory in the crucial area of composition. There is a very high degree of agreement among people in many parts of the country about what to do. In all previous reform attempts, that has not been so. In the 1960s, people were all over the place. Indeed, the current Prime Minister would have been right to say of that time that there were as many proposals as there were Members of the House. However, that is not true this time.
  I am sure that far more members of the Labour party support election than ever before. There has been a sharp decline in the Labour party of support for unicameralism—for abolishing the Lords altogether. Many might still hanker after that, but a very high proportion now seem in favour of election. In the Conservative party, there has been a transformation. In 1997, it was certainly against election. It is not now. I would say that three quarters of the present parliamentary party support majority election for the House of Lords.
  I have tabled an early-day motion on this matter, as has the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). As she points out, the combined effect of all this work on
  368
  early-day motions is to show that more than half of all Back Benchers are even prepared to put their head above the parapet and sign on the dotted line for majority election. In so doing, they are, of course, in line with public opinion. More than three quarters of the public support election. They have done so in opinion polls, which have been phrased in different ways at different times to different groups, using different samples, but which broadly speaking have consistently come up with the same answer. The polls have always shown that between three quarters and 85 per cent.—occasionally 90 per cent.—of those questioned were in favour of at least a majority elected second Chamber of Parliament.
  If the Lords reform Committee fails to permit Parliament to express its opinion on this crucial issue of composition—if it lets us down—it will also be letting the wider public down, and, in the long run, the growing number of us who want constitutional reform on this issue will not forgive it.
  9.10 pm
  Kevin Brennan: Time is brief and I shall try not delay the House so that other Members can speak before the winding—up speech. I welcome the motion before us, and I hope that the Joint Committee will indeed be established. However, on reading the motion carefully, it seems that, despite tonight's debate, the ordering of paragraphs has put the cart before the horse—or perhaps I should say the Lord before the cook. Paragraph (1) states that the Joint Committee should
  "consider issues relating to House of Lords reform, including the composition and powers of the Second Chamber and its role and authority within the context of Parliament as a whole".
  Not until paragraph (2) is it stated that the Joint Committee's first task—a task that need not delay us for months or years—is
  "to define and present to both Houses options for composition, including a fully nominated and fully elected House, and intermediate options".
  I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that we could have more than one intermediate option, but I hope that he was not serious in talking about six, seven, eight or nine options. To go down that road would, along with his detailed exegesis of proportional representation, ensure delay in the introduction of composition options.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I raise not a point of disagreement but a technical footnote on which it is important to reflect. If the Joint Committee recommended just one intermediate option, involving certain percentages of the elected and the appointed, it would of course be amendable. Any Member of the House could suggest different percentages, and table an amendment to that effect. In practical terms, the offer of one intermediate solution therefore opens the way to others. That is why I share my hon. Friend's view that it would be helpful if the Joint Committee were under no pressure to produce six different alternatives.
  Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and having heard it I now understand why he said that he could spend two minutes in a room and come up with the three options being presented to the House. Of course, any option could be amended to take

  369
  account of the proposal put forward unanimously by the Public Administration Committee, which includes Labour and Opposition Members. I should add that we on the Committee were not in agreement in approaching this issue. We came from many different perspectives, but we did agree that progress must be made and that we must take this opportunity to bring about reform.
  I do not care what positions prospective members of the Joint Committee held on this issue, but I hope that they adopt the same attitude as we did, and approach it in the same spirit—that of bringing about reform. If the House does not want reform, it can vote accordingly, but it must be given an early opportunity to vote. Perhaps the House does not agree with the date suggested in our amendment, but, as was pointed out, we should not set a date of July 2003 or 2004. We know what would happen if such a date were set.
  I reiterate that the first job is to produce composition options, but I should also point out that it is possible to proceed quickly. You will undoubtedly know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when my home county, Glamorgan, played Surrey today in a one-day match on the other side of the river, at the Oval, more than 850 runs were scored in 50 overs. That shows that, with the right attitude, it is possible to dispatch the ball to the boundary and make quick progress. However, if many players on this particular team are determined to present a straight bat to every proposal, we will make no progress, perish, and end up with a boring draw.
  I turn briefly to the membership of the Joint Committee. I agree that the proposed names represent a distinguished group of hon. Members; among them is my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who is new to the House. However, 303 hon. Members signed the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I congratulate the person who, according to the House's mysterious processes, was responsible for selecting the membership of the Committee, as that person was able to find 11 hon. Members who did not sign that early-day motion.
  That is extraordinary. I checked the 303 signatories, and I apologise if I have missed someone. I am willing to stand corrected, but as far as I can tell the only member of the Committee who signed the early-day motion proposing that we should have a second Chamber that is wholly or substantially elected was my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What about my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)?
  Kevin Brennan: His name does not appear on my list.
  Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) is also a signatory.
  Mr. Tyler: As am I.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) should provide a number of options.
  Kevin Brennan: I am providing a number of options, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)
  370
  suggests. The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), is clearly right not to trust the modern technology that provided me with the print-out.
  I hope that members of the Joint Committee will read tonight's debate. If the amendment is not pressed, I hope that that will not be taken as an excuse for delay, because delay means no change. If the tactic is to delay, there will be no change. We must be clear and honest about that.
  If reform is prevented by delaying tactics and the deliberate use of the straight bat, Parliament will lose its credibility as an institution, because we will not be doing what we claim to he doing. We will not be being straight and honest with the public. The issue may not be of great importance for people in high streets around the country, but when they lose faith that politicians will do what they say that they will do, we will all perish.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The question of how we rule ourselves is probably the second most important of all those that could come before the House, the most important being whether we rule ourselves. The composition of the upper House and its functions, powers and legitimacy are of course of great importance in the matter of how we rule ourselves.
  I must, however, immediately dispute the assertion made by the hon. Members for Cardiff. West (Kevin Brennan) and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) that we have to move on. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush made what I thought was both an astonishing admission and an astonishing attack on his Government, although I am sure that it was not intended as such. He applauded the way in which the Government had waded in and—I think that these were his words——"smashed up the shop". He said that it was therefore necessary that something be done to put the shop back together again.
  The Government have certainly made changes to the upper House that I and many others regret, but their action could not be described as "smashing up the shop". We still have a perfectly effective, functioning and legitimate House of Lords. It is certainly as legitimate as anything that may be cobbled together as a result of this motion.
  The House of Lords presents no threat to the Government's business. It scrutinises legislation and holds the Government to account perhaps a little more effectively than this House.
  Mr. Forth: A lot more effectively.
  Mr. Turner: From a sedentary position. my right hon. Friend says that it does so a lot more effectively, and I concur with him. However, the House of Lords does not obstruct the Government's legislation unnecessarily—indeed, it improves it, as I am sure that the Home Secretary, for one, would admit, in retrospect.
  Mr. Tyrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than three quarters of so-called improving amendments are tabled by the Government to patch up shoddy legislation brought in here and then bunged up there for subsequent improvement?
  Mr. Turner: My hon. Friend is right. The House of Lords debates and accepts those amendments, and a further quarter of their own devising, in many cases improving the quality of legislation.

  371
  The only serious problem with the House of Lords is its size and the capacity that the Prime Minister of the day has to pack it if he wishes, although heaven forfend that I suggest he does. I should not criticise the unrepresentative nature of some recent appointments to the peerage because the peerage is not meant to be representative. However, it is noticeable that a huge proportion of recent appointees to the peerage live in the south-east of England and a tiny proportion live in other regions of England.
  May I say to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that there are worse things in life than a boring draw, as I am sure members of the England team would have agreed after their boring draw with Sweden in the early rounds of the World cup? Worse than a boring draw would be a worse upper House. It might be more representative and present more of a challenge to this House and its members but it might obstruct the Government's business for no good reason and exclude many of the able and intelligent people, represented largely by life peers at present, who would not dream in a month of Sundays of putting themselves forward for election.
  The fact that so few people responded to the consultation contained in the document—1,113 out of a population of 60 million—may be, as the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, because the White Paper was treated with derision. Or it could simply be that there is no overwhelming demand across the country for a wholesale reform of the House of Lords. There certainly is not in the pubs and clubs or on the beaches of the Isle of Wight. The consultation is wholly unrepresentative. It is not even as representative as the Isle of Wight council's consultation on the pedestrianisation of Newport high street, to which 1,135 people out of 130,000 responded.
  The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) suggested that we should not consult any more. The Government appear to have a strategy of consulting to death, until the people in the final consultation are such a tiny distillation of the political classes that the Government can, if they wish, ignore the result. However, on this occasion, the Government and the Joint Committee, if it is established, should ignore the result.
  We need proper consultation on the powers of the House of Lords or its replacement, its functions and its composition. That consultation should be undertaken by the Joint Committee in the regions, involving real people, not just the political classes, so that they have a genuine say, an accessible opportunity to give their views on this important element in our constitution. [Interruption.] Labour Members seem to treat with derision the idea of people in the regions having a genuine say.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I was not laughing at the proposal to consult people in the regions, as the Wakeham commission did. That consultation has continued, and I fear that the hon. Gentleman is arguing for consultation because he is not eager to make progress.
  Mr. Turner: The hon. Lady is right— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—I am not willing to make progress in the wrong direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) said that one quarter of the parliamentary Conservative party was not in favour. As one of the four hon. Members to have spoken from the Conservative Benches, I probably am that one quarter. However, we
  372
  must understand the profound conservatism of the British people, who do not want their constitutional arrangements to be upended for no good reason. I am not sure that that has come through in the consultations so far.
  On the functions of the House of Lords, of course, it is important that it should scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. It is still more important that it should protect and enhance our constitution and provide a constitutional longstop to the Government's ability to get constitutional changes through this House on a whipped vote. It is also important that the House of Lords should represent those people who would not dream of standing for election. I believe that the established Church should also be represented in that House.
  I take my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) seriously when he says that the House of Lords might take on a greater role in holding the Government to account. That is certainly the only justification that I can think of for a larger elected element, accountable to the people.
  The other issue is the range of options that the Committee is asked to produce. I am unsure that it is right that it should start, as hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to have accepted, by determining the composition of the other place. It has to start by determining the powers; then it must consider the different elements of the composition. That is not a one-dimensional question. It is not simply a question of 100 per cent. nominated at one end and 100 per cent. elected at the other. The nominated category encompasses an infinite variety, ranging from the retention of existing life peers to a big bang nomination of 100 per cent. by the Government of the day, the political parties, regional assemblies where those exist, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all—the corporate institutions, the Confederation of British Industry and the trade unions.
  The question of composition is not one-dimensional at the nominated end of the spectrum, nor is it one-dimensional at the elected end. Does elected mean directly or indirectly elected? Although we have the nod from the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), I am not sure that we have the nod from anyone on the Treasury Bench as to whether "elected" in the motion refers only to directly elected.
  It is a widely held view that there are too many politicians in this country already— [Interruption.] That is, politicians of all parties. A 100 per cent. elected House of Lords would simply be a job creation scheme for second-rate politicians. Although I do not wish to go into the details of voting systems, the single transferable vote proposed by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) would be the worst possible form of election because the only way in which one could be elected if one did not have a constituency interest would be by publicity seeking or representing more and more extreme views of one type or another.
  I hope that the Joint Committee will consider not only the type of elected individual, if it is considering elections, but also the means of election. We cannot make these decisions separately; we must make them together. If it takes longer to take a better decision, it is right that the Committee should take longer.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Chris Bryant: I am delighted to speak in this debate as the last Back Bencher to be called. This is the second time that I have achieved that honour in debates on Lords reform. I am also delighted, if the motion is approved tonight, to achieve the honour of providing some freshness on the Committee—in the words of the shadow Leader of the House—and to act, in the words of the Leader of the House, as a shop steward or convenor for the forces of progress.
  I had been delighted with the whole thrust of the debate until the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) spoke. He took us down several avenues that are not likely to help the Committee. Indeed, they might have been specifically designed to hinder the Committee in the progress that it might make. It is worth remembering that the major reason for the Committee—and why I welcome the Government's decision to set it up—is that the House of Lords still seems to the vast majority of people more like something out of a Shakespearean play, rather than a legislative body. It still contains the Bishop of Chester and the Bishop of Carlisle—characters from "Richard II", "Richard III", "Henry IV", parts I and 2, and "Henry VI", parts 1, 2 and 3, who are all still forming legislation for this country.
  David Winnick: They must be pretty old by now.
  Mr. Bryant: The personnel change, but they retain the titles. It is as if Bushy, Bagot and Green will come in at any moment and offer their allegiance to the king.
  The House of Lords still feels wholly unrepresentative. One might expect the second Chamber to look more like the country from which it is drawn.
  Mr. Robert Key: It does.
  Mr. Bryant: It does not look anything like it. It may look like the planet from which the hon. Gentleman has come, but it does not look like the country from which the rest of us have come. The second Chamber, as presently constituted, still has significant powers but without authority, accountability or legitimacy. That must be a fundamental problem for the British constitution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) made the point well that Britain has taken great pride in its constitution by virtue of its ability to adapt, reform and change. We now need to make additional change. In the words of the Leader of the House in the first debate held on the issue since I was elected, a centre of gravity already exists, certainly in this Chamber. It is intriguing that those who argue for no change often do so on the basis that they want to retain the primacy of this Chamber. However, they are often prepared to pray in aid the views of the second Chamber as if it should hold primacy on this sole issue.
  The centre of gravity on the issue has been evident in many of the debates that we have already had on this subject. It includes the belief that we should have a second Chamber that is a secondary and revising House, without significant additional powers of any kind. I believe that the majority of Members of this House think that any additional powers that it has should be exercised with legitimacy. There is also a centre of gravity around the
  374
  belief that the second Chamber should be smaller, with transitional arrangements to take us from the present situation to a better one.
  Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that the only form of political legitimacy is democratic legitimacy. Surely he is far too intelligent to believe that. If he did, he would have to argue that the monarchy, and our head of state, were not politically legitimate.
  Mr. Bryant: The monarchy and our head of state as currently constituted attract the support of the vast majority of the people in this country, as was demonstrated when Her Majesty visited the Rhondda last week. However, I personally believe that the best form of legitimacy for any country is democracy, and we should push arguments for democracy more strongly, especially when democracy is having a difficult time.
  As one who, I hope, will be put on the Committee by the end of this evening, I want to issue a couple of warnings. First, the Committee has been referred to by many in the press and the media, including the BBC website, as the "long-grass Committee". I am something of an expert on long grass, as I have not cut the grass in my garden for some time. I bought a strimmer last week, however, and, in recognition of how strong the grass is in my garden, a bush cutter. Perhaps it would be a good idea if all members of the Committee were issued with strimmers to make sure that it does not stay long in the long grass and that we can get it right back in the middle of the lawn.
  My second warning is that there is no point in the Committee repeating the work of previous Committees. There has been a royal commission and endless different Committees of the House and of the other place. Various different organisations and think tanks have been round these bushes so often that it is time that we cut through the Gordian knot. That will not best be done by trying to repeat the work by calling a vast array of witnesses who have already given evidence to Select Committees. It is most important that we move forward.
  On the best way to move forward—perhaps the Minister will reply to this later—there still seems to be uncertainty about what stage 1 and 2 are. My understanding is that stage 1 puts a simple series of questions—not fully worked out options—about the composition of a new second Chamber. For instance, will the composition be 0 per cent., 60 per cent., or 100 per cent.? We shall vote on those and any amendments but not on a wholly worked-out system. That is the building block for the second stage. Once the Committee knows whether the composition is to be 0 per cent., 60 per cent., or 100 per cent., it can put forward a whole set of proposals with recommendations about the electoral system, length of service, transitional arrangements and other issues that will need to be addressed.
  If the Committee spends a large amount of time in its first months deliberating about all those other issues, it will never manage to achieve the most important first step of establishing the building blocks of what the composition should look like. Above all, the final outcome—this must be a kind of lodestar for the Committee—is a historic opportunity to create a settled constitution. A parliamentary system that commands

  375
  authority, respect and legitimacy, not just in one part but in its entirety, can only bring greater respect and legitimacy to the whole of the political endeavour, which can only be good for democracy and for Britain. I also believe that it cannot be beyond the wit of the men and women on the Committee, and of the whole political system of this country, to devise a parliamentary stem that is complementary, in which the two Chambers work together, not in competition, but have separate roles.
  Many members of the Labour party might say that these constitutional issues are largely irrelevant compared with the bread-and-butter issues of law and order, health, education and transport. In many ways, I agree. The Labour Government will stand or fall on those issues far more than on this one. The question of how we choose to run the country, however, is about the way in which we use power. I shall make no apologies, as the Member of Parliament for the Rhondda, for spending what I estimate will be a considerable part of the summer and other parts of the year ahead working on this matter, if only because the first Member of Parliament for the Rhondda, William Abrahams—who was known by all as Mabon—spent all of his maiden speech, and much of his parliamentary career, trying to seek the disestablishment of the Church of Wales, as it then was, and, subsequently, of the Church in Wales, and trying to make sure that the bishops of the Church of England were removed from the House of Lords.
  I hope that we can finish the job on behalf of Mabon. I note that there is no bishop on the Committee, and that is a significant first step. It is the first time that there has not been a bishop on any Committee that has been set up to try to reform the House of Lords. I hope that we follow through in that style.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): It is with pleasure that I close what all Members will agree has been an extremely valuable and constructive debate on setting up the Joint Committee.
  In establishing the Joint Committee, the Government have taken an historic step—to put the decision on Parliament's future into the hands of Parliament itself. We believe that the membership of the Joint Committee broadly reflects the range of views in this House and the other place, as have been expressed in this and earlier debates and in the response to the Government's consultation. The initial phase of the Committee's work will be followed by detailed consideration of the implementation of reform. After that, it is the Government's intention to legislate.
  We also believe that it is right for both Chambers to have an opportunity to express their collective view on the issue, and that is why the first task for the Joint Committee is to devise a set of options for the composition of the second Chamber. They will be put to the House in free votes.
  We have heard many contributions to the debate urging speed on the Joint Committee. They have been given focus by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) and his fellow members of the Public Administration Committee. We have heard many voices in the Chamber calling particularly for speed in putting forward the options for the free votes. I am sure that members of the Committee, many of whom have spoken in the debate, have heard those exhortations.
  376
  The Government did not want to set a deadline for the Joint Committee to report, because we felt that it should be a matter for the Committee itself to set a timetable. However, I am sure that it will take into account what has been said in the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made a number of specific recommendations about timing and I hope that he was reassured by what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said when he made it clear that we will have to have the options on which to vote by the autumn if we are to keep to a timetable of introducing legislation in the next Session. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) requested, there will have to be a final report by the end of the year. We are with my hon. Friends on timing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase acknowledged, the Government want to make progress and bring the matter to a conclusion. I hope that what I and my right hon. Friend have said this evening will be enough to persuade my hon. Friend not to press his amendment to the vote.
  Tony Wright: In the spirit of compromise that we have urged on the House so as to make progress, let me give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires In view of the assurances that he is giving now and that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave earlier, I confirm that we will not press our amendment to the vote.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend also made several points about the important role that his Select Committee's report played in contributing to the debate. I agree with him on that. He commended to the House and to those watching and listening outside that part of the report entitled "Getting from here to there", and I recommend the whole report to those Members who have not yet read it. It is excellent, and we share his sense of urgency.
  My hon. Friend also expressed regret that none of the members of the Joint Committee were drawn from his Select Committee. I hear what he says hut, if it is any consolation, the whole House would expect him and other members of the Select Committee to be among the first to be called upon to give evidence. We hope that the Select Committee will mount a critical and constructive critique of the Joint Committee's work. There may be advantages in doing that if there is no overlap in membership.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: What criteria were applied for selecting members of the Joint Committee?
  Mr. Bradshaw: The ability of members to reach a conclusion while approaching the problem with fresh minds and retaining a balance. My hon. and learned Friend has only just arrived in the Chamber—
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: No I have not. I was here before. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] When the Minister was not here.
  Mr. Bradshaw: That is amazing because I only popped out to the loo for about 30 seconds. Had my hon. and learned Friend listened to the whole debate, which I am sure he did even if he was not present, he would have

  377
  heard every hon. Member, with the exception of the nationalists, commend the membership of the Committee and its qualities.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made important references to the report by the Public Administration Select Committee. He spent some time advocating the benefits of certain electoral systems and the timing of elections. Although the White Paper, the report and the Wakeham commission might not explicitly support what he said about electoral systems, they at least tilt towards his view.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) made an excellent contribution. He welcomed the establishment of the Committee and I welcome the fact that he will be a member of it. He also had interesting things to say about the West German model, which I have studied and it has much to recommend it. Like all the details raised by right hon. and hon. Members, those matters will be for the Joint Committee. As a member of the Committee, I am sure that he will be able to make those points to it.
  My hon. Friend was right to remind the House that the reform needs to be seen in the context of this Government as the first Government radically to reform the United Kingdom constitution for many years. I thank him for that. He also expressed a desire for a speedy process. Like other hon. Members, he volunteered to sit through parts of the summer, although hopefully only when it would not upset his family too much. My hon. Friend rightly expressed the near consensus that exists on the importance of maintaining the pre-eminence of the Commons. He stressed how vital it is that its Members are elected on a manifesto and given a mandate to carry through those commitments.
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) startled many in the House with his declaration that we are all modernists now, for which he earned a rebuke from his right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. As a new member of the Public Administration Select Committee, he also spoke warmly of its report and in favour of the amendment. I hope that he accepts the reassurances that my right hon. Friend and I have given on timing and is happy that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, another member of the Public Administration Select Committee, accused the Government of having a poor track record on constitutional reform. I do not accept that. Indeed, the Committee's report went out of its way to praise the Government's record on such reform and, as I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush thinks that the Government will go down as one of the great radical reforming Governments of all time. However, having said that we have a poor track record, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle welcomed the fact that we are leaving the matter to Parliament. I am glad that he is at least pleased about that.
  My hon. Friend was concerned that any debate about regions or regionalism would slow down the process. Those hon. Members who want to make progress are unanimous that wherever the regional debate goes, it should not slow down reform of the House of Lords. I
  378
  hope that that reassures him. As I said, his request that the final report should be ready by the turn of the year is one to which we can all agree.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) raised the concern expressed in an intervention about the lack of representation of nationalist parties on the Joint Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear in his opening speech, we have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's points. However, as my right hon. Friend said, if there were to be proportionality in the representation on the Committee, it would have to be more than twice its planned size, and that, we fear, would slow down its work. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) made the good point that, in the end, we will have a free vote on the options in which all our votes will count equally.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), in another very good contribution, welcomed the steps that we are taking this evening and called for swift progress. She rightly drew attention to the importance of this debate as part of the wider debate in the country about the need for politicians to reconnect with people who feel that politics has nothing to do with them. My hon. Friend was right to point out that that is a crucial part of the constitutional right of reform. We share the belief and hope that it will help to revitalise our political life and re-engage people.
  The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), in another very positive contribution, warmly welcomed the motion, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I accept the hon. Gentleman's congratulations on his behalf. The hon. Gentleman called for speed and rightly pointed out that some members of the Committee may well seek to delay the process. I hope that those Members who are present and others who read the report of the debate take on board the almost unanimous view that the Committee should get a move on. The hon. Gentleman accused the Government of interminable delay, and I do not recognise that description, but I am glad that he is generally on the side of the angels in this matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) was right to say that the Committee's first task will be to present options, and he expressed the hope that there will not be too many. I hope that he was reassured by the intervention of my right hon. Friend, who expressed his own hope that that will be the case. My hon. Friend expressed regret that only one Member of this House who had signed the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough had been selected for the Committee. We have done a little research in the meantime, and the latest count is five and rising, so I hope that my hon. Friend feels reassured.
  I think that it would be fair to say that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was a lone voice this evening in arguing that we should not move on. He talked about many details, such as the role of the established Church and whether any faiths should be represented. He made the point that there are too many politicians, and I suggest that this is a good opportunity for us to decrease that number. People have talked about consensus, and I think that one point on which there is consensus is that the second Chamber could be a good deal smaller than it is.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), in an excellent speech, showed that he will be an excellent member of the Committee. He reminded us why Lords

  379
  reform must be brought to its conclusion. He also, rightly, spoke of a centre of gravity. In recent months, too many people have got away with suggesting that there are as many views on the matter as there are Members of Parliament, and that argument is very dangerous.
  Mr. Tyrie: The man who has argued most forcefully that there are as many views as there are Members is the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Bradshaw: That is as it may be, but in recent weeks and months, the realisation has been growing that it is possible to bring people around to a consensus, and I think that the report of the Public Administration Committee achieved that. Although the House contains many views on the way forward, consensus is coalescing around a number of issues, although strong differences remain on composition and the proportions of elected and appointed Members, which is one of the reasons why the Joint Committee is to make settling on recommendations and presenting us with options a priority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda expressed the hope that the Joint Committee would not be a "long-grass Committee". I think that most hon. Members share that hope. He also stressed the importance of the Committee not repeating work that had already been done, and he was absolutely right to do so. He was also absolutely right in his definition of stage 1: it needs to be quick and to serve as a building block so that we can get on with the nitty-gritty and the detail. He generously offered to emulate his distinguished predecessor by spending much of the summer dealing with constitutional reform.
  Several hon. Members have made specific proposals on the direction of reform, and although I do not want to duck those issues, I have to say that such matters are now for the Joint Committee, which has been established to consider the way forward in a way that reflects the views of this House and the other place. I think that those proposals were directed more at the members of the Joint Committee in this House and people outside than at my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House or me. I am sure that those members of the Joint Committee who have been present for the debate have noted the points made and will consider them during their deliberations.
  I join with other hon. Members in wishing the Joint Committee well in its deliberations. There should be no doubt that it is a Committee of very high calibre, whose members will bring to it a large amount of collective wisdom and a healthy mix of opinions. I am certain that they are up to the task.
  The matter with which the Joint Committee will deal is not a small one, and it is to the Government's credit that we have put Parliament in the driving seat of reform of the House of Lords. Parliament now stands on the brink of an unparalleled opportunity to shape itself for the future. It is considering one of the most important constitutional decisions of the past 100 years, and the effect of its deliberations will be felt for decades to come. I know that it will rise to the challenge. I trust that the House agrees that the motion is for the convenience of all parties and that it will support it.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) does not want to pursue his amendment.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the hon. Member for Cannock Chase has decided not to press his amendment, is it possible for you to reconsider accepting ours?
  Mr. Speaker: That was a decision made at 12 o'clock today.
  Question. put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 14.

  Division No. 277]

  [9.58 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Ainger, Nick

  Chidgey, David

  Allan, Richard

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  (Norwich S)

  (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clwyd, Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coaker, Vernon

  Austin, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coleman, Iain

  Baird, Vera

  Colman, Tony

  Baker, Norman

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Banks, Tony

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barrett, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cox, Tom

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beard, Nigel

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bell, Stuart

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Best, Harold

  (Copeland)

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brennan, Kevin

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Donohoe, Brian H

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Browne, Desmond

  Doughty, Sue

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dowd, Jim

  Bryant, Chris

  Drew, David

  Burgon, Colin

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Burnett, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnam, Andy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Efford, Clive

  Cairns, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fisher, Mark

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Casale, Roger

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Caton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flynn, Paul

  Challen, Colin

  Follett, Barbara

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  381

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lidington, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Love, Andrew

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lucas, Ian

  Gapes, Mike

  Luke, Iain

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCabe, Stephen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gilroy, Linda

  McDonnell, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWatter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mann, John

  Havard, Dai

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hayes, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Healey, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heath, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heyes, David

  Mole, Chris

  Hill, Keith

  Moore, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morgan, Julie

  Hoey, Kate

  Morley, Elliot

  Hope, Phil

  Mountford, Kali

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Hurst, Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Illsley, Eric

  Owen, Albert

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Joyce, Eric

  Prisk, Mark

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Kidney, David

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rendel, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robertson, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lamb, Norman

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rooney, Terry

  Laws, David

  Ross, Ernie

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruane, Chris

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lepper, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Ryan, Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Salter, Martin

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  382

  Sawford, Phil

  Twigg, Stephen Enfield)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tayler, Paul

  Simon, Siôn

  Tynan, Bill

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Soley, Clive

  Watson, Tom

  Southworth, Helen

  Watts, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Webb, Steve

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  White, Brian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wilson, Brian

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winnick, David

  Tami, Mark

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wayre F)

  Woolas, Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Todd, Mark

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wright,Tony (Cannock)

  Touhig, Don

  Wyatt, Derek

  Trickett, Jon

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Angela Smith and

  Mr. Jim Murphy.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Spink, Bob

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Fallon, Michael

  Weir, Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Price, Adam

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Mr. Simon Thomas and

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Pete Wishart.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Lords Message [10th June] relating to House of Lords Reform be now considered.
  That this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution.
  That a Select Committee of twelve Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform

  (1) to consider issues relating to House of Lords reform, including the composition and powers of 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 pre-eminence of the House of Commons, such consideration to include the implications of a House composed of more than one 'category' of member and the experience and expertise which the House of Lords in its present form brings to its function as the revising Chamber; and

  (2) having regard to paragraph (1) above, to report on options for the composition and powers of the House of Lords and to define and present to both Houses options for composition, including a fully nominated and fully elected House, and intermediate options; and to consider and report on—

  (a) any changes to the relationship between the two Houses which may be necessary to ensure the proper functioning of Parliament as a whole in the context of a reformed Second Chamber, and in particular, any new procedures for resolving conflict between the two Houses; and

  383

  (b) the most appropriate and effective legal and constitutional means to give effect to any new Parliamentary settlement;

  and in all the foregoing considerations, to have regard to—

  (i) the Report of the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform (Cm. 4534);

  (ii) the White Paper The House of Lords—Completing the Reform (Cm. 5291), and the responses received thereto;

  (iii) debates and votes in both Houses of Parliament on House of Lords reform; and

  (iv) the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Report The Second Chamber: Continuing the Reform, including its consultation of the House of Commons, and any other relevant select committee reports.

  That the Committee shall have power—

  (i) to send for persons, papers and records;

  (ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

  (iii) to report from time to time;

  (iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

  (v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

  That Janet Anderson, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Chris Bryant, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Dr. Jack Cunningham, Mr. William Hague, Mr. Stephen McCabe, Joyce Quin, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Paul Stinchcombe and Mr. Paul Tyler be members of the Committee.

  House of Lords Reform (Joint Committee)
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      HOUSING
      That the Housing (Right to Acquire) (Discount) Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1091) he referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  NHS Pensions
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  10.11 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I think that all hon. Members share one common experience: we often get asked why we ever got involved in politics. Whenever I am asked that question, I either blame Lucas Industries or pension provision, especially for women. On this occasion, it was my interest in pensions for women that drew me to a particular problem, which also happened to relate to the health service.
  I had the great honour of serving as a Minister in the Department of Health and I want to put it on record that the NHS is an exemplary employer. In many ways, it has driven forward the agenda on fair employment practices, so I am by no means criticising the NHS as an employer. However, I want to criticise an especially quirky provision in the pension system that has historic roots. The best way of describing it is to use the words of one of my constituents.
  Dr. Susan Collier, who works in a neighbouring health authority, said:
  "My husband and I both qualified from Birmingham Medical School in 1978 and our medical careers have been similar to date. We both work in general practice. We have no children and I have therefore taken no time out for maternity leave etc.
  However, under the current law any pension payments made by a female GP before 1988 cannot be included in calculations of payments to be made to the GP's husband if he survives her. However, the pension scheme does allow widows of GPs to receive payments based on all pension contributions made by their husbands. This means that if I pre-decease my husband he will get less merely because I happen to be female."
  Dr. Collier describes the problem succinctly. It is not clear how many GPs will be affected, but I think that the figure is estimated at about 5,000. The potential cost of remedying the problem is also unclear, as calculations often tend to ignore the fact that women still tend to live longer than men. In a sense, there would be a practical effect on the Treasury only if the woman predeceased her husband.
  I think that I have a fairly good idea of what the Minister might be tempted to say in her response. Indeed, I know what I would probably have been tempted to say in her shoes. In all fairness, the Department of Health has been very consistent in its response. A written answer given as long ago as 1999 stated that, to put the problem right,
  "these costs would have to be paid in full by the whole membership and there is no indication that they would be willing to do so."—[Official Report, 13 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 212W.]
  I think that that is a very rational and logical response, but I am afraid that that does not make it right. I put it to the Minister that it is unacceptable in this day and age that a pound paid into a pension fund by a woman should be worth less than a pound paid in by a man. There should not be any differences between widows and widowers. The days of systems designed with the man as breadwinner were, I hoped, well and truly over. Surely that sends out the wrong message, as the NHS wants to recruit and retain more GPs, especially women. I urge the Minister not just to give me the usual answer but to justify the gender difference.
  However, I am a realist and I know that I am asking the Minister to right an historic wrong from the period 1972 to 1988. She may tell me that that is not the best

  385
  use of money and may well have a point. If she resists the temptation to right a past wrong, may I urge her not to create a wrong for the future? In 2001, after lengthy negotiations with the Department of Health, agreement was reached on whether GP locums would be able to join the NHS superannuation scheme. It was thought that all locum income would be superannuable from 1 April 2001.
  Alas, on closer inspection, that does not appear to be the case. Repeated pressure on the NHS Pensions Agency and the Department of Health did not produce the necessary draft regulations to ensure that arrangements were made for the 2001–02 financial year. Draft regulations finally saw the light of day in January 2001, but locum income was excluded in cases where the doctor also worked as an assistant or principal practitioner. Bizarrely, any locum who also had a hospital post was included.
  To avoid delay in full-time locum doctors receiving entitlements, the NHS Pension Scheme Amendment Regulations 2002 were laid, but provisions for part-time GPs have yet to he introduced. The new GP contract includes an undertaking that in future all net NHS income earned by GPs will be pensionable, including locum earnings by assistant and principal practitioners. When the regulations were laid, assurances were given that they in no way marked the end of discussions. I hope that is the case.
  Even if the Minister cannot remedy a past wrong on this occasion, and even if only a small group of doctors are affected, two long-term issues must be addressed. First, women will he disproportionately affected, so I hope that we move to a system that does not discriminate against women. Secondly, we want to recruit more doctors and keep more GPs. We do not want women GPs to be lost to the health service when they have families, so the flexibility to work part-time at certain times of their lives without losing the chance to build up pension rights is in all our interests.
  Given the time of night I shall be brief. I should be grateful if the Minister addressed past wrongs, but I accept that I shall probably have to accept whatever she says. However, will she assure me that the draft regulations will be amended so that we do not create another generation of women GPs who will experience discrimination on retirement?
  10.18 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing a debate on the important issue of national health service pensions and women doctors. I also acknowledge her expertise and experience on pensions and the NHS.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend recognised that the NHS has an excellent final salary pension scheme, with benefits on average worth about 20 per cent. of pay, which is open to all NHS employees, regardless of hours worked, including general medical and dental practitioners. It has more than 1 million members and currently pays benefits to nearly 475,000 NHS pensioners. The NHS scheme operates under the principles of mutual assurance, allowing employers and members to join together to share the risks and spread the costs. There is no individual pot of money for each member, which means that the scheme can offer a defined package of benefits for a standard contribution.
  386
  Like many public service schemes, the NHS pension scheme is unfunded. There is no pension fund, and contributions are not invested to provide for future pension payments. My hon. Friend will be aware that NHS employers pay a 7 per cent. contribution, with the Exchequer guaranteeing scheme benefits and underwriting the cost of inflation-proofing pensions in retirement. The NHS scheme has introduced many changes over the past 50 years, sometimes adding extra pension benefits, at other times withdrawing outdated provisions. New rights accrue prospectively and withdrawn rights are protected for existing members. Employers, the Government and, ultimately, taxpayers take the financial risk of underwriting future benefits. That means that we must ensure that the NHS scheme operates with a fair degree of financial certainty. The future may be unpredictable, but at least past liabilities can be assessed and accounted for.
  My hon. Friend rightly raised concerns expressed by women doctors about the restrictions on past service rights. We recognise those concerns—indeed, as a member of another public service scheme, I recognise them personally and acutely. However, sharing risks and costs means that a feature of defined benefit schemes is that proportionately some members may do better than others. For example, it generally costs more to provide pensions for doctors than it does for administrative and clerical staff, but each pays the same 6 per cent. contribution. Female members will generally outlive their male counterparts and so may take a greater share of personal benefits from the scheme. Moreover, some members may not be interested in a particular aspect of the package. For example, single members may not want and may never benefit from dependants' cover, but the cost of providing those benefits is spread across the whole membership under the mutual assurance principle. Members cannot opt out of parts of the basic benefit package.
  Before April 1988, the NHS scheme did not include a general widowers' provision. Widowers' benefits were not part of the package that members were buying and on which the NHS scheme was costed. When widowers' benefits were introduced for membership after 6 April 1988, the new benefit was included in the future costing arrangements, but only on the basis of the prospective cover. Backdating widowers' cover to 1972, when half-rate widows' pensions were introduced, would have created unfunded liabilities.
  The Government want all workers to be treated fairly. In that respect, we ensure that the NHS pension scheme complies with all existing domestic legislation and European Community directives and law. I understand that saying that the scheme complies with the law offers little reassurance to those who want equality for the past as well. However, given that there is an equal treatment rule that has applied for the past 14 years, it is difficult to see the justification for back-dating the provision to an even earlier date. It would seem unreasonable to expect the general membership and current health budgets to address such issues now, especially as there are more contemporary and relevant improvement candidates. My hon. Friend emphasised that when she talked about how we respond in future to recruiting and retaining more NHS staff. The Government sometimes have to make hard decisions about matters such as pension rights. We want and need to be fair to scheme members, but equally we have a duty to be fair to the taxpayer and to users of health services. It is a question of balance.

  387
  Although widowers' cover was not backdated in 1988, a special scheme was available until 30 June 1989 that allowed existing female members to purchase widowers' cover for their earlier service. The costs were shared with NHS employers. There are provisions in the NHS pension scheme for the unrestricted payment of widowers' benefits when the member's husband is permanently incapable of earning a living because of ill health and is wholly or mainly dependent on his wife.
  We understand the strong feelings of women doctors and the view that they subsidised their male colleagues over the provision of half-rate widows' pension cover from March 1972. We have considered whether retrospective cover should be made available but the costs are significant. Of course, there would be wider implications because the policy on widowers' benefits applies across the public service. Even at 1999 salary levels, the Government Actuary has calculated the capital cost of backdating NHS widowers' cover for those who were members in 1988 at approximately £500 million. I understand that the costs are little different today, and we are not prepared to pick them up. It is not reasonable to expect us to do that, and we would not realistically expect the general membership to want to pay.
  On a more positive note, I hope that I can answer my hon. Friend's second question on locum GPs. We opened the NHS pension scheme to freelance locum GPs from 1 April 2001. That was a major step forward and means that all doctors practising in the NHS have access to sponsored pension arrangements.
  Our commitment was to allow scheme access to freelance locums when the health authority supplementary lists were in place. The link was to improve the protection for patients by ensuring that all GPs who work in the NHS have access to training and regular appraisal by their host health authority.
  Consultations with the profession about the shape of the new lists were greatly protracted and we were not able to introduce the legislation until December last year. The changes to the NHS scheme depended on the arrangements agreed for supplementary lists and, in that context, we can claim some credit for having scheme amendments in place by the end of the tax year.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that the new opportunity will be especially important to the increasing number of women GP qualified doctors, who now have the option of working in the NHS and joining the NHS pension scheme without having to join a main health authority list as a GP principal. That will give them access to generous pension arrangements but with the flexibility to balance their work and family commitments. We take that seriously as we develop recruitment and retention in the NHS.
  I know that the scope of the regulations did not go as far as doctors wanted. We understood their anxieties, but our priority was to fulfil the commitment to freelance locum GPs. Unlike other GPs, they had no access to the NHS scheme.
  388
  However, as my hon. Friend said, the Department has given an undertaking that the amending regulations do not mark the end of the discussions. We made it clear to doctors' representatives that we would continue to consider the position of principals and assistants.
  We recognise that assistants and other GPs want all their NHS earnings to be covered by the NHS pension scheme. I understand my hon. Friend's point about the importance of that form of working. That is understandable because, unlike those of employees, GP pensions are based on total uprated career earnings.
  Clearly, there are detailed issues to consider but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the framework document for the new GP contract says that we would expect all net NHS income earned by GPs to be pensionable, including locum earnings in the hands of assistants and principals.
  GP pension issues are complex and we should not overlook the fact that practical difficulties and cost implications need consideration. However, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the NHS Confederation, with the active support of officials from the Department and the NHS Pensions Agency, is currently engaged in detailed discussions to identify solutions in order to present recommendations to Ministers as soon as possible.
  In summary, we have taken steps to ensure that the NHS pension scheme complies fully with equal treatment legislation and provides all members, including doctors, with unrestricted access to an excellent package of pension benefits. The NHS pension scheme continues to provide very good value for money and, in the light of the recent turbulence in private sector final salary schemes, a very attractive inducement to working in the NHS.
  We must, however, look forward to the future recruitment and retention needs of the NHS, in line with our NHS plan aspirations. That does not mean that we can forget about the past, but, with competing priorities for resources, it would seem increasingly appropriate to spend tax revenue on things that will significantly help to improve the delivery of patient services rather than redress past inequalities, however deserving those claims may be.
  For locum GPs, we have addressed a long-standing grievance over access to the NHS pension scheme. To meet our commitment to provide scheme access from April 2001, we have not been able to resolve some of the outstanding concerns of other GPs, but we have committed to further discussions within the new GP contract negotiations.
  In conclusion, may I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue? I assure her that, as we go forward with developments in the NHS pension schemes, we shall bear in mind both the need to ensure equality of treatment and the need to ensure that we recruit—and retain—the very best people into the NHS to provide the very best treatment for those who depend on it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

School Examination System
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Today's cohort of sixth formers is made up of some of the most examined children in British educational history. Of course, regular testing gives teachers, parents and pupils useful information, but how many children will look back and say that their school days, far from being the happiest of their lives, were marred by over-examination?
Those of us with children in the state sector know that the process begins with standard assessment tests at the age of seven, and that children are then put on a conveyor belt of continual examination, which runs through to GCSEs, AS-levels and, finally, A-levels—and that is just within the school system.
SATs have a role to play in helping us carry out important checks on children's progress through the education system. However, the majority of teachers have serious reservations about the national system for testing young children. That may be connected with teachers' disenchantment with the increasing paperwork that the Government machinery churns out for them. Between April last year and March this year, the Government sent schools 4,500 pages of reading material. How are head teachers expected to find the time to read that amount of paperwork? I am sure that all hon. Members have heard that cry go up from teachers in their constituencies.
The national standards take little or no account of local differences, socio-economic variations or the number of children with special needs in a class, and that creates all sorts of perverse incentives. One head teacher described to me how a parent who had a child with special needs had told her, "I expect you won't want my child, because he will affect your SATs results." I am pleased to say that she was having none of that, and took the child on.
At best, SATs are a crude measure, but we all know how parents pore over the resultant league tables in a quest to find the best school for their children. However, education depends on so much else, such as the school's ethos, the head teacher's leadership and even the company that one's children keep.
I commend to the Secretary of State the performance indicators in primary schools—or PIPS—scheme, which measures the difference that a school makes to one's child. A bright seven-year-old may easily obtain level 2 in their SATs, but have they really been stretched to their full potential? One can find that out using PIPS, but not SATs. Conversely, a less bright seven-year-old might just miss out on level 2, but should they stand condemned at that stage for missing a national target, if they have made real progress since entering school at reception?
68WH
I am sure that I am not the only mother of boys who wonders what on earth happens to them around the age of seven. The terrible twos seem to make a bumpy reappearance for about 18 months until some maturity miraculously kicks in at the age of nine. However, seven is precisely the age at which children undergo their very important first test. Under a school-based PIPS evaluation scheme, one can take account of all such factors and keep a handle on how a child is learning and progressing. If there are difficulties, teachers can take a parent on one side and explain what progress the child is making. The information will be available, and it will be possible to see quite graphically what added value the school is giving the child and what the parent, the school and the child can do together to raise standards. There will not simply be a bald national statistic.
What about the Green Paper proposals to reduce the number of compulsory GCSE topics and to enable brighter pupils to take subjects early? As a language graduate, I am worried that that will be an excuse to drop some hated foreign language, which will push Britain even further behind in languages.
In my day—I loathe using that phrase, but there have been changes since I was at school, and as Members we tend to relate our experience to what is happening now—we had O-levels and CSEs. The introduction of GCSEs was designed to get over the two-tier approach to exams at 16. Taking nine or so subjects in one go was a test of one's capacity to carry a breadth of subjects and cope with sheer volume before the relative luxury of specialisation and streamlining.
In terms simply of load bearing, the O-level year was far and away the most difficult I faced in my schooling. I had to carry nine subjects, some of them not my best, all at the same time. In some ways, A-levels were easier. Allowing pupils to skip GCSEs altogether and go straight to AS-levels risks creating a two-tier effect all over again, so I would caution the Government over those proposals.
AS-levels were not around in my day and I am glad that I did not have to do them. The lower sixth was a chance to breathe after the heavy pressure of the GCSE year or its equivalent and before the seriousness of A-level exam pressures was upon us. That year saw a flowering of extra-curricular activity, including the production of a school musical, service to the community and gaining Queen's guide badges—all education, but not necessarily subject to examination. I am not surprised by the growth in popularity of the gap year, as children increasingly want time to live before they knuckle under to a university education.
One member of my family started his final exam season yesterday. He is one of a cohort of guinea pigs who have been relentlessly examined and re-examined since 1983 and his observations are worth listening to. He feels that his classmates have been tested so extensively that it almost contradicts the concept of comprehensive education. Testing stamped into kids where they stood in relation to their classmates at a very early stage. He experienced the revisions of the AS-level system and the new A2 levels, and he points out that the modular system of examining progressively throughout the two-year period does not suit all types of student, especially the last-minute merchants who need the focus of a deadline to put the work in.

69WH
The fact that AS-level students are first examined in January after a September start puts some people off pursuing those subjects, and a poor result after one term's study can deter people altogether. Some schools have had a drop-out rate of 50 per cent. between September 2000, when they embarked on the new revised sixth form scheme, and June 2002. My relation feels that some less academic pupils were casualties of being encouraged to pursue AS-levels and A2 levels rather than the more vocational courses to which they might have been better suited. He questions the need to reform the A-level system, along the lines of the famous dictum, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
It is right to listen to the pupils' concerns. They are sitting the exams, they will have to face the consequences and they are left with the memories of what it was really like. Interestingly, at the peak of the exam season we have had a rash of hits on the Conservative party website from pupils sitting exams who want to tell us about their problems. All the hits—there were over 40—involved one of three issues: exam quality, exam overload or the exam boards. Given the age of the correspondents, I shall refer to them by Christian name only to preserve their anonymity. For example, Mark said:
"The current exam system in primary and secondary schools is highly constricting. It seems that some primary school children are being taught how to pass their exams rather than being taught in the subjects that should matter."
Alex, a pupil from West Yorkshire, said of a history course:
"My teacher had managed to complete the course by November, just two months into the term. Since then the lesson time has been used for exam preparation. This is typical of British Education. Low on content and high on meeting targets. British children aren't educated properly at all."
Those examples are reactions in the raw from pupils who have to deal with the system.
Paul from West Yorkshire commented on his experience of moving from GCSE to AS-level:
"The AS levels are too big a jump from the GCSEs to have only a one year gap between the two exams. That means we have exams every year for three years. This means we have to have time out in the lower sixth form to be doing exams when we could be doing more of the A level syllabus."
Another comment on the AS-level system came from Peter from Surrey, who wrote that it promotes
"only anxiety concerning the burden of work and the inevitable exclusion of activities such as culture and sport. The system punishes the student who engages in either…and the stress that results in attempting to combine academic work and extracurricular activities can be crippling to exam success, as well as personal development."
It is also interesting that the website had a hit from a teacher, Sue from Suffolk, who wrote:
"The new AS exams are one set of exams too many."
Bob Spink: Teachers are forced to focus on the exam system against their wishes. They want to teach the syllabus and improve education, but the system and league tables force them to focus too much on exams. They are shell-shocked by the environment of change in which they have lived for many years. We need stability—an innovation holiday—in education.
70WH
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has urged the Government to abandon their proposals to introduce the super-A-level, which it says presents substantial risks to the quality of examining in A-levels and the trustworthiness of the grading system. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mrs. Spelman: That is a helpful and interesting observation from my hon. Friend. I never thought that I would catch myself saying that anyone would want an innovation holiday, but our sympathy goes to teachers, who have had to cope with an inordinate amount of change, much of which has involved grasping changes in exam technique.
I was tremendously struck by a distinction made by a teacher of one of my children. Commenting on an exam result—it might have been less than ideal—the teacher pointed out that exam technique could be learned, but that the education and intellect of the pupil need nurturing and time. Given that we have had robust exam systems in the past, I am deeply concerned that teachers feel that the balance has shifted towards getting their heads round specific techniques required for specific exams. My hon. Friend's intervention is well made.
Mr. David Rendel: Perhaps we do not need an innovation holiday altogether. I sympathise with the wish for less innovation imposed from central Government, but there is still room for teachers to experiment with new methods and perhaps even new subjects that they want to bring to the curriculum. Such experimentation has been driven out by so much centralisation of the education system over the past few years.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he acknowledges that the PIPS scheme provides examples of schools innovating a method. Others can use that method, but a school may develop its own initiative and measure for its own satisfaction the difference that it makes to pupils of every ability. For the schools involved, and the children and their parents, that will give a much finer feel of how individuals are developing.
Our concern is to give schools the space to make perhaps necessary interventions. That is based on the fact that every signal that we receive from teachers and our children, who deal with the syllabus, suggests that there is not much space in the system because of all the centrally-imposed requirements to deal with things precisely and in a particular way. I sympathise with the view that more flexibility in the requirements imposed on schools would allow more scope for helpful innovation from them.
Bob Spink: My hon. Friend may not be aware that the Science and Technology Committee is considering education in the sciences. Among the evidence that we have received is the strong message that teachers ought to be authorised to set their own questions, which could go towards the national examinations. That facility already exists in some subjects.
We are contemplating giving teachers flexibility in how they deliver the curriculum to make it more relevant for them and their pupils, which would be

71WH
innovative. I am not against innovation, but is my hon. Friend aware that where there is innovation, as in the advanced vocational certificate of education examination, which has been forced on colleges—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that interventions in Westminster Hall should still be interventions rather than speeches? He might like to catch my eye later if he wishes to develop his ideas into a speech.
Bob Spink: May I finish my point?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerBriefly.
Bob Spink: Thank you, I appreciate that. Where innovations are to be introduced, teachers should be properly prepared. For instance, there has not been proper preparation and it looks as though this year's AVCE engineering examinations will be a disaster.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend and look forward to the result of the Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, which will make good reading. In my experience, the Committee always produces highly informative reports and I hope that the Government take full account of its recommendations.
It would show common sense to pay more attention to what teachers say are appropriate questions for testing how much of the set syllabus pupils have absorbed. In the process, the teachers would gain an increased sense that Whitehall is listening to their accounts of their experiences in trying to deliver what they have been asked to do by the centre. More can be done in that domain.
The school examination system has not been helped by adverse press coverage of the examination boards, but I have read the reports carefully—they rose to a height over the weekend. We have learned over time to read between the lines of such coverage to find the source of the problem, and I have reached the conclusion that, in a rush to implement all the changes in Curriculum 2000, the boards have struggled to cope with the changes.
The number of papers marked by the Edexcel board, which is the butt of a lot of criticism, went from 4 million to 10 million in some six months. It requires no stretch of the imagination to understand that a board might struggle with such a sudden increase in volume. It was part of a noble aim for the new examinations to be more inclusive, but they were more complicated and the board did not cope with the inquiries that came in at the staggering rate of 100,000 calls—mostly from teachers—a month. It had to admit to a shortage of marking staff in April, and that has not done a great deal for morale. However, these are symptoms of a cause: the consequences of the changes were insufficiently thought through by the Government before they had to be introduced.
It is essential to have a good examination system in which teachers, pupils and their parents are confident. I invite the Minister to set out how confidence can be restored and how we can convince the next cohort of guinea pigs that it will all be worth while.
9.49 am
Mr. Andrew Turner: I start with an observation that may distress some of my hon. Friends, which is that the most recent disaster to overtake the examination system was started by us when Sir Keith Joseph was Secretary of State for Education and Science. He caved in to the constant pressure of the education profession—I should say the education establishment, ably supported by departmental officials—for the amalgamation of the O-level and CSE examinations, which were highly respected, for nothing better than political reasons.
I taught in comprehensive schools to both examination boards, and I submit that those examinations were carefully tailored and designed for the benefit of the different pupils who took them. Of course, the examinations overlapped—a CSE grade I was widely respected, and it was appreciated as the equivalent of a GCE O-level—but that did not mean that there had to be an examination big bang at the end of the summer term, which is now creeping back right through the term.
For what seemed good reasons at the time, I fear that we started a process of Government intervention and interference that has culminated in the undermining of respect for the whole examination system, the creation of further grade inflation—or a belief that it happens; which of us can tell?—and a feeling that the Government's attempts to control the examination system are like their attempts to control everything else. I am not making a party point, but it seems that their attempts are part of a political agenda rather than part of the education agenda.
I am concerned that the Government have carried through, and worsened significantly, the steps that we took in the 1980s. Our examination system was respected at the time, because it was based on the experience of teachers and on the highly demanding requirements of the major universities, and it was argued that some examination boards were harder and more rigorous than others.
I remember that the Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board, of which I am an alumnus, was regarded as one of the more demanding and that others were regarded as less demanding, but teachers could choose examinations that were appropriate for their pupils, both in terms of their breadth and their curriculum content and level. The CSE was designed for less able pupils, and the O-level for at least some more able pupils—those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) called the big bang merchants.
Mrs. Spelman: The last-minute merchants.
Mr. Turner: Yes; the big bang comes later.
We may have started the process, but it has become a great deal worse because, during the past 15 years or so, Governments of both parties have put more and more pressure on schools and the examination system—on the schools to deliver, and on the schools examination system to monitor delivery. There is nothing wrong with putting pressure on schools to deliver, nor is there anything wrong in measuring the attainment of schools.

73WH
I welcome the fact that we introduced SATs, but it might as well be admitted that they measure the performance of schools as much as the performance of pupils. They are a crude and not wholly satisfactory measure, but at least they moved in the right direction of giving parents and schools the necessary information on performance. Some schools were shown to be excellent and brilliantly performing in both crude and value-added terms. It is a matter of regret that we have not taken the value-added route in measuring the performance of schools.
Without SATs, however, we would not have been able to measure the performance of schools at all. Parents would have been left at the mercy of rumour and playground gossip about the quality of a school, whereas we can now see when some schools are creeping up the league table and others are creeping down. We can at least tell when schools are performing better than they used to in relation to their competitors, even without having value-added measures in place.
That is not an argument for not introducing such measures. I am simply saying that we have access to information that we did not have 10 or 15 years ago and, more importantly, that parents did not have. I welcome also the publication of SATs results, because it is no good the information being available to a small group of professionals alone.
I am not criticising every examinations measure taken by the Conservative Government, but we started by caving in to a demand that was driven more by social engineering than by educational aspiration. We have done so again more recently by amalgamating a range of examinations in new exams whose names employers do not recognise. Confidence in examinations depends on the ability of parents, students, employers and university admissions tutors to recognise their quality. Some have far more time to go into the detail than others.
One would expect a university admissions tutor to understand the difference between a vocational A-level and an ordinary A-level and to be abreast of the development of the AS-level and the A2-level, but I doubt that many others are. The constant changes to the system, nomenclature and content of examinations syllabuses is undermining confidence in the system.
Another problem is our utter failure to establish whether grade inflation is taking place, and the loss of A-level scripts from the early 1980s means that it is impossible to compare their quality with those from the early 1990s. That disastrous loss makes it impossible to establish whether an A-level today is worth what it was in 1980. The fact that so many more pupils are getting A-levels is to be welcomed, but it would be a great pity if they were receiving awards in a devalued currency.
The next step must be gently to withdraw Government intervention in the examination system. A-S levels are an examination too far. Some head teachers may say that they
"welcomed the increased choice and flexibility being signalled by Curriculum 2000",
but they also recognise several problems with implementation. Certainly, many sixth formers to whom I have spoken, in state and independent schools,
74WH
would agree more with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. AS-levels impose too great a burden, too quickly, on pupils who have only just emerged from the GCSE system. They interfere with proper enjoyment of the lower sixth year and participation in out-of-school activities, and they produce a huge additional demand on teachers and an intolerable demand on examinations boards, which they were ill-equipped to face in the first year. If AS-levels had been only an option, they might have been introduced with more confidence. Many pupils who go through the lower sixth leave at the end of the year with nothing to show for it, which is a matter of great regret, but the greatest regret must be introducing a new system without the confidence of its participants.
We have a right to criticise the QCA and its predecessors, whose number over recent years signals the fact that there has been too much meddling, interference and intervention by the Government, and I do not blame this Government alone. The only power that Sir Keith Joseph had to drive through the introduction of the GCSE was the fact that the Secretary of State signed the examination certificates and could threaten to cease to sign the certificates of those boards that refused to introduce the GCSE.
Greatly to my regret, the Government took additional powers and prohibited the use of longstanding and highly respected examinations that are provided by examination boards in this country and which are lawful in West Africa and even in Scotland. That is an instance of wholly unnecessary interference and intervention, of a wholly un-Conservative sort, stemming from the Education Reform Act 1988.
The QCA claims to have a vital role—or at least a role that its chairman, in evidence to the Select Committee. claims is vital—in monitoring examinations and the content of the national curriculum. I am not convinced that its role is vital. When schools are not confident about the quality of an examination board, they can thankfully still shop around, although, regrettably, in a much reduced market. They have only three boards rather than the 10 or 12 that they used to have to choose from.
Schools are leaving Edexcel. Head teachers in my constituency have said that they will not use it again because they are not satisfied with the quality of service that they and their pupils receive, which is a much more effective power in holding examination boards to account than that of the Secretary of State working through an arms-length quango that seems more interested in managing than monitoring the examination system.
The QCA has also moved into setting examinations itself, which is a wholly inappropriate role for a body whose function is to monitor, referee and hold the ring between different examination boards. How can the QCA be poacher and gamekeeper and monitor quality effectively if it is setting SATs itself?
The Government are wrestling to overcome the problem of how to withdraw from an over-regulated examinations system and move to one in which schools can innovate and professional bodies can be involved in developing examinations. I am talking about a system that ceases to be nationalised and becomes once more decentralised.

75WH
In my criticism of what happened under Sir Keith Joseph, I accepted that he implemented a demand that professionals made of him, but I regret that he did so and that he did not leave them alone to introduce the examination and see whether it was a marketable proposition.
Now we have a far more centralised system that we must decentralise to allow examination boards, schools, teachers, professional bodies and universities to innovate. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has left the Chamber, but we need not so much an innovation holiday as innovation in a time and of a sort that those involved in the system demand and that can be coped with by those outside it who depend on the quality of information that it provides. The latter is the most essential element in the examinations systems, but we have a long way to go before we can regain it.
10.6 am
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for his genuinely authoritative and well understood views, which derive not least from his own experience. I have certainly seen that on a number of occasions with regard to educational matters. I shall change the emphasis of the debate slightly, however, from the effects of the current position of the schools examination system as it relates to schools and pupils to the overall context and the outcomes that it produces.
I was elected to Parliament after a fairly long career in manufacturing industry, during which I was responsible for employing a vast number of people at all levels. That meant having to rate young people according to the inevitably limited information provided during the application and interview process. I had to judge what they had displayed of their potential, and the self-confidence and inner sense of achievement that had been instilled in them by the schools that they had been fortunate—or not, as the case might have been—to attend.
An employer looks not only for aptitude and application, but for a real sense of the student's, and therefore the young person's, sense of achievement. Examinations are the one test during a student's school career that puts his academic calibre, whatever it may be, on display for public assessment, particularly for future employers.
My deep anxiety is that today many students up and down the land are living through days and weeks of extreme tension—as it happens, the debate is taking place at that very time. However, we at Westminster must recognise that a broader tension is in play. We must consider the school examinations system with a view to ensuring that everything possible is being done to give every student the chance of personal measurement and a sense of achievement. However, we must also ensure that the system is used extensively not only by the Government and local authorities, but by schools, to assess their value in terms of the work that they do and wish to he measured by, in their own eyes and, above all, in the eyes of parents and local communities.
There is also a tension for young people in having to build up a passport of qualifications that will enable them, in the case of the manufacturing industry with
76WH
which I was involved, to join the roof tile line, to go into brick manufacturing, quarrying or building roads or to go into the office and manage the accounts.
I talked to the four high school head teachers in my constituency. They have markedly different catchment areas, which has affected the measurement of their performance in terms of examination passes achieved. We must recognise that the AS-level in particular has added to that tension by placing an unnecessary and unfair burden on pupils over 16 who have continued their education. That is backed up by the teachers' sense that they are teaching something that they do not, for the life of them, believe is part of the value that they can offer or that the children want to carry with them as a passport to the real world of further education or work.
Those of us who are concerned about the AS-level are not going through education and sitting the examination today, nor are we teaching it. Although we recognise that it came on the back of a Dearing recommendation, hon. Members on both sides of the House must ask the Government important questions through the debate secured and so ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman): is the AS-level approach primarily motivated by a desire to sign up to something that gives us confidence that we are producing a school system that delivers results and is it truly of value to students, teachers and employers, and to the benefit of the country over time?
Even though it is early days, AS-levels are not showing any signs that they are of any benefit. Many employers still recruit students straight from school, however much the debate moves ever towards further and higher education, and many schemes are in place to ensure that people have the chance of vocational training before they enter the world of work.
Many employers make assessments at the very time when pupils come out of school at 16 with a view to being in work. I have much anecdotal evidence that when students are considering whether to go on to higher education or vocational training, they hear about the appalling burden of the AS-level on their fellow students in the year above them. It is becoming a marked deterrent against encouraging children to stay on at school.
Although two schools in my constituency are in relatively prosperous areas of Cheshire, they have been seriously hit by the appalling blight on the rural economy, which was exacerbated by the foot and mouth crisis last year. Schools that usually manage to produce sparkling results in the national league tables have found it difficult to maintain that rate of progress, and we cannot expect every cohort to do as well as the next in measurable terms such as examinations. It is a major problem for schools each time that they do well, as they worry about losing funds next time they go down the league table.
One of the problems emerging from the examination system is that we are doing too much for our own purposes rather than focusing on those of the students. Winsford—the town that I represent—is a real challenge. It has many bright pupils and two excellent schools, but many children do not come from a family or have peers who value high achievement in education. It has become apparent that the AS-level is seen as one

77WH
of the deterrents, simply because it denies what I, and I hope everyone in the Chamber, benefited from—staying on at school from 16.
The lower sixth year was particularly aimed at those not able to enjoy a gap year. Fortunately, I was, but many families were unable to support their children in a gap year between school and university or further education. The lower sixth was far from a gap year in that sense, but it was a gap from examinations—a chance to breathe and to move on from the healthy breadth and wealth of subjects at O-level. That is not unreplicated by the GCSE framework, but I shall not estimate whether past grades and attainments are as good, better or worse than today's. Frankly, I am not in a position to make that judgment. I do know. however, that the lower sixth year gave students an opportunity to develop breadth and depth in their subject without having to mug up on particular issues.
To a degree, modular testing has circumvented the problem of a three-hour hit at the end of the summer term that, for life, measures achievement in that subject. Modular curriculums have some downsides, however, and from conversations with lower sixth formers I know that students often feel that they cannot develop their interests sufficiently broadly to serve them well in future. That applies not least at A2-level the following year because, partly through the modular process and partly based on projects, the exams test particular aspects of a subject, rather than considering it in the round and seeking to draw innovation and imagination from the pupil.
Having trained as a lawyer, I have some authority in saying this: if one acquires an arts degree, by and large one feels that one has acquired a depth of knowledge, an ability to commit things to memory and an ability to assimilate, analyse, use and communicate information. However, I like to think that one has a chance to develop one's imagination. When I first acquired my law degree, I said to my parents, "You have a qualified lawyer, but it has been the death of imagination." Most lawyers have to drill all the imagination out of their heads to ensure that they pass the exam and leave nothing to risk. It is all about precedent and case law. I am generalising, of course: the very best lawyers are the most imaginative, so I did not last long.
The development of the AS-level was well intentioned and its problems were exacerbated by the experiences of Edexcel, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight that we should be determined in pursuing a strategic reduction of Government intervention. We should follow the radical, welcome and educationally beneficial step of saying that AS-levels, though relatively well intentioned, are not proving their worth and should be dropped—for the benefit of children, teachers and future employers alike. In my experience, AS-levels do not add to the reputation or employability of students. I hope that the Minister will reflect seriously on that.
10.18 am
Mr. Peter Luff: I apologise for missing the opening speeches. I was attending another meeting, attempting to encourage the Government to
78WH
get us out of another hole—asylum accommodation centres. I particularly apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and promise to be present for her speech this afternoon. I declare an interest. I am anxious to contribute because my daughter has just finished her AS-levels, so I speak from bitter personal experience. I shall be brief.
AS-levels have enabled universities to make better grade predictions and to firm up the offers that they make to students. That is the one good thing that they have done. The rest is all bad, and the bad significantly outweighs the good. AS-levels are not broadening students' education in sixth form, even if that were, in itself, a good idea. Universities are asking for commitment. For example, my daughter, who wants to read English at university, was advised not to do a science, but to take drama studies as her AS-level to show commitment to the subject. She is not broadening her sixth-form education at all, but, rightly, showing commitment to it. The broadening is not working. The way to broaden education is through the old A-level curriculum by insisting that students taking, for example, English study within those subjects a broad range of other subjects to give them a fuller understanding of the texts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made a powerful point about AS-levels reducing the fun of sixth form and killing extracurricular activities in the lower sixth. For example, the lower sixth always ran the school play. Pupils at my daughter's and son's schools are opting out of the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme and do not want to take part in Young Enterprise. Those things, which sixth form is all about, are withering on the vine and dying. The curriculum may be broader, although that is arguable, but the experience of sixth form life is much narrower.
AS-levels are squeezing the life, the breath and the fun out of sixth form education and that is their central failing, but, equally importantly, they are reducing teaching time. Sixth form is not six terms but five, because the last is spent revising and taking exams. Most schools now give students study leave in their third term before the exams, although I appreciate that that is contrary to the advice of examining boards. My daughter's sixth form education is four teaching terms, which is not nearly enough. Not only is that education not broad, but there is less of it. We are turning sixth form students into people who just cram academic subjects. There is too little teaching and students are losing the fun and joy that should be the sixth form experience.
The Government need to rethink the matter with an entirely open mind. I am sure that they had the best intentions, but many Government decisions—the poll tax, for example, which was scrapped—are taken with the best intentions and are proved wrong. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) says that the poll tax was not introduced with the best of intentions, which we can debate another time.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I said that it was not proved wrong.
Mr. Luff: I shall not be drawn on that subject, after your indulgence in letting me contribute, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

79WH
I genuinely believe that the Government thought AS-levels to be a good thing and that pupils' experience of the two years of the system proves that introducing them was not the right thing to do. My daughter's friends at other schools in the area have pleaded with me to do what I can to get the Government to change their mind. I am aware of no pupil taking those exams who thinks them a good idea; all the students think that the exams are a bad thing. The Minister shakes his head, but he is welcome to come to Worcestershire with his parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), and I shall introduce him to my daughter's friends, male and female, all of whom damn those exams. They say that they are a dreadful experiment, and they hate having to take part in it. The time has come to end AS-levels.
I urge the Minister by all means to consider ways to broaden the old A-level curriculum, but please scrap those exams now. Education policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said, should be pupil centred and focused on the children's needs, not ours. That is why those exams must go, and go quickly.
10.23 am
Mr. David Rendel: I am glad to have the chance to speak in the debate as, like other Members, I have personal, family experience of the matter.
This is the first time that I have attended a debate with the new Minister and I welcome him to his place. I look forward to his tenure of office in the Department for Education and Skills, however short it may be.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on securing the debate, as many of us have an interest in the subject for personal reasons or because it is important to the country. I very much agree with a large part of what she said. Much of what I shall say may mirror her remarks, but I hope that I shall not bore the Chamber by repeating them.
Like me, the hon. Lady has sons, one of whom is starting to take A-levels, so we have a shared experience in that respect. Anyone whose children have gone through exams knows that they are not only for children, but for the family. The whole family is inevitably involved. Indeed, it will probably be divorce for me if I do not get home tonight so that I can take my son to his exam tomorrow morning. No one else will, I am sure.
I am somewhat less in agreement with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) about league tables, and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) is rather more in line with my views. He pointed out the difficulties that schools face when they do well one year, but drop down the tables the next. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that at least we have information that we did not have before, but league tables provide us with misinformation that we did not have before. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury pointed out, they mislead parents about which schools are good and which are not.
It is surely a basic requirement of any top-class education system that it should provide for the needs of every pupil, but that is where the examination is going wrong. Individual children count for little and they are treated as examination fodder—units from which we can calculate statistics and draw up league tables.
80WH
However, tests and league tables do not take account of the needs and problems faced by individual schools, nor are they interested in human detail. Despite that, they are the criteria by which the Government have decided that schools should be judged.
The Government have set an astonishing 4,500 targets for education, requiring no fewer than 306 million separate measures to be monitored. That is a staggering statistic. The Labour party's education policy seems to be examine, examine, examine—three years running, as others have said. Of course, tests can be a vital tool in the learning process, as they measure the retention of knowledge and skills and help teachers to chart the development of individual children, but we must not confuse a tool in the learning process with the learning process itself. That is what has happened.
The individual pupil taking eight GCSEs, perhaps five AS-levels and three A2 levels during his or her 17th, 18th and 19th years of life, will sit 68 exams. The more able pupils taking the advanced papers at the various key stages, world-class tests and the new advanced extension awards will sit a staggering 87. As the New Statesman rightly observes in its editorial this week:
"This is the most tested generation in history, its progress through childhood and adolescence punctuated by targets, key stages, attainment levels, qualifications."
Inevitably, teaching has become more tailored towards the requirements of passing tests as demanded by the league table culture. Meanwhile, education in the broader sense is suffering.
The testing regime has three damaging consequences. First, it places far too much pressure on the children. Instead of learning being an enjoyable experience tailored to the needs of individuals, pupils and teachers are expected to dance to the tune of the Secretary of State and her national targets. Secondly, it places far too much pressure on the teachers. The testing and targets regime sucks the life out of our education system, leaving too little room for teachers to exercise their professional judgment and creativity. That is in line with my intervention on the hon. Member for Meriden.
It is no surprise that a significant proportion of those who leave the teaching profession cite as their reason the lack of opportunities for exercising their professional judgment and creativity. It is no surprise either that, as a result, we face a teacher recruitment and retention crisis in our schools. In recent years, the maintained system has lost about 10 per cent. of its teachers each year. Over one in five newly qualified teachers leave the profession during their first three years of teaching, and the problem is particularly acute in key subjects such as mathematics and science.
A recent Ofsted report says that
"there are insufficient teachers to match the demands of the mathematics curriculum in one school in eight".
Because of those shortages, large numbers of children are taught by teachers who have no qualification in the subject that they are teaching. Ofsted found that only 77 per cent. of teachers who teach some mathematics in secondary school have a post-A-level qualification in the subject.
The third damaging consequence is the narrowing of the curriculum, which was taken up by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). When so much school time is taken up with preparation for tests and

81WH
exams, there is less time in the school day for other non-examination subjects such as current affairs and citizenship, or, sadly, for pastoral care, which is an important loss to our schools. Extra-curricular activities such as sports, school plays, visits to outdoor activity centres and community service, which are all part of the school learning experience, also suffer. My son's school play was cancelled last year—the first year of AS-levels—because the teachers simply did not have the time to put it on.
The problem has been exacerbated by the introduction of AS-levels, which are often taken at the start of the third lower sixth term. As other hon. Members have said, the lower sixth used to he a year of broadening into adult life by taking on new experiences and responsibilities. It is often the year in which a pupil becomes a prefect and perhaps starts to look after younger pupils, but first year sixth formers are now pressed into academic work for the whole time and not given the chance to take on and learn how to handle responsibilities. The lower sixth has become merely a year of cramming for exams.
We want a broadening of the subjects on offer to older secondary and sixth form pupils. That has always been our wish for society, and one of the troubles of the old A-level system was that it was so narrowing at such an early age, but with that broadening must go a simplification of the qualifications framework for the 14 to 19 age group, perhaps along the lines of the European baccalaureate. Our colleagues in the Welsh. Assembly persuaded our Labour partners in the Administration to do that, and I hope that the Government take some of those lessons on board.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to scrapping all national targets and replacing them with a statutory requirement for all schools to develop an individual learning plan for each child. Plans should be set by the school while being accountable to parents, the local education authority and Ofsted. Responsibility for children's learning would be put back where it belongs—in schools and the home, not the Department for Education and Skills in London.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on the international baccalaureate. Would it be right for the Government to make such a shift?
Mr. Rendel: No, I said not that it would be right for the Government to make such a shift, but that it would be right for schools to be able to take the responsibility to decide which examination system to use. There is much to be said for the European baccalaureate, but it should be for schools to decide whether to use it.
Recent experiences have underlined the need for reform of schools examination boards. Not much has been said about that, but it is important. I do not agree entirely with the hon. Member for Meriden, who seemed to excuse the boards for their failures because of the pressure that they have been put under. Although there is no question but that that is a large part of the problem, they have questions to answer. There has been a series of blunders, particularly with Edexcel, but with others too.
82WH
Stephen Carey, the Liberal Democrat leader on Hillingdon council, told me about one such blunder that has only recently hit the national media. Some 13 pupils at Haydon school in Pinner did not receive any results for their vocational A-level in information technology, which they sat in January this year. Edexcel has admitted that the papers were lost, but the first that the pupils knew about that was when they failed to receive results in March.
The solution suggested by Edexcel involves the pupils either accepting an average grade or resitting the exam with their main AS-levels. Needless to say, neither the pupils nor their parents are happy with that, and I imagine that organisations that take on such school leavers would not be happy if they were asked to recruit on the basis of grades that were awarded not following a marked exam, but merely as the average of the other grades achieved by other examinees that year. The quinquennial review of the QCA whitewashes the appalling debacle of examination board failures that have betrayed so many pupils and schools, and the QCA's failure to ensure adequate monitoring has made a mockery of Britain's examination system.
I hope that the Government come round to understanding that testing is not the same as educating. Our education system's objectives must be broader than a focus on whether pupils can pass 68 exams during their school career. Testing has its place, but only as one tool among many in building a broad-based curriculum. We should not narrow our young people's horizons to the walls of the examination hall. We should instead expand their horizons, widen their vision, broaden their minds and open up their opportunities. That is what education really means.
10.34 am
Mr. Graham Brady: First, I welcome the Minister to his new brief. We were expecting a different Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), but he seems to have been substituted at the last minute. However, we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on introducing a debate on an issue of such pressing concern to the public, especially as this is the first of two for which she is responsible today. She deserves congratulations on her work rate, as well as on her dedication to these important issues. The matter comes before the House when the whole school examination system is highly topical. Given its topicality and importance, it is disappointing that no interest has been shown by Government Members.
My hon. Friend spoke of the damaging effect of having a conveyor belt of testing and examinations, which is caused by the burden that it places on students and the burden of paperwork and bureaucracy that it places on teachers. She also spoke of the dangerous possibility that modern languages will be downgraded in the curriculum, as proposed in the 14 to 19 Green Paper, and added that modular examinations do not necessarily suit last-minute merchants. At that point, a ripple of recognition passed around the Chamber, I suspect because many hon. Members fall into that category.

83WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who had to leave to attend a constituency meeting, spoke about the need for a period of stability in education to allow schools, pupils and parents to see the recent changes bed down. He also referred to an innovations holiday in the education system, which will strike a chord with many pupils who feel that they have been part of a guinea pig generation that has experienced all the new examinations and tests in recent years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has deep knowledge of the subject. Acknowledging that he would not be popular with his Conservative colleagues for saying so, he correctly pointed out that the process was started by a Conservative Government. That is absolutely true, and over-testing is an unintended consequence of it, but that scale of examination and testing was introduced for good reasons, such as the need to obtain proper information about pupil and school performance. Most people in education recognise that the process has gone too far, although, unfortunately, there seem to be signs that the Government are continuing to increase complexity and to create new burdens.
My hon. Friend mentioned his concern about grade inflation, or at least the perception that there might be grade inflation. He is right to draw attention to the findings of the international panel that considered the rigour and standing of A-level exams, and he said that it is impossible to be scientifically sure about what happened in past years. He also emphasised that we need to focus on maintaining what rigour we have in the A-level system, which must not be debased.
Concern extends to the rigour and independence of SATs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden suggested. More questions are being asked in the press about whether the SATs test are properly implemented and whether there is undue flexibility as to the testing system in some schools. In that context, she is right to ask whether the QCA should be poacher and gamekeeper in the SATs process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) spoke eloquently, drawing on his long experience as an employer. He and others raised one of the most important concerns about AS-levels: the effect of the examination process and Curriculum 2000 on the lower sixth. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) referred rather tellingly to moves to broaden the curriculum, which had the unwanted consequence of reducing the amount of sixth form teaching time from five to four terms. He also noted the irony that his daughter has been encouraged to take a drama AS-level as part of an effort to broaden the curriculum, but that such moves have been made at the expense of the school play, which lower sixth pupils would ordinarily organise. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) picked up on that, saying with feeling that examinations affect not only children, but their families.
The hon. Member for Newbury also attacked league tables in their current form. I trust that he endorsed last year's Conservative general election manifesto, which
84WH
called for the introduction of value-added league tables. We are grateful for his support, even if it has come a little later than might have been appropriate.
Mr. Bendel: My understanding is that league tables were introduced a long time ago. Even before that, however, the Liberal Democrats were talking about measuring schools in value-added terms. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that our call for such measures is not new.
Mr. Brady: None the less, we are grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.
Mr. Rendel: We are grateful for the hon. Gentleman's.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): It is a love-in.
Mr. Brady: The Minister need not worry about that.
I wonder why the Minister is replying to the debate, when the hon. Member for Bury, South, who is the Minister for young people and learning, was scheduled to do so. Perhaps it would have been embarrassing for him, given his response in the House a year ago to concerns about the introduction of the AS-level system and the crisis in schools at that time. Showing a wonderful talent for euphemism, he described the crisis in the introduction of Curriculum 2000 as
"some teething problems in the implementation of the new reforms."—[Official Report, 5 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 394.]
That is embarrassing, given that those teething problems appear largely to be with us a year later. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that and whether he takes any more seriously the scale of the problem affecting our schools and pupils.
The introduction of Curriculum 2000 was a shambles and the system is settling down into a state of more constant chaos, with problems not having truly been resolved. That chaos and confusion may be compounded by the Government's 14 to 19 proposals. The AS-level was intended to broaden the curriculum, so the suggestion that the Government want to slash the number of secondary pupils who study modern foreign languages is remarkable.
The Government say that they want to achieve parity of esteem for vocational subjects by offering GCSEs in them, but that brighter pupils should take AS-levels a year early and perhaps not take GCSEs. The Minister is nodding, but I hope that he understands that there is a clear contradiction between those two objectives. He cannot raise the esteem of vocational subjects that are examined at GCSE level while saying that GCSEs may not be appropriate for brighter pupils. He is moving towards enshrining, rather than removing, the difference in esteem between academic and vocational subjects.
That will be made still more damaging if, under the proposals, the brightest, most academically inclined children take AS-level a year early, as they will be the ones to retain the benefit of a sixth form year with a gap in the exam programme. The most academically gifted, who are probably most able to cope with the new pressures that are being piled on to young people, will get some relief from those pressures, whereas the less

85WH
able and academic will still face GCSEs, then AS-level and then A2 in quick succession. That is a serious concern.
Schools and pupils all over the country are still experiencing exam overload, and that is being felt in the examination boards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden pointed out. It is also being felt in schools, where there are insufficient teachers available to mark exams, and such problems are becoming endemic throughout the education system. Curriculum 2000 was introduced too quickly—it was rushed by the Government—and at great expense, but the experience of all too many schools and sixth forms is that the funding that was notionally made available for it was not passed on to them.
We have heard a story of chaos and confusion, doubt over the integrity of exams and measures to broaden the curriculum that narrow pupils' experience. Last year, in response to the shambles of Curriculum 2000, Ministers held a review, but few think that this year shows that they have got it right. The Minister must consider ways to reduce the exam burden on pupils and on schools. He should also consider whether the number of exams in year 12 should be reduced or the timing changed and whether schools would do better by taking AS-levels alongside A2 in year 13.
The introduction of AS-levels has broadened the academic curriculum slightly, but it has done so at the expense of teaching time and of extra-curricular activities such as music and sport. It is clear that a full inquiry is needed into the school examination system to establish how we can restore balance and credibility to a public examinations system that has never faced so much criticism. Our schools, our children, those in universities and the employers who depend on the outcome of the exam system all deserve better.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I thank the two Front Benchers for their kind words in welcoming me to my new post. This is my first opportunity to take part in an education debate in the House and, to clear up the confusion, I should say that I am now the Minister for young people and learning, which is why I am making the winding-up speech. I am sorry if that was not made clear.
Last week, a party of 10 and 11-year-olds from my old primary school, Grange Park, which is in my constituency, visited the House. We were talking about school days and one asked me about SATs. I had to say, "Well, when I was at school, we did not have SATs." The little boy's eyes lit up at the idea that we did not have to go through what they were going through. I cannot pretend that, had I polled the 10 and 11-year-olds in year 6 at Grange Park school, there would have been an overwhelming vote of confidence in having to sit SATs.
It is a great pleasure to respond to this important debate, and I join Members of all parties in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)
86WH
for securing it. As several Members have said, it is timely, as the school examination period is going full steam ahead.
The hon. Lady focused on the nature of education and what we value in it, and she is right to say that a focus on league tables, testing and examinations is not sufficient. Members in all parts of the House should take a broader view of the value of education. We have all made mistakes—that has been acknowledged in today's speeches—and we all need constantly to review the best policy responses to the many challenges that we face.
Among those challenges is that of providing more young people with the opportunity to stay on in education. I sat my 0-levels in 1983, when the majority of my age group left school—only 47.8 per cent. stayed on. Last year, that figure was 71.6 per cent., but we are still near the bottom of the league of industrialised countries for the number of people who have the opportunity to continue in education and training beyond 16. The drop-out rate at 17 and 18 is even higher. I am passionate about education, which is why I am so delighted to have been given this portfolio. Education is important in itself and as a way to facilitate greater mobility in a country in which people's life chances are still, too often, determined by birth. Of course, it is also vital for our future economic success.
We must achieve the right balance between the extent to which we prescribe, set national targets and provide a national framework and that to which we allow innovation at local and school level. We have not always got that right. In the Labour Government's first term, we were centralist in setting targets, particularly in our strategy for the primary sector, although that has delivered literacy and numeracy improvements, which have been acknowledged even by those who were wary of the strategies. However, as we move on, we should address the concerns about the lack of opportunity for innovation at local and school level.
The hon. Member for Meriden said that the new AS system may be challenging for those who leave things until the last minute. As a terrible last-minute merchant, I realised that the old A-level system was great for people like me, who could mug up in the month before the examination and still get good grades. However, it did not provide an entirely fair or accurate assessment of how good I was at my subjects, compared with others who worked much more consistently through the two years of A-level study. The hon. Lady's example demonstrates the challenge that we face in progressing the curriculum for those aged 16 to 18 while covering all those between 14 and 19.
At the end of last month, we completed the consultation on the Green Paper proposals for the 14 to 19 curriculum. We are considering the responses. The consultation was extensive and it included substantial input from teachers, schools, governors and local education authorities. It also included an important innovation—a real input from young people.
We have been listening to young people, such as those whom hon. Members have mentioned today, who have been sitting the AS-levels. We want to get these things right—we shall not rush into changes in the 14 to 19 curriculum. We want maximum debate and maximum

87WH
consultation, but the contributions to the debate show the challenge that we face. We have been criticised for being prescriptive, but when we suggested that we could loosen the modern foreign languages curriculum, we were criticised for it.
There is no question of our downgrading modern foreign languages. As one who gave up French aged 16 and greatly regrets having done so, I do not want to see such downgrading. The Green Paper says that we want more opportunities for young people to study modern foreign languages in primary school. That would be a welcome development.
Mr. Brady: Will the Minister clarify that? If the modern foreign languages curriculum is loosened, will more or fewer people study foreign languages at secondary school?
Mr. Twigg: Obviously, I cannot answer that question, as it depends on the choices that are made by young people. One could argue that making 14 or 15-year-olds study a foreign language when they do not want to do so might not be in their interests, nor in those of others in their classes. We shall consider the responses that we received, which are mixed. I see some Opposition Members nodding at that.
I move on to the AS-level, which is the major focus of today's debate, although points have been raised about GCSEs and the SATs system. I fear that I may have to disappoint the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), as I do not feel that my first speech as an Education Minister will be one in which I can announce that the AS-level is to be dropped, but we shall consider all the evidence. The debate has provided an important opportunity for hon. Members to express views on behalf of their constituents.
Mr. Luff: And families.
Mr. Twigg: Yes, and families. We have heard distressing tales in the media of young people being overloaded, but concerns are inevitable when we move to a new system. Year 12 students may have needed to attend classes on only three days a week under the old system, and there may have been far more opportunities for other extra-curricular activities. It is understandable that many year 12 students feel hard done by, given the significant change.
Some institutions, however, have told us that augmented programmes have improved retention rates, although we have heard another point of view in the debate. It is too early to identify the result. If the rates have improved, the programmes must have enabled students to be powerfully motivated while broadening their areas of study and giving them opportunities to try subjects that they would not otherwise encounter. We have seen a broadening of the number of subjects that young people study, and 60 per cent. of lower sixth students, who are aged 16 and 17, now study four or even more AS-levels. Under the previous system, two or three was typical.
Mr. Luff: There will be a broadening only if the subjects are different. In my daughter's case, there is no broadening at all, and she is doing four subjects.
Mr. Twigg: I take the point. Clearly there will be different instances in different cases. It is inevitable in such debates that we all think back to our own school days. I recall people who did two A-levels, but these days such people would do three or four. There may be broadening in some cases and not in others, but there is broadening overall.
Several students who are studying have been quoted, and I concur that many say that they are not happy with the new set-up. For example, one student responded to us by asking
"how can students be expected to partake in extra curricular activities when they have to cover material that overworked teachers do not have sufficient time to teach?"
Another said:
"I can no longer pursue my out of school interests as fully as I should like to. I play the flute and piano and am a Young leader and ranger within Guiding. In fact, my commitment to both has had to drop considerably".
That bears out what has been said.
Other young people who have responded to our consultation or been in the media have made different comments. Sarah Tresman, the head girl at Guildford high school, sat the new exams last summer, and she told The Times in April that spreading the exam stress over two years was much better than leaving everything to the end of the upper sixth:
"They were hard work but I am reaping the benefits now".
Ee Lin Chiam, who calls herself
"a very annoyed 17-year-old A2 student in Croydon",
contacted BBC News Online last week to say:
"I'm completing my A2s in biology"—
and various other subjects—
"and I am not having any difficulty coping with the papers…It's not like I don't have extra-curricular activities either: this year, I was in Young Enterprise, was editor of the college newsletter and am still doing my Duke of Edinburgh award.
My results have not suffered because of those activities".
Perhaps she is an extraordinary young person, but she demonstrates that some young voices are not joining the general criticism of the new exams.
Clearly, we need to consider the issue, but there will be no headlong rush to change the system and we shall review it in the way that we did last year. Many legitimate concerns were raised by schools, pupils and hon. Members following last year's experience, and significant changes were made in response. We shall examine the experience of this year.
There is great danger of doom and gloom. Phrases such as "disastrous exam season" have been used, but we should be careful about using them. Large numbers of young people are getting the opportunity to study and to sit the exams. There is great benefit in the broadening of opportunities that is taking place, although it may not be on the scale that we expected. The more modular approach and greater emphasis on assessment benefit those young people who are not last-minute merchants.
I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on GCSEs. The positives of the GCSE greatly outweigh the negatives, and that will feed through to the new curriculum.
I see that time is drawing to a close, and I want to finish with what I hope is a unifying point. We are in the middle of the exam season and I think that Members on

89WH
both sides of the House—the Chamber is rapidly filling up—will want to wish those young people who are sitting exams all the best. We hope that their results are again good, but we shall take the opportunity to review the system to achieve the best high-quality qualifications and curriculum arrangements for our young people.

Fair Trade
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Right hon. and hon. Members will see that the debate is extraordinarily well attended, but it is limited to 90 minutes. I therefore appeal to all hon. Members to bear that in mind when making their contributions, and ask them to limit their interventions. I shall try to call as many hon. Members as possible.
11 am
Mr. Tom Clarke: I warmly welcome today's debate on trade justice. I am delighted at the response, which is an indication that the subject will dominate today's parliamentary agenda—and that is no bad thing. About 10,000 people are on their way to the Palace of Westminster; they expect to lobby the House, and it will be the biggest lobby on international development since the Brandt report more than 20 years ago. Those people. who have travelled from every part of the United Kingdom to ensure that their Members of Parliament are made aware of their views, will welcome the debate that we are about to undertake.
Not everyone can be in London today, and several hundreds of my constituents have written to me to express their full support for the objective of trade justice. I shall quote from one of those letters:
"Dear Mr. Clarke…The mass lobby is calling for fairer international trade rules. Current trade rules are limiting poor people's access to food, water and jobs. I am asking that the new rules be designed to reduce poverty and protect the environment. Please support this important issue. Yours sincerely, Mary and Joe Cosgrove."
Hon. Members will have seen from the Order Paper that after only two days, 32 of our colleagues have signed early-day motion 1457 on trade justice. I am pretty sure that by the end of the day that number will have increased substantially. I certainly urge that. We underestimate those deeply held feelings at our peril. I, for one, take those representations seriously, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members share my view. Indeed, just before I entered the Chamber I met some constituents who told me that Government action on fair trade does influence whether people vote at elections.
It is with modest relish that I place on record my gratitude for the Government's achievements in international development. In particular, I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, both of whom have been at the forefront of Government initiatives to help developing countries; we all acknowledge the outstanding role of the Department for International Development in dealing with the debt problem.
In that spirit, it is appropriate to welcome to the Department the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). I am sure that she will forge ahead with the high standards set by her Department and this Government.
Today's events, including this debate, the lobby and the debate in the Chamber this afternoon, were inspired by the success of Jubilee 2000, as was the Trade Justice Movement, which is growing fast and already includes

91WH
50 organisations that have a combined support of 4 million people. Trade Justice includes aid agencies, such as the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, Action Aid, the World Development Movement, Oxfam, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, the Women's Environmental Network and others, including students and consumers.
Those groups campaign on behalf of the developing world and their analyses of the problems should be taken more seriously, because they have first hand and day-by-day experience of them. Each of the non-governmental organisations has its own views, but today they are all united in agreeing that trade plays a vital part in reducing poverty and improving the quality of millions of lives.
Everyone in this field agrees that there are opportunities for fundamental change. A new set of international trade negotiations was launched in Doha in November 2001. Although that provided an opportunity to change the rules, it also posed the threat of the existing rules being extended to cover new areas of economic activity.
The lobby and the events in the House today could not be more timely because, this summer, trade rules will be high on the agenda for three international summits: the European Union heads of state summit in Spain on Friday and Saturday, the G8 summit in Canada on 26 and 27 June and the world summit on sustainable development, to be held in South Africa from 26 August to 4 September. South Africa is an appropriate location for that summit.
Fair trade is about the fight against poverty and sustaining the environment. There are many issues on which we can focus our attention. First, there should be a new approach to protect poor farmers' livelihoods and the environment. Secondly, vital concern has been expressed about the plans to liberalise essential services, including water. I have great reservations about those plans, and I do not believe that I am alone in that view. Thirdly, international corporations have had every opportunity to introduce meaningful self-regulation. As they have failed to do so, we should consider new global action to regulate activities.
Brian Cotter: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as part of the discussions on the common agricultural policy reforms, a timetable needs to be agreed by the EU leaders when they consider phasing out subsidies of agricultural products?
Mr. Clarke: Yes, I agree entirely. I hope to touch on that point later.
This is not an anti-trade debate, but one that asserts that our trading affairs can be organised so that the benefits go to the many and not the few, that social justice and enlightened self-interest could go hand in hand and that it is not beyond the wit of modern society to protect and even improve the environment that we inherited. As CAFOD said:
"Trade touches all our lives. It determines what we eat, earn and wear. It is the most direct link between the British people and the world's poor. For that reason trade has a huge potential for good or ill. The campaign for trade justice is the new Jubilee 2000."
It continued:
92WH
"Without trade that works for the poor, without an end to the grotesque subsidies and trade barriers that protect producers in the richest countries of the world, all that we have worked for in Jubilee 2000 will be put at risk. Developing countries are not asking for a handout. They want and deserve justice."
I agree entirely.
One of the most debilitating factors in the developing world is commodity prices. What are the problems of sub-Saharan Africa? Africa has 12 per cent. of the world's population, but only I per cent. of its exports—a quarter of the share that it enjoyed in the 1970s. In the 1990s, world trade in primary commodities was growing at less than a third of the rate for manufacturing goods. Worse still, the gap is widening.
The decline in the value of many commodities has caused large increases in poverty in many developing countries whose economies may depend on just a few commodities for the majority of their export earnings. For example, Ethiopia depends on coffee for nearly 60 per cent. of its export earnings and Burkina Faso depends on cotton for about half. The problem with declining commodity prices is that production can trap countries into a cycle of dwindling returns, further increasing the debt burden. Real prices of commodities have been on a steady downward trend for decades. Among the reasons for the decline are new technologies, barriers to entry and consumers' relative reluctance to buy more as prices fall. Cyclical periods of over-supply often result.
Over the past few years, the steady decline has turned into an absolute rout for several commodities whose prices have plunged. Coffee prices collapsed by 45 per cent. from 1999 to 2001—a mere couple of years—and are now well below the costs of production for an overwhelming majority of producers. Price falls at these levels have serious consequences. The livelihood of millions of farmers is compromised, children are pulled out of school and families can no longer afford basic medicines or enough food. Oxfam research in 2000 showed that the falling price of coffee in Kenya forced parents to take their children out of school because they could no longer afford the fees. The price fall meant parents' income more than halved in the space of two years.
It is not surprising that in South Africa—the subject of some criticism—European exports of chocolate confectionery at below production prices led to a 21 per cent. decline in the consumption of domestically produced sugar and chocolate confectionery. Meanwhile, rich country producers support market-distorting subsidies that exacerbate the problem of over-supply. The EU is the world's largest exporter of white sugar, but export prices are only a quarter of their production costs. Britain grinds more cocoa than Ghana, yet Ghana relies on cocoa exports for almost a quarter of its total export earnings.
For many years, adding value to a product that has attracted swingeing tariffs at the point of import into rich countries simply acts as a disincentive to developing countries. For example, fully processed food products are still subject in the EU and Japan to tariffs twice as high as food products in the first stage of processing. That is why people here today are calling for change. Today's events are a democratic challenge to this Parliament, the EU, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organisation.

93WH
Above all, today's events are a challenge to the conscience of the international community. It cannot be right that over half the world's extremely poor people depend on farming for their livelihoods, but that our trading arrangements should be so blatantly distorted. Nor can it be right that developing countries are being prevented from protecting their poor producers against unfairly subsidised food from rich countries with whom they can never hope to compete. How can we justify the fact that international trade rules are limiting the ability of poor countries to protect their farmers from unfairly subsidised cheap imports?
Chris Grayling: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the many concerns expressed about the Commonwealth Development Corporation and its changes of policy since the establishment of the public-private partnership?
Mr. Clarke: I would love to go into the issues of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, but that might reduce the time that others have to speak. There may be other opportunities to consider them later, if not today.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the World Bank and the IMF imposed reforms that required many developing countries drastically to cut duties on imported food. Poor farmers lost their markets even at home. The same farmers who try to export their crops face prohibitive trade barriers imposed by the world's richest countries. That cannot be right. Developing countries are also denied the flexibility to support their farmers, as foreign programmes imposed by the World Bank and the IMF cut their subsidies. The World Trade Organisation now also cuts them.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. He referred twice to the WTO, which many people regard as a problem in this area, rather than as part of the solution. I do not share that view, but does he agree that the richer countries could ensure that the workings of the WTO are much more open and transparent, which would remove much of the suspicion that surrounds it? Does he also agree that the richer countries could ensure that the poorer countries have proper access through legal representation and a proper secretariat?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and support his calls for such transparency from the WTO and others. The way in which developing countries have been treated is very much in contrast to the reductions in subsidies that rich countries should have made for their farmers under WTO rules. Because of the lack of transparency to which he refers, it is perhaps not widely known that those WTO decisions have been ignored. That is another entirely unacceptable situation.
My hon. Friend's intervention is timely. His views are confirmed this morning in press reports of a United Nations report that makes similar observations. Worse, it says that, if we continue as we are, 100 million more people will be having to survive on $1 dollar a day by
94WH
2015. That has a lot to do with my hon. Friend's point about the lack of transparency in debates on these matters, and the responsibilities of international bodies to respond to the problems.
When Harold Macmillan said that a "wind of change" was blowing throughout Africa, some said that he was ahead of his time. I think not. Forty years on, what is the vision for trade justice in developing countries? I hope that I speak for the thousands of people on today's lobby, those who cannot be here and the aid agencies when I call for people to have the vision to see that it is wholly repugnant that millions of smallholder farmers in the developing world struggle to survive on less than £260 a year in total income while, in contrast, American and European farmers receive on average £15,000 and £11,500 a year respectively in subsidies alone.
We need the vision to see that, whereas international trade rules are essential, they must allow sustainable trading, fairness and intervention where necessary, and to see that such rules can be based on the needs of poor people and environmental sustainability. We need the vision to see that employment need not be based on the exploitation of women or child labour, and to put in place a framework that promotes internationally the acceptance of national development objectives, such as food security, poverty reduction and higher environmental standards. Above all, we need the vision to acknowledge that, in the modern world, a level playing field is no guarantee of a fair game when players are not equally equipped to compete.
The last word should go to the campaign document from the Trade Justice Movement, which says:
"Trade should be the means by which poor people can lift themselves out of poverty—not the prison that steals their future."
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I re-emphasise the comments I made at the beginning of the debate. Perhaps I omitted to say then that the winding-up speeches from the three Front-Bench spokesmen will commence 30 minutes before the debate's conclusion. We now have 38 minutes until that time, and 11 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. That will make my job difficult, and the jobs of some others impossible.
11.23 am
Mr. Francis Maude: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate, which is timely. He rightly introduced the debate in a temperate and measured way, and I suspect that as it continues we shall find that there is broad agreement on this subject across the House, which is desirable. This is a hugely important matter, and it is good that the House, in two debates today—one in this Chamber and one on the Floor of the House—is taking it seriously and devoting time to it.
In deference to your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make only a few points. First, there has been widespread suspicion for the best part of a century that when people use the phrase "fair trade", they mean restricted trade. In the past, that phrase has been code for protection, but the movement that we have heard from today has not referred to it in that way. I exonerate

95WH
it from that criticism. It is important that the Trade Justice Movement does not seem to be, and is not, a cover for protectionism.
I am a passionate believer in free trade. The enlargement of trade enriches everybody but the reality is that free trade is never unregulated or completely free, in the same way that a free market economy is never completely free, nor should it be. Free trade and free markets depend absolutely on a framework of law and rules. To anyone who doubts that, I highly recommend the lecture, which I was privileged to attend last night, given by Hernando de Soto, who made the most powerful case that the biggest friend to poor countries is the establishment of a rule of law, specifically property law. Once there is a system of property law and entitlement to property in the poorest countries, there is the ability for assets to be turned into capital to enable wealth to be created. That is fundamental and without it there will not be sufficient quantity of the right kind of development. The enlargement of good, free trade depends on rules that command respect and consensus, but they must have a fair framework.
It is incumbent on the developed world and rich countries to set an example. With the best will in the world, that is not happening at the moment. I am a strong supporter of the Bush Administration in the United States, but recent developments in trade have caused widespread concern and dismay. The United States should be a role model for the benefits of free trade, and the response to isolated domestic pressure—for example, the steel tariffs and the recent farm Bill—is profoundly disturbing. It has damaged US leadership in the trade negotiations, which is crucial. It is not particularly helpful that the European Union has reacted like an outraged maiden aunt, as if the idea of protectionism had never occurred to anyone in the EU. The European Union's record on the promotion of free trade has not been perfect, by a long way.
My main point is that the developed world, rich countries and the collections of rich countries such as the European Union must set an example and not wait for negotiations to open their markets. We should not be waiting for the pressure of world trade negotiations to make grudging concessions but looking for opportunities unilaterally to open markets and to be confident about it. We must understand that the point about open markets and free trade is that they benefit everybody, even if it is done unilaterally. Hong Kong, for example, was founded on the principle of being a free port and having the most open possible approach to trade. Hong Kong did not wait until there were multilateral negotiations, play its cards close to its chest and refuse to give anything up until there were reciprocal arrangements with others. It simply said, "This is what is going to be the key point about Hong Kong," with the result that it has become one of the most prosperous places in the world. The rich, developed world should have the confidence to believe that that is what free trade does. We should not think of it as giving up things in advance, but as a benefit to ourselves and others, because open economies prosper.
The European Union, like the United States, must get a grip on the matter and start to set a better example. There is a huge danger that US action on steel and the farm Bill will provoke retaliation from the EU and counter-retaliation by the United States, which has
96WH
horrible echoes of the 1930s, when a series of beggar-thy-neighbour action and reaction turned a downturn into a sustained global depression. We must be careful about that, and we hope that the Government and others can persuade President Bush and his Administration to change their ways, but we should not just wait for that. The European Union should change the way that it approaches the issue.
It is impossible to tackle the problem without addressing the common agricultural policy, because it is the most flagrant, offensive and damaging example of protectionism anywhere in the world. If the EU remains resolutely opposed to making not only tinkering reforms, but radical changes and devising a wholly different conception of today's needs, the EU's ability to lead globally in such matters will continue to be seriously impaired. There is a price to be paid, not just by the developing world that suffers through the CAP's distortions, but by us. We all suffer and live in a poorer country because of the CAP's deprivations. The European Union is poorer than it needs to be because of the CAP.
Norman Lamb: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the need for reform of the common agricultural policy, but does not the need for unanimity in changing that policy make reform impossible? As long as that remains, the policy will not change.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman has made a very tempting point, but if we go down that path, we will take up the rest of the debate and I do not think that we should do that.
My central point remains that rich countries must set an example and start acting unilaterally. There undoubtedly exists a sense of rich countries neurotically hanging on to their cherished protections, and it fuels the idea in developing countries that the World Trade Organisation's multilateral trade negotiations are basically a rich man's racket. They are not and must not be, and we must be careful not to allow them to be seen as such.
To counter that sense, developed countries must start to take the initiative to open markets, eradicate subsidies and remove protections. We must not wait for the pressure of negotiations. The central truth is that the enlargement of trade and open interchange of goods, services, information and people—which form the curious but not new phenomenon called globalization—will benefit everyone. It will benefit the environment. The director of the WTO powerfully made the case that poverty is the enemy of the environment. Rich cities are cleaner than poor cities, and economic growth is the friend, not the enemy, of the environment.
The Trade Justice Movement lobby made a point about the regulation of multinationals. We sometimes have the illusion that multinationals roam the world, completely unfettered, to lay waste and loot along the way. That is not true. Multinational companies do not exist in the ether above national jurisdictions. Every time a multinational company wants to do something, it does so within a national jurisdiction. The fact is that a multinational works in many different national jurisdictions, operating subject to laws and regulations.

97WH
The idea that we should have a supranational structure of law to regulate multinationals is simply absurd. National Governments all set a framework of rules to balance their interests as they see fit and encourage multinationals to do business there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Maude: If hon. Members will forgive me, I am almost at the end.
Individual Governments will judge the balance between being liberal enough to encourage multinationals to invest and do business there, which they rightly think enriches them, and having proper protections according to the standards and demands of their people. That applies much more strongly in a democracy, where Governments are subject to popular pressure, and less strongly where democracy is less powerful. Alongside that I make the point that multinational companies need to understand their responsibilities. We are in the fortunate position today in the developed world that there is an establishment consensus in favour of free trade, enterprise and capitalism; but it is a fragile consensus. It depends on multinational companies understanding their responsibilities to the environment and to future generations. They must reinforce that consensus and do nothing to undermine it.
I support most of what the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston said in opening the debate. There will be a wide degree of agreement, but I urge the Government to use their undoubted influence within the European Union to continue to make the case for the EU to start to open markets unilaterally. rather than waiting for the pressure of negotiations to do it.
11.15 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am grateful for the chance to speak, especially as I indicated that I have to leave the debate in about 10 minutes to attend some other House business. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to other hon. Members. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on obtaining the debate and on his opening speech. I should also like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), on her appointment to one of the best jobs in Government.
I shall be extremely brief. First, Garstang in my constituency is the world's first fair trade town. Since it took that successful initiative it has twinned with New Koforida, a town in the cocoa-producing area of Ghana. Many other towns and cities have followed its example and I hope that Lancaster will do so soon. It is part of the inspirational example that our constituents set us, such as with the campaigns over debt and the campaign today for trade justice.
The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) made a powerful case for the merits of international trade. Whatever one's perspective on that, no country has ever developed successfully by turning its back on
98WH
the benefits of international trade. However, if we are to address the 2015 international development targets of, for instance, halving international poverty, we must make trade work really well for the people of the poorest countries of the world, particularly Africa. We must strengthen the good intentions and progress that the Government have made to ensure that intentions are translated into international actions to address these issues.
The progress that was made at Doha was vital. I support all the concerns of the Trade Justice Movement campaign. I would like to see a development box within the WTO agreement on agriculture. I would like to see the Government supporting a ban on patents on plant genetic resources to protect farmers in developing countries. I would like to see an independent impact assessment of the general agreement on trade in services. I would especially like to see some legally binding regulation of international companies to ensure that they comply with internationally agreed standards on corporate responsibility.
I have an example of that. Other hon. Members will have witnessed, as I have, the grotesque poverty and despair of the people of Angola. It is a potentially wealthy country with enormous resources in oil and diamonds. It has a population of 12 million and is the size of western Europe. It is officially listed as the worst place in the world for children to grow up: a third of Angolan children die before the age of five. With the honourable exception of BP, international oil companies will not publish what they pay to the Angolan Government for that vital resource. We know from a recent global witness report that the year before last no less that $1 billion unaccountably disappeared from Angola. It was salted away and not used to the benefit of the people of Angola.
Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend has raised a crucial point, which was also made, in part, by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). It concerns the way in which the poorest countries in the world regulate foreign trade and investment in their countries. Many of those countries have no competition laws, some have introduced them only recently, and few have the capacity and the resources to sufficiently enforce them against huge multinationals. Does he agree that it is implicit that future WTO negotiations should incorporate agreements about multinationals and how they conduct their business?
Mr. Dawson: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. I hope that at the G8 and in other forums in which the Government are to have a strong presence in coming weeks, that point and the one about the transparency of the involvement of multinationals—from whatever country—will be powerfully made.
11.41 am
Sue Doughty: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on having secured this important debate. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak, because a large number of my constituents will be coming here, and because so many people in the country—not only in the run up to today's mass lobby, but over the years—have taken the trouble to keep Members of Parliament

99WH
informed. For example, St. Peter's school in my constituency regularly books time in my surgery to ensure that I am on message on the issue and organises peer group events at the school in order to spread the word. Poverty and inequality on the scale that we see today are unacceptable. Even more unacceptable is the fact that many of the trade problems could be solved: people and countries could be moved out of debt if the major Western economies were to take bold steps to end not only debt but the scandalous use of trade tariffs, about which we have heard so much today. We have to test every policy to ensure that, rather than continuing the flow of resources from developing to developed countries—a rather shameful legacy from colonial days—we start to reverse it. Instead of the top countries gaining the most, they should be lending assistance to the poorest countries. The present situation cannot be right.
Consider these things: it takes one month for a woman working in the textile industry to earn enough money to buy one of the shirts that she produces to be sold at Marks & Spencer. Of the 50 shirts that she produces, she can keep one. Five billion people live on incomes of less than $1 a day, while trade barriers cost the poorest countries $480 billion annually—that is 14 times what they receive in overseas development assistance. The major argument, especially in troubled times, concerns not only social justice, to which everybody in the Chamber subscribes, but also the need to recognise, in everything that we do, that trade does not cross borders, but armies will. That was a 19th century saying, but it has never been truer than it is today.
The NGOs have done a wonderful job, not only in drawing our attention to injustices but in doing their best in the field to set some of them right. We must go a lot further. Quakers have been working in central America. They run long-term rather than short-term projects in some of the neediest parts of the world. They have studied the agricultural sector, which is shrinking all the time. People working in what would be the natural agricultural economy are being driven into urban areas. They are facing a wall of tariffs from the United States and the European Union, which makes it difficult for small farmers to compete and make a living from agriculture.
The G7 Governments need to reduce tariffs and then eliminate them in the EU and the USA so that farmers in countries such as Honduras and Nicaragua have the chance to sell in the real world at competitive prices. In central America, too great a reliance is placed on a small number of vulnerable commodities. Problems with production or difficulties with market access result in poverty on a grand scale. We must therefore look at opening up new markets for those countries, in order to remove those risks.
We recently saw the Greenpeace demonstration on sustainable timber at the Cabinet Office. Another piece of good news in the run up to the world summit in Johannesburg is the fact that environmental bodies and aid organisations are working on a much more common agenda. We no longer need to think of rain forests as interesting museums with many plant species and biodiversity—full stop. We should be talking about them as places where people live—that is so much better.
100WH
Last week, the Environmental Audit Committee heard that DEFRA officials have still not got their act together on sustainability. The question that will keep arising is how much longer it will take the Government to put in place rules of the sort that firms such as B & Q were following 10 years ago. We should not need Greenpeace to audit our sustainability; the Government should have good policies and good practice in place. We want to do something, but we lack joined-up government.
I will be as brief as I can, but I have considerable concerns about the arms trade. In 2000, the Chancellor announced the end of export credit guarantees for arms sales to 63 of the poorest countries, yet the Government are still sending bodies to a defence exhibition in 2002 entitled, "Africa, Aerospace and Defence". We know that arms are still being sold to the poorest countries in Africa. Trade Partners UK will be at the exhibition, as will the Defence Manufacturers Association, which will be sponsoring the United Kingdom's arms companies.
When considering the problems of fair trade, we must look at the wider issues—about how the Government are backing today's aspirations, whether Government Departments are working cohesively, and whether we have joined-up government delivering on those aspirations.
11.48 am
Andy Burnham: I will be extremely brief. Lots of figures are cited in such debates, but one figure says it all. Yesterday's edition of The Guardian published a letter from Professor Keith Popple of Southampton institute, who said that the combined wealth of the world's three richest men is more than the combined wealth of the world's 48 poorest nations. That chilling fact alone is graphic evidence that free trade has failed to produce a more equal world, and that changes to world trade rules are needed if we want to see the world's wealth spread more fairly. We need to be clear that trade alone will never solve those differences, but will exacerbate them. It is natural for a market to punish the weak, not to help them.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) said, 10,000 people are en route to Westminster to lobby us on those issues. We see many lobbies at Westminster, but today's is different. People are taking the trouble to come here today not out of self-interest but because they want a fairer world, and for that reason alone it behoves us to listen carefully to their arguments. One such person was my constituent John Humphrey. He came to see me a few months ago to say that he was organising a lobby of Parliament. John was passionately committed to overseas development, and worked for much of his life giving practical assistance to developing countries and raising awareness of those important issues. He was the founder of the CAFOD group at St Catherine's Church in Lowton in my constituency. Sadly, John died a few weeks ago and will not be at the lobby today, but the fact that so many people are making the trip from my constituency will serve as a lasting tribute to him and his tireless work.
I hope that Ministers will give careful consideration to the calls that are being made. People are right to challenge policy in this area and to ask constantly for

101WH
Governments to do more. The Doha declaration makes progress in calling for special and differential treatment for developing countries. We need tangible evidence of what that means and special exemptions for the agricultural industries of developing countries so that they can begin to make progress and compete only when they feel able to do so.
We are discussing issues today that affect the future of mankind and the world, but I am not sure how many column inches we or the lobby of Parliament will get in tomorrow's newspapers. When that is set against the frenzy of coverage about who in No. 10 said what to whom in Black Rod's Office, it shows that, sometimes, the cut and thrust of domestic politics gives a false impression of what is really important. Perhaps the most useful purpose of today's debate and lobby will be to help to put things into a proper perspective.
11.50 am
Chris Grayling: I, too, will keep my remarks brief. This is an extremely important occasion. As hon. Members have said, we ignore our constituencies at our peril and there is no doubt about the strength of feeling about this issue in our constituencies. I have received petitions from St Giles' and St George's churches in Ashtead, from Ruxley Lane church, St Mary's in Cuddington, St John's in Stoneleigh and from constituents across my area. They are all adamant that they want the issue to be addressed properly at an international level.
I shall pick two points from the petitions on which politicians from all sides can agree. First, poverty eradication must be a key objective for all of us. Secondly, trade can be a powerful driver for improvement around the world, but trade rules have to be enforced to ensure that rich as well as poor countries abide by them.
With that as a background, I should like to make four brief points. First, following on from the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), it is simply not acceptable for Europe and north America to pursue protectionist policies in key areas, particularly in agriculture, and then to expect other countries to adopt free trade practices without considering the implications for themselves. We have to set the example. The common agricultural policy is not sustainable in its current form. US policy to protect north American farmers is not sustainable in its current form. That practice will have to change. Free trade must mean free trade.
Ms Julia Drown: The hon. Gentleman says that free trade must mean free trade. However, does he appreciate the experience of the east Asian countries, which reduced poverty massively over a generation but did so partly through protectionism and closed markets? Would he support that sort of arrangement if it would relieve poverty in the poorest parts of the world?
Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Lady for those comments. It is important to recognise that in some cases, WTO rules make illegal local practices, legislation
102WH
and support for economies in the developing world. To that extent I have some differences with those who advocate big international policies. National Governments know what is best for their own people. We risk centralising international trade issues to too great a degree.
My second point is about the Commonwealth Development Corporation, reflecting concerns raised with me by constituents who believe that the corporation no longer plays the role that it once did. I know that my hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench have made this point to the Government on several occasions. It is not right and proper for a development organisation in the third world to be seeking a specific return as a prime objective. Its job is to alleviate poverty and to encourage development in those countries, and that goal should not be lost.
Thirdly, we need to think small as well as big. If one lesson has been learned from generations of aid and encouragement to developing countries, it is that big projects that involve mass lending to Governments are not those that make the biggest difference. Policy should be as strongly focused on small projects, small-scale support and the encouragement of individual businesses, developments and producers as it is on big international issues.
My final point is about action. One of the most consistent messages that I have been receiving is that of dissatisfaction with high-sounding words about international trade and aspirations to engender free trade and remove barriers. There have been lots of summits and expensive meetings around the world, but there has there has been precious little action. If the Government take away one message from this debate, it must be that talking is not enough and that action is needed. I hope that our Government and other Governments around the world will ensure that action is taken to sort out a proper future for international trade in the developing world.
11.55 am
Ann McKechin: I will try to be brief. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate. I also congratulate the members of this afternoon's mass lobby, which I hope will persuade the Government of the need to ensure that the forthcoming WTO negotiations are debated in Parliament so that the voice of civil society is properly heard.
The world's poor countries believed that the implementation of the agreements that they signed at the Uruguay round of talks—the precursor to the WTO—would bring them the benefits of increased access to the markets of the north, but, to date, those benefits have failed to materialise. The failure to tackle the needs of the south and, by implication, of the world's poorest citizens has led to a growing suspicion that the forthcoming negotiations will further fudge the issue of reforming the tariffs imposed by the north, particularly US agricultural subsidies and the EU's common agricultural policy. The effect of such policies has been exacerbated by the continued problem of the subsidised dumping of products on the markets of the south.
There is also a fear that the north, encouraged by the powerful and influential multinational corporation lobby, will use all its muscle to push the south into

103WH
binding agreements to liberalise many of its markets, including services, with little or no opportunity adequately to regulate foreign investment in a way that would benefit its citizens.
Given the history of manipulation, developing countries are understandably losing faith in the apparent good intentions of their wealthier WTO colleagues. The WTO's credibility in terms of achieving a fair balance between the south and the north is at stake. We must approach the talks in a spirit of openness and transparency, and with a strong and permanent commitment to new measures that will eradicate poverty.
Let us not forget that the WTO is a negotiating forum for legally binding commitments, and all members, not just the privileged few, must be able to participate effectively if they are to take advantage of it. By putting services on the negotiating table, however, the new Doha round has considerably increased the work load on all delegations. The WTO must immediately give the greatest priority to ensuring that appropriate resources are provided for the full and effective participation of developing countries. The funds that our Government provide for capacity building are welcome, but they should be made available as a matter of right, not of charity.
Urgent progress must be made on eliminating tariffs and escalators, and on substantially reducing subsidies in the north. However, the new negotiations must not take a one-size-fits-all approach. Speaking to the all-party group on overseas development, the Chancellor rightly said that a managed, staged approach was required to open up trade in the south. It is not simply a question of increasing foreign direct investment to less-developed countries, but, crucially, of putting in place national and transnational regulatory systems to encourage investment and provide sustainable and widely distributed benefits.
If we are truly committed to a negotiation round based on development and on poverty eradication, we must accept proper scrutiny of our proposals, and put in place adequate mechanisms to assess their impact. Such independent impact assessment has been promised, but the WTO is still to deliver it.
It is not enough to indulge in rhetoric about the benefits of trade liberalisation; we must demonstrate its benefits. If our agreements are shown not to provide real progress towards development, we in the north must show flexibility and the courage to act in the interests of those who need our help most. Millions of people still live in absolute poverty.
11.59 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate and, in particular, on bringing a moral dimension to it. I also welcome the Minister to her role. I hope that in six or 12 months' time, when she is in the midst of all the technical detail and jargon, she will remember that this is a fundamentally moral issue. It cannot be right for the rich west to subsidise food, sell it below local market prices and undermine local producers.
Free trade has a role, but there must be two fundamental limitations on it. First, we must protect those who face unfair competition, such as small local
104WH
farmers. I hope that the Minister will tell us the Government's thinking on the idea of a development box for agriculture in the current negotiations.
The second limitation on free trade is purely that many of the trading nations are not democracies. Therefore, although the benefits of trade may go to the nation, it finds itself in a small number of pockets. As part of the free trade agenda, I hope that the Government will pursue democracy in many such nations. Without it, free trade does not benefit the poor people about whom we are most concerned.
12 noon
Norman Lamb: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate. It is important that the issues be discussed, especially when Parliament is being lobbied. I also want to pay tribute to the work of the charities and non-governmental organisations. They have done much to raise the profile of the issue, which is one of great urgency.
I want to refer to Oxfam's analysis of trade rules, especially in the report "Rigged Rules and Double Standards". In that report, Oxfam produces a double-standards index to test the performance of the developed world against the rhetoric that it often uses to talk about free trade. That test clearly shows that the European Union and America are the worst offenders when it comes to the gap between the rhetoric and reality of policies.
The case for freeing trade and for making fairer trade rules for the developing world within a clear legal framework is strong, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) rightly said. Ultimately, fair trade can be much more effective than aid alone, but there should not be only one or the other; the two should work in tandem. Aid especially should be directed at improving the competence of developing countries to trade effectively and fairly with the developed world.
Hand-in-hand with that, improvements in governance are needed in much of the developing world. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) pointed that out, and I endorse his point. In our recent Oxfam-funded visit to India, we saw how important such improvements are. Corruption needs to be cut out, and the market within India needs to be freed up. The country has no single market, but 35 states with massive tariff barriers between them.
I especially want to pursue the importance of consistency between Government policy on trade in all its forms and the provision of development assistance to the developing world by the Department for International Development. The Department has a new test. Under the International Development Act 2002, development assistance must be designed to alleviate poverty and pursue the concept of sustainable development. However, it is no good the rich west salving its conscience by paying out aid if, at the same time, such work is undermined by our policies on trade and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) said, on arms sales to the developing world.
In stressing that point, I want to refer to the sale of the air traffic control system to Tanzania. That was a clear example of an unfair, unjust, unacceptable and almost certainly corrupt trade with one of the world's poorest

105WH
countries. I shall give some of the facts of the case. In 1997, the Ministry of Defence gave preliminary clearance under its F680 procedure to the export by BAE Systems of an air traffic control system to Tanzania. It was a military system; the Government knew that in 1997. They knew that because the application was made to the Ministry of Defence for the export of a military system.
On the basis of that preliminary clearance, BAE Systems entered a binding contract with the benefit of a soft loan from Barclays bank—it had to be given on concessional terms in order to meet IMF rules. The equipment was built and $15 million was paid to BAE Systems before the export licence was considered. Essentially, the MOD's preliminary clearance presented the Department of Trade and Industry with a fait accompli when it came to consider the application for an export licence. In considering export licence applications, it is supposed to apply what are called consolidated criteria. Those criteria take into account the need to look at the country's development needs. Those were totally ignored in that case.
Dr. Nick Palmer: How does the hon. Gentleman address the fact that we might have a qualified view of an arms deal or some other deal and that the Government in the developing country might have a different view? We give Governments the right to defend themselves. In what circumstances does he believe that we have the right to override the judgment of a developing country about its self-defence needs?
Norman Lamb: My point is that our Government's policy must be consistent. It is no use giving development assistance money to one of the poorest countries in the world if, at the same time, we give an export licence for a system that is of no use to that country. I shall expand on that in a moment.
The result of the contract is that one of the world's poorest countries has increased its debt, just after receiving debt relief from this country and others, to the tune of £28 million. It has purchased a system that, as we now know from the International Civil Aviation Organisation, is totally inappropriate to its needs. Tanzania does not have an air force, yet it has bought a scandalously expensive military air traffic control system. I am told that a civilian system would have cost about $5 million. Why was that deal completed? It does not make any sense for Tanzania and I understand that the President of Tanzania has now written to the Prime Minister making that point and asking for the Government's help in extricating itself from the deal. Why did Barclays subsidise the deal? Its involvement does not make sense and should be investigated. Why would a commercial organisation subsidise an inappropriate arms deal to a very poor country? The loan had to be on concessional terms to get past IMF rules, because the country had been in receipt of debt relief. I have been told that bungs were paid to facilitate the deal. There should be a full investigation into that scandal.
This country wastes masses of public money.
Mr. Maude: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Norman Lamb: I have little time, so I shall not.
106WH
We spend millions of pounds in development assistance and in debt relief for one of the poorest countries in the world, yet Tanzania has been left with a massive debt and the only one to profit from the deal is a British arms company. We are talking about fairer trade. The MOD cannot be allowed in future to effectively bind the DTI without the knowledge of DFID. DFID did not even know that the application had been made in 1997—contrary to the principles of sustainable development—to foist a military system on one of the world's poorest countries.
We are all calling today for fairer rules for international trade, in particular for the developing world. I am also calling for consistent Government policy so that one Government Department cannot totally undermine the work of another.
12.9 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on having secured the debate, and I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that, in addition to this debate, Conservative Members have chosen to allocate one of our Opposition days for a debate on this very important subject, especially to mark the fact that such a significant lobby of Parliament is taking place today. Such a debate seemed appropriate to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the shadow Secretary of State for International Development. I am sure that many hon. Members who were unable to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will want to participate in the debate in the House.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) have said, we believe passionately in free trade. It is the greatest engine for poverty reduction. It is more effective than aid alone ever could be, and as the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, aid and trade need to work in tandem.
We congratulate all those who have written to their Members of Parliament and those who are attending Parliament today on bringing the issue, once again, to the attention of Parliament and the public at large. Happily, more people have been lifted out of poverty around the world in the previous 50 years than in the 100 years before that. It is good to know that, in spite of all the problems that remain in many parts of the world, since 1960, child death rates and malnutrition rates have halved in developing countries.
Much of the credit for that must go to the wealth that has been created by increased international trade. We should be aware, however, that many countries have not reaped the benefits. As several speakers have already said, corruption is one of the major problems. I think it was the hon. Member for Northavon who said that the lack of democracy in many countries is the problem. It is important for all those who care about these issues to focus on corruption and lack of democracy as much as on the obligations of the developed world and the importance of negotiations in organisations such as the World Trade Organisation. We can do a great deal to promote democracy and good governance around the world, and to try to reduce the extent to which the corruption of the rulers of so many developing countries is harming their citizens.

107WH
We recognise that, partly because of corruption, exports in many poor countries do not expand, so those countries do not reap the benefits of globalisation. Again, partly because of corruption, farming becomes unsustainable in many countries, for example, in Zimbabwe, where there is a deliberate attempt to hand over huge amounts of land to the leader's cronies, with the result that there is likely to be a substantial failure in the staple maize crop there. We were briefed recently by someone who has worked in Africa for the Commonwealth Development Corporation and Oxfam during the past 10 years, and who said that corruption and cronyism may well lead to famine.
We are aware that life expectancy throughout the world is increasing. but in many African countries, it is falling, not least because of the tragic spread of HIV. We are very much aware that Africa will not meet the international development target of halving the number of people living in poverty by 2015. There will be a need to reform trade rules to ensure that globalisation becomes a truly effective force worldwide. The reform should focus on ensuring truly free trade.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell pointed out, the common agricultural policy is unsustainable in its current form. Trade barriers in the form of tariffs are wrong. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham said, although we support President Bush on many issues, we do not want the United States to resort to protectionism, as it could only do damage. Tariff barriers deter foreign investment and raise prices. Lower trade barriers encourage trade and inward investment, and allow other poor countries to expand their exports and to benefit from their comparative advantages. That is shown by the number of poor countries that have already been able to expand their range of exports away from primary commodities to manufactured goods and services.
There are continuing concerns about the way in which high tariffs, even in the EU, Japan and Canada, block out poor countries. It is of particular concern that the imports on which poor countries want to focus are the very commodities that are blocked by high tariff barriers.
Hugh Bayley: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman repudiating so many of the policies that his party pursued when it was in government when the proportion of GDP spent on aid was halved from 0.5 per cent. to 0.25 per cent. Does he recognise that, if we reduce agricultural subsidies by reforming the CAP and make it more possible for African farmers to import their beef and cereals into Britain, there will be a consequence for British farmers as there will be less demand for British beef and cereals?
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that all our national interests are taken into account. However, I regretted giving way to him when I heard him reducing what had been a helpful and constructive debate to cheap party-political point scoring.
Trade liberalisation has many dimensions. It must involve the reform of agricultural subsidies. We must bear in mind that total OECD subsidies represent two thirds of Africa's total GDP. Rich countries must keep
108WH
their side of the bargain. Trade liberalisation also means increasing the use of the private sector in the provision of services in poor countries, which the Government and the Conservatives support. We recognise that some members of the Trade Justice Movement oppose it, but we point out to those who lobby us on this matter that trade liberalisation has historically encouraged economic growth and investment. In a large number of developing countries, the provision of essential public services, especially clean water, has not been given a high enough priority by those who govern them. It must be welcome if private companies can provide such services, greater capital investment and expertise.
Studies show consistently that poor citizens suffer the most from corruption. Trade liberalisation is a good way to tackle corruption and encourage good governance, and is therefore in the best interests of the poor. We do not agree that it would be sensible to concentrate first on greater regulation of multinational companies, as that would deter the vital foreign investment that poor countries urgently require. Evidence suggests that the involvement of multinational companies brings higher wages, higher safety and environmental standards, and more rights for workers. The idea that globalisation is a race to the bottom in poor employment practices is wrong. On the Conservative Benches, we believe that poor countries need more trade and investment and that we should not put barriers in the way of greater investment.
These issues must be tackled by the Government in the forthcoming EU Heads of Government meeting in Seville later this week, in the G8 meeting in Canada later this month and in the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg later this year. Conservatives are calling on the Government—in this debate and again later today—to show leadership. Rhetoric should be followed up with action.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): I welcome this important debate. The high attendance in Westminster Hall this morning shows the high level of support among hon. Members and the public for tackling this issue. I thank hon. Members for their good wishes, and I agree with those who said that I have the best job in the Government. I also sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate today. He has demonstrated a keen interest in this subject for a long time. As a former shadow Secretary of State for International Development, he should take much credit for the development of thinking about this important issue.
In the short time available, I shall set out some of the Government's basic principles, but I also want to respond to hon. Members' specific points. Several hon. Members will have another opportunity to explore the issues again this afternoon. I want to pay tribute to the work done by the Trade Justice Movement lobby. The existence of the campaign and the lobby has undoubtedly raised the profile and importance of the trade and development movement at a particularly important time for international discussions. Trade justice issues will be at the top of the agenda. The Government have been given a clear mandate on that by the public.

109WH
The Government are committed to ensuring that poverty reduction is at the centre of their work in international aid. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was right to point out that it is a moral imperative as much as a political problem. He was also right to draw a distinction between the simplicity of the moral position and the complexity of the rules that have to be negotiated. The Government have grasped that particular nettle. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) should realise that the Government have shown great leadership, not just at home, but abroad, in setting out clear markers about the goals themselves and how best to realise them.
We recognise that trade has an important role in helping to achieve the millennium development goals. In recent decades, countries that have taken the opportunity offered by more open world markets have taken the greatest strides in reducing poverty. The World Bank estimates that continuing to open markets to trade could lift an additional 300 million people—about a quarter of our target for the year 2015—out of poverty. By expanding access to ideas, technology, goods, services and capital, trade openness can create the conditions for faster economic growth and help to reduce poverty.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) spoke about the impact of the reduction of commodity prices on levels of poverty in the least developed countries. The Government are examining several issues in that respect, one being value change. It is important that countries that produce the commodities are also able to manufacture and process them. That comes back to the issue of the trade barriers and tariffs. It is one of the reasons why it is so important to dismantle them if we are not just to deal with poverty in the developing world, but to provide sustainable economic growth in those countries.
There is also the issue of the dependence, especially of rural communities, on a small number of basic commodities. Commodity prices have a completely disproportionate impact on rural poverty. Diversification is therefore important. The Government, and my Department in particular, have provided support for the Fair Trade movement and there is growing awareness of the need to ensure that the products that are procured by our major retailers come from sources that comply with fair trade requirements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) made an intervention about transparency. That was important because it is one of the issues that will be raised by today's lobby. Indeed, my colleagues and I had discussions about that this morning with some of the NGOs. We are sympathetic to
110WH
the representations of the developing nations and are working with them and the NGOs. We are also financing support for the pursuit of cases in trades disputes so that the developing nations have access to some of the levers of justice.
The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) made an interesting and thoughtful speech about the relationship between free trade and regulation and about the contradictions in the position of the US, which, while espousing free trade, protects its own industries in certain areas. The Government recognise that. We are pressing internationally and in Europe to ensure that we can end some of the protectionism that has so damaged the developing countries. We are also working on governance issues in the developing countries to ensure that they have the framework to provide the regulation for trade within their countries. Quite a number of hon. Members raised issues about corruption and the importance of ensuring that the benefits of trade reach the populations and do not remain with small numbers of the elite.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) made some important points about the suspicion that exists in many areas about the role of tariffs and trade barriers. One of the reasons why it is so important that we dismantle them and encourage trade is the enormous amount of finance that that can produce, including for the least developed countries. For example, the World Bank estimates that if we reduced by about half the current level of tariffs and barriers, we would produce around US $150 billion a year for the developing countries. That is roughly three times the international aid budget worldwide. It gives an idea of the scope of what can be achieved through trade, as compared with what will be available, even with the best will in the world, through aid.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) raised issues about the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Because of time constraints I will not deal with those points now, but I will ensure that he receives a written reply. Investment in developing countries is critical and being able to source financing for a whole range of projects has created pressure. My Department has been looking at ways to ensure that there is an opportunity for further investment in those countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill raised issues about the development box. We welcome the way that the discussion of that has focused attention on the need to address the special circumstances of developing countries.
In conclusion, this has been a brief dress rehearsal for the debate this afternoon. I reiterate that the Government have shown real leadership in ensuring that there is justice for developing countries, in trade as in other issues, and they will continue to do so.

Nepal
12.39 pm
Sir John Stanley: Although I am chairman of the Britain-Nepal parliamentary group, I would not presume to speak on behalf of the group. I initiated the debate in my individual capacity.
As the House knows, the relationship between Britain and Nepal is unique: no other country in the world has citizens who have served in the British armed forces and under the Crown for more than 150 years, with conspicuous gallantry. They have made conspicuous sacrifices in two world wars and since.
Britain's relationship with Nepal goes far beyond the Gurkha connection. Large numbers of British people travel to Nepal to enjoy the unrivalled mountains of that country, the richness and variety of Nepalese culture and the charm and resilience of the Nepalese people, with their remarkable gift of friendship. The links between our two countries also extend into the constitutional and parliamentary field. When the late King Birendra made his wise move in 1990 towards constitutional monarchy and genuinely free multiparty parliamentary democracy, it was supported by the Government of this country. Members of the British Parliament have been present among the international observer team in all the general elections by universal suffrage in Nepal, beginning with the election in 1991. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be part of the last Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Nepal in 1996, went to the Nepalese Parliament and saw the Speaker's Chair in each House, carved in British oak—gifts from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the Parliament of the kingdom of Nepal.
That parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy is under the gravest threat from Maoist terrorists, whose clearly stated objectives are the overthrow of the constitutional monarchy in Nepal and the imposition of a one-party communist state.
The Maoist campaign has been going for some six years; thousands of people have already lost their lives and the campaign is both spreading and intensifying. The trademark, and principal weapon, of the Maoists is extreme brutality. At a briefing recently, senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials told the parliamentary group that the latest Maoist tactics before attacking a security forces post are to go to the surrounding villages and make house-to-house calls demanding that each family gives up one member of the household as a so-called civilian volunteer. If they do not do so, the Maoists will be back to murder at random one member of the household, which is a threat that they carry out. Those civilian so-called volunteers are then used as first-wave cannon-fodder in attacking the security forces post, to expend the maximum amount of the security forces' inevitably limited supplies of ammunition. When the first wave has gone in and most of the ammunition is expended, the hardened, seasoned Maoist terrorists finish off the job. Inevitably, the casualty rate among those press-ganged civilian so-called volunteers is fearfully high.
Those who have been unfortunate enough to be captured alive by the Maoists have been treated unspeakably. Prisoners have had their throats slit, have
112WH
been dismembered, disembowelled, burnt alive and tied to trees in order to have their limbs smashed so that they die in agony slowly. The Maoists understand totally the power of fear, as they have always done, and exploit it ruthlessly.
Not surprisingly, in a country with only limited road communications and where the ability to reinforce is extremely restricted, the Maoists have managed to take a greater or lesser degree of political control over approximately half of Nepal. They are cementing their control by isolating areas ever more completely from help from the elected Government. They destroy telephone links, electricity supplies, bridges and the remaining Government presence in villages, which principally consists of the offices of village development and forestry committees. They have extended their operations beyond the rural areas and into the capital, Kathmandu, where the terrorists have detonated bombs in buses and taxis and against Government buildings.
As we all know, the world has been engaged in a war against terrorism since 11 September, and the world's media have given massive attention to terrorist attacks and threats of further terrorism against the United States of America and its allies, and in Afghanistan, Kashmir and the middle east. However, comparatively speaking, precious little attention has been paid to the country that is facing the single greatest threat to its parliamentary democracy from internal terrorism—Nepal. If there is to be a truly worldwide campaign against terrorism, it is high time that the world community gave more attention and support to the needs of Nepal in its war against terrorism.
I want to raise three specific points. The first is the issue of military assistance to Nepal. As the Minister will know, during the past year a succession of senior members of the Royal Nepalese security forces and the Government, including most recently the Prime Minister, have visited this country and requested military assistance. Prime Minister Deuba was able to see the Britain-Nepal parliamentary group following his meeting with our Prime Minister during his recent visit.
The press have reported that the Nepalese have requested helicopters, so that they are better able to reinforce their security forces than they have been so far; night vision equipment, so that they can mount their own attacks to try to nullify the terrorists' ability to operate more or less with impunity at night; and military training and expertise in counter-terrorism, which this country has in plenty.
I hope that the Minister will set out in the fullest and most specific detail possible in this public forum how the British Government have responded to those requests from the Nepalese Government for military assistance. I am concerned about the apparent lack of speed and resolve in the British Government's response so far.
There seems to be a striking contrast with the way in which the Government responded—rightly—to the requests from President Kabbah of Sierra Leone for military help against the brutal and serious internal terrorism that he faced and the threat to parliamentary democracy in that country. I welcomed the British Government's response to Sierra Leone, but I want to record the fact that, although Nepal is not a member of the Commonwealth, Britain's ties with Nepal are of infinitely longer duration and our obligation to Nepal is greater.

113WH
My second point relates to development assistance. The war against terrorism in Nepal will not be won by military means alone, any more that it will elsewhere in the world. The people of Nepal, particularly in rural areas, must be persuaded that their prospects for prosperity are substantially better under the existing democratic Government than they would be in a Marxist one-party state. Unless the people of Nepal can be persuaded of that, there is a real risk that the Maoists might win, so development assistance results are urgently needed on the ground.
The Secretary of State for International Development wrote to me on 9 June. She said:
"Last year my Department spent over £20 million on development assistance to Nepal. This included a number of short-term initiatives to deliver development benefits to people in conflict affected areas. Increases in the programme are planned this year, and if there is progress with reform we are ready to further increase financial support."
I very much welcome the right hon. Lady's focus on providing development assistance to give short-term benefits to people in conflict-affected areas. That is crucial, but at the same time I am concerned by what she says about making increases in financial support dependent on progress with reform.
I completely understand the need for reform in Nepal, as do the Nepalese Government. I understand the need to root out corruption and remove what remains of the caste system, but it is an inescapable fact that those reforms will take time, and time is the one thing that Nepal does not have. The sands of time are running out in Nepal, and perhaps running out fast in terms of its parliamentary democracy, so I urge the British Government to increase development assistance now, to focus it on conflict-affected areas, and to increase development assistance without conditions.
Finally, I turn to the role that Britain can play in the international development community worldwide on behalf of Nepal. I do not begin to suggest that the British Government could or should single-handedly shoulder the burden of getting development assistance to Nepal on the scale and with the critical immediacy required. The entire international development community must be mobilised, including the United Nations development agencies, the European Union, individual donor countries with serious development programmes and the development organisations and agencies in Asia.
In the aftermath of 11 September, Britain played a crucial role in building the international military coalition against terrorism, not least through the Prime Minister. What is called for now is for Britain to take a similar lead, headed I hope by the Prime Minister, to build a similar international development assistance coalition for Nepal while there is still time. I cannot stress the urgent need for that too strongly.
I said at the outset that Britain had a unique relationship with Nepal. In my view, Britain also has unique obligations to that country. Twice in the past century, thousands of Nepalese citizens came to our country's aid as Gurkha soldiers in our hour of need. In Nepal's hour of need, it is incumbent on Britain to come to Nepal's aid with substance, determination and immediacy.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on raising the issue of Maoist terrorism in Nepal. He is right to say that the debate is timely. The crisis in India and Pakistan has taken parliamentary and media attention from other countries in the region, especially Nepal, that also need international attention and support.
This morning, I spoke to a friend from Nepal who runs a business here. He had spoken to members of his family who were subject to direct intimidation by Maoist terrorists in Nepal. He told me of the fear that pervades many communities in the areas controlled by the terrorists, and the extent to which the need for a Government response presents itself. The terrorism must be cracked down on, and it must be ensured that the terrorists negotiate a proper settlement on the issues.
Much of the conduct employed by the Maoists in their efforts to secure power has been nothing short of barbaric, in their acts against Nepalese security forces and against civilians. Threats such as those that the right hon. Gentleman outlined are an everyday occurrence in many parts of Nepal.
The United Kingdom fully supports the Nepalese Government's efforts to combat the Maoist terrorists. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reiterated our support during a meeting with Prime Minister Deuba of Nepal only last month. He came to this country and asked for support, and was assured that he would be given it.
As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling suggested, the UK has strong ties with Nepal that stretch back over 200 years. One obvious link is our Gurkha relationship. The Gurkhas are an integrated part of our Army, and are held in deep affection throughout the United Kingdom. They have distinguished themselves in areas as diverse as Bosnia, East Timor and Sierra Leone. I place on the record the Government's thanks to them for all their efforts. Until the escalation of the conflict over the past few months, Nepal has been a popular destination for British tourists, who have travelled in large numbers to holiday and trek in a country of outstanding natural beauty. The tourists need to be aware of the circumstances and take account of the escalating terrorist campaign in Nepal if they plan to travel there. They should certainly not travel in areas controlled by the Maoists, and they should also be careful in other areas.
The Maoist military campaign remains focused on three targets. The first is the continuing destruction of the civilian infrastructure. The second is the monthly pattern of major assaults on district headquarters and security force garrisons. The third is the campaign of attacks against police posts, Government offices and public transport in Kathmandu. The pattern of violence has been accompanied by repeated Maoist-inspired national shutdowns and strikes. Those have exacerbated the impact on an economy already debilitated by the conflict.
It has been estimated that there are about 5,000 core Maoist members. The Maoists have used force to bolster their numbers in operations against the Nepalese

115WH
security forces. The right hon. Gentleman described some of the methods that they used. The Maoists currently control areas in the mid-west of Nepal through fear and intimidation, and there is evidence that they are present in all Nepal's 75 districts.
The security situation in Nepal has deteriorated alarmingly over the past few months. The Maoist threat continues to dominate life in the country. The scandal of destruction is enormous. Districts in the far west are now without piped water, telephones and electricity. Some districts have been losing contact with Kathmandu as the Maoists destroy repeater stations and radio masts throughout the country. Bridges have fallen to Maoist bombs, and postal services have been severely disrupted. Food stocks have been looted and local government officials are fleeing to Kathmandu as their offices are bombed and burnt.
The Maoists recently offered a unilateral ceasefire for one month. However, that proposal was rejected by Nepalese Prime Minister Deuba, who argued that the Maoists could not be trusted, especially in light of their previous ceasefire break in November 2001, when they abandoned the last round of negotiations. At the moment, the Maoists are not genuinely interested in a peaceful resolution of the situation but want to resolve it by a terrorist campaign. A ceasefire would merely provide them with the opportunity to regroup, retrain, rearm, and recruit new members to their cause.
The abandonment of peace talks by the Maoists and their return to violence last year forced the Nepalese Government to create a state of national emergency. One consequence of that was the introduction of the Royal Nepalese Army into the conflict. Previously, the role of combating the Maoists had been left to the police. The addition of the RNA to the conflict has contributed to some military successes against the Maoists. However, those achievements have been tempered by undeniable reports of human rights abuses by the police, the armed police and the RNA. Although a valued contributor to peacekeeping forces overseas, Nepal has no experience of fighting wars on its own territory. We have strongly urged the Nepalese Government to take action on human rights abuses, stressing the need properly to investigate the reports and punish the perpetrators.
The current political uncertainty in Nepal, culminating in the dissolution of the Nepalese Parliament and the expulsion of the Nepalese Prime Minister from his own party, comes at a time when the country is already undergoing a security and fiscal crisis. Prime Minister Deuba last month extended the state of emergency for a further three months. To do so, he required parliamentary support. A stand-off over the extension between Prime Minister Deuba and his party president, Mr. Koirala, resulted in the Prime Minister's dissolving Parliament in order to push ahead with the extension of the state of emergency. That was conducted within the Nepalese constitution and by the order of the Nepalese King. However, Mr. Koirala then ordered the expulsion of Prime Minister Deuba from the Nepali Congress party.
The internal conflict will not assist in reaching a solution and ending the conflict. We strongly urge Nepalese politicians to put aside their differences and to work together in the interests of the country at this difficult time. The dissolution of Parliament has resulted
116WH
in new elections being called in November. We stand ready to do what we can to support the Nepalese Government in the holding of free and fair elections so that the democratic process may prevail.
Our close relations with Nepal amplify our concern for the instability there. We support the democratically elected Government of Nepal, and recognise their right and obligation to provide security to their people. We have offered our full support to the Government of Nepal in their attempt to find a resolution to the insurgency. That message was reiterated recently by the Prime Minister to the Nepalese Prime Minister. The European Union has also condemned the Maoist attacks.
Mr. John Burnett: The Minister heard a compelling plea for immediate action—a plea for sufficient military assistance from the United Kingdom to support the Nepalese Government. Will he address that point?
Mr. O'Brien: I am certainly hoping to be able to deal with that. It is of course an important request. We are considering those requests and we hope that in the very short term—I am thinking of days rather than months—we will be able to give a response on some aspects. I do not wish to go into some of the detail of the military requests that have been made but I would be happy to brief hon. Members privately about that after the debate.
We are also working closely with our US colleagues and others in identifying ways to stop the insurgency. We consider our involvement to be part of the wider war against terrorism, whatever form it takes. We are committed to continuing our developmental, political and military assistance to the Nepalese Government and the United Kingdom is taking the leading role in coordinating support to Nepal in this time of significant crisis.
In that context the United Kingdom decided to host an international meeting in London, which started this morning and will conclude tomorrow. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing marred his otherwise excellent speech by claiming that we lacked resolve. The calling of that international meeting suggests otherwise. The situation is much too serious for that sort of party political knockabout and must be taken seriously. It concerns an international situation in which we have a deep vested interest and the Government intend to take it very seriously indeed.
We developed the initiative for the international conference in close consultation with our international colleagues and with the Nepalese Government. We have invited representatives from other countries who share our concerns over the worsening security situation there, those with substantial donor programmes, and, of course, representatives of the Nepalese Government. We have also invited multilateral organisations with interests in Nepal, including the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme, together with the United States, India and other countries.
The international meeting is an important initiative to bring together representatives from the international community to discuss how that community can best coordinate its efforts in supporting the people of Nepal.

117WH
The international meeting also provides an opportunity to reinforce the need for strategic action by the Nepalese Government and the international community to address the situation in Nepal.
But that is only the beginning. We believe that this meeting should become a process—one that will involve greater co-ordination between Nepal and other countries. The UK is helping Nepal bilaterally. Our already substantial £27 million bilateral development programme to Nepal will be increased in the short term to assist the Nepalese people. It focuses on short-term programmes to deliver development benefits to communities affected by conflict, sector reforms in health and infrastructure, governance reforms and targeted programmes to assist the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
It has to be acknowledged that the development record in Nepal is mixed. There have been some gains in reducing poverty and improving the human development of the people. However, much more must be done to reduce inequalities and corruption. That is why the Department for International Development has also worked with other agencies and the Government to improve the latter's implementation of poverty reduction programmes.
We have also approved a package of measures for Nepal totalling £6.7 million as part of our strategy concerning south Asia for this financial year. That is an increase of approximately 1,000 per cent. in Nepal's allocation from the last financial year under the global conflict prevention pool. The projects will be aimed at short-term development and at reinforcing Nepal's development, military and police capacity. They are, therefore, directly related to the current crisis.
A substantial amount has been allocated for training and equipment support for the Royal Nepalese Army. Training support will include assisting the RNA in human rights awareness, while approximately £500,000 from the fund will be spent on providing equipment, including bomb disposal protection goods.
We are committed to helping Nepal, and we are determined to do so. We are providing military and financial support, and we are determined to continue our efforts on human rights.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.

Health Inequalities (Easington)
1 pm
Mr. John Cummings: First, I want to put the health of the local population in context. In socioeconomic terms, Easington is classed as one of the most deprived communities outside London, and it is sixth from bottom in the multiple index of deprivation. One in four deaths is due to coronary heart disease, which is 40 per cent. above the national average. Deaths from the complications of diabetes are 73 per cent. higher than the national average for men, and 62 per cent higher for women. There has been a 62 per cent. increase in deaths among men from cirrhosis of the liver. Life expectancy figures are among the worst in the country, at 72.42 years for males and 77.4 years for females.
Despite those appalling statistics, health care in the Easington district remains chronically underfunded. Easington currently receives only 89 per cent. of its target allocation, while Darlington receives 105 per cent. It is one of the most deprived and disadvantaged communities in the country in health terms, but primary health care is underfunded to the tune of almost £10.5 million, according to Department of Health and County Durham health authority figures. The Easington district includes part of the Prime Minister's Sedgefield constituency, and its population suffers some of the worst health in the country. It is ironic that it is one of the areas that are furthest from receiving their target allocation.
One might ask what happened to Government initiatives on areas with the worst health records. Easington has a population of almost 98,600, but it was not successful in securing health action zone status in the last round of bids.
Additional assistance to reduce death and illness due to smoking is also not available to residents in the Easington district, even though it is available to communities in neighbouring Sunderland and in Tees Valley; yet 28 per cent. of men and 24 per cent. of women in the district are smokers.
The problem is compounded by the fact that there is considerable pressure in the district on local authority budgets for disabled facilities grants to adapt people's homes, for disabled people in local authority accommodation and for elderly people who live independently in their own homes.
Mr. Denis Murphy: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cummings: I am always pleased to give way to a good comrade.
Mr. Murphy: The picture that my hon. Friend paints is almost identical to that in my constituency. He mentioned the disabled facilities grant, and there are major problems in our constituencies because the level of disability is well above average. Does he agree that it would be sensible for central Government to recognise that fact and to increase grants to enable local authorities in our constituencies to catch up with the huge backlog of work that needs to be done in that respect?
Mr. Cummings: My hon. Friend makes valuable points, and he speaks from first-hand experience. He

119WH
represents an area much like mine, which relied on coal mining, with all the consequences that that hazardous occupation had.
Easington district's total financial commitment for adaptations and medical aids, including access ramps, showers and heating, is almost £1 million for the current year, and there is an estimated backlog of more than £500,000 of work for local authority properties alone. Without additional resources, that backlog is likely to increase further, as occupational therapists and social services make more referrals.
National policies for modernising services for older people place much greater emphasis on giving older people the support that they need to live independently in their own home. That is likely to have significant cost implications in terms of disabled adaptations, medical equipment, domiciliary care, personal medical and community care, home helps and meals on wheels. It is apparent that there are insufficient resources in the existing organisations and agencies to cope with the considerable growing demand for those services.
There needs to be an understanding of the resource implications of any change in the pattern of service delivery for older people, for all agencies involved in health and social care, including the primary health care sector, especially in Easington where resources are already stretched to the limit. Despite a record settlement for the national health service, with an increase of 9 per cent. in revenue budgets and a 9.9 per cent. increase in the allocation to the County Durham health authority, in this financial year Easington is moving further away from its target resource allocation.
A significant problem from Easington's perspective is that the substantial additional resources allocated to it in recent years have been for badged projects, such as modernising accident and emergency facilities and improvements in hospital-based cancer services. Without a dedicated hospital serving east Durham, the allocations that would otherwise have gone to Easington have been directed to the major population centres. It is the view of many Members of Parliament representing disadvantaged areas like my own that the index of multiple deprivation should be included as a basis for the allocation of resources for health.
The ill health of the local population can be addressed only by means of a protected increase in baseline resources with a bias in future allocations to areas in greatest need, such as Easington, where health inequalities are greatest. Although I welcome initiatives such as the national primary care collaborative, community healthworks, the warmer homes initiative, sure start, on track and the healthy schools award scheme, they need to be refined and streamlined so that there is better co-ordination between health, education, social care and community economic regeneration, which are vital to improve the life chances of the local population.
There is an argument that Easington and other similarly deprived areas identified by the multiple index of deprivation should receive an allocation above capitation target due to exceptional need. For 2002–03, Easington primary care trust receives £84.7 million as against a target allocation of £95.176 million, a shortfall of £10.47 million. In other words, Easington is funded in the current year at 89 per cent. of target. Nevertheless,
120WH
in spite of the funding gap, Easington can take pride in some excellent examples of partnership working in overcoming health inequalities in the district of Easington.
Easington primary care group was chosen as one of the twenty PCGs in England to take part in the first wave of the national primary care collaborative, which is now a part of the NHS Modernisation Agency. In the first year, 2000–01, five local GP practices concentrated on reducing the time that patients wait to see a doctor or nurse and establishing effective planned care for people with heart disease. In only the second year of operation, 17 of the total of 18 GP practices are working together on these targets. In January, every patient in the participating practices was able to see their family doctor within 48 hours of their request. In most practices, 90 per cent. of patients could see their doctor on the day of their choice. At the same time, all patients who needed aspirin as a protective measure were identified and receiving that treatment, which is known to reduce the risk of heart attacks by 50 per cent. One hundred percent of people who needed treatment with beta-blockers after heart attacks were receiving them. The number of people benefiting from statin therapy to reduce high cholesterol had reached at least 70 per cent. of the eligible group in all practices and as much as 90 per cent. in some.
A handyman scheme has been supported, an example of partnership working between the local NHS, Easington council and Age Concern. It provides two handymen to undertake odd jobs for older people in the community, helping them to live independently by reducing the risk of accidents in the home. Where time allows, the handymen also deliver small aids to independent living and help to maintain gardens, improving the environment and reducing the hiding places for thieves.
A home safety scheme—a partnership between the local NHS specialist health promotion service, Easington district council and the fire service—provides new home safety equipment for families with special needs or those who have children aged under five, such as a fireguard, two safety gates, two smoke alarms and socket covers. Every ward in Easington is in the bottom 10 per cent. of communities in England for investment in home safety. There is a clear correlation between lack of local investment and every parameter of poor health—including accidents.
The project has been possible only because funding has been provided by a charitable source. A community healthworks partnership—a training programme—has promoted joint working between the local NHS specialist health promotion service and people from the local community. It aims to raise awareness of the many factors that affect health. Local trainers are used to support participants in developing locally relevant health-related research projects. Participants, through their interest in health issues, often become interested in the local community health forum. Unexpected benefits of the scheme have included participants gaining the confidence to return to full-time working.
A smoking cessation partnership has been established between local GP practices, the specialist health promotion service and local people. The primary care trust has invested heavily from its baseline allocation to support local services for people who want to give up

121WH
smoking. A network of 35 intermediate smoking cessation advisers work in GP practices throughout the district. The specialist health promotion service provides them with training and support. It has a success rate of 66 per cent. of people quitting at four weeks, compared with the national average of 45 per cent. Preliminary data suggest that the percentage of people still not smoking after one year is 35 per cent.
Funding for that work went to health action zone areas in the first year of national support. In the second and third years, Easington primary care group received £25,000 to set up and run the smoking cessation service—a share of the £192,000 received by County Durham and Darlington health authority. As I said earlier, that was much less than the funding for health action zone areas.
The currant bun project is a partnership between the specialist health promotion service and the local community. It is a healthy eating programme that targets groups such as older people, people with mental health problems and single parents and covers healthy eating messages, food hygiene, budget meals and basic cookery skills. Links are made with local community workers to facilitate community involvement in other local projects. The significance of that work is that many people who suffer disadvantage find it difficult to link what they know about good nutrition with the need to manage both their time and their financial resources.
An important area of work, given the levels of deprivation in Easington, is the warmer homes partnership between the local NHS and Easington district council. The primary care trust has worked closely with Easington district council to improve local resident access to fuel conservation initiatives. Primary care staff working in GP practices refer patients who are at high risk because of health problems to the local medical officer. After assessment, adaptations are undertaken to improve the heating systems and insulation measures.
Sure start is an important area of work for primary care, which will pay dividends in improved health and lifestyle in future generations. There are three sure start areas in the Easington district. The primary care trust is the lead partner and is doing superb work.
A successful bid to the New Opportunities Fund under the healthy living centre initiative has provided funding for four interlocking community health promotion programmes: healthy food, healthy exercise, StressBusters and information for health and wellbeing. Since the primary care group was formed in 1999—it is now a trust—there has been a modest increase in the amount of consultant psychiatric services. A counselling service now works hand in hand with every GP practice in Easington, and funding has now been secured to strengthen the clinical psychology service. Bases for two community mental health teams and an out-of-hours helpline have been established.
As I have said, it is a matter of public record that levels of health need in Easington are the highest of any community outside London. National imperatives are also local priorities. Proportionately, local people have more heart disease, more mental health problems and more cancer than people in the rest of the country. In
122WH
tackling those issues, the primary care trust must work closely with other agencies and organisations in the community, as well as with agencies in Sunderland, Durham, Hartlepool and North Tees. Easington primary care group is addressing the problem on two levels; first, by providing services for those people who are affected by disease and, secondly, by providing information and support for people at risk of serious disease to enable them to make informed choices about their lives. The NHS needs to make as much effort to prevent ill health and disease as it makes in treating disease. That is a real challenge when there is a funding shortfall, in excess of £10 million.
The real deficit in the district is evidenced by a lack of community service infrastructure. We can identify the levels of demand and the lack of resources in Easington. The area requires another 10 GPs to reach the national average. In some practices in Easington, there is one GP for every 2,600 patients, and the district average is one GP for 2,100 patients. Although it would be useful to establish specialist GP clinics and extended-role nursing provision to support people with chronic disorders, in reality Easington needs to increase its staffing establishment as well as develop leading-edge services.
There are, of course, physical limits to how much change a system under pressure can cope with, but the primary care trust's response has been to support and work with the practices to find a way through the uncertainty. What, practically, does Easington need? I have already said that we need more GPs and more community nurses. More palliative care beds and intermediate care beds are also needed. There is a clear remit for the PCT to work even more closely with the local authority to ensure that local people are not disadvantaged when funds are distributed throughout the county. We need more specialist diabetes nurses, dieticians and podiatrists. The national service framework will set out a requirement to build integrated services for people with diabetes. Complications of diabetes account for a 73 per cent. increase in deaths in men and a 62 per cent. increase in deaths in women in Easington. That situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Children and young people require access to a robust child and adolescent mental health service. Adult mental health services are poorly developed in the district and need more resources to enable them to carry out their most useful function.
There are good services for people with heart disease, which causes one in four deaths in adults in Easington. Lack of access to echocardiography means that effective care for people with congestive heart failure is not available. New funding would allow that deficiency to be tackled immediately. The development of community-based rehabilitation services could significantly reduce pressure on hospital out-patients and doctors' surgeries. Those matters could be tackled immediately if the resources were made available.
It would be extremely useful if, when he responds, the Minister would identify possible funding initiatives that the PCT could tap into in order to address those problems. There is considerable pressure from members of the public and local health care professionals to redress the historic and recurrent £10.5 million annual shortfall. That shortfall is based on population alone, and does not take need and deprivation into account. I

123WH
urge the Minister to take the opportunity to make an unequivocal commitment to address that anomaly through a needs-based funding allocation at the start of next year's financial settlement.
More than six generations of miners and their families in the Easington district have produced the coal to fuel the engines of industry that powered the industrial revolution, made the steel and fired the ships that made the nation great. Unfortunately, the coal mines are no longer with us. Many miners suffer from chronic ill health as a result of their long service in terrible conditions underground. The nation owes a debt of honour to those miners, their families and descendents, and to areas such as Easington.
In the grand order of things, we are talking about a modest commitment in each district of about £100 per resident. That modest sum could make a significant difference to the health of the local population. My colleagues and I look to the Government to address inequalities and injustice, and to repay a debt owed to mining communities, such as Easington, that are struggling to overcome disadvantage and deprivation, and want to look forward to a healthier, happier future under this Labour Government.
1.20 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) for raising such important issues in this Chamber. I share many of his concerns and I hope that, in the time that I have left, I can at least reassure him about the future direction of policy and resources as they will affect his constituency. I also pay tribute to him for the balanced way in which he presented his arguments. He carefully and effectively raised the issue of the lack of resources for the national health service in his constituency. He also drew attention to those areas where progress is undoubtedly being made, thanks to the efforts of the Labour party to tackle some of the deep-rooted problems of health inequality that have scarred our society in the past 500, not five, years. As a fair-minded man, he will understand that what is important is that the Government recognise the priorities and commit the resources to tackle them. Dealing with those deep-rooted health inequalities is a long-term project. However, I can at least reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to bear down on the problems that he vividly and candidly described, which are still of concern in his constituency.
My hon. Friend was right to make prevention, not treatment, the focus of his remarks. We all know that that is the right way to tackle some of those inequalities. He also rightly referred to the progress that has been made, and to the widely available anti-cholesterol treatments that are now available, thanks to the coronary heart disease national service framework that we published two years ago. The treatments are now widely available throughout the NHS, and will undoubtedly yield a long-term dividend in all our constituencies. My hon. Friend also mentioned the programmes to support people who want to give up smoking—that terrible habit, which we know is the cause of unnecessary deaths through cancer and coronary heart disease. He rightly paid tribute to the effective smoking cessation service in his constituency.
124WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) made an important point in an intervention about the role of social services. Although the NHS undoubtedly has a special contribution to make as the expert provider of health care, the Government recognise clearly that we must look beyond it to tackle health inequalities. We must consider the contribution that social services and other vital public services can make. We must also look critically at the economy, wages, jobs, housing and education, which are all fundamental to tackling health inequalities, to give people some of the life chances that many others have taken for granted for many years.
The Easington constituency is not unlike mine in many key respects. If my hon. Friend the Member for Easington came to Barrow-in-Furness he would see many similarities and parallels. I know that the same would be true of Wansbeck. In all those areas—on the economy, jobs, housing and social services—the Government are trying to get in the extra investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck referred to the need to support additional investment in grants for disabled facilities. Thanks to the prudent way that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is running the economy, we announced in the Budget that we are doubling the trend rate of growth going into social services spending. It is important that we do that as we are increasing spending in the NHS. If those two vital pillars of the welfare state get out of kilter, we shall not make the progress that we want. Investing in social services must be done in parallel with investment in the NHS.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington will allow me in the remaining five minutes to say a few words about the national picture. I will then address the issues in Easington. I know that part of the world very well and I have a great deal of affection for it. I hope that I also have some affinity with it. From the very beginning, when we took office, we recognised the importance of tackling health inequalities. It is one of the issues that characterises the difference between us and our predecessors, who would not even mention the term "health inequalities". We accept that it is a problem and we are trying to put the measures in place to deal with it.
A stark challenge faces us. At the beginning of the 21st century the opportunity for a healthy life is linked to social circumstances and childhood poverty, just as it was in the 19th and 20th centuries. To all of us who are privileged to serve in this House as Labour Members and who describe ourselves as socialist, that is unacceptable. We are determined to challenge that state of affairs. There have been considerable overall improvements over the past 50 years, but there is still a great deal more to do.
My hon. Friend referred to some of those changes. He rightly mentioned sure start, which is making an investment in the early years of a child's life. That will bear dividends. We have a range of other policies. We are improving home insulation and energy efficiency schemes as well as tackling some of the deep-rooted economic problems that are still apparent in County Durham. I am glad to see that unemployment rates in my hon. Friend's constituency have fallen dramatically since Labour came to power. That will bear dividends too.

125WH
My hon. Friend was particularly concerned about dealing with the underfunding, as he saw it, of the health service in his constituency. I do not take issue with him about that. We want to close that gap. We are currently reviewing the basis on which funds are allocated to primary care trusts. The purpose of the review is to develop a solution that will link health needs and service provision much more closely. That new allocation funding mechanism is due to come on stream next year. I hope that in the course of that review we can make further progress in dealing with the current inequality of funding.
For the moment, and over the past two years, we have included an interim health inequalities adjustment as part of the resource allocation system. It is worth £148 million this year and it will help to compensate those parts of the NHS whose residents suffer the worst health in the country. That is certainly true in Easington. It is a scandal that a young boy born today in Easington has a life expectancy several years shorter than that of a similar boy born in Kensington, Chelsea or Westminster. The extra resources that we are trying to put in, of which County Durham received an extra £2.5m this year, will help us start to redraw that balance.
On general finance, Easington has edged closer to its target funding allocation over the past four years. It was 13.3 per cent. below target; it is now 11.4 per cent. below target. It has benefited from £4.3 million in additional funds between 2000–01 and 2002–03. Overall, County Durham has benefited from new hospital facilities and substantial additional investment in its mental health services, which will benefit my hon. Friend's constituents. He is right that the centres that provide that care are not based in Easington, but they are services for his constituents.
I hope that building health inequalities into the NHS performance assessment framework will also help focus the attention of NHS managers on these issues. We are reworking the NHS funding formula, specifically with a view to tackling some of the problems raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the importance of primary care and the shortage of general practitioners in his constituency. He will be aware that in April, two new GPs were appointed to cover the Easington area; we are hoping that a further two will be appointed in August. I hope that that will make a significant contribution to solving the problem that my hon. Friend identified.
There is much more that I would like to say about the problems of health inequalities, and about how much more the Labour Government still have to do. However, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that Ministers share his view about the importance of the issues that he raised in the debate. Ministers in the Department of Health and in other Departments look forward to working with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck to find new solutions to the problems—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.

Hospices
1.30 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: May I express my appreciation for the opportunity to raise an issue of great importance and sensitivity?
The Minister knows from Question Time yesterday that the issue of hospices in general and children's hospices in particular concerns people on both sides of the House; it is not a partisan issue. The Government are rapidly developing policy on the matter but I want to pursue certain aspects of it.
Before I turn to some of the more general policy matters, I want to place the subject in a personal and local context. As a society, we have become more honest about issues of life and death and there is now an open debate about a problem that families face: there comes a point at which medicine can no longer deal with disease, when people wish to live out the last few weeks or months of their life in dignity, surrounded by people who care for them and love them. In many cases, that will take place at home. I went through that experience a year ago, when my wife died of cancer at home. However, for many people that is not possible as work arrangements cannot be made and caring support is not available, so a hospice is the best solution. There is a growing acknowledgment of the crucial role that hospices play within the health service.
At a local level, certainly within the last few years, there has been an upsurge in my part of London of the Shooting Star Trust, an enormously successful and popular charity, which has won people's hearts. It is a children's hospice charity, which was started by a person in my constituency called Kate Turner. The charity has been brilliantly successful in raising about £3 million so far. It has obtained land from the local council and the hope is to embark on building the hospice towards the end of the year. With the dedication of its supporters and the head of steam that has built up, I have no doubt that the project will happen and that it will be successful. However, it would happen more quickly, on a bigger scale, and on a more sustainable basis if the hospice could be sure that there was some financial back-up from the national health service because, as with many hospices, most of the children who go there will be on referral from the NHS.
I acknowledge from the outset that we are faced with a change in the policy environment. The NHS cancer plan is explicit. It states that
"all patients should have access to the specialist palliative care advice and services that they need."
It worries some charitable hospices that at a time when the Government formally acknowledge that they are an important part of the NHS, the Charity Commissioners say that if that is the case, the traditional basis of charitable funding comes into question. The Charity Commission advises charities—I am sure that the Minister is familiar with this—that trustees cannot normally use a charity's funds to pay for services that a public body is legally required to provide at public expense. However, trustees may use a charity's resources to supplement what the public body provides. That seems to me to change slightly the balance within which hospices have normally arranged their funding.

127WH
Therefore we are moving to an environment in which the NHS does accept responsibility for hospices, but we start from a position where it is overwhelmingly a private charitable activity. I shall rehearse some of the figures to place them on the record, although the Minister will be familiar with them.
In January this year, 3,029 hospice beds were available in England and Wales, of which 595 were based in the NHS and the rest were all charitable—mainly local charities rather than the big national ones. Currently, 28 per cent. of funding for adult hospices comes from the state—the NHS—a figure that has unfortunately declined in recent years. Back in 1997 it was 33 per cent.
At Question Time yesterday, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) highlighted the particular problem of children's hospices. They are a relatively new development in the hospice movement, but public funding in that sector is significantly less—only about 5 per cent., an extremely low figure—than in adult hospices.
Dr. Evan Harris: Helen house is a children's hospice in Oxford, in my constituency. It has led the way in the development of children's hospices, yet it receives no statutory funding whatever and finds it hard to maintain existing services, let alone set up new ones. It has just started the development of Douglas house, a hospice for young adults who do not fit into either the adult or children categories. Given the Charity Commission's advice and the fact that public funding for children's hospices is already at a low level and falling, there is concern about how Douglas house will meet its running costs.
Dr. Cable: That helpful intervention reinforces my point. If the average is 5 per cent., in several cases public funding might well be at or close to 0 per cent. I certainly hope that the hospice that I am looking forward to seeing in my constituency will avoid that problem. As my hon. Friend suggests, it is not just that the funding of hospices, particularly children's hospices, is making no advance; it is a struggle to avoid going backwards. The last financial year saw an increase of about £14.5 million, much originating with staff costs, which are linked to NHS salaries. Only about 22 per cent. of that amount was covered by NHS funding. Additionally, many hospices quite properly have regulatory obligations: care standards inspections, checks for criminal records, and national insurance surcharges costing about £2 million, all of which have to be catered for. Many hospices are now fund-raising not in order to develop, but to stand still.
That is the context in which I want to pursue Government funding—directly or indirectly through the lottery—with the Minister. First, it would be helpful to establish what sums of money we are talking about. In yesterday's answer the Minister referred to about £50 million a year of additional Government funding and it would be useful to have that figure confirmed. I understand that that figure comprises the ring-fenced £50 million over three years as part of the cancer plan; £70 million from the lottery—is that covered in the Government total?—and various other bits and pieces such as the welcome £3.5 million a year for drug costs, imaging and ambulance services and the recent
128WH
announcement that specialised consultants, registrars, will also be funded. Is that right or have I misunderstood how the extra £50 million was arrived at?

The Government funding is welcome, but people at the sharp end have various questions about how it works, so I shall put specific points to the Minister. The £50 million ring-fenced money does not appear, at least so far, to be getting through to many hospices. The Minister will be familiar with the survey by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care. It covered each of the 34 cancer regions and found that few have identified money that has come through to the hospice movement. In the area covered by the Shooting Star Trust, which contains approximately three cancer regions, I could identify only £60,000 that had been located in the first financial year of the programme. The money is clearly not getting through, and it would be helpful to discuss that problem.
In the Minister's reply yesterday, she helpfully said that access to funding may be gained under the programme with the quality protects exercise and carers' grants. Will she explain how hospices such as the one that I represent can access that stream? On primary care trusts, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made the point yesterday, with which most of us would identify, that people do not often get far when they go to their local primary care trust. That is simply because PCTs view such work as an optional extra. They receive no Government funding for it, so they are not very co-operative.
What plans do the Government have to create a framework for hospices and palliative care, through perhaps the formal structure of the national service framework, to determine a minimum standard of provision from PCTs with funding streams attached so that they can respond in the same way as they would to other aspects of NHS funding? On Government funding, are there any plans to enlarge the categories of items for which the NHS takes responsibility? In the past few months, the Minister has said that there will be funding for drugs and specialist registrars. Will that be extended to other staff? That is what the hospice movement is primarily concerned about.
In my last few minutes, I should like to pose some specific questions on lottery funding. For my local hospice, it has become the key topic as well as the most difficult and impenetrable one. The £70 million is a lot of money, and I understand that £48 million of that is available for children's hospices through the New Opportunities Fund. That gave rise to considerable expectations, but when the hospices approached the New Opportunities Fund, they found out that only a small part of that total is available for hospices as opposed to more general palliative care. Palliative care is valuable but, given the demands of the hospice movement, it means that the sum available to hospices—about £15 million—is not large enough.
A more serious aspect for my local hospice is that none of the money appears to be available for capital spending. It is all for revenue. If one is trying to get a new hospice off the ground to meet local demand—about 1,000 families are completely uncovered in my constituency—from where does the capital come? Will it all have to come from charity, or is there some way in which hospices can access a combination of lottery and Government funding?

129WH
One lottery stream is the New Opportunities Fund, which has those problems; the other is the community foundation. When hospices have approached the community foundation, they have found it even harder to penetrate. It does not give priority to hospices or children, but operates on a crude Robin Hood principle that only the most deprived areas of the country can get access to it. That means that my part of London cannot. The foundation deals with averages, but there are many pockets of poverty in my constituency and south-west London generally. Rich people with a terminally ill child will go to the private sector, but for people on middle or low incomes, the needs are acute, and the community foundation's redistributive approach to funding is not helpful.
Will the Minister say something about the discussions that she and her colleague at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are having with the lottery about how the funding can be used effectively? I should also like a response to the broader question of how Government funding can be used, particularly in the case that I have mentioned of a new children's hospice.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate. The subject is topical and of concern to all hon. Members, as was evidenced at Question Time yesterday.
First, I want to place on the record the tremendous contribution made by the hospice movement in caring for people at the most vulnerable time of their life. Both the adult and children's hospice movements do a fantastic job wherever they operate. and they have made the United Kingdom a world leader in that field. When the hospice movement was founded, there was a great deal of scepticism that it might not be an appropriate way to care for people, but in the 1960s tireless lobbying, a lot of research and excellent clinical practice ensured that that type of specialist palliative care was recognised internationally.
As the hon. Gentleman said, hospice care for children is an even newer development than that for adults. In fact, it is only over the past 20 years that establishments providing such care have begun to spring up, which is probably why the funding base for children's hospices in particular is not well embedded in our normal funding structures. It is right to say that both movements have been based largely on public contributions and charitable fund-raising. Only in recent times has the proportion of statutory funding begun to rise.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that the proportion of statutory funding has in fact decreased over the past couple of years from 33 to 28 per cent., but the actual funding from the statutory sector has increased by 14 per cent. over the past two years. The reason for the apparent discrepancy is that charitable fund-raising has been even more successful, increasing by 22 per cent. In the past couple of years, the
130WH
proportion of money funded from the statutory sector has decreased, but the actual money has increased quite considerably, and we should view the situation in that context. I am delighted that charitable fund-raising activities have been so successful, because it means that more services can be provided, but we are keen to ensure that the statutory contribution continues to rise, too.
Provision has been made for children's hospices to be supported within the national health service. It is for primary care trusts to negotiate locally what kind of services are needed in their communities and to have a genuine relationship with the voluntary sector to see how those services can be provided. That is why there must be a proper discussion through the health improvement programme, which is the main mechanism at local level in relation to funding decisions.
The way in which the hospice movement has evolved means that the bricks and mortar are quite often in place before discussions are held about how the services will be supported. Sometimes the capital expenditure is the easiest part to find, through public subscriptions and the many excellent and laudable ideas that many of us have seen in our own communities, such as buy-a-brick schemes. The building and the fabric are sometimes created before the revenue support is obtained and put in place, which can cause particular difficulties for local health services when they find that demands have not been anticipated or planned for through their processes.
Therefore it is important that the hospice movement as a whole has an ongoing relationship with the primary care trusts, which in future will have 75 per cent. of the NHS budget devolved to them and will be able to take the funding decisions. I say that not to undermine the fund-raising that hospices do, but to show that we must ensure that there is some synergy between capital funding and revenue funding. Otherwise the capital provision could be in place but we would not have the revenue funding, and the service could not be provided. That is not in the best interests of patients and other people who need to use the services.
About 28 per cent. of the running costs of adult hospices are met by the NHS. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is about 5 per cent. for children's hospices. However, there are marked variations even within those figures. It must be recognised that there are some recent arrivals in the children's hospice sector. The Shooting Star Trust, for example, is still being planned, although people in that community have done an excellent job in raising funds.
We must also ensure that we have proper standards. For the first time, the care standards regulations have set out the sort of standards towards which people should work.
On finance, and in response to some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, the New Opportunities Fund has committed £70 million to provide palliative care projects in England. Some £48 million of that funding is for children's palliative care, and will support several programmes for direct services in the community: £30.7 million will be spent on 24-hour care for children with life-threatening or life-limiting illnesses, £15.3 million on residential hospice care services, and £2 million on bereavement services based at home, in a hospice, or in the community.

131WH
The new opportunities funding is therefore balanced. Its guidelines and framework were debated in the House and drawn up as a result of close co-operation between the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We must recognise that although hospice services are greatly appreciated by the people who use them, there is also a demand for care at home and in the community. There is a case, especially for children, for various options to help to meet the needs of people locally.
It must also be said that hospices are sometimes established in places where people have higher incomes. Successful fund-raising is perhaps more inevitable in more affluent communities where people can contribute more money. That is not always the case, but there are huge inequalities in hospice distribution and access to hospice care. The hon. Gentleman made the important point that social deprivation greatly affects a child with a life-threatening illness. The problems of such an illness are compounded if a community is poor and lacks transport and access to income. It is therefore right that we should consider deprivation as well as access for as many people in the community as possible. I do not say that that should be the overriding, or only, factor under consideration, but the problems are undoubtedly compounded for those who are socially excluded and who find it more difficult to access services.
The £50 million that the Government have committed is part of the money announced as part of the cancer plan to spend an extra £50 million a year by 2004. In my answer to questions yesterday, I recognised the concern in the hospice sector about how much of that money was getting through to the frontline of hospices. That £50 million is not only for hospice provision but for palliative care, including community and home-based provision. As I said, we shall examine the mechanisms for ensuring that that money is spent on the areas that we said should be a priority. We shall consider the outturns of the expenditure for this year and see where the money has been spent, to see whether we can strengthen the mechanisms for next year to ensure that more of that allocation goes through.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the extra funding for specialist registrars for pathology and imaging, and to meet ambulance costs. We announced that all those things should be available to NHS patients in hospices in the same way in which they are available to NHS patients of other services; that is in addition to the £50 million for the strategy. We sent out guidance to the trusts throughout the country, emphasising that people are NHS patients, and therefore that the costs should be borne in that way.
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the lottery money not being available for capital funding. A small amount is available for capital, but that is primarily for equipment. The hon. Gentleman is right that the lottery money is designed to support revenue funding; that is the point that I made earlier. In many cases, capital funding is easier to raise through public subscription and charity fund-raising than revenue funding is. That is why it was decided to put the majority of funding into supporting the day-to-day services that people need.
132WH
It is important that we try to get hospices on a firmer footing so that they are more a part of everyday services. As we said in the NHS plan, everyone should have access to good, high quality palliative care services. That is why we commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to undertake an evidence-based review of palliative care services as part of the palliative care guidance. We want to identify services that are most likely to result in high quality care. The NICE review will benefit the voluntary sector. It will help decision making about service delivery in local areas and it will provide primary care commissioners with a much more robust framework and better information when they are taking their spending decisions. We expect that the initial findings will be available from this autumn. They will be fed into the strategy that we are developing as part of the cancer plan. That will enable us to develop good and robust standards for palliative care.
We have also required all the cancer networks to develop costed strategic plans for palliative care. For the first time we now have a palliative care strategy in each cancer network, based on provision and local population needs. Also for the first time, comprehensive data on the current provision of palliative care at a network level in England are available. Those data will enable people to plan more strategically where services should be. Because the sector has grown up in an ad hoc fashion, we have not had a handle on where the provision is, its quality and how it fits in to ensure that people have access to services right across the field.
It is important that voluntary sector providers are fully played into the decision-making process. That is why we funded them with £54,000 to organise themselves to ensure that their voice was heard in the planning process. A joint conference in May brought together key commissioners and key providers in the statutory and voluntary sectors. We are moving on apace with this whole agenda. The current expenditure on palliative care is about £300 million, of which about £170 million is provided by the voluntary sector and £130 million by the NHS. As I have said, by 2004 there will be an additional £50 million from the statutory sector, which will mean that for the first time we shall make an equal contribution.
I think that I have made it clear that we intend to take action to try to ensure that this money gets further down the line. I also want to place it on the record that many people prefer to die at home. We must achieve the right balance between hospices, community provisions and home. We recently established the Diana community support nurses, who have helped with community care for children with life-threatening diseases. We have a wonderful provision through the Macmillan nurses, who can provide tremendous support for people at home at a distressing time for them and their families. Marie Curie Cancer Care also plays an important role at this difficult time.
It is important that we also invest in training for support for district and community nurses. We put an extra £6 million into cancer networks to train district and community nurses in the principles and practice of palliative care. They are working closely with the hospices in developing their own skills, to extend the

133WH
range of all skills that all district nurses will have in future to enable them to deal with these issues sensitively.
This is an important debate. It clearly engages many of our constituents. Caring for people in the last days of their life, whether they are adults or children, has to be
134WH
an increasing priority. I hope that in future we shall develop a much more robust framework so that everyone in our community may expect to get the best possible care in the last months and weeks of their life. We are determined to see that that happens.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

WALES

  Coastal Emergencies
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding placing planning for coastal emergencies on a statutory footing in Wales. [59913]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Respite Facilities
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the provision of respite facilities in Wales. [59914]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I discuss health issues on a regular basis with the First Minister and the Health and Social Services Minister.

  The principal services providers of respite facilities in Wales are: the social services department of local authorities; the NHS; the voluntary sector; and the independent care home sector.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what facilities are in operation in Wales to recycle refrigerators in accordance with the EU Ozone Depleting Substances Regulations 2037/2000. [59916]

  Mr. Touhig
  I meet regularly with the First Minister to discuss a range of issues including recycling.

  It is expected that two facilities for the recovery of ozone depleting substances from refrigerators and freezers will be operational in Wales by the end of the year.

  Responsibility for disposal lies with the local authorities, with the policy responsibility resting with the National Assembly for Wales.

  Millennium Stadium
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Home Department about additional resources for the policing of events of national significance at the Millennium Stadium, Cardiff. [59917]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with colleagues about a number of issues affecting Wales, including policing matters.

  In recognition of additional policing costs arising in Cardiff while major football matches are being played at the Millennium Stadium, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has approved special payments of £300,000 to South Wales police in both 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with(a) the National Assembly and (b) his Cabinet colleagues about cross-border access to higher and further education. [59919]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I meet regularly with colleagues to discuss a range of issues, including access to higher and further education.

  M4 and Severn Bridge Closures
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the recent closures of the M4 and Severn Bridge. [59920]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I recently had the pleasure of meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) to discuss this issue. I have received no other representations on this matter.

  Family Farms
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the future viability of small family farms in Wales. [59921]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None. Such assessments are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, who have responsibility for agriculture in Wales.

  I do, however, have regular discussions with the First Minister, which include agricultural matters.

  The National Assembly has launched "Farming for the Future: a New Direction for Farming in Wales"—a distinctively Welsh agriculture strategy produced with the help and support of the industry. The strategy recognises the importance of family farms; gives prominence to developing high quality produce; and most importantly, sets out a vision based on sustainability in all its aspects—economically, environmentally and socially.

  Unemployment
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in North Wales. [59922]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government's long-term ambition is that by the end of the decade there will be a higher proportion of people in work than ever before.

  The latest labour market statistics, published last Friday, show that we are making excellent progress—3,000 more people in Wales are in work, compared to a year before. The statistics also show that claimant rates are down compared to a year before across the whole of North Wales.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the effect in Wales of Government measures to create job opportunities for unemployed people. [59928]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Employment measures such as the New Deal have been a huge success in Wales and we have seen a 65 per cent. fall in youth claimants and a 58 per cent. fall in long-term claimants since those policies were introduced. The latest labour market
  327W
  statistics for Wales, published last Friday, show that 3,000 more people in Wales are in work, compared to a year before.

  Regeneration
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary regarding economic regeneration in towns. [59923]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the First Minister to discuss a range of issues including economic regeneration in towns.

  The Welsh Development Agency published its community regeneration policy for Wales in May 2000. The document sets out an area-based approach to community regeneration, integrating economic, social, cultural and environmental measures.

  Building on its Market Towns Initiative, Small Towns and Villages Initiative and earlier work on both urban and rural regeneration, the WDA has developed a community regeneration toolkit, providing both revenue and capital support. This allows for mixing and matching of a number of support mechanisms for community regeneration.

  SMEs in WDA project areas can also access the WDA's mainstream grant schemes, for example town improvement grants and environmental improvement grants.

  Crime
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department about the impact in Wales of measures to reduce crime. [59924]

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department about the impact in Wales of measures to reduce crime. [59930]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with colleagues about a number of issues that impact on Wales.

  Tackling crime is a priority for the Government. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales regularly meets the Crime Reduction Director for Wales, Mr. David A'Herne, who is charged with taking forward our key policies and initiatives aimed at fighting crime and disorder. Our co-ordinated approach is making a marked difference in communities throughout Wales.

  Departmental Representation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how often, in the last year, his office has been represented on Cabinet committees dealing with home affairs. [59925]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Both my hon. Friend and I are members of committees dealing with home affairs, which we attend on a regular basis.

  Appeals Service
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Appeals Service in Wales to ensure that bilingual medical officers are available to users. [59926]
  328W
  Mr. Touhig
  Responsibility for the Appeals Service rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Persons are appointed to the appeal tribunal panel, including those medically qualified, by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. Operational matters rest with the chief executive of the Appeals Service.

  Where an appeal tribunal requires a medically qualified panel member it is normally the case that the panel member will reside locally. However it will not always be the case that the medically qualified panel member will be bilingual. An interpreter will be made available where necessary.

  Red Dragon Project
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the Red Dragon project; and if he will make a statement. [59927]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with my ministerial colleagues at the Ministry of Defence.

  Very little has changed since my earlier reply to a parliamentary question from the hon. Gentleman. The Welsh Development Agency continues to work with the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) and Defence Estates on the proposals to develop the site facilities, including the possibility of establishing an aerospace park at St. Athan.

  There have been seven public meetings so far and I understand that the Ministry of Defence will continue to work closely with the local community, to keep it informed of developments as they take shape.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet representatives of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss agriculture. [59929]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular basis and we often discuss agriculture. I also frequently meet the Welsh Assembly Rural Affairs Minister, as does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, as part of his rolling programme of quarterly liaison meetings.

  Employment
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on employment levels in North Wales. [59931]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government's long-term ambition is that by the end of the decade there will be a higher proportion of people in work than ever before.

  The latest labour market statistics, published last Friday, show that we are making excellent progress—3,000 more people in Wales are in work, compared to a year before. The statistics also show that claimant rates are down compared to a year before across the whole of North Wales.

  Coal Subsidies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the extension of the subsidy to coal produced beyond July 2002; and if he will make a statement. [59932]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues and discuss a range of issues including coal state aid, and understand the deep concerns of the people of Wales about the coal industry.

  A new European framework for coal state aid, post July 2002, was agreed at the Energy Council on 7 June. We are particularly pleased, that we have been successful in negotiating the flexibility to pay investment aid, where appropriate. This allows support to be given for the development of economically viable mines. The new framework provides us with the basis on which to decide the future of coal policy in the UK, but discussion on the future of UK aid is still ongoing.

  Elderly Care
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly for Wales about the funding of free care for the elderly in Wales. [59933]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am aware of this matter but, thus far, I have not received any official request from the Assembly to discuss this issue with the Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services.

  European Capital of Culture
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Cardiff s bid to become the European capital of culture. [59934]

  Mr. Touhig
  Cardiff is Europe's youngest capital, a multicultural city which serves a country rich in both traditional and contemporary culture. Sense of place is a defining quality of Welsh culture. Our locality and our community is a strong part of our identity. Cardiff s European capital of culture bid looks at the new ways that the city can work for the people and the cultural communities across the whole of Wales, and my right hon. Friend and I wholeheartedly endorse it.

  Health Service Auditing
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the auditing of the health service in Wales. [59935]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend has discussed this issue with both the Assembly First Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). I have also discussed it with the Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services.

  The First Minister and the Welsh Assembly Cabinet are content, in principle, to the proposed amalgamation of the Commission for Health and Improvement (CHI) and the Audit Commission which are England and Wales bodies. It will be necessary to make sure that this works properly
  330W
  and effectively for Wales, and those detailed issues will be addressed during the framing of the necessary legislation.

  Farming
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Secretary to discuss farming. [59918]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend has a weekly meeting with the First Minister at which a range of issues are discussed. I also have regular meetings with the Assembly Rural Affairs Minister.

PRIME MINISTER

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to request a recall of his Commonwealth counterparts to consider the developing situation in Zimbabwe. [59955]

  The Prime Minister
  The Commonwealth Troika of Australia, Nigeria and South Africa suspended Zimbabwe from the Councils of the Commonwealth on 19 March 2002. The Troika had been mandated by Heads of Government to address Commonwealth concerns on Zimbabwe. Its decision will be reviewed after 12 months. We welcomed the Troika's decision to suspend Zimbabwe at the time, and support the ongoing efforts of Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo, and Prime Minister Howard, to resolve Zimbabwe's political problems.

  The Troika set out what Zimbabwe needs to do for the suspension to be lifted. It also decided to facilitate dialogue between Zimbabwe's two main political parties so that legitimacy could be restored in Zimbabwe. Talks, facilitated by South Africa and Nigeria, were scheduled for 13 May but the ruling party withdrew at the last moment. We await further information on whether or not the dialogue will be resumed.

  The wider Commonwealth remains engaged on Zimbabwe, as does the Secretary-General. Zimbabwe was discussed at the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on 15–17 May in Botswana. We continue to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe with a range of Commonwealth partners.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002 special advisers of(a) the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and (b) Minister without Portfolio and Party Chairman have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [58752]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of ordinary written questions for his Office were answered within a week of tabling in each month
  331W
  since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58973]

  The Prime Minister
  Information on the written parliamentary questions answered in this period is as follows:

  Month

  Percentage of named day questions answered on day named

  Percentage of ordinary written questions answered within five working days

  June

  43

  73

  July

  94

  95

  October

  79

  90

  November

  66

  85

  December

  91

  100

  January

  95

  85

  February

  84

  72

  March

  82

  75

  April

  88

  84

  May

  97

  83

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in his Office in order to ensure compliance with the WEE directive. [60731]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry on 12 June 2002.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Prime Minister how many computers were replaced in his Office in each of the past three years; how the replaced units were disposed of and by which companies; and at what cost. [60730]

  The Prime Minister
  The general policy is that computers in No. 10 have a three-year life cycle. On average, 60 have been replaced in each of the last three years. Since 2002, the replaced units, minus the hard drive, are given to charity. Costs of this can be obtained only at disproportionate cost

  G8 Summit
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will prioritise debt cancellation at the G8 summit in Canada; and if he will make a statement. [60766]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK has consistently been at the forefront of international progress on debt relief. The Government played a key role in securing agreement for the enhanced Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative at the Cologne summit in 1999, that aims to deliver a sustainable exit from debt for the world's poorest countries. At the G8 summit in Canada, the UK will continue to promote this aim and urge the G8, under the leadership of the Canadian Government, to make further progress on debt relief and ensure poor countries have a sustainable exit from debt. Ahead of the summit, the UK has outlined a number of proposals to strengthen HIPC, and in particular, has called for richer countries to provide an additional financial contribution for the HIPC initiative.
  332W
  The G8 committed last year to looking at how their policies can support African efforts to reduce poverty and bring sustainable development to the continent. African countries have been engaged in developing the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which highlights the importance of sound political and economic governance. The UK has been active in arguing further concrete action, building on our existing strategies for conflict prevention and resolution, health and education, and of the importance of market access for African products. The G8 will come back with proposals in Kananaskis.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff were employed by his Office on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60929]

  The Prime Minister
  As of the start of the financial year, at 1 April 2002, there were 190 staff on the No. 10 payroll.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 5 November 2001, Official Report, column 8W.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what evidence he has received of Iraqi involvement in the anthrax mail attacks in the United States; and if he will make a statement. [62012]

  The Prime Minister
  We have no evidence linking Iraq with the recent anthrax attacks in the United States.

  Investigations into who was responsible for the anthrax attacks and into the source of the anthrax itself are still continuing in the United States. We await the outcome of these investigations.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 620W, on unpaid advisers, if he will list the steps that were taken to ensure no conflicts of interest arose as a result of these appointments. [62968]

  The Prime Minister
  Paragraph 51 of the Ministerial Code sets out the processes for appointing unpaid advisers, including the handling of any conflict of interests.

DEFENCE

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [60467]

  Dr. Moonie
  The performance targets that the Ministry of Defence is required to meet are those contained in the Department's Public Service Agreement and its underpinning Service Delivery Agreement. These targets
  333W
  are captured in the MOD's performance management framework—the Defence Balanced Scorecard. The scorecard also tracks high-level internal objectives on which PSA performance depends. The Defence Management Board reviews the scorecard annually, and monitors performance against it on a quarterly basis.

  Key targets for the 36 Defence Agencies are still being finalised for financial year 2002–03, and are being announced to Parliament as and when they are agreed. Defence Ministers approve all agency key targets, taking into account past performance. Agency performance is monitored during the year by the agency's nominated "owner" within MOD, and is published in the agencies' annual reports. More information on performance can be obtained from the appropriate agency chief executive.

  Information on the performance of the MOD's seven executive non-departmental public bodies is published in their annual reports.

  Armed Forces (Suicides)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 473W, on armed forces personnel (deaths on military premises), (a) how many and (b) what proportion of the suicides involved a person below (i) 18 and (ii) 21. [61389]

  Mr. Ingram
  The data detailed in the table represent the number of armed forces personnel, whose deaths were recorded as suicides, which involved personnel below 18,21 and over 21 years respectively.

  Number

  Percentage

  Under 18

  1994

  0

  0

  1995

  0

  0

  1996

  0

  0

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  0

  0

  2001

  0

  0

  All years

  0

  0

  Under 21

  1994

  5

  17

  1995

  2

  10

  1996

  4

  17

  1997

  5

  24

  1998

  2

  18

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  2

  20

  2001

  1

  33

  All years

  21

  17

  21 and over

  1994

  25

  83

  1995

  18

  90

  1996

  20

  83

  1997

  16

  76

  1998

  9

  82

  1999

  9

  100

  2000

  8

  80

  2001

  2

  67

  All years

  107

  83

  334W

  Number

  Percentage

  All ages

  1994

  30

  100

  1995

  20

  100

  1996

  24

  100

  1997

  21

  100

  1998

  11

  100

  1999

  9

  100

  2000

  10

  100

  2001

  3

  100

  All years

  128

  100

  Figures for reported suicides are subject to revision as further coroner's verdicts are reported to the Defence Analytical Services Agency.

  Verdicts of suicide are determined by Her Majesty's coroner.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 942W, on firearm deaths, (a) how many and (b) what proportion of the members of HM Forces whose deaths were recorded as a result of firearms incidents were (i) also recorded as suicide or self-inflicted deaths and (ii) below (A) 18 and (B) 21 years old. [61386]

  Mr. Ingram
  Those members of the armed forces whose deaths, as a result of firearm related incidents, were recorded as suicide and those who were below and over 21 years of age respectively, are shown in the table:

  Number

  Percentage

  Suicide

  Under 21

  1994

  4

  15

  1995

  2

  10

  1996

  4

  24

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  1

  10

  2001

  0

  0

  Total

  11

  11

  21 and over

  1994

  8

  30

  1995

  6

  30

  1996

  5

  29

  1997

  3

  60

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  0

  0

  2001

  0

  0

  Total

  22

  23

  Suicide total

  1994

  12

  44

  1995

  8

  40

  1996

  9

  53

  1997

  3

  60

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  2000

  1

  10

  2001

  0

  0

  Total

  33

  34

  335W

  Number

  Percentage

  Other deaths due to firearms

  1994

  15

  56

  1995

  12

  60

  1996

  8

  47

  1997

  2

  40

  1998

  1

  100

  1999

  7

  100

  2000

  9

  90

  2001

  9

  100

  Total

  63

  66

  Total

  1994

  27

  100

  1995

  20

  100

  1996

  17

  100

  1997

  5

  100

  1998

  1

  100

  1999

  7

  100

  2000

  10

  100

  2001

  9

  100

  Total

  96

  100

  In total, 33 of the 96 firearm related deaths have been recorded as suicide. Cause of death can by determined only by Her Majesty's Coroner, therefore, deaths due to firearms excluding suicides may include deaths where a coroner's verdict is awaited. There have been no confirmed suicides in personnel aged under the age of 18 years in the years specified.

  Pakistan Ordnance Factories
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 12 February 2002,Official Report, column 175W, on Pakistan ordnance factories, if he has ascertained the exact amount of training provided under the technology transfer and training arrangements with Pakistan ordnance factories for the manufacturing of the 105mm L64 Tungsten core Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot tank ammunition. [62181]

  Dr. Moonie
  As previously stated, arrangements between the Royal Ordnance Factories (ROF) and the Pakistani Ordnance Factories (POF) related to assistance with the production of 105mm and L64 tank ammunition. As part of this assistance"suitable periods of training … in the United Kingdom on manufacturing, inspection and proof techniques"
  for that ammunition were available to the POF. Despite extensive searches of Defence archives, and the archives of Royal Ordnance Defence plc (ROD), it has not been possible to find definitive information relating to the exact nature or quantity of the training provided.

  Further inquiries by officials into this subject could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Licence Production Agreements (Iran)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what licence production agreements have been signed with the(a) Ammunition Industries Group
  336W
  (Iran) and (b) Defence Industries Organisation of Iran for the production of L2A2 rubber or plastic baton rounds since 1972; [62183]

  (2) what licence production agreements have been signed with Iran for the production of (a) rubber and (b) plastic baton rounds since 1972. [62182]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold systematic records of commercial licence agreements. A more detailed search in files going back to 1972 could be provided only at disproportionate cost and any commercially confidential information would be protected under third party's commercial confidences in Part II Section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Defence Costs
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total cost in the current financial year of providing and maintaining the Royal Navy's ballistic missile submarine fleet. [62041]

  Mr. Ingram
  The estimated total cost for the current financial year of providing and maintaining the Royal Navy's ballistic missile submarine fleet including the costs of manpower and facilities is expected to be about 3 per cent. of the total defence budget.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost in the current financial year of maintaining the capability to research, design, produce, store, move and carry out decommissioning of the British stock of nuclear weapons. [62042]

  Mr. Ingram
  The estimated cost for these items in the current financial year is about one per cent. of the total defence budget.

  Tornado
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if AMRAAM has been equipped on Tornado F3 flying on operations. [62237]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently no Tornado F3 aircraft equipped with the advanced medium range air-to-air missile flying on operations.

  Tanks
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Challenger 2 tanks are allocated to each tank regiment in the British Army; and how many are off-road in each case; [62223]

  (2) how many Scimitars there are in the British Army; and how many are off-road; [62225]

  (3) how many Warrior armoured personnel carriers are allocated to each armoured infantry regiment in the British Army; and how many are off-road in each case. [62224]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of Challenger 2 tanks and Warrior armoured personnel carriers allocated to tank and armoured infantry regiments in the British Army and their availability are shown in the tables.
  337W

  Challenger 2

  Regiment

  Allocated

  Not fully operational

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards

  48

  9

  2nd Royal Tank Regiment

  44

  8

  The Royal Dragoon Guards

  44

  16

  The Queen's Royal Hussars

  30

  13

  The Queen's Royal Lancers

  54

  18

  The King's Royal Hussars

  44

  0

  Total

  264

  64

  Warrior

  Battalion (Bn)

  Allocated

  Not fully operational

  1st Bn The Irish Guards

  53

  7

  1st Bn The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  44

  22

  1st Bn The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  54

  3

  1st Bn The Black Watch

  53

  13

  1st Bn The Royal Regiment of Wales

  18

  0

  1st Bn The Light Infantry

  35

  8

  1st Bn The Staffordshire Regiment

  39

  3

  1st Bn The King's Regiment

  31

  8

  1st Bn The Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment

  39

  14

  Total

  366

  78

  The information is recorded quarterly and the figures represent the position as at 31 March 2002.

  As at 31 March 2002, 64 of the 316 Scimitars in the British Army were reported not to be fully operational.

  The overall totals for vehicle types are broadly in line with availability targets and, as shown in the following table, vehicle availability has improved significantly, particularly in the case of the Challenger 2, since the last return in December last year.

  Equipment type

  Challenger 2

  Warrior

  Scimitars

  Total fleet

  264

  366

  316

  % operational 31 December 2001

  62

  72

  83

  % operational 31 March 2002

  76

  79

  80

  % target availability

  80

  75

  70

  In addition, it should be noted that if any of the units were required to deploy on operations, any shortfalls would be made good to ensure that the units deployed with a full complement of vehicles.

  Fighter Combat Training
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with which foreign aircraft types RAF and Fleet Air Arm pilots have participated in fighter combat training in the past 24 months. [62240]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following list details the foreign aircraft types with which RAF and Fleet Air Arm pilots have participated in fighter combat training in the past 24 months:

  Tornado F3, PA200

  BAe Hawk, Hawk 200

  Sepecat Jaguar

  Dassault Mirage F1, Mirage 2000

  338W

  Dassault Super Etendard

  Douglas A-4K Skyhawk

  General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark

  General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

  Grumman F-14 Tomcat

  Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

  McDonnell Douglas AV8B Harrier II

  McDonnell Douglas F-15, F-15C, F-15E Eagle

  McDonnell Douglas F-18, CF-18 Hornet

  Mig-29

  North American F4 Phantom

  Northrop F5 Freedom Fighter

  Saab Viggen

  Sukhoi Su-22.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF armed Fleet Air Arm squadrons have participated in fighter combat training exercises with overseas air forces in the past 24 months. [62239]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table details the fast jet squadrons that have participated in fighter combat training exercises in the past 24 months:

  Aircraft type

  Squadron number

  Tornado F3

  11, 25, 43, 111

  Tornado GR1/4

  2, 9, 12, 13, 14, 31, 617

  Harrier GR7

  1, 3, 4

  Harrier FA2

  800, 801, 899

  Jaguar

  6, 41, 54

  Educational Allowances
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the uptake of individual educational allowances in each year since 1997; [62466]

  (2) what categories of educational opportunity the IEA has been used for since 1997; [62338]

  (3) what would be the total cost of individual educational allowances if each serviceman made use of it; [62339]

  (4) what the value is to an individual serviceman of the individual education allowance; [62337]

  (5) if he will make a statement about individual educational allowances for the armed services. [62467]

  Mr. Ingram
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to what is now known as the learning credits scheme. This scheme comprises two forms of allowance: standard learning credits and enhanced learning credits.

  The standard learning credits scheme (SLC) was launched on 1 April 1999 and operates on similar lines to the individual refund scheme (IRS) it replaced, but its value, £175 per year, is 25 per cent. higher. Individuals must contribute at least 20 per cent. of the cost of any learning for which it is claimed. The SLC can, therefore, fund up to 80 per cent. of the cost of learning. This 80/20 split encourages development of individual understanding and buy-in to the learning process.
  339W
  Both the SLC and the IRS which preceded it are applicable to a wide range of learning purposes in support of an individual's personal development. The only limitation is that the learning must have a benefit to the services, but, in practice, this still allows almost all forms of development. A representative list of the range of courses includes:

  GCSE—e.g. Maths, English, Psychology, Physics, Accounting, Geography

  A-Level—e.g. Law, Sociology, Economics

  AS Levels—French

  OU modules

  Degrees

  City and Guilds teaching certificates for basic skills

  Book keeping and accounts

  Business studies

  Accounting

  Counselling

  Sports therapy

  Human physiology and health

  NVQs of all types

  Language training

  Computer courses

  European computer driving licence

  Microsoft Office user specialist

  IT practitioner courses

  C++ programming

  Windows 2000 networking

  Microsoft Project.

  The uptake of IRS/SLC since 1997 for the armed forces is shown in the table.

  FY

  Number of Claimants

  Trained strength of armed forces

  claimants as apercentage of trained strength

  1997–98

  18,297

  297,523

  8.5

  1998–99

  11,580

  192,155

  6

  1999–2000

  12,773

  189,574

  6.7

  2000–01

  21,779

  187,874

  11.6

  2001–02

  24,550

  186,610

  13.2

  1 Army figures unavailable.

  2 Excludes Army.

  The second part of learning credits, which will be known as enhanced learning credits (ELC), complements the SLC scheme and is due to be launched on 1 April 2004. This is an imaginative and large-scale initiative to provide partial funding for personnel wishing to undertake academic or vocational education for their own personal development. ELC will enable personnel to access a considerably higher level of sponsorship than SLC and is available for a maximum of three claims (one in each of three separate years which need not be consecutive) during a service person's career and for up to 10 years after leaving the service.

  The ELC scheme requires a minimum period of service in order to qualify and there are two levels of claim depending on length of service. The initial qualification period is four years' service after which an individual can claim the lower tier level of funding (£1,000 pa). A further four years' service allows access to the higher tier of
  340W
  funding (£2,000 pa). As with the SLC scheme, an individual must show commitment to learning by funding at least 20 per cent. of the overall cost.

  The enhanced learning credit scheme will enable the individual to make substantial plans for self improvement in a coherent and long-term fashion and will also encourage employing officers to factor major lifelong learning activities into a subordinate's personal development plan. This will have a positive effect on retention of personnel who wish to lay the foundations for success in their second career while maximising their military potential.

  Based on the strength of the armed forces on 1 April 2002 (204,686) and the maximum available credit (£175) the total cost of SLC if every service person were to apply would be some £36 million. However, this does not take account of personnel on operations or already in intensive training who would be unlikely to claim; moreover, it does not reflect the historical take-up of the SLC scheme. Taking this into account, and using the latest figures in the table, a more realistic total cost would be some £4 million.

  Elementary Flying Training
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to continue RAF involvement in(a) the Joint Elementary Flying Training Service and (b) university air squadrons; and if he will make a statement. [62278]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The RAF's Director of Elementary Flying Training is, and will continue to be, responsible for the Joint Elementary Flying Training School (JEFTS). JEFTS provides elementary flying training (EFT) for all three services (except for RAF graduate entrants who have completed EFT at a university air squadron), flying grading for the Army and multi-engine aircraft lead-in training for the RAF. RAF EFT is undertaken at RAF Church Fenton, Royal Navy and Army EFT is undertaken at RAF Barkston Heath, multi-engine lead-in training is undertaken at RAF Cranwell and flying grading for the Army is undertaken at the School of Army Aviation at Middle Wallop.

  JEFTS use Firefly aircraft to meet all their training needs and these aircraft are provided by Babcock HCS. The contract to provide these aircraft expires on 7 July 2003. There is a need for a short four-year replacement contract to allow for the potential change to the way flying training will be delivered under the United Kingdom Military Flying Training System project planned to commence in 2007. The cost-effective way to deliver the task for the next four years is to undertake the RAF element of the EFT task at university air squadrons, where the majority of RAF pilots already undertake their EFT. The university air squadrons can absorb this work with only a small increase in activity at individual air squadrons, and it will result in a significant overall saving on the cost of providing EFT. The balance of the JEFTS task has been completed and the new contract will be let shortly.

  The RAF will continue to maintain university air squadrons under the command of the Director of Elementary Flying Training. The RAF have recently undertaken a review of RAF university air Squadron

  341W
  flying and ground training to recommend how university air squadrons could better meet the needs of the RAF and of undergraduates. The outcome of this review will be available soon and it is expected to recommend some improvements to the UAS operations, without making changes to the present structure.

  Nepal
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had from the Government of Nepal concerning the Maoist rebellion; what advice his Department has offered; and if he will make a statement. [62893]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 17 June 2002,Official Report, columns 3–5, to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).

  Jubilee Medal
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the membership of the ministerial group for the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and which members will receive the Golden Jubilee Medal. [61287]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The membership of this group, which I chair, is being adjusted to reflect the recent changes of ministerial responsibilities. The previous membership was as follows:

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Secretary of State, Wales Office

  Secretary of State, Scotland Office

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  342W

  Secretary of State for Education and Skills

  Minister for Sport, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Financial Secretary, HM Treasury

  Minister of State for the Armed Forces

  Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Parliamentary Secretary, Home Office

  Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions

  First Minister, Scottish Executive

  First Minister, National Assembly for Wales

  Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure, Northern Ireland Executive

  Private Secretary to Her Majesty

  The Queen The Mayor of London

  Head of the Golden Jubilee Office.

  The Queen's Private Secretary received a medal as a member of the Royal Household.

  NATO
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his meeting with his NATO counterparts on 14 and 15 May in Reykjavik, Iceland. [59821]

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

  The NATO Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Reykjavik was an important step in the Alliance's preparation for the NATO Summit in Prague in November. Ministers agreed on the need further to adapt the Alliance to enhance its capacity to provide defence against the threat of terrorism; on the need to develop new defence capabilities; on the process for the enlargement of NATO; on the creation of a new security relationship with Russia; and on the development of NATO's relationships with Ukraine and its other partners.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Credit Unions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will authorise Consignia and Post Office Counters to act as collection points for credit unions; and if she will make a statement. [61372]

  Mr. Timms
  Neither Consignia or Post Office Ltd. require the authorisation of the Secretary of State to act as collection points for credit unions. Whether they do so is a commercial matter for Consignia and Post Office Ltd.

  Employment Tribunal Cases
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunal claims, where a deposit at a preliminary hearing was required as a condition of proceeding, were proceeded to a full hearing in(a) 2001 and (b) to date; and in how many such cases the (i) claimant won, (ii) case was withdrawn and (iii) case was settled before a full hearing. [62696]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is displayed in the table.

  2001

  12002

  Number of cases which withdrew after a PHR deposit order

  43

  14

  Number of cases which settled after a PHR deposit order

  4

  3

  Number of cases which proceeded to a full hearing after a PHR deposit order

  17

  0

  Of which, successful at full hearing

  0

  0

  1Only covers the period from 1 January 2002 to 30 April 2002

  Source:

  Employment Tribunals Service

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in employment tribunal cases in 2001 where parties were required to pay a deposit, what the mean average deposit was at preliminary hearings as a condition of continuing to proceed with the case. [62694]

  Alan Johnson
  The mean average deposit required at a pre-hearing review as a condition of continuing to proceed with the case was £133.40 for 2001.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what licences have been granted for equipment on the military list to Israel in each month of 2002, including military list and dual-use ratings; what equipment is covered under these licences; and if she will make a statement. [60627]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]:The number of Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) covering items on the military and dual use lists, issued to end users in Israel in each month since January 2002, is set out in the table. Individual licences might cover a range of items with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the tables in the total for all of the relevant ratings.
  344W

  Rating

  No. of SIELS issued for Israel

  No. of OIELS issued for Israel

  January 2002

  ML4

  1

  —

  ML5

  4

  —

  ML9

  1

  —

  ML11

  1

  —

  0C004

  2

  —

  1C350

  1

  —

  2B230

  1

  —

  3A001

  1

  —

  6A001

  —

  1

  End use

  1

  —

  February 2002

  ML5

  4

  —

  ML9

  2

  —

  ML10

  2

  —

  ML18

  1

  —

  ML22

  1

  —

  PL5031

  —

  1

  1C202

  —

  1

  2B350

  1

  —

  5A002

  1

  1

  5B002

  1

  —

  5D002

  1

  —

  End use

  1

  —

  March 2002

  ML4

  4

  —

  ML9

  1

  —

  ML10

  1

  —

  ML11

  2

  —

  ML15

  2

  —

  PL5031

  —

  1

  0C004

  1

  —

  1A002

  1

  —

  1C202

  —

  —

  1C352

  —

  1

  2B230

  2

  —

  2B350

  2

  —

  3A001

  1

  —

  5A002

  1

  —

  7A103

  1

  —

  End use

  3

  —

  April 2002

  ML11

  1

  —

  ML15

  1

  —

  PL5031

  1

  —

  4A003

  1

  —

  5A002

  —

  1

  5B002

  —

  1

  5D002

  —

  1

  5E002

  —

  1

  6A203

  1

  —

  May 2002

  PL5031

  2

  —

  2B350

  1

  —

  3A001

  1

  —

  3B001

  —

  1

  3D002

  —

  1

  5A002

  —

  1

  5D002

  1

  —

  6A001

  —

  1

  End use

  3

  —

  The summary description of the items covered by these ratings will be published in the Government's 2002 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which will be available in the Libraries of the House. In addition, Israel is a permitted destination on certain Open

  345W
  General Export Licences, copies of which are also placed in the Libraries of the House. I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to him of 15 April 2002, Official Report, column 722–23W.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the policy of the Government on the granting of export licences for defence-related equipment to(a) India and (b) Pakistan. [62034]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the statements made by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 15 March 2002,Official Report, columns 1296–98W and by my noble Friend the Lord Sainsbury of Turville in another place on 28 May 2002, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 1147–149.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences for defence-related exports have been(a) granted and (b) refused to (i) Pakistan and (ii) India in each of the last five years. [62040]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The number of Standard Individual Export Licences and Open Individual Export Licences for defence-related exports that have been granted and refused to Pakistan and India in each of the last five years is published in the Government's annual reports on strategic export controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 annual reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 annual report will be published soon.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of(a) Accuracy International sniper rifles and (b) sniper rifles to Switzerland where the final end-use destination was a different country. [62016]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of sniper rifles is controlled under entry ML I in Part III of Schedule I of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended. Between 2 May 1997 and 6 June 2002 no Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the rating ML1 where the consignee was Switzerland and the end-user was in a different country.

  "Your Guide"
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Government Departments' and agencies are involved in discussions with Consignia about participating in the "Your Guide" scheme to use sub-post offices in a Government general practitioner role when it is introduced across the UK. [57945]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand that Post Office Ltd. has engaged in discussions with a wide range of Government Departments and with representatives of local government. Discussions are currently focused on the Department for Work and Pensions, the Inland Revenue, the Department for Education and Skills, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Oil and Gas Directorate
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of her Department's Oil and Gas Directorate posts that are in Aberdeen(a) have been
  346W
  transferred from London and (b) are new posts created in Aberdeen; and if she will list these jobs by grade of employment. [56327]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: Responsibilities of the Oil and Gas Directorate have changed considerably over the years since the Aberdeen office was first set up in 1993. This has led to many changes in posts in both London and Aberdeen. For example:
  a new pay and grading structure was introduced in 1997;
  19 posts were transferred to the Oil and Gas Directorate in Aberdeen from British Trade International in 2000;
  14 Oil and Gas Directorate Aberdeen posts were transferred to the Inland Revenue's offshore taxation office in Aberdeen in 2000.

  Details of the number of Oil and Gas Directorate posts in Aberdeen and London by grade is provided today in my answer to the hon. Member's parliamentary question no. 56326.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of her Department's Oil and Gas Directorate posts are in(a) Aberdeen and (b) London; and if she will list the jobs in each location by grade of employment in each year since 1994. [56326]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: The number of Oil and Gas Directorate posts located in (a) Aberdeen and (b) London in each year since 1994 were as follows. A breakdown by grade of employment is only available from 1997 onwards:

  Aberdeen

  London

  1994

  44.2

  115.3

  1995

  44.2

  120.8

  1996

  45.5

  118.9

  Grade of employment

  Aberdeen

  London

  1997

  SCS

  1

  3

  R11

  1

  2

  R10

  7

  17

  R9

  12

  20.6

  R8

  6

  6

  FS

  0

  3

  R7

  5

  12

  R6

  6.5

  12.4

  R5

  5

  6

  R4

  0

  10

  R3

  8.4

  8

  R2

  1.7

  5

  Total

  53.6

  105

  1998

  SCS

  0.6

  3.4

  R11

  1

  2

  R10

  7

  17

  R9

  14

  18.6

  R8

  7

  5

  FS

  0

  3

  R7

  5

  12

  R6

  6.5

  12.4

  R5

  5

  6

  R4

  0

  10

  R3

  8.5

  8

  R2

  1.7

  4.9

  Total

  56.3

  102.3

  347W

  Grade of employment

  Aberdeen

  London

  1999

  SCS

  1

  3

  R11

  1

  3

  R10

  7

  16

  R9

  15

  16.6

  R8

  9

  9

  FS

  0

  3

  R7

  3

  10

  R6

  7

  10.4

  R5

  6

  6

  R4

  0

  8

  R3

  8.5

  8.5

  R2

  2.8

  5.8

  Total

  60.3

  99.3

  2000

  SCS

  2

  3

  R11

  1

  3

  R10

  10

  17

  R9

  13

  17.3

  R8

  15

  13

  FS

  0

  3

  R7

  3

  9

  R6

  8

  12.4

  R5

  2

  6

  R4

  5

  9

  R3

  8

  6.5

  R2

  5.3

  4.6

  Total

  72.3

  103.8

  2001

  SCS

  2

  3

  R11

  2

  4

  R10

  10

  17

  R9

  15

  15.6

  R8

  21

  13

  FS

  0

  3

  R7

  2

  4.4

  R6

  11

  10

  R5

  2

  5

  R4

  11

  8

  R3

  3

  8.5

  R2

  5.5

  5.1

  Total

  84.5

  96.6

  British Telecom
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last held discussions with British Telecom. [56154]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet major UK companies. I have met the Chairman of BT today.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Eastleigh dated 18 March regarding the funding for supply chain companies constructing the A380 Airbus. [62311]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: I apologise for the delay in responding to this letter which is due to an administration error. I will be responding to the hon. Member very shortly.

  Liabilities Management Unit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 993W, if she will state (a) the preferred bidder, (b) the private sector source for the loan of a Director to the Liabilities Management Unit, (c) whether that source is meeting the staff costs involved and (d) the sources of loans and secondments of all other private sector staff within the LMU. [62934]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am not yet in a position to give details of the partner contractor but I expect to be able to make an announcement shortly. The Director of the Liabilities Management Unit (LMU) is seconded to the Department from the Ford Motor Company. The Director continues to receive his salary from the Ford Motor Company but the Department is making a contribution towards it. The other secondees currently in the LMU are drawn from BNFL and UKAEA. Costs are being met by the Department.

  Lean Manufacturing
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how often during the past year the Manufacturing Advisory Service has(a) given advice to firms about lean manufacturing and (b) acted as a medium between firms implementing lean manufacturing and (i) lean manufacturing experts and (ii) firms that have already had success in this area. [62681]

  Alan Johnson
  The Regional Centres for Manufacturing Excellence (RCMEs) delivering the Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS) in each region are coming on stream at present and are the responsibility of the Regional Development Agencies in the regions concerned. They are not expected to provide information to the Department in the degree of detail requested by the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken by the Manufacturing Advisory Service to inform domestic firms about lean manufacturing. [62680]

  Alan Johnson
  All the Regional Centres for Manufacturing Excellence being established to deliver the Manufacturing Advisory Service in their respective regions will be communicating to manufacturers the merits of lean manufacturing. The associated MAS website (www.dti.gov.uldmanufacturing/MAS) includes a fact sheet on lean manufacturing.

  In addition the service will refer manufacturers to the lean manufacturing experts within the group of Industry Forum Adaptation Projects that the Department supports.

  Californian Energy Crisis
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the lessons to be learned from the Californian energy crisis. [60056]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The Department has monitored the situation in California closely, and continues to do so. The underlying cause of the problems in the Californian electricity market appears to have been a shortage of generation capacity. By contrast, capacity margins in Great Britain are healthy and demand growth in GB has been much more modest than

  349W
  it was in California. Overall, the Department believes a similar combination of circumstances is unlikely to occur in Great Britain, although the Department is not complacent. The Department and Ofgem set up a joint Security of Supply Working Group in July 2001 which, among other matters, is monitoring capacity issues carefully.

  University Research
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of public funding of research in UK universities in each of the last five years has been for(a) military application and (b) other purposes. [61091]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information required can be found in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 on the Science, Engineering and Technology Statistics website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/setstats.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the proportion of research in UK universities in each of the last five years that has been funded(a) privately and (b) publicly. [61090]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information required is as follows.

  per cent

  private1

  public2

  1999–2000

  26

  74

  1998–99

  25

  75

  1997–98

  24

  76

  1996–97

  23

  77

  1995–96

  22

  78

  1 Private includes income from UK based charities, industry, commerce and public corporations.

  2 Public includes income from OST/Research Councils, Funding Councils, UK central Government bodies/local authorities, health and hospital authorities.

  Sources:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency. Office for National Statistics. The figures are derived from data on income received by universities as research grants, contracts and infrastructure support.

  End-of-life Vehicles Directive
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what extra funding has been provided to local authorities to finance the end-of-life vehicles directive; and if she will make a statement. [62560]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The directive contains no provision which applies directly to local authorities. Additional costs incurred by local authorities as a consequence of our transposition and implementation of the directive would, under the "New Burdens" arrangements, fall to be met by DTI.

  Plutonium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies have been undertaken by(a) her Department, (b) non-departmental public bodies responsible to her Department and (c) consultants, in respect of the management of plutonium. [61962]
  350W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Department, in collaboration with other interested Government Departments and agencies is currently undertaking a study of the possible options for the future management of UK owned civil plutonium.

  Export Licences
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 50W, on export licences, when she will complete processing the export licence application number 32368 made on 7 March by Pultrex Ltd. of Colchester; what the explanation is for the delay in dealing with the application; and what action she plans to take to improve the timescale of processing export licence applications. [61504]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Licences to export arms and other items whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, acting through the Export Control Organisation (ECO). A decision has not yet been reached on export licence application number 32368, but will be taken as quickly as possible, consistent with the need to give full consideration to the issues involved including the status of end-users. The application is currently outstanding with our advisers.

  The Government recognise that the system for processing export licence applications requires continuous improvement if we are to deliver a more efficient and effective export licensing system, which is both accountable and transparent. The ECO has introduced a number of initiatives to reduce the time taken to process export licence applications. These include the roll-out of new enhanced IT systems that will mean, for example, allowing exporters to apply for a standard individual export licence over the internet.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teachers' Pay
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to equalise rates of pay between teachers in(a) sixth forms and (b) further education colleges. [48222]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Teachers in sixth forms are subject to national school teachers' pay and conditions. Further education colleges are free to set their own pay and conditions and my right hon. Friend has no plans to change that state of affairs.

  Departmental Appointments
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list her Department's appointees to DCMS sponsored bodies, broken down by age group. [60037]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: There are no Department for Education and Skills appointees on public bodies sponsored by DCMS.

  GCSEs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to make provision for a GCSE in performing arts and related disciplines. [60877]
  351W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As indicated in the Green Paper: "14–19 Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards", the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has been asked by the Department to begin work on the development of additional titles for new GCSEs in vocational subjects. Advice is awaited on the range of possible titles, and timings for implementation.

  Small Schools
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on pupil achievements and pupil teacher ratios in(a) small schools and (b) larger and amalgamated schools. [61200]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The latest performance data for the cohorts of pupils taking Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 for all schools was published in May 2002 in the Statistical Bulletin "Statistics of Education: National Curriculum Assessments of 7, 11 & 14 year olds in England: 2001". The GCSE/GNVQ performance was also published in May 2002 in "GCSE/GNVQ and GCE A/AS/VCE/Advanced GNVQ Examination Results 2000/2001-England". Both publications are available on the Department's website http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics. The Keystage and GCSE/GNVQ performance of schools with a small cohort is shown.

  Tables showing the pupil:teacher ratios (PTRs) for primary and secondary schools, by school size are also shown. School size refers to the total number of full time equivalent pupils in the school as reported in the Annual Schools' Census (January 2002).

  Copies of the relevant tables have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Table 1: Key Stage one 2001—percentage of pupils at Level 2 or above (test)

  Maintained schools1

  All schools

  Reading2

  88

  84

  Writing

  88

  86

  Mathematics

  94

  91

  Number of schools

  1,114

  15,937

  1 Schools with fewer than 10 eligible pupils.

  2 These percentages are based on achievements at Level 2C/B/A in the reading task and Level 3 and 4 in the reading test.

  Table 2: Key Stage two 2001—percentage of pupils at Level 4 or above (test)

  Maintained schools1

  All schools

  English

  79

  75

  Mathematics

  75

  71

  Science

  91

  88

  Number of schools

  975

  14,780

  1 Schools with fewer than 10 eligible pupils

  Table 3: Key Stage three 2001—percentage of pupils at Level 5 or above (test)

  Maintained mainstream schools and CTCs1

  All schools

  English

  50

  66

  Mathematics

  55

  67

  Science

  58

  67

  Number of schools

  22

  3,163

  1 Schools with fewer than 50 eligible pupils.

  352W
  Notes for tables 1, 2 and 3:

  1. Number of schools is the largest of the available subjects.

  2. Small schools and all schools figures published in the statistical Bulletin published in May 2002.

  3. Maintained schools cover mainstream maintained schools and CTCs.

  4. Independent schools include independent special schools.

  5. Special schools cover all maintained and non-maintained special schools and pupil referral units.

  6. All pupils reaching the end of a Key Stage are "eligible pupils", although not all sit the tests (due for example to disapplication or absence).

  Table 4: GCSE/GNVQ achievements of 15-year-old pupils in schools in England 2000–01—percentage of 15-year-old pupils reaching the relevant qualification—maintained mainstream schools and CTCs

  Schools with 50 or fewer 15-year-olds

  All schools

  Five or more A*-C

  41.6

  48.6

  Five or more A*-G

  88.6

  91.0

  No passes

  5.6

  3.9

  Average point score

  35.4

  39.1

  Number of schools

  21

  3,133

  Table 5: Maintained primary and secondary schools—pupil:teacher ratio by size of the school1—2002 (provisional)

  Size of school

  Primary

  Secondary

  Up to 100

  18.2

  8.6

  101 to 200

  21.1

  13.6

  201 to 300

  22.8

  16.4

  301 to 400

  23.1

  17.0

  401 to 500

  23.8

  17.2

  501 to 600

  23.3

  16.8

  601 to 700

  23.8

  16.9

  701 to 800

  23.4

  16.9

  801 to 900

  24.1

  16.9

  901 to 1,000

  28.0

  17.0

  1,001 to 1,100

  2—

  17.1

  1,101 to 1,200

  2—

  16.9

  1,201 to 1,300

  2—

  17.0

  1,301 to 1,400

  2—

  16.8

  1,401 to 1,500

  2—

  16.9

  1,501 to 1,600

  2—

  17.0

  1,601 to 1,700

  2—

  16.8

  1,701 to 1,800

  2—

  17.1

  1,801 and over

  2—

  17.1

  Overall

  22.5

  16.9

  1 Based on full time equivalent pupil numbers.

  2 No schools of this size.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census—January 2002 (provisional).

  Children in Care
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if schools are required to record whether a pupil is living in(a) a residential care home or (b) with foster parents. [61783]
  353W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Schools are not currently required to record this information. However with effect from January 2003 the returns for the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC) will include three new data items about looked after children to show:whether or not the pupil was looked after on the Census day;
  whether or not the pupil has, to the school's knowledge, been looked after at any time since they joined the school;
  and the identity of the caring authority for the pupil's current (or most recent) looked-after episode.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provision the Government makes to ensure children in care remain in the same educational institution until the age of 16 years. [61785]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government recognise that changes in care arrangements can disrupt the education of children who are looked after, and are determined to promote stability.

  This Department, jointly with the Department of Health, issued guidance to all authorities in May 2000 on the education of children and young people in public care. The guidance emphasises the importance of a stable care and education placement in order to promote educational success for children in public care. The Department of Health also set targets within the Quality Protects programme to promote stability and reduce placement moves.

  Under s22(3) of the Children Act, local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children and young people who are looked after, education being a critical dimension of their welfare. It is for local authorities to decide on a case-by-case basis whether it is in the best interests of a child in public care to remain in the same educational establishment.

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to make access to child care less dependent on families' income, location and their employment status. [62156]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government's national child care strategy was introduced in May 1998 to ensure that affordable, accessible and quality child care is available in every neighbourhood and complements early education, schools and other family services. By March 2004, we will have created 900,000 new child care places for 1.6 million children which, taking into account turnover, should allow around 1 million extra children to benefit. We are working in particular to extend child care provision in disadvantaged areas through Neighbourhood Nurseries and other programmes, and to make it more affordable, through measures like the working families tax credit, under which lower income families can receive help with up to 70 per cent. of their eligible child care costs. Support with child care costs is a feature of the New Deal, particularly the New Deal for Lone Parents, and is also available to further and higher education student parents.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government's long-term objective is for child care by 2010. [62158]
  354W
  Mr. Miliband
  The inter-departmental review of child care being led by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Early Years and School Standards is developing a 10-year vision and strategy for child care, focusing on the provision of quality, affordable and accessible child care. Final decisions on the outcomes of the review will be taken in the context of the 2002 spending review.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the PIU review of the national child care strategy will be published. [62159]

  Mr. Miliband
  We expect that outcomes from the inter-departmental review of child care being led by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Early Years and School Standards will be announced in the 2002 spending review this summer.

  Religious Education
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what policy changes she plans for(a) school assemblies and (b) religious education in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools; and if she will make a statement. [61856]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have no particular policy on school assemblies as it is for schools to decide the frequency, format and content of any assembly which takes place.

  The current policy regarding religious education (RE) is set out in circular 1–94. The detail of RE is determined locally and we do not have any plans to change that.

  Sign Language
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what discussions she has had with the British Deaf Association and RNID about whether teachers of the deaf should be required to have a BSL qualification; and if she will make a statement; [61874]

  (2) whether teachers of the deaf are given British sign language training at public expense; and to what extent they are required to pay fees to achieve that training. [61875]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: In addition to holding qualified teacher status, teachers who are employed to teach classes of pupils with hearing impairment are required by regulations to undertake an additional specialist mandatory qualification (MQ). In July 1999, at the request of the then Secretary of State, the Teacher Training Agency carried out a review of existing arrangements in order to develop a new specification for MQ provision. The resulting specification, amended in light of consultation with a wide range of organisations, including those representing children with hearing impairment, requires teachers pursuing the hearing impairment MQ to acquire a minimum competence in signing equivalent to the stage one qualification offered by the Council for the Advancement of Communications with Deaf People.

  Under the special educational needs category of the Department's standards fund, grant support is available to local education authorities and schools for training and professional development of teachers and other staff. It is open to them to use this funding to help staff to secure necessary mandatory qualifications, or other training in signing including British sign language.

  Music Therapy
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support her Department gives for the use of music therapy to assist people with disabilities. [62089]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Under the Standards Fund 2002–03, the Department is supporting local expenditure of £91 million to enhance provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities. One of the expenditure headings is therapies and it would be open to local education authorities to use part of their allocation to support music therapy if they so wish.

  Educational Attainment
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of pupils awarded educational maintenance allowances were living(a) in a residential care home and (b) with foster parents in the last three years for which figures are available. [62173]

  Student enrolments1 in English and Welsh higher education institutions 2001–02 (provisional)

  Census counts as at 1 December 2001

  Higher education institution

  Overseas students

  Total students(all domiciles)

  Overseas as aproportion of total(Percentage)

  England

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  2,290

  19,500

  12

  Aston University

  860

  6,930

  12

  Bath College of Higher Education

  210

  4,170

  5

  Birkbeck College

  360

  11,860

  3

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  0

  1,020

  0

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  390

  5,940

  7

  Bournemouth University

  1,190

  12,890

  9

  Brunel University

  1,520

  13,410

  11

  Buckinghamshire College of Higher Education

  830

  8,610

  10

  Canterbury Christ Church College

  370

  11,400

  3

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  80

  620

  13

  Chester College of Higher Education

  150

  6,250

  2

  Chichester Institute of Higher Education

  50

  4,040

  1

  City University

  2,820

  12,880

  22

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  230

  3,130

  7

  Conservatoire for Dance and Drama

  90

  340

  26

  Coventry University

  2,440

  16,240

  15

  Cranfield University

  1,130

  3,560

  32

  Cumbria Institute of the Arts

  60

  840

  7

  Dartington College of Arts

  60

  480

  13

  De Montfort University

  1,760

  21,570

  8

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  170

  7,930

  2

  Falmouth College of Arts

  90

  1,530

  6

  Goldsmiths College

  1,310

  7,270

  18

  Harper Adams Agricultural College

  170

  1,740

  10

  Homerton College

  50

  2,390

  2

  Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

  3,850

  11,840

  33

  Institute of Advanced Nursing Education

  40

  760

  5

  Institute of Education, University of London

  580

  3,460

  17

  Institute of Cancer Research

  60

  470

  13

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  470

  2,030

  23

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  110

  4,240

  3

  King's College London

  3,100

  17,270

  18

  Kingston University

  1,990

  15,850

  13

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  1,680

  21,890

  8

  Liverpool Hope

  330

  6,480

  5

  Liverpool John Moores University

  1,710

  19,580

  9

  London Business School

  970

  1,450

  67

  London Guildhall University

  1,720

  12,440

  14

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  5,030

  8,080

  62

  London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

  400

  780

  51

  Loughborough University

  1,640

  13,550

  12

  356W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: We do not require local education authorities, who administer the pilot EMA schemes, to collect this information. However, across three pilot areas which are specifically targeting vulnerable young people, around 40 EMA recipients have been identified as being in residential care. The purpose of these pilots is to examine how the effectiveness of EMA in reaching out to the most vulnerable groups in society can be maximised.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many overseas students there are in England and Wales universities, broken down by university; and what percentage overseas students represent of the student population. [62175]

  Margaret Hodge
  The requested information is given in the table. The student numbers shown cover full-time and part-time courses of higher education, including both undergraduate and postgraduate levels of study.
  357W

  Student enrolments1 in English and Welsh higher education institutions 2001–02 (provisional)

  Census counts as at 1 December 2001

  Higher education institution

  Overseas students

  Total students(all domiciles)

  Overseas as aproportion of total(Percentage)

  Middlesex University

  5,280

  22,150

  24

  Nene College

  510

  9,940

  5

  Newman College

  80

  1,450

  6

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  40

  150

  27

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  20

  730

  3

  Oxford Brookes University

  2,540

  14,220

  18

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  1,960

  9,440

  21

  Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication

  110

  710

  15

  Roehampton Institute of Higher Education

  650

  7,000

  9

  Rose Bruford College

  130

  800

  16

  Royal Academy of Music

  270

  610

  44

  Royal Agricultural College

  90

  580

  16

  Royal College of Art

  260

  850

  31

  Royal College of Music

  170

  540

  31

  Royal Holloway and. Bedford New College

  1,430

  5,760

  25

  Royal Northern College of Music

  130

  600

  22

  Sheffield Hallam University

  1,440

  23,130

  6

  South Bank University

  1,110

  16,730

  7

  Southampton Institute

  970

  10,600

  9

  St. George's Hospital Medical School

  190

  2,790

  7

  St. Martin's College

  300

  7,920

  4

  St. Mary's College

  190

  2,660

  7

  Staffordshire University

  1,140

  16,280

  7

  Surrey Institute of Art and Design

  350

  2,820

  12

  Thames Valley University

  1,420

  13,330

  11

  The Arts Institute of Bournemouth

  80

  1,090

  7

  The London Institute

  3,120

  10,160

  31

  The Manchester Metropolitan University

  1,860

  28,560

  7

  The Nottingham Trent University

  1,590

  22,210

  7

  The Open University

  0

  150,890

  0

  The Royal Veterinary College

  170

  900

  19

  The School of Oriental and African Studies

  1,520

  3,540

  43

  The School of Pharmacy, University of London

  160

  780

  21

  The University of Bath

  1,940

  10,450

  19

  The University of Birmingham

  4,000

  25,200

  16

  The University of Bradford

  1,710

  10,606

  17

  The University of Brighton

  2,010

  15,150

  13

  The University of Bristol

  2,340

  17,350

  13

  The University of Cambridge

  4,690

  21,450

  22

  The University of Central England in Birmingham

  1,430

  18,060

  8

  The University of Central Lancashire

  2,370

  23,250

  10

  The University of East Anglia

  1,640

  12,540

  13

  The University of East London

  2,030

  12,420

  16

  The University of Essex

  2,630

  8,240

  32

  The University of Exeter

  1,520

  12,080

  13

  The University of Greenwich

  2,510

  17,100

  15

  The University of Huddersfield

  880

  16,420

  5

  The University of Hull

  2,260

  16,400

  14

  The University of Keele

  910

  9,430

  10

  The University of Kent at Canterbury

  2,250

  12,470

  18

  The University of Lancaster

  2,180

  11,240

  19

  The University of Leeds

  4,810

  32,820

  15

  The University of Leicester

  2,830

  16,630

  17

  The University of Lincoln

  1,460

  11,270

  13

  The University of Liverpool

  3,080

  21,860

  14

  The University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

  2,090

  6,970

  30

  The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  2,210

  17,370

  13

  The University of North London

  2,410

  14,030

  17

  The University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  2,240

  19,570

  11

  The University of Nottingham

  3,900

  23,930

  16

  The University of Oxford

  4,560

  20,850

  22

  The University of Plymouth

  1,650

  21,780

  8

  The University of Portsmouth

  2,970

  16,880

  18

  The University of Reading

  2,500

  13,570

  18

  The University of Salford

  1,670

  17,100

  10

  The University of Sheffield

  3,200

  22,970

  14

  The University of Southampton

  2,090

  19,150

  11

  The University of Sunderland

  1,340

  11,340

  12

  The University of Surrey

  2,370

  11,500

  21

  358W 359W

  Student enrolments1 in English and Welsh higher education institutions 2001–02 (provisional)

  Census counts as at 1 December 2001

  Higher education institution

  Overseas students

  Total students(all domiciles)

  Overseas as aproportion of total(Percentage)

  The University of Sussex

  2,320

  11,280

  21

  The University of Teesside

  640

  13,650

  5

  The University of Warwick

  4,160

  20,210

  21

  The University of Westminster

  3,540

  21,340

  17

  The University of Wolverhampton

  1,790

  19,360

  9

  The University of York

  1,140

  9,450

  12

  The Victoria University of Manchester

  3,750

  24,990

  15

  Trinity and All Saints College

  80

  2,590

  3

  Trinity College of Music

  120

  490

  24

  University College London

  4,970

  19,210

  26

  University of Derby

  590

  11,400

  5

  University of Durham

  1,410

  13,560

  10

  University of Gloucestershire

  260

  7,960

  3

  University of Hertfordshire

  2,140

  18,300

  12

  University of London (Central Institutes and activities)

  270

  790

  34

  University of Luton

  2,510

  9,390

  27

  University of the West of England, Bristol

  1,390

  21,060

  7

  Wimbledon School of Art

  90

  620

  15

  Worcester College of Higher Education

  190

  5,290

  4

  Writtle College

  140

  1,240

  11

  York St. John College

  210

  4,860

  4

  Wales

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education

  180

  4,840

  4

  The North-East Wales Institute of Higher Education

  350

  4,890

  7

  The University of Wales, Lampeter

  340

  4,560

  7

  Trinity College, Carmarthen

  110

  2,260

  5

  University of Glamorgan

  1,360

  15,900

  9

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  270

  3,330

  8

  University of Wales College, Newport

  420

  7,530

  6

  University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

  490

  7,900

  6

  University of Wales, Aberystwyth

  980

  9,700

  10

  University of Wales, Bangor

  680

  8,420

  8

  University of Wales, Cardiff

  2,740

  19,030

  14

  University of Wales, Swansea

  1,330

  10,890

  12

  Welsh College of Music and Drama

  50

  600

  8

  Total England and Wales

  199,300

  1,642,300

  12

  1Includes full-time and part-time enrolments on undergraduate and postgraduate courses of HE in higher education institutions in England and Wales. Institution numbers have been rounded to nearest 10 and totals to nearest 100.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) December 2001 Student Record.

  Examinations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints she has received in 2002 about falsification or cheating in SATs or public examinations in schools. [62248]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The marking of the national curriculum tests and public examinations is still taking place, so figures on the confirmed cases of falsification or cheating are not available.

  Sixth Form Provision
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment the Government have made of the need to increase funding to retain academic staff in sixth form colleges. [62255]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department has not carried out a specific assessment of the potential link between the funding gap and the retention of academic staff in sixth form colleges. We are, however, aware of the funding gap between schools and the further education sector, and 360W
  remain committed to bringing up levels of funding for colleges over time and as resources allow. This issue is being considered as part of the current spending review.

  We are investing significant funding in the FE sector, including more than £310 million in the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) during the period 2001–04 to allow colleges, including sixth form colleges to recruit, reward and retain, high quality teachers. A survey conducted by the Sixth Form Colleges' Employers' Forum has shown that 85 per cent. of eligible teaching staff are in receipt of a professional standards payment within TPI.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have been awarded an education maintenance allowance in(a) Staffordshire and (b) Stoke-on-Trent, North for the academic year 2001–02. [62384]
  361W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  2,659 young people in Stoke-on-Trent have received an allowance in this academic year. We are unable to break this down into figures for different areas of the city.

  Staffordshire LEA is not taking part in the EMA pilot scheme, although students living in Stoke-on-Trent who study at institutions in Staffordshire can receive an award.

  Individual Learning Plans
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support and resources are made available to young people when developing their individual learning plans. [62460]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: The Green Paper "14–19: extending opportunities, raising standards" proposes a broader choice of learning options for young people during the 14–19 phase of education. It recognises that in order to understand the range of choices open to them and their implications for future learning and career paths, young people will need additional advice and guidance, both from schools and the Connexions Service, at the beginning and throughout the 14–19 phase. The Green Paper suggests that the start of the 14–19 phase should begin with a review with each young person, to record achievements to date and identify learning and career goals through until age 19. It further proposes that the outcomes of the review should be recorded in an individual learning plan.

  The consultation on the Green Paper ended on 31 May 2002. Ministers are currently reviewing the responses and, in the light of these, will make an announcement on the outcome of the consultation later this year.

  Language Teaching
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when modern foreign language teaching is to be excluded from the compulsory curriculum for those aged 14. [62463]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: This is a proposal in the Green Paper "14–19: extending opportunities, raising standards". Consultation closed only on 31 May 2002 and we are reflecting carefully on the views expressed during consultation before reaching our decision. We have indicated in the Green Paper that curriculum changes would be subject to further consultation before their introduction.

  Our proposals seek a balance between the need to offer pupils greater choice, and the importance of foreign languages. We propose a statutory entitlement to them in all schools. We have also expressed our aspirations to boost language learning in primary schools.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the Government intend to encourage the integration of language learning within modern apprenticeship frameworks as stated in the Green Paper "14–19: extending opportunities, raising standards", with reference to the availability of an optional foreign language. [62464]
  362W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: Languages are already an option as part of a modern apprenticeship and can be included in the young person's training plan where they are deemed necessary or desirable, if the employer agrees.

  We are in discussion with the LSC to establish how opportunities to develop language skills might be better signposted to employers and learners so that they are more easily integrated into learning programmes.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research into the study of languages and the benefits of studying a foreign language is being undertaken by her Department. [62465]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: We have considered the findings of recent research including the final report of the Nuffield Languages Inquiry (2000); the University of Warwick, Centre for Language Teacher Education (CELTE) report on the analysis and evaluation for teaching of modern foreign languages at Key Stage 2 in England, (2000) and the European Commission's survey of the languages spoken in the EU 'Eurobarometer 54', (2001).

  These reports have informed our aspirations for the future of teaching and learning languages outlined in our `Language Learning' pamphlet and the discussions of the Languages National Steering Group. Our long term national language strategy, which we plan to publish in the autumn, will contain our proposals to widen the opportunities for language learning.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if her Department intends to provide peripatetic language(a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers. [62518]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: We are examining the overall issue of teacher supply to deliver our language learning aspirations set out in our recently published 'Language Learning' pamphlet. The use of peripatetic language teachers is one of the options we are considering. Our national languages strategy, which we plan to publish in the autumn, will outline our intentions.

  Brookfield School
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when a decision will be made on the application to dispose of the playing fields element of Brookfield school in the constituency of Bradford, North. [62671]

  Mr. Miliband
  The application by Bradford metropolitan district council to dispose of playing fields at the closed Brookfield school is under consideration and we expect to be in a position to announce a decision shortly. I will arrange for officials to let you know the outcome of Bradford's application as soon as a final decision is made.

  City Technology Colleges and Academies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the initial capital costs of(a) Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead, (b)each approved city technology college and (c) each

  363W
  approved city academy, together with the proportion of (i) capital costs and (ii) running costs met in each case by the sponsors of those colleges and academies; and if she will list the continuing financial obligations in each case. [62839]

  Mr. Miliband
  In answer to my hon. Friend's question, the following two tables show the initial capital costs of each city technology college (.CTC), including Emmanuel, and each approved academy. As far as academies are concerned, five have signed funding agreements with the Secretary of State. These projects are still at a very early stage and their final capital costs will not be known until much further into their construction stages.

  Year-on-year running costs for CTCs and academies are met by the Department. As charitable companies, CTCs and academies are also free to generate additional income through charitable donations or any trading arms to supplement departmental funding. For CTCs, the first table gives the total amount of sponsorship, including any initial costs, provided to each college up until February 2002, as reported to my Department. Similar information will be collected on academies once they begin to operate. There are no continuing financial obligations on CTC or academy sponsors beyond the initial contribution to capital costs. However, CTCS are required to meet at least 20 per cent. of the costs of any capital project funded by the Department.

  CTC initial capital costs

  £000

  College

  DfES

  Sponsors

  Total

  ADT

  9,056

  2,264

  11,320

  Bacons1

  13,665

  1,800

  15,465

  Britschool

  8,000

  2,332

  10,332

  Brooke Weston

  8,152

  2,038

  10,190

  Dixons

  7,331

  2,074

  9,405

  Djanogly

  8,196

  1,749

  9,945

  Emmanuel

  6,887

  1,722

  8,609

  Agreed academies capital budgets

  £

  Academy

  DfES contribution

  Sponsor contribution

  Total cash limit

  Bexley Business Academy, Bexley

  25,750,000

  2,410,000

  28,160,000

  Capital City Academy, Brent

  21,404,000

  2,000,000

  23,404,000

  Greig City Academy, Haringey

  11,000,000

  2,000,000

  13,000,000

  South Middlesbrough City Academy, Middlesbrough

  19,171,360

  2,000,000

  21,171,360

  Walsall City Academy, Walsall

  14,560,000

  2,500,000

  17,060,000

  Parenting
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it her policy to require children to declare that they have received parental support on the cover sheet of public examinations. [62857]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The awarding bodies already require teachers to confirm that they have taken steps to satisfy themselves that coursework assessed for public examinations is solely that of the candidates concerned. Teachers must present a written declaration that a candidate's coursework was produced under the required conditions.364W

  CTC initial capital costs

  £000

  College

  DfES

  Sponsors

  Total

  Habs

  5,700

  3,445

  9,145

  Harris1>

  7,010

  1,683

  8,693

  John Cabot

  8,922

  2,234

  11,156

  Kingshurst

  7,598

  2,112

  9,710

  Landau Forte

  8,160

  2,040

  10,200

  Leigh1>

  7,804

  1,589

  9,393

  Macmillan

  6,704

  1,696

  8,400

  Telford

  8,399

  2,396

  10,795

  Totals

  121,584

  31,174

  152,758

  1 These are not the originally agreed funded levels. The DfES contributions were later reduced to the agreed levels by adjustments to funding

  CTC sponsorship returns—summary up to February 2002

  £0001

  ADT

  4,256

  Bacons2

  2,064

  Britschool

  4,431

  Brooke Weston

  3,383

  Dixons

  3,943

  Djanogly

  2,823

  Emmanuel

  2,289

  Habs

  5,597

  Harris2

  2,061

  John Cabot

  2,720

  Kingshurst

  4,295

  Landau Forte

  2,405

  Leigh2

  1,955

  Macmillan

  3,943

  Telford

  3,595

  Total

  49,760

  1 These figures are total sponsorship including initial capital costs. They are as reported to the DfES by each CTC. They have not been confirmed by the DfES.

  2 These are not the originally agreed funded levels. The DfES contributions were later reduced to the agreed levels by adjustments to funding

  Schools (Community Cohesion)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she plans to publish for consultation her draft guidance to school organisation committees on the effect of proposals for new schools on community cohesion. [62840]

  Mr. Miliband
  We plan to consult on draft guidance to school organisation committees, which will include guidance on community cohesion from July this year.

  Voluntary Schools
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are made for the transfer of assets, land and buildings, when voluntary aided and voluntary controlled schools close. [62842]

  Mr. Miliband
  The normal pattern of property ownership at a voluntary aided or voluntary controlled school is for the trustees to own the site and buildings and for the local education authority to own the playing fields. When a voluntary aided or voluntary controlled school closes, the playing fields remain the property of the local education authority but what happens to the site and buildings depends on the type of school and the circumstances of the closure.

  When a church voluntary school which is located on its original site closes, the Secretary of State may be asked to make an order under section 554 of the Education Act 1996, which allows the diocese in which the school is situated to use proceeds from the sale for the benefit of other church schools within its area.

  However, where a local education authority has provided new or additional premises for a voluntary school, the local education authority may later claim compensation from the proceeds of sale of the former premises. If the local education authority and the trustees are unable to reach agreement on the amount of compensation the local education authority should receive, the Secretary of State may be asked to determine the amount.

  Where the trustees of a voluntary school have given notice to terminate the school's occupation of any land, the Secretary of State may require the trustees to repay to the Department any funds it has provided, or to transfer to the local education authority any part of the premises it needs for educational purposes. The Secretary of State may require the local education authority to pay compensation to the trustees, or vice versa, depending on whether she has ordered land to be transferred to the local education authority, and on the extent of any public expenditure on the premises.

  School Sports
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist sports schools there are in(a) England and (b) each local education authority. [62982]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The total number of schools designated as specialist sports colleges in England is 142. The table shows the number of specialist sports colleges in each local education authority.

  Number of schools designated as specialist sports colleges by LEA (as at 17 June 2001)

  Local education authorities

  Number of sports colleges

  Barking and Dagenham, London Borough of

  1

  Barnet, London Borough of

  1

  Barnsley

  1

  Bath and North-East Somerset

  1

  Bedfordshire (from 2 October 1998)

  —

  Bexley, London Borough of

  —

  Birmingham

  6

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  Blackpool

  1

  366W

  Number of schools designated as specialist sports colleges by LEA (as at 17 June 2001)

  Local education authorities

  Number of sports colleges

  Bolton (from 1 September 1998)

  1

  Bournemouth

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  Bradford

  4

  Brent, London Borough of

  —

  Brighton and Hove

  1

  Bristol, City of

  2

  Bromley, London Borough of

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  Bury

  —

  Calderdale

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  Camden, London Borough of

  —

  Cheshire

  2

  Corporation of London

  —

  Cornwall

  3

  Coventry

  —

  Croydon, London Borough of

  1

  Cumbria

  1

  Darlington

  —

  Derby, City of

  1

  Derbyshire

  1

  Devon

  2

  Doneaster

  1

  Dorset

  1

  Dudley

  1

  Durham

  2

  Ealing, London Borough of

  2

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1

  East Sussex

  3

  Enfield, London Borough of (from 1 September 1998)

  —

  Essex

  5

  Gateshead

  1

  Gloucestershire

  2

  Greenwich, London Borough of

  1

  Hackney, London Borough of

  —

  Halton

  Hammersmith and Fulham, London Borough of

  —

  Hampshire

  2

  Haringey, London Borough of

  1

  Harrow, London Borough of

  1

  Hartlepool

  1

  Havering, London Borough of

  1

  Herefordshire

  —

  Hertfordshire

  2

  Hillingdon, London Borough of

  —

  Hounslow, London Borough of

  —

  Isle of Scilly

  —

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Islington, London Borough of

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea, Royal Borough of

  —

  Kent

  4

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  1

  Kingston-upon-Thames, Royal Borough of

  —

  Kirklees

  1

  Knowsley

  1

  Lambeth, London Borough of

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  Leeds

  2

  Leicester City (from 2 October 1998)

  1

  Leicestershire

  1

  Lewisham, London Borough of

  —

  Lincolnshire

  1

  Liverpool

  2

  Luton

  —

  Manchester

  2

  Medway

  —

  Merton, London Borough of

  —

  Middlesborough

  1

  Milton Keynes

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1

  Newham, London Borough of

  1

  Norfolk

  2

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  North Somerset

  1

  North Tyneside

  1

  North Yorkshire

  —

  Northamptonshire

  1

  367W

  Number of schools designated as specialist sports colleges by LEA (as at 17 June 2001)

  Local education authorities

  Number of sports colleges

  Northumberland

  2

  Nottingham, City of

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  Oldham

  1

  Oxfordshire

  2

  Peterborough, City of

  1

  Plymouth, City of

  1

  Poole

  1

  Portsmouth

  1

  Reading

  —

  Redbridge

  —

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1

  Richmond-upon-Thames, London Borough of

  1

  Rochdale

  1

  Rotherham

  1

  Rutland

  —

  Salford

  —

  Sandwell

  1

  Sefton

  1

  Sheffield

  2

  Shropshire

  3

  Slough

  2

  Solihull

  —

  Somerset

  1

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  Southend-on-Sea

  —

  Southampton

  —

  Southwark, London Borough of

  —

  St. Helens

  —

  Staffordshire

  1

  Stockport

  —

  Stockton on Tees (from 2 October 1998)

  1

  Stoke on Trent (from 1 September 1998)

  1

  Suffolk

  2

  Sunderland

  1

  Surrey

  1

  Sutton, London Borough of

  —

  Swindon

  —

  Tameside

  —

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  Thurrock

  —

  Torbay

  —

  Tower Hamlets, London Borough of

  —

  Trafford

  1

  Wakefield

  1

  Walsall

  1

  Waltham Forest, London Borough of

  —

  Wandsworth, London Borough of

  2

  Warrington

  1

  Warwickshire

  2

  West Berkshire (Newbury)

  1

  West Sussex

  2

  Westminster, London Borough

  —

  Wigan

  1

  Wiltshire

  2

  Windsor and Maidenhead, Royal Borough of

  1

  Wirral

  2

  Wokingham

  —

  Wolverhampton

  1

  Worcestershire

  2

  York, City of

  —

  England Total

  142

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many schools hold annual sports days in the(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) North East and (c) UK; and how this figure has changed over the last 11 years; [61272]

  (2) what the Department is doing to encourage schools to hold sports days; [61273]
  368W
  (3) how many hours per week schools are (a) required and (b) encouraged to devote to physical education and sports for pupils. [61274]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills does not collect figures on the number of schools which hold sports days. School sports days have an important role to play as part of an overall package of PE and sport opportunities provided by schools for all children. Work being undertaken by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority suggests that the vast majority of schools do hold an annual sports day or a similar event.

  Physical education is compulsory within the National Curriculum at all Key Stages for all pupils. Schools must provide PE in accordance with the subject's programme of study. Guidance on Key Stage 3, published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Department for Education and Skills, indicates that the programme of study could be delivered within 90 minutes. Our White Paper "Schools: achieving success" includes a commitment that all children will be entitled to two hours of high quality physical education and school sport a week, within and outside the curriculum.

  The school sports co-ordinators programme brings together partnerships of schools. These are championing new PE and sport opportunities for young people. One of the key aims is to increase the amount of inter and intra-school sport which does, of course include schools sport days, both within school and with other partner schools.

  Modern Apprenticeship Schemes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she is taking to encourage young people to enter modern apprenticeship schemes. [63053]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Following the launch of new generation modern apprenticeships last November, a £16 million marketing campaign is under way, to be run over three years in England, to promote apprenticeships and boost participation. The first part of the campaign ran during March with a new television advertisement, aimed at young people. It generated over 100,000 phone and e-mail responses. A further round of TV advertising starts on 5 August.

  In addition, a range of marketing measures is being introduced to reach not only young people, but also key influencers and employers. At the local level, learning and skills councils, connexions partnerships, careers services and other partners will work together to raise awareness of, and foster support for, modern apprenticeships; and to provide young people with essential information and advice on the opportunities available in their communities. It is a key role of the new sector skills councils in partnership with the LSC to ensure that employers continue to support MA and that they provide sufficient places to meet the demand from young people.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to improve the skills base of people entering the construction industry. [63054]
  369W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), which is sponsored by my Department, is responsible for ensuring that the construction industry has an adequate supply of properly trained people to meet its needs. It is working on two broad fronts to improve the quality and number of recruits to the industry:1. With schools to improve the skills of potential recruits. This includes the development of student apprenticeships, GNVQs and vocational GCSEs, awareness-raising through a network of curriculum centres and a "Young Presenter" Scheme, where young graduates act as role models to young people.
  2. With employers to deliver skills to recruits once they join the industry. This includes the provision of construction apprenticeships, foundation degrees and graduate apprenticeships and the development of models to address the need for basic skills in adults.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provision the Government have made to ensure children in care remain in the same educational institution until the age of 16 years. [63114]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government recognise that changes in care arrangements can disrupt the education of children who are looked after, and are determined to promote stability.

  This Department, jointly with the Department of Health, issued guidance to all authorities in May 2000 on the education of children and young people in public care. The guidance emphasizes the importance of a stable care and education placement in order to promote educational success for children in public care. The Department of Health also set targets within the quality protects programme to promote stability and reduce placement moves.

  Under S22(3) of the Children Act, local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children and young people who are looked after, education being a critical dimension of their welfare. It is for local authorities to decide on a case-by-case basis whether it is in the best interests of a child in public care to remain in the same educational establishment.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many criminal records checks have been undertaken in respect of people applying to work in schools as(a) teachers, (b) governors and (c) volunteers in the current school year; and what has been the cost of checks in each category. [63159]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not available.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rights of Way
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she is making on implementation of the rights of way provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [63475]
  370W
  Alun Michael
  I am today publishing proposals to implement provisions in schedule 6 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to enable the closure or diversion of rights of way where this is necessary for crime prevention or to promote pupil and teacher safety. These new powers will enable highway authorities to address the disruption caused by persistent criminal activity in back alleys, or gulleys, on housing estates.

  As these important new powers are not regarded as a first response to tackling crime, we will designate areas where the new crime prevention powers will be available. Highway authorities will normally take the lead, working with local crime and disorder reduction partnerships, police authorities, local residents and user groups to formulate a submission to the Secretary of State advocating any area at ward level that may warrant inclusion in a designation order. In country areas, the district authority or the local crime and disorder reduction partnership may be able to make a submission if the county is unwilling to do so.

  The new schools provisions will enable a highway authority to close or divert a right of way, where it crosses school land, for the purpose of protecting pupils or staff from violence or other risks to their health and safety. These provisions are not subject to the designation process and will be available throughout England.

  I am also publishing proposals to implement section 63 of the Act. These new provisions will ensure that members of the public have a means to compel highway authorities to use their powers to remove certain types of obstruction.

  Highway authorities already have specific powers to deal with obstructions and recover costs from the persons concerned. These new provisions will empower the public to directly influence the action taken by authorities in dealing with obstructions.

  The public will be able to initiate action in relation to the majority of obstructions that cause difficulties for rights of way users, such as fences, overhanging vegetation and barbed wire. We are inviting views on any other forms of obstruction that should be covered by the provisions.

  Copies of "Crime Prevention on Rights of Way: Public Consultation paper on the Designation of Areas and Other Procedural Matters", "Enforcement of highway authorities duty to prevent obstructions on rights of way: Consultation Paper on the implementation of section 63 of Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000" have been placed in the Library of the House. Views are invited by 20 September 2002.

  Energy Efficiency
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made by each energy conservation authority in improving the energy efficiency of the domestic housing stock in its area. [63660]

  Margaret Beckett
  Data reported by energy conservation authorities in England under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 in the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2001 have been placed in the Libraries of the House. These data have also been published on the
  371W
  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' website, at address hap: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/heca95/index.htm. Authorities have reported an overall improvement in domestic energy efficiency of 8.12 per cent., as measured against a 1996 baseline.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of whether the PSA target for 2001–02 for improvement in response time for all letters from hon. Members will be met. [47273]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The DEFRA service target is 15 working days. The Department suffered severe disruption last year due to allocating top priority to defeating the foot and mouth epidemic. Furthermore, the sheer volume of correspondence received following the creation of DEFRA had a major impact on the Department's performance, resulting in a large backlog of letters. We have devoted more resources to clearing the backlog and we are making progress in improving response times.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (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; [61041]

  (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. [61644]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's public service agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its service delivery agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Every year the Department publishes performance against its targets—including on value for money—and the resources it has used, in its departmental report.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture 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. [61703]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 323W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Joint Meetings of Management and/or Regulatory Committees dealing with trade mechanisms 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. [55662]
  372W
  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee on Horizontal Question Concerning Trade in Agricultural Products (usually know as the "Trade Mechanisms Group") is to oversee a number of CAP market support and control measures. The Committee's main role is in connection with the regulations pertaining to the import and export of agricultural products.

  The Committee meets monthly, with the exception of August.

  The UK's usual representation consists of two officials from the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). However, officials from other Departments such as HM Customs also attend occasionally, depending on the agenda for the meeting in question.

  Travel expenses of approximately £11,000 for two delegates were reimbursed by the Commission. Other costs, consisting of subsistence allowances and travel expenses for additional officials, are met by the parent agency or Department of those in attendance and amounted to approximately £6,300 over the last 12 months.

  Issues presently under consideration include a number of amendments and clarifications to the main external trade regulations in response to, for example, reports issued by the Court of Auditors.

  Arrangements are in place to report on the Committee's activities through DEFRA, RPA's parent Department. RPA has a range of measures to communicate changes to the regulatory regime to its customers and other interested parties. The activities of RPA generally are subject to scrutiny by various audit bodies, including the National Audit Office.

  The Committee may be regarded as a comitology committee. Consequently, the following points are relevant in regard to increasing its accountability and transparency:
  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final).
  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if 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. [57490]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Standing Committee for Foodstuffs was replaced by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health from 21 February 2002. This was in

  373W
  accordance with EC Regulation 178/2002. In total, these committees have met eight times in the year ending 31 May 2002.

  The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (sub-section food and toxicological safety) is a regulatory committee composed of representatives of the member states and chaired by a representative of the Commission. The UK is normally represented by officials of the Food Standards Agency. The annual cost of its work to public funds could be calculated only at disproportionate cost, although travel and subsistence costs totalled approximately £5,000, part of which was reimbursed by the Commission. The committee is currently considering a number of issues including food labelling, the authorisation of food additives, and contaminants in the food chain. Minutes and current agendas of the committee's meetings can be found on the European Commission's website.

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

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Cm (2001) 783 Final).

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

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the EU Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the directive on the quality of fresh water is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; when it is next due to meet; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [62918]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 323W.

  At present there are no plans for the Committee to meet. UK representation varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of sufficient interest.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the risk to public health from the long-term storage of meat and bonemeal. [58054]

  Mr. Morley
  In June 1996 the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) issued guidance on the handling, transportation and eventual disposal of waste material from cattle. This covered meat and bonemeal (MBM) and concluded that there was no 374W
  epidemiological evidence to suggest that this material presented a risk to any of the trades exposed to it, subject to them taking similar precautions to the handling of any dusty material. No risk to public health was identified.

  All MBM generated from cattle slaughtered under the over-30-month slaughter scheme (OTMS) is stored in waste management licensed sites. OTMS MBM is currently being incinerated (with energy recovery) at plants approved by the Environment Agency and it is anticipated that stocks will be significantly reduced within the next two years.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about her Department's handling of claims for compensation, other than compensation for loss of livestock, arising out of foot and mouth disease. [61496]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department established a unit in May 2001 to handle all miscellaneous claims against the Department arising from the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease (FMD). Over 2,000 claims requiring investigation have been referred to the unit which has so far responded with a decision in over 1,800 cases.

  Most of the claims have come from farmers and businesses that were affected in some way by the outbreaks. Their grounds for making a claim against the Department varied considerably. They have included issues raised by farmers who were directly affected by the disease and whose livestock were compulsorily slaughtered, to issues raised by farmers, businesses and other members of the public who said they had been affected by, for example, nuisance caused by carcase disposal operations, loss of business/income as a result of movement restrictions and other losses they attributed to the measures taken to control and eradicate the disease.

  Statutory compensation is paid only in respect of animals which have been slaughtered as a result of the disease; and property, which has been seized or destroyed in order to prevent the spread of the disease. There is no statutory provision for payment of compensation for other losses caused by the outbreaks, and there are no plans to introduce such payments. No Government could commit themselves to insure farmers and businesses against the cost of all the losses resulting, directly or indirectly, from the outbreaks of the disease or the action taken to deal with them.

  We respond to every claim on the facts but are clear that Government cannot be the insurer of last resort nor pay for all losses consequent of FMD.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from how many farms culled during 2001's foot and mouth epidemic samples were taken and tested in a laboratory. [62257]

  Mr. Morley
  Of 10,509 affected premises, 2,370 had samples taken for testing in a laboratory.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from how many of the farms culled as contiguous culls during 2001's foot and mouth epidemic samples were taken and tested in the laboratory. [62258]
  375W
  Mr. Morley
  Of the 3,364 contiguous premises and 206 infected premises which previously had a status of contiguous premises, 215 and 167 respectively had samples taken for testing in a laboratory.

  Stationery
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by her Department on stationery in(a)1995–96, (b)1996–97, (c)1997–98, (d)1998–99, (e)1999–2000, (f)2000–01 and (g)2001–02; what suppliers were used in each of those years, and how much was spent per supplier, what tender processes were undertaken, and what the frequency was of the processes; and if she will make a statement. [61379]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Policy Commission on Food and Farming
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Policy Commission on Food and Farming. [60683]

  Mr. Morley
  At the Prime Minister's seminar on 26 March, we announced a number of early actions being taken, by both industry and Government to deliver the Policy Commission's recommendations. We also launched a wide ranging programme to explore with stakeholders how best to give effect to the Commission's recommendations.

  We have held the first meeting of the contact group of key organisations. The outcomes of regional and sectoral meetings, and the responses to the discussion document `Sustainable food and farming: working together' are being analysed. All of these will help inform the development of a new strategy for sustainable food, which will include a response to all of the Commission's recommendations. We plan to launch this in the autumn, following the outcome of the spending review.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Ministers and officials had meetings with representatives of(a)the Confederation of British Industry, (b)the Engineering Employees Federation, and (c) the Engineering Marine Training Authority during the last year; who they met; and what the subjects and outcomes of their discussions were. [62205]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers and civil servants have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals as part of the process of policy development and analysis.

  As with previous administrations it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from the Scottish Executive in respect of measures to control the spread of the bovine TB virus. [62413]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 20021: I have received no representations from the Scottish Executive about bovine TB, but our officials are in regular contact. Officials and stakeholders will be meeting to discuss policy in the near future.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research her Department has undertaken into possible causes of tuberculosis in cattle other than through badgers. [62838]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are funding a wide-ranging research programme following advice from the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle Tuberculosis (ISG). The programme extends well beyond the badger culling trial to encompass:

  Pathogenesis of TB in cattle;

  Improved diagnostic techniques;

  Developing vaccine candidates;

  The risk to cattle from wildlife other than badgers: and

  A restocking study making the most of the unique research opportunities following foot and mouth disease and looking at TB in newly formed herds.

  Further details of the research programme can be found in "An Epidemiological Investigation into Bovine Tuberculosis", the third report of the ISG which was published in July 2001. Copies are available in the House Library.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will suspend the badger cull until it has been established that badgers are the cause of bovine tuberculosis. [62814]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1997 there has been a moratorium on the use of badger culling as a bovine tuberculosis control mechanism in GB, except for the culling that takes place under the badger culling trial.

  The Government have no plans to suspend the badger culling trial which is an essential element of the Government's wide ranging research and control strategy for dealing with bovine tuberculosis (TB). The role of the badger in the epidemiology of cattle TB is unresolved and emotive. The purpose of the trial is to evaluate, once and for all, the extent to which badgers contribute to bovine TB and the effects of badger culling on the disease. It will also provide epidemiological data on the occurrence and prevalence of TB in badgers, its relationship to population density and the spatial relationship between TB-infected badgers and TB breakdowns in cattle herds.

  This work will help to ensure that future control policies are underpinned by sound scientific principles and seeks to find ways in which healthy cattle and badgers can live side by side.

  Farm Business Tenancies
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to receive the conclusions of the Government's review of farm business tenancies. [61540]

  Mr. Morley
  The review of farm business tenancies forms part of the review of the operation of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 conducted for DEFRA by Plymouth university.

  This work has been completed and the final report has been submitted to DEFRA. A copy is available on the DEFRA website www.DEFRA.gov.uk.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the countries from which meat may be legally imported into the United Kingdom which have endemic foot and mouth disease. [61538]

  Mr. Morley
  The importation of meat is permitted from a limited number of third countries where foot and mouth disease is present and where the veterinary authorities have contained the disease in specified regions. Community rules permit imports from those regions of the relevant countries that are not considered to pose a risk to human or animal health. Fully matured boneless beef, which does not pose an FMD risk may be imported from other regions subject to strict controls and veterinary certification. Countries to which these controls currently apply are Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. UK domestic rules currently prohibit the import of meat from Zimbabwe where FMD outbreaks have been recently confirmed. The UK regulations governing the imports of these products are the Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) Regulation 2002.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at which ports amnesty bins have been installed in line with the Government's action plan on illegal animal and plant imports. [61587]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: We are currently in discussion with HM Customs and Excise and the relevant ports and airports, on the issues surrounding the provision of amnesty bins or equivalent measures to encourage the surrender of unintended illegal personal imports. We hope to be able to pilot measures later this year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what period she has set for the pilot use of detector dogs to trace illegal meat imports; at which ports the pilot is to take place; and if she will make a statement. [61585]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: There will be an initial six months pilot using detector dogs at Heathrow. This is scheduled to begin late summer subject to the successful completion of the training of both handlers and dogs.
  378W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to publish a guide on the roles, responsibilities and powers of the agencies responsible for preventing and detecting illegal imports of animal products. [61581]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The production of an information guide on roles, responsibilities and powers of relevant agencies for preventing and detecting illegal imports is currently under way. We are aiming to publish this in the next few weeks. A copy of the guide will be deposited in the House Libraries and will be sent to stakeholder groups and placed on the DEFRA website:http://defraweb/animalh/int-trde/default.htm.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many targeted sample checks on meat imports have been carried out since the publication of the Government's action plan 2002–03. [61553]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: DEFRA have been notified of three checks by enforcement authorities undertaken on illegal meat imports at airports since the implementation of the action plan, at Gatwick on 30 March and at Heathrow on 9 and 15 April. A programme of further targeted checks at airports and seaports designed to provide additional data in support of the risk assessment has been agreed with port health authorities and will be implemented over the summer.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies her Department has commissioned since February 2001 into technologies which might help to detect illegal imports. [61589]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: No specific studies have been commissioned. We are currently seeking to better understand the capability, operational and cost issues of using different technologies, and investigating measures taken by other countries and the rationale behind the choice. This will inform the timing and methodology of any future research.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a)titles, (b)membership and (c)terms of reference are of the external stakeholder groups that she has established or plans to establish to assist the Government in strengthening intelligence gathering and sharing of information concerning illegal meat imports. [61582]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: We have held a meeting with a number of stakeholder groups including local and port health authorities and HMCE.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on(a)the objectives and (b)progress so far achieved in her work with European authorities to clarify and tighten the enforcement of rules against illegal meat imports. [61584]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Over the last 18 months, we have taken a number of opportunities to stress to the commission that EU rules on personal imports of animal products were inadequate and have been pressing for significant revision. Our objective has been to encourage the introduction of rules which are clear and

  379W
  enforceable and which provide effective protection against introduction of disease. The commission tabled a proposal for a new commission regulation on 5 June which will be discussed by all member states shortly. In its current form, the proposal would not meet the UK's objective and we shall be arguing for significant improvements in the discussion.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many enforcement officers are in post at each relevant port with powers to search baggage for illegal imports of meat. [61583]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 20021: Searches on baggage are carried out by a number of enforcement authorities including HMCE, local and port health officers and DEFRA officials, and current total numbers are not held centrally.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the percentage of fallen(a)calves, (b)adult bovines and (c)sheep that are buried on farms in (i) England and (ii) Wales. [61493]

  Mr. Morley
  The central burial or burning of fallen stock is not permitted except in emergency situations such as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001. We do not collect information on the routine disposal of fallen stock, but the state veterinary service carried out small-scale surveys in the years 1998–2000. The results, which may not be representative, suggest that the following proportions of fallen cattle and sheep were burned or buried on farm in Great Britain over those years; adult bovines ranged from 15–20 per cent.; calves 20–25 per cent. and sheep 65–75 per cent.

  EC Animal By-Products Regulation 2000/0259
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is towards the possible introduction of a national fallen stock service following the implementation of the EC Animal By-Products Regulation 2000/0259. [61492]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA officials are in discussion with the livestock and disposal industries over future arrangements for the disposal of fallen stock and methods of funding. We hope that a national collection service can be established which will enable all farm businesses to have access to facilities for the off-farm disposal of fallen stock, other than those in the proposed remote areas, where burial on farm will continue to be permitted.

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional data is being collected by her Department and its agencies to inform the risk assessment of meat imports being carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. [61546]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 20021: The progress report on the DEFRA website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/int-trde describes the data being collected to support the risk assessment.
  380W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will place in the Library a report on the results so far of the risk assessment of meat imports being carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency; [61548]

  if she will publish a list of the external stakeholder groups which she has established or plans to establish to help inform and guide the risk assessment of meat imports; and if she will state in the case of each group, the names and qualifications of its members and its terms of reference; [61545]

  when the risk assessment of meat imports being carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, will be completed; and if she will publish the Agency's report. [61547]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The risk assessment currently being carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) is due to be completed in autumn 2002. A progress report was placed on the illegal imports page of the DEFRA website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/int-trde on 23 May. It is intended to post further progress reports on this site when appropriate and publish the final report.

  A Steering Group has been established to guide the work of the risk assessment which includes representatives of external stakeholder groups. The terms of reference of the Risk Assessment Steering Group and its full membership is published on the risk assessment link on the Illegal Imports page of the DEFRA website—address as above. The VLA team is also consulting a wide range of stakeholders as the work progresses.

  Landing Cards
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will conclude her review of possible changes to landing cards. [61588]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Discussions continue with the Home Office and we hope to reach conclusions late summer.

  England Rural Development Programme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the total cost for the three years from 2003–04 of implementing the proposals of the Policy Commission on the future of farming and food for the England Rural Development Programme. [61563]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The Policy Commission estimated that implementing its recommendations would cost approximately £500 million over three years. However, the cost of many of the recommendations, including those relating to the England Rural Development Programme, will depend upon the precise way in which they are implemented. The Government intend to produce a Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming in England in the autumn, following a wide-ranging process of stakeholder engagement. This strategy will incorporate a definitive response to each of the Policy Commission's recommendations.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what the salary is of the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency. [61572]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The chief executive's salary will be published in October in the Rural Payments Agency's annual report and accounts. This will be consistent with the advertised remuneration package of circa £100,000.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the maximum time scale permitted between the laying of a statutory instrument and its publication(a) on her Department's website and (b) by HM Stationery Office. [61592]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Departmental statutory instruments are published in accordance with guidelines laid out in the Cabinet Office publication "Statutory Instrument Practice" (second edition, 1987). Departments arrange physical publication of statutory instruments with Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) and The Stationery Office (TSO).

  HMSO aim to publish statutory instruments on their website (which can be found at www.hmso.gov.uk) within 24 hours of the date of formal publication.

  DEFRA continually aims to publish statutory instruments as early as possible, and publishes most statutory instruments to coincide with the date of laying before Parliament. On some occasions—for example, in implementing emergency measures—it is not always possible to achieve this, as HMSO needs time to typeset the instrument.

  Although all published statutory instruments are published on the HMSO website, the Department also publishes many instruments on its own website at www.defra.gov.uk. In many cases this occurs at the stage of public consultation.

  Vessel Monitoring By Satellite
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if it is her policy to support the European Commission's proposal to extend vessel monitoring by satellite to include all fishing vessels down to 10 metres; [61610]

  (2) if she plans to offer financial support to the owners of fishing vessels to cover the costs of complying with the European Commission's proposal to extend vessel monitoring by satellite to all vessels over 10 metres. [61611]

  Mr. Morley
  As yet there are no firm proposals to extend satellite monitoring to all vessels over 10 metres although this is suggested in the Commission's road map to the reform of the CFP. Satellite monitoring has applied to vessels over 24 metres since 1 January 2000 and has made a significant contribution to the effectiveness of enforcement operations across the Community. There are obvious advantages in extending satellite monitoring and we shall need to consider carefully its impact on smaller vessels. It is too early to say whether funding will be available.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish a compliance cost assessment of the impact on the United Kingdom's fishing industries of the European Commission's proposals to reform the Common Fisheries Policy. [61612]

  Mr. Morley
  Regulatory impact assessments will be conducted for all legislative proposals that are likely to have an impact on the United Kingdom's fishing industries.

  Serological Testing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish a record of serological testing carried out by her Department since 1 January 2001, on a regional basis, indicating(a) what animals were tested on each farm, (b) the percentage sample which were taken, (c) the results of the tests taken and (d) what consequential actions were taken. [62538]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: It is not possible to provide this information as it would involve the disclosure of personal data which are protected by the Data Protection Act 1998. Over 3 million serological tests were carried out, the vast majority for serological surveillance in declaring the Protection Zones (0–3 km) and Surveillance Zones (3–10 km) around each infected premises free from foot and mouth disease. In response to the four specific questions raised:

  (a) erological testing was primarily carried out on sheep and goats.

  (b) The serological surveillance was designed to detect a 5 per cent. prevalence of seropositive sheep with 95 per cent. confidence in each management group on a holding.

  (c) The results of tests are not readily available on a regional basis.

  (a) The consequential action taken depended on the reasons for the serological sampling ie epidemiology, lifting Infected Areas, etc. and the epidemiological assessment of the results.

  Funding (Luton, South)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what moneys have been provided(a) directly and (b) via agencies for which the Department has responsibility to the Luton, South constituency since 1997. [58591]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA was created on 8 June 2001, and does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis.

  Farmers in the UK receive approximately £2.5 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports, which keeps EU prices above prevailing world prices.
  383W
  Consumers in Luton, South, will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. This will benefit both consumers and taxpayers in Luton, South. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside.

  One of the most important outcomes of Agenda 2000 was the establishment of the Rural Development Regulation, which is being implemented in England through the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), investing around £1.6 billion in rural areas over seven years. By supporting rural development, including diversification into tourist activities, and by conserving and enhancing the rural environment through support for `public' goods such as biodiversity and landscape appearance, the ERDP offers benefits to all who visit the countryside.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 11 October 2001 from the hon. Member for Torbay on behalf of Mrs. Cawood of Torquay. [58923]

  Mr. Morley
  I am sorry for the delay in replying. This correspondence was transferred to the Food Standard Agency, as they are responsible for the safety of Aspartame.

  As the hon. Member knows, the Food Standards Agency report to Parliament through Health Ministers, and I understand that the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) replied on 15 June 2002.

  Timber
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Departments are represented on the interdepartmental working group on timber. [63061]

  Mr. Morley
  The interdepartmental working group on timber procurement is open to participation by all central Government Departments and their agencies. Representation is not fixed as such but the regular attendees are from a core of the departments that volunteered to participate when the group was first set up.

  The following Departments have attended at least one of the seven meetings held to date:
  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ministry of Defence; Department of Health; The Forestry Commission; Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (as

  Nature of product(s) seized

  Month 2002

  Total weight in kilograms

  Airport

  Heathrow

  Beef, shrimp, animal fat, ghee, prawns and abalone, fish (salted and dried), poultry, milk, ready to eat meals,

  February

  671.23

  snails

  Sausage meat, snails, honey, shrimps, dried fish, dairy products

  March

  796.00

  Meat, camel, chicken stock cubes, Milo, Ovaltine, honey, fish, duck eggs, shrimp and fish, Milo, dairy

  April

  203.00

  products

  384W was); Department for Education and Employment; Inland Revenue; Office of Government Commerce; Department for International Development; Department of Trade and Industry; Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Cattle Powder
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total costs have been of storing powder resulting from foot and mouth and BSE. [62798]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the commencement of the over-30-month slaughter scheme (OTMS) meat and bonemeal (MBM) storage costs are estimated at £60 million. These costs include those storage costs incurred for the storage of MBM produced as a result of various culls employed to combat foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the anticipated schedule is for the final disposal of powder stored in Devon and Lincolnshire. [62799]

  Mr. Morley
  It is anticipated that meat and bonemeal (MBM) currently in store at the sites in Devon and Lincolnshire will be destroyed by incineration (with energy recovery) by the end of 2004.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the questions from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight of 1 March, Refs. 39938 and 40044. [55463]

  Mr. Morley
  The answers to questions Ref. 39938 and Ref. 40044 were conveyed to the hon. Member on 10 June 2002.Official Report, column 889W. The delay that occurred was due to intense pressure of work in the section responsible for providing the necessary information. DEFRA Ministers and staff regret this delay. Revised procedures and additional resources have been introduced to ensure that a better service to hon. Members is provided in future.

  Illegal Food and Plant Imports
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantity of illegal food and plant imports was seized at(a) (i) Heathrow, (ii) Gatwick and (iii) Manchester airports and (b) (A) Southampton, (B) Dover, (C) Felixstowe and (D) Liverpool seaports in each of the last three months; and what the nature was of the products seized. [54495]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no records logged for Southampton, Felixstowe and Liverpool seaports. However, enforcement agencies have notified us about the seizures of illegal food and plant imports made at Heathrow, Manchester and Gatwick airports and Dover seaport. These are as summarised.
  385W

  Nature of product(s) seized

  Month 2002

  Total weight in kilograms

  Gatwick

  Smoked and salted fish, snail meat, milk drink and sachets, cheese, foie gras

  February

  2,365.00

  Milk powder, smoked fish, smoked chicken, hunting trophies, biltong, packet soups, chicken cubes

  March

  1,174.00

  Meat, cooked poultry

  April

  135.00

  Manchester

  Lobsters

  February

  4.50

  Assorted fish products, milk powder

  March

  43.00

  Dried meat

  April

  21.00

  Port

  Dover

  Meat—sausages, whole pigs, dairy products, fish

  February

  50.50

  Meat—sausage, ham, dried pork, salami, fish, dairy products

  March

  243.91

  Meat—ham, bacon, sausage, fish, dairy—cheese

  April

  178.50

  It should be noted that illegal meat consignments found arriving at any port will be seized.

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many press releases were issued by her Department in each month of 2001. [59675]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA was created in June of 2001, our records show a total of 319 press releases between June and December 2001.

  Year/month

  Number

  2001

  June

  26

  July

  53

  August

  39

  September

  41

  October

  44

  November

  68

  December

  48

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Third World
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she is having with EU Ministers about reforming the EU's policies towards importing goods from the third world; and if she will make a statement. [61935]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government have been working to reduce the tariffs that apply to developing country goods entering the EU. For example, the UK played a central role in establishing the Everything But Arms initiative that will provide the 49 least developed countries with duty and quota free access to the EU for all goods except arms. In addition, the UK is pushing the EU to be as generous as possible in current economic partnership negotiations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries under Cotonou agreement. However, high tariffs remain on many goods of export interest to developing countries. In order to tackle such barriers, a new trade round was launched at the fourth WTO ministerial meeting in Doha in November last year 386W
  with a pro-development agenda. The meeting resulted in agreement on the need to reduce barriers to trade in all products including agricultural ones. The UK Government are fully committed to making these commitments become a reality.

  Rwanda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarding the conduct of the Government of Rwanda with regard to Rwandan troops based in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [61869]

  Clare Short
  DFID maintains regular contact with the FCO at both ministerial and official levels on the whole complex of issues surrounding the Great Lakes conflict, including the issue of Rwandan troops in the DRC.

  Southern Africa
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the estimated amount of food aid required by the World Food Programme for the famine in Southern Africa is; and how much has been distributed. [62373]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation estimate that 1.36 million tonnes of food will be required as humanitarian aid for six countries in Southern Africa identified as facing severe food shortages. Existing appeals have enabled WFP to purchase 120,000 of food and to begin distribution in the three countries worst affected.

  This estimate does not include Angola which is being dealt with through a separate UN programme.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the World Food Programme's appeal for the famine in Southern Africa has been met; and how much the total UK contribution has been. [62375]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme's regional appeal for Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland in respect of the 2002–03 harvest year is expected this week.
  387W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment of the current food crisis in Southern Africa is, with particular reference to(a) the number of people at risk of famine and (b) the prospects of adequate harvests later in the year. [62374]

  Clare Short
  The Southern African countries identified by the World Food Programme as needing special assistance following reductions in agricultural production are Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. The number of people in these countries requiring emergency food supplies is expected to grow by March 2003 to 12.8 million. Winter crops now in the ground will meet only a small proportion of the food shortfall. Planting of the main maize crop begins in November with the onset of the rains. Prospects for the 2003 crop will largely depend on the amount and distribution of this rain, and on agricultural and economic policy in Zimbabwe where much of this year's shortfall has occurred.

  Trade Justice Movement
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with members of the Trade Justice Movement. [62308]

  Clare Short
  We hold regular meetings with members of the Trade Justice Movement and other NGOs to discuss trade and development issues. These include DFID NGO days, the DTI Trade Policy Consultative Forum and informal meetings. The last NGO day was attended by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether UK funds disbursed via the European Union are to be tied to a country's policy towards asylum seekers. [62424]

  Clare Short
  The European Council at Seville will be discussing measures to encourage co-operation by third countries on returns and illegal migration. Her Majesty's

  Costs

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Inland Revenue

  Advertising

  4,576,288

  7,677,680

  11,742,684

  18,966,466

  8,652,650

  HM Customs and Excise

  Advertising

  378,000

  352,000

  339,000

  2,888.000

  1,312,000

  Office for National Statistics

  Advertising

  3,000

  3,000

  3,000

  1,100.000

  1,800.000

  Public relations

  0

  0

  0

  172,000

  73,000

  Debt Management Office1

  Advertising

  n/a

  162,714

  261,828

  224,396

  202,996

  Public relations

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Government Actuary's Department

  Advertising

  33,000

  53,000

  50.000

  39,000

  35.000

  Public relations

  5,000

  6,000

  12,000

  10,000

  12.000

  Valuation Office Agency

  Advertising

  0

  0

  81,217

  39,227

  0

  388W
  Government believe that all inter-governmental relationships should be developed to encourage co-operation on these issues, but that nothing should be done which undermines the need to focus European Union aid on the reduction of poverty.

  Environmental Know How Fund
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects by category and the amount spent on them under the Environmental Know How Fund in 2001–02. [61131]

  Clare Short
  In 2001–02, DFID spent approximately £6.675 million on environmental projects in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. This total includes a £2 million contribution from DEFRA. A list of projects and their expenditure in 2001–02 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

TREASURY

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the total real terms expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36163]

  Ruth Kelly
  The available information is given in the following table. The figures relating to the Treasury are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information relating to the publicity is not available for the Valuation Office Agency. It would be inappropriate to give figures for advertising relating to the Royal Mint in accordance with Exemption 13 (Commercial Confidentiality) of the Code of Access to Government Information. Neither the Inland Revenue nor Customs and Excise hire public relations consultancy services, and each has its own press office financed through its normal operational costs.
  389W

  Costs

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Royal Mint

  Public relations

  84,000

  102,553

  103,787

  104,038

  102.000

  Office of Government Commerce2

  Advertising

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  3,878

  1 Launched 1 April 1998

  2 Launched 1 April 2000

  Inland Revenue advertising costs in 2000–01 reflect the concurrent running of several campaigns, such as working families tax credit, children's tax credit, payroll giving, income tax self assessment and pay as you earn online. Customs and Excise expenditure in the 2000–01 period includes the costs of campaigns following on from the Taylor report and Tackling Tobacco Strategy, as well as a centralisation of the communications budget. Expenditure by the Office for National Statistics in the periods 2000–01 and 2001–02 reflect the cost of publicising the Census.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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 he will make a statement. [61032]

  Ruth Kelly
  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.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [58737]

  Ruth Kelly
  Special advisers' travel accompanying Ministers was set out in my answer to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) of 1 May 2002,Official Report, column 879W. Advisers have also travelled abroad on seven other occasions, at an average cost of £1,490 per visit, to Madrid. Switzerland, Stockholm, Washington, Toronto and to Paris twice. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Estate Duty
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce plans to change the rules relating to the payment of estate duty on royal assets; and if he will make a statement. [61320]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The inheritance tax arrangements are set out in
  390W
  paragraphs 20 to 23 of the 1993 Memorandum of Understanding in the Royal Trustees report (HC 464) and remain in existence.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61055]

  Ruth Kelly
  Expenditure on staff training and development for the last five years was as follows:

  Amount

  1997–98

  1,099,168

  1998–99

  1,262,368

  1999–2000

  1,141,469

  2000–01

  1,517,759

  2001–02

  1,768,463

  GDP
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relative relevance and importance of(a) real and (b) nominal GDP figures. [61976]

  Ruth Kelly
  Real and nominal GDP growth are linked via the implicit price deflator—the GDP deflator measure of inflation. Low inflation is the essential foundation for securing sustainable improvements in real GDP growth. So it is not meaningful in general to distinguish between real and nominal GDP in terms of relevance and importance.

  Credit Card Debt
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 848W, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), he will state the equivalent figures for credit card (a) in total and (b) per head for each year since 1996. [62933]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 19 June 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on credit card debt which follows on from the answer given to Mr. Harris on 10 June in the Official Report 848W. (62933)
  391W
  The information requested is given in the table below.

  Amounts outstanding on credit cards at the end of June each year, the resident adult population at the mid point of each year and the ratio of credit card debt divided by adult population rounded to the nearest £10

  Amount outstanding on credit cards

  Adult population

  Credit card debt divided by adult

  Mid year

  (£billion)

  (million)

  population (£)

  1996

  14.2

  45.2

  310

  1997

  16.8

  45.4

  370

  1998

  20.5

  45.7

  450

  1999

  29.5

  45.9

  640

  2000

  34.7

  46.2

  750

  2001

  39.2

  46.5

  840

  Royal Family (Taxation)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from which taxes members of the Royal Family are exempt. [62610]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The taxation arrangements for Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales are set out in full in the Memorandum of Understanding in the Royal Trustees report (HC 464) published on 11 February 1993. All other members of the Royal Family are subject to the normal tax rules.

  Credit Unions
  David Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many credit unions are registered within the UK; and how many people are members. [62900]

  Ruth Kelly
  At 31 December 2000 there were 861 credit unions registered within the UK, with around 642,500 members.

  David Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the level of funds loaned in each of the last five years by credit unions in the UK. [62898]

  Ruth Kelly
  Credit unions reported loans outstanding for years ended in:

  £

  2000

  496,621,000

  1999

  441,410,000

  1998

  348,507,000

  1997

  326,919,000

  1996

  276,084,000

  The collated data for 2001 were not yet available.

  David Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is being taken by his Department to support credit union development in the UK. [62899]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government believe that credit unions have an important role to play to encourage the accumulation of savings, provide affordable credit and, through their unique position, help tackle financial exclusion. That is why we have been involved in a number of measures designed to help the movement develop and grow. In October 2001 we published a consultation document containing seven deregulatory proposals, to which we received a significant number of 392W
  positive responses. We have now made a consequential amendments order under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) that will bring four of the seven proposals into force on 2 July 2002. We are currently drafting an order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2000 that should bring the remaining three proposals into force later this year. These measures will help credit unions offer their members a greater range of services and compete more effectively for deposits.

  We also used FSMA to bring credit unions under the Financial Services Authority's rule making powers. From 2 July 2002 depositors with credit unions will be given a similar level of protection to that enjoyed by depositors with banks and building societies.

  National Statistics
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what statistics have been collected by the National Statistician to determine the rate of self-inflicted death and suicide among(a) members of HM armed forces, (b) police officers and staff, (c) prison officers and staff, (d) firefighting officers and staff and (e) ambulance service staff; [62672]

  (2) what statistics have been collected by the National Statistician to determine the rate of self-inflicted death or suicide, broken down by (a) sex, (b) ethnic origin, (c) occupation, (d) age and (e) religion. [62652]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 19 June 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your questions (62652 and 62672) on what statistics have been collected to determine the rate of self-inflicted death or suicide, (1) broken down by (a) sex, (b) ethnic origin, (c) occupation, (d) age, and (e) religion, and (2) among (a) members of HM Armed Forces, (b) police officers and staff, (c) prison officers and staff. (d) firefighting officers and staff, and (e) ambulance service staff. (62652, 62672)
  Numbers of deaths from self-inflicted death or suicide are collected through the registration of deaths. Information recorded at registration includes the cause of death, sex, occupation and age of the deceased. Neither ethnic origin nor religion is recorded at registration. In reporting on these statistics, suicides are routinely defined as deaths from suicide and deaths from 'injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted'. It is likely that most of these latter deaths are cases where the harm is self-inflicted but there was insufficient evidence to prove that the deceased deliberately intended to kill themselves.
  To determine death rates, the number of persons at risk of dying in each relevant category is also required. Annual population estimates, calculated by the Office for National Statistics, are used to provide this information in respect of age and sex. Comparable information about the population in terms of ethnic origin and occupation is available from the Census. Information on religion was collected for the first time in the 2001 Census, the results of which are not yet available.
  Using the information collected, statistics on death rates from suicide broken down by sex and age are published annually1. Statistics on death rates from suicide by occupation are routinely published every ten years in decennial supplements. The latest publication2 includes separate figures for all the occupations listed in the question except for prison officers and staff, who are included within a broader category of 'security workers'. Statistics on death rates by ethnic origin and religion are not yet available.

  393W
  1 Office for National Statistics (2001) "Mortality statistics: cause. Review of the Register General on deaths by cause, sex and age, in England and Wales, 2000". Series DH2 no. 27. Office for National Statistics: London.
  1 Drever F (ed.) (1995) "Occupational Health Decennial Supplement". Series DS no. 10. HMSO: London.
  Copies of the above named publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Cross-border Payments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to establish an infrastructure for cross-border payments in euros. [63056]

  Ruth Kelly
  Developing cross-border payments infrastructure is the responsibility of the banks. I am aware that UK banks are fully participating in the European banking industry's co-ordinated initiative to produce a single European market for payments, and welcome this action which should improve the current, sometimes poor, level of cross-border payments service which consumers receive.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of not including sterling in the EU regulation on cross-border payments in euros. [63055]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK believes a competition-based approach to the problem of market failure in cross-border payments is the right one. The EU regulation could result in banks having to charge less for a service than it costs them to provide and may well give rise to perverse (potentially counter-productive) effects that harm consumers. For example, some banks may withdraw from offering the service altogether, or alternatively attempt to off-set losses made on cross-border payment transactions by increasing the cost of domestic payment costs. Thus, by not including sterling denominated payments in the scope of the regulation, these counter-productive effects are minimised.

  It is too early to quantify the full impact of not including sterling denominated payments in the scope of the regulation. The main aspect of the regulation, article 3, which requires institutions to charge the same for euro cross-border payments as for euro domestic payments, does not take effect until July 2002 and July 2003 for electronic payments and credit transfers respectively. However, we will keep the situation under review.

  Curry Report
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make available the funds to support the implementation of the Curry report proposals; and if he will make a statement. [63049]

  Mr. Boateng
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced, the Government will be producing a new strategy for sustainable farming and food in England in the early autumn, which will incorporate a definitive response to the Policy Commission's recommendations.

  Bank Notes
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of the 394W
  withdrawal of £5 notes announced by the Bank of England on 27 May; by what means he reached the figure; and if he will make a statement. [63208]

  Ruth Kelly
  Following reports that it is possible to remove the serial number from some of the new issue £5 notes, the Bank of England took the precautionary measure of asking the commercial banks and the Post Office to suspend issuance. The Bank is continuing to carry out tests and investigative work on the notes to establish the cause of the fault, how widespread it is and the best way to rectify it. At present it is too early to estimate the potential cost of the exercise.

  Divorce
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of marriages have ended in divorce in each of the last 30 years in the UK. [62405]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Laws, dated 19 June 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question on the proportion of marriages which have ended in divorce in each of the last 30 years. (62405)
  Estimates have been made, from time to time, of the proportion of marriages solemnised in a given year in England and Wales which would end in divorce, were the divorce rates to continue unchanged into the future at the levels observed in that year.
  The estimates are as follows:
  1971–73: 22%
  1979–80: 34%
  1987: 37%
  1993–94: 41%

  Family Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the percentage of dependant children living in lone-parent families in the UK in each of the last 30 years; and if he will make a statement. [62404]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Laws, dated 19 June 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question on the percentage of dependent children living in lone-parent families. (62404)
  Historical estimates of the percentage of all dependent children who live in one-parent families are available from the General Household Survey which covers Great Britain. The proportions—based on three year averages—are as follows:

  Percentage

  19711

  8

  1981

  11

  1990

  17

  1991

  18

  1996

  21

  1998

  23

  20001

  25

  1 Based on a single GHS year's data only.

  395W
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proportion of children in the UK have been born outside marriage in each of the last 30 years; and if he will make a statement; [62403]

  (2) what his estimate is of the proportion of babies born to teenage women in the UK in each of the last 25 years; and if he will make a statement. [62402]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Laws, dated 19 June 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on the proportion of children born outside marriage in each of the last 30 years in the UK, and the proportion of babies born to teenage women in each of the last 25 years in the UK. A single reply has been used to answer your questions. (62403 and 62402)
  The information for the first question is given in the attached table A, and for the second question in the attached table B.

  Table A. Number of births outside marriage per 1,000 live births, United Kingdom, 1972–2001

  Year

  Proportion of births outside marriage

  1972

  84

  1973

  84

  1974

  87

  1975

  90

  1976

  90

  1977

  95

  1978

  100

  1979

  106

  1980

  115

  1981

  125

  1982

  141

  1983

  154

  1984

  170

  1985

  189

  1986

  210

  1987

  229

  1988

  251

  1989

  266

  1990

  279

  1991

  298

  1992

  308

  1993

  317

  1994

  320

  1995

  336

  1996

  355

  1997

  368

  1998

  376

  1999

  388

  2000

  395

  2001

  401

  Table B. Number of births to mothers aged under 20 per 1,000 live births, United Kingdom, 1977–2001

  Year

  Proportion of births to mothers aged under 20 years

  1977

  97

  1978

  95

  1979

  93

  1980

  93

  1981

  89

  1982

  89

  1983

  86

  1984

  86

  396W

  Table B. Number of births to mothers aged under 20 per1,000 live births, United Kingdom, 1977–2001

  Year

  Proportion of births to mothers aged under 20 years

  1985

  87

  1986

  87

  1987

  85

  1988

  85

  1989

  81

  1990

  79

  1991

  75

  1992

  70

  1993

  68

  1994

  64

  1995

  65

  1996

  69

  1997

  73

  1998

  76

  1999

  78

  2000

  77

  2001

  75

  Pension Annuities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the new pension annuities are on an (a) indexed and (b) flat basis, and based on a (i) single and (ii) joint life in the last three years; and what proportion of the stock of pension annuities was in those categories. [37033]

  Mr. McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available.

  Tobacco and Alcohol Taxes
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax revenue has been collected from the sale of (a) tobacco and (b) alcohol in each of the last three financial years. [62370]

  John Healey
  Excise duty and estimated VAT receipts from tobacco and alcohol for the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 can be found in HM Customs and Excise "Tobacco" and "Alcohol Factsheets", copies of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Provisional receipts of excise duty from tobacco and alcohol in the financial year 2001–02 are published in the national statistics publication "Financial Statistics" table 2.ID, a copy of which can be found in the House of Common Library.

  An estimate of the VAT received in 2001–02 from the sale of tobacco and alcohol is not available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Military Complaints Procedures Report
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to lay before Parliament the ninth annual report of the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland. [63657]
  397W
  Dr. John Reid
  I have today arranged for copies of Jim McDonald's annual report for 2001 to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Report of the Independent Assessor continues to provide valuable reassurances to both the public and the Government that the Army's complaints procedures stand scrutiny. I welcome Mr. McDonald's report and I shall consider it further.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Electronic Case Management
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if the new electronic case management application will be operational in 2003; and if this application is compatible with other systems in the criminal justice system. [59346]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]: The development of the Compass initial case management system is on track to be operational in 2003. Roll out of the initial system is scheduled to begin in April 2003 and be completed by December 2003. This will include replacing the four different systems currently used by the CPS. The full case management system is due for roll out by December 2005.

  The Compass initial case management system will provide compatibility with other criminal justice systems with specific electronic interfaces to police force systems and via e-mail, to the courts, Prison Service, Probation Service, as well as printed forms to victims and witnesses.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council 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 he will make a statement. [61036]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department anticipates that for 2002–03 £1.5 million will be accounted for by staff costs; this is approximately one third of the departmental expenditure limit. The equivalent figure for 2001–02 was £1.4 million: the proportion was again approximately one third of the departmental expenditure limit.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council 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. [61008]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 130W.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the President of the Council 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. [60728]
  398W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department is covered by a contract which is outsourced by the Cabinet Office. The equipment is leased from a service provider (Compaq) who are responsible for replacing all the computers every three years and for their disposal.

  The total cost of this service is £135,000 for the year 2002–03. My Department has 54 computers covered by the contract, of which two are lap-tops.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Sheikh
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 649W, whether the Pakistan authorities have responded to the Government's request for information on Mr. Sheikh's detention; and if he will make a statement. [62019]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), explained on 20 May, we have not yet received a substantive response from the Pakistani authorities to our requests for information. Senior officials at our high commission are pursuing this with their Pakistani counterparts.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in China concerning strategies for securing a resolution of the dispute over the future status of Kashmir. [62051]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary telephoned his Chinese opposite number on 11 May to discuss India/Pakistan.

  Joint Entry Clearance Unit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of his Department's staff are employed in the joint entry clearance unit. [62190]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office currently have 42 staff working in UK visas (formerly JECU). In addition the Home Office currently have 32 staff members seconded to UK visas. These details include part-time staff and job sharers.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visitor visa applications were made on 11 June in(a) Mumbai, (h) New Delhi and (c) Islamabad. [62193]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of visitor applications received in Mumbai, New Delhi and Islamabad on 11 June were as follows:

  Mumbai—238

  New Delhi—243

  Islamabad—13

  .
  399W
  The figures for Islamabad reflect the fact that the visa section there currently only receives applications via a courier service. This service commenced on 7 June, following a period when the section was closed.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many immigration officers were on duty in(a) Mumbai, (b) New Delhi and (c) Islamabad on 11 June. [62192]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 11 June, Mumbai with four UK based entry clearance staff and New Delhi with five UK based entry clearance staff were operating a restricted service providing for settlement applications, urgent medical and compassionate cases and drop-box applications for limited categories of travellers (including previous visitors and returning residents).

  Islamabad had four UK based entry clearance staff engaged on visa work. Two others were deployed elsewhere to assist with urgent consular and evacuation matters, and two were on leave. Islamabad were operating a very limited service, accepting applications through Fedex from returning residents and urgent medical and compassionate cases, including settlement and family visit applications in these categories.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the mandate of the EC-United States of America Joint 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 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. [61728]

  Peter Hain
  There is no single EU-US joint committee, but separate joint committees on science and technology, and on education. The joint committee on science and technology met once in 2001. The joint committee on education last met in 1999. In response to the rest of this question, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him to a series of questions on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 834W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the mandate of the EC-Canada Joint 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 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. [61729]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 834–35W.

  Turkmenistan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Turkmen authorities concerning the renewed persecution of Christians in Turkmenistan. [62787]
  400W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK, with the EU and the US uses every opportunity to raise cases of religious persecution with the Turkmen Government. Our ambassador, together with EU and US ambassadors called on the Foreign Minister in February, May, July and December 2001 to protest at the continued imprisonment of a senior Baptist and to call for his release on humanitarian grounds. The prisoner was released two weeks after the December meeting. Our ambassador has also recently requested a meeting with the Turkmen Foreign Minister to discuss religious persecution and other issues.

  Asia
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what UK diplomatic representation there is in the five central Asian republics; what plans are in hand to improve this representation; and if he will make a statement. [62325]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have embassies in four of the five central Asian countries. We opened an embassy in Dushanbe in December 2001 and a drugs liaison officer will be posted there shortly. We also plan to open an embassy in Bishkek in 2003, and a diplomat will be posted to Bishkek to supervise the setting up of the mission. The embassy in Tashkent has been reinforced with a defence attache. We have recently reinforced the embassy in Ashgabat with a drugs liaison officer, and a regional defence attache has been posted to Almaty. These additional resources reflect the importance HMG attaches to relations with the five central Asian republics.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit the five central Asian republics; and if he will make a statement. [62324]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had planned a tour of the region in November 2001, but had to postpone his visit owing to essential operational requirements. The Foreign Secretary hopes to visit the region in due course.

  Richard Ward
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) for what reason the Government have not petitioned for conditional bail in the case of Richard Ward; [62952]

  (2) when he expects legal proceedings against Richard Ward in Dubai to be completed; [62949]

  (3) on how many occasions since his arrest consular officials in Abu Dhabi and Dubai have visited Richard Ward; [62950]

  (4) what representations his Department has made to the Government of Dubai about the length of time that Richard Ward has been held in custody without the completion of legal proceedings against him; [62955]

  (5) when his Department will release Richard Ward's file to his representatives in the UK; [62956]

  (6) if he will make a statement on the legal position of Richard Ward in Dubai; and if he remains liable for retransfer from prison in Dubai to Abu Dhabi; [62951]
  401W
  (7) for what reason his Department informed Dr. Paul Meconi that Richard Ward's case had been attached to another case and did not give him access to the file of Mr. Ward's case on 13 June; [62953]

  (8) what steps his Department has taken to secure full legal representation for Richard Ward. [62954]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As agreed with the hon. Member, a detailed letter addressing his concerns will be sent to him, and be made available in the Commons Library, by 27 June 2002.

  Surjit Kaur Athwal
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the support provided to the family of Surjit Kaur Athwal in the search for her as a missing person in India. [62616]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We continue to offer Surjit Athwal's family consular assistance. The family of Mrs. Athwal met with Baroness Scotland, then Foreign Office Minister responsible for consular matters, on 5 February 2001 to discuss the case. We have expressed our concerns about Mrs. Athwal's disappearance to the Indian authorities on numerous occasions and at high level. Sadly, even with the help of a British police team the Indian authorities' investigation has yet to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

  We will continue to remind the authorities about this case at every appropriate opportunity.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration is given to resolutions from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in shaping Government policy on enlargement of the EU. [62691]

  Peter Hain
  The key consideration for EU accession is the fulfilment of the Copenhagen political and economic criteria, and the adoption of requisite EU legislation (acquis communautaires). In assessing candidates' readiness for accession, HMG takes into account the candidates' alignment with the acquis and the Copenhagen criteria as well as other relevant sources of information. Some of the Copenhagen criteria cover similar ground to key COE principles: human rights, rule of law and pluralist democracy. All Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) resolutions are brought to the attention of the Governments of all the Council of Europe member states. The resolutions play an important role in ensuring COE member states meet core COE Standards.

  Nepal
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Nepal concerning the 402W
  Maoist rebellion; what advice his Department has offered; if he has offered to mediate between the two sides; and if he will make a statement. [62891]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are very concerned about the situation in Nepal. This brutal insurgency by the Maoists is undermining Nepal's young democracy and fragile economy.

  During his visit to the United Kingdom last month, the Nepalese Prime Minister held meetings with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development and my predecessor my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), at which these matters were discussed. We reassured the Nepalese Prime Minister of our full support, while making clear the need for effective action by them on reform and development. We reiterated our commitment to continuing our developmental, political and military assistance to Nepal.

  We are hosting an international conference in London on 19/20 June with the Nepalese Government and representatives from other countries who share our concerns, to discuss how the international community can best co-ordinate its efforts in supporting the people of Nepal.

  We would support the resumption of peaceful negotiations between the two parties and are prepared to lend assistance should the opportunity arise.

  Pakistan
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what purpose money was allocated to Luton borough council by the European Union, which is now to be spent in Pakistan; and what criteria his Department will use to authorise the spending of this money in this way. [62892]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The EC-funded 'Asia Urbs' programme is available for local borough councils to spend on urban development projects in Asia. We understand that Luton borough council is currently considering bidding for £300,000 to spend in 2002–03 on a water treatment engineering project in Peshawar, Pakistan, and that it proposes to fund £50,000 of technical assistance from its own resources. If Luton borough council decides to proceed with its bid and is successful, it will be for the European Commission and Luton borough council to agree upon the detail of the project.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason he has not yet replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Yeovil dated 27 May, regarding visa arrangements for constituents in relation to travel from Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [62670]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My officials at UK visas wrote to the hon. Member for Yeovil on 11 June, within their published target of responding to correspondence from Members within 15 working days. I will ensure that a further copy of the letter is forwarded to him urgently.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Land Sales
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the land that his Department is(a) offering for sale and (b) plans to offer in the next 12 months, giving its (i) location and (ii) size. [59057]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Department is currently offering the following land for sale:

  Ashwell, Oakham, Rutland—approximately 0.03 hectares

  Bullwood Hall, Hockley, Essex—approximately 0.25 hectares

  Guysmarsh, Shaftesbury, Dorset—approximately 1 hectare

  Shepton Mallet, Somerset—approximately 2 hectares

  Leyhill, Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire—approximately 6 hectares

  Lincoln—approximately 0.10 hectares

  Long Lartin, Evesham, Worcestershire—approximately 0.4 hectares

  Erlestoke, Devizes, Wiltshire—approximately 0.6 hectares

  Swinfen Hall, Lichfield. Staffordshire—approximately 40 hectares

  Blundeston, Lowestoft, Suffolk—approximately 30 hectares.

  The Department has plans to dispose of the following sites over the next 12 months:

  Wandsworth, London SW18—approximately I hectare

  Branston, Burton-on-Trent—approximately 30 hectares

  Feltham, Middlesex—approximately 1.5 hectares

  Northallerton, North Yorkshire—approximately 2.5 hectares

  Onley, Willoughby, Warwickshire—approximately 40 hectares

  Littlehey, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire—approximately 30 hectares

  Gartree, Market Harborough, Leicestershire—approximately 2.5 hectares

  Grendon, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire—approximately 0.4 hectares

  Channings Wood, Newton Abbott, Devon—approximately 5 hectares.

  The Department is currently offering for sale the following freehold properties which comprise both land and buildings:

  8 Derby Street, Prescot, Merseyside

  Carlisle Workshop, Stanley Way, off Botchergate, Cumbria

  Coalpit Lane, Atherton, Greater Manchester—building floor area 449 sq metres

  Kennedy Way, Yate, Gloucestershire—building floor area 226 sq metres

  Winckley Square, Lancaster—building floor area 300 sq metres.

  The Department plans to dispose of the following freehold land and buildings over the next 12 months:

  Gringley on the Hill, Nottinghamshire—approximately 2.36 hectares

  2a Blake Street, Bridgewater, Somerset—building floor area 820 sq metres

  11a Church Street, Highbridge, Somerset—building floor area 155 sq metres

  31–45 Lower Ashley Rd, St. Pauls, Bridewell, Somerset—building floor area 259 sq metres

  404W

  Devon House, 123 Whitehall Road, Easton, Somerset—building floor area 259 sq metres

  1 Stanley Place, Chester, Cheshire—building floor area 650 sq metres Lime House, Penrith, Wetheral, Cumbria

  18 Brunswood Road, Matlock Bath, Derbyshire—building floor area 456 sq metres

  2 Siddals Road, Derby, Derbyshire—building floor area 312 sq metres

  Heather House, 11 and 14 Gibbon Lane, Plymouth, Devon—building floor area 1,140 sq metres

  3 Kings Avenue, St. Austell, Bodmin, Cornwall—building floor area 331 sq metres

  57–59 Commercial Road, Parkstone, Poole, Dorset—building floor area 525 sq metres

  23 Grays Inn Road, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion—building floor area 227 sq metres

  Francis Thompson Drive, Ashton-Under-Lyne, Greater Manchester—building floor area 412 sq metres

  12 Minshull Street. Manchester—building floor area 1,334 sq metres

  19–20 Gold Tops, Newport, Gwent—building floor area 606 sq metres

  76 Oswald Road, Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire—building floor area 230 sq metres

  12–14 Raymond Street, Thetford, Norfolk—building floor area 286 sq metres

  Warwick Street, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear—building floor area 726 sq metres

  11 Appleton, Newark, Nottingham—building floor area 262 sq metres

  46 Nottingham Road, Mansfield, Nottingham—building floor area 491 sq metres

  11 Newcastle Street and Watson Road, Nottingham—building floor area 172 sq metres

  10–12 Salisbury Street, Shotton, Flintshire—building floor area 221 sq metres

  Abeerhondda Road, Rhonda, Cynon Taff, South Wales—building floor area 756 sq metres

  1–3 Ock Street, Abingdon, Oxfordshire—building floor area 370 sq metres

  Langholme, 50 Albert Road North. Malvern, Worcestershire—building floor area 523 sq metres

  Abbeydale House, Abbey Forgate, Shrewsbury, Shropshire—building floor area 469 sq metres

  16 Church Square, Oldbury, West Bromwich, West Midlands—building floor area 284 sq metres

  High Street, West Bromwich, West Midlands—building floor area 250 sq metres

  1–2 Commercial Road, Swindon, Wiltshire—building floor area 593 sq metres

  15 Milton Road, Swindon, Wiltshire—building floor area 570 sq metres.

  Charging
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to transfer the charging process for offences from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [61326]
  405W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The recommendation to this effect in the Review of Criminal Courts is under consideration and the Government's response will be announced in a White Paper before the summer recess.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) deportees and (b) asylum seekers are in prison; and how many were in prison in each of the past five years. [62346]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The latest available information on the number of persons detained in prison solely under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 March 2002 and is as follows:

  Immigration Act detainees as at 30 March 2002 Total detainees: 145

  Of whom asylum seekers: 100.

  Statistics showing the number of persons detained in prison solely under Immigration Act powers over the last five years is not available.

  The Government are committed to pursuing a strategy of detaining both immigration offenders and asylum seekers in dedicated removal centres. Prisons are used for a small number of detainees who cannot be managed within the immigration removal estate.

  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.

  Dungavel Detention Centre
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 May 2002,Official Report, column 384W, on Premier Services, when a copy of the service aspect of the contract with Premier Services in connection with the operation of Dungavel detention centre will be placed in the Library. [62974]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: I have made arrangements for copies of the service aspect of the contract to be placed in the Library this week.

  Sexual Offences Review
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to publish a response to the consultation on the review of sexual offences, "Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offences"; and if he will make a statement. [63425]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I intend to publish a response to the consultation and the recommendations in "Setting the Boundaries", setting out proposals for legislation in the autumn. At the same time, I shall publish proposals for reform of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 following the review of its provisions and subsequent consultation. I will introduce modernised and strengthened legislation on sex offences and sex offenders as soon as parliamentary time allows.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the questions from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight of 1 March, Refs 39922, 39933 and 40040. [55462]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Replies were given to the hon. Member's questions on 14 May, 21 May and 17 June.

  Regional Organisations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what regional organisation his Department has; and if he will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58952]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions does not have a regional organisation as such. It is a national organisation covering Great Britain, and operates out of a number of locations around the country. However, the work of three of its executive agencies is organised on a regional basis. The regional structures of Jobcentre Plus, The Pension Service and the Child Support Agency are shown in their Business Plans which are available in the Library of the House, or on the Department's web site (www.dwp.gov.uk).

  Jobcentre Plus and The Pension Service were launched as agencies in April 2002 so comparisons cannot be made with 1997. The Child Support Agency organisation remains the same as in 1997.

  Other departmental businesses operate through centres spread across the country, but without a formal regional organisation. Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) sponsored by the Department do not have formal regional organisations. The Independent Living Funds in particular work closely with local authorities.

  Truancy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when she expects to consult on the withdrawal of child benefit in respect of truancy. [59281]

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

  Demographic Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of(a) women reaching 60 and (b) men reaching 65 in each of the next five years. [61257]

  Mr. McCartney
  The available information, which is based on mid-year estimates, is set out in the table:

  UK population estimates

  2003

  2004

  2005

  2006

  2007

  Women aged 60

  332,000

  348,000

  346,000

  350,000

  447,000

  Men aged 65

  273,000

  274,000

  271,000

  256,000

  277,000

  Source:

  GAD 2000 Based Mid-Year Population Projections

  Special Heating Allowance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated costs are of the special heating allowance paid to all pensioners in 2002–03. [61258]

  Mr. McCartney
  The estimated cost of winter fuel payments in winter 2002–03 is around £1.7 billion. These payments are made to most people aged 60 or over, not just those in receipt of a state retirement pension.

  Basic State Pension
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost would be of increasing the basic state pension(a) for the single pensioner to £120 per week for the over 75s and (b) for married couples to £150 a week for the over 75s in 2002–03. [61260]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, such information as is available shows that the additional cost of increasing the maximum rate payable of a category A, AB or B basic state pension to £120 per week for those aged 75 and over would be £8.4 billion in 2002–03.

  Note:

  The cost is gross and is in cash terms, rounded to the nearest £100 million, based on September 2001 GB administrative data.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 42W, why the practice of up-rating basic state pension increments in line with the percentage increase in the rest of the basic pension was not followed in April 2001; and why the practice was resumed in April 2002. [62608]

  Mr. McCartney
  Once retirement pension is in payment, social security legislation requires that the value of all the components of RP must be uprated each year by at least the level of price inflation, which was 3.3 per cent. for the April 2001 uprating. In accordance with that requirement, all increments, including basic pension increments were uprated by 3.3 per cent., while basic state pension was increased by substantially more than the rate of price inflation.

  For the April 2002 uprating we decided that the more generous uprating should also apply to increments.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 880W, on the cost of the basic state pension if increased in line with prices, what assumptions he made regarding (a) fluctuations in the rate of inflation and (b) the incidence of inflation rates below 2.5 per cent. [62626]

  Mr. McCartney
  We assumed that fluctuations in the rate of inflation are consistent with predicted inflation from the Treasury Economic Assumptions (of January 2002) until the year 2008, after which we assume long-run inflation is constant each year at 2.5 per cent. Thus inflation rates after 2008 are assumed to never be below 2.5 per cent.
  408W
  In addition, the costs take account of our guarantee to increase the basic state pension by at least £100 a year for single pensioners and £160 for couples in the 2003–04 and in future years by 2.5 per cent. or the increase in the September retail prices index, whichever is the higher.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost would be of increasing the basic state pension(a) for the single pensioner to £120 a week and (b) for married couples for £150 a week in 2002–03. [61263]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, such information as is available shows that the additional cost of increasing the maximum rate payable of a category A, AB or B basic state pension to £120 per week would be £17.7 billion in 2002–03.

  Note:

  The cost is gross and is in cash terms, rounded to the nearest £100 million, based on September 2001 GB administrative data.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether regulations on stakeholder pensions to require pension funds to spread charges evenly throughout the year will increase the cost of auditing such pension charges; what plans he has to amend these regulations to allow charges to be deducted on an annual or monthly basis; and if he will make a statement. [61788]

  Mr. McCartney
  One of the key features of stakeholder pensions is the 1 per cent. charge. The calculation of the charge by reference to a daily amount is the best way of taking an average 1 per cent. of the member's fund over a year.

  Although charges have to be calculated as a daily amount, the valuation of the fund, on which the charge is based, can be made on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.

  We have no plans to change the rules on the way that the stakeholder charge is calculated. However we are looking at the audit requirements for stakeholder pension schemes, and any changes will be announced in due course.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the costs of means-tested benefits, including housing benefit, were for(a) men over 65 and (b) women over 60 in 2001–02. [61261]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available shows that cost of means tested benefits to people aged 60 and over for 2001–02 was £10.214 million.

  Source:

  Departmental Report 2002

  European Year of Disabled People
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who will sit on his Department's Co-ordinating Committee for the European Year of Disabled People. [62607]
  409W
  Maria Eagle
  The following organisations sit on the UK National Co-ordinating Committee for the European Year of Disabled People 2003.

  UK Disability Forum for European Affairs,

  British Council of Disabled People,

  Inclusion Scotland,

  Disability Wales,

  Disability Action Northern Ireland,

  RADAR (representing the Disability Charities Consortium),

  Disability Rights Commission,

  Northern Ireland Equality Commission,

  National Council of Voluntary Organisations,

  Broadcasters' Disability Network,

  Trades Union Congress,

  Confederation of British Industry,

  Federation of Small Businesses,

  Local Government Association,

  The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister Northern Ireland,

  Department for Work and Pensions.

  National Pensions Systems Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the organisations that he plans to consult in drawing up the national pension plan; and if he will make a statement. [61364]

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what discussions he has had with Ministers from other EU countries about the National Pensions Systems Plan; and if he will make a statement; [61951]

  (2) what representations he has received from and discussions he has had with UK organisations representing pensioners regarding the National Pensions Systems Plan; and if he will make a statement. [61952]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions has a range of regular contacts with organisations with an interest in pension provision and plans to use these contacts to ensure appropriate input to the preparation of the UK's national strategy report on the future of pension systems. EU member states have agreed to produce reports by September 2002, as part of an exercise to exchange information and best practice.

  The report will set out measures currently in place and others that are currently planned or under consideration. A draft Joint Commission/Council Report based on the information in the reports from member states will be considered by EU Heads of State and Government at the spring European Council in 2003.

  Representations have been received from organisations representing pensioners about the national strategy report process. They will have an opportunity to contribute to the process through the contacts we are arranging.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the mandate of the Committee of Senior Labour Inspectors is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what 410W
  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. [61725]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Committee of Senior Labour Inspectors (SLIC) was formally established by the European Commission in 1995 (Decision 95/319/EC) and mandated to give its opinion on all problems relating to the enforcement by member states of Community law on health and safety at work. In the last 12 months SLIC has met once in Belgium and once in Spain during their respective presidencies of the EU.

  Each member state has two representatives. The UK is represented by Mr. Justin McCracken, Deputy Director General (Operations) and Dr. Adrian Ellis, Director of Field Operations both of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

  Travel and subsistence for their attendance of the last two meetings cost £2,320 of which the European Commission reimburses the cost of travel (£940).

  The latest meeting discussed progress with the SLIC work programme including the assessment of health and safety systems in EU and candidate countries, asbestos, the European campaign on health and safety in construction, future co-operation with candidate countries, health and safety aspects related to working time, and SLIC's role in the European Commission's future health and safety strategy.

  SLIC is accountable to the European Commission and submits an annual report on its activities to the Commission with particular reference to any problem relating to the enforcement or monitoring of Community legislation on health and safety at work. The Commission forwards that report to the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work.

  The Advisory Committee produces an annual report which is sent to the Cabinet Office which is then passed to the House of Lords and Commons European Scrutiny Committee; HSE submits an explanatory memorandum to the Scrutiny Committee on the Advisory Committee's report.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many criminal offences have been(a) created and (b) abolished by his Department since 1997. [55425]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.
  411W
  A comprehensive and exhaustive list of new and abolished offences could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We can however provide information about the following measures which have been enacted since 1997 by the former DETR and DTLR.

  The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 created two offences.

  The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 created 14 offences.

  The Water Industry Act 1999 created one offence. The Local Government Act 1999 created one offence. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 created four offences.

  The Transport Act 2000 created 18 offences. The Local Government Act 2000 created three offences. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 created three offences.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much was spent by his Department on paying pensions to retired employees of his Department in 2001–02; if he will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if he will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [57367]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave when I was Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 23 May 2002, Official Report, columns 561–62W.

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each month of 2002; [59491]

  (2) how many press releases were issued by his Department in each month between May and December 1997. [59490]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The DTLR was created in June 2001. Figures for the former DETR(c) are as follows:

  1997

  Number

  May

  37

  June

  85

  July

  98

  August

  41

  September

  2

  October

  81

  November

  86

  December

  87

  DTLR (c) has issued 197 press releases in the period from 1 January to 23 May 2002 as follows:

  Number

  January

  25

  February

  46

  March

  57

  412W

  Number

  April

  28

  To 23 May

  41

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many letters were received by each Minister in his Department in each month since June 1997. [59307]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on the volume of Members' correspondence received by Departments. For information for 2001 I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) on Friday 24 May 2002 Official Report, columns 674–76W when I was Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office.

  On other correspondence received by Ministers, this information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  External Consultants
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much expenditure his Department has incurred in each year since 1997 on employing external consultants to deal with the press or public relations of his Department. [59489]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Details on expenditure incurred by the former DTLR in the period 1998–99 to 2001–01 on employing external PR consultants are as follows:

  £

  Department

  Agencies

  1998–99

  0

  5,000

  1999–2000

  683,600

  4,300

  2000–01

  748,900

  84,500

  2001–02

  621,386

  13,500

  Following departmental changes, DTLR expenditure for the period 1997–98 and expenditure by non-departmental public bodies over the period could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 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. [58982]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information in respect of the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is as follows.
  413W

  Ordinary written questions

  Named day questions

  Month

  Total

  Answered within a week

  Percentage of total

  Total

  Answered on the named day

  Percentage of total

  2001

  June

  172

  142

  83

  38

  28

  74

  July

  284

  270

  95

  161

  126

  78

  October

  419

  347

  83

  241

  154

  64

  November

  721

  607

  84

  394

  282

  72

  December

  634

  519

  82

  185

  128

  69

  2002

  January

  707

  499

  71

  289

  199

  69

  February

  653

  454

  70

  241

  129

  54

  March

  682

  548

  80

  300

  158

  53

  April

  458

  400

  87

  181

  105

  58

  May

  323

  286

  89

  152

  122

  80

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the duties are of hon. Members appointed as sponsors to his Department; and what assistance is given by officials in his Department to them in carrying out these duties; [59986]

  (2) which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to his Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed. [59973]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member the answer given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Dr. Whitehead) to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 22 May 2002, Official Report, column 345W.

  illennium Dome
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the agreement to dispose of the Dome site. [61995]

  Mr. McNulty
  The agreement is commercially confidential. Release of commercial details could affect ongoing discussions with third parties, both before and after planning permission is obtained; and the ability of English Partnerships to secure maximum value for money for the public purse.

  Full details of the agreement are being made available to the National Audit Office.

  New affordable housing units: England

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Local authorities

  New-build units for rent

  323

  194

  102

  717

  n/a

  Registered Social Landlords

  Units for rent

  34,825

  33,426

  28,825

  26,138

  25,627

  Units for shared ownership/sale

  6,958

  6,196

  4,562

  4,635

  4,219

  1 Forecast

  1Note:

  RSL schemes include 'off-the-shell purchases of properties built by private developers. Schemes for rent include additions to RSL stock holdings through acquisition and refurbishment, and as well as temporary social housing schemes such as Mini-Hag and short-life housing. Shared ownership and other sale schemes include DIYSO and HomeBuy.

  Sources:

  LA new build from DTLR Housing Activity return P2 (monthly)

  RSL provision from Housing Corporation Stewardship reports

  Parish Councils (Audit)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the cost to parish councils of the internal audit work which will be required to be carried out in addition to the main audit; and if she will make a statement. [62066]

  Mr. Raynsford
  All local authorities have been required to maintain an adequate and effective system of internal audit for many years. We plan to consult later this year on revised Accounting and Audit Regulations which will include proposals to make explicit the need for authorities to follow existing relevant best practice when carrying out their internal audit role.

  Social Housing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new accommodation units have been created by(a) local authorities, (b) registered housing associations and (c) other Government registered housing providers in the form of (i) council houses, (ii) housing association units for rent, (iii) shared-equity properties, (iv) social housing as a conditional proportion of new private sector development and (v) other forms of affordable social housing in each of the past five years for which records are available. [62596]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information is collected from local authorities and Registered Social Landlords (housing associations) about the provision of new affordable social housing, which in the case of RSLs includes the acquisition of existing property from the private sector for refurbishment. Completions of rented social housing and shared or outright social ownership schemes as reported by local authorities and RSLs was as follows:
  415W
  Other Government registered housing providers are housing action trusts (HATs) and the arms length management companies (ALMOS). All new units created by HATs have arisen from the major refurbishment of existing, or replacement of demolished, social housing. The small number of recently created ALMOS have not yet created any new units.

  Reliable data about the number of private sector properties directly provided for affordable rent or discounted sale without any form of public funding are not available centrally. Local authorities have been asked to provide summary information on all affordable housing activity as part of this year's housing investment programme (HIP) returns, although on the basis of data first provided last year we believe that they may have under-reported RSL provision.

  Available information reported through the HIP process about planning permissions for affordable housing units, including both low cost market and subsidised housing is as follows:

  Granted

  1998–99

  14,333

  1999–2000

  15,543

  2000–01

  14,768

  Information for earlier years was not collected centrally, and is not yet available for 2001–02.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 10 June 2002 [Ref 59084] from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the format and procedures will be of non-statutory public inquiries into the proposed asylum accommodation centres; and if he will make a statement. [61275]

  Mr. McNulty
  Pursuant to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), no planning notifications in respect of the proposed developments have yet been referred to the Secretary of State for determination under the procedures set out in DoE circular 18–84. The circular sets out the various ways in which a dispute between the local planning authority and the developing Department may be determined. These are by means of written representations, a meeting chaired by an official of my Office, or a non-statutory public inquiry. The circular acknowledges that where there is evidence of interest of other parties it may be desirable to hold a non-statutory public inquiry.

  Where the Secretary of State holds a non-statutory public inquiry under the circular, his practice is to follow the procedure in the Inquiries Procedure Rules which apply to local inquiries held into planning applications and appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act. The current rules are the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000. He would, of course, abide by the principles of natural justice and human rights at all times. After any public inquiry, the inspector would submit a report to the Secretary of State who would then determine the dispute.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the revised Code of Best Practice for mobile phone operators on the development of mobile phone masts will be completed. [62915]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department is currently drawing up, in partnership with representatives of the mobile phone operators and local government, a revised Code of Best Practice on Telecommunications, which will include further advice and best practice on the delivery of telecommunications development.

  We expect the code to be published during the summer.

  Housing Debt (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the housing capital debt attributable to the housing revenue account of the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne is(a) in total and (b) per dwelling chargeable to the housing revenue account. [62973]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In financial year 2000–01, the latest year for which audited accounts are available, Newcastle-upon-Tyne city council recorded a capital housing debt attributable to the housing revenue account of(a) £290,242,342 in total and (b) £7,927 per dwelling.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the average years of service with the Fire Service were for firefighters leaving the service in each year since 1997; [62926]

  how many people left the employment of the Fire Service in each year since 1997, broken down by (a) gender, (b) ethnic origin, (c) natural retirement, (d) early retirement, (e) retirement due to ill health and (f) dismissals: [62927]

  how many people were accepted for employment with the Fire Service since 1997, broken down by (a) gender and (b) ethnic origin. [62928]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Tables showing the number of people accepted for, and leaving, employment within the Fire Service for 1998–99 to 2000–01 follow. Information for 1996–97 and 1997–98 is not available. Information on the average years of service for those leaving the service since 1997 is not held centrally.

  Number of successful male and female applicants for the Fire Service in England and Wales

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Wholetime

  Men

  980

  1,044

  1,453

  Women

  29

  59

  97

  Total

  1,009

  1,103

  1.550

  Retained

  Men

  1,486

  1,406

  1.352

  Women

  57

  85

  87

  Total

  1,543

  1,491

  1,439

  Note:

  For 2000–01, wholetime date are not available for three brigades and retained data for one brigade.

  417W

  Number of successful white and ethnic minority applicants for the Fire Service in England and Wales

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Wholetime

  White

  993

  1,057

  1,483

  Ethnic Min.

  16

  46

  65

  Total

  1,009

  1,103

  1,528

  Retained

  White

  1,548

  1,467

  1,427

  Ethnic Min.

  15

  24

  8

  Total

  1,543

  1,491

  1,435

  Note:

  For 2000–01 wholetime data are not available for three brigades and retained data for one brigade. In the same year, six applicants were of undetermined ethnic origin, two wholetime and four retained

  Number of men and women leaving the Fire Service in Englandand Wales

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Wholetime

  Men Women

  1,346

  1,298

  1,351

  7

  15

  15

  Total

  1,353

  1,313

  1,366

  Number of firefighters leaving the service in England and Wales by reason for leaving

  Wholetime

  Retained

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Compulsory/voluntary age retirement

  449

  530

  497

  195

  178

  190

  Medical discharge

  650

  590

  593

  87

  81

  80

  Dismissal on disciplinary grounds

  17

  10

  5

  7

  3

  7

  Other reasons

  237

  183

  271

  1,121

  1,130

  1,151

  Total

  1,353

  1,313

  1,366

  1,410

  1,392

  1,428

  Note:

  For 2000–01 wholetime date are not available for two brigades and retained for one brigade.

  e-Government (Local Authorities)
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to work together in partnership to meet the Government's target for all services to be electronically enabled by 2005. [63770]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are keen to promote and support local authorities in developing local partnerships with each other, and across the public sector. Such partnerships will be crucial in building services around the needs of citizens and customers, and in realising the economies of scale in terms of the investment requirement to see the objectives of e-government realised.

  As part of our commitment to spend £350 million over three years to support local government online, we have made provision for £75 million over the next two years to support the development of e-government partnerships. From this amount we intend to provide some £47 million over the next two years to 64 local partnerships that submitted proposals to my Department. Details of the individual allocations will be placed in the Library.
  418W

  Number of men and women leaving the Fire Service and Wales in England

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Retained

  Men

  1,375

  1,357

  1,376

  Women

  35

  35

  52

  Total

  1,410

  1,392

  1,428

  Note:

  For 2000–01 wholetime data are not available for two brigades and retained data for one brigade.

  Number of white and ethnic minority firefighters leaving the Fire Service in England and Wales

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Wholetime

  Men

  1,327

  1,305

  1,356

  Women

  26

  8

  9

  Total

  1,353

  1,313

  1,365

  Retained

  Men

  1,385

  1,383

  1,423

  Women

  25

  9

  5

  Total

  1,410

  1,392

  1,428

  Note:

  For 2000–01 wholetime data are not available for two brigades and retained data for one brigade. One wholetime leaver was of undetermined ethnic origin

  We will also provide a £2 million programme of practical support over the next two years, to ensure that these partnerships are successful in achieving their aims and that the lesson learned from them are disseminated.

  It is our intention to make available the remaining funds (£26 million) for further partnership proposals later in the year.

  We will accordingly lay a Special Grant report before the House setting out this intention, in the near future.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the role sustainable development will play in regional devolution. [62988]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's proposals for the sustainable development role of elected assemblies in the English regions are set out in chapter 4 of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511), which was published on 9 May. An assembly's overarching strategy will act as the sustainable development framework for the region.

  Population Estimate (South Kesteven)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will state the assumptions on which his estimate of the population of South Kesteven for RSG and standard spending assessment purposes is based. [62582]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The current RSG and SSA calculations for 2002–03 use the 2000 mid-year estimates of population of the Registrar General as published by ONS in August 2001.

  The ONS mid-year population estimates are based on the Census of Population allowing for the subsequent births, deaths, net migration and aging of the population that has occurred since Census day.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Belfast Agreement (Broadcasting Obligations)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) pursuant to her statement of 7 May,Official Report, column 44, if she will make a statement on the discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the broadcasting obligations in the Belfast Agreement; [55719]

  (2) what plans there are for the implementation of the broadcasting obligations in the Belfast Agreement. [55718]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: The Belfast Agreement commits the British Government to explore the scope for achieving more widespread availability of Teilifis na Gaelige in Northern Ireland. Discussions with the broadcasting authorities and with the Northern Ireland Office continue, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I will make an announcement in due course, when those discussions are completed.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the pay grades are for officials in her Department. [60033]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The pay grades within DCMS are:

  Senior Civil Service (nine pay bands)

  Grade A (U)

  Grade A

  Grade B

  Grade C

  Grade D.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002A)3 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [61001]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 June 2002, Official Report, column 130W.

  Millennium Dome
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether revenues from the sale of the Dome will be given to lottery charities; and if she will make a statement. [61472]

  Dr. Howells
  The latest position on the Dome sale and the future of the Greenwich peninsula is set out in the written answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 1033W by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Housing, Planning and Regeneration. The division of proceeds between the New Millennium Experience Company and English Partnerships has not been finally agreed, but a fair split will be established. Once NMEC's liquidation is complete, the company's share of proceeds will revert to the Millennium Commission.

  Entertainments Costs
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what steps her Department has taken to ensure libraries are equipped to help visually impaired people access information; and if she will make a statement; [61982]

  (2) what measures her Department has taken to encourage the production of accessible books for blind and partially sighted people; and if she will make a statement. [61981]

  Dr. Howells
  Although my Department does not have a direct remit in terms of the production of books, we are responsible for policy on libraries and are encouraging them to make books accessible to the widest possible audience.

  In 1998 my Department introduced Annual Library Plans (ALPs), a planning framework for the English library authorities. These require library authorities to assess provision needs, and to include discretionary local targets for people with disabilities.

  The Department's Public Library Standards include further targets, which are being developed, for materials of use to people with disabilities. The standards also remind library authorities of their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  Since 2000 my Department's Public Libraries Challenge Fund has awarded over £234,000 towards the National Library for the Blind's "A Touch of and "A Touch more" projects to improve services in libraries and Resource, the council for museums, archives and libraries, have published a best practice manual. We are also ensuring that the new People's Network and other government ICT initiatives take full account of opportunities to improve such services.

  Prize Competitions
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) whether the investigation into prize competitions will include(a) Women Empowering Women and (b) other gifting schemes; [62436]

  (2) what the remit will be of the investigation into prize competitions under the gambling review; when it will begin; and when it will report. [62432]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Vernon Coaker) on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 521 W-522W.

  We issued a consultation paper on prize competitions and similar quasi-gambling products, including gifting schemes, on 23 May. It is available in the House Libraries and on our website at www.culture.gov.uk. We intend to reach a view based on this consultation as to whether there is any need for further regulation in this area and, if so, what form it should take.

  We are asking for responses to our consultation by 31 August and will announce our conclusions in due course after that.

  School Sports
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what proportion of the £1.1 billion recently announced for sport in schools has been previously(a) allocated or (b) announced; [62984]

  (2) which organisations will be responsible for distributing the £1.1 billion for sport in schools announced on 9 June; and what procedures will be in place to administer its distribution; [62981]

  (3) if she will provide a breakdown of how the £1.1 billion for sport in schools will be distributed and the estimated timescale of the distribution of the money; [62980]

  (4) from which budget heads the £1.1 billion to be made available for sport in schools will be provided. [62979]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: New investment in school sport announced over the past two years amounts to £1.1 billion. £750 million is being invested by the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) across the UK as part of its PE and sport programme, with a view to bringing about a step change in the provision of sporting facilities for young people and for the community generally. This includes a £25 million contribution to the Space for Sport and Arts and £30 million to the Football Foundation. The deadline for stage one applications from LEAs—who will be responsible for allocating the funds to deserving projects—has passed, and applications are currently being reviewed by NOF. Decisions on these are expected by the end of the year, at which point work on stage two applications can begin. All programme funds will be committed by the end of 2005.

  £110 million is being invested in England on the current phase of the school sport co-ordination programme to meet our target of 1,000 co-ordinators by 2004. These co-ordinators will improve the quality and quantity of sport in schools by creating opportunities for children to participate in more sport, linking secondary and primary schools to improve sport at the latter,
  422W
  developing links between school and sports clubs and increasing out of school hours activities. Funding is made up of £30 million from the Sport England Lottery Fund (SELF), £60 million of grant in aid from DCMS through Sport England and £20 million in England (with another £5 million in the regions) from the NOF Phase 2 Out of Schools Hours Study Support funding. The programme is being administered by Sport England and there will be 742 co-ordinators in place by September. In addition to this, the DfES has so far designated 142 specialist sports colleges, and has set a target of 250 colleges by 2005. With an average investment of £592,000 per college, this amounts to an investment of £148 million by that time.

  The Government is also investing £75 million from the capital modernisation fund in the space for sports and arts (SSA) scheme, with a view to providing greater opportunities for pupils and the wider community in deprived areas to participate in arts based and sporting activities by providing new, or modernising existing, facilities in primary schools. Funding is being made available through a partnership between central Government and lottery distributors, including £25 million from the SELF, £25 million from NOF PE and sport programme, and £5 million from the Arts Council of England, to create a £130 million programme overall. The SSA programme aims to fund around 300 projects. Grant offers were made between October 2001 and March 2002. Completion of the first project is expected shortly, with most of the building work getting under way during the current financial year.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place in the Library a copy of the guidance for officials in her Department on answering parliamentary questions. [62977]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: Guidance to officials on answering House of Commons written parliamentary questions was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 12 April 2002 in response to a request from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).

  I am arranging for copies of "Guidance to officials on answering House of Commons oral parliamentary questions" and "House of Lords written and oral parliamentary questions" to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Museums
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the review of the National Museum of Science and Industry. [63658]

  Tessa Jowell
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has today published the first stage report of the review of the National Museum of Science and Industry.

  The report examines the roles and functions of the NMSI, and how these functions contribute to the delivery of wider DCMS and Governmental objectives. It identifies a number of ways in which NMSI can make a bigger contribution to DfES, DTI and DEFRA objectives.
  423W
  The publication of the report marks the end of the first stage of the review. There will be no formal Stage Two process. However, my Department is embarking upon a major study of the collections storage of the DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries which should have implications for NMSI.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the joint review of the Museum of London, the Horniman Museum and the Geffrye Museum. [63659]

  Tessa Jowell
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has today published the first stage report of the joint quinquennial review of the Museum of London, the Horniman Museum and the Geffrye Museum.

  The report examines the roles and functions of the museums, and how these functions contribute to the delivery of wider DCMS and Governmental objectives. It confirms that the three museums are contributing strongly to the delivery of the Government's educational and social policy objectives. All three museums have potential to perform a regional or sub-regional role.

  The publication of the report marks the end of the first stage of the review. The second stage will take forward the recommendations of the first stage and consider how the museums' services and functions could be provided more efficiently and effectively in the future.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

TRANSPORT UK

  Airports
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the number of people using UK airports over the next 20 years. [60431]

  Mr. Darling
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the Department's last set of air traffic forecasts published in 2000, it is estimated that on central assumptions 401 million terminal passengers will be using UK airports in 2020. This corresponds to an average annual increase of 4.2 per cent. between 2000 and 2020. To reflect the uncertainties inherent in producing such long term forecasts, high and low scenarios were also produced showing projected passenger numbers in 2020 of 461 million and 349 million respectively.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the average carbon dioxide emissions per passenger for a flight to(a) Miami, (b) Paris, (c) Tokyo, (d) Manchester, (e) New York and (f) Majorca, from a London airport, in each of the last six years. [60426]

  Mr. Darling
  I have been asked to reply.

  Detailed estimates of the kind envisaged are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and would depend on the aircraft used.

  Street Works
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incentives are(a) in place and (b) planned to ensure that local authorities and highway agencies are incentivised to complete street works as efficiently as possible. [62630]

  Mr. Spellar
  A Best Value performance indicator, BV 100, measures delays due to highway maintenance works on traffic sensitive streets. All highway authorities are required to produce this indicator, and it is published annually. The public can readily compare the performances of the various authorities.

  No further incentives are planned at present.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that the powers contained in section 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 will not be made available to all local authorities until a full assessment has been made of the pilot schemes when they are completed in May 2004. [62631]

  Mr. Spellar
  Pilot schemes to test the powers under section 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 began in Camden and Middlesbrough on 4 March 2002. Under these schemes the authorities can charge utility companies "lane rental" whenever the latter dig up highways to install or maintain their apparatus.

  We appointed consultants (Halerow) to study the effect of these schemes upon disruption caused by utility works and the costs which it imposes on those utilities. Any decision to extend the use of these powers to all local authorities will be based on a proper consideration of Halcrow's findings. We will also want to consult widely with highway authorities, utilities, regulators and other relevant parties before reaching a final decision.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fines have been levied on telecommunication companies under section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 in each year since the introduction of the scheme. [62629]

  Mr. Spellar
  Powers under section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 were activated in April 2001. These allow highway authorities to charge utilities up to £2,000 a day for each of the latter's works which overrun an agreed deadline. We have appointed consultants (Halcrow) to monitor the effectiveness of the new powers and they will be reporting to us later in the summer on the first year of operation of the powers, including details of the charges paid by utilities.

  Ministerial Visits (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [62077]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: My Department was formed on 29 May 2002.

  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. This Government have also published on an annual basis the

  425W
  cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Information in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Railway Track
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the lifetime is of the different types of track used on the rail network; [62282]

  (2) what types of track are used on the Railtrack network, including their technical specifications, with the associated manufacturer; and if he will make a statement; [62280]

  (3) what technical standards the types of track used on the rail network have to adhere to; and who enforces these standards. [62281]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: These are operational matters for Railtrack.

  Traffic Lights
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish the(a) guidance and (b) regulations he has given on the construction/erection of new traffic lights (i) at junctions and (ii) for pedestrian crossings; and if he will make a statement; [62875]

  (2) if he will publish (a) the guidance and (b) regulations he has given to the bodies responsible for the (i) maintenance and (ii) control of traffic lights; and if he will make a statement. [62874]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is a wide range of guidance on the construction (including assessment, design and installation), maintenance and control of traffic lights contained in the Highways Agency's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and in Local Transport Notes and Traffic Advisory Leaflets issued directly from my Department. This covers traffic signals at both junctions and pedestrian crossings. In addition, there is much material on this subject contained in primary and secondary legislation, and also in equipment specifications issued by the Highways Agency. A list of the relevant documents has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The regulations covering traffic signals junctions and pedestrian crossings are "The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994" and "The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997", respectively.

  Pedestrian Crossings
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the average cost of constructing(a) pelican, (b) puffin and (c) zebra crossings. [62877]

  Mr. Spellar
  Site circumstances can affect the cost of constructing crossings by a substantial amount. However, for the simplest pelican, puffin or zebra crossing the costs 426W
  would be in the region of £24,000, £27,000 and £7,500 respectively. This would include necessary design, equipment and civil engineering costs for a crossing on a typical 30 mph urban road. It would also include high skid resistance surfacing. For higher speed roads the zebra crossing would not be suitable and an additional cost of £10,000, for additional equipment and works, should be added to the pelican and puffin costs.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the average cost of upgrading a pelican crossing to a puffin crossing. [62876]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost of upgrading a pelican to a puffin crossing will vary from site to site, depending on the number of pedestrian signals to be changed and the number of special pedestrian detectors required. Depending on the age of the installation there may also be a need to change the controller, cabling, posts, etc. However, the simplest conversion would be in the region of £4,000 to £5,000.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the average reduction in traffic speeds resulting from the construction of(a) pelican, (b) puffin and (c) zebra crossings; and if he will make a statement. [62879]

  Mr. Spellar
  The impact of pedestrian crossings on traffic speeds will depend on where the crossings are in the network. It is for local highway authorities to assess effects on the local road network.

  Because many crossings will be located at sites which do not lead to significant interruptions to traffic flow, the impact on overall journey times from such crossings will be minimal.

  Rail Track Access Charges
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the increase was in access charges granted to Railtrack as part of the last periodic review carried out by the ORR. [62295]

  Mr. Jamieson
  (holding answer 17 June 2002]: aragraph 8.22 of the Regulator's Periodic Review outlines that the base level of track access charges paid by franchised train operators in 2001–02 would fall by 11.2 per cent. in real terms in comparison to the 2000–01 level, then increase in real terms by an average of 4.7 per cent. per annum from 2002–03 to 2005–06.

  End of Life Vehicles
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Government will comply with the EU directive on end of life vehicles. [62036]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government will transpose the directive once it has decided upon the method of implementation that best suits the UK. Consultations with industry and other interested parties continue, to ensure that all the implications of this complex measure are properly understood. No other member state has yet transposed the directive into national law.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Contact Orders
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the targets for each year since 1997 set for the Lord Chancellor's Department to increase the number of contact orders in family proceedings. [62437]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department first adopted a target 'to increase continued contact between children and the non-resident parent after a family breakdown, where this is in the best interest of the child', following the 2000 Spending Review. This target has not changed since then. The Department has set up a programme for the delivery of this target, including establishing a baseline for contact and setting up stakeholder groups to look at all aspects of contact, including the safety of both children and their parents.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent advice the Lord Chancellor has received regarding(a) Articles 12, 3 and 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and (b) the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of private law cases involving child contact orders. [62427]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Advice to Ministers routinely covers the compliance of legislation and policy both with the Human Rights Act 1998 and with international Conventions that the UK has signed or ratified. This includes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  Public Guardianship Office
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the target time is for completing cases in the Public Guardianship Office; and in the last year how many cases have been completed(a) on target, (b) in one month, (c) in three months, (d) in six months, (e) in one year and (f) in over one year. [62011]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Guardianship Office supervises the finances of the mentally incapacitated. Its involvement in a case is ongoing while the client is mentally incapacitated. Therefore there are no target times for completing cases. The Public Guardianship Office publishes charter standards outlining commitments to service delivery for various aspects of case management including: responding to correspondence, making payments and appointing a receiver.

  Child Witnesses
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the policy is of the Court Service on the treatment of children as witnesses in criminal cases. [60857]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I understand the hon. Member is concerned about the position in Northern Ireland. The Court Service there gives special consideration to child witnesses in accordance with the Courts' Charter for Northern Ireland. A range of facilities are provided at main court venues including separate child-friendly waiting rooms and live television links that enable children to give their evidence without having to enter courtrooms. The Court Service has also facilitated the 428W
  work of the Young Witness Service pilot scheme provided by the NSPCC, and will participate in the roll-out of that scheme to additional court venues in due course.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost was in the financial year 2000–01 of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings involving asylum seekers. [52765]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I apologise for the delay in replying. The cost to public funds of running the Immigration Appellate Authority for the year 2000–01 was £35.4 million. This does not, however, take account of accommodation costs and costs for court service provided services such as personnel and training. It should also be noted that these costs also cover the immigration work undertaken by the IAA as well as asylum cases.

  Figures are not available for the running costs of asylum cases taken to the higher courts. The High Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords do not break down their costs by case type.

  In addition to this, the Legal Services Commission paid out £81.3 million in public funding (formerly known as legal aid) for Immigration and Asylum during 2000–01. Of this, £4.9 million was paid out for bills relating to representation at the High Court. The remainder (£76.4 million) was paid out for Legal Help and Controlled Legal Representation in immigration and asylum matters. The figures on Legal Help and Controlled Legal Representation include cases before the Immigration Adjudicator and Appeals Tribunal, but also include work carried out on cases that completed prior to a hearing (for example a successful initial application).

  Magistrates (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many people from Warrington, North constituency were serving as magistrates in Warrington(a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available: [32254]

  (2) what progress has been made in appointing more people from the Warrington, North constituency to the magistracy in Warrington. [32370]

  Yvette Cooper
  Pursuant to the replies of 12 February 2002,Official Report, columns 66 and 155W, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising her concerns about the accuracy of those answers. As a result my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) commissioned further checks to be made and I regret to say that the figures given in original answers were not accurate. I apologise to my hon. Friend for the incorrect information she was given. There was no intention to mislead her or the House in so doing. In the preparation of the reply assumptions were made about the course of the constituency boundary which have turned out to be wrong. In the light of the further investigations, 41 per cent. of the magistrates currently serving on the Warrington bench live in the Warrington, North constituency and not 57 per cent.

  As my hon. Friend has stated, the Cheshire Advisory Committee does find it harder to find people in Warrington generally who are prepared to put themselves

  429W
  forward for appointment. The advisory sub-committee for Warrington is working closely with the local council and the press to do all it can to encourage people to put themselves forward. I know that the advisory committee would happily discuss with her any initiatives that she feels might assist, and the secretary of the committee has been asked to contact her to arrange a discussion. I agree with her entirely that it is important that people from all sections of the community throughout an area covered by a particular court feel able and are encouraged to put themselves forward for appointment as magistrates.

HEALTH

  Medical Students
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical students have dropped out before the completion of their course in each of the last five years. [61434]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on non-completion rates for higher education students broken down by subject is not held centrally. For full-time first degree students who began their studies in 1998–99, the overall non-completion rate for the UK was estimated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England to be 17 per cent. England's completion rate is the second best in the OECD comparative league table.

  Medical Schools
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on staffing levels at medical schools in London. [61468]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The staffing levels at medical schools in London and elsewhere are for each institution to determine in the light of its operational needs and circumstances.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he expects his Department to meet milestone 3 of the milestones for hospitals admitting patients for the management of heart failure in the national service framework for coronary heart disease; what additional milestones he plans to set to promote quality of care; and if he will make a statement; [44695]

  (2) whether he expects his Department to meet the primary care milestone 3 in the heart failure standard in the national service framework for coronary heart disease; and if he will make a statement; [44694]

  (3) whether his Department has met milestones 1 and 2 in the milestones for hospitals admitting patients for the management of heart failure in the heart failure secton of the national service framework for coronary heart disease; and if he will make a statement; [44697]

  (4) whether his Department has met the primary care milestones 1 and 2 on the standard of heart failure in the national service framework; and if he will make a statement on coronary heart disease. [44696]
  430W
  Ms Blears
  Evidence from the primary care and coronary heart disease (CHD) collaboratives suggest that the primary care milestones 1 and 2 of the national service framework (NSF) for CHD are largely being met although we realise that the heart failure element is lagging behind the development of CHD registers more generally. Reports from the former regional offices indicate that hospital milestone 1 has also been met.

  Progress towards the milestones is being monitored locally by strategic health authorities. The national focus has been on monitoring the immediate priorities. These were:

  developing smoking cessation services

  improving ambulance response times to category "A" calls

  increasing access to thrombolysis in accident and emergency departments for patients admitted following heart attack

  reducing time taken to deliver thrombolysis (reducing "door to needle" time)

  improving the use of effective medicines after heart attack establishing Rapid Access Chest Pain clinics across the country increasing the total number of revascularisation procedures.

  We are aware from individual contacts that protocols in both primary care and hospital settings are being developed. However, progress could be patchy as implementation of the NSF for CHD to date has focused on the immediate priorities. In due course, the commission of health improvement will provide an independent assessment of progress, including a specific review of the NSF for CHD.

  With the focus on the immediate priorities, progress in the management of heart failure has not been as rapid as that in other areas. However, heart failure will be one of our key priorities during the middle phase of the overall 10-year NSF implementation programme. We are currently developing more detailed plans for improving services. We will consider whether there is a need for any additional milestones as part of this process.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of(a) emergency readmissions and (b) delayed discharges as the result of osteoporotic hip fractures in the last 12 months. [56137]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on emergency re-admissions is available in "NHS Performance Indicators: Acute NHS Hospital Trusts" and "NHS Performance Indicators: Health Authorities" which has been placed in the Library. The re-admissions data includes that for patients who received treatment in hospital for a fractured hip, but not specifically relating to osteoporosis.

  Alzheimer's Disease (Memory Test)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will visit Cambridge Cognition Ltd. in order to see a demonstration of the Cantab Paired Associates memory test for Alzheimer's disease. [56579]

  Ms Blears
  There are currently no plans to visit Cambridge Cognition Ltd. to see the Cantab Paired Associates memory test for Alzheimer's disease. Consideration is being given to the inclusion of a clinical guideline on the management of dementia within the
  431W
  programme of work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and such a guideline would cover diagnosis of dementia, including memory tests such as this one.

  GPs
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs were registered as working within(a) the Weston area health trust and (b) the Avon health authority in each of the past three years. [58824]

  Ms Blears
  Information on general practitioners (GPs) is collected and held by primary care trusts (or their predecessor primary care groups and health authorities) rather than by national health service trusts. The number of GPs registered as working within primary care groups and trusts in the Weston area and within Avon health authority in each of the past three years are shown in the table.

  General medical practitioners in Avon health authority and its primary care groups 1999–2000

  1999

  2000

  Avon health authority

  705

  702

  Primary care groups

  Bath

  72

  73

  Bristol East

  43

  41

  Bristol Inner City

  37

  37

  Bristol North West

  88

  90

  Bristol South

  67

  62

  Bristol South East

  42

  44

  Bristol West

  35

  36

  Greater Wansdyke

  60

  61

  Severnvale

  42

  37

  South East Gloucestershire

  91

  98

  Weston Super Mare

  45

  44

  Woodspring

  83

  79

  Notes:

  1. All practitioners include UPEs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS other and GP retainers.

  2. In 2001, existing primary care groups within Avon health authority merged to become a different set of primary care groups and trusts. It is not possible to 'map' one set with the other.

  3.Data as at 1 October 1999, and 30 September 2000 and 2001.

  Source:

  General and personal medical service statistics.

  General medical practitioners in Avon health authority and its primary care groups/trusts 2001

  2001

  Avon health authority

  740

  Primary care groups and trusts

  Bath and North East Somerset

  145

  Bristol North Cluster

  84

  Bristol South and West Cluster

  74

  North Somerset

  178

  South Gloucestershire

  129

  Notes:

  1. All practitioners include UPEs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS other and GP retainers.

  2. In 2001, existing primary care groups within Avon health authority merged to become a different set of primary care groups and trusts. It is not possible to 'map' one set with the other.

  3. Data as at 1 October 1999, and 30 September 2000 and 2001.

  Source:

  General and personal medical service statistics.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate he has made of the percentage of people below the age of 24 using a condom when engaging in sexual intercourse; what the average age is at which young people in the UK have their first sexual experience; and what percentage of new HIV infections in the UK since 1997 were among people under the age of 24 years. [58786]

  Ms Blears
  The second national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles (Natsal 2000) provides the best available evidence about current sexual behaviour. It was based on a survey of over 11,000 males and females aged 16 to 44 across Britain.

  Key findings were that 83 per cent. of males and 80 per cent. of females aged between 16 and 19 and 77 per cent. of males and 76 per cent. of females aged between 20 and 24, at the time of interview, reported using a condom at first intercourse.

  The median age of first intercourse among those aged between 16 and 19 at the time of interview was 16, for both males and females. Less than one-third of young people reported having sex before age 16.

  The latest available information from the public health laboratory service shows that the percentage of new diagnoses of HIV in people under 24 years of age was 9.8 per cent. in 1997; 9.3 per cent. in 1998. 9.3 per cent. in 1999; 10.8 per cent in 2000 and 9.6 per cent. in 2001.

  ME
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has sponsored into the causes of ME. [58739]

  Ms Blears
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease and receives its funding via the Department for Trade and Industry. The Department has asked the MRC to develop a broad strategy for advancing biomedical and health services research on chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). The MRC will be appointing an independent scientific advisory group which will include scientists with expertise in areas such as epidemiology, physiology, immunology, infections, clinical trials and psychological medicine. The MRC will be consulting with its consumer liaison group members as to the best means by which patient and charity perspectives can be taken into account.

  The Department has not recently funded any research specifically into the causes of CFS/ME. The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service. However, the Department is supporting research on cognitive behavioural therapy in CFS and on family focused cognitive behavioural therapy for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome. Recently completed departmental-funded research projects on ME include a systematic review to determine the effectiveness of treatments and interventions for patients with CFS/ME.

  Details of research projects supported through the national health service research and development levy can be found on the National Research Register (NRR) at:

  433W
  www.doh.gov.uk/research.nrr.htm The NRR contains many details of projects/trials funded by the research councils and other funders.

  Patient Data
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will amend the Health and Social Care Act 2001 so that its powers cannot apply to the wider use and disclosure of genetic data without the consent of the patient; and if he will make a statement. [59221]

  Ms Blears
  Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 already provides safeguards to prevent confidential patient data being disclosed unnecessarily and the flexibility to introduce others where appropriate. The patient information advisory group will advise me, following discussion with the Human Genetics Commission, where additional safeguards are necessary.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to regulate the use and disclosure of genetic data; and if he will make a statement. [59222]

  Ms Blears
  Activity in this area is already regulated by the provisions of the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act and common law requirements. Where common law requirements are replaced by the regulatory code introduced through section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, there is flexibility to introduce a wide range of restrictions if appropriate. The Government are studying the Human Genetics Commission's report, "Inside Information—Balancing Interests in the Use of Personal Genetic Data", and notes that it makes no specific recommendations in relation to the disclosure of medical genetic data.

  Regional Organisations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regional organisation his Department has; and if he will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58942]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department's eight national health service regional offices and the counties and unitary authorities they served in 1997 are shown in table 1, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  In 1997, there was no easily definable relationship between the Department's four social care regions and the administrative geography. Details of the relationship are not available centrally and could he compiled at only disproportionate cost.

  From April 2002, the Department has nine public health groups (each led by a Director of Public Health) co-located with the Government offices for the regions and nine offices of the Social Services Inspectorate which are coterminous with the boundaries for the Government offices. The details are shown in table 2, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Heroin
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time has been for a heroin addict in Plymouth to obtain(a) detoxification and (b) rehabilitation treatment in the last 12 months. [59744]
  434W
  Ms Blears
  The average waiting time in Plymouth for a heroin addict to obtain in-patient opiate detoxification is currently four to six weeks, and to obtain an assessment for residential rehabilitation treatment is eight weeks. Waiting times post assessment vary, according to a number of factors, between four and twelve weeks.

  CPHPC
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the drug CPHPC in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and adult onset diabetes; and if he will commission further research into the effectiveness of the drug CPHPC in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and adult onset diabetes. [60684]

  Ms Blears
  There are at present no plans to carry out, through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or the health technology assessment programmes, an assessment of or research into the effectiveness of the drug CPHPC for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and type 2 diabetes. We are aware of the development work currently being undertaken and will be very interested in its conclusions.

  Alcohol Treatment Services
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to his answer of 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 100W, on alcohol abuse, what advice his Department gives to primary care trusts on assessing local needs for alcohol treatment services and on ensuring that those needs are met through commissioning services. [60389]

  Ms Blears
  Primary care trusts are responsible for securing health services for their local population and are accountable to strategic health authorities for discharging their functions effectively, including their commissioning responsibilities. In addition, the national primary and care trust development programme was established last year to support the organisational development of primary care trusts.

  Primary care trusts will be expected to honour existing agreements (financial and otherwise) previously negotiated by regional specialised commissioning groups and other specialised service commissioners. In 2002–03 regional specialised commissioning groups will also have a specific role in developing primary care trust capacity to commission specialised services as part of a planned transition to successor arrangements.

  It is important to ensure that primary care trusts provide high quality public health services. Each primary care trust will have a director of public health and a multi-disciplinary health team whose focus will be on improving health and tackling inequalities. This will help to ensure that primary care trusts are well placed to assess and meet local need for alcohol treatment services.

  Natural Health Products
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health upon what basis the Medicines Control Agency included in its Regulatory Impact Assessment of the European Traditional Herbal Medicines and Products Directive the statement that for many retailer, herbal remedies currently constitute a relatively limited proportion of shelf spac
  435W
  with whom they consulted before presenting this statement; and what calculations they have made of the percentage of turnover such products represent for a typical specialist health food retailer. [60200]

  Ms Blears
  During preparation of the partial regulatory impact assessment (RIA), the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) visited a number of retail outlets, including health food shops, pharmacies and supermarkets. The Agency's broad assessment was that, typically, herbal remedies often form part of a wider range of products including for example, vitamins, minerals, other nutrients, organic food and a varied range of other herbal products that would not be classified as medicines. Clearly the proportion of shelf space allocated to herbal remedies varies significantly as between different retailers.

  The partial RIA is currently under consultation and the Agency would welcome quantified information from retailing interests about the proportion of overall sales which relates to over the counter herbal remedies, that is remedies where the active ingredients are herbal only.

  The MCA continues to receive feedback from key organisations in the herbal sector, such as UK manufacturers of traditional herbal remedies, that the introduction of the standards proposed in the directive is necessary if the long-term prosperity of the sector is to be maintained.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations the Medicines Control Agency has had with(a) the National Association of Health Stores, (b) Consumers for Health Choice, (c) Holland & Barratt Retail Ltd., (d) General Nutrition Centres and (e) other representatives of the specialist health food sector and its consumers, prior to producing its Regulatory Impact Assessment of the European Traditional Herbal Products Directive. [60199]

  Ms Blears
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has had a wide range of discussions with a large number of interest groups from the herbal sector during development work on the proposed directive on traditional herbal medicinal products. Among those involved have been representatives of manufacturers, retailers, consumers, herbal and other complementary medicine practitioners, pharmacists and a range of individuals with relevant expertise. Interest groups from the health food sector taking part have included the National Association of Health Stores, Consumers for Health Choice, the Health Food Manufacturers's Association (HFMA) and the Institute of Health Food Retailing. In addition to meetings instigated by the MCA, the agency has participated in various conferences and meetings organised by external parties, such as the HFMA and the herbal registration forum, to discuss the implications of the emerging proposals. These discussions continue.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [60758]
  436W
  Mr. Lammy
  In the last three financial years the Department has replaced the following numbers of personal computers:

  700 personal computers in 1999–2000.

  1,543 personal computers in 2000–01.

  654 personal computers in 2001–02.

  Figures for individual offices are not available for financial year 1999–2000. For the following two financial years, figures for the Department's regional offices are as follows:

  Number of PCs replaced

  2000–01 site

  South East and London regional offices

  190

  Eastern regional office

  64

  North West regional office

  106

  Northern and Yorkshire regional office

  138

  South West regional office

  94

  Trent regional office

  80

  West Midlands regional office

  62

  2001–02 regional office

  South East and London regional offices

  67

  Eastern regional office

  18

  North West regional office

  7

  Northern and Yorkshire regional office

  11

  South West regional office

  20

  Trent regional office

  29

  West Midlands regional office

  21

  Note:

  These figures exclude any replacement of equipment not funded from central departmental budgets.

  Disposal

  The Department normally disposes of personal computers to commercial companies who formally bid for, refurbish and resell the equipment, or break it down for spare parts. Successful companies have included OCM Business Systems Ltd., Metro Systems Ltd., and Computer Disposal and Recycling Ltd. The Department obtains a small income from this process.

  Whenever practicable and bearing in mind the condition of the equipment, the Department also gives a small number of redundant personal computers to schools and charitable organisations.

  Diabetes
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much Government funding has been allocated to research into the causes of diabetes in each of the last five years. [61376]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) on 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 783W.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra resources he is making available to fund the National Service Framework for Diabetes; how those resources will be allocated; and if he will make a statement. [61938]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 12 June 2002,Official Report, columns 1340–41W.

  Gonorrhoea
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is carrying out into treatments for gonorrhoea; and if he will make a statement. [61072]

  Ms Blears
  Appropriate antibiotic treatment should cure all uncomplicated gonococcal infections. However, increasing antimicrobial resistance undermines the effectiveness of treatment and means that the range of drugs available to treat the disease is reduced. We are funding a three-year project, the gonococcal resistance to antimicrobials surveillance programme (GRASP), to develop a national network to systematically monitor levels of antimicrobial resistance in England and Wales.

  This enhanced surveillance programme provides a range of data that cannot be obtained from current surveillance systems and a means for more detailed monitoring of disease epidemiology. In addition, the clinical data and outcomes provide a mechanism for monitoring quality of clinical care, adherence to antibiotic prescribing policies and treatment guidelines.

  Chlamydia Screening
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the national chlamydia screening programme will be operational across the country; [61074]

  (2) if he will publish the results of the pilot chlamydia-screening programmes in Portsmouth and the Wirral; and if he will make a statement. [61075]

  Ms Blears
  A report on the chlamydia screening pilots in Portsmouth and the Wirral will be published this summer. The pilots showed that this form of screening was acceptable to the target group and the professionals with 75 per cent. uptake among those offered screening and 95 per cent. of those diagnosed returning for treatment.

  The national strategy for sexual health and HIV commits to beginning a programme of screening for chlamydia for targeted groups in 2002. The first 10 screening sites are currently being selected, and will be approved shortly. The pace of the roll-out of the programme across the country will depend on the availability of resources, trained staff and equipment, and cannot be precisely predicted at this stage.

  Coronary Care
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether primary care trusts are obliged to wait for NICE guidance on drug eluting stents before allowing their use in patients. [61628]

  Ms Blears
  The absence of guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) does not prevent the national health service using new drugs or technologies. Standing guidance to the NHS says specifically that they should not wait for NICE guidance, but should in the interim, make a local decision about whether to fund particular interventions on the basis of the available published information.
  438W
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has made an assessment of how the use of drug eluting stents will contribute to revascularisation targets set out in the national service framework on coronary heart disease. [61627]

  Ms Blears
  The Department referred drug eluting stents to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on 20 May 2002. NICE will provide evidence-based advice on their appropriate use, and at that time an assessment can be made of how drug eluting stents will contribute to revascularisation targets set out in the national service framework on coronary heart disease.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restenosis rate is associated with the use of bare stents in the UK. [61626]

  Ms Blears: The Department does not collect data relating to the restenosis rate associated with the use of bare stents in England.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the relative cost effectiveness of the(a) coronary artery bypass graft for coronary heart disease and (b) percutaneous coronary intervention; and if he will make a statement. [61363]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The Department has made no assessment of the relative cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In general, PCI is a less expensive procedure. It is a less invasive procedure for the patient allowing for a quicker recovery and requiring a shorter hospital stay. The decision as to which procedure is appropriate is a clinical one based on an assessment of the individual patient, and for patients who are not suitable for PCI, coronary artery bypass graft may be the only appropriate intervention.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the average number of bed days for recovery from percutaneous coronary interventions in the last year for which figures are available. [61366]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The average post-operative duration of stay for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in 2000–01 was two days. This figure is based on finished consultant episodes. There will be a small number of patients who may be transferred to another consultant following the operation, which is not reflected in this average.

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total income to local authorities that resulted in the last 12 months from including war widows' pensions when calculating charges for the cost of residential and nursing care under the National Assistance Regulations; and how many people paying charges under the regulations are affected. [61846]

  Jacqui Smith
  The requested information is not collected centrally.

  Stents
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients per million population benefited from the use of stents in(a) the UK and (b) each other EU country; and if he will make a statement. [61955]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not collect data on the number of patients who received stents. In 2000–01, the number of percutaneous transluminal artery angioplasties carried out in national health service hospitals in England was 25,698. It is estimated that about 80 per cent. of these procedures would have included the use of stents.

  Figures from other European Union countries are not available on a directly comparable basis. Information about operations undertaken in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of their own Administrations.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects NICE will complete its assessment on drug eluting stents; and if he will make a statement. [61957]

  Ms Blears
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is responsible for determining the detailed timetable for the appraisal topics referred to it. We have not yet been informed when its guidance on drug eluting stents will be available.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the provision of drug eluting stents; and if he will make a statement. [61956]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has received no representations regarding the provision of drug eluting stents.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of how many patients would benefit from the use of drug eluting stents; and if he will make a statement. [61954]

  Ms Blears
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on the use of stents in May 2000. This guidance is due for review in April 2003. The Department referred drug eluting stents to NICE on 20 May 2002.

  NICE will provide evidence-based advice to the national health service in England and Wales on the clinical and cost effectiveness of drug eluting stents compared to 'bare' stents, and on their appropriate use.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cost benefit analysis his Department has undertaken of bare stents compared to drug eluting stents. [61362]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on the use of stents in May 2000. This guidance is due for review in April 2003. The Department referred drug eluting stents to NICE on 20 May 2002.
  440W
  NICE will provide evidence-based advice to the national health service in England and Wales on the clinical and cost effectiveness of drug eluting stents compared to 'bare' stents, and on their appropriate use.

  National Endometriosis Society
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to restore relief and research funding to the National Endometriosis Society; [62801]

  (2) on what date relief and research funding for the National Endometriosis Society was withdrawn. [62800]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Endometriosis Society will receive £10,000 from the Department in 2002–03 as a contribution towards the cost of its core activities. This is the final year of a three-year grant. In the autumn the society will be given the opportunity to apply to have the grant renewed from April 2003.

  Drug Users (Treatment and Rehabilitation)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action the Government are taking to increase investment in drug rehabilitation services in Somerset; and if he will make a statement; [62396]

  how many units there are in Somerset providing residential rehabilitation for drug users; and if he will make a statement; [62398]

  if he will make a statement on waiting times from GP referral to initial consultation for users of illegal drugs in Somerset. [62397]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are committed to the improvement of drug rehabilitation services. In Somerset the overall budget for treatment rose from £2.383 million in 2001–02 to £2.71 million this year. Nearly £400,000 of new money is being spent on treatment this year alone.

  Information on waiting times from general practitioner (GP) referrals to initial consultation is not collected centrally. I am, however, advised by Dorset and Somerset health authority that Somerset GPs generally refer patients to Somerset drugs services, which is managed by Somerset Partnership national health service and social care trust. Waiting times vary across the county but action has been taken to improve access to services, including funding this year for two nursing posts, one each side of the county, to focus particularly on improving waiting times.

  There is one residential drug rehabilitation unit in Somerset. However, Somerset social services department contracts to use services in neighbouring counties as and when needed.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of drug and addiction consultancy posts are vacant in England at the latest date for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [62401]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's "Vacancy Survey" (March 2001), lists figures for general psychiatry. There were 130 vacancies, with a 7.8 per cent. vacancy rate. This survey does not have a more specific breakdown of vacancies (for example figures for consultants with an interest in substance misuse).

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the deadline of 8 April for the reassessment of preserved rights of residents in nursing homes was met. [55320]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: The social services inspectorate is monitoring the progress local authorities are making in assessing the care needs of people who were subject to the preserved rights arrangements. Information on the number of residents who have been reassessed is unlikely to be available centrally until July this year.

  There may be cases in which local authorities were unable to complete care assessments by 8 April. In these circumstances, authorities are liable to pay for the resident's existing private arrangements with the care home until they are in a position to provide community care services formally. Subject to means, they can recover all or part of such a payment from the resident.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [62076]

  Estimate number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for all antipsychotics by broad age group by health authorities and regions, 2001

  Thousands

  Aged 16 to 59 years

  Health authority

  Children age 0–15 years

  Elderly people age 60 and over

  Exempt

  Items personally administered Charged1

  Total

  Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire

  0.3

  20.5

  16.6

  4.6

  0.1

  42.0

  East and North Hertfordshire

  0.5

  29.5

  23.5

  7.6

  0.2

  61.3

  Hertfordshire

  0.5

  37.8

  28.2

  10.4

  0.1

  77.0

  Norfolk

  0.4

  38.9

  47.4

  9.9

  0.4

  97.1

  North Essex

  0.5

  36.5

  30.3

  7.7

  0.1

  75.2

  South Essex

  0.5

  24.1

  22.3

  5.1

  0.0

  52.0

  Suffolk

  0.4

  32.6

  20.9

  6.3

  0.3

  60.4

  Total for Eastern Region

  3.0

  219.9

  189.2

  51.5

  1.3

  464.9

  London Region

  Barking and Havering

  0.2

  14.3

  11.5

  3.5

  0.0

  29.5

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  0.2

  32.4

  34.5

  6.6

  0.0

  73.6

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  0.2

  25.1

  19.2

  5.3

  0.0

  49.8

  Brent and Harrow

  0.0

  13.3

  19.5

  3.8

  0.0

  36.6

  Camden and Islington

  0.1

  8.9

  25.1

  2.7

  0.0

  36.8

  Croydon

  0.0

  13.1

  15.8

  2.8

  0.0

  31.7

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  0.2

  21.0

  30.6

  5.6

  0.0

  57.3

  East London and the City

  0.2

  14.7

  36.2

  3.4

  0.0

  54.6

  Hillingdon

  0.1

  6.2

  6.8

  2.0

  0.0

  15.1

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  0.0

  8.9

  15.8

  2.7

  0.0

  27.5

  Kingston and Richmond

  0.1

  12.9

  9.1

  3.4

  0.0

  25.5

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0.3

  26.4

  34.0

  4.0

  0.0

  64.6

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0.2

  23.5

  23.3

  5.3

  0.0

  52.3

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0.3

  14.9

  17.1

  3.0

  0.0

  35.3

  Total for London Region

  2.1

  235.6

  298.4

  54.1

  0.0

  590.3

  North West Region

  Bury and Rochdale

  0.1

  21.2

  24.6

  4.9

  0.0

  50.7

  East Lancashire

  0.3

  25.1

  30.3

  5.4

  0.0

  61.1

  Liverpool

  0.2

  24.0

  36.6

  3.4

  0.0

  64.2

  Manchester

  0.2

  24.1

  43.6

  3.2

  0.0

  71.1

  Morecambe Bay

  0.1

  21.1

  15.3

  3.8

  0.1

  40.3

  North Cheshire

  0.1

  14.4

  18.0

  3.6

  0.0

  36.2

  442W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: My right hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State (Mr. Frank Dobson), attended the Festival of Science conference at Cardiff on 7 September 1998.

  Antipsychotic Medication
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken on the trend in prescribing of antipsychotic medication; what the key findings are; and if he will set out prescription numbers for such medication for each region and health authority for 2001 for age groups(a) 0 to 15 years, (b) 16 to 59 years and (c) 60 years and over. [56593]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Prescription numbers for antipsychotic medication for each region and health authority for 2001 for age groups (a) 0 to 15 years, (b) 16 to 59 years and (c) 60 years and over are shown in the table.

  Preliminary proposals for research to support the development of the national service framework for older people and older people's treatment and care including research proposals on the prescribing of antipsychotic medication were received in March 2002. These are currently being peer reviewed and short-listed, and decisions will be taken later this year about which research to commission.
  443W

  Estimate number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for all antipsychotics by broad age group by health authorities and regions, 2001

  Thousands

  Aged 16 to 59 years

  Health authority

  Children age 0–15 years

  Elderly people age 60 and over

  Exempt

  Items personally administered Charged1

  Total

  North West Lancashire

  0.0

  27.2

  27.3

  6.0

  0.0

  60.7

  Salford and Trafford

  0.2

  31.7

  31.0

  4.5

  0.0

  67.5

  Sefton

  0.0

  17.7

  21.6

  3.2

  0.0

  42.5

  South Cheshire

  0.2

  32.0

  26.7

  6.7

  0.0

  65.6

  South Lancashire

  0.2

  12.3

  10.5

  3.5

  0.0

  26.5

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0.1

  18.3

  24.9

  3.8

  0.0

  47.1

  Stockport

  0.1

  23.8

  19.9

  4.6

  0.0

  48.5

  West Pennine

  0.1

  20.1

  22.9

  3.6

  0.0

  46.7

  Wigan and Bolton

  0.1

  30.7

  25.3

  5.1

  0.0

  61.3

  Wirral

  0.1

  16.8

  25.6

  3.9

  0.0

  46.5

  Total for North West Region

  2.2

  360.7

  404.1

  69.4

  0.2

  836.6

  Northern and Yorkshire Region

  Bradford

  0.1

  22.5

  24.7

  4.1

  0.0

  51.4

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  0.3

  28.1

  24.0

  5.3

  0.0

  57.8

  County Durham and Darlington

  0.3

  31.3

  29.1

  5.4

  0.1

  66.2

  East Riding and Hull

  0.1

  26.9

  25.6

  5.3

  0.1

  57.9

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  0.3

  17.9

  16.3

  2.9

  0.0

  37.4

  Leeds

  0.3

  35.6

  41.0

  8.0

  0.0

  84.8

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  0.3

  28.8

  31.0

  4.2

  0.0

  64.4

  North Cumbria

  0.2

  14.6

  14.2

  3.8

  0.1

  33.0

  North Yorkshire

  0.5

  32.0

  21.5

  6.9

  0.2

  61.2

  Northumberland

  0.2

  12.9

  12.9

  2.7

  0.1

  28.8

  Sunderland

  0.1

  11.0

  11.0

  1.8

  0.0

  24.0

  Tees

  0.3

  26.0

  27.8

  3.8

  0.0

  57.8

  Wakefield

  0.1

  17.2

  15.7

  3.4

  0.0

  36.3

  Total for Northern and Yorkshire Region

  3.2

  304.8

  294.8

  57.5

  0.6

  660.9

  South East Region

  Berkshire

  0.2

  26.1

  23.8

  7.8

  0.1

  58.0

  Buckinghamshire

  0.3

  22.7

  19.4

  6.2

  0.1

  48.7

  East Kent

  0.7

  25.7

  27.0

  5.1

  0.1

  58.5

  East Surrey

  0.0

  16.3

  10.5

  3.7

  0.0

  30.4

  East Susex, Brighton and Hove

  0.4

  37.9

  37.7

  7.2

  0.1

  83.2

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  0.1

  35.3

  26.2

  6.7

  0.1

  68.4

  North and Mid Hampshire

  0.6

  22.2

  15.7

  6.5

  0.1

  45.1

  Northamptonshire

  0.5

  20.5

  21.6

  6.4

  0.0

  49.0

  Oxfordshire

  0.3

  22.0

  15.8

  6.5

  0.2

  44.8

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  0.4

  27.0

  22.8

  7.0

  0.1

  57.3

  West Kent

  0.5

  34.0

  33.4

  9.5

  0.1

  77.6

  West Surrey

  0.4

  22.0

  16.4

  6.6

  0.0

  45.5

  West Sussex

  0.3

  40.0

  24.5

  7.8

  0.1

  72.6

  Total for South East Region

  4.8

  351.8

  294.8

  86.9

  0.9

  739.2

  South West Region

  Avon

  0.3

  42.5

  41.4

  8.4

  0.1

  92.7

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0.5

  20.8

  23.7

  4.1

  0.2

  49.4

  Dorset

  0.3

  33.1

  24.5

  6.4

  0.1

  64.5

  Gloucestershire

  0.4

  20.1

  20.4

  6.8

  0.1

  47.8

  North and East Devon

  0.6

  22.7

  21.4

  4.9

  0.2

  49.8

  Somerset

  0.4

  19.4

  15.2

  3.3

  0.1

  38.5

  South and West Devon

  0.7

  30.8

  36.2

  5.2

  0.2

  73.0

  Wiltshire

  0.3

  26.6

  20.3

  6.4

  0.1

  53.7

  Total for South West Region

  3.5

  215.9

  203.1

  45.6

  1.1

  469.2

  Trent Region

  Barnsley

  0.1

  10.3

  8.2

  2.6

  0.0

  21.1

  Doncaster

  0.2

  12.2

  12.5

  2.7

  0.0

  27.6

  Leicestershire

  0.2

  32.1

  35.2

  7.3

  0.1

  74.8

  Lincolnshire

  0.7

  32.4

  23.4

  7.8

  0.2

  64.5

  North Derbyshire

  0.1

  17.7

  15.2

  3.1

  0.0

  36.2

  North Nottinghamshire

  0.1

  18.3

  11.5

  3.0

  0.1

  32.9

  Nottingham

  0.1

  22.1

  17.3

  5.0

  0.1

  44.6

  Rotherham

  0.1

  23.3

  11.5

  1.8

  0.0

  36.7

  444W 445W

  Estimate number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for all antipsychotics by broad age group by health authorities and regions, 2001

  Thousands

  Health authority

  Children age 0–15 years

  Elderly people age 60 and over

  Exempt

  Items personally administered Charged1

  Total

  Sheffield

  0.3

  20.6

  21.5

  4.2

  0.0

  46.6

  South Humber

  0.3

  14.2

  14.2

  3.2

  0.0

  32.0

  Southern Derbyshire

  0.3

  24.1

  18.2

  4.9

  0.0

  47.5

  Total for Trent Region

  2.4

  227.2

  188.8

  45.5

  0.5

  464.5

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham

  1.4

  40.8

  55.3

  6.7

  0.0

  104.3

  Coventry

  0.2

  14.3

  16.7

  3.2

  0.0

  34.4

  Dudley

  0.2

  13.2

  12.5

  3.5

  0.0

  29.4

  Herefordshire

  0.2

  6.2

  6.4

  1.4

  0.1

  14.2

  North Staffordshire

  0.2

  22.4

  16.9

  5.0

  0.0

  44.6

  Sandwell

  0.2

  11.7

  11.8

  2.4

  0.0

  26.1

  Shropshire

  0.3

  18.4

  15.0

  3.9

  0.1

  37.6

  Solihull

  0.2

  6.3

  6.1

  1.8

  0.0

  14.3

  South Staffordshire

  0.4

  25.6

  16.0

  4.8

  0.1

  46.9

  Walsall

  0.1

  14.6

  11.6

  2.2

  0.0

  28.4

  Warwickshire

  0.3

  22.2

  16.8

  5.4

  0.1

  44.7

  Wolverhampton

  0.1

  11.6

  10.8

  1.6

  0.0

  24.0

  Worcestershire

  0.6

  23.8

  14.9

  3.7

  0.1

  43.2

  Total for West Midlands Region

  4.3

  231.2

  210.8

  45.6

  0.4

  492.3

  England

  25.6

  2,147.2

  2,083.9

  456.2

  5.1

  4.717.9

  1Charged prescription items inclide those where a charge was made at the point of dispensing and where a patient has a pre-paymentcertificate

  Notes:

  The analysis of the data for non-charged categories is based on a one in 20 sample of all exempt prescriptions submitted to the Prescription Pricing Authority by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, and dispensing doctors. Personally administered items are free of charge.

  Antipsychotics are defined in the British National Formulary (BNF) paragraph 4.2.1, antipsychotic drugs.
  446W

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Convention on the Future of Europe
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
When, and how, they intend to report to the House on developments in the Convention on the Future of Europe which is now preparing for the intergovernmental conference proposed for 2003–04.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government will inform Parliament whenever there are significant developments to report on the Future of Europe Convention. My right honourable friend the Minister for Europe appeared before your Lordships' European Union Select Committee on 30th April and answered questions about the convention. He has undertaken to report further to the committee on 9th July after the Seville European Council meeting.
The Government also welcome the recent agreement to establish a Standing Committee where the parliamentary representatives to the convention will report developments back to Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her confirmation of the development of a Standing Committee. Does the noble Baroness recognise that the Laeken declaration committed us to making sure that this time there is a process, of which the convention is intended to be a part, which will contribute to,
"more democracy and transparency in the European Union … in order for the debate to be broadly based and involve all citizens"?
Does she further recognise that the Government have made a great point in the preparation for the convention of involving national Parliaments more fully in the process? Does she accept that in recent months Ministers have made more speeches on this subject in other countries than in Britain? That seems rather odd. Furthermore, ideas have been floated within the Government, as I understand it, in papers circulated within the convention which have not yet been reported to this Parliament. Would it be better not to wait until significant developments have taken place but to involve the British Parliament and, through us, a wider public, as this process proceeds?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am hound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that that is exactly what is happening. We do not necessarily fulfil the mandate of inclusivity and
732
democracy by more ministerial speeches, but by giving Parliament the opportunity to be included in the process. That is exactly what the arrangements for the Standing Committee will allow.
Next Monday, your Lordships will have the opportunity, as I understand it, to vote on whether or not your Lordships are content with those arrangements. But it will be possible for all Members of your Lordships' House to participate in the Standing Committee. Those with varied views in the House will have the opportunity not only to hear the parliamentary report back but to contribute to the debate. That is in addition to involving a wider public through the civic forum contacts and other means.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords., the 30th April meeting of the European Union Committee was with the delegates to the convention and not with the Minister, Mr Hain. Surely, the broader question is that huge issues are being shaped at this convention, including the idea of a basic treaty to underpin the existing Rome treaties; the idea of a president of the Council; the incorporation of a new system of human rights legislation to rival the existing one: and other major issues which affect the future of our democracy. Should not your Lordships with their vast experience in European affairs have a constant and interactive input and not just an occasional commentary once every two months?
There should be adequate opportunity for full involvement in the unfolding work of this commission. The European Union Committee does excellent work, but its occasional hearings and reports do not provide us with enough frequency in the matter. The Minister must address that point seriously.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there were two meetings, one on 16th April and one on 30th April. I am sorry if I transposed the interlocutors. I hope that the measures put before Parliament will afford a real opportunity for what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, described as constant interactivity.
I have made clear to the House that we are willing to consider other means of having further discussions and to draw upon what is, I freely acknowledge, the considerable wisdom that this House can bring to bear on these issues. A number of working groups have been set up with British participants. Your Lordships will be interested to know that, for example, my noble friend Lady Scotland will participate in a working group on the Charter of Fundamental Rights; the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, on one dealing with the EU legal personality; and my noble friend Lord Tomlinson on one relating to complementary competencies. Many opportunities are available for noble Lords to bring to bear their considerable wisdom on this issue.
Lord Judd: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, with its reference to human rights, does my noble friend agree that implications will emerge from this convention for other European institutions, such as the Council of Europe? Will the Government take an early opportunity to give some guidance on how they see the future interrelationship between any changes in the European Union, its structure and its proceedings, with the continuing role of the Council of Europe?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is an important point. I take delivery of it from my noble friend Lord Judd. I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe and to my noble friend Lady Scotland in her important role on these issues.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister enlighten the House as to what the Government see as the point of the European Union? If she cannot do so in the time available, can she say whether this convention is likely to recommend any repatriation of powers to the nation states? And if not, why not?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, one of the points is the considerable pleasure it gives your Lordships to hear the views of the noble Lord on these issues. He quite rightly never fails to avail himself of the opportunity. I remind him that he now has a further opportunity to enlighten Members of another place on these issues. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to take those future opportunities. He will have noted, as other noble Lords will have noted, that one of the issues to be considered by the convention is what powers may be repatriated to home Parliaments. I am sure that the noble Lord will have his usual robust views on that subject.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we regularly hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and others both the demand that the European Union be made more democratically accountable and the demand that it be less federal? Does she further agree that those demands are mutually exclusive? Will she endeavour to discover which of them they really mean?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is indeed an interesting point. I am not entirely sure that those demands are necessarily mutually exclusive. It is possible to be more democratic and less federal but, if I may say so, that is a much wider question than the Question on the Order Paper and would take us a considerable time to debate.

Road Works: Disruption
2.43 p.m.
Lord Geddesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, within the framework of fines and lane rental schemes, local authorities and highways authorities should be required to pay costs in proportion to the disruption caused to road users by their actions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have appointed consultants, Halcrow, to monitor the effect of both the lane rental and charging for overrunning schemes on the level of disruption caused to road users by works on the highway and to assess the extent and cost of that disruption. That information will help to inform decisions on the future of the two schemes and at what level any charges for overrunning and lane rental should be set in future.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I am encouraged by the presence of such quantity and quality on the Benches of the Lords Spiritual. Is not the Minister's reply deficient on the point of the Question, which is that local authorities and highways authorities should bear their share of the cost? Does the Minister agree with the statistic that more than 50 per cent of holes in the road, to quote my noble friend Lord Peyton, are caused by such local and highways authorities? Should they not pay their whack, to put it in the vulgar?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, local authorities and highways authorities should certainly exercise the same restraint and co-ordination as that required of public utilities to minimise the disruption of road works. But of course, if we start to fine local authorities and highways authorities, the money comes into one pocket and out of the other, so to speak. I am not sure that that is a worthwhile activity. However, last July we introduced a statutory code of practice for highways authorities on maintenance management and we are conscious of the need for them to exercise restraint.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend is to be congratulated on having elicited from the Minister a better Answer than we have received for a long time on this subject. Will the Minister deploy his considerable intellect and eloquence to persuade the highways authorities—in which I include the Mayor of London and his team—that roads are for movement and that the duty of highways authorities and the rest of them is to facilitate movement, not to interrupt it or to make it impossible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I fear this Greek in particular when he comes bearing compliments of that kind. Yes, of course roads are for movement, but roads are also the conduits for water, gas, electricity and telecommunications. Whether or not they are dug up—but especially when they are—they have to be mended from time to time to be made

735
passable for everything from horse-drawn vehicles to motor cars. I am afraid that that means that there will continue to be disruption of the highways.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that there is time for both of us. Does the Minister agree that local authorities would be among the first to welcome any scheme that will reduce the disruption caused to the travelling public—I include those who travel by public transport as well as drivers? Do the Government have any proposals to extend the trials currently under way beyond their present areas? I am sure that the whole community, especially the business community, would welcome that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the problem is that the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 was not sufficiently specific. It did not provide incentives for co-ordination; it did not provide incentives for people to talk to each other when they plan to dig up the roads; it did not even provide disincentives for their not knowing where their cables, pipes and so on lay beneath the roads. So we have had to introduce additional regulations to try to make it work. In addition to trying to encourage co-ordination, we plan penalties for lack of co-ordination, and that is what over-running charges and lane rental are. I hope that every Member of the House will support that, because that is the only way that it will be made to work.
As for extensions beyond Camden and Middlesbrough, which are the two pilot areas, I agree that that is desirable. Seven local authorities expressed an interest in taking part in the pilot but, for various reasons, the other five were ineligible. But I am sure that the offer is still open.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the person responsible for increasing congestion during the past few weeks is the Mayor of London? He has so far changed the setting on 338 sets of traffic lights. Will the Minister condemn the proposal to extend that to another 51 sets of traffic lights, which will make traffic flow in London worse? Do the Government believe that the mayor's congestion charging plan for London will increase traffic flow or make it worse throughout Greater London?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I prefer to confine my answers to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, who was the Martian who took the decision a week ago to cordon off 300 acres of London because of a burst water main in front of the Rubens Hotel in Buckingham Palace Road and insisted that no work should be done on it over the weekend? The whole area—indeed, the whole
736
of London—is entirely fouled up because of this incident. Have the Government any idea of the cost to the national economy of that Martian's decision?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know any Martians so I am a little handicapped. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has a valid complaint. I shall make inquiries and write to him about it if it is the responsibility of the Government.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how much these consultants will cost the taxpayer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. It is a very significant piece of work. It will extend over a period until March 2004. It covers both over-running and lane rental experiments and involves a substantial exercise in estimating and assessing the extent of the cost of disruption. As the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, will know, that is not an easy question to resolve. I do not know the figure. I shall write to him about it.

Bermuda
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Hooperasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their intention to convene a constitutional conference in order to consider the proposed reforms to Bermuda's electoral system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, there are no plans at the moment for a constitutional conference. As I stated in my written reply of 24th July last year to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, we do not propose to reach a judgment on the case for a further process until we have received the report of the Constituency Boundaries Commission, which is due in a few weeks.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's response that some action may be expected in the near future as a result of the report. In view of the United Kingdom Government's role as the guardian of the democratic rights of the people of Bermuda, can she give a further assurance that Bermuda will be treated in the same way as other Overseas Territories, notably Gibraltar, and other Commonwealth countries, notably New Zealand and the Bahamas, where constitutional changes were adopted only after referendums or other similar mechanisms were used?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope I made clear in my original Answer that a constitutional conference has not been ruled out. But neither has it been ruled in. We have said in relation to this process that after the boundaries commission has reported, and after there has been an opportunity to discuss that report in Bermuda, that information will be fed into the British

737
Government. We will look at it; we will look at the reactions to the report; and we will make a decision at that time. It would be inappropriate for me to make any commitment before we have been through that process.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Minister will appreciate that, for obvious reasons and because of the job I had there, I have no wish to comment on the proposals for constitutional change put forward by the Bermuda Government. But does not a point of general importance emerge? Is it not correct that there was a constitutional conference in 1966 when constitutional change was in the wind, and another constitutional conference in 1979 when constitutional change was in the wind? It would have cost the Foreign Office nothing if it had allowed a constitutional conference right at the beginning of this exercise. Had there been a constitutional conference, would it not have gone some way towards disarming criticisms from people who fear that if there is no constitutional conference this time round a precedent will be set which might be relied on in years to come when very much more important constitutional change is in the wind?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is right—there were constitutional conferences in 1966 and 1979. There has been a process of consultation. Four consultation meetings have been held across the island and a wide cross-section of the community participated in those meetings. We have not ruled in or ruled out the possibility of a constitutional conference but, on the basis of the commitment to constitutional change made by the Government of Bermuda in their 1998 election manifesto, we thought that this was the most appropriate way to go. We will look at local reactions; we will look at the outcome of the boundaries commission report; and we will then make a decision on the next steps.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have recently returned from a few weeks in Bermuda having not been there for many years? Is she further aware that a great deal of concern has been expressed by many people to whom I spoke about the situation that faces them?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Baroness was recently in Bermuda. I am aware that concerns have been expressed. In fact a decision to put this matter to Order in Council was challenged by judicial review and overturned. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, there have been opportunities for consultation. We will look at the responses to that consultation process, the debate in the national assembly and the recommendations of the boundaries commission. I repeat, no decision has been
738
made. A constitutional conference has been neither ruled in nor out. Our minds remain open on this matter.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, bearing in mind that the largest constituency in Bermuda is underrepresented by 33 per cent and that the smallest is overrepresented by 42 per cent, does the boundaries commission have the power to look at other kinds of electoral systems, including a proportional multimember system, where the number of members is less likely to get out of kilter than under the present first-past-the-post, double-member system?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, why am I not surprised at the tone of the noble Lord's question? There are currently 20 two-member constituencies in Bermuda. The boundaries commission is looking at a variety of systems which would deliver no more than a maximum of 40 members for the assembly. I have no idea at this point what its recommendations will be, but as soon as we receive the report and are able to make it public, I shall of course send it to the noble Lord.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is it not a wise general principle when dealing with constitutional change to stick rigidly to the established procedures and to ensure all-party support? Does not that principle apply as much here as in Bermuda?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I have not made myself clear in the answers that I have given. There have been a number of instances of constitutional changes in our Overseas Territories—albeit some not as fundamental as this—where there has not been a constitutional conference or a referendum. It is important that there is a degree of agreement about the next steps. That is why we decided to consult, to have the boundaries commission look at the situation, to see what is the reaction of Bermudians to the proposals, and then to make a decision. As I have said a number of times, we have not ruled one process in or out. Our minds remain open on this matter.

Crime Statistics
2.59 p.m.
Viscount Astorasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they respond to the latest indications that crime is rising and detection rates are falling.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, national statistics on levels of crime will be published on 12th July. They will include the British Crime Survey and recorded crime statistics. Crime has fallen by 21 per cent since 1997 according to the 2001 British Crime Survey, which reflects victims' direct experience of crime. The Government's response to crime includes having the highest number ever of police officers in England and Wales and halving the time it takes to deal with persistent young

739
offenders from arrest to sentence. More needs to be done to increase yet further the number of police officers and to reform the criminal justice system.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for being able to answer my Question. What is his response to the statement by Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, calling for all the crime-fighting agencies to work together—and his implied criticism that in some cases not all the agencies are co-operating as they should be? What are the Government's plans to improve the situation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is extremely important that all of those organisations do work together. Equally, it is extremely important that the independence of the judiciary and the prosecutors should be preserved. Arrangements have been in place since 1997 to ensure that both at national and at local level there are good co-ordinating arrangements between the relevant agencies. Those arrangements have brought about co-ordination where it did not previously exist.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, whichever way he permutes the crime figures, does the noble and learned Lord accept that recent research indicates that in a number of police authorities crime is on the increase? Will he further accept that, now, fear of crime is much greater than crime itself? How does he expect the Prime Minister to fulfil his promise that street crime will be reduced by September?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords, early returns from certain police forces indicate that in some areas crime may be going up. We shall have to wait until 12th July to see whether it affects the overall figures. Fear of crime is an important issue, which we need to address by having an effective police force and an effective criminal justice system. So far as concerns the Prime Minister's street crime initiative, what has happened—picking up on the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—is that the agencies have all been working together with the priority of bearing down on street crime.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend explain why the 43 separate police forces in England find it either impossible or inconvenient to collect crime statistics on the same basis? In other words, 10 crimes in one force area turn out to be either 15 or five in two others. Does my noble and learned friend also accept that there is no correlation between the number of police officers and detection rates?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in response to the last point, detection rates do vary, and it does not necessarily depend on the number of police officers. As to the first question, of course it would be much more
740
convenient if all police forces recorded crimes on exactly the same basis. I hope that that is the direction in which we are travelling.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is juvenile crime recorded separately? I regularly read of people being too young to be brought before the courts. Will that be reflected in the statistics; and is any thought being given to dealing with the problem?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords, juvenile crime is recorded separately and that will be reflected in the statistics. Juvenile crime is a problem that affects many communities—particularly deprived communities—and many say that it is their number one concern. We have regarded it as a priority. As I said in my original Answer, we have halved the time that it takes from arrest to disposal of a case in relation to persistent young offenders. Delays in the criminal justice system are very undermining.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord take this opportunity to clarify the Government's intention as regards making evidence of prior convictions available to juries? The matter was left unclear when he talked to Mr Jeremy Paxman last night.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, when I spoke to Mr Jeremy Paxman, I indicated that a White Paper would be produced on 17th July in which a number of issues will be considered, including that raised by the noble Lord. It would be wrong for me to indicate—as I did not do yesterday—what the White Paper will say in relation to the issue.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the reports correct that much street crime involves the theft of mobile telephones? If so, are the Government in touch with the manufacturers so that they can make the necessary modifications to reduce those thefts?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure what the statistics indicate, but there are strong indications that mobile phones are one of the major targets in street crime. Yes, much can be done by the manufacturers making the value of the theft of a mobile phone very little indeed.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not true that the legislation that will be dealt with by this House tomorrow will have a huge effect on the crime statistics?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend has got me there; I do not know to which particular Bill he is referring.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, the Bill dealing with mobile telephones.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords, it will.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell us why Jeremy Paxman is so polite to him and so rude to others? The information might come in quite useful.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am unable to answer that question.
Lord Renton: My Lords, do the Government have specific proposals for reducing juvenile crime?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the increase in the number of police officers will reduce crime. In

741
addition, we believe that the changes to the criminal justice system, speeding up the process in relation to persistent young offenders, will have an effect on juvenile crime.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, referring to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, do the National Crime Statistics record offences committed by under-age children who cannot be charged in the courts? If not, should not some separate means be found of collecting information about the crimes that are committed by very young people, which appear to be on the increase?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. If the person committing an offence is below the age of criminal responsibility, I imagine that it is not recorded in crime statistics. I shall check on that and write to the noble Lord.

Enterprise Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 20th June
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given tomorrow to the Baroness David to advance her Motion for an humble Address to before the Committee stage of the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 23 [Federations of schools]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 14, line 25, after "government" insert "including members representing—

(i) parents at each school,

(ii) teachers at each school, and

(iii) such other categories as may be appropriate, given the religious or other character of each school within the federation"

742
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by putting a technical question to the Minister. If I ask it at the start of our debates, that will allow more time for an answer to be sought. Would a school that was a company under the companies proposals in the Bill, or a school that had formed part of a company, be allowed to join a federation of schools where the others in the federation were not part of that company or companies? Would the governing body of the federation become the new shareholder of the company; and would those governors who were the governors of the federation have to assume all the responsibilities of being company directors?
As has been stated in previous debates, schools may collaborate, co-ordinate, even confederate. It is agreed that there is much that they can do together. All the advantages mentioned by the Minister when arguing in support of these clauses can be achieved without formal federation under a single governing body.
The sovereignty of each school is affected by these proposals. There are bound to be occasions when a single governing body will take a decision which it deems to be in the interest of the group of schools that it represents, but it may not seem quite like that to an individual school in the group. Therefore, a confederate arrangement whereby schools retain their sovereignty through their own governing body, representing their own parents, staff and community, would allow for greater flexibility.
There is nothing to stop schools coming together in an alliance with one or more schools to achieve a more educationally effective or even a more economically effective service. They could designate governors and/or staff to form joint committees for particular projects. To use the European Union jargon, the pertinent phrase here is "variable geometry".
To have a single governing body for all purposes really is turning the clock back. We all remember the bad old days when one governing body represented large numbers of schools. We certainly do not wish to return to that situation. It is only a matter of months since the Government themselves argued that a school should have a governing body.
A school that over time became unhappy about the single governing body proposed in the Bill would have to go through a process to leave the federation. Under confederation there would be far more freedom and schools would retain autonomy where it mattered to them and—here is the great bonus—they would not need yet more regulations dealing with dissolution, continuity arrangements when a school joins or leaves the group, transitional arrangements, the transfer of property, rights and liabilities procedures and—the sting in the tail as always—any other matter considered appropriate by the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 46 has been tabled in the event that we are unsuccessful in securing support for taking Clause 23 out of the Bill, or in the event of Amendment No. 49 not proving successful. If a school relinquishes its governing body in order to pool governance under a single governing body for a group of schools, it is important that parents and staff of the school should

743
be represented. If a school has a distinct character, for example a faith school and/or a specialist school—I include here a special educational needs school—that dimension should also be represented on the federal governing body.
Once again we are attempting to secure the same aims and objectives as the Government. However, we believe that the proposals as set out in the Bill are more, not less, inhibiting. I believe that my amendments, and Amendment No. 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, offer greater flexibility and greater protection for schools and their interests. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 47, which is included in the group of amendments that we are discussing and which deals with a rather specific point within the purport of this group of amendments.
I believe that some of my noble friends thought that I went rather over the top in Committee as regards my support for the federation of schools. I continue to be an enthusiastic supporter, as does the Board of Education of the Church of England, of which I am the chair. We see our role as one of encouraging schools to see the advantages of federation in terms of improving the quality of the educational experience of pupils and reducing the workload of teachers and governing bodies, not least in parts of the country where it is difficult on occasion to find and to attract suitably qualified people to act as governors.
But that said, we see the federation of schools as contributing substantially to the promotion of social inclusion—a matter which has occupied your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. It is possible that, within diverse communities, a Muslim school for example might be encouraged to join a federation with an Anglican school and two or three local community schools. That would be a good example of community coherence and I imagine that the Government would want to support wholeheartedly such developments. That is all the more reason why federations of schools should allow the ethos of each individual school to remain intact. As I understand it, that is part of the purpose of Amendment No. 46 of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Religious and diocesan authorities will have that concern particularly in mind. I understand from my helpful meeting with the Minister since the Committee stage that the Government share that intention.
Since these matters were debated in Committee, I have had helpful discussions with the Minister and her officials which have helped to allay some of our concerns, but, I have to say, not all of them—hence the tabling of Amendment No. 47 this afternoon. Our concern continues that only voluntary-aided schools seem to have been considered and nothing has been said about voluntary-controlled schools whose individual religious characters are important to the Church of England and not least to our rural parishes where a large number of those controlled schools are
744
to be found and are seen as playing a great part in those local communities to the satisfaction of both the Church and the local community.
Arrangements have been identified with regard to staffing individual schools that make provision for the appointment of a head but not for a proportion of the other staff where joint staff appointments are to be made. That is a matter of continuing concern to us. I refer to an appeal where there is disagreement over an instrument which, of course, is made to the Secretary of State, but there is no indication so far as we can discover of the principles on which the Secretary of State might decide such a case.
I refer to an exit strategy that leaves the final decision with the governing body of the federated schools without any process of appeal at all as far as we can see. Therefore, until those matters are resolved, it is necessary to press for an absolute veto for diocesan authorities and, in the case of Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or other religious schools that might be encouraged into federations, for those who appoint the foundation governors to have such a veto. The existence of such a veto in law is not something I would prefer but it might encourage more religious authorities and their schools to explore the possibility of federation—to which I am anxious to lend full support—with all the advantages that I have outlined. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will hear this continuing concern and will be able to help me a little further when she replies to the amendments.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, when we discussed this issue in Committee I made it clear that we on these Benches had great reservations about the concept of federation. Subsection (3)(a) of Clause 23 states clearly,
"Where any schools are federated by virtue of this section, they shall—
(a) have a single governing body constituted under a single instrument of government".
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, in the 1960s and the early 1970s there were groups of schools under large single managing boards., as they were called in those days. Those were bad old days. It has been extraordinarily good for schools to develop their own individual governing boards and to use them as a means of linking into the community.
We have been somewhat reassured in our discussions with the Minister, partly because in those discussions it became clear that it is entirely up to each individual board to decide whether or not to go forward with the matter. We are aware that on occasion boards of school governors can be under the influence of heads and heads may want to adopt this measure rather more than others do. However, the decision would be taken by the governing board. Some infant and junior schools share the same school campus and it might be a good idea for them to have a single board. However, we were worried about groups of schools coming together, and being encouraged to come together, as clusters, but actually

745
being forced under one governing board. It is for that reason that we put forward Amendment No. 49 which concerns confederation.
Provided that we reach agreement on the concept of confederations, we on these Benches are at the moment prepared to go along with the notion of federations. I am not on this occasion speaking strongly against federations.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shared the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about federations, but in general my fears on that subject have been allayed, as I think that she said that hers have been. I should like to address my remarks to Amendment No. 47 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I shall not weary your Lordships with my views on religious schools. But given that we are going to have such schools—it is clear that my view is a minority view—it seems to me that the right reverend Prelate is entirely right in raising the matter that he raises. I have no idea what my noble friend the Minister will say, but I hope that she will respond positively to his request.
My only concern—I should be interested to hear what the right reverend Prelate says on this—is that I would have been slightly happier if his amendment had included, on the question of consent, an additional subsection saying that such consent should not be unreasonably withheld. Other than that, it seems to me that if we are to have such schools, exactly what the right reverend Prelate says is right. I would be most unhappy if the position remained that everyone involved with the school was in favour but, for example, the diocesan authority, on perhaps doctrinaire grounds—I hate to use that expression— simply said "No". Subject to "not unreasonably withheld", therefore, it seems to me that the right reverend Prelate is entirely right, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can to some extent respond positively to his desires.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, having spoken on this clause on an earlier occasions. I understand the point made by the right reverend Prelate. He did not particularly emphasise the delicate position of those half of the Church of England schools that are voluntarily controlled, in which what I might call the foundation governors are a very small minority of the total. I understand why the right reverend Prelate has raised the point, but I am glad that he has raised it on behalf of all faiths. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
I had anxieties at the earlier stage that the concept of federation left an only one governing body solution. I very much welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, on confederation. It seems to me to be a very sensible and fruitful way forward in many areas—for example, in solving the problem that may arise in sixth forms, or to maintain the individual schools, yet come together for
746
particular purposes. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would anticipate the debate on Amendment No. 49.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope that it will be convenient for me to address these amendments by first giving a brief explanation of how we see federated schools under a single governing body fitting into the wider picture—a point to which noble Lords have already partly alluded.
Our starting point is that federations should enable schools to work strategically together to promote greater collaboration for the purposes of improving standards. However, federation under a single governing body is not the only option. As noble Lords have said, there are already many ways in which schools can collaborate. Under the Bill, we propose to add to that range of options, but it will be for individual schools to decide how and in what form they want to collaborate. How schools decide to do that will greatly depend on what they wish to achieve, how closely they wish to work together, and the level of trust that the partner schools have in each other, particularly when they are considering federating under a single governing body.
At one end of the spectrum we have, for example, informal working and the development of joint curriculum initiatives that are already in place. Of course, such arrangements rely on professional staff coming together. Those arrangements work because people are committed to making them work. In Clause 29 of the Bill, we make provision for governing bodies to come together formally to take joint decisions, either through joint meetings of whole governing bodies or by setting up joint committees with delegated powers. That would allow governors to be involved in taking strategic decisions of mutual benefit to those schools and their pupils.
The amendment to consider confederation of schools, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will be debated later today. I look forward to that debate. It seems to me that many schools may be inclined to consider the option of coming forward together in a formal way, while at the same time retaining their own individual governing bodies. I do not want to over-anticipate the debate. However, for the purposes of demonstrating the range of options, we want that spectrum of collaboration to provide a confederation option, with each school retaining its governing body, while ceding functions to an overarching strategic board. That is an option to which I am very attracted.
Clauses 23 and 24 allow for two or more schools formally to federate. For some schools, federation may be a step too far to contemplate, certainly initially. Some schools may want to put a toe in the water and first try a joint committee approach to see how working relationships develop. For those schools that want to slide gently in from the shallow side, a confederation arrangement may provide a useful halfway option on their way to deciding whether that is the route for them.

747
None of those arrangements needs to be written in tablets of stone for any school. A decision now to take one course does not pre-empt any school moving on at a later date, and no school will be forced to do anything that it does not want to do. Schools may want to move across the spectrum as relationships develop. The various options within this collaboration continuum will allow them to do that.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, argued strongly against the degrouping of schools when the School Standards and Framework Act was debated in 1998. Now that I have set the question of federation in a broader context, I hope that the noble Baroness may see the merit in making that option available to some schools.
I turn specifically to Amendment No. 46. The noble Baroness asked me whether a school forming a company would be allowed to join a federation. The answer is that it would. She also asked whether the governing body of the federation would be the company shareholder. The answer is that it would. Of course, those matters will be subject to all the discussion and debate that schools will have before taking that option.
I want to reiterate again that governing bodies of federations will be required broadly to comply with the stakeholder principles recommended by the Way Forward Group, which, under Clause 18 of the Bill, will be set out in regulations. We believe that it is vital to ensure that a fair balance of interests between the key stakeholders—parents, staff, local education authorities, community, foundation and partnership governors—is secured.
I turn to specific stakeholder groups. In relation to parent governors, we intend to regulate that at least one parent representative from each school within a federation will sit on the governing body of the federation. I understand how important it is that is that schools within a federation remain accountable to the parents of the pupils in each school.
With regard to staff, we do not think that it would be sensible to require each school within a federation to have staff representation on the governing body. One of the goals for federation is to allow strategic collaboration to enhance the joint working that already takes place. We are aware that in many cases schools are already sharing resources, such as staff and facilities. Largely because of that possibility of schools sharing staff, we believe that it should be left to the governing bodies of the schools involved to propose the appropriate staff representation from each school on the governing body of the federation.
With regard to the other stakeholder groups, I again reassure noble Lords that, whatever the combination of schools involved in the federation, each stakeholder group particular to the category of any one school proposing to federate will be represented on the governing body. That means that within a federation including voluntary or foundation schools there will always be a foundation or partnership governor.
748
I turn to Amendment No. 47. As the right reverend Prelate is aware, the effect of the amendment would be to give the diocesan authority and foundation interests the power of veto over whether certain kinds of school can decide to federate. I believe that my position is consistent, if not to the liking of the right reverend Prelate. The governing body of a school is in the best position to take a balanced decision on whether a federation is in the best interests of its school. However, in the hope of answering some of his queries, I should like to give the right reverend Prelate some detail of the work behind this, and I do so in the spirit of having said on Monday that my door is always open and that there is always room for further consideration.
As part of the decision-making process on whether or not to federate, the governing body will have to consult all interested parties, including parents, staff, community and local education authority interests. Importantly, of course, it will also include trustees, diocesan interests and foundation interests, each of which will be treated as separate entities in the consultation process. I can reassure your Lordships that I fully appreciate the importance of that consultation process. That is why we shall be setting out clear procedures for governing bodies to follow, to ensure that the consultation process is consistent, thorough and fair to each interested party.
Let me assure the House that we shall not remove any rights currently enjoyed by bodies in relation to agreeing the instrument of government. In respect of maintained schools that have foundation governors, the governing body and the education authority of a school are currently required to agree the instrument of government, as well as any alterations to it, with the foundations interests, including those who appoint foundation governors, trustees and, of course, the diocesan authority.
We shall regulate so that that requirement will also apply for the instrument of government to be developed for schools with foundation governors that are federated under a single governing body. If any of the parties I have mentioned, including the diocesan authority, disagree with the instrument of government, or any alterations to it, for a school within a federation involving foundation governors, the particular case will be referred to the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend, having taken representations from the relevant parties, will then arbitrate and come to a final decision. That is exactly the same process that currently successfully applies to any maintained school with foundation governors. It will ensure that the dioceses have the protection of arbitration by the Secretary of State if they disagree with the proposal to federate.
The Secretary of State would need to use her arbitration powers to consider the arguments put forward by the relevant parties on a case-by-case basis. In considering each dispute, she would take into account the differing views. She would weigh any concerns expressed, for example, about the number of governors and the balance of stakeholder interests against any relevant provisions in regulations and

749
associated guidance. Of course, we intend to consult widely on the content of the provisions before they come into effect.
Any of the stakeholder groups, including diocesan boards and trustee interests, will be able to petition a governing body to request that a school leaves the federation. I appreciate that the case may arise where parents and teachers at a school with a religious character feel that it is in the best interests of the school to have its own governing body again, whereas the diocesan board may take a different view. However, as with the proposals to join a federation, the decision to exit should also be taken by the governing body. The whole purpose of federations is to promote collaboration and partnership. It will not benefit pupils if schools are held unwillingly against the wishes of staff and parents.
I understand that many of the concerns highlighted by the right reverend Prelate are related to the fact that we cannot guarantee a foundation majority on the governing body of a mixed-category federation involving voluntary-aided schools and the consequent fear that the religious character of schools in such a federation will be diminished. I repeat my assurance that federation cannot be used in any way to alter the religious character and structural arrangements of a school.
I want to give a practical example of how we shall ensure that the governing body of a mixed-category federation achieves that. We appreciate that, in particular, the appointment of the head teacher may be vital in maintaining the character of a voluntary-aided school. Therefore, we have agreed that if the governing body of a mixed-category federation involving voluntary-aided schools wishes to appoint a common head teacher, the voluntary-aided foundation governor representatives who sit on the federation's governing body will have the right to veto the appointment of the head to their school if they believe that such an appointment would be detrimental to maintaining the religious character of the school.
We are also aware of the issue of reserved teachers in schools with a religious character. If any of those schools opted to share staff within a mixed-category federation with schools of other categories, we would make provision to ensure that, if they wished to appoint reserved teachers, they could continue to do so in accordance with Section 58(5) of the 1998 Act in exactly the same way as individual voluntary-controlled and foundation schools with a religious character are able to do now.
Perhaps I may briefly mention another safeguard which we shall put in place in relation to shared staffing. If schools decide to share staff ahead of federating, then we shall require that to be included in the federation proposals which each school's governing body develops and consults on and which, subsequent to this comprehensive consultation, it is required to accept or reject. If at a later date it is proposed by the federation governing body that schools should share staff after federation occurs, then we shall allow the foundation representatives of
750
voluntary-aided schools to exercise a veto which would exclude their schools from such arrangements if they considered that the sharing of staff would be detrimental to preserving the religious character of their schools.
We shall, of course, discuss with the Churches how a similar arrangement could be written in to allow for the preservation of reserved teachers in a controlled or foundation school with a religious character. In any case, the governing body of a federation will be under a duty to preserve the religious ethos of any school with a religious character.
I hope that that bears testimony to our commitment to ensuring that federations do not diminish the religious ethos of individual schools which choose to become involved in such arrangements. As I hope the right reverend Prelate knows, I am available to him to discuss this matter.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 48. Effectively, this amendment means that schools would not be able to federate. We believe that that would undermine what we see as an important part of the scope for those who wish to collaborate. Federation would allow them to take strategic decisions to improve educational standards across the board by coming together under a single governing body. I believe that federations could yield real benefits and advantages.
I hope that, in speaking to these amendments, I have reassured noble Lords that we have put in place solid safeguards to ensure that each school within a federation retains its own character and structure and remains accountable as an individual school. I do not deny that federations will involve some compromises, particularly where mixed-category federations are involved. However, I firmly believe that the potential for the outcome of improved educational standards through strategic collaboration is a worthwhile objective that should be open to all maintained schools, regardless of their category.
Federation is voluntary. It is for the governing body of each school to decide whether it wishes to federate. No element of compulsion is involved. I ask that we trust schools to decide for themselves whether the improvements that could be gained through federation justify the compromises that may have to be made.
Perhaps I may sum up by placing federations in context. They offer schools one, but by no means the only, model for strategic collaboration. In the light of that, I believe that the option of federation should be open to schools. However, for schools that do not wish to give up their existing governing bodies, federation is not the answer. I hope that with the explanation and assurances that I have provided, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the very detailed reply that she has given both to me and to the right reverend Prelate. Before I respond to what she said, perhaps I may ask two questions because I believe that in the course of that very long answer I missed the relevant points.

751
First, did the noble Baroness say that the parents, but not necessarily the staff, of every single school will be represented on the federal governing body; that is, that each school will not necessarily have a staff representative? Secondly, does the federal governing body become the employer of all staff, including those of a faith school?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the answer to the first question is, as the noble Baroness said, that there will be a parent representative from each school. With regard to staff, we know that some schools already share staffing. Therefore, it will be for them to decide how they organise their staff representation, and there will not be a requirement for a representative to be available from each school.
The employment of staff would take place as if the governing bodies had come together, and responsibility for employment would rest with the LEA or the school, as appropriate. Therefore, the one governing body would act on behalf of what had been the individual governing bodies. That would be the position.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall have to read the answer to that question in Hansard. My understanding is that the employer of staff at a faith school is the governing body and not the local education authority. Where the local education authority is the employer of all the other schools, I can see that continuing; it would not change as a result of federation. However, the single-faith school within that organisation would have different employers. Therefore, the sharing of staff, to which the noble Baroness has just referred, would have some legal and constitutional interests that have not been properly addressed.
Ultimately, what makes for good education is the quality of the teacher in the classroom teaching the children. That is what affects the teaching and the learning. They will not be affected by endless committees and collaborations, with people coming together on joint committees. Ultimately, what matters is that, if it does not add value to the quality of the teaching and learning in the classroom, then it will be to no avail.
In previous debates, I have referred to the fact that I have first-hand experience of federations. We federated quite a long time ago, particularly in rural areas where the schools were very small. We believed that the pain of closing schools could be alleviated by bringing them together in a federation, and, indeed, staff-sharing took place. But we were defeated by our own good idea. We were defeated because, in the end, the logistics of sharing staff and of either moving children to meet staff or staff to meet children became so debilitating and time-consuming and so interfered with the curriculum that the arrangement was counterproductive. In the end, sadly, that federal idea was changed.
752
Some of the noble Baroness's answers were very well intentioned. I understood, in particular, her response to some of the points raised by the right reverend Prelate concerning what would occur if this happened and what would occur if the other happened. The noble Baroness's constant response was, "We shall make sure in regulations that they will not be able to do this or that". Therefore, we are already creating a federation which will come together to act jointly in several respects. Then, suddenly, caveats are made stating that they are free to do this but that they cannot do that, and that they are free to do something else but they cannot do the other. I can see that a very complicated set of guidelines and guidance will be issued to schools and that regulations will come before Parliament so that the noble Baroness is able to put some flesh on the bones of the pledges made during the course of the response today.
Much of that said by the Minister is not in the Bill and is not even among the subjects that will be covered by regulations. We shall have nothing to fall back on other than the Pepper v. Hart system: "It was stated in Hansard". We will have to wait until some time in the future, to make sure that it happens. There is no legal requirement for some of the safeguards to be in the Bill. We have only the Minister's word for it— which I do not doubt for a minute. However, the noble Baroness will move on, as will her colleague in another place, and upwards. Good people do not stay in office for ever. We must legislate in such a way that protection is provided for the children, staff and parents—not for Ministers, councillors or third parties.
There is so much that schools can do now, collaboratively and collectively. The Minister says that the main aim is to enable schools to work strategically together. They can do that and engage in joint curriculum initiatives, and governing bodies can come together, now. No legislation is needed for that.
The Minister also says that there is no need for everything to be written on tablets of stone. My argument is that the federation proposed in the Bill is a tablet of stone. Once entered into, the only way to disengage will be by a legal process that a school may find quite daunting. There is a good possibility that tension will arise.
A great deal of funding does not come through core funding, which is much under threat, but from the department—with individual schools having to bid through their governing bodies. It is conceivable that a governing body would take the view that some funds need bidding for in respect of certain schools but not necessarily all. When the governing body has to determine priorities, it may be that some schools within the federation will be preferred and win while others will not be preferred and will lose. A school may feel aggrieved but there will be no one to represent it. The body that is taking decisions in the name of the school will be the federal governing body.

753
I am more in tune with the notion of a confederation, which offers all the benefits of a federation with flexibility. Where a school wants to use its own sovereign power, it could do that through its own governing body.
The Minister referred to dispute resolution procedures. Because the Bill is so binding, there must be such procedures. A school that feels aggrieved but does not wish to dislocate from the federation will nevertheless want the problem resolved.
I am grateful for the Minister's answer that the federation's governing body will subsume or assume the responsibilities of being the company's shareholder. Under company law, not DfES law, would that count as a takeover or as a sale—with the single governing body of the one school selling it on to the federal governing body of a group of schools? There needs to be some procedure whereby a company can be owned by a completely new set of people. It is not only likely but highly probable that all the governors of a school that is a company or part of a company will not become governors of the federal body.
Where a company has been formed with two or three other schools, as the new arrangement kicks in there will be a federal arrangement comprising five schools plus the company. Will it be responsible only for that company as part of the company or will it become a much larger company of five plus three schools? Culpability, liability and all the other responsibilities of being a company come into play.
I do not know what to do at this moment because I need answers to some of my questions.
I like to think that there is support in all parts of the House for Amendment No. 46. The Minister says that the parents associated with each school will be represented on the new governing body. That safeguard is not in the Bill; it should be. I believe that teachers should be represented on the governing body. If teachers at four out of the five schools were represented, teachers at the fifth school would on some occasions feel disfranchised because the school's entire staff would not be represented on the governing body. It will be the governors who decide.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the principle in the proposed subsection (3)(a)(iii) would be met, so that a special needs or faith school would be represented. That too is not in the Bill. From what I have heard from the right reverend Prelate, from colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and other noble Lords who have spoken at other stages of the Bill, I believe that to have these measures on the face of the Bill would be popular. By pressing Amendment No. 46, I am saying that the Government have agreed that parents and other specialist categories will be represented and I am adding to that the staff of each school. I seek to test the opinion of the House.
3.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 155.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jopling, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Avebury, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Biffen, L.

Laird, L.

Blatch, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Boardman,L.

Lucas, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Briggs, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Byford, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Campbell of Croy.L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Naseby, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Noakes, B.

Cox, B.

Northesk, E.

Craigavon, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Crathome, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Palmer, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dundee, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elles,B.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Freeman, L.

Rogan, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Garel- Jones, L.

Sharples, B.

Glentoran, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Hooson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Waddington, L.

Howe of ldlicote, B.

Warnock, B.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Weatherill, L.

Hurd of Westwell,L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Addington, L.

Burlison, L.

Ahmed, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Alli,L.

Carter, L.

Amos, B.

Chorley.L.

Ampthill, L.

Christopher, L.

Andrews, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Bach,L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Crawley,B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

David, B.

Bhatia, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Billingham, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Dealing, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dholakia, L.

Borrie, L.

Dixon, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Dubs,L.

Brookman, L.

Eatwell, L.

755

Elder, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Newby, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Orme, L.

Fearn, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Filkin, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Fitt, L.

Pendry, L.

Gale, B.

Peston, L.

Geraint, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Golding, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goodhart, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Quirk, L.

Goudie, B.

Radice, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rea,L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Redesdale, L.

Hardy of Wath.L.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Richard, L.

Harrison, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Haskins, L.

Rooker, L.

Hayman, B.

Russell, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sharp of Guildford.B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sheldon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shutt of Greetland,L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Stallard,L.

Islwyn, L.

Stokes, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jones, L.

Strange, B.

Jordan, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Judd,L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Tenby,V.

Levy, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lipsey, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lockwood, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Uddin, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Walmsley, B.

Walpole, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Warner, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

McNally, L.

Whitaker, B.

Maddock, B.

Whitty, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Massey of Darwen, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburnhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 47.
Page 14, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) A school that is a Church of England school, a Church in Wales school or a Roman Catholic Church school shall not be federated without the consent of the appropriate diocesan authority, and where a federation referred to in subsection (1) includes such a school, the instrument of government for the federation shall not be changed without the consent of the appropriate diocesan authority.
756
( ) In the case of a foundation school, a foundation special school or a voluntary school which has a religious character but is not a Church of England school, a Church in Wales school or a Roman Catholic Church school, the school shall not be federated without the consent of the persons who appoint the foundation governors of the school, and where a federation referred to in subsection (1) includes such a school, the instrument of government for the federation shall not be changed without the consent of those persons."
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, with apologies to the House, I had intended to move Amendment No. 47. In many ways this amendment is quite different from that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for what I believe was a helpful suggestion. If we were to return to the matter at Third Reading I would certainly consider that. I wish that I had thought of it myself. However, I do not believe that I shall return to the matter at Third Reading because I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her detailed reply that she has put on the record about the various and many questions that I raised in regard to voluntary schools, and in particular to Church schools if they were to go into federation. I found that most helpful because she also included matters such as reserve teachers whom I had not specifically mentioned, but they were at the back of my mind. I am enormously grateful for that.
We shall want to read carefully that reply, but my feeling is that we have now achieved what we wanted to achieve with regard to federation. Therefore I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
"CONFEDERATION OF SCHOOLS
(1) Where the governing bodies of two or more maintained schools wish to work together and co-operate in a manner similar to that of a federation of schools but do not wish to dissolve and merge their respective governing bodies, they may, after consultation with the local education authority, form a confederation of schools.
(2) If the governing bodies of the constituent schools agree, the confederation may make arrangements for any of their functions to be discharged jointly or by a joint committee as designated in section 29.
(3) A confederation shall not involve any transfer of property, rights or liabilities from or between local education authorities and the governing bodies of the respective schools."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I was prompted to table this amendment as a result of a discussion in Committee when it became clear to me that a number of noble Lords welcomed the idea of schools working together, but did not like the idea of them having to merge their governing boards. As on Amendment No. 46, on the face of the Bill there is a requirement that federated schools have a single governing board; that the existing boards are dissolved and that a new governing board is formed. Therefore, it seemed to me that if there is the notion of the single governing board—what one may call the "federal solution"—there should also be a confederal solution in which

757
individual schools can retain their governing boards, but work together in strategic collaboration for precisely the purposes that the Minister explained. She made the point frequently that federations are there to promote collaboration and partnership.
A great deal of collaboration and partnership is taking place and it struck me that one does not have to have the solution of dissolving the board of governors. I return to the point I made earlier that it is extremely important that on the whole schools should have an individual board of governors. That is a vital channel into the local community that they serve and it is necessary that they are retained. Not only is there an innate feeling that it is a good idea to have collaboration of one sort or another of the variable geometry model to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred, but it is followed through in The Evaluation of the Role of Teachers in Education Action Zones by PricewaterhouseCoopers commissioned by the NUT. It shows that programmes which support schools in working together and in planning the allocation and distribution of resources and projects have resulted in a shift towards a more collegiate approach to educational provision.
The development of school clusters—pioneered in particular in Birmingham by Tim Brighouse—whether or not triggered by government programmes, has helped to break down some of the needless rivalry and competition for pupils fostered by recent education reforms. The clusters have led to a better understanding by schools of each other's needs and have encouraged the sharing of good practice between schools.
It became clear in Committee that the notion of a Muslim school, a Church of England school and a Catholic school working together as a confederation is wholly acceptable although one does not want to lose the individual governing boards of those schools because they represent the religious ethos in the schools. It seems to me that we need on the face of the Bill something which makes clear the case for this proposal.
I discovered a nice little clause in the Bill, Clause 29, under the heading "Arrangements for joint discharge of functions". In a sense that allows groups of schools to set up joint committees to fulfil any function that one wants it to perform. In other words, the effect is that the legislation already covers my idea of the confederation. The Minister will probably say that we do not need the new clause on the face of the Bill because we already have it.
I feel rather strongly that the problem with the prominence given to confederation and the total lack of prominence given to this little clause about joint functions is disproportionate. My own guess is that the majority of schools would prefer to confederate rather than to federate and that they would prefer to keep their own governing boards. The notion, if put to them, would probably prove quite attractive. But it is not publicised in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say that we should not worry, that the idea is thoroughly approved of and that the legislation
758
already exists but that the title of that little clause to which I referred could perhaps be changed to incorporate something more positive from my amendment.
The idea I have put forward says,
"Where the governing bodies of two or more maintained schools wish to work together and co-operate in a manner similar to that of a federation of schools but do not wish to dissolve and merge their respective governing bodies, they may, after consultation with the local education authority, form a confederation of schools".
I would like that positive statement somewhere in the Bill; that is why we tabled this amendment. We believe that it fulfils a need. It is important that it is flagged up as an opportunity for schools. It seems to me that it meets precisely what the Government want in terms of promoting collaboration and partnership to form joint strategic committees where desired. At the moment there is a lacuna in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I said, I believe that where schools wish to collaborate of their own volition they should be allowed to do so. In these times of unprecedented central control of schools, so far as possible that should be encouraged. However, if they are intending to work together, the sovereignty of each governing body should be retained. I feel that very strongly; that is why I tabled my previous amendment. It would have strengthened federation with representation of staff and parents and specialisms of each school in the federation. I find it almost incomprehensible that the Government. with a good deal of support throughout the Chamber, should vote against the notion that the teachers of each school are represented on the federal governing body. I believe strongly in the sovereignty of the individual school. Amendment No. 49 on the face of the Bill would encourage more schools to have all the benefits of collaboration without all the disbenefits of central bureaucracy.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I, too, lend my support to this amendment. It seems to follow the logic that I have been so concerned about in bringing together varieties of schools and diversity where appropriate. It is another way which may be more appropriate to some schools. The two noble Baronesses who have spoken have made that very clear. We on these Benches lend our support to the idea. It needs to be spelt out in the manner suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the idea.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, it is clear from what I said on the last amendment that I very much welcome this amendment. This is the way in which education generally should go. It is so obvious that higher education needs to rethink its structures, not necessarily through the merger of institutions which is difficult to achieve, but by confederation in which they agree to do certain things together. It may lead to something more, but this must be the way. The increased use of communication and information technology facilitates such arrangements. I would like

759
to see such arrangements extend across the traditional boundaries to sixth form colleges and perhaps also to FE colleges. A move into the 14 to 19 approach would break down the barriers between schools and FE colleges and allow collaboration in the provision for that group. It could make sense to include FE colleges within the framework of confederation arrangements.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am lost. We all believe that collaboration is a good idea where the schools themselves agree. But it may well be that I fell asleep during the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She alluded to Clause 29. My noble friend the Minister may be able to elucidate, but it seems to me that that clause contains everything that the noble Baroness has in mind other than the word "confederation". I am not at all clear what we would gain by agreeing the amendment as opposed to Clause 29. The clause enables schools to collaborate in anything they might find to their joint advantage. I am all in favour of putting things on the face of the Bill, but in this case—unless I have misunderstood the Bill—it is already there. Perhaps my noble friend can explain what I have missed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question so that the noble Baroness can respond to it and extend the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. What is illegal now about two governing bodies working exactly as described in Clause 29?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I agree with the principle behind the amendment and that I am eager to ensure that we make provision to allow for the form of collaboration that the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Warmsley, have asked for, including consultation with local education authorities.
I recognise that to support and encourage that development it is important to have alternative governance arrangements in place for schools that want to collaborate strategically but do not want to go as far as dissolving their governing body and ceding all their functions to a single federated governing body. In response to earlier amendments, I said that this is about ensuring that we have the options available to allow schools to decide for themselves which is the best way forward in terms of the collaboration that they want to have.
As noble Lords will know, some schools want to pursue full federation. Others will feel that relinquishing their governing body would be too high a price to pay for the ability to have a single body to take certain key decisions. However, I am mindful that no schools in education action zones—the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned them—chose to cede all their responsibilities to an EAZ forum. Therefore, I understand that schools may be reluctant to pursue the federation route, particularly where mixed category federations involving schools of a religious character could be involved.
760
We want to create an opportunity for schools to put their toe in the water or to slide slowly into the shallow end on their way to what will be the best collaborative model. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that we have included provision within the Bill and my noble friend Lord Peston is correct. Clause 29 does do that. It allows for schools to collaborate strategically without disbanding their individual governing bodies. That clause allows for two or more governing bodies to delegate certain functions to a joint committee, as well as allowing for a joint committee between two or more schools' whole governing bodies.
The noble Baroness asked whether that was allowed. She will be aware that under the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 the decision to prevent schools from having other collaboration—infant and junior schools being the classic example—meant that it was more difficult for them to set up strategic groupings of committees that could take decisions. This puts back into legislation the ability to do that and that is precisely what we are trying to do.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 prevented the governing bodies from joining and not their joint working; namely, governing bodies working with each other as sovereign governing bodies.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords. I shall need to write to the noble Baroness to be precise about that. However, my understanding is that there were some issues surrounding committees being able to collaborate effectively on behalf of other governing bodies. We shall need to ensure that we have clarified that correctly, but that is my understanding.
I am advised that Clause 29 does allow for delegations or the ceding of certain key strategic decisions to an overarching strategy or policy committee; namely, a confederation option. I agree with the principles behind that. I have indicated to the noble Baroness that the amendment itself contains some technical issues. I am mindful of the words that the noble Baroness used about being disproportionate. I believe that where the noble Baroness is driving us is to ensure that we do not put federations and confederations in different places in terms of how schools feel that we are looking to them.
Therefore, I should like to propose to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that between now and Third Reading we might have a conversation to ensure that we achieve the objective I believe we both share—to demonstrate that the legislation is entirely adequate to that end. In the course of doing that, we shall discuss with parliamentary counsel what more could be done on the face of the Bill. I hope that with that reassurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. Perhaps I may use this opportunity to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, by saying yes. The title of the clause did

761
not indicate that it was supposed to be positively encouraging the coming together of schools in this way. I believe that, bearing in mind the prominence given in the Bill to federations, this clause at the end of the chapter is not enough. That is why I deliberately said to the Minister that I realise that the clause is here, and that her answer was going to be that we have already got the powers. I am now saying that the powers may be there but I would like to see more prominence given to them. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Minister further between now and Third Reading. Perhaps we can then return with something that is jointly agreeable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 26 [Limits on power to provide community facilities etc.]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 50:
Page 16. line 27, leave out "to a significant extent"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 26(3) reads:
"A governing body shall exercise the power conferred by section 25( I ) only if and to the extent that they are satisfied that anything which they propose to do will not to a significant extent interfere with the performance of any duty imposed on them by section 20(2) or by any other provision of the Education Acts".
I am arguing that anything which interferes with the performance of any duty of a school to educate children should not be allowed.
Section 20(2) refers to the conduct of the school and the requirement to promote high standards. However, that is undermined by Clause 26(3) which states:
"A governing body shall exercise the power conferred by section 25(1) only if and to the extent that they are satisfied that anything which they propose to do will not to a significant extent interfere with the performance of any duty imposed on them".
It is of concern that the legislation provides for the governing body to do anything which will interfere with that duty—not just to "a significant extent". What constitutes "significant" is not defined in the Bill and no light has been thrown on what "significant extent" meant when the issue was brought up at the previous stage of the Bill.
Is my understanding correct that the governors of each school have carte blanche to determine what "to a significant extent" actually means? In addition, should governors define what,
"interfere with the performance of any duty"
means?
When the noble Baroness responded to the debate on this issue on 9th May, she said:
"The inclusion of the wording "to a significant extent" ensures that insignificant incidental effects on a school's main educational role are not seen as obstacles that would prevent worthwhile services being established. For instance, it might be argued that adults using an ICT suite on school premises during school hours could potentially impact on teachers' and pupils' flexibility to use that suite". [Official Report, 9/5/02; col. 1372.]
762
If adults using the ICT suite on school premises did impact on teachers and pupils in that school then it should not be allowed. Therefore, I am arguing that schools should not have their work to educate and teach children and children's learning interfered with at all.
The governing body's first and foremost duty is to the pupils at the school. Nothing should be allowed to distract them from that key task. Therefore, it would be helpful if the legislation required them to satisfy the local education authority that their proposals will not interfere with the performance of their duty. The governing body should conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement at the school and that work should not be impeded by any outside activity. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 51 which is grouped with Amendment No. 50. When that part of the Bill was discussed in Committee I reassured the Minister that from these Benches we are supportive of the many ways in which schools are developing their links with the community and embedding community facilities within the school environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who is not in her place today, outlined some valuable and impressive initiatives which we all welcome.
However, we expressed concern that the need to consult parents and teachers about the provision of community facilities on the school site was to be put only in guidance and not on the face of the Bill. We accept the Minister's reassurance that it is not the Government's intention that such provision would have any detrimental effect on the performance by school staff of their duties. Indeed, at a time when the Government are seeking ways of lightening teachers' workloads that would surely be foolish. However, despite our acceptance of that, we are still concerned that a matter so potentially fundamental to the operation of the school as the provision of community facilities must be discussed with teachers and parents. That must be enshrined in the Bill.
Such consultation would surely give ownership of the project to the staff and the parents and thus ensure its success in the end. I hope that by pressing the matter the Minister will feel able to respond positively as she has on a number of other matters.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, perhaps I might speak first to Amendment No. 50. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is concerned to ensure that the activities that we have been discussing do not interfere with the way in which schools are able to provide education for their children. I believe that we are in agreement on this. The question is how best to ensure it within the Bill.
I have discussed this matter with our legal adviser to ensure that the words we use are appropriate. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will accept, in the spirit of my reply, that I have considered carefully the

763
points she made. I do not believe that the words "interfere" and "compromise" mean the same thing. However, I am clear that,
"interference to a significant extent",
could amount to "compromise".
Let me emphasise again what it is that Clauses 25 and 26 seek to achieve. We want to give governors a clear legal basis under which they can provide services for the benefit of their pupils and their families. That will include the provision of services which seek to remove the barriers that currently stand in the way of children's education; services such as pupil and family counselling (in cases of bereavement or family breakdown for example); child and family health services where on-site provision will reduce the amount of time children are out of the classroom and improve access which might otherwise be difficult in areas where there is poor local transport; social care to address more immediately the complex needs of the pupils and their parents; and provision of out-of school hours childcare which will ensure that pupils are looked after in a safe environment. Almost any of those services could be argued to interfere in some way with the governors' duty to promote high standards of educational achievement.
Further, if this amendment were accepted, it may expose schools to judicial review proceedings on spurious grounds. As a past Minister for Education I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will know that, on occasion—rare thankfully—some have used the wording of the law to involve schools in long, drawn-out legal process. While we also want to protect educational standards, and I believe that Clause 26 does, I am keen to ensure that governors are not discouraged from providing a service such as a breakfast club—a service offered perhaps in a classroom that might interfere to an insignificant extent with the running of the school because it causes a slight delay to the start of the formal school day while breakfast is cleared away.
Likewise I would not want governors to be deterred from making full use of the school premises and facilities at weekends. We know from schools and the local education authority in Cambridgeshire, who have been working very closely with us in developing this approach and who have a long established history of community education, of the benefits that can be gained from opening up schools to the whole community. These clauses will enable more local authorities and schools to develop a similar vision to that of Henry Morris while ensuring that the main object of the school is safeguarded.
I should like to emphasise once again that we expect all schools that develop family and community services to see a positive impact on education standards. I trust the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is reassured by my explanation and will withdraw her amendment.
764
I turn now to Amendment No. 51. Clause 26(4) already places a statutory duty on governing bodies to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State, and that guidance will make it clear that governing bodies will always need to consult with all major stakeholders including school staff, parents and pupils, before providing family and community services.
However, on reflection, we accept that we should place a duty upon governing bodies to consult specific key stakeholders, including parents, staff and pupils. The Government are therefore prepared to accept this amendment in principle. However, we would like to consider further whether the proposed group of statutory consultees should be expanded. We should therefore like to have a little time to reflect on the precise wording of the amendment and come back with our own amendment at Third Reading. Given that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will not press her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not happy with the noble Baroness's response. She said that she understands and then went on to argue that it would be possible to have activities that interfere with the primary duty of the school to produce good education and achieve high standards for the children in that school. The noble Baroness even went on to say that a small compromise of the fundamental aim of the school would he acceptable.
There should be no compromise regarding a school's duty to promote high standards of educational achievement for the school. The noble Baroness cited my authority, Cambridgeshire. William Morris would turn in his grave if he thought there was any suggestion that what he started was anything that would impede the achievement of high standards of education for children in school. What William Morris did enhanced education; it did not impede it in any way.
A breakfast club in a school was the only example which officials came up with. But any breakfast club that overruns into the school day is actually failing children. The school day is already short enough. For many children it starts between nine and nine-thirty in the morning, and it is over between three and three-thirty in the afternoon. The idea of break fast clubs overrunning is an absolute scandal. If they cannot be run to enable children to start their lessons on time, then there is something wrong with the management of the school.
I feel very strongly about this amendment. I ask for the opinion of the House.
4.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 157.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jopling, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Luke, L. [Teller]

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Byford,B.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Chan, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Cox, B

O'Cathain, B.

Craigavon, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Crathome, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Prior, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rees,L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rogan, L.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Flather, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Freeman, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes. B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glentoran, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thatcher, B.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Waddington, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Warnock, B.

Hurd of Westwell.L.

Wilcox,B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Chorley, L.

Addington, L.

Christopher, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Alli,L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Amos, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ampthill, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Andrews, B.

Crawley, B.

Ash ton of Upholland, B.

David, B.

Avebury, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bach, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Barker, B.

Dholakia, L.

Barnett, L.

Dixon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dubs, L.

Billingham, B.

Elder, L.

Blackstone, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Borrie, L.

Falkland, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B

Bragg, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brookman, L.

Fearn, L.

Burlison, L.

Filkin, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Fitt,L.

Carter, L.

Gale,B.

766

Geraint,L.

Methuen, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Mitchell, L.

Golding, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Goodhart, L.

Newby, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Nicol, B.

Goudie, B.

Orme,L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Palmer, L.

Grabiner, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pendry, L.

Greengross, B.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grenfell,L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Grocott,L. [Teller]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harrison, L.

Puttnam, L.

Haskins, L.

Quirk, L.

Hayman, B.

Radice, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hooson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rooker, L.

Hoyle, L.

Russell, E.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scotland of Asthal.B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Sharman, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Islwyn, L.

Sheldon, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Stallard, L.

Jones, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jordan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Judd, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Kirkhill, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Lea of Crondall, L

Tenby, V

Levy, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lipsey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lockwood, B.

Turnberg, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Uddin, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Walpole, L.

Warner, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Weatherill,L.

McNally.L.

Whitaker.B.

Maddock, B.

Whitty,L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Massey of Darwen, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.36 p.m.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Governors' reports and other information]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 52:
Page 17. line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to both Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. Clause 28(1) states:
"Once in every school year the governing body of a maintained school shall prepare a report (a 'governors' report') dealing with such matters, and otherwise complying with such requirements, as may be specified in regulations".

767
The clause goes on to deal with the regulations which may:
"impose requirements on the governing body of a maintained school with respect to … the giving of copies of a governors' report to such persons as may be prescribed, and … making such copies available for inspection at the school"—
and making provision for—
"enabling the governing body to determine the language or languages in which a governors' report is to be produced and the form or forms in which it is to be produced".
That is where I believe it should end. It should be a matter for the governing body, which knows its own school, its parents, children and community, to determine the languages in which the report should he produced. If the Government are concerned that governing bodies cannot be trusted to do that, the subsection should say something like:
"appropriate languages meeting the language needs of all its community"
and that should be the end of the matter. But the clause then requires the governing body:
"to comply with any direction given by the local education authority with respect to any additional language to be used or with respect to any additional form in which the report is to be produced".
I want to trust the governing body to know what it is doing and to understand its own client group—the children, parents and the local community. It is wrong to then require governing bodies to be under the direction of the local education authority to add yet more languages for communicating with schools and communities.
Amendment No. 53 refers to yet more regulations. I am still awaiting a reply about how many sets of regulations there will be in the Bill. Subsection (3) states that regulations may:
"require the governing body of a maintained school to provide the local education authority with such reports and other information in connection with the discharge of the functions of the governing body as may be prescribed or as the authority may require (either on a regular basis or from time to time) for the purpose of the exercise of any of their functions".
The statute book is littered with requirements for schools, head teachers, teachers and governing bodies to provide information, but it is already public information. The annual report is public; meetings with parents are public; Ofsted inspections are public. They are visited by endless numbers of people who have the right to see such information.
It is absurd to lay yet another set of regulations on schools. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Amendment No. 52 would mean that a school maintained by a local education authority would be under no obligation to comply with any direction from that authority with respect to any additional language in which the governors' annual report is produced, or any additional forms in which it is produced, such as in braille.
Of course, we accept the thrust of the noble Baroness's argument; namely, that governing bodies have the prime responsibility for determining the
768
languages, or forms, in which their annual report is to be produced. However, we differ from the noble Baroness in the following respect. We believe that there are circumstances in which a local education authority, by virtue of its knowledge over a wider area than the school, may be better placed to determine an additional language, or form, in which the report could be produced that would benefit the local community, or part of it.
As I believe the noble Baroness indicated, this subparagraph is a re-enactment of Section 42 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, under which there are existing regulations. We are not aware of any complaints that the existing requirements, which we want to continue, have caused any difficulties. These provisions provide an additional guarantee for the local community that the interests of all parts of it will be taken fully into account. We see nothing to be gained in dropping the provisions, arid possibly something to be lost for some parts of the local community. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured by my response and that she will decide to withdraw her amendment.
On Amendment No. 53, I should like to emphasise that the scope of the regulation-making power in subsection (3) of Clause 28 is very similar to the content of the current provisions to which I referred in Sections 42(3) and (4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The only addition is to allow regulations to prescribe information that must be provided.
I hear what the noble Baroness says about regulations; indeed, we have heard her complaints about them on numerous occasions. However, I should point out that some of those regulations flow from Acts of Parliament introduced during the 18 years of the previous administration. I take note of what she said about the issue of seeking to keep the number of regulations that are required under constraint. We believe that it would be helpful, and add clarity and consistency, to have the scope to prescribe in regulations what information must be provided by governing bodies and head teachers.
However, we have listened most carefully to the noble Baroness's arguments, which were also outlined in Committee. I should like to make progress on the matter. I am prepared to bring forward a government amendment on Third Reading that will replace subsection (3) of Clause 28 with the current provisions in Sections 42(3), (4) and (5) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. This will remove the regulation-making power and maintain just the current provisions, which we believe to be important. I hope that this addresses the point made by the noble Baroness on the question of regulations. I trust, therefore, that she will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a very small victory; indeed, I should quite like to sweep away the requirements for regulations under the School Standards and Framework Act. However, I am grateful for small mercies. I am also grateful that, as I

769
understand it, subsection (3) will disappear from the Bill. I tentatively wait to see what will replace it at the next stage of the Bill.
I am in a fairly cynical frame of mind. I have to say that the appointment of Mr Miliband to the department that I welcomed so readily the other day is turning out to be something of a disappointment. These are the earliest opportunities for actually living up to the very words that he spoke on accepting the appointment and sweeping away some of the bureaucracy.
I am sure that he did not mean it personally, but the Minister said that he had heard my complaints about regulations "on numerous occasions". But it is the schools, the head teachers, and the teachers who are going on and on about regulations. I am not burdened down with having to read them, interpret them, and, in turn, read and interpret the guidelines and the guidance: it is the schools who have to cope with this burden. Minister after Minister has promised the schools faithfully that he or she will do what can be done to reduce the amount of bureaucracy. But, as they speak those words, we mount on yet more bureaucracy. I do not, therefore, accept that criticism from the Minister.
The Minister also referred to the 18 years of the previous administration. One would not believe that this Government are actually in their sixth year in Parliament. Indeed, they are now in their sixth year and the level of regulations, guidance, guidelines, and bureaucracy that has been laid upon schools is unprecedented. I am not happy with the response that I received to my first request. I believe that we should trust schools to determine what languages they use to speak to their school community. We should leave this to schools; they should not be under further exhortation from a third party.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about Amendment No. 53, but I shall wait to see what replaces it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
"PROTECTION OF SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS
Regulations shall provide for the control by the governing body of a maintained school of school playing fields and sporting facilities, which shall, among other things, provide that neither the Secretary of State, nor a local authority, nor any other public authority, shall give consent to the sale, transfer or disposal of playing fields or pitches owned or leased by a governing body of a maintained school or local authority unless—

(a) it can be shown by the governing body or bodies, or local authority, concerned that the sale, transfer or disposal is for the purpose of providing playing fields or sporting facilities of equal or improved quality for the use of the school and, if appropriate, other schools;

770

(b) in the case of a sale, transfer or disposal made by a local authority, it is done with the consent of the governing body or bodies concerned;

(c) it takes into account the impact in the local authority area on team sports requiring extensive playing fields or pitches and demonstrates that children at schools in the area will still have full and regular access to practise those sports; and

(d) the parent body of the school or schools concerned has consented in a ballot to the sale."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an important clause that relates to playing fields. Many of us will remember the exhortations of a number of Ministers before the 1997 election, the most vocal of whom was the right honourable Mr David Blunkett. He was very critical of the previous Conservative government for selling off playing fields. Such was the voluble noise from Ministers at that time that one would have been forgiven for believing that there was no more scope for disposing of playing fields.
I should like to refer to two newspaper articles: the first dated November 2001, and the second February 2002. In the Sunday Telegraph of 18th November 2001, Martin Bentham wrote:
"The number of playing fields sold off for building development has leapt by 60 per cent in the past year, according to a leaked Government document. The figures, in a confidential report for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, show that 446 applications for building on sports fields were approved between April 2000 and March this year. That compares with only 279 approvals for the previous 12 months. In the vast majority of cases, no objection was made to the applications, despite repeated Labour promises to stop playing fields being sold off. The number of planning applications refused rose by just two".
The latter information was put to the honourable Kate Hoey in another place, who held ministerial office at the time. I quote her response, which appeared in the same article:
"These figures bear out what I am finding when I go round the country, and show quite clearly that our promises"—
that is, the Labour Party's promises—
"to save playing fields are not working. There needs to be a moratorium on sales because the people who are objecting to the loss of sports pitches are not being listened to".
The article goes on to quote Elsa Davies, the director of the National Playing Fields Association, who said:
"The loss of playing fields is proceeding at a rate which is totally unacceptable. For years the Government has talked motherhood and apple pie, saying that they will save playing fields, but nothing has been achieved".
The article continues:
"The new figures are contained in a draft report drawn up by a monitoring unit on the sale of playing fields, set up by the department in April 2000 … the Government pledged that the unit would 'publish monthly figures on playing field disposals so that progress can be accurately charted'".
That has not happened. Martin Bentham then pointed out that:
"The figures, which the report says 'should not be released, quoted or used in any form', show that 860 valid applications for development on playing fields were received in the year ending March 2001 …The statistics also show a steep rise in the number of applications that were then given final planning permission by the relevant local authority. Whereas in 1999/2000 the number of unconditional approvals was 279, by last year the total had risen to 446, an increase of 60 per cent. Another 21 disposals were approved subject to conditions. Only 47 applications were

771
refused, and not one application was 'called in' by the Secretary of State for detailed examination … The Government's failure to prevent the sale of playing fields comes despite a series of promises made during the 1997 general election campaign that sports pitches would be protected".
At that time the Home Secretary, Mr David Blunkett, while he was education secretary, was speaking a great, deal on this issue. He said:
"I will ensure that those playing fields which schools and local communities need are not sold in the future".
That was in November 2001.
Given that report, one would expect things to have changed for the better. But, on 27th February 2002, an article in the Daily Mail stated:
"Fresh evidence that ministers have repeatedly broken promises to protect school playing fields was revealed in official figures yesterday.
The Government has approved all but two applications to sell off sports pitches since laws to protect them were introduced in 1998.
Of the 100 applications received, by the end of January, [2002] 98 have been waved through by Ministers.
A further 77 out of 81 requests to sell off smaller fields were given the green light, giving an overall total of 175 approvals from 181 applications".
The article went on to say that,
"most applications are still being approved, with the figures suggesting the number of sell-offs is gathering pace".
It also stated:
"An independent panel was set up to examine applications before making recommendations to ministers, who have the final say. A total of 945 applications to build on playing fields are expected this year—up from 590 in 2000 and 860 last year.
Ministers were … accused of reneging on their pledges to protect the field.
'They have not kept to their word', said Elsa Davies, director of the National Playing Fields Association.
'We were looking to the Government to protect playing fields, but what we have seen is tinkering in the system, which will not help'".
I have an answer to a Question asked by my honourable friend Mr Brady in another place. He asked what the proceeds of sales were for each playing field development application approved by the Secretary of State since 1998 and what went for sports and educational facilities. Out of 79 that are listed in that reply by the department, 47 were not to enhance sports facilities. That is 47 out of 79. Those that were to enhance sports facilities only partly funded them, and the money was used for other things.
We will take the criticism for what happened before 1997.1 have no doubt that the Minister will not lose the opportunity to refer to that again. But, given what the Minister said at that time, as I said right at the outset, one could be forgiven for believing that the scope for yet further selling off of playing fields would have been reduced if not eliminated altogether.
Many people are concerned about this aspect. Certainly the schools are. At a time when sport is a concern in schools, particularly extra-curricular sport, and given the Government's policy of inclusiveness in wanting young people, both in and out of school, to benefit from sports facilities in their community, I believe that what is happening is unforgivable.
772
At this stage, the Government's criteria are informal. I want to make them formal by placing them on the face of the Bill. Those criteria are:
"(a) it can be shown by the governing body or bodies, or local authority, concerned that the sale, transfer or disposal is for the purpose of providing playing fields or sporting facilities of equal or improved quality for the use of the school and, if appropriate, other schools [in the area];
(b) in the case of a sale, transfer or disposal made by a local authority, it is done with the consent of the governing body or bodies concerned;
(c) it takes into account the impact in the local authority area on team sports requiring extensive playing fields or pitches and demonstrates that children at schools in the area will still have full and regular access to practise those sports; and
(d) the parent body of the school or schools concerned has consented in a ballot to the sale".
I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the argument regarding getting rid of playing fields has gone on for a long time. The noble Baroness has effectively put her hands up and said that it was a mistake—I think that it was a mistake initially—to allow too many playing fields to disappear.
The Government said that they would stop it. They have not done enough. The noble Baroness has made a good attempt to solve the problem in the context of an education Bill. The problem is that this is not totally an education problem. Playing fields are educational facilities. The Department of Health and the Home Office could be interested in the issue. The Government should embrace the fact that sports fields are needed in order to allow sports to be played. We need turf. Sports halls do not allow one to play in our society the culturally acceptable sports for mass participation.
Basketball is not a major sport. Major participation sports are the various forms of football—association, union and league—hockey and so on. They require turf in order to be played properly. One cannot play them inside a sports hall. One needs grass on the ground.
When one says that it is a terribly small pitch, often that gives one somewhere to warm up or play a shortened version of a game. That is particularly true for children. The minute that one starts to reduce that area of open preserve for turf one cuts down the opportunities for playing sport. Our society is suffering tremendous health deprivation because it is not taking enough exercise. Unless exercise is fun—and that means sport—it will not happen.
The amendment is a brave attempt effectively to stop a form of rot. I support it. I hope that the Government will give us a reason for not needing to support it by saying that that they will put in place something which goes even further. But, in the context of an education Bill, I believe that this is an appropriate approach. I look forward to a response from the Government which does not refer to historical blame, but what will be done now. Under the current system, it is quite clear that we are not

773
preserving the vital thing that we need in order to play the culturally acceptable sports in our society; that is, preserved and maintained turf.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hate to introduce a discordant note into our proceedings, but I must. Recently, my right honourable friend Mr Mandelson said that we were all Thatcherites now. Let me first say what an enormous pleasure it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in her place. But he was slightly wrong, because if there is one group that clearly are not Thatcherites now, it is the Tory Front Bench in the House of Lords. This is an amendment that more or less says that the policies that they pursued previously were completely unacceptable and wrong.
The amendment is put forward by the excellent noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in all innocence as if somehow these points were not made ages ago when many of us did not even know that one could sell playing fields. Suddenly, it became policy. We pointed out the consequences. It is really not good enough to get up and say, "Well, things have not worked out the way we said". They have worked out exactly in the way that one thought they would.
Therefore, we have the paradox that what is happening is that the Labour Government are being accused of not being a Labour Government. It is perfectly reasonable for someone such as myself to make that criticism. But to hear it coming from the Official Opposition Front Bench is absolutely ridiculous, to put it as mildly as I possibly can.
Having made—quite unusually for me—a political point, which, as noble Lords know, I hate to do, it does not mean that there is not a problem here. Clearly, we must think, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is quite right in saying that despite the great pleasure one gets in referring to the past, the present and the future are what matter. It is incumbent—and I am sure that the Minister will speak to this—on the Government to respond to these concerns.
I still remember with a shudder going miles to my school playing field, getting covered in mud and then discovering that there was no way of washing and having to trudge back to the bus in the freezing cold, having taken part in a game which I hated. So I do not have delusions about what the great pleasures of school sport are. I do not believe that the greatness of our country depends on school sport but, none the less, I accept that it is a matter of some significance. My noble friend is aware that I, like many of my noble friends, look with sadness at the sale of playing fields if there is no facility to replace them. The children of the current generation should suffer as we did—one of the great advantages of being old is to see the young not getting away with things when we could not.
So I hope that while rejecting the amendment my noble friend will still have some positive things to say, including one or two things that remind us that we are a Labour Government.
5 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is interesting to consider what the independent sector is doing. Its parents and pupils can express their opinion, as it were. The independent sector is investing vast sums in sporting facilities. That is one of the main things on which it spends money. It spends money on that before it spends money on classrooms—certainly before it spends money on decoration. That is what parents and pupils want.
That is not happening in the state system; the opposite is happening. That is because parents' and pupils' views are not being taken into account in what schools are doing. Given the financial pressures in the other direction, I can understand why, but we ought to be more responsive to what parents and pupils clearly want, which is provision of secure and better sporting facilities, and not to allow that part of schools' heritage to be bled. Apart from anything else, it results in people having nowhere to walk their dogs.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, do not get me started on the subject of dogs.
I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has raised this important issue. I am the Minister responsible for how we deal with school playing field policy and for working in close collaboration with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health in our trilateral meetings on how to address our children's needs in terms of sport and exercise. I could talk at great length on the subject, but I feel that it is inappropriate to do so now. I offer to do so to any noble Lord who wants to hear me.
I turn to the amendment. The figures that are often cited are inaccurate because they refer to playing fields in all situations, not to school playing fields. With your Lordships' indulgence, I shall spend a moment to ensure that by the end of my contribution, the precise, exact figures are on the record. I think that that is important to noble Lords.
I take my responsibilities in this area extremely seriously. We introduced Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to protect school playing fields. A sale or change in the use of a playing field may now happen only with the consent of the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will know that we do not have figures for the disposal of playing fields prior to the introduction of that protection, nor indeed for how the proceeds were used. I shall focus on what we have done.
Section 77 already requires a local authority or the governing body of any maintained school to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before disposing or changing the use of a school playing field. To ensure that all relevant areas are captured, the definition of "playing field" is extremely broad. It ensures that all open areas on a school site are protected. So we are already ensuring that all outdoor areas used for social or recreational purposes or as habitat areas, as well as sports pitches, fall under the Act.

775
Any application to dispose or change the use of a school playing field is considered against strict criteria. Consent will be given only when the remaining playing fields and sporting facilities meet the needs of local schools and the communities that formerly used them, and all proceeds are ploughed back into improved sport provision or educational facilities. Applicants are also required to consult fully on their proposals, including consulting the parents of pupils.
So the amendment adds nothing that is not already provided for in existing statutory provision. But our current protection also goes further than is proposed in the amendment. Since 16th July 2001, all applications have been subject to independent scrutiny by the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel. The panel comprises representatives of the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the Local Government Association, the National Association of Head Teachers and the educational charity, Learning through Landscapes. I pay tribute to their work. The panel advises the Secretary of State on the extent to which applications meet the criteria. Only those applications that meet the criteria and are recommended by that group are accepted by me—and, of course, through me, by the Secretary of State.
I contend that the protection for school playing fields that we introduced is working. Last year, in all maintained schools—of which, your Lordships will be aware, there are well over 20,000—only 22 applications to sell school sports pitches were approved. That represents 0.1 per cent of all maintained schools. I can give the House the full position for all changes in all schools since 1st October 1998. We have approved 105 applications involving the loss of school sports pitches. In 43 cases—almost half— the reason for the loss was that the school was closing or had closed. Of the 62 cases involving schools that continued to operate, 38 resulted in improved sports facilities, including new or replacement sports pitches, all-weather pitches and sports halls. In the remaining 24 cases, the proceeds were used to improve teaching facilities.
So I can be clear that the amendment would not increase the existing protection for school playing fields, on which the Government have achieved a great deal. In addition, it would require ballots of the parental body, which would be bureaucratic and time-consuming for all involved. In some cases—this is the defect of the amendment—where the school is to close, it would simply be unworkable. In those circumstances and in the light of the technical defect in the amendment, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Baroness talked about when school pitches are sold. Does she accept that one needs a lot of turf around the pitch to make it useful?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I do, my Lords. I know that the noble Lord takes a great interest in this matter. I can tell him that in every single case, when an
776
application is dealt with by the independent panel, it carefully considers the specifics of what is proposed. It has plans and drawings before it. It ensures that the school cannot possibly have a detrimental effect in terms of providing what the children need; that it has the full support of the community; that all of the other schools are asked whether they have any need for that piece of ground; that it consults the community; and that representations are invited from the Member of Parliament. I am sure that all noble Lords will recognise that the organisations that I have cited take a strong, clear stance—hence their involvement in the group—of ensuring that no child suffers a detrimental effect.
But there are some circumstances in which there is land around a school that is not used and could be used to better purpose and the proceeds from the sale of that land could be used to improve facilities. Those are the circumstances in which a recommendation is made to me as the junior Minister responsible and, through me, to the Secretary of State and it is only in those circumstances that it is accepted. I am extremely proud of our record during my time in office in the last year and before that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, picked up the very point that I was going to address. Many schools, especially primary schools, have a field—not a pitch, but an area specifically used for sport. There are running tracks that are not pitches. There are many grassed and tarmacadamed areas that are sports facilities but do not fall into the narrow definition of sports pitches. I have before me the Government's list— from the north of the country to its most southern tip—of school playing fields—the words in the Minister's Answer are "playing fields"— that have been sold off. In the list in front of me, in 47 of the 79 cases, playing fields were sold off and the moneys were not used to enhance sports facilities.
The Minister confined herself to a very narrow definition of school sports pitches. If the department feels strongly about this issue, it would be helpful to know what is its definition of the playing fields and playing areas that are used by schools for sports and—I agree with those who made the point—recreation for children. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that in this context one has to think of a community wider than the school. There is now very much more community involvement with school facilities and schoolchildren involvement with community facilities.
Why is it that Kate Hoey was so unhappy and, indeed, remains so? On a recent phone-in programme on Radio 5 she again expressed her displeasure at what was still happening since she left office as a Minister. Despite the list of organisations mentioned by the Minister, as recently as February this year the director of the Playing Fields Association said:
"We were looking to the Government to protect playing Fields, but what we have seen is tinkering in the system, which will not help".

777
I do not think that that is an answer. There is a glossing over of a real problem. The Government are in their sixth year and they must live up to what they said when they came into office in 1997—that is, that playing fields will not be under threat from them.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 54) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Lucas, L.

Addington, L. [Teller]

Luke, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Avebury, L.

Maddock, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Barker, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Biffen, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blatch, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boardman, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Methuen, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Newby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northesk, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Colwyn, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Cox, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Palmer, L.

Crathorne, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Prior, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dholakia, L.

Razzall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Rees, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rennard, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Falkland, V.

Rogan, L.

Fearn, L.

Roper, L.

Ferrers, E.

Russell, E.

Freeman, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Garel-Jones, L.

Sharman, L.

Geraint, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Glentoran, L.

Sharples, B.

Goodhart, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooson, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howe, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Tenby,V.

Hylton, L.

Thatcher, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Laird, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Tugendhat, L.

778

Vivian, L.

Weatherill, L.

Waddington, L.

Wilcox, B.

Walmsley, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hoyle, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ampthill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Andrews, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Islwyn, L.

Bach, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jones, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jordan, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Judd, L.

Billingham, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Layard, L.

Borrie, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Levy, L.

Bragg, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brightman, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Christopher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mitchell, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Orme, L.

Desai, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dixon, L.

Pendry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Elder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Puttnam, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Filkin, L.

Rea, L.

Fitt, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Freyberg, L.

Rooker, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gilbert, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Golding, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Strange, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goudie, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Grabiner, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gregson, L.

Uddin, B.

Grenfell, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Walpole, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Harrison, L.

Whitty, L.

Haskins, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hayman, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 31 [Responsibility for fixing dates of terms and holidays and times of sessions]:
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Matchmoved Amendment No. 55:
Page 18, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) Nothing in this section shall permit the introduction by a local education authority or a governing body of a change to the number of school terms in a year without prior consultation with, and the approval of, the majority of parents of pupils in the school or schools affected."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment I can be brief. Changing the school year has an enormous impact on the structure not only of the lives of people in an area but of schools within the area. If it is done without proper consultation and without proper endorsement, such a change would be ill-conceived. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this is an area where the Government see no need to regulate existing arrangements for local decision-making if these are working well. Perhaps I may briefly explain why.
My department has received very few requests for any change to the present arrangements under which school term dates are decided locally by those most affected. Non-statutory consultation procedures appear to work well. We simply do not wish to add to the body of education legislation where it is not necessary.
Although it is not a statutory requirement, we expect local authorities to consult widely on issues that affect people in their areas; and the evidence is that local education authorities understand the need for wide consultation. We are satisfied that under the existing arrangements local education authorities are taking a responsible approach to this. The report of the Local Government Association on the six-term year, for example, includes a detailed account of the consultation carried out by Wigan before deciding to change the pattern of terms locally. We know of several other authorities that are conducting consultation exercises on this issue, involving parents as well as other interest groups.
The evidence indicates that local education authorities consult on changes that affect school terms. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. I accordingly invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is unfortunate that the noble Baroness believes that local education authorities are doing everything right in this respect, but trusts them on almost nothing else—the Bill contains so much regulation because they are not trusted to do this, that and the other.
There is no legal obligation on local education authorities to consult, and there is nothing that says that they should. I thought that this was a perfectly sensible thing to do and—given that it is a cost-free option—that the Government in their generosity would accept the amendment. In despair, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
780
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
"NATIONAL PARENTS' COUNCILS
(1) The Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales shall make arrangements for the establishment in each country of a National Parents' Council, which shall consist of elected representatives of parent governors, one from each local education authority area.
(2) Regulations shall provide for—

(a) eligibility for election to the respective Councils;

(b) the procedures by which such elections will take place;

(c) the terms of office of members and officers;

(d) the procedures by which the chairman and vice chairman are to be elected;

(e) arrangements for meetings of the respective Councils;

(f) the reimbursement of members for travel and expenses; and

(g) any other matters relating to the constitution, procedures and meetings of the Councils as are appropriate."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved this amendment in Committee—but do so again because the response that we received was not at all satisfactory.
As I made clear in Committee, when the amendment was debated late at night, there are a great many countries where there is official representation of parents. In the US and Canada, parent representatives sit on state boards of education; and in Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, parents are represented on key national policy-making committees. In most cases, parental representation is set down in legislation. Only in England, Wales and Japan are parents not represented as of right on any national policy-making or advisory committee.
In his response in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that the amendment was not necessary because the Government have already done what I am asking for: we now have parent representatives on local governing bodies, so parents are well represented and that is all we need. My response to the noble Lord is that that is not all we need. As I said at the time, we need representation at national level.
Parents have a huge investment in education because in a sense they entrust their children to it. By proxy, they are the consumers of education, certainly up to key stage 4, because they make the key decisions for their children in education.
The Government place great emphasis in the provision of public services on listening to consumers and on taking note of what they say. Yet at the national level there is no body which they can consult which represents parents—in spite of the fact, as the Minister pointed out in Committee, that we have a very good way of representing parents: we elect parent representatives to governing bodies, and they elect representatives to sit on local education authorities. The amendment suggests that we go one step further and ask those who sit at each local education authority level, between themselves, to elect someone to go forward to sit on the national council.

781
As I say, this is odd, given the degree to which the Government are anxious to involve stakeholders in decision-making and given their recognition that the consumer voice should count in public services. The report written by Joe Hallgarten of the Institute for Public Policy Research, which I quoted in Committee, notes that a support network has been set up to support and pass information on to parent governors. There is a parents' centre on the DfES website. However, as the report notes,
"There is one missing link; parents are still not represented by a single body at the national level".
It continues—and given the Minister's reply last time these words seem very apposite:
"The arguments against the creation of such a body are limp. Of course, parents are a heterogeneous group, and cannot be truly represented by a few individuals. The same could be said for virtually every national organisation".
Indeed, the Government consult several national teacher and head teacher organisations, and they consult the national organisation representing governors. They consult what might be termed the "producer interests" very well. But they do not at present consult the consumer interests very well. There is no national organisation representing parents. Yet in many respects we have all the structures set up and ready to create such a council. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 made it a requirement for LEAs to have parent governor representatives, elected by parent governors, on the appropriate committee dealing with education. These elected parent governor representatives could, as suggested in the amendment, so easily come together to form national parents' councils.
I cannot accept the Minister's arguments that such a body would not be representative. We have elected parent governors who in turn elect their representatives on the LEAs. They have the legitimacy of being elected, not self-selected, which is true of so many other national bodies. Surely this is the best way in which to make them representative while at the same time creating national parents' councils which would add purpose and status to their position as governors.
If the Government believe in practising what they preach, in giving the consumer interest a real say in national decision-making, then here is an excellent point at which to start. Let us have national parents' councils. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has raised this issue at a reasonable hour today. I am very sympathetic to the underlying philosophy she has put forward. My concern is whether we really want this to be done in this way—via government regulations, government money and so on.
If I may start with an acerbic remark, the Government have set up a number of bodies, the common trait of which, I feel, is that they are powder-puff bodies. I shall not name names or the various
782
chairman, but I believe that on the whole they do not subject the education system to the type of tough scrutiny that should be the result of setting up such bodies. My fear is that the body proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, would go the same way.
I reflect on Lord Young of Dartington, our late lamented friend who was a great man in this sphere. Looking at Amendment No. 56, I thought to myself, "What would he have done in response to the same set of needs?" I do not think that he would have thought that the way to do it was to say to the Government, "You make regulations. You find the money. You finance the secretariat". I think that he would have said, "I shall go"—he was an amazing man in this regard—"to various charities and trusts and tell them, 'This is what I want to do. I need this money to set up the secretariat, and I need this money to get the whole thing going'. I would therefore set up an independent body rather than this"—as he did with the Consumers' Association and many other bodies.
I am therefore totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in her objective. I do not, however, quite like the model of producers and consumers in education. I do not see the parent solely as a consumer, and I am sure that the noble Baroness probably does not see it quite like that either. I see the parent as a much bigger contributing factor to the whole way in which we educate in this country and not merely as a recipient. I should like to see such a body. However, what I would really like to see—perhaps the noble Baroness is the person to take the lead in this—is a body that is separate from the Government, with a great deal of independence. It should have the type of independence that enables it to say, "This is not right". I think that such a statement on a given issue would carry great weight because, as the noble Baroness said, the body would be composed of the elected members of other governing bodies.
So I am with the noble Baroness. However, I am not sure that it would be right to go down the path of letting the Government finance the body. When a government body is established, regardless of how independent its members seem, despite everything, they really do pay attention to what the Government want as well as to what they were set up for in the first place. The noble Baroness is right to raise the issue and, as I said, I am with her in her objective and philosophy. On the whole, however, I think that it might be better to take a path via our country's voluntary tradition and persuade one of the great charities that, if they would find the money, this would be a great achievement for them.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we seemed to be in danger of repeating our debate in Committee almost word for word and line for line. In Committee, however, we did not have the benefit of a speech from my noble friend Lord Peston. We are all the better for having had one today.
We are all united on one obvious point: we want to ensure that parents play the fullest possible part in our education provision. In all sorts of ways, we seek to ensure that that happens. We are always looking for

783
ways in which to enhance that role. My noble friend Lord Peston was right that we would be very fortunate to have another Michael Young to play the type of unique role he played in this sphere. Michael Young was extraordinarily adept at identifying needs and creating structures in which those needs could be met. However, Michael Young also recognised that, in many respects, a modern and healthy democratic society has ways of articulating those needs. If a national body would fill an enormous gap in our consultative procedures and fill a role currently denied to parents, surely that point would have emerged from our present structures.
The parent governor representatives elected to our schools' governing bodies play a very important part in local—and increasingly in regional—consultation on developing education strategy. If a national body were needed, surely those representatives would have articulated that need and the department would have been under considerable pressure to establish a national council to bring together the various groups. I can only say that that has not happened. I believe that it has not happened because parents feel that there is a range of bodies in which they can play their part in challenging weaknesses in education provision and producing constructive outlines which provide a framework for consultation.
I shall make the most obvious point. Many parents play their part in the campaign for state education, and many play their part in the National Governors' Council. Many parents play a very effective part in parent teacher associations, which have a national council. Those may be membership organisations, but that does not mean that they are not effective in collecting views and making valuable contributions to the debate on all aspects of the work in schools.
We share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to enhance parents' role in education. None of us believes that we can provide effective education in schools without the crucial role played by parents. However, as my noble friend Lord Peston said, the case has not been made for establishing another body entirely with government resources. I also do not believe that parents have identified a crucial gap which they feel limits their opportunities to contribute to education. It is also not an emerging point. The National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations has, after all, existed for more than 40 years.
I accept entirely the good and valuable intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I also hope that I have done rather better than I did in Committee in persuading her as to why the Government do not believe that this body is necessary. I therefore hope that she will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his further limp reply. I did not expect that he would go much further on this issue, but the fact remains that there is a need for such a body at a
784
national level. If the Minister had received as many e-mails as I have received from parent governor representatives, he would recognise that they would like to have a national body to represent them.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for coming up with a valuable suggestion. As he rightly said, there is the great danger of having government placemen on a body that is paid for by the Government. My main objection to a great many of the bodies that have been set up by the Government is that they are quangos and the people who sit on them are nominated and they are frequently placemen. The notion that we might try to use governor representatives to form a national council but try to get a body such as Rowntree or Leverhulme to help fund it is a good one and I shall feed it back to those who have prompted me to make such representations.
I believe that we shall get no further if we try to push the Government on the matter. I regret that as I believe that we need to have a consumer voice. The problem at the moment is that it is divided. I was at one time a member of the national executive of CASE. We constituted a strong voice but we could never claim to be totally representative as we constituted a particular group. The National Governors' Council represents parent governors, but many governors are not parent governors. The National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations represents parent teacher associations, but it has its own agenda. I recognise that each of those bodies is consulted on occasions but that is by no means always the case. What is needed is a body whom the Government can consult when they want to consult parents. There is a void in that regard at the moment which needs filling. However, as I say, I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Staffing of community, voluntary controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools]:
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 57:
Page 20, line 22, leave out from "under" to end of line 24 and insert "the direction of the head teacher of a school to which this section applies is to be employed by the local education authority under a contract of employment."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 57 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 62.
These amendments seek to clarify on the face of the Bill that a member of staff, teaching or otherwise, employed at a maintained school or a voluntary-aided school working under the direction of the head teacher must have a contract of employment either with the LEA or with the governing body in the case of foundation or voluntary-aided schools. As my noble friend Lady Sharp pointed out in Committee, the Bill as it stands states only that there should be a contract of employment at a school; it does not say with whom. She commented that we seek to make the distinction between those who are under the direction of the head and have a contract with the LEA or governing body and those who have a contract with someone else such

785
as an agency and are therefore ultimately under its direction as employees. The agency may transfer the day-to-day direction of the member of staff to the head teacher, but ultimately they are employees of that agency in terms of employment law.
I see no reason why making this matter clear would restrict the flexibility of schools in terms of sharing staff from other local schools, or place "unhelpful limitations" on schools as the Minister suggested in her reply in Committee. That is because the amendment does not insist that all staff working at the school should be employees of the LEA or governing body but it does seek to make a distinction about whether the head is directing a subordinate member of staff or managing the engagement or programme of work of a self-employed contractor or agency employee. If the staffing of schools is to become more flexible and more complex, I see it as vital that this detail is made perfectly clear. I hope that now that the Minister has had more time to consider these amendments she will accept them as being constructive and in the interests of good employment practice. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a large group of amendments. I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65 and 66.
Amendment No. 58 concerns subsection (2) of Clause 34. Subsection (2) states:
"Any teacher or other member of staff who is appointed to work under a contract of employment at a school to which this section applies is to be employed by the local education authority".
Amendment No. 58 contains the caveat that subsection (2) shall apply only,
"to schools in any category set out in subsection (1) which have failed to satisfy OFSTED in relation to their general standards of education and school management".
In other words, schools should be responsible for employing their own staff unless they have fallen foul of the standards expected by the Secretary of State and have failed to satisfy Ofsted.
I turn to my Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 63, 64, 65 and 66. Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 65 and 66 are the same as Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 respectively. However, Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 refer to community schools, voluntary controlled schools, community special schools and maintained nursery schools, whereas Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 65 and 66 refer to voluntary-aided schools and foundation special schools. We seek to make absolutely clear and beyond doubt what we are talking about when referring to staff who work at a school otherwise than under a contract.
I believe that we are talking about people who work at a school who are not under a direct contract of the school but are either contracted to a third party; that is, an agency, or may be volunteers, in which case they will come under a contract. Sometimes people who volunteer in a school are comprised of parents or friends who may help to teach children to read, for
786
example. They usually have nothing like a formal contract but nevertheless they are working in a school. I seek to make the position explicit by inserting the words "direct" and "with the school". I give an example of the wording that would apply if one of my amendments were accepted. Subsection (5)(b) of Clause 35 would state:
"make provision with respect to the appointment of teachers and other staff to work at a school otherwise than under a direct contract of employment with the school".
That would put the position beyond doubt. There is something puzzling about a provision that simply states,
"the appointment of teachers and other staff to work at a school otherwise than under a contract of employment".
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope that I may reply, first, to Amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 63 to 66. I want to try to remove any misunderstanding about the meaning of these provisions which are related to school staff who work otherwise than under contracts of employment.
These provisions refer to people who are working at or for a school but who are not employed by the local education authority or the governing body depending on the school category. They may be paid by an agency or some other establishment, educational or otherwise, and work under contracts of employment with those bodies to provide services at the school. Alternatively, they may be self-employed and work under a contract for services at a school, but not under a contract of employment.
We want governing bodies to be able to continue to engage or appoint such staff, and to provide for regulations to make provision for the appointment of such persons. This will make clear that schools are able to make use of staff resources in this way outside the normal employment arrangements with either the local education authority or the governing body, and will give scope to ensure that schools follow good practice in these matters. Examples of such people are supply teachers; cleaners who work for an agency; kitchen staff who may work for an agency that provides school meals in a school or technical staff brought in to look after computers in a school.
These are technical matters and we have had to use legal terminology in drafting these provisions. In referring to contracts of employment, the addition of the words "with the school" would introduce confusion and be inaccurate. The words may appear to clarify the meaning, but contracts of employment in this context are either with the LEA or the governing body, depending on the category of school concerned. The governing bodies of the categories of schools under Clause 34 have traditionally never employed staff and cannot do so. The role of employer is undertaken by the local education authority. The governing bodies of the categories of schools under Clause 35 on the other hand do employ staff directly.
We do not propose to change those arrangements. However, schools are free to seek to change categories, if the governing body wishes it, for greater or lesser autonomy in those matters. We propose to continue to

787
provide for that diversity in staffing arrangements and at the same time ensure scope for schools to innovate and use a variety of resources in delivering education. I hope that that clarifies the scope of these provisions sufficiently for the noble Baroness to feel able to withdraw the amendments.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 57 and 62. As noble Lords said, we debated almost identical amendments in Committee. I have considered these amendments and I still believe that they would severely limit the ability of schools to use staff resources flexibly. According to the amendments, as I have explained, all staff would have to work under a contract of employment with either the local education authority or the governing body, depending on the category of school concerned.
We believe that that would place greater limitations on the scope of schools to use a variety of staffing methods to deliver education. We want to free schools so that they may innovate by using different ways of delivering education. These amendments would discourage and prevent schools from sharing staff or using expertise from other institutions. An example would be the use of further education lecturers or those delivering education via information and communications technology facilities. I hope the noble Baroness appreciates that that would not help schools to deal with the challenges or take advantage of the opportunities that the future may present.
In a previous amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised the matter of the proposed EU directive on agency workers and its effect on the position of agency supply teachers in schools. I have written to the noble Baroness about that, and I refer noble Lords to the copy of the letter which I have placed in the Library. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw those amendments.
I turn to Amendment No. 58. I make it clear that local education authorities have traditionally employed staff in the categories of school to which this clause relates. The governing bodies concerned have never undertaken the role of employer. As I said, they are not empowered to employ staff. I refer noble Lords to paragraph 3(7) of Schedule 1, which replicates the existing provisions under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
Over many years schools have had opportunities to change the categories and acquire the scope to employ staff directly. That option will continue. But the large majority of schools have chosen to continue with the local education authority as the employer of staff. Many schools whose governing bodies employ staff directly use their local education authorities to employ non-teaching staff. In our view, it is then clear that local education authorities play a fundamental role in employing staff in state schools.
This amendment suggests that local education authorities should employ staff only if schools are failing. That would leave a big gap to fill. If this amendment were introduced, it would be very disruptive and damaging to education. The majority of people who work in schools would overnight be placed
788
in an employment limbo. Their existing contracts of employment with the education authorities would be undermined. Clear arrangements would need to be in place for contracts of employment to be passed on to another employer.
If the intention is that governing bodies should assume the role of employer, the question to ask is what evidence exists to show that that is what those schools want. No one is forcing those schools to stay with local education authority employment arrangements. If they wish to, they can leave now. But all schools must have the freedom to choose what is best for them and to choose the arrangements that suit their particular local circumstances.
Practice has shown that the role of local education authorities in employing school staff is a widely valued and freely accepted element of our education service. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to reconsider the consequence of this amendment and agree to withdraw it.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clarification of these matters. I should like to consult with the NUT whose concerns I have expressed in moving these amendments. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatchhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 58:
Page 20, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) Subsection (2) shall only apply to schools in any category set out in subsection (1) which have failed to satisfy OFSTED in relation to their general standards of education and school management."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I accept that the LEA has traditionally been the employer, but in tabling Amendment No. 58 I was trying, perhaps rather feebly, to extend the right of the schools to employ themselves. I totally accept the arguments put by the Minister. I shall not press the amendment, nor shall I return to it at a later stage of the Bill. However, the Minister has not spoken to any of my other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 63, 64, 65 and 66, and I wonder whether the Minister intends to reply to them, because I have in fact spoken to them.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was saying that I had spoken to Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 63, 64, 65 and 66, but that the Minister has not responded to them.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I should make it clear that I replied in one of my groups to Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 63 and 66. I have checked that I responded to all amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise that I did not pick that up. I thought that it was a general answer on staffing arrangements. Having listened to what the

789
Minister said, without realising that it specifically related to my amendments, I am not sure that I have made myself clear.
I accept that individual third parties, such as window cleaners, caterers and plumbers, who come into a school to work, will not be under a direct contract with the school. Nevertheless, they will—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the noble Baroness is moving the amendment at the present time or replying to the original debate, on which she has already spoken.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if it is the only way in which I can speak to it, I move Amendment No. 59:
Page 20, line 37, after second "a" insert "direct"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise for getting the procedure wrong. It was because I did not realise that the Minister had in fact referred to all my amendments.
I return to the notion of a third party, who would not be under a direct contract with the school but would nevertheless be under a contract with his or her own employer, or, in the case of a window cleaner, perhaps self-employed—the employer in turn being under a contract to the school—coming to work on school premises to either service computer equipment, to clean the windows, to feed the children or to lay the carpets. Referring to subsection (5)(b), I am making the distinction between a teacher who is under a direct contract with the school and another person who works at the school but is not under a direct contract with the school.
It is a question of making that explicit. I am not sure that I have understood the Minister's response. Had I been in the Minister's shoes, I would at least have courteously repeated my point, given that I had a total misunderstanding. I thought that the Minister was simply refusing to answer. I saw her nodding her head and asking the Deputy Speaker to get on with it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was nodding my head because this is a very new procedure to me. This is only my second day of Report stage and I rely on the knowledge and experience of other noble Lords when we find ourselves in a difficulty that I have not created.
Although it may be appropriate for me to repeat what I said in response, we have another stage of the Bill, and I shall ensure that I have dealt with every point that the noble Baroness has raised. However, I am quite sure that I specifically dealt with them.
I said that those provisions refer to people working at or for a school, but not employed by the local education authority or governing body, paid by an agency or other establishment and working under a contract of employment with those bodies to provide services at the school—precisely the group to which the noble Baroness referred—or the self-employed. We want governing bodies to be able to continue to engage or appoint such staff and to provide for
790
regulations to make provision for the appointment of such persons. We make it clear that schools are able to make use of staff resources in that way, outside the normal employment arrangements, with either the education authority or the governing body. I went on to say that these are technical matters and that we have had to use legal terminology in drafting these provisions.
With regard to contracts of employment, we believe that the addition of the words "with the school", contained in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, would introduce confusion and would be inaccurate. The words may appear to clarify the meaning, but contracts of employment in this context are either with the local education authority or the governing body, depending on the category of school concerned. The governing bodies of the categories of schools under Clause 34 have traditionally never employed staff and cannot do so, and those under Clause 35 employ staff directly. We do not propose to change those arrangements, but schools are free to change categories as their governing bodies wish in order to achieve greater or lesser autonomy.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that, and I am sorry that I missed it earlier in the debate. I have no objection to the notion that there must be regulations to make provision for people who work on the campus, whether employed directly or indirectly by the school. Subsection (5)(b) and other subsections in this part of the Bill refer to staff who,
"work at a school otherwise than under a contract".
However, the people to whom I referred are under a contract. The Bill does not say, "contract with a school"; it states, "under a contract". Those people are working under a contract. The contract may not be with the school; it may be with their employer or it may be a self-employed contract, but they are under a contract.
I knew that the noble Baroness was referring to third-party people who enter premises in order to work and for whom regulations must set out how they conduct themselves when on those premises. They are not working there under a direct contract with the school, which is what the wording of my amendment implies; nevertheless, they are under a contract. I believe that the wording of my amendment is in plainer English than the wording proposed by the department. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 66 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Determination of specified budgets of LEA]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 67:
Page 24, fine 26, after "schools" insert "including expenditure on special educational needs support services"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now move on to Clause 39 and the next section of the Bill, which concerns the determination of local authority budgets and, indeed, the ring-fencing of those budgets. In moving Amendment No. 67, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70.
These two amendments are concerned with special educational needs. They come from the Special Educational Consortium, which has very real concerns that the increased delegation to schools, while desirable in many ways, will have a detrimental effect on special educational needs services.
In many local education authorities, the delegation of the special educational needs support services has led to their erosion. When they are delegated, it is difficult to maintain the expertise that once existed in the service. There is concern that the high levels of delegation now expected in LEAs is eroding the specialist expertise in local support services, particularly where staff from hearing impairment and visual impairment services have been absorbed into general services.
Concerns are now at such a level that a number of organisations are worried that the expertise in their specialism is threatened. The RNIB, the RNID and Sense have all expressed concern. However, this matter relates not only to services for hearing and visually impaired pupils and for speech and language-impaired pupils; it is a problem in other areas where there is an acute need to build up expertise in schools—for example, in understanding the special educational needs of pupils with autistic spectrum disorders. The National Autistic Society also shares those concerns.
Without specialist services to support and develop the capacity of schools to work with a range of pupils with special educational needs, national policy on developing effective inclusion is likely to be limited by the pace of the slowest school. We discussed that issue at length when the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill came before the House. At that time, it was made clear that one needs to use the specialist services that are available at local education authority level or within special schools to ensure that they are available to help other schools and other teachers to develop their specialisms in this area. In so far as those specialist services are being eroded, it is far more difficult for that to happen.
This Bill proposes new ways of calculating the LEA's budget and the schools budget. The intention behind the amendment is to ensure that the funding of SEN support services is located where it will not be subject to pressures to delegate. However, there are some doubts as to whether that will really be achieved.
Amendment No. 70 relates to the overall pressure on SEN support services. There is concern about the lack of clarity in regard to the respective
792
responsibilities of schools and local education authorities for children with special educational needs. It is not possible to see the effect of the new regulations requiring LEAs to set out what schools are expected to fund from their delegated budget and what LEAs will fund from their retained budget. These regulations have only just come into force, and it is too soon to assess the extent to which they may be able to help to ease the situation.
This amendment is modest. It would give schools a guideline for special educational needs spending. Such a guideline would, first, provide a benchmark for special educational needs spending in schools in the LEA area; secondly, it would combine with the new regulations so that schools would have a guideline on what they might purchase with their delegated budget and how much they might spend on it; and, thirdly, it would provide a basis for professional discussion between the LEA and the school about the delegated budget. All that can be done within the context of the LEA-schools relationships code of practice and its guiding principle of intervention in inverse proportion to success.
There is some feeling that Amendment No. 70 is too modest. There is a feeling that in order to stop the erosion of services and to start to build up the capacity of schools in response to the range of needs of pupils who may be placed in mainstream settings, there is a requirement for a far more radical approach to restructuring what had been the old SEN budget and a new and significant injection of funds.
Both amendments derive from the current apparent erosion of specialist expertise and doubts as to whether these budgetary arrangements will be able to stop that erosion. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said in moving Amendment No. 67. I agree with what she said about the importance of the specialised services through which local education authorities support their schools in meeting the special needs of their pupils. I hope that I can give her the assurances which she seeks.
Final decisions on the scope of the local education authority and schools budgets have yet to be taken. However, our firm intention—I can see no reason at all to expect this to change—is that expenditure on educational psychology services and on the statutory assessment and statementing processes will be part of the local education authority budget, while other SEN expenditure will fall within the schools budget.
Moreover, while we would wish local education authorities to keep in mind the benefits of further financial delegation in the special educational needs field, we have no plans to impose any new restrictions on the purposes for which they may retain funding centrally. Under the present regulations, LEAs are permitted to fund specialist SEN support services centrally. Our intention is that they will continue to be allowed to do so under the regulations which will be made under subsection (4) of new Section 45A.

793
I can well understand the concerns expressed about the level of delegation. We believe that the way to address the issue of further delegation from here on is to ensure that the local education authorities' expenditure plans—whether for special educational needs or anything else—are subject to well-informed local scrutiny. That is why we want to establish separate LEA and schools budgets, each with its corresponding needs assessment against which the local education authorities' expenditure can be benchmarked. It is also why Clause 41 provides for the establishment of schools forums, whose role will include the examination of LEAs' budget plans.
In the light of the additional local scrutiny that we expect forums to provide, we believe that for most items, and certainly for special educational needs, the right balance for the future is struck by leaving the last word on whether to delegate with the LEA.
I can go further and say that, because of the additional scrutiny that we expect to be provided by forums, at present we have no plans to place LEAs under pressure to delegate funding for SEN support services by imposing limits on the total amount which they may retain centrally within the schools budget. Nor are we minded to set non-statutory targets of the kind which have been a feature of Fair Funding so far. Those targets have been valuable in raising the general level of delegation and in promoting convergence in place of the widely varying delegation levels which existed previously. We believe that the local scrutiny that school forums would provide will be sufficient to avoid the need for further delegation targets.
On the strength of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment No. 67. In our view, subsection (2) in its present form already clearly enables expenditure on SEN support services to be included in a school's budget.
I understand the concerns behind Amendment No. 70. It is important that schools have a clear picture of the assumptions underlying their LEAs' funding arrangements for SEN. However, we have already taken action. LEAs must produce annual budget statements. Since 1999, those statements have to show how much of the budget generated for each school by the LEA's funding formula is notionally attributable to special educational needs. Of course such figures have limited value if schools are unclear what aspects of SEN their budgets are meant to fund. Uncertainty is most likely to arise in relation to pupils without statements. However, each LEA is required—with effect from 2002–2003—to publish a statement explaining to schools what aspects of SEN provision for non-statemented pupils they must expect to meet from their own budgets and what aspects the LEA will normally fund centrally.
We are not keen to encourage LEAs to go further in telling schools how to spend their money. SEN funding is changing, in ways discussed in the guidance document that we issued last year, The Distribution of Resources to Support Inclusion. Not only has there been a large increase in the delegation of SEN funding
794
but LEAs have been reconsidering the ways in which they allocate it. New funding methods are often designed to encourage schools to manage SEN resources on a whole school basis, rather than treat funding as a collection of more or less earmarked amounts. That is not just a matter of regarding a school's SEN budget itself as a totality. A whole school approach to SEN and to inclusion in general implies a readiness to deploy resources creatively, which can he inhibited if a school sees a particular amount in its budget as being exclusively for special educational needs. Too easily, that amount can be tacitly converted into a limit.
There is no reason for that approach to put pupils' interests at risk. Whether funding is delegated or not, governing bodies are under a duty to use their best endeavours to make the provision for which a child's learning difficulties call—including the provision specified in a statement. Moreover if funding is delegated for pupils with statements, LEAs can reserve the right to intervene if pupils do not receive the provision specified in their statements. In that event, the LEA can make the requisite provision itself and charge the cost to the school's budget. It is right that LEAs should have to tell schools about the SEN elements of their budgets but the substance of the amendment is reflected in existing secondary legislation.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her lengthy reassurances on both issues. It is useful to have on record that there will be limits on the degree to which an LEA budget will be delegated and that a number of central services relating to SEN will remain centralised, which is a useful facility. As to Amendment No. 70, the Minister's reassurance that the emphasis will be on the whole school approach and that the budget will be incorporated within the whole school budget is extremely useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 68:
Page 25, leave out lines 3 and 4.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I must tell the House that if this amendment is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 69.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 69, 71 and 72, which also relate to the new funding system that gives powers to the proposed schools forums—about which there was considerable debate in Committee—to determine that part of a school's budget that relates directly to pupils. That provision was clearly described in Committee by my noble friend Lady Sharp.
Our problem with the proposals boils down to two matters of principle—the first of which is Clause 39(4)(c). Should an unelected body have ultimate

795
responsibility for deploying a school's budget when a perfectly suitable, legitimately elected body already exists for that purpose—the local education authority? I believe in the slogan "No taxation without representation" and thought that a Labour Government would do so too. The proposed school forums would be unelected and contain representatives of heads and governors. Forums would have no democratic accountability. Practical problems of how representative and balanced they would be pale into insignificance in the face of the overarching principle that in this country councillors are elected to do the job. If we do not like the way that councillors perform that duty, we can throw them out at the next election—and do. We shall not be able to do that with the people who serve on school forums.
Although the present regulations give forums powers over only a small part of the budget, there is nothing to stop a future Secretary of State changing the regulations, to give forums much greater power in future. The proposal is a small but significant wedge in a large door and we do not want to see it opened further. There is already pressure for that to happen. The National Association of Head Teachers' briefing on this part of the Bill comments:
"Whilst having a number of concerns regarding the limited powers of the School Forum as currently proposed".
That is a clear indication that some head teachers will press for regulations to be changed in future, to give unelected bodies more power.
The second principle relates to the desirability of devolving decision-making to the lowest appropriate level. Giving the Secretary of State the reserve power to intervene and impose a prescribed minimum level of schools budget where the council's provision is thought to be inadequate is an attempt to make a major change to the balance of power between national and local government. No amount of assurances from the Minister that the power would be used sparingly addresses the fact that the power would be there.
Ring-fencing erodes the power and authority of local government in two ways. It takes away the power itself and undermines the whole reputation of local government for the future—such that the public believe that local councils do little and do not bother to vote for them. The low turnout in local government elections encourages people to say, "Nobody votes for them anyway"—creating a vicious spiral that leads to a complete collapse of confidence in local government. Is that what the present controlling Government want?
The Government contradict themselves. The finance Green Paper published in September 2000 stated that ring-fencing weakens local accountability and democracy, whereas delegating power to local authorities strengthens democracy and encourages participation and serious local responsibility. What are we to think if, in total contradiction, the Secretary of State wants to take to herself a power that has always been in the hands of locally elected representatives? That is being done in the name of
796
curbing the excesses of a small number of inefficient LEAs that are anyway subject to the scrutiny of Ofsted and the local electorate.
The only conclusion that one can draw is that the Government do not trust real democracy where it results in a body that does not do what the Government tell it to do. My late husband suffered a number of bitter electoral defeats but always said to me, "In the end, in a democracy, people will democ". A joke perhaps but one with a serious message. Clauses 39 and 40 are an attack on local democracy. I beg to move.
Lord Jones: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness's spirited speech. I speak in support of the Minister's Clauses 39 and 40 and with the specified budget of LEAs in mind. In the previous Parliament the previous Secretary of State found it necessary to publish a list of LEAs that had not played fair. Those LEAs did not spend the moneys allocated to them by central government and they did not spend them in the way that central government expected. Therefore, they were named. Their titles were promulgated in the press of our country and perhaps beyond.
One presumes that Clauses 39 and 40 aim to improve matters. Do local authorities continue to misbehave as they did in the previous Parliament? What report will the Minister give on such matters? Is the money that is now being allocated by the department to LEAs being spent on schools? Can we be absolutely sure that that is the case? Is the money getting into the classrooms? Is the money providing more teachers? Does the money buy more library books? The Government provides money for those things.
I ask the Minister what intelligence she has on local education authorities' spending records as of now? How does she know that the treasure of the state being pumped into the service is being spent on the children? That is the Government's aim. I believe that the Government have a splendid record, but I would like to be reassured every month of the year that no LEA is in effect siphoning-off the money. Can she tell the House how the department currently checks to ensure that the money goes where it is intended, to the children and on their books? Can she also say what checks take place to ensure that the money is not secretively siphoned-off by local authorities to be spent under other council spending headings? That is my suspicion. Are the Government sufficiently equipped to monitor effectively our LEAs in that respect?
By asking those questions I am indicating my support for the clauses and I presume that the Government are determined that our children shall receive a better deal, that our councils will do better and that the Government's objectives will be achieved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jones, because I believe that he has posed pertinent questions. I cannot answer what progress has been made by local authorities since the previous Parliament. It would be helpful to have on

797
record whether there has been any improvement. Certainly the funding regime was changed. We were promised more clarity and the percentage of money that had to be passported on to schools was deemed important enough to be made a legal obligation. We now know that there are ways and means for the Government, without this Bill, to do something about breaches. It would be helpful to have the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, answered.
I can answer another question posed by the noble Lord. He asked whether the money is reaching the schools. The answer is no, it is not. But the villain of the piece is not necessarily local authorities. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jones, I accept that some local authorities go to enormous lengths to camouflage the way in which they fund their local authority schools and do not serve their local schools well. My personal friend, Nick Seaton of the Campaign for Real Education, will soon produce a pamphlet on the amount of money that is held back by local authorities, which by anyone's judgment should be money that goes into schools and into classrooms.
However, there is a real lack of clarity about the information that we need to make judgments on whether the money is being passed on to schools. At the moment we have a Government that are holding back unprecedented sums of money from schools. On a number of occasions when we have spoken on this subject, I have said that almost by the week we hear of another tranche of money that is being spent nationally by Government, and every pound that is spent nationally, with a national Government tag on it, is money that does not necessarily find its way into the classroom through the core funding mechanism.
This afternoon a handout of today's sum of money has been handed to me. It is £43 million. Unless that money comes from even more additional money, it will come from money that could be spent in individual schools. We know that it will he spent somewhere in the education system, but there will be a great deal of bureaucracy involved in the spending of that money. Sums of money will be dissipated and they will not find their way into schools. So the villain of the piece is not local government.
A third point, which I make with some feeling as my own local authority has suffered from it, relates to what I believe is called "brown money". The Chancellor of the Exchequer decided that rather than trust local authorities, he would send some money direct to head teachers. The money would be sent to the head teachers as a cheque in the post and they would spend it directly.
There were also other sums of money that the Government exhorted local authorities to passport on to schools and if they did not passport them on, they would be punished. Many such local authorities, my own included, were spending either at or above their standard spending assessments that the Government deem to be the sums of money that they should spend on their services to provide a normal level of service in each authority. It is almost offensive to a local authority to say that it should passport more money
798
down when it already spends at or above its SSAs. I have no objection to encouraging local authorities to pass down to schools as much money as possible, but I would like the Government to accept that message. I would like to put a clause into the Bill that tells the Government to passport money down through the local education authorities into schools.
There is still a need for greater clarity. We were promised greater clarity by the Government; we were told that everything would become transparent, but we know that it is not. We know that it is difficult to ascertain the kind of information that we need to make a judgment about whether a local authority is doing right by its schools, or whether schools are receiving a fair deal. A school that is badly served by its local authority—we are talking about a minority of local authorities that fall into that category, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said—experiences a double jeopardy. It has a Government that are holding back unprecedented sums of money and it has a local authority that is also holding back unprecedented sums of money.
I agree with the principle that was outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. If there is to be determination of an aspect of the budget, I believe that those responsible should be accountable through the ballot box. We have a system of accountability for local authorities, which I support. Can the Minister say why it is that the Government have found it necessary to remove from local authorities the power to determine that aspect of the budget set out in the clause and give it to unelected, unaccountable groups of people in authorities to make the determination? Yet, they have not chosen to do that for the Learning and Skills Councils that will fund sixth forms.
A school for 11 to 18-year olds will have two separate streams of funding. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, referred to that the other day. There will be separate streams of funding for sixth forms from the Learning and Skills Councils, a separate funding stream from the local authority and a decision made by an unelected, unaccountable third body that is set up by this part of the Bill. There is a great deal wanting in this part of the Bill. We certainly wish to support the removal of this power. I have a later amendment dealing with Clause 41, to which I shall not refer at this moment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. It is fascinating to watch the Government bearing down on the individual pet projects of local education authorities while multiplying their own. It should be that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I know it is hard when in government and thinking that at last there is a chance to do something to resist the opportunity to pocket all the money that might he going to schools and use it as you wish. It is a discipline which Ministers ought to be rather better at in exercising on themselves.
I particularly support Amendment No. 68 in this group of amendments. It is unacceptable that an unelected schools forum which, as the right reverend Prelate has said on previous occasions, may well not

799
include important elements of the local school set-up because they are not seen to be sufficiently significant in that particular area and may have a very partial view of what is going on—it is certainly not elected—should set the budget. It should advise, yes, but it should not put local education authorities in the position where, if they reject the advice, they are in public trouble or in the middle of a public argument. I remember what it was like even to dare thinking about going against the advice of SEAC when we were in the middle of the BSE crisis. You could not do it.
If a committee is properly constituted and representative and represents the views of schools and others around the local education authority, the LEA will not be able to go against its advice to any degree or will do so at its peril. But to have the statutory final responsibility given to an unelected body rather than to the elected body is entirely wrong. I do not believe that the Government would do it to themselves and they should not do it to LEAs.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, if I had not already guessed, I am aware that when we reach Clause 41 there will no doubt be a good deal of debate on the role of schools forums.
Amendment No. 68 arises at this point because, as noble Lords have indicated, one of the proposed functions of the schools forums is to take decisions as to whether certain categories of expenditure should be retained by the local education authority or be delegated to schools. As will become clear when we reach Clause 41, the schools forums are primarily advisory bodies. They are in no sense a replacement for the local education authority and neither will they have the scope to usurp its functions or accountability. However, we do believe that it is appropriate to give the forums a limited role—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She has just said that schools forums are purely advisory. My understanding is that they have been given a power to determine an aspect of the budget.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sorry; I said "primarily advisory" and not "purely advisory". I hope that clarifies it for the noble Baroness and I apologise for that. I shall speak more clearly.
As I have said, in no sense are they a replacement for the local education authority, but we do believe that it is important to give them this very limited role.
We are in consultation about our proposals. We have listed the areas of expenditure which we propose should be remitted to the forums for decisions on delegation. The most significant of these is primary and special school meals. It is important to note that such a decision might be in the direction of taking such expenditure hack into central control where it has already been delegated. Primary and special schools can already opt for meals delegation on an individual
800
basis and we believe that it is acceptable that the forum should be able to take a collective view on whether this is right for that item of expenditure. The other expenditure items are much smaller: museum and library services and licence/copyright fees. Again, there are often local reasons for schools to prefer one outcome or the other and the forum can usefully address these. This is a modest exercise in giving schools a little more responsibility. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment No. 69 is more or less a duplicate of Amendment No. 68. We have considered this amendment and wondered whether it had been tabled in error because, if agreed to, it would leave the new Section 45A(4)(c) simply reading,
"enable any prescribed determination to be made".
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, we had intended to withdraw that amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in that case I hope that the noble Baroness will not mind if I do not speak to it.
In considering Amendment No. 71, which seeks to delete the whole of Clause 39,I hope that we can focus on what this clause is really about. There are links with Clauses 40 and 41, but the role of the schools forums in the context of Clause 39 is really a self-contained issue, while Clause 40 is the subject of a separate amendment.
The essential purpose of Clause 39 is to modify the budgetary framework within which local education authorities fund their schools. The present "fair funding" framework, based on a broadly defined local school budget, was introduced in 1999 and has worked well. The level of financial delegation to schools has risen sharply. Local education authorities on average delegated over 86 per cent of their school budgets last year, compared with 79 per cent in 1998. There have also been improvements in the transparency of the system.
However, there is still too much "funding fog". In terms of the range of expenditure which it covers, the local schools budget which forms the basis of the school funding system does not match with the education standard spending assessment which forms the basis of the local education authority funding system, and the fairness of the present ESSA has been widely criticised. All of this makes it unnecessarily difficult to judge whether an education authority's spending is too low, needlessly high or about right.
We are therefore proposing to replace the education standard spending assessment with two separate spending needs assessments: a school assessment and an education authority assessment. The school assessment will relate essentially to the cost of making provision for pupils and the education authority assessment will cover the education authority's essential functions. This will reflect the differing needs of the local education authority in a fairer and clearer way than the present system.

801
The new needs assessments will be introduced under existing local government legislation. Clause 39 brings the school funding system into line with the new education authority funding system by replacing the present local schools budget with a schools budget and a local education authority budget corresponding to the two assessments.
With the separation of the budgets provided for by Clause 39, schools and other interests will be able to see exactly how much their education authorities are spending on front-line provision for pupils as distinct from back-up services and regulatory functions. They will be able to compare their education authority spending on front-line provision with a needs assessment, which itself relates to front-line provision. This will make it easier to scrutinise education authority spending plans in an informed way and we believe it will thus promote improved accountability.
I hope that all noble Lords can agree that this is a worthwhile aim. Naturally, we believe that they will be even more effectively achieved if Clause 39 is supported by Clauses 40 and 41. But Clause 39 would bring about important improvements whether it is supported in this way or not. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will feel about to withdraw her amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 72. As noble Lords have said, this clause gives the Secretary of State a power, to be used in exceptional circumstances, to set a minimum level for an authority's school budget as defined by Clause 39 where it is considered that the budget is seriously inadequate. The level may apply to the next financial year or the financial year after that.
We are introducing this measure to help to ensure that funding increases for schools made available by central government are passed onto schools by local authorities. We expect that the proposals we have made to require local authorities to provide a transparent account of school funding will perhaps put a little pressure on authorities to pass on funding increases, but where that does not achieve sufficient progress we believe that we need a reserve power.
The way in which we look at what happens as regards adult education, and in response to the question from my noble friend Lord Jones, is that every year in January we check that local education authorities are passing on increases in the education standard spending assessment to education and we check through the budget statements of the local education authorities in April and May of each year. I am not in a position to give the noble Lord a list; and neither do I believe that it would be appropriate in this context. But we have said that we do believe that it is important to have this reserve power.
In setting the minimum level, I want to reassure noble Lords that the Secretary of State must have regard to all relevant circumstances. We have set out in the Explanatory Notes some of those circumstances: how the authority's proposed budget for schools compares with its school funding assessment; the performance of an education authority's schools;
802
pressures from other services and the degree to which the authority has failed to pass on the increase in funding to its schools. That is not an exhaustive list. There may be other criteria that we want to consider. We do not want to list all such criteria in the Bill, only to find that we have admitted a criterion that we would not then be allowed to consider and which is of importance.
The clause sets out the timetable for use of the power. We shall be asking local authorities to let us know their proposed budgets for schools by the end of January. That is no earlier than this year and a little later tian previous years when we have approached authorities early in January to ask them to indicate whether or not they intend to pass on increases in education SSA. We could not set a later deadline for authorities because that would not allow sufficient time for the rest of the process. If a local authority fails to let us know its proposed budget for schools by the end of January the Secretary of State will also be able to set a minimum level.
The timetable also allows authorities to make representations if they object to the level of budget set for their schools. For example, they will be able to explain the impact that the proposed minimum budget would have on other services run by the council. Where there is an objection, the clause allows, but does not require, the Secretary of State to make an order setting the level of budget to be subject to affirmative resolution in another place.
The Government believe that the clause is important for our plans on schools and local education authority funding. It allows for the dialogue between central and local government on the minimum level of the school's budget. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answer. Our main objection to Clause 39 is the involvement of the schools forum—an unelected and unaccountable body—in decision making. Our objection to Clause 40 is the matter of the reserved power of the Secretary of State. We believe in devolving decision making down to the most appropriate level and when one has democracy one has to trust it. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned that there are few local authorities that do not pass all of the school's budget on to schools—even of those there are very few that have had a poor Ofsted.
Therefore, there is little case and necessity for the measure. However, it is clearly one that we shall be returning to at the next stage of the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 69 to 71 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Power of Secretary of State to set minimum school budgets]:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Schools forums]:
[Amendment No. 72A not moved.]
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 73:
Page 26, line 35, leave out "a" and insert "an advisory"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 73 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 74, 75 and 77. Those amendments refer to Clause 41 which sets up the schools forums. My contention on the first three of those four amendments is that if Clause 41 should eventually find its way into the Act, at the very least schools forums should only be advisory.
The arguments that I have already made for the principle that such decisions should be made by the legitimately elected local education authority are also relevant here. The forums would be both unelected and unnecessary. Local authorities already consult widely with stakeholders when setting their budgets. Many do it well and there are many examples of best practice. If the Department for Education and Skills is unhappy about the way a few of them do it, in order to rectify the situation it would be far better to find ways of persuading them to emulate best practice rather than take away the democratic rights of LEAs all over the country.
I have already made the arguments for Amendment No. 77 to delete Clause 41 which sets up schools forums themselves. I stand by those arguments. However, in addition, here we have a small group of amendments that would give this part of the Bill the virtue of not overriding the principle that elected and accountable people should decide on the deployment of public money, but that stakeholders have a right to be consulted and to advise. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 76 which is included in this grouping. I must say that, the matter of faith schools apart, I have had more correspondence and lobbying on the matter of schools forums than on almost any other part of this long Bill.
I do not have strong feelings one way or the other about the matter though I believe that I can see a role for them. Perhaps I may suggest a general point. There are dearly some issues about transparency and funding between what the local education authority receives and what the school receives. There are some issues there that need to he addressed. There is perhaps the question of the extension of good practice to all areas and not just to those areas who want to adopt it. Therefore, there may be a need for legislation to deal with that.
Amendment No. 76 assumes—rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—that schools forums may remain on the face of the Bill and may come into existence. Therefore, this deals with the specific point which we debated and I withdrew in Committee stage.
The original amendment asked for head teachers and governors of the various categories of schools within a local education authority to be represented on the forum. We are concerned to protect the interests and rights of voluntary schools as well as other schools in those particular forums. We have modified the
804
amendment in the light of conversations with the Minister and we are now asking for a wider group— namely, persons representing each of the categories. As far as the voluntary Church of England and Roman Catholic schools are concerned, that would allow diocesan appointees to represent a group of schools.
We take the point that it is not possible for people directly engaged in the schools within that particular forum to be there. However, we believe that it is essential if forums come into existence—and I really have no great desire for or against them—that there should be a way in which the decisions which have to be taken affecting budgeting in voluntary schools should be represented.
I understand that the Minister has offered regulation to provide for that, but we believe that it should be on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I tabled Amendment No. 76
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I withdrew my amendment because on reading it I believed it did something that I did not want done. The difficulty I have with Clause 41 is that in many cases it will replace something that is working well in good local authorities with something that is less satisfactory. It is more prescriptive and less flexible. If Clause 41 remains in the Bill I should like to see it as a reserve power that could be invoked by the local education authority when necessary, which is what my amendment would have done. Alternatively—or what my amendment did not do—it could be invoked by a group or sufficient number of schools if they wanted something of that sort to be in place.
In other words it could be there as a reserve arrangement, but if the local education authority and the school community could come to arrangements which were better and would work better in their own particular circumstances, then they should be allowed to do that. I agree that under those circumstances the schools forum cannot be given power to make certain decisions. However, I do not believe that it should have those powers anyway.
I apologise if I nip out for a moment to look after my ducklings, but I shall return quickly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the mind boggles—ducklings outside the door!
I have sympathy with what my noble friend has just said. If I thought his amendment actually achieved that objective I would be supportive of it. I was disappointed that the Government do not believe that it would be appropriate for a majority of schools in an area to say that they would like a forum and to set one up. It seemed to be right. If schools are crying out for the power to enable them to understand what local authorities are doing with the money, the schools would simply say that that is what they want and would set it up.
I remember saying at the previous stage of the Bill that the better run local authorities have the equivalent of a schools forum. They do what is right and tailor make it to their own area. Anything that comes

805
through regulations is not tailor made; it is a one size fits all. I have yet to see a regulation that allows for the kind of flexibility that says, "Set up a forum and do it in your own way. Have the number of people on it you want". The size of the forum is prescribed—up to and no more than 50. The people who cannot sit on it are prescribed by the Government, and so forth. It becomes a very rigid framework. If I thought my noble friend's amendment achieved what he would like it to achieve, I should certainly want to support it.
In the previous debate the noble Baroness said—it is pertinent to this debate—that we should not worry about the powers to be given to the forums because they are extremely minor; they concern only libraries and museums; they concern only insignificant matters. But in this Bill a regulation power is being taken under the negative instrument procedures to add anything in the future. This is the thin end of a wedge where, in order to get the power through Parliament, the noble Baroness talks about libraries and museums. But, once it is through, serious items of budget-making could be added to the list and we could do nothing to stop that, other than praying against an instrument which we could not modify; we could only vote against it. The Minister is making light of a serious point.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned the lobbying that has taken place in relation to this amendment. It is extraordinary that of all the provisions in this Bill, many of which I regard as extremely serious, this specific one has excited two camps. One camp says, "We must have these forums. It is about time we got to know what local authorities are doing. We want the power." The people who argue in that way, with great feeling, believe that if they have a schools forum, they will get a great deal more money into their schools. That is the simplistic understanding of the matter.
On the other side of the argument, people are saying, "For goodness sake get schools forums out of this Bill. We will support any effort to do that". I want to take the provision out of the Bill. That is the purpose of my amendment. I believe that we should go down the road of saying to local authorities that they should be more clear about what they are doing; there should be a great deal more transparency. The Government could do more to make the system transparent. They could do more about putting their own house in order before invoking local authorities to put order in theirs.
I believe also that where a local authority has the equivalent of a forum which is working well, tailor-made to their own ways of doing things, and where the schools, the head teachers and the governors are entirely happy, they should be allowed to continue. Indeed, in many local authorities, and mine is one, they take the whole budgetary process out on to the road; they have a road show. They discuss it with local communities, with parish councils and with district councils as well as with their primary and secondary schools forums. That is the road to go down. If, as my noble friend who is outside looking after his ducklings suggests, we could achieve the same end by his amendment, gaining flexibility where the schools themselves wished to have such a set-up, then we
806
should go down that road. But, like my noble friend too, I am concerned about the power. It is genuinely the thin end of the wedge.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot think of a quip on ducklings; it is beyond me.
I turn first to Amendments Nos. 73 to 75. In our proposals for schools forums, which we have begun to talk about with all the appropriate bodies, we made clear that we proposed four main functions. Three of those were consultation on the funding formula for schools; consultation on various aspects of the management of the schools budget as specified in regulations; and consultation on aspects of local education authority contracts for services. I accept that the primary role of forums is to be advisory. We see the forums as acting in partnership with their authorities. We hope that they will bring the opportunity of a collective opinion on the way that the schools budget should be managed.
However, as I said, we believe it right that they should have a limited role in taking decisions. In the consultation we are talking about, the areas of expenditure which we propose should be remitted to the forums for decisions on delegation. I have outlined the most significant of those as being primary and secondary school meals. I have also indicated the other areas of museum and library services, and licensed copyright fees.
There are often local reasons why schools prefer one outcome or the other, and we hope that the forums can usefully address those. It is a modest exercise in giving schools more responsibility. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 76 and say at once that I understand the concerns of the right reverend Prelate that on current plans there is to be no requirement for separate categories of school to be automatically represented on schools forums. However, the draft regulations on which we are currently consulting contain an explicit power for a local education authority to order its elections so as to achieve that result if it wishes.
We have spent some time considering this issue. However, the position on schools forums is very different to that for some similar bodies such as school organisation committees. First, the recurrent funding of maintained schools is hardly affected at all by its category. Therefore separate representation on the forum is not a clear necessity. Secondly, in many authorities the number of schools in certain categories is very low. Having an absolute requirement in the manner proposed by the right reverend Prelate's amendment would make the election process throughout the country more complex for little reason.
That is why we feel that the discretionary power in the draft regulations is sufficient. There will be authorities with large numbers of voluntary or perhaps foundation schools which will wish to consider using

807
it because of their local circumstances, and we shall be happy to see them doing so. But we feel that a universal requirement goes too far.
However, I remind noble Lords that forums will also have non-schools members. In our consultation paper we made clear that we see diocesan authorities as obvious candidates for nomination to such membership. When we come to issue guidance to authorities on setting up forums we shall say that we expect them to take full account of the need to have diocesan authorities in membership. I hope that that commitment meets the spirit of the right reverend Prelate's concern to ensure that those interests are represented.
As we come to Amendment No. 77, after discussion of various aspects of the schools forums policy, I want to emphasise some principal points. I have made clear that we see the forums as mainly advisory bodies with a modest decision-making role. We want them to be meaningful. We want them to have a real job to do. Essentially, we trust that they will be vehicles for partnership, and we hope that local education authorities will increasingly come to value them.
We do not want them to be, and they will not be, another layer of top-heavy bureaucracy taking away significant sums from schools. In the average local education authority the cost per school will be around £200 for schools to play a proper part in managing the new schools budget. They will be a resource for schools and education authorities.
I know, and noble Lords have mentioned it—I address my remarks specifically to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—that the House has been concerned at the possibility that local consultation arrangements, some of them working satisfactorily and indeed praised by Ofsted, would be damaged by the introduction of the forums. Our aim is to spread best practice and not destroy it. That is why we shall be considering carefully the responses to the consultation exercise.
I readily concede that the debate remains open. I accept that the noble Baroness made some strong points as to what is already happening in different local authority areas, such as the road show in Cambridgeshire. The Secretary of State is mindful of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and others in Committee about the need for flexibility in this matter to avoid displacing good existing arrangements. I can say today that, when we consider responses to the consultation, we shall be looking to find a way to create sufficient flexibility to allow local education authorities the scope to keep the best features of their existing arrangements while making sure that effective forums are put in place in education authorities throughout the country.
I reiterate a point I made in response to concerns expressed earlier in our debate about the impact of increased delegation on SEN services. The existence of forums will provide the assurance of local scrutiny that will enable us to cease to set delegation targets for LEAs. They play an important role in our reforms of the funding system.
808
In conclusion I want to emphasise this. Schools have come of age in managing themselves. They now have larger budgets. They make most expenditure decisions for themselves. They take responsibility. But they do not operate in isolation. They are part of a community. The establishment of schools forums will add meaning to that and will become a vital component of it. By establishing forums we signal to schools that they should be taking part in the process of managing public resources, not in a way which usurps the overall responsibility of the democratically elected authority, but in a way which recognises that schools have come a long way since the first experiments in local financial management.
In the light of those assurances on the regulations and our search to find sufficient flexibility, and from her experience of the well-known experiments in Cambridgeshire, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall raise two points arising from those remarks. When arrangements become formal under the law, as opposed to being informal arrangements, they tend to take on a life of their own. We are talking about travelling subsistence for up to 50 people, service provision, and all the formality that will surround the information that will be collected, collated, checked and monitored. The Minister talked about £200 per school, which is a very modest sum. It also has to include supply cover for each teacher who takes half a day or more out of term time.
My second point relates to SSAs, which the noble Baroness said would no longer be a feature of education funding. Can I take it that SSAs for all other services will be swept away? Unless they are swept away for all services, it would make no sense to sweep them away for education only.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the calculation of £200 per school is a real one. We talked about schools forums meeting three times a term as a possibility. We are keen to have flexibility on how forums are set up and that, as far as possible, they retain the most important aspects. We took incredibly seriously what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said in Committee about not wanting to tear down arrangements that are working successfully. The intention of schools forums is to bring about successful arrangements across the country. We shall have some early indications before Third Reading from the consultation that is taking place, and I shall be happy to write to the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, to set out our first thoughts. I recognise that I am unable today to give the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, more assurances about these issues.
The answer to the noble Baroness's second point is that all SSAs are being replaced.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. She is aware that we are

809
unhappy with schools forums. Although the area in which schools forums will be more than advisory is small and relatively insignificant, we wonder why the Government want to put the measure in place to achieve that. That could be achieved just as easily by extending consultations with schools on these subjects. We have nasty, suspicious minds about the purpose of these clauses and we shall certainly return to them at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Blackburnhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 76:
Page 27, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations shall ensure that the membership of a schools forum includes persons representing each of the categories of school maintained by the authority."
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks, and I am enormously grateful to her for the time that she has taken. I genuinely believe that she and her department have worked very hard, but I am extremely unhappy at the outcome. I am sorry about that, as it is my final amendment to the Bill.
We should be taking into account the special relationship between voluntary schools and money. We are dealing with governors who, on behalf of trustees, have a particular responsibility for the buildings. Large sums of expenditure are involved and unless their voices and views are heard, there will be dissatisfaction. There will always be a claim that there is prejudice and bias.
We all bring a certain amount of experience or baggage to such debates. In my 12 years as director of education in the diocese of Durham, there were times when various authorities within the diocese, of which there were four—I shall not name any particular one—sought to disadvantage the voluntary schools by not enabling them to provide nursery units and other things that were popular at the time, and which had a direct effect on recruitment to such schools.
I am disappointed that that point has not been acknowledged. I feel that perhaps I have been unable to express the nature of what we are discussing. It is not about expenditure on the running of schools, such as teaching and so on, but the fact that voluntary school governors have particular responsibilities with regard to the buildings, and ultimate responsibility if buildings deteriorate. Those future problems are not being addressed.
We shall have to consider further our attitude to schools forums.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Accounts of maintained schools]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 78:
Page 27, line 42, leave out from "authority" to end of line 44.
810
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 42 deals with yet more regulations—our perennial favourite—requiring,
"the governing body of a maintained school … to keep prescribed accounts and prescribed records in relation to the accounts".
I am amazed that we are only just legislating for that as governing bodies have been required under the law to keep accounts since Adam was a boy. The clause continues that such bodies will be required,
"to prepare prescribed financial statements or reports",
which they already do under law, and,
"to comply with prescribed conditions with respect to audit".
They have a legal obligation to do that without the Bill.
Clause 42 also requires governing bodies,
"to send copies of the accounts, together with such financial statements or reports as may be prescribed, to the local education authority".
That is the point at which I suggest it should stop, but the clause continues with the words,
"or to the Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in relation to Wales)".
Local authorities, in addition to preparing their accounts, and complying with all the rules that I have just read out, must also produce an annual report and accounts, which is a public document. They must provide all that information for auditors, whose report is part of the public accounts. They are inspected by Ofsted and every Ofsted report has to include a section on the way in which the school is managed and how its report and accounts are produced. All the information contained in every Ofsted report is held in public libraries and is available to the community and the parents. In addition, a copy of every Ofsted report is sent to the Secretary of State.
I should like Clause 42 to be removed from the Bill altogether. I suspect that there will be some reason why all previous statutes should be superseded by this clause as I cannot believe that it is not already a legal requirement to do all those things listed in Clause 42(1). It is taking it a little far if each school has to do that. If the information has to go to local authorities, which the amendment would allow, let them provide the information for the Secretary of State. Schools should be relieved of that duty. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this clause supports the introduction of the consistent financial reporting initiative that will provide data so that all schools will be able to bench-mark their expenditure against a good range of comparator schools. We believe that this is an important new initiative that is already under way. The clause has been introduced to give it a specific legal basis rather than relying upon a set of current legislative provisions that were not designed with the CFR in mind.
We anticipate that returns from schools will usually go via their local education authority for quality assurance. Onward submission to the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales, for national aggregation of data could be required under Clause 42(4). However, we have inserted into Clause

811
42(1) the facility to require direct submission of material to the Secretary of State. Upon reflection, we have decided that that is unnecessary. The noble Baroness is right in this respect. It will be sufficient to rely on documents being routed via the LEA. We are, therefore, extremely happy to accept the noble Baroness's amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I feel faint, my Lords; I am having an attack of the vapours! I am grateful for that acceptance. I was about to say that it was inconceivable that the good sense of this amendment would not be seen. However, it has been seen. I am eternally grateful to the Minister. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 79:
Before Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
"RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO PETITIONS AND BALLOTS
After section 106 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (ballot regulations: eligibility of the parents to request or vote in ballot) there is inserted—
"106A RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO PETITIONS AND BALLOTS
Where a petition of parents has been initiated and failed to acquire the requisite number of signatures within the prescribed time limit, or a ballot has been held and no change to admissions arrangements has been agreed, no further ballot may take place within a period of six years.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not suppose that I shall be as lucky with this amendment. The Government are very fond of referring to the Ripon petition and ballot process as a panacea for the answers to absolutely every point that one raises as regards a problem with both petitioning and balloting. However, I should like for a moment to explain just how unsettling it is for any school to be threatened with the collection of signatures for a petition. That applies even more so when that process begins to gather apace, although very often it is abandoned. Indeed, that has happened in almost all cases, except in the Ripon grammar school petition and ballot. After it is abandoned, the school stops worrying and gets back to what it should be doing with the children but then another group of parents appear and the whole process starts all over again.
This process can continue for year after year in some parts of the country, so it is important for there to be some respite. A child starting in the first year at a grammar school can have his or her life of education disrupted by this kind of political—that is, "political" with both a small "p" and a big "P"—activity in the local area, which causes tension and is most unsettling for the staff, the head teacher, the parents, and the children.
I addressed the point fairly raised by the Minister during the previous stage of the Bill; namely, that if it were to count from the initiation of the petition, one
812
had only to collect one signature and the clock would start ticking. Therefore, my amendment says:
"Where a petition … has been initiated and failed",
because, if it has failed, the process cannot start again until the following academic year. However, if petition has been initiated but,
"has failed to acquire the requisite number of signatures",
I believe that there should be a respite for a least the life of one child passing through one school. That is why I have chosen the period of six years. It is arguable whether it should be five or six years, but most of the schools about which we are talking are 11 to 18 schools. It is only fair that that should be so. It would not remove the petitions and ballots, and it would not remove the system—indeed, I accepted defeat on that during the previous stage of the Bill. There is a very real argument for allowing these young people to go through school without the constant war of attrition on their education by political activists, with both a small "p" and a big "P", in their local area. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Baroness starts from the position that she has asserted to your Lordships on several occasions; namely, that she favours academic selection at the age of 11, and the continuation of grammar schools. Therefore, it is not in the least surprising that she should take every opportunity to speak on matters relating to the ballot, and so on.
I share one view with the noble Baroness. I am totally opposed to petitions and ballots, the reason being that I am opposed to grammar schools. After all the wasted years, I had assumed that a Labour Government elected with a massive majority would have stuck to their fundamental philosophy of simply abolishing the grammar schools. Having achieved this great majority that those of us in the early days never had and, therefore, could not do what we thought was right, I was very taken aback when this Government decided to go down the petitions and ballots route. I say to the noble Baroness that, yes, we should not have petitions and ballots; but, equally, we should not have selection at the age of 11.
The bias involved in petitions and ballots has made things practically impossible for any parents' group. Most of the groups that I know are not party political; they are just people who believe that selection at the age of 11 is immensely damaging to children—a subject to which I shall return if we ever reach my amendment this evening. It is news to me that such ballots have actually been damaging to the education of children. When speaking to parents, I have heard nothing about the slight possibility that, via a ballot, a grammar schools might one day get itself abolished and, as a result, somehow affect the education of any children. I repeat a remark that I have made on other topics. I know of no research that suggests that the ballot process has led to that outcome. If we were to undertake the usual kind of survey, my guess is that on questioning the young children about the ballot we

813
would discover that 1 per cent would say "yes", 1 per cent would say "no", and the remaining 98 per cent would respond by asking "What's a ballot?".
The argument put forward by the noble Baroness is simply not a valid argument to which we ought to pay attention. The valid argument is the one that she does not put forward; namely, that she likes the grammar schools, she wants them protected, and she does not want any means put forward that would assist people in getting rid of them. That seems to me a totally forthright and straightforward position and something with which one could come to grips. However, that is not the argument that has been put forward. I assume that the amendment is proposed as a debating point. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will produce a debating answer. I honestly do not believe that it is about reality in terms of education in our schools.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this proposed new clause has two purposes. It changes the current moratorium period of five years from the date on which the ballot result is announced to six years. Because, in practice, it will usually take the better part of a year for campaigners to gather names for a petition and for the ballot company to check its validity and hold a ballot, this aspect of the new clause would have little practical effect. More significantly, it would introduce a new moratorium in the event of an unsuccessful petition when a ballot has not actually been held.
I dwell on the Ripon example only for a few moments. When a ballot clearly demonstrates local support for the existing admission arrangements, as, for example, in Ripon, it is of course right that the school concerned should enjoy a period of stability. That is why our procedures allow a five-year moratorium on further campaigns. However, where there has been no ballot and, therefore, no expression of local feeling, it cannot be right to deny parents the opportunity to reconsider the issue.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, I spoke in Committee of my concern that the introduction of a moratorium following an unsuccessful petition could be open to abuse. The clause now before us, although worded slightly differently, does nothing to address that possibility. Someone would have only to register a request for a petition threshold to be set with the ballot company to prevent any attempt in the next six years to gauge support for change among local parents. The effect of introducing such a provision would only be negative. It would prevent local parents who, after consideration of local issues, came to believe that a grammar school was no longer appropriate for their community from testing opinion in a measurable way.
The question of grammar school ballot arrangements has been aired on a number of occasions in this House and in another place. I believe that we have had the opportunity during the debates on this Bill to put forward arguments. We on this side of the
814
House continue to believe—well, nearly all of us—that the arrangements currently in place strike a sensible balance between the stability that schools need and parents' right to express a view. I hope that the explanations I have given will be sufficient to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw this proposed new clause.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thought that trotting out Ripon yet again would be irresistible. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I make no secret of my preference for the continuation and even the extension of grammar schools. But the point that I was making in my amendment was that, whether or not one is for or against grammar schools, there ought to be a concern for the relentless and—what I would describe as—the "disruptive" activity of the petitioners. They create quite a fuss, standing outside school gates, in the market square and stopping people as they are shopping in the area.
The threat of closure is the outcome of a successful ballot: the grammar school is closed. If there are places in the area it may not even re-open as a comprehensive school. It may be merged with another school. If the noble Lord remembers the Act where that was enacted, he will know that the organisation of the school on ceasing to become a grammar school is a matter for discussion after and not at the time of the decision. That closure threat is unsettling for the parents and for the staff. I must also argue that that can have an effect on the education of the children. It is disruptive. It pre-occupies the minds of those who oppose the notion of closing the grammar school.
Therefore, the parents who support it—and they are not always the parents of children at the school but those in the area—the children, the teachers and certainly the governors and the head teacher will become involved in a campaign. Their energies are dissipated in the activity of opposing the closure. I return to Ripon. Ripon is not the example that should be used here because it had a successful petition. There was a ballot. It was determined by the local parents that the grammar school should continue. And there is a moratorium in place.
That is not the point of my amendment. If those who collect the signatures for a petition are unsuccessful—they may collect half or three-quarters, or even 99.9 per cent of the signatures—and do not collect 100 per cent of the required signatures, the petition fails. They are allowed to return to that year after year. I am simply saying that that is unacceptable. It creates a relentless war of attrition on the schools. I do not think that in putting that on the statute book the Government made a principled point. I think that the politics of envy are at play here. Somehow or other they see grammar schools as some creature of middle England that should be lost from the system. Mr Blunkett said that he frankly could not care less whether or not they survived. He does not see them as an important part of the tapestry of education.
However, if there is a principle at stake here, why, if it is so important for parents to have a view about whether grammar schools should continue, is it not the

815
same for city academies—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, agrees with me—city technology colleges, specialist, music and drama schools? They all select children. For every child that is selected, many children are not. Those parents could feel equally aggrieved. As I say, I do not think that there is a principle here: it is the politics of envy. Sadly, there are too many people who oppose the existence of grammar schools. That is a great pity because I think that they are an important part of the tapestry of education in this country. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Admission forums]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 80:
Page 29, line 11, after "shall" insert "if requested by a majority of governing bodies of maintained schools in their area"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have rehearsed the arguments with regard to Amendment No. 80. They are similar to those for schools forums. We are now talking about admission forums. I again want to argue for all those authorities with good arrangements in place which work well. Some operate a collegiate system, others operate a system akin to the UCAS. Those plans go on.
Where there is dissatisfaction or grievance about the admission arrangements not working in an authority, and a group of schools say that they would like to have an admission forum, I believe that one should be set up. If that is not the case, and what is working in the authority works well with the approval of the schools, I see no reason why that system should not continue. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I want to use the amendment in order to ask a question. Mine is the next amendment which is also connected with admission forums. I have one problem: I have great difficulty in understanding the composition of the admission forum. Who will be on the admission forum? I cottoned on late to the composition of the schools forums. I was therefore able to follow our debates on that subject.
I wonder whether I am alone in being the only person who does not understand what the composition of the admission forum will be. I am hoping therefore that, best of all, the Minister will stand up and tell me who will be on the admission forums, but if my noble friend does not know—which I cannot believe for one minute—then maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will tell me if she knows. It has held me back a little in terms of my approach to the matter.
That is my only reason for intervening at this point on admission forums. It would be helpful to know rather more precisely who will be doing this.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 82 which is grouped with Amendment No. 80. It seeks to add city technology colleges and city academies among those included in the admission forums' discussions. We had a fairly lengthy discussion on this matter in Committee.
816
The outcome of our discussion on admission forums was, first, that the forums are to be purely advisory. Their aim is to help smooth the admissions arrangements in any local area. Normally that local area will be smaller than that of the local education authority. It will revolve around a sub-area of a town or a particular rural district area.
City technology colleges are totally independent. They will be outside, but will be invited to participate as the Minister said. We would very much like them to join in. We want to encourage city technology colleges to participate in forum discussions. We shall, by way of regulations, require forums to invite city technology colleges to attend meetings. All academies, through their funding arrangements, will be obliged to comply with the requirements of admissions law as it applies to maintained schools. They will be required, therefore, to take part in the statutory admissions forums. Since that is the case, our view is that it would be sensible to include them on the face of the Bill.
Quite clearly, city technology colleges have a major impact on admissions arrangements. Since the forum is only advisory and since its purpose is to try to sort and smooth matters out, the sensible thing would be to have not only the academies which are required to be there—and it is silly not to have them on the face of the Bill if they are going to be there—but to include city technology colleges on the face of the Bill. That is why we tabled the amendment again. I do think that there would be some sense in the Minister agreeing to it.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend and by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. They seem to be eminently sensible. My noble friend's amendment is essential for this part of the Bill.
Amendment No. 81A is intended to take matters a little further. The Government have never fought shy of giving advice to people who do not want or need it. I do not see why they should fight shy of giving advice to all schools up to and including independent schools where to other schools in the area that seems to be an important part of the way that admissions are handled locally.
Obviously, that does not apply in some towns and cities, such as Winchester. Winchester College might as well be on Mars for all the interface that it has with the other schools in the locality. But there are other independent schools—Manchester Grammar School springs immediately to mind—that would like to be back in the state system if only the right funding arrangements could be organised. Many other independent schools, such as the arts-related schools, have a strong interface, one way or another, with what is the general education pattern in the area. I want the admission forum to have the power to involve those schools and issue advice to them if that is considered right by those schools and others in the locality. That would take the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, a little further.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Peston now feels that he knows what is to be the membership of the forum. For the benefit of any other noble Lords who have doubts, we have issued a policy statement that is available in the Library. When we rise—I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in wanting to move to that point—I am happy to discuss the matter with noble Lords who are in any doubt.
I turn to Amendment No. 80, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, we debated in Committee. I am a great fan of mandatory admission forums. I speak as a parent who was on the receiving end of a good quality one last year, when my son moved from primary to secondary school. It is one of the ways in which we know that we can improve the school admission process for even more parents and children. Every area will benefit from having a forum and the forum's role will be valuable. Many people have told us that forums would have a greater impact if they were in every area and admission authorities were required to have regard to their advice.
They will advise all admission authorities in the area, including the education authority, on admission issues and consider how well existing arrangements serve the interest of local parents and children. They will reach local agreement on new or controversial issues and an important part of their work will be to broker arrangements to ensure that vulnerable and challenging children—and those who arrive in an area outside the normal admission round—have fair access to local schools. Those are matters that are far too important to be left to chance. The schools most likely to vote against the establishment of a forum are those that that would not want to join in such collaboration.
All maintained schools will, of course, have a voice on the forum. We will expect core members to include representatives of head teachers and governors of foundation, community and voluntary schools. Mandatory forums will improve the admission process by ensuring real discussion and consensus between the key admission partners in an local education authority area. That is a matter of real importance and should no longer be voluntary. We do not want every governing body to have to debate, vote and then make a request in order for forums to be established. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 82, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. As I explained in Committee, city academies, academies and city technology colleges are not maintained schools and are not subject to the admission provisions of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. However, we recognise that certain schools not maintained by local education authorities, such as academies, have an important contribution to make to admission forum discussions and should be included in the membership of the local forum and have regard to its advice.
All academies will be obliged through their funding agreements to comply with the requirements of admission law and the admission codes as if they were
818
maintained schools. Academies will therefore be required by their funding agreements to take part in statutory admission forums and to have regard to the forums' advice. In regulations, we will require education authorities to appoint representatives of academies to be members of the forum.
We have put in place robust arrangements to ensure that academies will be inclusive schools and that they will agree their admission arrangements in partnership with education authorities and other admission authorities. Their admission arrangements will be compatible with those of other schools in the area, and parents will have the same rights when applying for a place at an academy as they would in relation to maintained schools.
I have considerable sympathy with the aims of this amendment and I shall reconsider the involvement of academies in admission forums to see what could he done further to strengthen the provisions. I shall return to the issue, after discussion with the noble Baroness, if needed, at Third Reading.
The situation for city technology colleges is somewhat different. Although we also want to encourage CTCs to participate in forum discussions, and in regulations we will require LEAs to invite representatives of city technology colleges to attend meetings and to appoint members of the forum where nominations by the CTC are made, we have no power to require CTCs to take part or to have regard to the advice of the forums. Their funding agreements have been established for some time and their admission arrangements are required to be in line with their original principle: to provide education for children of different abilities drawn wholly or mainly from their local area. It is not possible at this stage to require them to have regard to the advice of the local forum, although we would greatly encourage them to do so— and, of course, there will be no more new city technology colleges. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 81A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As he said, it would make an admission forum responsible for advising all schools, including those in the private sector, on admission matters. The noble Lord helpfully clarified that what he seeks is an assurance that if a forum wanted to involve the independent sector and the independent sector wanted, that would be allowed. I must say that I do not see great advantage in that. However, if the local education authority and the schools think that there would be benefit from such an arrangement, there will be nothing to stop them doing that. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will be satisfied and not press his amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness has already mentioned page 41 of the policy statement prepared for Standing Committee G in another place, which has been a helpful document—so helpful that most of what the noble Baroness said is not included. City technology colleges are not mentioned, nor are academies—they are not part of the detailed account of the draft regulations, which runs to several pages.

819
So policy is here being made on the hoof and it would he interesting to know why that change was made and precisely how it will be introduced. It is being introduced only in response to an amendment.
If the noble Lord, Lord Peston, did not realise it, I must tell him that I was being facetious when I asked why the Government put in place petitions for ballots to remove grammar schools but not CTCs, academies and all the rest. The principle is similar. I was not advocating that; I was simply pointing out the inconsistency of the Government's policy. There is an inconsistency here, too, because the admission arrangements for the academies, if they are following the same route as the CTCs—I understand that they are—were laid out in great detail when they were set up. Under their constitutions, they are already legally obliged to follow procedures for admission to their schools. So entering an admissions forum would serve no purpose. As I said, that is new policy made on the hoof and it would be helpful to have either a letter or some other explanation of that later.
I am sorry that it will not be left to a majority of schools in an area to request a forum if they are unhappy and one does not exist. Again, we return to "one size fits all". When the regulations appear, there will be little flexibility, because the Minister's argument was that the Government want uniformity, everyone doing the same and consistency. That means the dull uniformity and greyness of one size fits all. All of those wonderful, flexible, innovative ideas flourishing out there will be disbanded and we shall have to fall into line with Whitehall, which the Government think knows best. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that further consideration on Report begin again not before 8.39 p.m.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2002
7.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st May be approved [28th Report front the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that Parliament is asked to consider an order of this nature in most years. The purpose of the order is straightforward. It continues in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. These three Acts provide the statutory basis for discipline in the Armed Forces. The Government therefore attach the utmost importance to this order as the means of ensuring that this key
820
legislation remains in force. The order was approved yesterday in committee in another place and I hope that your Lordships will follow suit.
Having just highlighted the importance of the order, it is perhaps appropriate for me at this stage to offer a few remarks on the amendment that has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The noble Lord's amendment asks your Lordships to withhold approval for the Motion on the Order Paper until the Government have responded to the report of the Select Committee on Chinook ZD576.
Your Lordships will know that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and other noble Lords have raised the issue of the Government's response to this report on a number of occasions. The Select Committee's report was published on 5th February this year. The Government have consistently said that they intend to respond to the report before the six months allowed for responses to such reports have elapsed. That remains our intention. We fully expect to publish our response before the House rises. The Select Committee's report is a detailed assessment of a set of complex technical, legal and airmanship issues. It is quite right that it should be fully and carefully assessed, and we are doing this.
As noble Lords may know, we have commissioned further work from Boeing. While I understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for a speedy response, it is important that this work is fully and thoroughly completed. Boeing's work is nearing completion and should be available to us shortly. Subsequently this will be taken into account in our response.
The implications of supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, if he were to move it to a Division, would be very serious. Unless the draft order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament and approved by Her Majesty in Council before 31st August, the service discipline Acts will expire. The significance of this will not be lost on most of your Lordships, but I must spell out some of the consequences.
I say straightaway that the effect of the amendment could not be confined to the Royal Air Force alone, although that is what it seeks to achieve. Even if that were the effect, it would not be acceptable to the Government. As it is, however, if the amendment were to be carried, it would mean that the draft order, which covers all three services, had not been approved. Therefore, if the amendment were passed, there would clearly no longer be statutory authority for the maintenance of discipline in all three services. Commanding Officers would have no authority to back up their orders with sanctions; service personnel would be able to walk away from the job or disobey orders without any of the consequences associated with the requirements of disciplined Armed Forces.
The Acts do not deal with discipline alone. They provide the authority for most recruitment. The amendment would take that away. There are all kinds of other administrative matters of importance to our Armed Forces which hang on the provisions of the Acts. These, too, would he affected by the amendment.

821
But there is an even more fundamental point. Constitutionally the service discipline Acts are regarded as Parliament's agreement to the maintenance of the Armed Forces. In consequence, the effect of your Lordships' House deliberately allowing the expiry of these Acts would amount to the withdrawal of that approval. Obviously no government can regard such a prospect easily, nor, in my view, will this House—nor, indeed, will the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I am sure that he will use this debate to make his legitimate points on the very important issue which has prompted him to table the amendment. I hope that he will then withdraw it.
Returning now to the substantive Motion, the only years in which we do not generally consider an order such as this is when the three service discipline Acts are themselves up for renewal. This is achieved by the five-yearly Armed Forces Bills. The passage of these Bills through Parliament enables us to review as well as renew the discipline Acts. The present draft order is presented under powers in the Armed Forces Act 2001. The next Armed Forces Bill is due to he introduced in 2005–06.
There is one comment that I should offer about the order itself. The Government have given an undertaking that Ministers moving instruments which are subject to the affirmative procedure will tell the House whether they are satisfied that they are compatible with the rights provided under the European Convention on Human Rights. That undertaking, which covers this order, broadly mirrors the procedure for certifying primary legislation set out in Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Nothing in this order is incompatible with the ECHR. The continuation order which your Lordships are being invited to approve today is a brief document. It raises convention issues only in that it continues in force Acts that have been considered compatible with convention rights.
However, the European Court of Human Rights took the view in its recent judgment in the case of Morris v the United Kingdom that the procedures for post-trial review provided for in the service discipline Acts are not compatible with Article 6 of the convention. The court considered that the involvement of non-judicial authorities in the review of court martial findings and sentences impaired the independence of the court martial, even though that process is intended to safeguard the accused.
We have been considering how to react to this judgment and it might have been expected that we would have announced our intentions by now. However, the issues concerning post-trial review were given a fresh airing in a hearing last week before your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity. It seems appropriate to await their Lordships' judgment before taking a decision on the future of the review procedure. We shall of course make an announcement as soon as possible. The best advice that we have is that the decision of their Lordships is not likely to come before July and it may be later. If it is not July, it will be the autumn.
822
As I have already mentioned, it is essential that this order should be approved. It is about continuing the legislative basis for discipline in the Armed Forces. However, as your Lordships will know, the order continues three separate Acts of Parliament, one for each service. The Government have made clear their intention to alter the structure of the legislation, the better to fulfil the needs of the services and the way in which they will operate in the future. We have stated that we wish to replace the three separate Acts with a single tri-service Act. As I know of the interest in the House in seeing this come to fruition, this may be an opportune moment to provide a brief report on progress.
Following preliminary scoping work, a tri-service Act team was set up within the Ministry of Defence last September. The team is about half-way through the policy development stage, which is largely concerned with examining the differences in statutory provisions and in procedures between the services and considering how best to reconcile them.
The aim in this work has been to consider the impact of the existing legislation in the context of the increased level of inter-service co-operation, both on operations and elsewhere. This provided the impetus for the tri-service Act project in the first place. However, for most of the time most members of the Armed Forces will clearly continue to work and live in single service environments. We need to find a solution that supports operational effectiveness in both joint and single service settings.
Although discipline is a central focus of the team's work, it also has to consider other areas covered by the present legislation, such as terms of service, grievance procedures and arrangements for hoards of inquiry. Some of these raise complex issues, particularly as we should like to see the tri-service Act lead to improvements in the way we do our business, over and above those to be expected simply from rationalising the legislation. We appreciate also that the benefits to be gained from the tri-service Act should not be achieved at the cost of a detrimental impact on the ethos of the single services. We expect to receive the final report from the policy development stage next spring. This will provide the firm basis for translating policy intentions into the new legislation, although I am sure that there will still be much detail to be resolved.
The next five-yearly Armed Forces Bill is due in the 2005–06 Session. Your Lordships will, I hope, understand that no commitments can be given at this stage as to when the tri-service legislation might be introduced, as this will be subject to the availability of parliamentary time. A factor here is that we are certainly talking about a very large Bill, perhaps containing between 300 and 400 clauses. Quite apart from the issue of finding a legislative slot, our overriding objective is to get this important legislation right. There is much more involved than mechanistically sticking the three present Acts together—and we are not interested in adopting a lowest common denominator approach.

823
Against this background, I am unable to offer any prospect at present that the legislation might be presented to Parliament in the 2003–04 Session, as was suggested in last Session's report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in another place. We shall keep timing under review. However, the resources that we have allocated to this project and the progress made so far mean that we are on track to achieve the Ministry of Defence's overall schedule. This is based on being ready for the 2005–06 Session, should parliamentary time be available then.
The need for a tri-service Act derives from the importance of having a better disciplinary framework in those many circumstances where the services work so well together. However, I can assure the House that service discipline today is in good order, as is the operational effectiveness that it serves to underpin.
We see this in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay the warmest possible tribute to the personnel of the Armed Forces serving in the most challenging of environments. The qualities that they display are founded in large part on firm and fair discipline, the legislative basis of which we are discussing this evening. I know that these qualities are fully valued in all parts of this House. I invite your Lordships to approve the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st May be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Chalfontrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert, "this House declines to approve the draft Army. Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2002 in respect of the Air Force until such time as Her Majesty's Government have responded to the report of the Select Committee on Chinook ZD576".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am fully aware of the significance of this amendment. Indeed, had I not been, I should not have tabled it. If it were pressed to a Division and carried, it would mean, as the Minister said, that from 31st August Parliament's approval to the continuation of the Armed Forces—particularly the Royal Air Force, although the Minister says that it would apply to all three—would be withdrawn. That would be a drastic step. Your Lordships know me and my record well enough to know that I find such a step difficult to contemplate. However, I am concerned to demonstrate that it is a step which a sovereign Parliament is constitutionally empowered to take. Your Lordships could, in fact, take it tonight. I am not, however, about to suggest that your Lordships should actually take that step, merely that we should remind the Government, and especially the Ministry of Defence and some of its officials, of the existence and importance of the constitution and of Parliament's place in it.
My principal aim in tabling this amendment is to suggest that in the matter of the Select Committee on the Chinook helicopter crash we are now dealing with
824
a matter which has constitutional implications. There is no place in this issue for concepts like "airmanship" or "the chain of command", important as they may be in the services. This is a matter of natural justice and constitutional propriety, and these are the important issues. I am no lawyer or authority on the constitution, but if I have misunderstood the position there are those in this House who are qualified to put me right.
As I understand it, in this country executive institutions, including departments of state, have their source in a constitution which, even if it is unwritten, is to be obeyed and not departed from at the whim of the government of the day, of whatever complexion—which means in effect that we have in this country a government of law, not of men. In that context I should like this House to see the response of the Government to the Select Committee's report before it approves the continuation in force of the Air Force Discipline Act.
The constitution, according to Dicey, the great constitutional lawyer, rests upon two pillars—parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. These twin pillars are reflected in the draft order that your Lordships are being asked to approve today. My amendment is designed as a reminder of those two principles. It seems to me that the attitude of the Ministry of Defence in the case of the helicopter crash displays a somewhat cavalier attitude to both.
I need hardly remind your Lordships that this saga began in 1994 when a Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre, killing the aircrew and all 25 passengers. After a Royal Air Force board of inquiry had initially failed to establish a cause for the accident, the reviewing officers, Air Marshals Day and Wratten, decided that it was due to gross negligence on the part of the two pilots, Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook.
After much controversy, a Select Committee of this House was set up to consider whether this verdict was justified. On 31st January this year, it delivered a report which came to the unanimous conclusion that,
"the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash".
It is not my intention today to go into any further detail on the Select Committee report or on any other aspects of the helicopter accident. This is not, as someone rather rudely suggested in the House Magazine, a peg on which to hang another Chinook debate. But, according to the Companion, the Ministry of Defence—as has been confirmed by the Minister—has six months to respond to the report. It is somewhat surprising that it needs quite so much time. The obvious response to the unambiguous report of the Select Committee is to set aside immediately the verdict of gross negligence. However, one would normally wait, with whatever patience one could muster, until the response was forthcoming. But there are reports from sources that I would normally regard as reliable that, in spite of the Select Committee's report, there is no intention of setting aside the air marshals' verdict.

825
If that is true, it seems to me that it runs counter to the constitutional principles both of parliamentary sovereignty and of the rule of law. But it would not be entirely surprising, since the Ministry of Defence virtually ignored the report of the Public Accounts Committee in another place, which also questioned the validity of the air marshals' verdict, leading the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to accuse the MoD of "unwarrantable arrogance". I do not go so far as that. Incidentally, the Ministry of Defence has also ignored the finding of the fatal accident inquiry in Scotland, which came to the same conclusion; namely, that there was no evidence to indicate negligence on the part of the pilots. This seems to me again to be showing little concern for the rule of law.
A further negative response from the Government would signify that the verdict of two air force officers is to stand in spite of the fact that a Select Committee of this House has decided that it is in effect unlawful. That is a decision which this House would naturally wish to debate. The Select Committee was set up after a substantial majority in this House voted for it. If its report is to be rejected or ignored, the House may have something to say about that. The Ministry of Defence insists that no decision has yet been made. In that case it may want to take this into account before arriving at its decision.
We were told by the Minister on 1st May that the Government hoped to have their response ready for debate in this House—if indeed a debate were necessary—before the Summer Recess. Evidently, from what the Minister said, that is unlikely to be so. Perhaps he will confirm that in his reply. If the report is not received by your Lordships' House within a very short period, there will be no time for the debate before the Summer Recess that we had been led to believe there would be. Your Lordships would therefore not have an opportunity to debate the important issue of the Ministry's response to the report of the Select Committee before, at the very earliest, October.
I conclude on an important point. I recognise that the Government are not obliged to accept the report of a parliamentary Select Committee. I fully recognise that. I do not agree with it. I think that it is offensive to anyone who believes in the importance of constitutionalism. However, it is the case and we have no way out of it. Perhaps the only way of persuading the Ministry of Defence to respond positively to the report is to use the constitutional means which I am using today to underline the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law, and to express the hope that the Ministry of Defence will have full cognisance of both as it comes to its final decision.
As I said, my principal aim in moving this amendment is not to cause disruption in the Armed Forces or to damage national security, but to draw attention to the constitutional dimension in this matter, to give noble Lords an opportunity before October of expressing their views on the MoD's handling of this whole tragic affair, and perhaps to
826
give the MoD a constitutional reason why it should accept the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert, "this House declines to approve the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2002 in respect of the Air Force until such time as Her Majesty's Government have responded to the report of the Select Committee on Chinook ZD576".—(Lord Chalfont.
8 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, when this matter was first discussed in your Lordships' House a few years ago, in the wake of the Chinook disaster, I believed that I was right in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. In fact, I went to the site of the accident and met lots of people, including those who were there that evening when the helicopter crashed. They all believed that the weather that day had played a great part in the accident.
I have a little house in County Antrim, on the shores of Murlough Bay, 11 miles from the Mull of Kintyre. Last weekend and the weekend before—and probably this weekend, too—one could not see the Mull of Kintyre at five minutes to noon because of the clouds. At 12.10 p.m., however, it was totally clear. At 12.20 p.m., the clouds had returned. That is how it is there. I shall not get involved in the issue of whether the Chinook had defects. However, I am quite prepared to accept that the weather conditions played a part in the disaster.
I have met many of the widows of those killed in the disaster. Like me and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, they feel that it is absolutely unfair to blame those two young pilots for crashing their helicopter into the Mull of Kintyre. The situation has placed a burden on their families—on their fathers, mothers and other relations—but most of all on their children, who now carry the burden of claims that their fathers are responsible for causing the death of the 28 officers on the flight.
When the Select Committee reported, I thought that that would probably be the end of the matter. A Select Committee composed of Members of your Lordships' House examined in great detail every aspect of the facts surrounding the crash. I believed that the MoD would have to abide by the report. From what I have heard since, however, it seems that the MoD has its back to the wall. It is not going to give way one inch on the findings of the two air marshals. I am certain that some noble Lords will defend the two air marshals in this debate. However, there are those like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and me who will tenaciously pursue this case until the pilots are cleared or we have to accept without a shred of doubt that they are guilty of gross negligence. There is no way in which I and many others in that community can be convinced that the two pilots were so unconcerned about their duties that they mistakenly, drunkenly or in any similar way flew into the Mull of Kintyre.

827
The Ministry has taken the view that it must accept the Air marshals' findings. However, the two air marshals are as capable as anyone else of misinterpreting the facts of the disaster. No one is saying that they are God and must be right. They were not on that helicopter. Regardless of the reports that they have read in the MoD, it is not beyond question that they are right. I do not believe that they can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that those two young pilots are guilty of gross negligence which led to their death and the death of their comrades.
It has been suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, believes that the Select Committee report should be accepted. I should hope that it will be. However, if it is not, it should be debated on the Floor of the House. We can then decide whether to accept findings unanimously accepted by 12 noble Lords. The Select Committee examined every aspect of this terrible accident, and I believe that its report should be accepted.
I know that we shall hear from people in the military about the matter. The military has a view on this, and the military has its back to the wall. It will want to defend its position. However, millions of people in this country are not in the military and do not abide by every diktat from air force and MoD officers. The first investigation into the matter, conducted in Scotland, found that it could not be proven beyond doubt that the pilots are guilty. However, the Ministry and the air marshals contradicted that and gave their verdict.
The Chinook disaster has had an awful effect on the people of Northern Ireland. Most of the young people killed in the accident the 28 police officers—-had been conducting a war against the greatest terrorist organisation that these islands have seen. Those young police officers had dedicated their lives to eradicating terrorism in Northern Ireland. That is why the Chinook disaster and everything surrounding it has had such an effect on the people of Northern Ireland.
As I said, I have repeatedly met the widows of the two pilots and the widows of the police officers killed in the tragedy. If the Government are not prepared to say that they will accept the Select Committee's findings, let the whole issue be debated in this House. Let us all have a say on what we know about the circumstances relating to this disaster.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his tenacious attitude to pursuing this case, is carrying on a campaign which I believe will have the support of the overwhelming majority of the people living in these islands.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, along with so many of your Lordships, I have taken naturally enough a close interest in this tragedy and in the subsequent handling of the inquiries as I happened to be Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at that time and knew many of those who lost their lives and met the families of the two young flight lieutenants subsequently.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on his ingenuity in finding this vehicle as a means of putting some ginger under the tail of the MoD
828
because, after all, the report was delivered on 31st January. Some four-and-a-half or five months have passed and there is still no response from the Ministry of Defence. I sympathise warmly with the sentiments that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has just expressed. They come very much from the heart.
It is, however, possible to look at the issue before us tonight a little more clinically by reminding ourselves of the terms of reference of the Select Committee which were to consider,
"the justification for the finding of those reviewing the conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry that both pilots … were negligent".
The committee was not tasked by this House to find out what happened and what caused the crash. How could it have been so tasked? It would be quite beyond it. It was narrowly tasked in that way. It identified the question to be answered at paragraph 147 of its report on page 33. It states that,
"the question to be answered is whether there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they [the pilots] ought to have foreseen that their action would in all probability occasion the final event".
Those were the words of the RAF's own rules at that time—"absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
The committee concluded —let us not forget that it was headed by no mere tiro in this kind of matter; it was headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, a retired Lord of Appeal in Ordinary—at paragraph 174 that in the light of all t he evidence before it, and having regard to that very high standard of proof,
"the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash".
It is perfectly true and only fair to acknowledge that the committee had before it some evidence which was not available for one reason or another to the air marshals. I ask the Minister when he replies to confirm that the evidence relied upon by the committee in coming to its conclusion was not limited to evidence that was freshly before it and was not available to the air marshals but that there was other evidence, which it identifies, which led it to the conclusion that it reached. If the Minister will confirm that, I should be grateful. If he cannot confirm it, it would be good to know why he cannot do so.
What is the purpose of commissioning further evidence or further information from Boeing? What are the particulars of what it is being asked to do? Why is it being asked to do that now? Can the Minister give an undertaking that when the response is ready it will be brought before this House in time for a debate to take place before we rise on whatever date in July that will be? Finally, can the Minister confirm that if the response fails to shake, and therefore to reject, the finding of the committee, the appropriate amendment to the records of the two young officers will be made within the MoD?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, Parliament is being mocked by the executive. The noise of feet being dragged, so as to cause unjustified delay, is becoming quite intolerable. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is a rare opportunity to draw this Parliament's attention to the position.

829
To put the matter in its proper perspective perhaps I may, quite shortly, refer to some background facts although they are well known to your Lordships. As has been stated, on 2nd June 1994 RAF Chinook helicopter ZD576 crashed on the Mull of Kintyre. RAF rules in force at the time provided that the deceased air crew could be found negligent only where there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". I stress the words of emphasis—"absolutely" presupposes and emphasises that the doubt is unqualified and unrestricted. Doubt is not limited to cases of "reasonable doubt". The final word "whatsoever" makes clear that there can be no doubt of any kind; the onus requires certainty. There is clear justification for this. The board of inquiry takes place in private. The deceased's family is not entitled to representation. There is no appeal. No member of the board is legally qualified as in courts martial, whose function it is to ensure the legal validity of the decision.
During the debate of 5th March 2001—which was the first application for the appointment of the Select Committee—my noble and gallant friend—indeed my boss or the nearest I am likely to get one—Lord Craig of Radley said that the board of inquiry was not a court of justice. Its overriding concern was to discover what happened. Indeed, today a board of inquiry is not entitled to apportion blame in the case of a deceased pilot.
The RAF investigating board concluded that the most probable—I underline those words—cause of the accident was that the crew had selected an inappropriate rate of climb to overfly the Mull. However, the investigating board made no finding of negligence on the part of the pilots; nor did the two station commanders who reviewed its findings. Nevertheless, the two air marshals, to whom the investigating board's report was submitted, concluded that the pilots were guilty of gross negligence in that they failed to take appropriate action when approaching deteriorating weather near the Mull. That is tantamount to a finding of manslaughter.
Nearly two years ago your Lordships appointed a Select Committee to consider whether that finding was justified, and to complete its report by 31st January 2002. I refer to the decision, which, as your Lordships will recall—it has just been referred to—itself made clear that the,
"finding of negligence against … the applicable standard of proof, which required 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever'. In the light of all the evidence before us, and having regard to that standard, we unanimously conclude that the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash".
My noble friend Lord Chalfont sought leave to raise a PNQ against the executive, the Government, as to how it intended to respond to this report. With characteristic courtesy, the noble and learned Leader of the House wrote to my noble friend on 5th February 2002, explaining why he had refused to accept the PNQ; namely, that it would be quite inappropriate for the executive to make any kind of response until it had had time to read the report and to consider the recommendations. I in no way criticise that decision.
830
The noble and learned Lord went on to give two virtual assurances: first, that the executive would not drag its feet in replying to the report; secondly, that once it had responded, there would then be an opportunity for the House to debate both the report and the executive's response, and that he, the noble and learned Leader of the House, would through the usual channels request an early date for the debate. That looked very hopeful.
In a Starred Question only last month, my noble friend Lord Chalfont asked the Government whether they expected to provide a response to the report before the Summer Recess. The Minister stated:
"The Government have said they intend to respond to the Select Committee's report before the six months allowed for response to such reports have elapsed. That remains its intention. Moreover, I hope that it will be possible to publish our reply and debate the issue in your Lordships' House before the Summer Recess".
We have now heard from my noble friend Lord Chalfont that the executive's response to the Select Committee's report is not likely to be available for debate in the House before the Summer Recess, taking full advantage of the six months without giving us any details as to why all that time is necessary.
In the debate on 30th April 2001, in which the second and successful application was made for the appointment of a Select Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said:
"… this is a constitutional matter. It is a duty of the House of Lords, as the legislature, to hold the executive to account".— [Official Report, 30/4/01; col. 1596.]
For the verdict to be considered valid, two requirements must be satisfied. They are, first, that the air marshals must have concluded that,
"there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the pilots were guilty of gross negligence"
and, secondly, that if—I underline that word—they did so conclude, there must be adequate material to support such a conclusion.
I deal with the first of those two requirements, which the executive has absolutely no chance of satisfying. It was my submission on 5th March and also on 30th April 2001 that the verdict reached by the air marshals was quite simply unlawful because it was made beyond their power. In forensic language, it was ultra vices and, for that reason, had to be set aside ex debito justiciae—"because justice so demands". It is not a question of discretion. The decision is a nullity. That is simply because the air marshals did not purport to say that it was one of those rare cases in which there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the deceased pilots were negligent. The nearest they got to that, albeit a long way off, was that Air Marshal Day said:
"The Board and Officer Commanding RAF Odiham postulate various factors and scenarios, including possible distraction or disorientation, in attempting to explain why the crew might have failed to make a safe transition to Instrument Flight Rules".

831
I interpose to stress the following words:
"In my judgment, none of the possible factors and scenarios is so strong that they would have been likely to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight".
In other words, it was being said that none of the factors or scenarios was of sufficient strength to provide a likely explanation. That has two consequences. First, it puts the onus on the deceased, which is wrong. Secondly, it deals with probabilities. It does not even deal with reasonable doubt, let alone certainties. That is the only material that the air marshal vouchsafed as his reason for exercising his power. His senior officer, Sir William Ralten, added nothing at all. However, Air Marshal Day to some extent gave the game away when he stated:
"Therefore, while aware of the difficulty of attributing negligence to the deceased air crew, I am nevertheless forced to conclude that Flight Lieutenant Tapper was negligent to a gross degree".
"Difficulty", the word that he uses, is a gross understatement of the task that faced him. What faced him was a near impossibility, and that is something that he did not address.
The only other part of the judgment which I think is worthy of quoting is:
"It is incomprehensible why two trusted, experienced and skilled pilots should, as indicated by all the available evidence, have flown a serviceable aircraft into cloud-covered high ground".
I entirely agree that it is incomprehensible, which shows that it cannot have been a situation in which there was "absolutely no doubt whatsoever".
My submissions to your Lordships on 30th April and 5th March 2001 were never challenged. They were specifically supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who emphasised that the first requirement raised a legal, rather than a factual, question and that it was a relatively short one. I had the privilege, as is often the case, of sitting next to my noble and learned friend, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane. He voted for the setting-up of this committee and I know that he accepted what I submitted.
The reference in the Motion to the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2002 is a shot in our locker which I had hoped could have been used following—I emphasise the word "following"—the anticipated refusal by the executive to set aside its verdict. Perhaps one of the stimuli to the foot-dragging operation has been to ensure that the obligation to make the order arises before rather than after the executive's decision.
I end by saying that I hope that, in the course of this debate, the House will thoroughly deplore the executive's near contemptuous treatment of Parliament—a very depressing indication of worse to follow.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I did not consider that tonight was a suitable occasion on which to go into detail on the findings of the hoard of inquiry or the Select Committee. I believe that the time to do that is when the report is available.
832
However, it is worth reminding your Lordships that, in spite of all that has been said tonight, no fewer than, I believe, 10 Ministers of the Crown have stood at Dispatch Boxes in this and the other House and upheld the findings of the original board of inquiry. I believe that that, of its own, is sufficient to suggest that there must be more than one view on the matter. That is not surprising. Even noble and learned Lords of the very highest legal repute do not always see eye to eye. Therefore, I believe that it is right that we wait for the response of the Ministry of Defence. We shall then be in a better position to debate this subject.
However, any doubt about the intention of Parliament to proceed with the continuation order is wholly unacceptable. The services are under very great pressure, as all sides of the House have acknowledged on many, many occasions. However well-intentioned the protagonists for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, may be, I abhor any attempt to detract from the wholehearted support that this House should give to the Armed Forces.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I agree entirely with the point that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, presented his amendment as a means of securing from Ministers a pledge that there would be a debate. Unfortunately, we have already had the debate in large measure this evening. We shall need to have a serious debate because there are various sides to this story, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has indicated.
My regret in relation to the amendment is that debate on the order presented an annual opportunity for the House to pay tribute to the Armed Forces for their work over the past year. Over that time, our Armed Forces have served in various and very different ways both the country and the cause of international peace and stability with success and distinction. I believe that in large measure the amendment would have deprived us of an opportunity to offer words of tribute. I hope that the House will recall that the order is normally something of a formality. But the formality should at least provide an opportunity for tribute to be paid without qualification, and I hope that the Minister will recognise that.
It is perhaps more appropriate for this House to offer comments. A few moments ago I counted up and calculated that, of the Peers present in the Chamber during the debate, approximately 20 have served in the Armed Forces. I believe that if there were a debate in the other place now, one would be lucky to find more than two or three Members present. Therefore, it is perhaps particularly appropriate that words of commendation are expressed during this debate.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, simply because I do not have the experience of people such as my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley and I do not have the background information that Ministers and former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland have. However, for a considerable number of years I served

833
as a commissioned officer and I suppose that I could claim to have been on active service continuously for 11 years. With the exception of those who flew with the Royal Air Force, I believe that I could safely claim that, within your Lordships' House, I have spent more hours in the air in helicopters than most.
What disturbs me about this evening's debate is that the constraints that the processes and procedures of this House place on the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whose dignified presentation of his case must have impressed us all, are such that we cannot move forward as expeditiously as we should on this extremely serious issue.
As someone who worked for many years with those who fly our helicopters, and who did so under very difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland, the one thing to which I can bear personal witness is the competence and discipline of those people. I have always found it difficult to believe that not one—so often I flew in a helicopter with one pilot—but, in this case, two experienced pilots could have made the type of mistake that it appears to many of us was summarily decided that they made. That is unreasonable.
Again, I have the disadvantage of having no technical knowledge in terms of aircraft and helicopters. But, like your Lordships, I can read the reports of faults that occur in Chinook helicopters. Hence, from experience, I would deduce that the cause of that horrific crash was far less likely to be pilot error than some external problem. I hope that your Lordships recognise that many of those killed in that helicopter were acquaintances and friends of mine. Therefore, I should like to see a proper, considered response to the tragic event of 1994.
I heard the Minister caution what the outcome would be if the amendment were carried tonight. I understand that. I would not be at all desperate for this matter not to be pressed to a Division in so far as my experience of military life is that discipline is not a diktat but a culture within our armed services. I do not believe that it is beyond the competence of the House, if the Government remained adamant that the amendment would delay the process of justice in respect of the Chinook disaster, to ensure that the Government returned to the House long before August to put right what I believe is wrong. The Government could also bring forward new legislation—so that there would be no crisis within the armed services.
We have a responsibility not to add up the number of Ministers who have remained solid in their support of the Ministry of Defence and the Government's attitude but to examine the breadth of available experience. I am envious of members of the Select Committee having the opportunity to examine and weigh up the facts.
I shall not incite the House to a form of rebellion. Perhaps my military service makes me recognise the need for things to move forward with a degree of order. However, I implore the Minister, when he responds, to remember the many people involved—not just the two
834
pilots and their families. In so far as the pilots stand condemned by their own service, I feel most for them—but 26 others were involved in that disaster. Their families also deserve some sort of comfort from knowing that the executive is not hard nosed but has compassion. I ask the Minister to remember that this evening.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for giving it a preview of the various actions that the Government propose in regard to consolidation of various Acts that now exist separately—which he did with some force. On the basis of my experience of the Palace of Westminster over the past 50 years, I thought that the Minister rather overdid it. Everybody knows perfectly well that if the Government wish to get through an Army Act—Whatever happens to the Motion—they would anyway. The Government have the machinery to do so—even extra parliamentary machinery. The Government have the Prime Minister sitting in the seat of active power—and he does more or less what he likes anyway. Anyone who thinks that the whole future of the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts will be affected by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is looking through the wrong end of a telescope. Such a thing cannot be conceived and would not happen. I expect that the Minister himself knows very well that, whatever happens, the new Act will go forward and the entire Armed Forces would not be paralysed. One can overdo scare nonsense too much.
We are really talking about a question of law. I draw your Lordships' attention to the rule in force at the time of the accident—which is to be found at paragraph 13 on page 7 of the report:
"The RAF manual of flight safety AP 3207 published by the Inspectorate of Flight Safety and in force at the time of the accident provided in paragraph 9 of Annex G to Chapter 8 that 'only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew be found negligent'".
To me, that statement is clear.
With controversy raging in varying degrees over the past eight years, according to the pressure applied by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the cause of the accident has been a matter of dispute. The efforts made to ascertain the truth over the past eight years mean that there is already doubt. That is implicit even in tonight's debate, in which different views are being expressed. It is clear that there are already grounds for reasonable doubt. The existence and continuation of debate on the subject over eight years proves that the matter is far from settled.
I shall forebear going into the legal aspects, which have anyway been dealt with by one of the finest lawyers that this country has ever known—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I prefer to take an entirely different view. I have always been under the impression, since being in practice and in the Armed Forces for six years—with some flying experience— that an Englishman's word is his bond. It is not necessarily a question of law. Progressively over the years, this country has lost that sense that an

835
Englishman's word is his bond, if something else exists. That is the kind of situation that I, as a Briton, cannot tolerate. There must be some regaining of the sense of honour—making due allowance for the views of some of one's friends and political associates, who may disagree. In the finality, that is where the role lies.
The time will return, hopefully shortly, when an Englishman's word is generally recognised—not as a matter of law but of normal practice. For that reason, I hope that the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, meet with success. They certainly have my support and those of all people who have any regard for what has hitherto been regarded in this country as normal and civilised behaviour, lived in accordance with ordinary moral principles.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I warmly support everything that my noble and learned friend, the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said. Precisely because we all greatly love and respect the Armed Forces, for whom we often speak when they cannot speak for themselves, it is essential that the Government should not give even the appearance of dragging their feet and kicking the debate, practically speaking, into the distance. Not only noble Lords, but also the men and women of the armed services, will note with deep regret the Government's failure to give as early an answer as possible to such a major and unequivocal conclusion as the report furnishes.
I feel that any further delay is wholly unacceptable. The Government say that we will have a debate by the end of the summer. That will prolong the whole process and it will be November before we can debate it. Already eight years have passed and soon it will be nine. I beg the Government to think hard before they behave in that way.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I have taken part in debates on many orders and I believe that this is one of the longest with which I have been associated. It will also probably receive the most amount of press coverage. The only order that I can think of that received any press coverage was one that removed the offence of a landlord serving more than a pint. Apparently it was illegal to give more than a pint.
The order before us is uncontentious. I do not believe that any noble Lord has spoken against the order. On these Benches it has full support. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. This is an opportunity to commend the work of our Armed Forces. I had a number of questions for the Minister about a forthcoming Army Act but he answered those in his introduction to the order.
I also echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who said that this was an ingenious opportunity for a debate to be brought forward on this subject. I realise, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, that this is not just a peg on which to hang a debate about this terrible tragedy but an issue that he believes has constitutional implications. I take on board that sentiment. However, only two questions appear to have been raised this evening: one, whether
836
the Government will publish the report before the Summer Recess; and, two, whether the House will be given the opportunity to debate that report before the Summer Recess? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for moving the order. On these Benches we naturally support it for the reasons that the Minister so clearly identified. The House welcomes the Minister's statement concerning the government response to the House of Lords Chinook report ZD576. We on these Benches want to debate the response before the Summer Recess. I agree with what your Lordships have said. It has taken too long and we should debate the response before the recess. I agree with the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and I agree with what my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said. I prefer to say no more on the issue now and to keep what I have to say for the debate on the Government's response.
The continuation order represents an occasion when some associated matters can be included in the debate, although I shall keep my contribution short. I am most grateful to the Minister for bringing us up to date on the tri-service Act. Will he confirm that there will be advance consultation with Parliament at various stages of preparation of that new Act?
During the past 10 years there has been increased emphasis on joint aspects of all three armed services. Because of that, the need for further continual amendments and a tri-service Act has developed. During the drafting of' that Act it will be important to ensure that due to the nature of the three services and their different roles there may be a need to introduce some parts of the Act which will be applicable only to a specific service. To support that comment, the Chief of the Defence Staff said that we should recognise the tolerable variation that needs to exist between the three service environments. However, to wait another four years, as the Minister indicated, seems an exorbitant length of time.
It must be recognised that the way of life in the Armed Forces is very different from that of civilian life. The temptation to tinker with the discipline of the Armed Forces must be resisted at all costs when drafting the new tri-service Bill. The new Act will be of such importance that we should try every way to retain the effectiveness of the military discipline system, ensuring that commanding officers retain their full powers.
I take this opportunity to comment on the Human Rights Act and some aspects affecting Armed Forces military law which did not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am aware that the Minister has touched on that subject. Changes were made to existing military law and although they achieved the object of retaining summary powers of jurisdiction and custody before trial, they also undermined the authority and effectiveness of a commanding officer as did a number of other changes.

837
Your Lordships are well aware that morale is built of various components and a large component is military discipline. The efficiency and the state of morale of a regiment is the sole responsibility of a commanding officer and for that reason such power is vested in him. If we undermine that power and authority we shall destroy the ethos and morale of regiments and we shall be left with inefficient units that may not be successful in times of conflict.
I wish to touch on one aspect of the International Criminal Court, which rightly caused so much concern in your Lordships' House. Part of the Act deals with actions taken by military commanders in times of conflict and could have led to those military commanders being arraigned on charges by a foreign court. By signing up to retain jurisdiction over our own Armed Forces it denied the right of any foreign government to bring charges against a UK serviceman or woman until the case had been investigated by our own United Kingdom authorities. If the United Kingdom decides that there is no case to answer, I understand that that is the end of the matter and no European court would have any jurisdiction. Can the Minister clarify the situation and explain why we did not take advantage of Article 124 of the Rome statute which would have allowed us to opt out for a period of seven years?
In conclusion, we on these Benches pay great tribute to the men, women and families of our Armed Forces. They have been over-committed and yet they have performed their tasks highly successfully with great skill and bravery. But a word of warning: those skills are beginning to fade and troops and families are beginning to become tired. Retention rates are poor and consequently experience is drifting away which is the start of inefficient Armed Forces. It is Her Majesty's Government's responsibility to ensure that the Armed Forces of the Crown are funded correctly. If under-funding persists, manning levels will fall, equipments will be cancelled or delayed, commitments will have to he cut and our fighting efficiency will deteriorate.
9 P.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion of the order and the amendment to the order. The passion and thought with which all distinguished noble Lords have spoken has certainly been effective.
I hope that noble Lords will not think it offensive if I tell the House straightaway that I do not intend tonight to go into the merits or otherwise of the Chinook affair. There will be a debate following the publication of the Government's response. But I tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that it may not be possible to have that debate before the Recess because it may not be possible to publish the response until very close to the Recess itself.
When the response is published it is intended that there will be a Statement made in this House so that there will be a short discussion—I know how long
838
Statements take in this House—at the time. I do not see that, nor will noble Lords, as a substitute for a full debate. That debate will take place, but I cannot give a guarantee that it will happen before the Recess.
I shall briefly deal, first, with the timetable and, secondly, the attacks which have been made on the executive and the Ministry of Defence. I shall not be long about either. As regards the timetable, at the risk of repeating what I said some time ago when I moved the order, I say this. The Select Committee's report was published on 5th February, not 31st January, of this year. The Government have consistently said, and I say it again tonight, that they will respond to the report before the six months allowed for responses—I repeat, allowed for responses—under the rules which we have to follow have elapsed. That remains our intention and we fully expect to publish our response before the House rises.
The committee's report is a detailed assessment of a set of complex, technical, legal and, we believe, airmanship issues. Surely it must be right that it has to be fully and carefully assessed. That is what we will be doing and we will not be deflected by name-calling from doing that.
I turn briefly to the comments made about the Ministry of Defence and the executive. The comments sadden me and I believe them to be unfair and unfortunate. I hope that some elements of the House may agree with me. It is not fair to say that the Ministry of Defence has dragged its feet, or that its back is against the wall.
Two important matters need to be resolved by the Ministry of Defence before it can put forward its decision and its view, which will be decided by Ministers and nobody else, on this very important matter. It is extremely important as well as being an extremely tragic case. The first matter relates to further advice from counsel on the application of evidence concerning the standard of proof criterion. We have heard some very distinguished views on that today. We are obtaining further advice from counsel. I share that with the House. That is what we are doing and I believe that we would be rightly criticised if we did not do that.
Secondly, as regards Boeing, the House will recall that the very distinguished committee which looked into these matters criticised the original Boeing simulation and the standard of proof. As part of the detailed assessment of the report that is currently being undertaken, surely it is right to seek Boeing's input. Indeed, I would have expected the House to criticise us if we had not bothered to do that. We want the best possible advice. We have asked for Boeing's comments and that they review their original analysis with the inclusion of a full FADEC simulation. The modelling tool available at the time did not include FADEC parameters although the engineers who conducted the original simulation factored in known FADEC performance criteria. Boeing has also been asked to re-examine to what extent the minimum speed at the way-point can be established. Boeing is doing that and is assisting. We are grateful to it and to the other

839
companies involved in this work—in other words, the sub-component manufacturers—for their co-operation.
Boeing is the only manufacturer and design authority of the Chinook. Only Boeing possesses the necessary detail about the design and material of the aircraft and its capabilities. We intend to make the evidence produced through Boeing's work, in the light of the re-modelling process, available although there may be some matters of commercial sensitivity which preclude publication of some elements.
I want to emphasise to noble Lords that we have been consistently open. Nothing is being hidden; there is nothing to hide. Anyone who has experience of the defence industry and, one might say, of industry generally, will know that it sometimes takes quite a long period of time for these reports and examinations to be done and sent back to Britain. It is unfair to suggest that the Ministry of Defence is dragging its feet because those reports have not yet reached us. We are hoping that they will shortly and they will be considered properly and carefully. I cannot believe that the House would expect us to do anything else.
The suggestion that a decision has somehow been made by the Ministry of Defence as to what conclusion we are going to reach on the Chinook matter is absolutely wrong. No decision has been made. We will look carefully at the whole issue when we have received the new information and then make the decision, we hope, coolly, calmly and properly. We will report within the six months that we are allowed. I repeat, the decision will be made by Ministers.
I end this part of what I have to say by making this point. Given the level of interest that there is in this matter—we have seen it tonight in a very articulate form—how could the Government consider that any delay on their part would be helpful, as some noble Lords have suggested? We want to clear this matter up just as much as those who have spoken with such passion tonight.
I turn to what the original Motion speaks about and particularly with reference to the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, made a few minutes ago. I would like to thank both him, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and other noble Lords for their support for the order itself. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, acknowledged many of the issues which we are taking into account in our work on the tri-service Act, including striking the right balance between harmonisation and single-service requirements. He recognised the need to get the new legislation right. That is what is most important to us. The services are naturally concerned that we should proceed with caution and care in enveloping the new framework that is needed. In consideration of our timetable it is right that we should proceed at a pace with which the services themselves are comfortable.
Consultation with the House was mentioned and that is understood. One means of consultation is these annual debates and it may be that in years to come we shall be able to concentrate more on the order itself. However, this time next year the policy development
840
stage that I spoke about should be complete. I am happy to consider whether it would be possible to publish information about our proposals. If we were to do so I am sure that there would be no reticence on your Lordships' part in giving the Government the benefit of your views. I invite the noble Lord to leave that matter with me for the time being.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, commented on the changes that are to be made to service discipline because of the European Convention on Human Rights. I agree with his comments about the critical importance of the commanding officer in upholding discipline and maintaining morale, and the key role that those factors play in preserving operational effectiveness. Where I part company gently from him is in his analysis that the changes to be made in some way undermine the position of the commanding officer or are damaging to discipline and morale.
The changes have increased the fairness of the system of discipline and, I would argue, have helped to bolster the respect in which the subsystem is held by those who are subject to it. If so, we do not believe it necessary to consider leaving the ECHR even on a temporary basis. We take a positive view. Those who bear the heavy responsibility of defending our rights— the rights of the population at large—should enjoy those appropriate rights themselves.
I shall briefly mention the International Criminal Court. The noble Lord asked why the UK did not opt to take advantage of the seven year transitional period in Article 124 of the statute whereby a state can declare that provisions on war crimes do not apply to crimes committed by its nationals or on its territory. In the negotiations for the ICC statute we made it clear that it would have been better not to include such a transitional arrangement if agreement had been possible without it. It is a perverse position for states to join the court but not to accept the hulk of its jurisdiction for seven years. We believe that making use of that provision would have called into question our commitment to the International Criminal Court.
The complementary provisions of the statute whereby we have primacy of jurisdiction in cases where our nationals are accused provide the protection that our service personnel require. In other words, if the UK decides that there is no case to answer, then the ICC would not have jurisdiction unless it could claim that the UK was deliberately shielding war criminals or that the justice system had broken down. We do not believe that either of those situations is likely to occur.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, ended by referring to the commitments of our Armed Forces and the implications for personnel and their families. It remains our policy to achieve a balance of commitments. We aim to commit personnel to operations for no longer than is necessary to achieve their military purpose. That was evident in the case of the deployment to Macedonia last year. I am grateful for the kind remarks that he and the noble Lord, Lord

841
Redesdale, and others have made about our Armed Forces. They are well deserved. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I shall be brief. I said that this amendment was not intended to disrupt or undermine the Royal Air Force or any other part of the Armed Forces. Indeed, I have been somewhat resentful of some of the suggestions made that this amendment has in some way prevented us from paying tribute to the Armed Forces as though it were a formality that we had to go through.
I served for 25 years in the Armed Forces and I yield to no one in my regard and admiration for them. I am willing to repeat that admiration at any time—not just as a formality during a debate. The reason why I tabled the amendment was to point out that Parliament is not a talking shop—although it may have sounded like it tonight—to be ignored by the Air Staff or by the Government. Sometimes people should be reminded that Parliament has teeth and may sometimes bite. It is not going to bite on this occasion, but there may be occasions in the future when it might.
I shall not take up any of the arguments that have been made tonight for obvious reasons of time, except to make two points. I want to make a small point about the date of the report. There is not much argument about it because it is printed on the report—ordered to be printed on 31st January. As far as I am concerned that is when the report was issued. However, we will not argue about five days when we have already waited this length of time for the Ministry of Defence response.
My only other point was made also by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley. He mentioned the number of Ministers who supported the view of the air marshals. I can tell him that a number of Ministers from the Ministry of Defence over recent years have personally told me that they have some doubt about it. Perhaps I can remind your Lordships' House that the Secretary of State at the time has said publicly that if he had known then what he knows now, he would never have allowed the verdict to stand.
The debate has done to some extent what I intended it to do. I found no other way of achieving that end. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, it was a device, whether or not ingenious I do not know, but the only one I could think of which would point to the fact that we have now been waiting since either 1st January or 5th February for a response from the Government. We have not had one.
In passing perhaps I may say that if it is only now that they are seeking the advice of counsel on the matter of whether there is any doubt and what the legal implications of that are, I wish that the air marshals had taken counsel's advice before coming to their decision.
However, this is an issue which your Lordships will undoubtedly wish to visit when eventually there has been a chance to consider the Government's response to the Select Committee's report. I regret that we shall
842
not have an opportunity for debate before the Summer Recess. But we shall at least have an opportunity to consider a Statement, which is moving us some way towards what I hope will be a happy conclusion. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill
9.16 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 44.
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 81:
Page 29, line 16, after "prescribed" insert—
"( ) advising all admission authorities on how to provide a non-selective school system,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having lost a fair amount of time, your Lordships will probably prefer me to be as brief as I can. In moving Amendment No. 81, standing in the names of my noble friend Lady David and myself, perhaps I may immediately thank the Minister not merely for answering my question on what the membership of the forums would be, but actually handing me a piece of paper containing all the information.
That piece of paper also contained a very interesting sentence which may affect how I organise the next few years. It says that the chairman of the forum could, if it so decided, be an independent person. I am certainly an independent person and what I need to do is find a forum that is looking for a possible chairman because it looks very interesting. I just mention that en passant.
The Minister said in terms, at col. 212 of Hansard on 14th May, that,
"as an individual as well as a Minister, philosophically [I] do not support selection by ability at 11".
Again at col. 637 of Hansard on 11th March of this year she said,
"I am pro-education, pro-equality and pro the comprehensive system".
I can find no better sentence to convey my own views on this matter. Though I shall not weary your Lordships with other quotations, that is certainly also the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who said in terms that she supports the comprehensive schools.
The question before us, therefore, is why there is so much selection in our education system, some of which is overt and a great deal of which is covert. Why is it that some of us are so worried that selection will increase with the introduction of all the new forms of school that have been placed before us in the past few years?
When we think of selection by ability at 11, we are not looking at something that is new or something about which we are completely ignorant. This subject has been around a long time and has been studied in great depth. It is no longer a matter of anecdote or

843
anything else. It is something that education researchers know about. The considered view is that selection at 11-plus is socially divisive. Much worse than that, it damages individual self-esteem. Worse still, it places unreasonable pressures on pupils and teachers in primary schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, talked about disruption, which she thinks is due to the ballots, but it is known overwhelmingly that the 11-plus exam disrupts teaching and learning at a very important stage in the primary curriculum.
We also know, as a matter of research, not of anecdote, that because of the dynamics of child development, the selection at 11-plus not only of itself does not work properly, it reinforces rather than reduces inequality of opportunity.
The worst thing about selection at 11 is that although we all have experience of failure in life, happily a few of us do not have that experience until we are quite a bit older. Many of us campaign for the abolition of selection at 11 because it is appalling to inflict failure on a young child. When I was 11 an enormous number of children were immediately branded as failures. I know that we all experience failure, but for it to happen at 11 is cruelty beyond acceptability.
That is the background to my position and it leads to at least one suggestion, which is all that my amendment is about. My noble friend Lady David and I, along with others, think that an admission forum could, first, look at what is happening within the area on selection, and so on. Secondly, it could advise the admission authorities on how to set up a genuinely non-selective school system.
This is a minor proposal. It is not my way of saying that we should get rid of selection because it is too cruel. The amendment is simply saying that we should use these forums in an advisory capacity but in a way that would be immensely helpful. It would lead to local debate and bring out these issues in a balanced and interesting way that would lead to action.
That is the reason for tabling the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would expect me to rise to the bait, but I shall be brief.
I would be impressed if I thought that the argument was all about the age at which selection takes place. The noble Lord concentrated a great deal on the inappropriateness of selection at 11. If that were the issue, we could have a serious debate about the appropriate age for selection on the basis of ability. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would fundamentally disagree with selection on the basis of ability at any age.
Lord Peston: No, my Lords, That is not my view and it never has been.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, then I am impressed. There is a serious debate to be had. As we know, in the independent sector, selection takes place at 13-plus,
844
rather than 11-plus. There may be some hope in the idea of a debate on the issue. Certainly there is selection at age 16 and there is a great deal of selection at age 18 on the basis of ability. That is how people move into the world of tertiary education.
My short intervention has at least elicited from the noble Lord something on which we can build in future debates.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall confine myself to replying to the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Peston said, the amendment would require admission forums to advise all admission authorities on how to provide a non-selective system. We simply do not see it as part of the job of admission forums to promote specific changes of character in schools, or in local education authorities.
Noble Lords are well aware that we do not believe in selection by ability, but we do believe that children with a particular talent—for example, in the arts or in sport—should have the opportunity to develop that talent. A small proportion of schools select by aptitude, but most do not. Of course, selection by aptitude of a minority of talented students will occur only where a school is oversubscribed and the oversubscription criteria will be applied.
I agree that forums should advise on how well particular admission arrangements work, including selective arrangements. We expect admission authorities to have regard to that advice. However, it is for admission authorities to determine admission arrangements. We believe that such arrangements should be a matter for local decision. Existing provisions, and those that we are introducing under this Bill, are designed to encourage local discussion with a view to reaching a consensus on admission arrangements that will work in the best interests of local parents.
We already have in place a framework for local consultation on proposed admission arrangements, with the possibility of objection to the adjudicator if admission authorities consider that particular admission arrangements determined by others are undesirable. Under the provisions of the Bill we are also strengthening objection arrangements and extending them so that community and voluntary controlled school governors may also object to admission arrangements at foundation and voluntary aided schools.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the provisions set out in this Bill, together with the existing framework, will enable local partners to agree a local system for admissions that will work well for local parents and children. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her response. There is no difficulty about my withdrawing the amendment, but I am disappointed by her reply because I thought that my noble friend Lady David and I had put forward an amendment that could make a constructive contribution to the role of the admission forums.

845
Perhaps I may respond a little to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Selection has to take place—as, indeed, does choice—at various stages in one's education and career. The point is when. The research evidence available overwhelmingly tells us two things: first, that we should do this as late as possible; and, secondly, that we should always ensure that systems exist in order to rectify errors. Let us take, for example, 16 as an age for the purpose of this argument. Someone might be given certain advice at that age; indeed, I was. I was told that I would never be a hot-shot pure mathematician and that I ought to do something else in the sixth form.
We have all had that sort of experience. Such comments were made in the form of advice, and we took it because that was how we reacted to our teachers. However, there was never any sense of failure involved. It was not a matter of grading us, or telling us that we were worthless; it was advising us what we could do. But there always existed a way—in the case of pure maths, for me, it did exist—of discovering that one had received the wrong advice, and means through which one could put it right.
The real point here is not to say that we should never select, because life is full of selections. On Friday morning 11 young Englishmen will be selected to play for England, while another 11 will be told "You're not good enough". I am sure that they will be very disappointed. But selection is of the essence in the case of a football team. The point about education is that selection is precisely not of the essence; indeed, it is exactly the opposite of what we want at the age of 11.
If, in due course, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who is more influential in this House than I am, could manage to secure us a good debate on selection, I should willingly take part in it. We could then discuss the whole philosophy of it, as well as the practicalities. However, I promised to be brief in my remarks. I shall not, therefore, pursue the matter ad nauseam. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81A and 82 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 82A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 45 [Admission numbers]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 29, line 39, leave out "In" and insert "For"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 84 to 87. These amendments fulfil the promise that I made to noble Lords in Committee to return on Report with our own proposals to address the concerns of those who represent state boarding schools. We share their concern to safeguard the long-term viability of maintained boarding schools, but also think it most important that all schools make clear to parents, in their published admission arrangements, how many
846
places can be applied for and in what circumstances. These amendments, as now drafted, will achieve both objectives.
They will allow maintained boarding schools to have separate admission arrangements, and, therefore, separate admission numbers, for their day and boarding places respectively. The changes already made in Clause 45 of the Bill, replacing standard numbers with admission numbers facilitate that. If a school takes that route, day-place applicants would be ineligible for boarding places, and vice versa.
So, for example, where a parent expresses a preference for a day place at a school that offers boarding accommodation, the admission authority could refuse that child admission if all the day places up to the published admission number have already been allocated to higher priority day-place applicants, even though there may still be boarding places available. We believe that this approach will help schools to keep places available for those who specifically want their child to board, whether during the course of a normal admission round or later. And parents would know where they stand.
However, where boarding school places remain empty in the relevant year group, there is nothing to prevent admission authorities from accepting a greater number of day pupils, or vice versa.
I understand that the State Boarding Information Service welcomes the amendment and is grateful for our recognition of the importance of the state boarding sector. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will join me in opposing Amendment No. 87. It reads:
"References in this section to the determination of any number include references to the determination of zero as that number".
What is wrong with zero? Why not have one or two or 59 in the amendment? Zero is a number. It has one or two interesting properties that other numbers do not. But it is a perfectly ordinary number. That reinforces my prejudice against the Civil Service. Presumably it is full of classicists and just because the Greeks and the Romans did not have a zero they think that zero has something improper about it. It is a perfectly good Hindi concept. It was brought to us through the Arabs and the Italians in the 12th to 13th century and has been part of our mathematics for a long time. It is a number. Why are we trying to define it especially as a number as though there were something odd about it?
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was quite right at our previous session to point out the logic that "or" includes "and", although of course ordinary English has this odd concept "and/or" as if it does not. Legislation manages to avoid that. I really do not think

847
that we should commit a similar fallacy just because there are not enough mathematicians in the Department for Education and Skills.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I read the amendment and assumed not that the draftsman or the civil servants were mad or ignorant but that there must be some very clever legal point. Often when I do not understand something, the lawyers go back to primitive times when—the noble Lord will be aware—people had great difficulty with zero as a number. It is special because it is the only number that can be added to another number leaving the other number still the same. That troubled people enormously.
However, I decided not to speak on the amendment simply because I do not want some smart alec advising the Minister to get up and say that if I only knew about legal drafting, I would know how important this is.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am younger and more foolish than the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hesitate to get into this argument because I do not claim to be a mathematician, but I thought that if one added a zero to a one it became 10, and that that was a different number from one. That is as far as I intend to go in intervening between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
I want to thank the Minister most warmly. I argued the case for these amendments on the last day of Committee. The noble Baroness gave her word that she would go away and think about the matter. I know that STABIS, the organisation representing state boarding schools, is particularly grateful for the work of the noble Baroness. I want it recorded that I am grateful for what has happened. I accept these amendments—zero or no zero.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, in Committee tabled an amendment about boarding schools. I know that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just mentioned, STABIS is delighted with the amendments. They answer its case precisely. It is extremely grateful. I thank the Minister very much for doing this for us. We are very grateful.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships and delighted that we have been able to table the amendments. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the Bill manager is a mathematician and that the noble Lord is absolutely right that it would cancel conventional drafting if we were to do that in any other way. I shall now sit down.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendments Nos. 84 to 87:
Page 30, line 2, leave out from "greater)" to end of line 5 and insert "there is substituted—
"(5) No prejudice shall be taken to arise for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) from the admission to a maintained school, in a school year of a number of pupils in a relevant age group which does not exceed the number determined under section 89 as the number of pupils in that age group that it is intended to admit to the school in that year; but this subsection does not apply if the conditions set out in subsection (5A) are met in relation to the school and the school year.
(5A) Those conditions are—

(a) that the school is one at which boarding accommodation is provided for pupils; and

(b) that the determination under section 89 by the admission authority of the admission arrangements which are to apply for that year includes the determinations mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 89A(1A).

(5B) Where the conditions set out in subsection (5A) are met in relation to a maintained school and a school year, no prejudice shall be taken to arise for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) from either of the following—

(a) the admission to the school in that year as boarders of a number of pupils in a relevant age group which does not exceed the number determined under section 89 as the number of pupils in that age group that it is intended to admit to the school in that year as boarders;

(b) the admission to the school in that year otherwise than as boarders of a number of pupils in a relevant age group which does not exceed the number determined under section 89 as the number of pupils in that age group that it is intended to admit to the school in that year otherwise than as boarders.""

Page 30, line 12, at end insert—
"(1A) Such a determination under section 89 may also, if the school is one at which boarding accommodation is provided for pupils, include—

(a) a determination of the number of pupils in each relevant age group that it is intended to admit to the school in that year as boarders, and

(b) a determination of the number of pupils in each relevant age group that it is intended to admit to the school in that year otherwise than as boarders."

Page 30, leave out lines 13 to l6.
Page 30, line 22, at end insert—
"(4) References in this section to the determination of any number include references to the determination of zero as that number.""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46 [Co-ordination of admission arrangements]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 88:
Page 30, line 30, leave out "arrangements" and insert "dates"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would change the word "arrangements" for "dates". As I said in Committee, the arrangements for admissions and actual admissions of pupils are one of the most important functions that any school carries out. A school that is its own admissions authority must act within the law. Once the criteria are set they must be fairly applied. If they are not, the procedures can be challenged. The most vexed aspect of the arrangements is the setting of dates by which parents know whether their child has been accepted for a school place. Different dates operating in an area

849
causes real confusion. That is why the factor in greatest need of co-ordination is the setting of the date by which all schools should make offers.
I want to make a point about the response that I received from the noble Baroness in Committee. She said:
"The main difference a co-ordinated scheme will make to foundation and voluntary-aided schools is that, rather than put forward the offer themselves, they"—
I assume that "they" means the schools themselves—
"will notify the relevant education authority as to which schools are eligible".
How can a school say which schools are eligible? I do not understand what that means. She continued:
"Each local education authority will then check in relation to all pupils resident in its area the potential offers to be made".
I am not sure what that means. How do they check the potential offers to be made to all pupils resident in the area—unless in plain English that means that parents will make their bid for a place and the local education authority will consider those bids and try to reconcile them with the places available? But what is stated there simply does not make sense.
The noble Baroness continued:
"Applying the rules applicable to the co-ordinated scheme in question".
So I think that what the noble Baroness is saying is that schools may be their own admissions authority but, nevertheless, the rules must be applied according to the scheme in question. So I do not agree that schools will not be much affected on the basis of what the Minister herself said. She continued:
"the education authority will then decide what offer will be made to those who would otherwise receive multiple offers, or none, and then the local education authority will transmit the single offer of a school place to residents in their area".—[Official Report, 14/5/02; cols. 271–2]
Again, I am not sure what that means. Will a "guesstimate" be made of those who would otherwise receive multiple offers? No parent will have received a multiple offer because, under that system, offers will not have been made. How are LEAs to assume which parents would otherwise have received multiple offers or none? I received a confusing response from the Minister and clarification would be helpful.
I return to my original point. It is important for those schools that are their own admissions authority what arrangements they can make. If there were a co-ordination of dates, that would make their position much more simple. What happens at the moment is that one school will have a date at one stage and parents will receive one set of information while still hoping for information from another school of their choice. There is a great deal of playing one school off against another, which causes confusion. It would be helpful to have some explanation of what the noble Baroness said at cols. 271 and 272. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I apologise if I was less than helpful in my previous remarks. Perhaps it was late.
850
Let me spend a moment explaining the effect of the amendment and addressing the points, I hope more succinctly, raised by the noble Baroness. The whole purpose of the clause is to provide a co-ordinated and simplified admissions process that will result in all local parents in the local education authority's area being offered a single school place at the same time. We know that this is what many parents want. The amendment will not achieve it.
As drafted, the amendment will not achieve what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve—that is, that parents should know by a single date whether or not their child has been accepted for admission. All that the amendment would effectively do would be to co-ordinate the date within a local education authority's area on which children are physically admitted to school.
Under current legislation, parents often apply to several admission authorities for their child to be admitted to a school and may receive a number of offers, or sometimes no offer at all. Simply co-ordinating the date on which children are admitted to school would not prevent the situation, which often arises at the moment, where some parents receive and hold onto several offers of a school place for their child while others do not receive any.
However, under the new provision the published coordination scheme for an area will give the date on which parents will be offered a school place for their child, either at a preferred school or, if that is not possible, at an alternative available school. This will be an improvement on the current situation, which causes unnecessary distress and uncertainty for many parents and children. I am sure that, like me, noble Lords would not wish that to continue. We want to build on the existing framework because we believe that it will provide a smoother process. Co-ordinating the date of admission but not the arrangements for admission will not achieve that.
I gave an assurance in Committee—I reiterate it—that foundation and voluntary-aided schools should not and need not be concerned about our proposals to co-ordinate admission arrangements. Under any agreed scheme, the governors of such schools will continue to be the admission authority, receiving all applications from parents and applying their own published over-subscription criteria before deciding which applicants are eligible for a place.
The local education authority will send out the letters on their behalf—that is the role that the local education authority will play. Where parents have more than one potential offer, the local education authority will simply apply the co-ordinated scheme agreed by all the admission authorities in the area to decide which single offer of a school place will be made to all the parents in its area. The most obvious example will be where parents put down preferences. If a child is eligible to be admitted to more than one school and there is a place, in such cases it will he parental preference. But it will be for all the admission authorities to decide the specifics of that.

851
I hope that that puts more succinctly the situation of those schools. They will continue to decide which children are admitted. If there are more children than places, the local education authority will apply the coordinated scheme and send out letters. It does not affect in any way the admission arrangements for those schools. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept the Minister's point that my amendment reads "arrange dates for admission". That is certainly not what I intended. I intended that there should be a date by which the preferences were responded to by all schools in an area. That would get over the problems of multiple applications and multiple offers. I shall have another look at that issue between now and the next stage.
I also accept the Minister's explanation about schools which are their own admission authorities. But I took the words on the page to mean that the main difference that a co-ordinated scheme will make to foundation and voluntary-aided schools is that, rather than the schools putting forward the offer themselves, the schools will notify the relevant education authority as to which schools are eligible. That is not what the Minister has just said. I understand her now to be saying that the schools will notify the LEA that, for example, Mr Jones's daughter, Alison, has been offered a place under the criteria that apply; and a letter goes out to Mrs Jones saying, "Your daughter, Alison, has been offered a place". That is not what this says. It says that the school will notify the relevant education authority as to which schools are eligible—it is probably "which children are eligible" rather than which schools. So it was confusing.
However, I understand that my amendment is defective. I shall look at it again between now and Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 89:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
"REPEAL OF POWER TO MAKE CERTAIN SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PRESERVING RELIGIOUS CHARACTER
Section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (special arrangements to preserve religious character of foundation or voluntary aided school) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when the Bill was considered in Committee, I said in response to a proposed amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we would he bringing forward an amendment on Report to repeal Section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
Special arrangements under Section 91 of the 1998 Act permit aided and foundation schools with a religious character to preserve that religious character by rejecting applications from families not of their particular faith or denomination, even where they
852
have places available. As noble Lords may know, faith schools usually give priority for admission, if they are over-subscribed, to applicants who are adherents of their faith. In that situation, a Section 91 arrangement has no additional effect.
Where it makes a difference in practice is where, for example, fewer Roman Catholics apply for a Catholic school than there are places available. If that happens, a Section 91 arrangement would allow the school to keep places it cannot fill with Catholic pupils empty—even though there may be a demand for those places from non-Catholic families. In our view, keeping places empty when there is a demand for them is incompatible with parental preference and wasteful of resources.
We have discussed this proposal to end Section 91 agreements with the Roman Catholic authorities, whose schools it is that make use of Section 91 agreements, and the Catholic Church is happy for the benefits of Catholic schooling to be extended to other families who appreciate and want those benefits, as long as demand from Roman Catholics can continue to be met. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I support the amendment. I do so with the full backing of the Catholic Education Service, as the Minister has said. I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister and her officials have dealt with this issue. It is a matter of making schools more inclusive where possible, and that is very much in the spirit of what we have been talking about in earlier debates. I greatly welcome the amendment and hope that it will be accepted.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this was a hit of good news when the Minister announced it in Committee and I am delighted to see the amendment now.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank noble Lords. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Admission arrangements]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 90:
Page 134, line 28, at end insert—
"(3A) In subsection (3)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (a) there is inserted "or", and

(b) paragraph (b) is omitted."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 91:
Page 134, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) After subsection (3)(c) there is inserted"; or
(d) if the child has been identified upon an assessment requested by the head teacher of the school as having significant emotional and behavioural difficulties and the local education authority responsible for maintaining the school is unwilling or unable to provide to the school such resources as may reasonably be considered appropriate to meet the needs of the child""

853
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment, as in its previous incarnation, is to amend the School Standards and Framework Act to establish the right of heads to refer pupils for assessment prior to entry to the school if they have reasonable grounds to believe that they have significant emotional and behavioural difficulties, and to encourage the provision of adequate resources to support schools in meeting the needs of these pupils.
During discussion on this amendment in Committee, we were gratified by the support from the Minister and from the noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Alton. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had a problem with it, since he felt that it might lead to "playing ping-pong" with a child. Perhaps I can set the noble Lord's mind at rest. The game of ping-pong only begins when a child is placed in a school without any thought at to what is required to meet his needs. This amendment seeks to prevent that by ensuring that the child's needs are properly identified and catered for, so that three or four months down the line the school does not find itself having to exclude the child. The child would then be placed in another school without a proper assessment of his needs. He is then expelled, and so the tragic human ping-pong game goes on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said in Committee, it is very often an issue of adequate resources. Additionally, teachers and heads can be frustrated by a lack of support from the LEA for one reason or another. This amendment seeks to ensure that there is a professional assessment of need followed by an impartial judgment on what resources are necessary to meet those needs. As the Minister has rightly pointed out on several occasions, the Government are providing more resources to support pupil behaviour in mainstream schools. On 25th April, the Secretary of State announced a new package of £66 million. This amendment would ensure fair and impartial deployment of those resources according to the needs of the pupil and the school. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on it. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am a little surprised that this amendment has been tabled again. As I said in Committee, the thrust of this amendment is that some decision would be made about a child's suitability before he or she had even obtained a school place. That is not the direction in which we want to see education move in this country. We do not want schools to have grounds for refusing admittance to this group of children with special needs. We think that this could be abused, to the detriment of these children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has quite rightly talked about the ping-pong situation facing some children in school, and acknowledged that we are very concerned about children with challenging behaviour. We have put £178 million into schools specifically to cover issues arising from behavioural problems. I acknowledge that more needs to be done. However, we want to achieve that within a context of
854
an inclusive system in which such children at least get a chance to get through the door of a school and the opportunity to prove themselves.
We already have in place a system for assessing and supporting children with emotional and behavioural difficulties through the special educational needs framework. The SEN code of practice sets out a systematic process for schools to identify and provide for children's special educational needs in school.
It is not clear from the amendment how head teachers could identify which children seeking admission to the school should be assessed for any emotional and behavioural difficulties they may have. There is also a real danger that any such assessments could be somewhat subjective. If a school is approached about taking a child, either by the child's parents or the LEA, head teachers cannot possibly know what that individual child is like. It is therefore entirely conceivable that their initial conclusions about the child would be unfair, being based on nothing more than perhaps word of mouth, family reputation, or worse, simply where they live—by postcode. Furthermore, if a child's apparent behavioural difficulties were related to a disability, "screening" the child for admissions purposes could he unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
We also consider that if the LEA were to be required to undertake the additional assessments that this amendment requires, it would significantly increase the burdens on their child psychology services. In a normal admission round, such assessment could delay the whole process and would be unfair to other children, particularly if a place had to be kept open for a particular child until an assessment were completed. Of course, a school can always request a statutory assessment of a child's special educational needs once that child has been admitted to school.
Accepting this amendment could lead to significant numbers of such children being out of school needlessly, for an indefinite period. I do not believe that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, wishes to achieve. I agree with her that we can do much more. However, this is not the amendment that would achieve what I believe she is searching for. In the light of that, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. She makes two particular points to which I respond as follows. First, if there were a right to an impartial assessment and an entitlement to the resources to meet that assessment, there could be no grounds for refusing admittance to the school. So I believe that the consequences which the Minister fears would not occur.
Secondly, the Minister said that the information received about the child might well be wrong. Every secondary school receives information from the previous school. We have no reason to believe that that information is incorrect or has not been compiled after

855
considerable thought as to the helpful and constructive information that needs to be passed on to the next school in the interests of the child.
Frankly, the lack of child psychiatry resources is no reason to refuse an amendment of this kind which is aimed at ensuring that children with special needs have the appropriate resources based on a proper assessment of their needs. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister said and consider whether we need to bring the measure back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91A not moved.
The Earl of Listowelmoved Amendment No. 92:
Page 135, line 11, at end insert—
"(8) After subsection (9) there is inserted—
"(10) Where a care order is in place with respect to a child, and the local authority designated by the order names a maintained school as the school at which it wishes education to be provided for the child in the exercise of the authority's functions, the governing body of the school shall admit the child to the school.""
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of my amendment is to ensure that children in public care have fair access to our better performing schools. Currently, they are disproportionately placed in less successful schools. Local education authorities would have the power to direct maintained schools to accept looked-after children in exactly the same way as they now have the power to direct schools to accept children with special educational needs.
I hope that a little background may be helpful. That children in public care experience an unacceptable level of instability in their lives is acknowledged. The Government have set a target that fewer than 13 per cent of such children should experience more than three placements a year, but that still allows 15 placements in five years and is in any case uncertain of success.
Looked-after children frequently face changes of social worker. For those in residential care there is again an unacceptably high level of turnover of staff. A good school placement is essential in ensuring that the home placement endures. Once school fails, home is likely to follow. So, stability is crucial. It is crucial that these children have access to schools that are most likely to meet their needs. Often these will be the better performing oversubscribed schools. These schools often provide pastoral care that is second to none as well as academic success.
In Committee the Minister said that local education authorities already have the necessary powers. It is true to say that local education authorities have the power to direct head teachers of many schools to accept children with care orders. Local education authorities can also direct governors of voluntary-aided and foundation schools to accept such children, but only if every other school in the locality has already refused admission. Local education authorities can but rarely apply that power because seldom does a child meet that requirement.
856
I welcome the news that admission forums may establish protocols to protect the interests of looked-after children and that social services will be involved in discussions affecting looked-after children. I welcome the Minister's decision to strengthen the education code to prioritise admissions of looked after children. I am pleased that the Government's Social Exclusion Unit will report shortly on means to improve the educational achievement of looked-after children.
I apologise as I must be tiring noble Lords. I am speaking at too great length. I take this matter very seriously. I have spent much time today concentrating on preparing the amendment. I am aware that noble Lords have been present for hours going through the Bill thoroughly. I am keeping noble Lords occupied late in the evening. That is most inconsiderate of me. However, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me as this is an extremely important issue and could make a great deal of difference to the most vulnerable children in our society.
However, there is no guarantee that admission forums will be introduced. The education code applies only to normal admission periods at the ages of five and 10. I am advised that at least 50 per cent of looked-after children seek admission outside those times.
The Social Exclusion Unit will probably allude to the increasing number of out-of-county placements for looked-after children. Local authorities are short of foster parents and look abroad for them. Children in public care are given even lower priority by foreign schools or foreign local education authorities because they tend to be seen as alien transients. The Social Exclusion Unit may propose solutions to that problem, but we do not yet know what the solutions are likely to be. This amendment has the potential to make a big difference in that regard.
The Minister expressed sympathy for my concerns in Committee, and I was grateful for her response. Surely, therefore, she is prepared to accept this modest proposal, which has the potential to make such a difference to the lives of looked-after children. The amendment may help the Government to exceed their educational target for children in care. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to remind the House what that target is. I cannot remember off the top of my head, as she may not. It would also be helpful to know their target in relation to no more than three placements per annum per child. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Listowel. He has absolutely no need to apologise for again raising such an important matter at the Report stage of the Bill.
We all know that looked-after children have failed dramatically in relation to educational attainment. My noble friend seeks some visible action on the face of the Bill to ensure that positive treatment is given to looked-after children. It has always been one of my

857
worries that once children are in care, particularly if they have no contact with parents or relatives, their own interests are not catered for in any way.
I cannot remember which Bill specifically stated that any child in care should have a friend—I do not mean a legal friend—appointed to be an advocate or to whom he or she could relate. I should like to see that as a first part of the system for prioritising these children and ensuring that their educational attainments, which I am sure are much greater than those shown in the statistics, are maximised. With that in mind, I very much support the amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there is a step change between lucky and unlucky children in ordinary families and those in care. Ordinary families who are lucky enough to have their own children on board should have no difficulty contemplating the idea of doing something special for children in care, to try to help them when, so early in their lives, they have ended up in such difficult and unhappy circumstances. Putting them in the right school is one of the least and easiest steps we can take.
I do not feel comfortable with the drafting of the amendment. One cannot confer on a local authority an absolute right to put a child into a school. There is more to it than that. One might approach the problem concerning conditions of entrance by saying that children were deemed to have satisfied any requirements relating to their residence or primary schools, so that they would be considered to be within the catchment area—not that that particular phrase works any longer—and therefore could be considered for entrance to the school best suited to their needs. As part of their entry criteria, many schools allow for the possibility of a child demonstrating an overriding medical or other need to be at that school.
Perhaps we might also approach this problem by saying that children in care should, prima facie, be considered to have such a need where it is part of the entry criterion of a school that they should be considered on that basis. However, I should like some effort to be made to see what we can do to move in the direction that the noble Earl suggests.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in saying that the noble Earl has no need to apologise to the House. We have had a number of debates about looked-after children. It is clear that society's record towards such children is appalling. My goodness, we owe them something, do we not? Partly thanks to a very disturbed education, their achievements are currently very low indeed. It is absolutely right that we should consider what we can do best for their education.
In discussion in Committee, the Minister said that she was well aware of the needs and difficulties of children in public care and other vulnerable children. She said that the Government would therefore attempt to assist their admission into popular schools in other ways. If those needs and difficulties are recognised, along with the need for such assistance, then why must
858
we rely on other ways? The drafting may be defective but, to some extent, the intent of the amendment is surely something for which we should aim.
The other ways described by the Minister, such as revising the code of practice to strengthen the position of looked-after and vulnerable children, are welcome and may reduce the need to rely on the duty of governing bodies to admit such children, as the amendment would require. But the creation of a clear duty towards this most disadvantaged and vulnerable group which applies equally to all schools, regardless of category, is surely the only measure that will guarantee an immediate and dramatic improvement in their chances of gaining access to our most popular schools.
It seems to me that there is no case for rejecting the amendment. The strongest reassurance offered would not apply in the majority of cases, and the other ways of meeting this acknowledged need might well be unsuccessful if foundation and voluntary-aided schools sought to get around the measure and resist it. There appears to be no disagreement over the desirability of opening up access to the full range of popular schools, nor over the need to do so. Therefore, why is there reluctance to adopt the one measure that would achieve that outcome?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I want to make a slightly different point. But, first, I join all other noble Lords in saying that we really should not apologise for bringing a subject such as this before the House. It seems to me that that is what we are here for. Of all the children who have been very badly let down, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, particularly, I am sorry to say, by local authority care, young looked-after children have been the worst affected.
I am assuming that, because of the way that the amendment is worded, we are talking about a child who may be the subject of a care order but who may not necessarily be the subject of a statement. If a child were the subject of a statement, first, the school would be named in the statement and, secondly, the receiving school would have no power in law to reject the child. The child would have to be received so long as there were room in the school for him.
Therefore, we are talking about a child who is not subject to a statement and who would therefore fall short of requiring provision for special educational needs. However, we all know of many children in that category who may not have a statement requiring special educational needs but who, nevertheless, need a great deal of social support. Some looked-after children are fostered with supportive families and others are in residential homes and are very well cared for in a stable environment. There is a good relationship between the child and the staff, and the staff show a genuine interest in the child's life outside the residential institution. But, sadly, very many children fall outside that category. They do not have a stable fostering placement; nor are they in the type of residential care home that properly looks after their social, and every other, need. When a child who is

859
subject to a care order is placed in a school without any domestic support, the school will also need support to make proper provision.
There is a great wringing of hands over what should be done about looked-after children. They have a propensity for more truanting, entering a life of crime, behavioural problems or even resorting to drugs. The more we can do to anchor the young child and provide the framework in which he or she can grow and develop, and to support the school in providing for that child— much more so than with a child from a supportive home—the better.
I am not sure that the amendment's wording is right and that there is not a statute somewhere that obliges a school in law to accept children if the school is designated. I am querying the gap between the child who is statemented, where the law is clear cut, and the child who is not statemented but is subject to a care order. I support the case made by the noble Earl.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has hit several nails on their heads. I join all noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I am more than delighted that he constantly keeps these children at the forefront of our discussions. The noble Earl and I have met five times to talk through the issues. I am in full agreement that we should seek to protect this vulnerable group of children and I completely understand the concerns that inspired the amendment.
Social Exclusion Unit work will be helpful as we deliberate on policy. I sit on a group with my honourable friend Jacqui Smith, the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health and social care. I was concerned about these children long before I became a Minister and the low level of expectation that we have of them.
I explained in Committee that a school that is not oversubscribed is under a duty to comply with parental preference—in this case, the corporate parent's preference. If the school is full, the local education authority could decide to admit a child who is the subject of a care order to a community or voluntary controlled school because the LEA is the admission authority. Alternatively, the LEA has the power to direct the governing body of a foundation or voluntary-aided school. There are limits to the use of that power and the noble Earl and I have discussed them. Good LEAs do not find that an issue or a handicap. The special education needs code applies at any time. The noble Earl's information that it applies only at the ages of five and 10 is incorrect.
Noble Lords have spoken eloquently about the particular needs and difficulties of children in public care. We intend to take them into account when we revise the admissions code of practice later in the year. We intend to recommend to all admission authorities, subject of course to consultation, that they give top priority to looked-after and vulnerable children in their oversubscription criteria and place them at the top of any waiting lists.
860
We intend to prescribe in regulations for England that admissions forums must discuss the admission arrangements for children in public care. Forums have an important locus and we want them to take it seriously and think beyond the child being admitted to a school. We shall be consulting shortly on proposed regulations that will give admission forums responsibility for considering issues relating to the children in public care and how to ensure, by means of local protocols, that such children are placed in schools that meet their social, pastoral and academic needs.
I have great sympathy with the intentions behind the amendment but it presents technical difficulties. I do not want to promise anything but will continue to talk to the noble Earl about our policy. As I have said in relation to some of these issues in your Lordships' House and outside, we need to consider policy rather than legislation. I want to consider how best to take this matter forward. I promise to do so with the noble Earl before the next stage. I hope that we shall all agree the way forward for these particularly vulnerable children.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, that is a sympathetic and helpful response. I am grateful for the several occasions on which we have discussed this matter together. I am somewhat reassured by what the Minister has said. I shall study carefully her responses. However, I am anxious that we may be missing an opportunity to put into statute protection for these children that sadly in the past has been missing. There is a great deal of competition for the best schools. Some schools are oversubscribed by five to one and if these children are to get a look in and are not to be fobbed off, something stronger than what the Minister proposes, although welcome, may be necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 93:
Page 136, line 40, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
"6 (1) Section 90 of the 1998 Act (reference of objections to adjudicator or Secretary of State) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b), for "consulted by the admission authority under section 89(2)" there is substituted "who were, or would but for subsection (2A) of section 89 have been, required to be consulted by the admission authority under subsection (2) of that section".
(3) In subsection (2), paragraph (c) is omitted."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have tabled Amendment No. 93 because on re-reading the Minister's answer to me in Committee I did not consider that she had given due weight to the equity issues involved. Groups of 10 parents already have the right to appeal to the adjudicator in cases where admission arrangements allow for partial selection

861
and where that selection was enforced prior to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The Minister said on 23rd May:
"We gave parents that right because we believe that they should have the opportunity to make their views known when such partially selective arrangements are an issue".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 922.]
That right has now been extended to allow parents to object over admission numbers, where the admissions number, determined by the admissions authority, is lower than the one indicated using the new capacity assessment formula. However, it does not allow parents to appeal when the admission procedure—the original right of appeal was all about procedures—is de facto partial. The case of Prendergast School to which I referred in Committee involved a foundation school that supposedly did not have a partial selection procedure and yet was pursuing practices that overtly flouted the code of practice and could de facto have resulted in partial selection.
The Minister's argument against change was that it was predicated on three strands of argument. First, she said that consultations had not indicated that there was any strong feeling among parents for such an extension, but there was a low rate of response to the consultation document. I believe from the Government's report about the consultation that there were only 416 responses in total of which only 13 can be said to have come from parents. In other words, 3 per cent of the responses were from parents. Most parents were unaware that that consultation had taken place. As the report says,
"the majority of responses were received from those with a professional interest in education".
In the foreword to the report, the Secretary of State acknowledged that she knows how important school admissions are to parents and to children and yet parents did not participate much in the consultation. The strongest objections in fact came from the voluntary-aided and foundation schools and the professionals involved there precisely because these are the categories of schools in which some of the less desirable admissions arrangements occur and to which there might be objections.
The second strand of argument that the Minister used was that the Prendergast case was one of maladministration and that the decision in that case would, it was hoped, send out a very clear signal to local authorities. In that case Lewisham Borough Council were found guilty of maladministration, but as the ombudsman pointed out, the case had been brought there and to the attention of the DfES as early as 1998 and nothing was done in spite of the fact that the governors continued to flout the objections raised by the LEA and the DfES.
As the ombudsman said:
"Given the Council's failure over a protracted period to change the School's position, the Council's failure to refer the matter to the Adjudicator … was in my view maladministration. It also seems likely that had a referral been made then the Adjudicator
862
would have determined that at least some of the admissions criteria should be changed. Had this happened, the outcome may have been very different for the children of these complainants".
That indicates that it affected the children. The ombudsman then went on to say:
"I believe the policy should have been reviewed at least in time to govern admissions for September 2001. The failure to do so was maladministration".
The report came out in April of this year. The governors have now reviewed it. The ombudsman continued:
"I welcome the Governors' recent review of the School's admissions arrangements in the light of these objections and also their decision to stop using interviews. However, the School's new policy will not come into effect until children are admitted in September 2003".
In other words, the children were unnecessarily affected by delays, which the ombudsman condemned as,
"further maladministration by the admissions authority".
The point I make to the Minister is this. It took four years for the parents to register these quite fair complaints, even though both the LEA and the DfES knew about them, and only then through the lengthy procedures via the ombudsman. The adjudicator procedures are there in order to deal with unresolved issues. The checks and balances already written into the Act prevent abuse by any over-litigious individual parent, but if a group of 10 or more parents have the right to appeal a case of pre-existing partial entry arrangements, then surely the backstop of allowing parents to go directly to the adjudicator ought to be there in a case such as this when there is de facto partial selection.
Finally, the Minister seemed to misunderstand the effect of the amendment. She referred to the possibility that one group of parents might object to criteria that others found acceptable, such as a priority for siblings. But that was not the issue. The amendment affects only who is able to refer objections to the adjudicator in order that he or she may determine whether arrangements breach the code of practice. Sibling priority plainly does not. It would not affect at all the grounds on which the adjudicator made his determination. That is determined by the contents of the code which is a matter for the Secretary of State.
In the light of these three objections it seems to me that the Minister should reconsider her answer. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Baroness. I added my name to the amendment at Committee stage, but I could not be present. The noble Baroness has made a very strong case. It is grossly unfair and parents should have this right. It is a very strong case and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will grant that that is so and change her mind about it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I make no comment on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, because I disapprove of the adjudicator and the whole adjudicator system. There is almost no other

863
category of person who can make an objection to the adjudicator. There is no appeals system. The adjudicators have absolute power in anything they determine. They can modify something or alter a proposition which comes from the organisation committee. I believe that the House will have to return to this matter and do something about it. There is dissatisfaction with the way in which the adjudicator system works and it leaves a great deal to be desired.
I do not know how the Minister will deal with that particular question but if it is agreed to—and I make no comment on whether it is right that it should be—I believe that there will be a long line of categories of people who would want the same opportunity.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to the debate and I shall try to deal with the careful arguments presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Perhaps I may speak first to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The position of the adjudicator and why there is no appeal system is because the concept of the adjudicator is a less significant version of the concept of the ombudsman. There is no question of appeal because there is an authority above. Therefore, the implication so far as the adjudication is concerned is that the person should be independent and not subject to a secondary review.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving way. There is no comparison with the ombudsman who takes and hears evidence and does a great deal of investigative work. The adjudicator does not operate like that.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. What I was seeking to identify was the concept of the independent position of the adjudicator. On the question of dependency, it would be an odd system if one had an appeal system dependent upon that, in the same way as one could not conceive of an independent structure in regard to the ombudsman with a subsequent concept of appeal. I was merely seeking to make that point.
However, on the more general issues on which the noble Baroness did not vouchsafe any views because of her well attested position of objecting to the concept as a whole, I shall try to reply as fully as possible to the issues which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised and which were supported so assertively by my noble friend Lady David.
First, I note that sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of the amendment are in the same terms as paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 which clarifies that the bodies who may refer an objection about admission arrangements to the schools adjudicator include those who should have been consulted about proposed admission arrangements as well as those who actually were. That duplication simply reflects the different drafting structure needed to introduce sub-paragraph (3), which is the substantive change that this amendment seeks to make.
864
Sub-paragraph (3) would remove the Secretary of State's power under Section 90(2)(c) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to prescribe the type of objection about admission arrangements which parents of a prescribed description may refer to the schools adjudicator. Our choice would then lie between allowing parents or parent groups to object to every aspect of every school's proposed admissions arrangements or not allowing any to object at all.
Under present regulations, parents in groups of 10 have the right to refer objections to the adjudicator, but only one type of objection. They may object if an admission authority—the school's governing body in the case of foundation or voluntary aided schools, otherwise the LEA—proposes to retain partially selective admission arrangements that are of a type that could no longer lawfully be introduced. Examples of partial selection that could not now lawfully be introduced include any selection by ability, and selection by aptitude in excess of 10 per cent.
We gave parents that right of objection because although the 1998 Act did not prohibit such arrangements where they already existed, it did seem right to allow parents to raise with the adjudicator whether such arrangements continue to be in the interests of local children and parents. Similarly, as noble Lords are aware, we believe that it is for parents to decide the future of selective admissions to existing grammar schools through a ballot and petition process.
As I explained in Committee—I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was not entirely convinced—our admissions consultation asked whether rights to object about admission arrangements should be extended in ways other than those proposed in the consultation document. As the consultation document proposed extending parents' rights of objection in a limited way—enabling parent groups to object where an admission authority intends to set an admission number which is lower than our new net capacity assessment formula indicates—I am sure that the consultees will have had the issue of parents' objection rights in mind when they replied. Yet only just under one third of respondents thought that we should go further than we had proposed, and not all of those suggested going further in the direction of this amendment.
As was also explained in Committee, existing legislation allows us the flexibility, through regulations, to extend parental objection rights further in the future if the need to do so is agreed. Amendment No. 93 would deprive us of that flexibility.
I ask that noble Lords consider the potential practical effects of the amendment. Any admission arrangements could potentially be challenged by parent groups during the annual consultation round, even if they included only the type of over-subscription criteria which the admissions code states to be commonly used and acceptable—siblings already at the school, distance from the school, medical or social grounds, catchment areas and transfer from named feeder primary schools. We would also need to impose

865
quite burdensome or potentially expensive additional requirements on admission authorities to publish their intended admission arrangements so that parents could see them and have the chance to object. The partially selective arrangements to which parents may presently object are published in local newspapers.
I appreciate the intent behind the amendment. But it would create significant difficulties in its practical application. I hope therefore, on the basis of that response, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. But I do not believe he was listening to what I said.
The Minister brought up again the whole question of a poor response. But as I pointed out, only 416 people replied to the consultation document and only 13 of those were parents. Yet the Government claim that there was consultation.
The Minister raised again the point on the criteria. I agree that the drafting of the amendment may not be correct; I agree also that the Government already have the power; but the Minister could at least have said that they were thinking of shifting the power in this way.
The Prendergast decision is actually a stain on the Government in many senses. The DfES knew in 1998 about the sorts of procedures that were taking place and for four years both the local authority and the department allowed it to proceed until finally it was referred to the adjudicator. It seems to me that there is in equity a case for allowing groups of parents to appeal. As I pointed out, the criteria are decided by the adjudicator. The parents cannot question the criteria; they can only question the procedures that schools use in interpreting them.
However, I shall leave this matter for the moment. I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. As I say, I do not believe he listened to my remarks. I hope that he will read what I said, as I shall read carefully what he said and we can perhaps talk about it a little more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendments Nos. 94 to 97:
Page 137, line 1, leave out paragraph 7.
Page 139, line 39, leave out "(9)(b)" and insert "(9)"
Page 139, line 39, at end insert—
""(9) Such children shall, in addition, be taken into account for the purposes of—
(a) the references in section 86(5), (5B) and (9) to a number of pupils, and"
Page 139, line 41, after "admit" insert ", or to admit either as boarders or otherwise than as boarders,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 98:
Page 139, line 42, at end insert—
"Selection by aptitude
( ) In section 99 of the 1998 Act (general restriction on selection by ability or aptitude) subsection (4)(b) is omitted.
( ) Section 102 of the 1998 Act (permitted selection: aptitude for particular subjects) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 98 would remove the ability of specialist schools to select up to 10 per cent of pupils on aptitude. I should make it clear at the outset that we do not oppose more schools choosing a specialism, becoming particularly excellent in that specialism and sharing their expertise with other schools.
Indeed, at an earlier stage in the Bill, my noble friend Lady Sharp proposed widening the range of specialisms. Those schools provide a healthy measure of diversity in our schools system. We oppose the selection of pupils at 11 on any basis, but particularly on one that has no research or evidence base to show that it can be done accurately at that age. The noble Baroness gave no evidence in her response in Committee that that can be done.
As we said in Committee, it is unnecessary, and it has proved unpopular as only 7 per cent of schools with a specialism use the power. It is worrying, however, that the retention of this power gives an advantage to voluntary-aided and foundation schools, as we know that out of 24 schools that had used it, 19 fell into that category. As nobody really knows how to select by aptitude, we fear that as the number of specialist schools increases, the power will increasingly he used to select by ability under cover of selection by aptitude.
I well remember our debate on this issue in Committee and, in particular, the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it was about the "politics of envy". It is no such thing. Our objection is rooted in the firm belief that properly resourced and well-managed comprehensive schools can serve children well right across the ability range. There are major academic and social advantages in their doing so.
Sadly the retention of the ability to select on so-called aptitude, combined with the Government's specialist schools programme, will reduce choice for many children, bar those few who are found, by some means, to have the aptitude—it sounds a hit like the knowledge, rather than the aptitude. That will apply especially in rural areas where there is only one secondary school within reach.
Schools will choose pupils, rather than the other way round, and 10 and 11 year-olds will be subjected to yet more tests as if there were not enough. Is that really what the Government want? I really hope that the Minister will see the sense of getting rid of this discredited and little-used power to save me having to bring it back at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we had an interesting debate in Committee, following which the amendment was withdrawn, and we have had an

867
equally interesting opening speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley now. I am sure that she will accept that I would do a lot to stop her bringing the amendment hack again, but unfortunately not what she wants me to do.
I accept entirely her support for specialisms. Our debate and conversations around the issue of schools with specialisms have moved a long way, and I am grateful for the dialogue that we have had. I understand the position held by the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right that there are only a few schools—I have a figure of 6 per cent rather than 7 per cent. The difference between us is that there are certain circumstances when a school is over-subscribed; it does not apply if a school is not over-subscribed. There is a small percentage of students who have a particular talent—I use the word "talent" deliberately. I searched for a word that works better for me than something that is quite nebulous. Such students might be allowed to come into a school. Noble Lords will know that we have been careful about the specialisms to which this applies. I have talked about the performing arts and sport. Does the next David Beckham exist out there? I hope so, as we may need him before too long.
We are trying to find a figure that represents a comparatively small number of pupils—say 10 per cent——that safeguards parents' wishes to get a place at their local school and gives those children with a particular talent for the subject in which the school specialises the opportunity to be admitted to that school which might otherwise not have been possible. We have said that such schools are under no obligation to select by aptitude in their admission arrangements. An over-subscription criterion can be applied only if there are more applications for a school than it has places available.
I understand that there are parents who do not think that that is appropriate, but there are others—and I can say this because of the letters that the department receives—who believe that it is sensible that children with an aptitude for a school's specialist subject should have the opportunity to attend that school. I find it difficult to understand why such children should not be able to do so.
We are committed to the comprehensive system, but we are also committed to modernising it and creating diversity. Allowing schools this small flexibility that will enable some pupils to benefit from their expertise in a particular area is one small part of our drive to achieve that aim. With that in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, am I wrong in thinking that the amendment applies only to nursery schools? There has been much talk about schools accepting 10 per cent of children on the basis of an aptitude for a particular subject, but my understanding is that that does not apply to nursery schools. This part of the Bill
868
seems to relate only to nursery schools. Indeed, the whole of the previous Clause 13 is certainly about nursery schools.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not aware that that is the case. I do not believe that I have been given any false information in that respect. But, obviously, if that is so, I shall write to the noble Baroness and clarify the position. As far as I know, neither the mover of the amendment nor I in replying to the amendment believe that the way it is positioned has that effect. The noble Baroness is very experienced in these matters. I shall, of course, look into the matter in the mean time.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I stand before the House as a living, breathing example of' why this is a daft measure and, indeed, could be dangerous. When I was aged about 11 or 12, I was thought to have a budding talent for languages. Anyone who has ever heard me speak French will know that that was a mistake; and so it turned out to be. It transpired that I had a talent for the sciences. If my whole career had been based on that incorrect and misleading premise, there might have been some kind of disaster in my educational outcomes. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Exclusion of pupils]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 33, line 11, at end insert—
"(ba) requiring that, as part of any such consideration, the responsible body show by way of documentary evidence following recommended practice laid down in the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs that it had—

(i) considered whether the child has any special educational needs, and

(ii) that it made appropriate provision for such needs."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 98C. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 98B, which, on looking at it this evening, appears to me to be complete rubbish. It is certainly nothing like the amendment that I intended to table. I presume that it was a slip of the pen, but I score zero for drafting on this occasion.
I believe that I have also made a mistake in the drafting of Amendment No. 98A. At the end of the first line, the amendment refers to "the responsible body". Under this clause, I thought that that would be a reference to the school, but I now suspect that it would refer to the disciplinary committee. Clearly, I mean the school in this part of the amendment, because it is the school that has the responsibility to assess people regarding special educational needs, not the disciplinary committee. I apologise to the House for having made those errors.
I return to the substance of the amendments. Amendment No. 98A is concerned with special educational needs and exclusions. My understanding

869
of the amendments moved earlier by the Minister is that the new clauses relating to SEN and the considerations to be given to special educational needs do not extend to this aspect of the Bill. I also understand that no additional protection is provided as a result of the amendments moved by the Minister earlier on Report for children with special educational needs who face exclusion.
Therefore, where a child appears in front of the disciplinary committee for exclusion, I am trying, by way of Amendment No. 98A, to ensure that the school must show the committee that it has conducted a proper investigation into whether the child has special educational needs—and, if so, that it has made proper provision for such needs—and that the exclusion is being sought despite the school having operated properly in that regard.
At an earlier stage, the Minister made reference to the latest statistics for exclusion. She said that it appeared that children with SEN were now much less likely to be excluded. There are some funny aspects to those statistics; for example, the number of pupils with SEN in pupil referral units does not appear to have decreased at all. Indeed, it has gone up slightly. Why that should happen if referrals of children with SEN are going down is not apparent to me. My understanding is that the matter is being looked at by statisticians. We shall know in a few weeks or months, perhaps, the reason behind that anomaly.
In any event, we should recognise that undiagnosed special educational needs are not uncommon in the school system. They can be disguised. Many break out in the form of behavioural difficulties. Certainly, in some of the better special schools for dyslexia that I have seen, it is very noticeable that the kids arriving in the first year have noticeable behavioural problems that are not fundamental. They are merely byproducts of their dyslexia not being observed or properly treated and/or of the way that other pupils in the school have treated them as a result of their dyslexia. We should be particularly careful in relation to exclusions to make sure that a child who may have special educational needs has been properly assessed.
Amendment No. 98C returns to a subject that we discussed in Committee. The Bill, as it is now before us, has the school's right to exclude, but there has been chopped out, in comparison with previous legislation, the parents' right to information, appeal and guidance. That is now to be consigned to secondary legislation. I do not think that that is the right balance. It leaves matters for parents far too uncertain. In this kind of matter appearances and status are important. Parents and pupils count. In legislation, their voice should be equal to that of the school.
In relation to the particular aspects of the proposed amendment, I say that the school should have a duty to inform parents and the pupil, whoever is the relevant person or persons in a particular circumstance, of the opportunities that they have to deal with the situation in which they find themselves. Therefore, they are told of the period of exclusion and the reasons for it. They
870
are told of their right to make oral or written representation about the exclusion to the disciplinary committee of the governing body.
The amendment is in response to the noble Baroness's criticism of an amendment which I tabled in Committee. That stated that the parents should always have the right to say something to the disciplinary committee. There are occasions when many little exclusions suddenly end up in an application for a permanent exclusion, and the child's parents had no previous chance to discuss their child's case with the governing body or with any other kind of appeal forum within the school.
I can see that the noble Baroness is saying that if I put things in the way that I did in my amendment in Committee that would create difficulties. I seek to provide the opportunity for the flexibility of secondary legislation or guidance to address the fact that, where a kid is continually excluded for a day or two, there ought to be proper consultation between the school and an opportunity for parents to make representations in order to make sure that the child's circumstances are properly understood.
Paragraph (d) is an additional suggestion. Where a child is going to be permanently excluded, the parents ought to be pointed in the direction of the support and advocacy services. The noble Baroness and I both discussed those matters in Committee. They are available to such parents in those circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I want to speak briefly, but with some feeling, about one of the points made by my noble friend. I refer to the issue of where exclusions are made and no attempt is made to assess the child's need. In this year of autism awareness, we know that at this moment—because we are all receiving a good deal of correspondence about the issue—a record number of people with autism are being expelled or "excluded" from school, which I believe is the contemporary name for it. For the family, that is really distressing. They know that they have a problem with their child; they are banging their heads against the wall to make someone take notice of them. I am in correspondence with a lady from Hertfordshire who has been battling for years with the local authority for proper provision for her son, who has autism.
We have a real opportunity here. If the amendment is not perfect, we can discuss doing something about it by Third Reading. My noble friend Lord Lucas has a point. A good teacher will know whether the problem is wilful naughtiness or wilful difficult behaviour or whether the child is uncontrollable and apparently incapable of managing its mood swings. An attempt should be made by someone within the education system to make a proper assessment so that, if the child is excluded, it is excluded on proper grounds and not simply because it is in need of other forms of treatment.

871
One has only to consider the occupants of our prison cells throughout the country to understand how many young people have ended up in a life of crime and have been taken into custody. What they need is some form of assessment and medical help.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 98D and 98E, which are in the group. Previous speakers have put the case most eloquently. My amendments are on similar lines and I hope that they give the Minister a choice of drafting as to the preferable direction to take.
The purpose of Amendment No. 98E is to encourage schools to consider an assessment, especially of educational needs, before excluding a pupil. Its effect would be to oblige disciplinary committees and independent appeal panels to take account of action taken to assess a child and to meet any assessed needs in their deliberations. Two reports of the late 1990s found that approximately 90 per cent of excluded children presented with special educational needs.
Clearly, as we have been hearing, many excluded children are not having their special educational needs recognised while at school. There is a dearth of educational psychologists— to which the Minister alluded earlier—to provide the statutory assessment for special educational needs, but it is possible for certain specialist teachers to provide less formal assessments and, following that, to increase resources to meet the recognised need. Again, the Minister mentioned earlier the recent increased investment in learning support units and behaviour support units.
The final paragraph of my amendment addresses concern that has been expressed about dissemination of information. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, covered the point adequately. The Bill does away with a statutory duty on head teachers to advise parents of excluded children of the existence of, for example, the Advisory Centre of Education. That paragraph would ensure that the parent or carer received adequate information.
I turn to Amendment No. 98D, which is similar to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In Committee, the Minister spoke of the need for schools to communicate with parents and said:
"legislation must be in place to secure the key rights and duties of all parties".——[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 952.]
The amendment seeks to do just that. My amendment differs from that tabled by the noble Lord in that it would write into the Bill the parent's right to make representations to the disciplinary committee and to appeal to the independent appeals panel. I believe that that is a difference, although I must check.
Also, following concern expressed by the Minister in Committee that governors may be over-taxed—again, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, approached the problem in a different way—the amendment allows the term of exclusion that would trigger the right to make representations to be determined by regulation. Exclusions can have a significant impact on the direction that a child's life takes, as the noble
872
Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out. If the Minister rejects our amendments, how is she to recognise the gravity of the situation?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches thoroughly support this group of amendments. They concern an important issue that society needs to think about very carefully.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support this group of amendments, in particular Amendment No. 98C which has been tabled by the noble Lord. Lord Lucas. Quite apart from the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the need for assessment—which is clearly very important—as early as possible to save the other horrors which occur all too often in prison cells, there is the important aspect of human rights legislation. It will be increasingly important that visible and transparent ways of ensuring that everything has been made available to individuals who are likely to be disadvantaged are written into legislation. On that point, as well as for the more humanitarian reasons, I strongly support the amendments.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by rather bizarrely referring back to the previous amendments. I want to clear up the issue of whether or not they referred to nursery schools. The amendments I moved earlier introduced a new heading within the schedule. The amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would have come after that heading. That is why, at first glance, it looked as though we were referring to nursery schools, but we were not. The noble Baroness was right in what she did. I apologise for this but I thought that it was worth dealing with that issue straightaway.
Let me deal, first, with Amendments Nos. 98A and 98E. I sympathise with the sentiments that lie behind the amendments. Noble Lords will know from the conversations that we have had outside the Chamber that I am constantly looking for areas that we need to cover in legislation. We are talking about issues of policy and guidance, and it is in that spirit that I shall address the amendments.
I take these issues extremely seriously. As noble Lords will know, within the department it is one of my policy areas. I wish to clear up the issue of whether or not the amendments are appropriate and get the facts out of the way.
Discipline committees and independent appeals panels must consider two simple questions: whether the pupil did what it is said that he did that prompted the exclusion; and, if it is concluded that the pupil did, whether permanent exclusion is a reasonable response to the pupil's behaviour. That is the essence of what we are asking our appeals panels to do.
The current guidance on exclusions already makes it clear that, other than in exceptional circumstances—I repeat, other than in exceptional circumstances—schools should avoid permanently excluding pupils with statements of special educational needs. It also requires head teachers to say, when reporting

873
exclusions to discipline committees and education authorities, whether the pupil has a statement or is on the special educational needs code of practice. I believe therefore that special educational needs is being taken into account appropriately in these matters and that any further detail on exclusions in the context of special educational needs is best left to the additional guidance that we wish to give.
I am happy to give noble Lords an assurance that I shall look again with my department and my officials to ensure that the guidance is as clear as possible on that point. I am always ready to discuss the detail of the guidance with noble Lords and to seek their views and advice on it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the recent figures in regard to the issue of permanent exclusions. In Committee, I said that we had gone down from 6.1 times more likely to be excluded to three. That is also a reduction from 18 per cent of the total number of excluded children to 8 per cent. I want to make it absolutely clear that the figures are not as low as we would like, but, as I said in Committee, they are moving in the right direction. We are checking with education authorities that that is the real situation. We are beginning to see the effects of the drive to reduce exclusions and the measures that we have put in place to improve the arrangements for identification and for making appropriate provision for children with special educational needs. I am the first to say—and the Government would be behind me in saying—that we are not there yet. We have not finished the task. But in the way in which one looks for real measures to demonstrate achievement, I am pleased that we may be beginning to see that. I shall, of course, keep noble Lords informed as we delve into the figures and make sure that that is indeed the case.
I also believe that the wide range of practical steps we are taking to support schools and education authorities in building pupils' social and emotional competence and in improving behaviour in schools will have a positive effect in reducing exclusions. I am thinking of the 1,000 on-site learning support units that we have set up; the 3,500 learning mentors working to keep vulnerable children in school and on track with their learning; the new multi-agency behaviour and education support teams that we are piloting in 34 areas; and the role of the Connexions service. What I want to say more than anything is that I believe that we have the right approach in order to be able to build on this work. It is that approach that I want to champion as the way in which we should take matters forward rather than the need to change statute.
In relation to Amendment No. 98E, head teachers are already required to provide the name of an officer of the local education authority who can give advice and the telephone number of the Advisory Centre for Education's exclusions helpline. I acknowledge the valuable work that ACE does. I know that my officials are always happy to discuss with the centre the feasibility of additional advice lines and indeed have had such discussions. We remain committed to
874
keeping the service level under review so that we can ensure that all parents who need ACE's advice have access to its service.
From January 2002, local education authorities have been required by law to arrange for the parents of children with special educational needs to be provided with advice and information relating to special educational needs and to make arrangements for resolving disagreements between schools and parents and the local education authority, including the appointment of independent persons to facilitate the avoidance or resolution of disagreements. Local education authorities must make these arrangements widely known to parents, head teachers, proprietors of schools in their area and any others whom they consider appropriate. I believe that these arrangements are beginning to have an effect and that they will prove to be very effective in providing support for parents.
The approach I want to take is through guidance and through the work that we are doing—building on what we are beginning to see. I hope that in the light of my reassurances, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will not press their amendments.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 98C and 98D. Existing subsection (3)(a) of Clause 49 already places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring prescribed persons—which will include the parents of an excluded pupil—to be given prescribed information relating to any exclusion. Subsection (3)(a) is broad enough to encompass the matters which are the substance of the noble Lord's amendment. I can assure both noble Lords that the period of the exclusion, the reasons for the exclusion, and the parent's right to make representations will certainly feature in the regulations that we make under subsection (3)(a).
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that there is no difference in legal effect between primary and secondary legislation. Therefore, I believe that there is nothing here that would lower the status of these rights. They will have the same force.
Similarly, the existing subsection (3)(c) of Clause 49 already places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring local education authorities to make arrangements for the relevant person, including the parent of an excluded pupil, to appeal against the decision of a discipline committee not to reinstate a pupil who has been permanently excluded. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept those reassurances and that, in the spirit of what I have said, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I feel that she and I are disagreeing in some measure, not on the substance of the approach but on the style, and on whether this should be in primary or secondary legislation. The noble Baroness has said a good deal that I should like to consider. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 98B to 98E not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 99:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
"PARENTAL BEHAVIOUR
(1) If a parent or guardian of a child registered at a maintained school behaves in a manner which—

(a) exhibits violence towards a member of staff of that school, whether or not on the premises of the school, or

(b) disrupts the normal functioning of the school, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3) Section 8 (parenting orders) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) is amended as follows—
(a) after subsection (1)(d) there is inserted—
"(e) a person is convicted of an offence under section (parental behaviour) of the Education Act 2002";
(b) in subsection (2) after "444" there is inserted "of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) or section (parental behaviour) of the Education Act 2002"; and
(c) after subsection (6)(c) there is inserted—
"(d) in a case falling within paragraph (e) of that subsection, the commission of any further offence under section (parental behaviour) of the Education Act 2002"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to my bid to extend parenting orders. I have read very carefully what the Minister said in Committee about parenting orders. In that debate, she said that the department consulted last autumn on extending their use. She went on to say:
"We have made it clear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, that we intend to pursue this option when a suitable criminal justice Bill is available".—[Official Report, 23/05/02; col. 979.]
It was also said that we would return in legislation to the issue of disruptive or violent behaviour by pupils.
I am sorry that I did not pick up on this opportunity earlier, as this is a God-given opportunity to make that provision. We all know how difficult it is to get a legislative opportunity. All we would have to do is convert my amendment to cover children rather than parents. I simply wonder whether the Minister would consider making that conversion on Third Reading. I believe that there would be support on all sides of the House for the provision.
We should take advantage of this opportunity. It is not uncommon to use one Bill to amend another. It certainly would be appropriate to make the provision in this Bill as this is legislation about parents and children. This is a very good opportunity to make the change. Moreover, if the provision did appear in a criminal justice Bill, it would appear way at the back as a miscellaneous item and bear little relation to the main thrust of that legislation.
The substance of the Minister's case against my amendment was that—having consulted on parenting orders for violent parents as opposed to violent pupils—-various statutes already provide for remedies against violent parents, and all that is needed is more effective enforcement. I certainly agree that much more could be done on enforcing the law. When it comes to enforcement, I believe that not only schools and education authorities but even neighbours living close to schools are remiss. I also agree that the law
876
offers some remedy. As the Minister said, people can resort to the Criminal Justice Act 1998, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 or the Harassment Act 1997 to deal with the type of activity indulged in by violent parents.
Nevertheless, I make another appeal to the Minister to consider extending parenting orders. I was not thinking of parenting orders as in any way a substitute for those Acts. That legislation will remain on the statute book as a remedy to deal with violence by parents. However, there is a case for adding to the number of remedies. We should extend parenting orders because, almost as night follows day, a parent who is violent on school premises is almost certain to be a pretty awful parent. We know the scenario. The parent goes to the school because a child has been badly dealt with, loses his temper, thumps the teacher, or runs amok and damages a lot of property out of simple rage. We know that the chances are that the children of that parent are going to stiffer pretty miserably when they get home. I think that there is a real issue of vulnerability in relation to the children.
I am not arguing that this provision should replace current laws which are there to be used if a parent is wilfully disruptive, damaging and violent. However, as I said, I think that a parent who is violent on school premises will not be a good parent. I therefore believe that there is a very strong case to extend parenting orders as an addition to the remedies mentioned by the Minister. I believe that there is a very strong case for supporting my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we shall indeed examine the issue of converting parenting orders to cover pupils. I am not sure whether that is technically possible, but I thank the noble Baroness for the suggestion. I shall come back to the point. Obviously, we are at one with the noble Baroness in wanting to ensure that parents who are violent or abusive in schools are dealt with. I agree absolutely with the noble Baroness's central point. I accept that a small number of parents are violent and abusive towards school staff. I share the feeling of all noble Lords that that simply cannot he tolerated. It is our duty to ensure that we use the full force of the law to tackle the problem. I am absolutely sure that we are all agreed on that.
However, the question is whether we should extend parenting orders to tackle the problem, as proposed in the amendment. I fully understand all the points that the noble Baroness made. However, let us be clear what parenting orders are because that explains why, in the light of consultation, we now believe that extending parenting orders is not the right approach.
A parenting order is designed to help a person better to manage their disruptive child. An order typically requires a parent to attend parenting classes. The point of the parenting order is to help a parent to control their child better. It does not concern a parent being a bad or disruptive parent; it concerns a parent's needs better to manage their disruptive child.
Although I can see what the noble Baroness is getting at, the amendment is not the right way to tackle the matter. I am of the view that children who behave

877
well in circumstances where they have disruptive parents ought to be given a medal. As I say, parenting orders are designed to help parents with disruptive children; they are not about parental behaviour. I believe that parents who assault teachers do not need their parenting skills improved; they need punishment. If someone punched a nurse in a casualty department, we would not expect that person to be made subject to a parenting order. We would expect that person to receive the full weight of the criminal law and for the nurse and his or her colleagues to know that they were fully protected by the law. So we have concluded that the extension of parenting orders is not the right answer.
So the question is whether we have the legal sanctions in place or not. I believe that we do. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, indicated a number of ways in which we can bring the weight of the law to bear in such situations. Following the consultation, and having decided that parenting orders are not suitable for aggressive parents, we are taking vigorous steps to make sure that the existing sanctions are better known. We are urging schools and LEAs to pursue the appropriate measures in every single instance of parental violence, threat or abuse in school.
We hope that we have sent a clear message across the education service in recent months that we shall not tolerate that kind of behaviour. There is no excuse for parents or anyone else ever to assault a teacher. We are urging schools and education authorities to take all proper action to protect teaching staff. Those who assault teachers must be prosecuted.
As part of our drive to deal robustly with the problem, we have just recently consulted a wide range of organisations about our approach on the matter including the National Association of Head Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association, all the teacher unions and the Association of Chief Police Officers. They share with us the wish to get out the strongest possible messages and to ensure the highest level of support for schools. We know that, as employers, LEAs will want to act decisively, including pursuing prosecutions, where teachers are threatened or assaulted in the course of their duties. And we are pressing them to do so.
I understand the noble Baroness's concerns. As I say, parenting orders are designed to deal with disruptive children, not parents. I know that the whole House is united in agreeing that our teachers and staff deserve the fullest protection. But I believe that our efforts will be best directed to ensuring that we enforce
878
fully the powers we currently have. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand much of what the noble Baroness said. However, I am sorry that she does not consider that there is a case for extending parenting orders and using them as an additional measure to the measures that are already in place.
I wish to make two points. First, I hope that some thought will be given to extending parenting orders for violent pupils. It seems to me that this is a God given opportunity to use the Bill to fulfil that promise to teachers. Secondly, I am beginning almost to despair as regards this matter. The distress among teachers, and the pressure on me from the education establishment to extend parenting orders to deal with the matter we are discussing, have been very great. I despair of the lack of knowledge as regards what can be done. Teachers feel vulnerable. They are being thumped and injured by violent parents in the classroom.
I wonder whether there is a case for teachers to take action against a school, or against an LEA, for its reluctance to take protective measures on behalf of the teacher. I am not quite sure who, in a particular incident, is responsible for taking action on the part of the teacher. Some people are very fearful of taking action in case they end up in court and receive very large legal bills. If our teachers are to be protected, they need to know that they can look to those who are responsible for them, such as their line managers, their head teachers and/or the LEAs—we know from earlier debates that the LEAs are the employers—for that protection.
I do not believe that there is anything between us in terms of the aims and objectives that we want to achieve. However, I shall give further consideration to those matters before the next stage of the Bill, as I know the Minister will. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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 sixteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

    The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
    [The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
    The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): Before I call the first amendment, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that, as the Leader of the House said yesterday, there will be a photographer present to take photographs of the proceedings at the beginning of this session. These are exclusively for the use of the House of Lords Annual Report.
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 231:
    Before Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
    "Commissioner
    ROLE OF COMMISSIONER
    (1) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, appoint a Commissioner to oversee the implementation of changes in the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland described in his terms of reference.
    (2) A person for the time being holding the office of Commissioner under subsection (1) is referred to in this Act as the Commissioner.
    (3) On appointing the Commissioner, the Secretary of State shall give him writ ten terms of reference.
    (4) The terms of reference shall, in particular, describe the changes in criminal justice matters in Northern Ireland, the implementation of which it is the general function of the Commissioner to oversee.
    (5) The Commissioner shall publish annual reports.
    (6) The Commissioner may at any time make a report to the Secretary of State and the First Minister and deputy First Minister on matters arising in the course of his performance of his general function.
    (7) The Commissioner shall be appointed for an initial period of six years and shall be re-appointed for further periods of up to six years unless an order is made under subsection (8).
    (8) If the Commissioner makes a report to the Secretary of State and the First Minister and deputy First Minister under subsection (6) stating that he is satisfied that the implementation of changes in the criminal justice matters described in his terms of reference has been completed then the Secretary of State, after consultation with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, may by order provide that the office of Commissioner shall cease to exist."
    The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. The new clause would become the first item under "Miscellaneous" in the Bill. I think that the proposal is rather more than miscellaneous, but for the moment that is where we have selected to place it.
    CWH160
    This is a very important Bill for Northern Ireland concerned with the whole of the justice system. A couple of years ago we passed a Bill about the police service. In that Bill provision was made for an oversight commissioner. For us it seems to be an oversight that the same provision has not been made in this Bill. This new clause therefore seeks to place it in the legislation; namely, that somebody will be on watch, overseeing that the new arrangements work and that they work well.
    It may well be that other ideas are put forward as to how this oversight should take place. Bearing in mind, however, that Parliament felt it necessary for oversight to be provided as far as the police were concerned, it is even more important that there should be oversight for justice as a whole. I beg to move.
    Lord Glentoran: I have considerable sympathy with this probing amendment. The sentiments expressed on behalf of the Liberal Democrats by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, to the effect that we need to keep a watchful eye on the way through all these changes, appeals to me. Unfortunately we already have a number of commissioners overseeing various matters in Northern Ireland. We have many commissions per se. We have the inspector of the police, amongst others.
    I wonder whether there could be some kind of overseeing responsibility, which I imagine would fall to the Lord Chief Justice or perhaps the Lord Chancellor if a commissioner is not appointed. It might be comforting if one of those two people had a very clear and specific duty to oversee the implementation of these changes during this rather difficult process.
    I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I wonder whether there is any significance in what appears to be an omission in line 2 of the amendment. That is where the legislation is at pains to specify in certain matters such as, for example, the hiring and firing of Her Majesty's judges, where the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be "acting jointly". On Second Reading I pointed out the very great difficulty that the First and Deputy First Minister would have in acting jointly on such a serious matter, given that by law in previous legislation they are required to be of different religions and different political parties. It seemed to me that basically it would place an insuperable burden on them. I wonder if that difficulty has been recognised by the sponsors of the amendment. No reference is made to "acting jointly", although it does appear elsewhere.
    Baroness O'Cathain: I seek a little clarification on this matter. Part 3 of the Bill concerns the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice. Would it not be appropriate for him to take on the role of oversight? Although Northern Ireland is an extremely important part of the United Kingdom, the Province has only 1.6 million inhabitants. We seem to be overloading it with bureaucracy.

    CWH161
    Has any thought been given to the number of bureaucrats who are going to be generated by this Bill, all in addition to the huge overload of bureaucracy that is already in place? Could someone look at the position and work out how proportionate it is to other parts of the United Kingdom? I suspect that it will prove to be very top heavy indeed.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I certainly echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. One wants to be very careful in this context to ensure that one does not simply add an additional layer of bureaucracy to what is, as Members of the Committee have all agreed, a complex set of relationships which needs to be worked through.
    I do take the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Glentoran. This is an extremely important time for Northern Ireland and it is vital that public confidence in the review and its implementation should be sustained.
    When this matter was raised in the Commons, the Secretary of State said that he would give the proposal careful thought. He has done so. Work is now under way—I hope that this is helpful—on the revised implementation plan which we plan to publish after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The revised plan will be a fuller document than the plan that was published last November. A number of respondents to the consultation exercise, following the publication of the original plan, said that they would like to have more detail, in particular in regard to time-scales. We shall certainly take that on board.
    The revised plan will give more detailed information on how implementation is progressing and set out important milestones. It will make clear when particular actions are to be taken, and it will deal not only with matters in the Bill, but also with administrative recommendations that are going to be put into effect.
    It will demonstrate clearly who is responsible for what. The responsibility here, of course, is divided between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General but not, I believe, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. As noble Lords know, those three people are working together for a successful implementation.
    My right honourable friend Dr Reid indicated that he was not minded to put in place a statutory oversight commissioner, but he did say that his mind was open. On that basis, the Government are certainly considering with an open mind a non-statutory commissioner. Given that, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and I hope that I have gone some way to meeting his concerns which I recognise are absolutely legitimate.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response and we look forward to seeing in due course the documents which we have been promised. I am also grateful for the contributions of the noble Lords. In particular I was impressed with the argument about due economy
    CWH162
    expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. The over-arching nature of the matter is something that is clearly of concern, but nevertheless it is so important that it has to be got right. Bearing all that in mind, and considering the contributions yet to come, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 65 [Display of Royal Arms at courts]:
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 232:
    Page 57, line 31, leave out subsection (1).
    The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 235 and 236 in which I am joined by my colleagues from the Unionist Party.
    In my opinion this is rather a sad stage of the Bill. We have had, up to this stage, serious debate about what, by and large, is a good, positive, devolutionary Bill.
    We now come to Part 5, which is entitled "Miscellaneous". Somehow, most of the miscellany is pretty peripheral to criminal justice per se. It is subjective politics of typical—difficult—problems from Northern Ireland but not much of it seems to belong here. This group of amendments concerns the structures and the decoration of court houses throughout the Province. They are about the display of royal coats of arms in court rooms and on court houses. The Good Friday agreement makes it absolutely clear—we have pointed this out during the Bill's earlier stages—that interfering with emblems, architecture and the like for either, or any, of the various communities in the Province is not necessary.
    It is accepted that Northern Ireland is, at this stage of its life, an integral part of the United Kingdom. It is absolutely necessary to be clear where the judicial authority comes from and how it is derived. Paragraph 5 on page 20 of the agreement states:
    "All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division. Arrangements will be made to monitor this issue and consider what action might be required".
    That is a pretty clear statement. When the noble and learned Lord replies, I shall be interested to hear him justify morally, logically, practically and in any way that he can, this part of the Bill. There seems to be no logic at all. I frequently visit the Republic of Ireland; I said in my maiden speech in this House many years ago that while I was British in most ways, when I go to Twickenham or elsewhere, you will find me carrying a tricolour—there are many of us like that. Equally, if you go to the republic you will find that the Lord Mayor of Dublin has King Billy on his chain. There is the Royal Cork Yacht Club in Cork and there are other royal institutions, including the Royal Agricultural Society. The royal title gets all sorts of usage. Royal coats of arms are certainly found around the Republic of Ireland—they were not destroyed or

    CWH163
    removed. In many places and on many occasions, the word "Royal" is perfectly acceptable in the everyday life of the Republic of Ireland. I beg to move.
    The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 232A, 232B and 233.
    3.45 p.m
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: In supporting Amendment No. 232, I give notice that I shall raise the amendments to which the Principal Deputy Chairman alluded.
    In so far as this clause is entitled,
    "Display of Royal Arms of Courts",
    there is an horrendous contradiction in intent. One might suggest that this clause is designed to ensure that there is minimal display, internally and externally, in relation to crown courts. At this time, in view of the support for the Republic of Ireland and England teams at the World Cup, it would cause huge offence if somebody suggested that the display of emblems was insulting to anyone. Groups of people support their football team with pride and dignity, and we laud and praise that attitude. Many of us in Northern Ireland tried for more than a decade to thrash out something that was equitable but we find that our own Government are now conspiring to tinker around the periphery of that Belfast agreement in a way that will make it meaningless to one tradition.
    We agreed that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and, in so doing, agreed that the judicial, legal and political processes within Northern Ireland would in fact agree. However, a High Court decision was delivered by Mr Justice Kerr on 4th October 2001. Addressing the issue of the Union flag, he said:
    "The Union flag is the flag of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a part. It is the judgment of the Secretary of State that it should be flown on Government buildings only on those days on which it is flown in Great Britain. By thus confining the days on which the flag is to appear, the Secretary of State sought to strike the correct balance between, on the one hand, acknowledging Northern Ireland's constitutional position and, on the other, not giving offence to those who oppose it".
    The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must interrupt the noble Lord—there is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes for that Division, after which the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, can continue his speech.
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 3.47 to 3.57 p.m.]
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Before the Division, I was quoting from the judgment of Mr Justice Kerr, on 4th October 2001, in respect of flags. I think I had reached the point at which he said that the Secretary of State had been trying to create a balance. Mr Justice Kerr went on to say,
    That approach seems to me to exemplify a proper regard for partnership, equality and mutual respect and to fulfil the Government's undertaking that its jurisdiction in Northern Ireland shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of the identities and traditions".
    CWH164
    In my short time in your Lordships' House, I have come to have some confidence that the Lord Privy Seal would jealously guard the interests of the judiciary and the judicial process in Northern Ireland. I therefore suspect that he is as horrified as I am to see the mish-mash in Clause 65. The clause suggests that the royal arms should not be displayed in any courtroom. The coat of arms, however, is already displayed in courtrooms in Belfast, Armagh, Banbridge. Downpatrick, Magherafelt and Omagh. I might add, of course, that it was displayed in the courthouse in my home town of Dungannon until the IRA blew up that courthouse. Under the Bill, our new courthouse, for which we have worked long and hard for a considerable number of years, will not be able to have parity and equality with Belfast, Armagh. Banbridge and the other towns I have mentioned.
    Perhaps I am arguing against myself here, but either it is right or it is wrong to have the coat of arms displayed in the courtroom. Perhaps it symbolises the impartiality of the legal process in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it indicates that every citizen stepping in to the courtroom to seek justice is assured that he will benefit from the impartiality of the Crown, from whom the process derives.
    Moving from inside the courtroom to outside, it appears, although the Bill does not say so, that we might get the royal coat of arms on the outside of the new courthouse in Dungannon. The Bill says
    "The Royal Arms must not be displayed—
    (a) on the exterior of an existing court-house"
    I suppose that one could imply that the reciprocal is the case; if it is not displayed on an existing courthouse, it will be displayed on a new courthouse. What confusion. What utter, unadulterated nonsense the clause produces. I wonder if there is an alternative of ensuring that under this legislation people will he treated equally before the law, irrespective of the tradition, ethnic group, religion, sex or anything else to which they adhere or belong. Let us have equality with the rest of the United Kingdom.
    It' I remember correctly, in our second sitting the Lord Privy Seal argued that I was wrong; he said that what I was talking about did not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom and had not traditionally happened in Northern Ireland. I wonder if he would be good enough to argue similarly on this occasion and to ensure that I do have parity of esteem with the rest of the United Kingdom and that some of the harmless but important traditions that we have had in the past should be sustained with equity.
    I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is back again, because she joined in that form of argument two sittings ago. Whichever Minister responds, I hope that they will demonstrate some consistency.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I support the general thrust of all these grouped amendments. I recognise, as anybody with any common sense must, the sensitivity that surrounds the issue of emblems, symbols, flags and so forth.

    CWH165
    I very much support what was said by my noble friend Lord Glentoran in opening. I share something of his personal experiences. He spoke of carrying the tricolour when he goes to watch Ireland playing rugby football. I did the same when I was very kindly invited to a match at Lansdowne Road by Mr Dick Spring, the Irish Foreign Minister, and, of course, I rooted for Ireland. Unfortunately, that gave rise to a photograph in the next day's Irish News, which showed Mr Spring on one side, me—the Secretary of State—on the other and, in between, the tricolour. With rare opportunism, Dr Paisley made considerable use of that as the frontispiece piece of his next election address. The caption was, "The flag they both uphold!" or words to that effect. I do not have the slightest regret that I behaved as I did.
    I also claim acquittal of any charge of insensitivity on this issue. I was responsible in 1996 for the order that changed the oath that jurors in Northern Ireland took—it changed that oath to omit any reference to our sovereign lady the Queen. I was able to do that because one could point to the fact that that change merely reflected the modern practice in England and Wales. That was a balancing factor that reduced, if it did not completely remove—I think that it probably did—any sense of affront.
    We are dealing with a much more important matter, which is a different case altogether. In a matter as sensitive as this, one is inevitably put in mind of the aphorism:
    "Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change".
    I know that I can rely on the Lord Privy Seal to tell us who said that.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: It was Viscount Falkland.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful. I knew the noble and learned Lord would not let us down.
    What is the practice in Northern Ireland at present? The review establishes that the practice varies. Apparently, inside every courtroom there is to be found the royal arms—generally it is behind the judge or the magistrate's chair. All courts appear to have that, but only 50 per cent of courts have the arms displayed on the outside of the building. It is reasonable to deduce from that that local practice reflects what is generally thought to be locally expedient—my comment is, "Quite right, too!". If that is so, it is desirable to make no change.
    The Bill adopts that approach for the exterior of court buildings. As my noble friend Lord Maginnis has just pointed out, those buildings that have the arms on at the moment are to retain them. He pointed to a matter that I had missed, I am afraid; that is, that there is uncertainty as to what the position would be in a new courthouse. One would hope that the arms would be permitted to be there.
    CWH166
    The Bill requires the removal of arms from inside every court. It may be helpful to refer the Committee to paragraph 8·30 on page 175 of the review report. It states:
    "In one group it was felt that flags and proclamations were alienating but that the presence of a Royal Coat of Arms often went unnoticed and was not an issue. Views at seminars were not entirely polarised and there was often agreement that while flags and emblems could be provocative, removing symbols could be just as provocative".
    That struck me as a very helpful and fair statement of what is apparently a very considerable division of opinion in Northern Ireland. Yet it is on that passage that the case seems to be founded for the recommendation in the review, which is reflected in the Bill.
    The presence of arms may be overlooked but the removal of arms most certainly will not he overlooked. The report rightly pointed out the opinion of those who expressed the view that removing something could be just as provocative as displaying it or flaunting it. The case for taking it away seems to be remarkably faintly argued in the review report. In paragraph 8·61, an opinion is expressed—it is not stated to be founded on any specific evidence—that the display of arms,
    "could be regarded by some as off-putting".
    That is a remarkable statement. It is not a very strong foundation for what is proposed in the Bill. Paragraph 8—61 on page 184 states:
    "On the other hand, we are conscious that the presence of the Royal Coat of Arms in a prominent position in the courtroom could be regarded by some as off-putting and inconsistent with the need for court proceedings to take place in a neutral environment".
    I consider that to be a very remarkable foundation for the ultimate recommendation in the Bill. We are not told whether people specifically said that that would apply to them, what position they held, what weight should be given or what place they held in the community. That could be seen by some as being off-putting.
    As for a neutral environment, I very much endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Maginnis. It is the very authority of the head of state, who happens to be the Queen, that guarantees neutrality—"impartiality", as he put it—and the neutral environment that is the very essence of adjudication in any state that upholds the rule of law. The head of state is the fount of justice and that establishes the neutrality of the court.
    The problem about taking away those arms seems to be that if one accedes to the rather tentative opinion— I hardly call it an argument—that arms detract from a neutral environment, one is seen by implication as concurring with the charge that royal adjudication is somehow biased adjudication. We all know perfectly well that that is not the case and it has never been alleged to be the case in my time. We went over that in our first sitting.
    I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the removal of the royal coat of arms has ever seriously been demanded, as part of the peace process or

    CWH167
    whatever one chooses to call it? If it has been, by whom and when? From the passage with which I have troubled the Committee, I do not have the impression that it has been. If that has become the Government's policy in the light of such a demand, what has that concession yielded in terms of a quid pro quo? My submission to the Committee is that principle and expedience demand that matters should be left as they stand. The review body has shown itself to be earnestly a good deal more sensitive than the sensitive.
    Lord Rogan: Part 5 specifically deals with symbols and emblems. I am sure that Members of the Committee are aware of the fact that for many years in Northern Ireland, "symblems" have been important. As an aside, I believe that they are beginning to become important again in the rest of the kingdom, which I welcome.
    I question why Part 5 should have been introduced into the Bill. Justice in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the kingdom, is being delivered in the name of the Crown. Whether we like it or not, the symbol of the Crown is the royal coat of arms. I see no logic in removing the royal coat of arms from courthouses in any part of the kingdom.
    I assume that the title of Part 5 is intended to give one an indication of what the clause is trying to achieve. The title of the first part of Part 5 is "Royal Arms and flags". I would have assumed that those provisions would maintain royal arms and flags but in fact Part 5 does exactly the opposite: it does not encourage the royal coat of arms and prohibits the use of arms in courthouses. The whole issue of royal arms and flags is indicative of and highlights the thrust of the Bill, which, we believe, runs against the Unionist ethos and tradition. We have a saying in Ulster that someone cannot be half pregnant: Part 5 is just that.
    4.15 p.m.
    Viscount Bridgeman: I shall take up the points raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, and not, I hope, in too simplistic a way. Almost transcending the importance of the royal coat of arms and its symbolism as such is the symbolism of the authority of the state in exercising justice. There can be few courthouses, if any, throughout the world where such a badge is not displayed on such a courthouse to distinguish it. The Belfast agreement, without question, recognises the authority of the United Kingdom as the realm in which Northern Ireland lies. For that reason, the symbol of the realm—or state, as some people would call it—is appropriate, and there can be no question that the proper symbol is the royal coat of arms. I support the amendment.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: I support everything that has been said. I must also point out that the Government are, in any case, being totally inconsistent. They have, I am relieved to see, included the word "realm" in the oath. The word "realm" presupposes the monarch, surely, or at any rate the head of a state. I do not see why, if that has been done,
    CWH168
    it is suddenly so totally offensive to have the royal arms displayed, particularly as the people who are likely to object are, politically speaking, nationalists and wish for a united Ireland.
    There are many people in the Catholic community who are happy with their allegiance to the Queen. They are happy with their membership of the United Kingdom and, as I said at an earlier sitting, they are happy to sign up as soldiers and policemen. We ought not to decide the matter in the context of a political free-for-all. There should not be a political aspect to the Bill: it should be about justice and the law.
    Lord Laird: I agree with the Members of the Committee who have spoken clearly on the issue, and I support the amendments. I shall give one more—slightly different—view. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, the concept that we are discussing was not in the Belfast agreement. It goes much further than the agreement. The Committee should consider the position of those of us who have tried, with great political difficulty, to make something of the Belfast agreement from a Unionist perspective.
    We know that large chunks of the Bill will come into being only after the next Assembly election and—if we read the signals right—only if there is a particular result in that election. They might not be brought in to being if the election of next year does not produce a particular set of circumstances. By continuing to act at the behest of Sinn Fein/IRA and moving the Belfast agreement in a direction that is suitable to them by changing it or making it flexible, the Government are undermining the position of those of us who have done our best and making it much more likely that the circumstances that would allow the earlier parts of the Bill to be implemented will not obtain. The situation after the next Assembly election will not be as the Government would like it to be.
    Lord Hylton: It did not take many visits to Northern Ireland to convince me, as an Englishman, that symbolic issues were of the highest importance. I can see that royal coats of arms are highly symbolic; perhaps nothing is thought to be more symbolic. It is, indeed, a sacrifice to remove them, in some cases, or not to put them up, in other cases. Nevertheless, that sacrifice will be seen to be worthwhile if it avoids even one or two accused persons coming to court and refusing to accept the jurisdiction of that court.
    The Belfast agreement has been mentioned during this Committee stage on this amendment. The agreement deferred the whole subject of criminal justice to a review, and the Bill we now have is the product of that review. I believe that a delicately balanced compromise has been achieved as the Bill emerged from the other place. It would be a great pity to undermine that compromise now, particularly in a Committee in which one Northern Ireland party is heavily represented and none of the others is. We might also run the risk of undermining the whole of the fruits of the criminal justice review, which is why I am not in sympathy with this group of amendments.

    CWH169
    My final point is the precedent of the letterheads of government departments in Northern Ireland, which is another very symbolic matter. To my knowledge, they are always plain and do not have lions and unicorns all over them. That is a good precedent to follow.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: When the noble Lord uses the word "compromise", I suggest that he should be thinking in terms of the 1998 agreement, in which a compromise was something participated in by all the parties around the table. This is not a compromise; it is a form of diktat that interferes and changes the status of the compromise of 1998.
    Lord Fitt: I have been provoked to take part in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who said that one Northern Ireland party was heavily represented on this Committee, to the total exclusion of others. That is not the fault of that party. The reason why the SDLP or other nationalists are not sitting in this House is that they refuse to nominate anybody to come to this House. That is their fault. If they do not have anyone to put their case, the rest of the political members from Northern Ireland cannot be blamed.
    As I have said so many times over so many years, without wishing to repeat myself, symbols are of the utmost importance in Northern Ireland. I remember sitting in the gallery in Stormont in 1953 when the Northern Ireland Unionist government promulgated the flags and emblems Bill, which was a total unionist concept to the exclusion of any other political or religious belief in Northern Ireland. They banned the flying of the tricolour, they banned the wearing of an Easter lily in the lapel of one's coat, they banned and made it a criminal offence for any show that was opposed to Unionism to be made available in Northern Ireland. One has only to look back in Hansard to see the great divisions that the promulgation of that Bill caused. I well remember being very bitter about it.
    We are talking about the possibility of a defendant going into a court, seeing the royal coat of arms and saying that they do not agree with it. Most people in Northern Ireland, like most people throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, hardly ever notice the emblem that is on the wall. The only people who would seriously object have been Sinn Fein. In the 1950s and 1960s, before Sinn Fein took on their new political image, when any of their members were tried before a court for a terrorist or political offence they used to go into the courtroom and say, "I refuse to recognise the court". That is long before there was any question about symbols. It also made matters much easier for the Government, because if the defendant refused to recognise the court, the magistrate was compelled to sentence him right away without any defence being called on his behalf.
    The symbol of the Crown in the courts in Northern Ireland has never been a divisive factor. Like many people, I wonder when the dialogue over the symbol came into the political arena. It was not brought in
    CWH170
    during the negotiations on the Good Friday agreement. The SDLP did not raise the matter of the royal coat of arms. It was Sinn Fein who did it, but not in the talks that led up to the promulgation of the Good Friday agreement; they did it at Weston Park or somewhere else.
    What the Government have now taken up will he seen in Northern Ireland as a further concession. I know that my colleagues on the Government side of the House do not like me or anyone else continuously harping on to this word "concession", but it is the only word that can describe what the Government are doing in giving way to the demands of Sinn Fein/IRA. The SDLP were put in a position. They are the constitutional nationalist party, but they are in serious competition with Sinn Fein for votes at elections. They will be in even more serious contention with them come the Assembly elections next year. They do not want to diverge—or cannot be seen to be diverging—from Sinn Fein demands to an extent that may harm their electoral prospects.
    I repeat the reason why I have taken part in this debate. The SDLP, which is the constitutional nationalist party, is not allegedly an extremist party.
    The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must interrupt the noble Lord. We have another Division in the Chamber. We will return in 10 minutes.
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.27 to 4.38 p.m.]
    Lord Fitt: I was about to conclude before we were called by a Division. On my way down to the Division I thought about the number of cases that come before the courts in Northern Ireland. There are drunks, wife beaters, robbers, people who break traffic regulations and a whole myriad others. I suggest that not many of those charged with such offences will object to the symbol in the court. Most people try to avoid going to any court, no matter what the symbol is above it. They want to try to keep out of court as much as they can. On the question of not recognising the court, I thought on my way here of an apocryphal story that was circulating in Northern Ireland some years ago. I have already alluded to the fact that there was a time when the IRA refused to recognise the courts. When a member of the IRA was charged and the charges were read out, the usual response was to say, "I don't recognise the court". That meant that he was sentenced.
    The apocryphal story, which came out 30 or 40 years ago, was that a drunk was found lying in York Street in Belfast—an area that I know very well—at three o'clock in the morning, singing the "Soldier's Song" and shouting, "Up the Republic!". The policeman tried to quieten him but to no avail, and he was arrested and brought before the court. The court that he was brought to the next morning was different from the court that he had attended some months previously and it was in a state of disrepair. When he was brought into the new court, the policeman gave his evidence that he had been shouting, "Up the Republic!" and singing the "Soldier's Song". The magistrate asked the

    CWH171
    defendant what he had to say for himself. He said. "I don't recognise the court". The magistrate said, "That's a very strange plea for a simple charge of being drunk. What do you mean, you don't recognise the court?". He said, "Well, it's all changed and the seats are all different from the last time I was here!".
    The serious point is that the Government will not be in a position to give us a definitive answer this evening. Who was it who first applied or made representations to the Government to have this clause in this Bill? Was it the SDLP? There are many people in Northern Ireland, and many Catholics, who voted for the SDLP, and they do not take offence at the royal coat of arms. They would be very annoyed if they found out that their political representative, the SDLP, had made forceful representations to have these provisions brought into effect.
    We have to face the fact that that is a further concession to Sinn Fein's demands. I know the Government do not like that word, but it has to be used and used again; it cannot mean anything other than it does mean.
    What does Sinn Fein have to offer in return for the Government making those demands? It will not engage in politics in Northern Ireland or play any significant part in bringing about the ideas in the Good Friday agreement. I know that what I am going to say inflames opinion on this side of the water but it has to be said and said again. Sinn Fein said, "If we don't get what we want, we may do another Canary Wharf. That is what is behind the Government's concessions.
    Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that he been provoked to speak by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and had not intended to do so. I rise to speak because of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. However, I hasten to say that he has encouraged rather than provoked me and I shall be briefer than the noble Lord.
    In 1984, I attended the Commonwealth education Ministers' conference in Nicosia. The photograph of the conference was taken on the main steps of the president's residence in Nicosia, below the royal arms, which had persisted there for the 25 years since the settlement of the EOKA enosis crisis. It may have been that those royal arms had survived out of convenience; it is also possible that they had survived out of statesmanship.
    In 1957, when Singapore became independent, in the post-independent mood of euphoria there was an effort to take down the statue of Stamford Raffles and to plough up or build over the cricket ground on the sea front. Lee Kwan Yew said, "We are a country of mixed race, a new state of mixed race, with 2–3 million people living in 219 square miles of marsh only a little above sea level. We are going to need every single piece of history we can find in order to keep this new society together. Stamford Raffles's statue will be taken down over my dead body and, provided that the cricket club is prepared to allow military parades on the outfield, it will be allowed to keep what must have become, apart
    CWH172
    from possibly the HAC ground, the most wealthy cricket ground in the world". That was unquestionably statesmanship.
    Neither of those cases is the same as that which we are discussing today; I am the first to recognise that. However, the role of statesmanship is relevant. If the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is correct and the issue of the royal arms was introduced into the argument as a new counter at quite a late stage, statesmanship by the Government would be to allow the status quo, given the price that Northern Ireland may pay if the clause goes through without amendment.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: If the object of the legislation is to encourage trembling, reluctant nationalists to accept the presence of royal arms, 'we should remember that when Gerry Adams was asked, after the Omagh bombing, whether he would not say a word to indicate to his people that it was in order for witnesses to come forward—particularly as Sinn Fein/ IRA claimed that the atrocity had been carried out by dissidents—he replied, "No. We do not recognise British justice".
    That has not changed, and we need only look at what happened over the police service. Every concession was made, but, in the end, Sinn Fein did not join the Policing Board and were not prepared—as the SDLP, I am glad to say, was—to say to the Catholic population, "Come forward, join, this is what we all want". On the contrary, they refused to do that, and their latest gesture—probably through another so-called dissident group—was to blow up a young recruit in his first week and to threaten his family. In the light of that, it is not much use treating this as a possible wonder move to secure the support of Sinn Fein.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is clear from our debate that it is a delicate and sensitive issue. To the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I say that it is a question not of concessions but of how to mediate a way through to a long-term resolution with which both parts of the community will feel content.
    The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that it was a sad part of the Bill. I understand fully why he said that, but it will be a sad part of the Bill only if we make it so. The provision is only one of 300 that the review had to consider. It had to take a holistic approach because it knew, as we do, the prize that it wished to attain. If Members of the Committee examine the review report, they will find that the review took the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and did not seek to mend that which was not broken. Where there was no need to make recommendations or do more than reiterate what the current state of affairs was, that is what the review did.
    It is right, as all noble Lords have said, that emblems and symbols have always been a very sensitive issue in Northern Ireland. The review sought to help us craft a system for the future, once devolution has become a reality, an eventuality to which we all aspire. That was the goal. Because symbols and emblems are of huge significance, it was important that the issue was not

    CWH173
    left, as it could have been, to custom and practice. Custom and practice in Northern Ireland, similar in many ways to custom and practice in England and Wales, varies. Fifty per cent of the courthouses in Northern Ireland do not have the royal coat of arms outside. Noble Lords will know the history: the introduction of emblems and of the use of the coat of arms in courts occurred in the last century. It was not always so. The practice has evolved over a period of time. It is right that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, should quote the Belfast agreement, and that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, should say so too. However, this gives voice to what the Belfast agreement sought to do, because the review sought to implement the essence of that in relation to criminal justice.
    On this issue, as on many others, the review group sought balance because, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass outlined, they understood the use and necessity for parity, so that both and all could feel part of what we hope will be a new beginning. This gives parity for Northern Ireland with England and Wales. It is important to remind ourselves what the review recommended. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, pointed out, the review said that there should be no change in the arrangements for displaying the royal coat of arms on the exterior of existing courthouses. However, in order to create an environment in which all those attending court can feel comfortable, we recommend that the interior of courtrooms should be free of any symbols. The members of the review group were not on a frolic of their own. They did not say that because they felt like it. They said it because, having consulted and spoken to all parties, they felt this was an appropriate way forward.
    I hope Members of the Committee will agree that, overall, the review is a splendid piece of work for which the review group should be commended by us all, no matter on which side of the divide we stand. It was a very difficult thing to craft, and it is a splendid thing when we see that the dissonance between the parties is so small. We are talking not about the fundamentals hut, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, about the peripheral issues. I emphasise the word "peripheral". They are issues that do not go to the core or the essence of what we are seeking to achieve.
    The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, mentioned the issue in relation to the judgment that was made by Mr Justice Kerr. That related to flags. Members of the Committee can see that it has been faithfully replicated in the proposed Bill. When it comes to these issues, the learned judge in that case sought to emphasise the importance of the Government seeking a sense of balance that accords due respect to both traditions. That is the aim of these clauses.
    It is worth reminding ourselves that these principles underpin the provisions in Clause 65. The amendments would all move away from the balance that has been struck by the Government in implementing the review, albeit in two different ways. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has not been here this
    CWH174
    afternoon to move his amendments, which went in entirely the other direction, seeking an aspiration of a total removal. That is the other side of the coin and the other part of the desire that is pursued here.
    Members of the Committee will also remember that when this Bill originally came before the other place it provided for a prohibition on the display of royal arms in the interior of all courtrooms, on the exterior of existing courthouses where they are not already displayed and on the exterior of new courthouses first used after the section comes into force.
    As a result of listening very carefully to the arguments that were made in the other place, we amended our view. The clause was amended on Report in the Commons to exempt a number of listed courthouses from the prohibition on the display of royal arms in courtrooms. The courts that are exempt are the Royal Courts of Justice, the Armagh, Banbridge, Magherafelt and Omagh courthouses and Courtroom No. 1 in Downpatrick.
    That was an important concession because in the other place the Government were accused of architectural vandalism for seeking to remove these emblems. I should like to remind noble Lords of what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said about the Republic of Ireland. He is right to say that in the Republic of Ireland, royal emblems and symbols remain in place in many buildings. What we seek to do in Northern Ireland will not be dissimilar in that regard to what already happens in the Republic of Ireland.
    Those changes were made in order to reflect the sensitivities of the situation, and we think that they reflect them well. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, with his usual acuity in relation to these matters, rightly points out that the Bill is silent in the placing of royal arms on the exterior of new courthouses. It follows therefore that there is no prohibition on so doing in the future. Whether royal arms are placed on the exterior of a new courthouse will be a decision taken in relation to each such new courthouse as and when the occasion arises. This reflects what happens in this regard at present where, as the review points out, past practice has not been wholly consistent.
    I know that a number of noble Lords will point out that there are parts of the Bill that are internally inconsistent. I am new to this issue, but I hope that I will be forgiven for saying that that is the reality of Northern Ireland. In order to satisfy the people of Northern Ireland, occasionally one has to give a little in one direction and a little in another. That may appear inconsistent, but when put into practice, it can work well.
    I see that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is shaking his head. I know that his experience is far greater than mine, but we are seeking to craft something that will stand the test of time. The Government believe that they have the balance about right. I should like to reiterate the fact that the review tried valiantly—we believe that it succeeded—to strike a balance. This clause reflects that. As recommended by the review, it prohibits the display of royal arms within courtrooms

    CWH175
    with the exception of those courthouses that are architecturally or historically important. Royal arms will continue to be displayed on the exterior of existing courthouses where they are already displayed.
    The Government are only too well aware of the sensitivities surrounding this issue. However, we feel that, along with the other recommendations, the review has got it about right.
    I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is anxious to speak.
    Baroness O'Cathain: I am most grateful to the Minister. When she speaks of the reality of Northern Ireland and the need to please the people, which people of Northern Ireland is she trying to please? That is the problem here. This reeks of concession, concession, concession. So many people have given up a great deal in the interests of the agreement, yet all the time they are being asked to give up more. What are Sinn Fein/ IRA giving up?
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I would, of course, invite the noble Baroness to recall the amendments that were made in another place. They were made in order to satisfy what we thought to be the rights issues that were raised on behalf of a certain section of the people of Northern Ireland. It is a balance, and it is an attempt to mediate between two differing views that are strongly held and strongly advocated in Northern Ireland.
    I come back to the review. As I said, this is only one among 300 recommendations made by the review team. One knows the sensitivity of the issue. If a recommendation could have been avoided, I am sure that it would have been. The Government think that the balance in the matter is about right, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I suggest to the Minister that she has left us in a worse position than we were in before we started our debate. In my home town, Dungannon, we had a courthouse in which the royal coat of arms was, in my recollection, displayed. I assure the Minister that I did not frequent the courthouse, but I believe that there was a coat of arms inside; there certainly was on the exterior. Will it be the case, going by precedent, that, as there was a coat of arms on the exterior of the previous courthouse, the new courthouse in Dungannon will fall within the criterion that entitles it to a coat of arms on its exterior? If that is intended, it could easily be enshrined in the legislation. It is unclear.
    I shall share with the Committee another thought. I take deep offence when I see the Union flag flown from lamp-posts all over my former constituency and left exposed to the weather to fray and become little more than a rag. I do not like to see it treated like that. There are people of different aspirations from myself who feel equally strongly about the tricolour. When I went to groups of people and said, "Will you take these flags down? It is confrontational, and it does not help us in any way", the answer that I invariably got was, "If we
    CWH176
    don't fly the flag, our Government will not recognise us and will remove the last vestige of our British ness. Your agreement will leave us with nothing, and we will be British in name only". That is the dilemma, and the situation will be exacerbated by the clause.
    The Committee will not divide on amendments, but I must give notice that the issue will not go away. We will return to it again and again.
    Viscount Brookeborough: I shall pick up a couple of points with the Minister. She based her whole argument on balancing two differing views. She said that the amendments made in the Commons were made to create a balance and that she and the Government now believed that they had that balance. It is the sort of balance that we tend to see from people who cannot be totally aware of affairs in Northern Ireland.
    The balance, if it is a balance, is one not only of a point of view, but also numerically of the number of people who hold either view—it can only be that. What the noble Baroness is trying to balance, which simply does not work, is that the vast majority of people—Roman Catholic, Protestant, ethnic minorities and those of no religion as we seem to include in some of the balances in Northern Ireland—have no objection to the present court system.
    On the other side of her balance, the noble Baroness has those who object strongly, predominantly those who will not recognise the court whether it is there or not. Once it accepted that they will never accept the justice anyway, I suggest that the balance, on which she has based her argument, is not a balance in any possible interpretation of even-handedness, even weight, even numbers or even point of view.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I should like to pay tribute to the careful and extremely skilful way in which the noble Baroness has responded to the debate. We are entitled to take the words she has used and, in particular, the technical words she has used, in the knowledge that she appreciates their implications. She ended her speech as she began it, by saying that the Government are engaged in mediating. She knows that mediation takes place when both sides agree to abide by the result. Is there any indication that the Government have secured that agreement in response to this package, of which the question of royal arms is a part?
    I shall pause for a moment while the noble Baroness takes instructions. Again, is there any indication that the outcome will be acceptance by Sinn Fein of the validity and the legitimacy of the justice system? Furthermore, is there any indication that the outcome will be acceptance and support on the part of Sinn Fein of the police service as a proper service for Northern Ireland? I very much hope that the answers will be yes. If there are any indications, I shall not press her to explain them. That may be too sensitive and too difficult. However, we are entitled to know, in the light of the assertion of mediation—which the noble Baroness cannot have intended to mean trying to find a middle way—whether there has been any indication that it will be accepted in the way that I have outlined.

    CWH177
    The noble Baroness has properly referred us to the task of the review body, but she has implied that we must accept every item and every judgment they have made in producing what it hopes will be an acceptable package. But we have not done so. We are perfectly entitled to look at the justification on which that the review body claims to have founded each of their recommendations. Indeed, we have a duty to make our own assessment as regards its validity.
    I drew the attention of the Committee to the passage at paragraph 8·61 in which the review body sets out the basis on which ultimately it founded its recommendation,
    "we are conscious that the presence of the Royal Coat of Arms in a prominent position in the courtroom could be regarded by some as off-putting and inconsistent with the need for court proceedings to take place in a neutral environment".
    Perhaps I have failed, but I have tried to be as careful as the noble Baroness in her response to the Committee in identifying points of criticism in her argument. I do not believe that she found time to deal with these points in her reply. Perhaps she would consider doing so now.
    Some people could find it off-putting. One does not want to be flippant about it, but are we really to suppose that, when asked to say anything in his own defence, a person will comment, "I had it in the front of my mind, but I have been put off by the damned royal coat of arms". That is not really a sensible notion.
    I have suggested to the Committee and to the Government that, in the light of what rests on it, the review body made a remarkably flimsy and faint recommendation. I hope that the noble Baroness will allow us to make our own assessment of the validity of that which the review body itself identifies as justifying its ultimate recommendation and to ask whether something which will cause great affront—the removal of the royal coat of arms which has always been displayed inside courtrooms—makes the game worth the candle.
    Here we have something which the review body itself comments is quite commonly overlooked, whose presence is described only as being capable of being off-putting or uncomfortable. Whether the game is really worth the candle; that is, to remove the coat of arms, with great resulting affront in the circumstances described by the review body, is highly debatable. I hope that the noble Baroness will look at this again.
    I pay tribute to the Government for having moved in the other place. They found an architectural or cultural ground for doing so. That is all well and good, but they could perfectly well move a little further now. That would be entirely consistent with the Government's approach to finding a means by which people of Northern Ireland can be helped to live together in greater tranquillity together. That search will be aided greatly if they move in the direction suggested by the amendment of my noble friend.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: First, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his
    CWH178
    gracious compliments on my initial response. The noble and learned Lord is quite right to say that I did choose my words carefully. When he comes to read the transcript of our debate, he will find that I said, "Mediating a way forward"; that is, finding a route by which we can reach a resolution that suits us all. It was not a mediation between the parties, but a mediation of the route.
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.12 to 5.22 pin.]
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I was replying to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. Of course we accept that not every item that is recommended by the review would be accepted without question. Earlier, I made it clear that the Government took very seriously the review's recommendations. Where they found them to be sound, they complied with them or enforced them, but where they did not find that the evidence was made out they felt freer to go another way.
    The body of the evidence heard by the review is not referred to in its entirety in the review; nor should it be. One does have the comfort of looking at Appendix A to the report, which sets out fully all those who provided written submissions or position papers to the review and the matters that they took into account. It would be fair to say that those consultations were very extensive indeed and, if I remember aright, they took some two years to undertake.
    We know that the review looked carefully at this issue. The review group objective was to create an environment in which all those attending court could feel comfortable. We respectfully suggest that that was the right objective. In the light of the movement that the Government have made in this area, we think that that is significant because it reflects the essence of what the review recommended, although there was some adaptation to take into account the evidence culled from the consultation period. It is for that reason that we say that the recommendations are sound. I should also make it plain that those provisions will be subject to a commencement order—they will not have to await devolution but they will come into being relatively swiftly. I reiterate, however, that there is parity and that what happens in England and Wales will be reflected in what happens in Northern Ireland.
    In relation to the court—the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked about Dungannon—there is no decision yet about what will be displayed in that court. That will take place nearer the time but the fact that the royal arms were previously on the outside of the court is obviously relevant to the decision. I emphasise, however, that no decision has yet been made.
    Similarly, in England and Wales there is nothing written on whether and when emblems or symbols should be displayed outside or inside a court. So far as the outside of courthouses is concerned, however, the practice in England and Wales varies, as it does in Northern Ireland. A number of Members of the Committee have mentioned parity. I humbly suggest

    CWH179
    that there is parity in this regard. I hope that gives the noble Lord the sense of comfort that he wanted everyone to have.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My understanding is that the Minister has just said that there would be parity with the situation in England and Wales. However, in England and Wales, my experience is that the royal arms are to be found inside every court and that they are certainly not going to be ripped out.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In England and Wales a decision is made about what is best in relation to each court. So far as the outside of new court buildings is concerned, that will be exactly the same for Northern Ireland. Decisions will be made judiciously in relation to each court and what is best in terms of the outside of the court building. I referred to that when answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, on Dungannon.
    Lord Glentoran: An hour and a half after we started this debate. I rise to wind up. Because we are in Committee, I will of course withdraw my amendment. Before doing so, however, I thank the Minister for her care and patience in handling our questions and contributions. I also thank all those who have taken part in this debate. The case has been made very strongly and soundly by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. I do not feel able to follow him to any extent as an advocate.
    I shall make two smaller points. I remind the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, that the Bill was not debated fully in another place. We have to be very cautious when referring to discussions that may or may not have taken place there. I confess that I do not know in detail—line by line —which parts of the Bill were debated and which were not.
    I am definitely not convinced by the Minister's arguments, gallant though they were, for many reasons. In particular, the Government have changed their position as a result of the debate in the other place. My understanding, from what the Minister and others have said, is that the present position is that there is no need for a relevant provision in the Bill because there is no need for change. New courthouses will be built in reflection of the communities in which they are. The Minister told the Committee that some courthouses were built with coats of arms and others without them. The case has been well made that the amount of notice that is taken of the decoration and the coats of arms, either in or out, is so minimal that just to let the matter cool and not to raise it as a major political issue would be the prudent way forward. I do not believe that it is broken. The Government have not made the case that the situation is broken. The saying is, "If it's not broken, don't mend it". The system is not broken, and it does not need to be mended.
    Finally, I am a little concerned about one aspect of it. If no new courthouses are allowed to carry the coat of arms, terrorists will feel encouraged to blow up courthouses that do, so that there will be a whitewash. That may be a cynical statement to make, but,
    CWH180
    unfortunately, in the world in which we live, that could, at some stage, become a reality, sadly. I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 232A and 232B not moved.]
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Desaihad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 233:
    Page 57, line 31, at end insert "or on the exterior of a courthouse"
    The noble Lord said: First, I must apologise for not having been here. I thought we would have dealt with the matter by last evening. From what little I heard of the debate, I can say that, had I been here, a contrasting voice might have been heard. I shall not move the amendment.
    [Amendment No. 233 not moved.]
    [Amendments Nos. 234 to 236 not moved.]
    On Question, Whether Clause 65 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Glentoran: I give notice to the Committee that we will object to the passing of the clause on Report.
    Clause 65 agreed to.
    Clause 66 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 237 not moved.]
    Clause 67 [Information about discharge and temporary release of prisoners]:
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 238:
    Page 59, line 21, leave out paragraph (c).
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 238 is a probing amendment. The clause deals with the concept of making information available to victims. We all accept that that should be done whenever possible and as fully as possible, apart from cases in which doing so might compromise the safety of the victim. However, subsection (8)(c) seems to give a loosely defined and wide power to the Secretary of State—after devolution, it will be the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—to withhold that information. Can the Minister explain the Government's thinking on this? I beg to move.
    Lord Hylton: Long before the Belfast agreement and long before the ceasefire, prisoners were released, sometimes on compassionate grounds, sometimes for Christmas or at other times of the year. As far as I know, it worked extremely well, without—I believe— relatives and next of kin being informed at all. Can the Minister throw any light on that? From where has the demand come that next of kin should be informed?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall deal with that point immediately before answering the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. A common criticism has been—rightly, in the opinion of many of us—that when people are released from prison either at the end of their sentence or on compassionate grounds, the victims and their family simply do not know. There was a notorious case with which I am extremely familiar in south Wales. A

    CWH181
    murderer was released and went back to live in his home village, but the widow of the murdered man did not know until she saw him. That is intolerable, and the pendulum has rightly shifted to the decent accommodation of those who have a reasonable right to know. I am in no doubt about the principle behind this.
    As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran implied, we wanted to avoid detailed exceptions in the Bill. We want the flexibility to set out exceptions in the scheme. I will happily give some examples that inform our present thinking. The first relates to excluding cases in which the victim is not a natural person—a corporation or some body of that sort. Secondly, there may well be cases in which disclosure would be a contempt of court. Thirdly, the disclosure of the information might be contrary to the Human Rights Act, or, perhaps more significantly, the Data Protection Act. There might be some circumstances—I recognise that one has to put this delicately—in which giving the information might be a disproportionate interference with the rights of the prisoner. That is the sort of thinking we have and we would want the flexibility to develop over time.
    Lord Glentoran: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 67 agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 239 and 240 not moved.]
    Clauses 68 to 70 agreed to.
    Clause 71 [Local community safety partnerships]:
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 241:
    Page 60, line 37, leave out subsection (1).
    The noble Lord said: Is it necessary that this power should be given to the Secretary of State once again to divide up Northern Ireland into even smaller patches for the purposes of the community safety partnerships?
    Clause 71 should not be in the Bill. It is here because of the political process; because of negotiations, wheeling and dealing, with the terrorists and with Sinn Fein/IRA. I submit as background that the Patten report and the Police (Northern Ireland) Act, refer to things called DPPs. Those district policing partnerships were to be set up and funded locally so that they were allowed to employ civilian-type heavies to help keep the peace.
    During the debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill in another place, the right honourable Mr Peter Mandelson—then Secretary of State—decided, in his wisdom, to disallow the raising of funds by DPPs and others. That made the passage of that Bill a little easier. It downgraded the Bill as far as Sinn Fein were concerned and they did not like it, but he said that the Government would return to this issue at a later date. I believe this is the later date. The issue has resurfaced in the form of community safety partnerships and I believe that that is wrong.
    CWH182
    I do not believe that this clause should be a part of the Bill. It opens the door wide to the distortion of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland by paramilitaries. I beg to move.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: This is a particularly important amendment addressing, dare I suggest, an issue that will come up again. Perhaps it will do so in a different form, but it will not go away.
    I shall say a few words about the background to local community safety partnerships. Prior to the police Bill, we had a system that had been built up very slowly and meticulously within the community, and without a great deal of fuss. We had what were called the CPLCs, the community and police liaison committees. There were over 40 of those distributed throughout Northern Ireland, and perhaps even more. They were made up of groups of ordinary people who came together trying to understand the difficulties within their own communities, the difficulties faced by the police, and seeking to work out those difficulties in the common interest of everyone involved.
    When we considered the police Bill, the CPLCs were completely ignored by Government. It was almost as though they repudiated the good work being done by the people. I name but one from the nationalist community, Monsignor Denis Faul. Over the years, while retaining his nationalist aspiration, he sought to understand the needs of both traditions within our community.
    In so far as we have lost the CPLCs, I believe that we have taken a huge step backwards. We have been landed with police partnerships boards, which will be answerable or responsible to the Policing Board. They are the bodies within local areas of command that will seek to deal with policy issues on policing, and to consult with the community and the police. They are much more formal. Because of that, I think that they will find it a great deal more difficult to fulfil the role of the CPLCs.
    Now we have developing—perhaps they might be seen as emanating from, or growing in parallel, or in place of the CPLCs—the local community safety partnerships. The great danger, of course, is that these LCSPs, as they will become known, will operate almost as autonomous bodies. They will not be tied, as I believe they must reasonably be tied, to the DPPs, the statutory policy and consultancy bodies in each local area of command.
    I believe that the LCSPs could fulfil, in a practical sense, a very useful role. But I think that the PPBs will not have the opportunity to discuss the nuts and bolts of policing. I cite, for example, a factory having difficulty in protecting its workforce or suffering from attacks of vandalism; or perhaps how to deal with a disturbance in a specific street. All those would be useful roles and I would be the last to advocate that the community should not be involved directly with the police in terms of the day-to-day nuts and bolts of policing.
    However, I fear that, as they are to be established under the Bill, the autonomous nature of local community safety partnerships will be hugely

    CWH183
    attractive to those groups with a very specific political agenda. They are not primarily interested in community issues, but rather in furthering their own political, perhaps subversive or pseudo-subversive, campaign aims. Therefore, as we move on to the next stage, it will become necessary to tighten up this area of the legislation. Nevertheless, I believe that the answer will be simply to conclude that we cannot have a totally separate body deciding on how areas are to be policed.
    I refer specifically to "areas" because in the police Bill it was proposed that there should be a police partnership board for every district council area. That was promised by the Government, but the Government reneged on that promise in terms of Belfast where, because of pressure from Sinn Fein, they decided to chop the PPB into four, so that those predominantly in West Belfast, who are predominantly militant republicans represented by militant republicanism—by Sinn Fein/IRA—would have their own separate body to deal with the police.
    I can see exactly the same kind of thing happening here. We have been told that the Secretary of State will be accountable as to what is to be an "area" for a local community safety partnership. I refer, for instance, to the rural and farming group of south Armagh. That is not its proper name; it has a very fine name that one might think would mean that it was concerned with the interests of the rural community. In reality it is a fairly one-sided, extreme campaigning group. Will the Secretary of State accord to that body the right to have a local community safety partnership? There will be very few people from the other tradition represented on that partnership, able to be on it or safe to be on it.
    The reality is that, once again, the Government are manipulating the situation so that in fact they will overcome their own safeguards as far as the community as a whole is concerned. I repeat: they will overcome their own safeguards. That cannot be good legislation.
    I conclude by saying that if in fact PPBs are primarily responsible for consultation and the implementation of policy overall, and if the Policing Board co-ordinates that policy, then at the subordinate level—I hope that it will be at the subordinate level—local community safety partnerships must be accountable through, and not working in conflict with, the PPBs.
    5.45 pm
    Viscount Brookeborough: First, I must declare an interest, because I am on the Policing Board in Northern Ireland. Secondly, I approve of the fact that this issue will come up on Report, when we can say more about it after listening to what is said here. Thirdly, I must apologise, because I have to go to another appointment, but I would like to come in on the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that the partnerships could not be entirely independent. Looking at the situation in Great Britain, such partnerships are statutory in England and Wales and
    CWH184
    voluntary in Scotland and they work very well. Somebody has to look after safety, and they work well in that context.
    It is interesting to see where they have gone. They have not remained entirely independent of other bodies within those areas. The initial intention was that they would be. A police research and management document from the summer of 1998 quotes the Local Government Association saying:
    "Community safety is the concept of community-based action to inhibit and remedy the causes and consequences of criminal intimidatory and other related anti-social behaviour. Its purpose is to secure sustainable reduction in crime in local communities. Its approach is based on the formation of multi-agency partnerships between the public, private and voluntary sectors to formulate and introduce community-based measures against crime."
    That is a commonly used definition. It continues:
    "Any community safety strategy that is worthy of the name will therefore impact upon every aspect of the way that a police organisation conducts its business. Operational strategies that address public order, crime, road policing, meeting public demand—which is what they will do after they have done their research—and so on, will inevitably be in support of the overarching community safety framework".
    Later it says,
    "The positioning of the community safety strategy within the planning hierarchy, and the management of the process by which operational and functional strategies are interlink ed and integrated with it, becomes a vital consideration for police managers."
    We should not forget that safety partnerships and strategies work extremely well within the remainder of the United Kingdom, but they are not considered in total isolation from such equivalent bodies—or nearly equivalent, because they do not have the same powers—as the DPPs that we will have.
    Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful to my noble kinsman on the other side of the committee room for having addressed the subject in the context of Great Britain, because I regard the amendment and the clause as extremely important.
    The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis referred to the CPLCs. We took evidence from one such in the Select Committee report on the RUC in the last Parliament. In seeing them, one was comparing them with the police community liaison committees in one's own constituency. There were four in Westminster, so I had plenty with which to compare them. It was noticeable that in the context of Northern Ireland, paramilitary considerations, to which I do not propose to refer in my speech, were quite clearly affecting the working of the CPLC, which was from north Belfast, in a way that would not have applied to the very good committees that we had in my former constituency.
    I do not want to talk about Sinn Fein or the paramilitaries, although I realise they may come into the debate at a later stage. I am concerned to establish by what means and process over the past two and a half years we have reached the point at which we now are. There seems to be a mild discontinuity in government policy. If I have misunderstood it, I am confident that the noble and learned Lord will correct me.

    CWH185
    My first item is the remarks of the Secretary of State on 19th January 2000 on the Patten commission. He said,
    "Patten proposed the creation of district policing partnership boards to provide an element of local accountability". He envisaged that they should have a primarily consultative role, with an ability to monitor police delivery against an agreed local plan; I endorse that. He also proposed an additional community safety role, with powers to purchase services on top of normal policing. The latter activity is currently being considered by the criminal justice review. Until decisions are taken on the review, which will be published shortly, I do not intend to extend the function in that way. It will be better, in any case, to concentrate initially on building up relationships at the local level, in what I propose to call district policing partnerships. I also intend to consider further the arrangements proposed for Belfast. I am not satisfied that it would be right to have four separate partnerships".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/00; cols. 846–71.]
    That was the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, drew attention.
    It was my impression from my noble kinsman, who has now left the Committee, that the DPPs are not yet operational. The Secretary of State, on Second Reading in January this year, referred to their role in the future rather than to something that was currently ongoing. As I said, the then Secretary of State suggested in January 2000 that it was important to,
    "concentrate initially on building up relationships at the local level in what I propose to call district policing partnerships".
    I have to say that today is precisely 29 months since the Secretary of State made that remark. If establishing those relationships at the local level was of the importance that he attributed to it, the Government have not actually been hurrying to gain the advantage of it.
    After 34 paragraphs of background and 10 paragraphs of analysis and argument, the Committee will recall that the Criminal Justice Review Group recommended that, rather than district policing partnerships, community safety and policing partnerships, chaired by local authority-elected members, should be established. That argument was developed.
    I remark neutrally that the Government have, on a number of occasions in the course of the proceedings on this Bill in both Houses, used as their amulet what was said in the review. This is, of course, a case in which its recommendation has been discarded.
    Recommendations on the Bill came out in March 2000 and the Bill became law in November 2000. There were five pages of very precise advice on what the DPPs were to consist of, which is contained in Schedule 3.
    The fourth item is the implementation plan of November 2001—a month later—in which the Government stated their intentions. I realise that by only quoting a single sentence, I am not using the argument that led up to the word "accordingly". It stated:
    "Accordingly, the Government believes that it would be premature to make firm decisions now on the future shape of local community safety arrangements".
    CWH186
    The fifth item is the statement by the Secretary of State on Second Reading in the House of Commons in January. He said:
    "Another subject on which we have received a number of submissions is community safety. There was widespread support in the local government sector for a provision in the Bill to give councils clear statutory authority to undertake community safety work. I very much welcome the councils' intention to play an active role in community safety, which will contribute to reducing crime and the fear of crime in their localities. In order to facilitate that, I am minded, subject to consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, to bring forward an amendment on those lines.
    The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 sets out the crucial role of the Policing Board in the development of district policing partnerships. It will have an important role to play in ensuring that the police contribute effectively to the partnerships necessary to deliver community safety.
    We do not envisage that the district policing partnerships will have the lead role in community safety, as that is not an issue for the police alone, and the other organisations which contribute to the delivery of community safety, such as housing and social services, are not included in the membership of those partnerships".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/02; col. 646.]
    I have to say that the Criminal Justice Review Group, in the 10 paragraphs that led up to its recommendation that these activities should in fact be conflated into a single one, dwelt on those considerations—and, incidentally, on the possibility of paramilitary activity.
    The sixth item is the response of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place on 12th February to a debate on this subject. Again, I take only a single sentence. I realise the hazard, but I am trying to be brief. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary said:
    "In the interim, community safety will be supported from the centre but that will be an interim measure. Detailed proposals will be set out in the draft community safety strategy to which I referred and which is referred to in the clause".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 12/2/02; col. 371.]
    That is where we have got to, 29 months after the Secretary of State made his original comment on Patten in January 2000. I do not want to be cynical, but I must say that, in respect of the equality provisions, the Select Committee in the last Parliament had the greatest difficulty in getting decisions out of the Government on a several matters that related to Section 75. There was an embarrassing debate in Westminster Hall in which the Minister—in the previous government rather than the present one—was clearly adrift and astern of the agenda that the Select Committee had set.
    It is also possible that the philosophy of Mr Micawber prevails and that people are waiting for something to turn up. I said that I would not refer to paramilitaries and Sinn Fein, and I have not. My reference to Mr Micawber was generic, rather than particular. The issue of community safety partnerships, however, is one of great importance. It was worth giving five pages of primary legislation to the district policing partnerships. I understand what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr Browne, said about community safety being supported from the centre but on an interim measure and that, therefore, anything done on community safety would be done by order by the Secretary of State at a later date. However, the issue is sufficiently important that it

    CWH187
    ought to be dealt with in primary legislation. The delay—29 monthsx2014;means that we are not very far forward in getting that primary legislation.
    6 p.m.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: That was an admirable speech. I direct the Committee's attention to subsection (3) and to subsection (7), which says:
    "The Secretary of State may by order—
    (a) amend subsections (4) to (6)"—
    covering practically everything that the partnership will do—
    "or
    (b) confer or impose on local community safety partnerships other functions relating to the enhancement of community safety in their areas".
    That would be a useful umbrella provision for removing or dissolving the DPPs and transferring what they do to these partnerships. As the Secretary of State—not for the first time—will nominate all the people, he will have immense power without any serious explanation of what it is for. The Bill states blithely, at subsection (4), that the partnerships must ascertain the issues, prepare plans, provide financial support, identify targets and goodness knows what else. However, the Secretary of State may, by order, amend those subsections or confer or impose on the partnerships other functions.
    This part of the Bill is vague. It would be nice to see it a little more precise.
    Lord Fitt: Over the many years that I have been in politics in Northern Ireland, I have noticed a great onrush of words and sentences into the political lexicon. I had never heard, until this Bill was published, of community safety. Safety from what? Safety for whom? I would like to see that analysed, so that we might know exactly what we are discussing. I have never heard of such a set-up in any civilised society. It must mean safety from the activities of paramilitaries, safety from those who would endanger people living within the area. The Secretary of State must devise a strategy for enhancing community safety. How is he going to do that? Who is he going to talk to about community safety in the given areas? He has to talk to people who live in that particular community. The communities we are thinking of now are readily identifiable. There is west Belfast, north Belfast, and now east Belfast and Crossmaglen—all areas where there has been very heavy political activity over the past number of years.
    Who will speak for those areas? Who will elect the people there to act on whatever the committee for community safety may be? In Crossmaglen it will undoubtedly be pro-republican. In west Belfast it will undoubtedly be pro-republican. In the Short Strand area of Belfast it will be the Catholic republicans, and in east Belfast—the other side of the confrontational area we have seen this last week—it will be Unionist, UVF or UDA. So it will be the paramilitaries who will be talking about community safety.
    CWH188
    Outside those areas, in the rural communities, I do not foresee any great difficulty because people are living together quite happily. I can see them cooperating to a great extent outside the paramilitary areas.
    On looking at this, it immediately springs to my mind that Northern Ireland is one of the most over-governed areas in the United Kingdom. We have 108 Assembly Members and they are very happy with that Assembly going. If there is one success out of the peace process in Northern Ireland it is the 108 people who are getting salaries in the Assembly. They will do whatever they can—and I know many of them personally—to keep that going.
    The next stratum is the councillors. There are six councillors and six Assembly Members for a constituency with 60,000 people. That makes 12 people. Then we have the forum, with another lot of people from that constituency. Now we are to set up another stratum of government called community safety committees. Who will finance them? It will be the Government, because I cannot see anyone else doing so, unless the paramilitaries are going to prove themselves to be extremely personal about the whole thing and finance their own activities. So here we have another stratum of government.
    What all this boils down to is that not a single sentence of these provisions on community safety will become effective unless we have some success in policing those communities. That is the answer to the whole thing. If the paramilitaries decide to accept the Policing Board and their position on it and take an active part in enhancing community safety in those areas, this provision may work. If not and if the police are not acceptable in the areas that I have mentioned, it is a waste of time putting the provision into the Bill.
    Lord Hylton: From what has already been said on this clause, there may well be a case for bringing together policing partnerships and safety partnerships, or even possibly going as far as merging them. I do not want to prejudge that issue.
    In some ways Northern Ireland is an almost ideal place to work at crime prevention. By crime prevention I mean normal crime, not paramilitary crime, and associated anti-social behaviour. Yesterday I referred to my interest in NIACRO. We have done a great deal of work so far experimenting with local community groups directed towards preventing crime ever starting. This kind of work can begin with something as simple as a playgroup. It continues through something else that I have already mentioned; that is, truancy from school, suspension and eventually the exclusion of pupils. These are matters in which the local community can be extremely helpful, but it will need to have access to and responses from the statutory authorities. Therefore there is a correlation between local community development and statutory providers. That meshes in very closely with the whole idea and notion of civil society and active citizenship.
    Baroness O'Cathain: If the calculations of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, are correct; that 12 people are

    CWH189
    required for a population of 60,000, then 320 people will be required to set up safety partnerships for a population of 1·6 million. Will it be possible to secure 320 men and women, good and true, prepared to spend all their time on these safety partnerships? I wonder whether the proposal will be feasible in its present form?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I must remind myself that I am replying to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, which is perfectly precise. It states, "leave out subsection (1)". I do not wish to be disagreeable, but I ought to reply to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to which, apart from the noble Lord, no one has spoken. I shall come to the wider issues, which in effect form a discussion on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. We may as well have that discussion now as later. However, I ought to pay the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, the courtesy of dealing with his amendment.
    The purpose of this power is to replicate, for those who live in Northern Ireland, the opportunity of the success—I am grateful for the tributes that have been paid—of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships in England and Wales. All Clause 71(1) does is allow the Secretary of State to base these partnerships on geographical areas of Northern Ireland. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, were to be carried, the Secretary of State would not have that power.
    Being well informed, noble Lords will know that the Northern Ireland Executive has announced a review of public administration. There may well be significant changes made to existing roles and responsibilities, as well as a different structure relating to the delivery of services in Northern Ireland. It may affect the number of district councils. Because of that continuing review, this power is sought in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to take account of any future structural and geographical changes. That is the only point of Clause 71(1).
    I think that a certain amount of misapprehension has crept into this debate and possibly multiplied. I should say first to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that the partnerships do not relate to several thousand people, but are to be made up of the statutory organisations responsible for the delivery of various different services. So one can cite examples like social services, health, education, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the police, probation and district councils. That is the kind of model that has worked well in England and Wales.
    There is no suggestion here that the new bodies will control the police; they will not. Determination about how areas are policed is to be entirely a matter for the police. Because they deliver a public service, they ought to be represented on these partnerships on a statutory basis.
    CWH190
    I turn now to one or two further specific replies, in particular in response to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who asked two questions: community safety for whom and from whom? The concept is this. The safety of communities can be brought about if the organisations work co-operatively, because they have a common purpose, which is the reduction of crime and of the fear of crime. That involves not just criminal behaviour, but also anti-social behaviour, which, in my experience, is often much more distressing that actual crime to people who live in particular areas. They are both important if the duty of a government is to do their best to provide the opportunity for citizens to live peaceful and enjoyable lives in their own homes and communities. We are dealing with anti-social behaviour and with other factors that affect people's perceptions of safety. Very often, people fear crime when it does not affect them, but the fear does.
    The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked about consultations. The whole list is at Annex A in the consultative document, Creating a Safer Northern Ireland through Partnership, which was published in the spring of this year. I do not want to be too lengthy at this time of night, but the list of those consulted in Annex A includes the Belfast Education and Library Board, the Department for Education, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Extern, NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Board, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland Office, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Probation Board, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, Victim Support, Translink and the Youth Council for Northern Ireland. None of those, I think, could fairly be described as paramilitaries.
    That is the sort of consultation that has gone on and the sort of model we hope to bring about—statutory organisations, designated to work in these local organisations. It is true that they will probably be called CSPs or LCSPs. That is the way of the world, I am afraid. At least they are not called KAFKAs, which I think the Lord Chancellor's department introduced in another context, despite my dire warnings that it would be Franz Kafka who would be thought of. However, nobody ever listens, so they have KAFKAs. I am just teasing my noble friend Lady Scotland. That is the purpose of it and I hope I have not been too lengthy in explaining things.
    There is no suggestion of going out to find Bill or Ben—or Mrs Bill or Mrs Ben—who may have links with paramilitary organisations. I think that I can say to the unanimous approval of the Committee that these are all reputable organisations that have a vital, central part to play in the delivery of community safety.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6. 15 p.m.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 241A:
    Page 61, line 5, at end insert—
    "() A person is disqualified from being a member of a community safety partnership if he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not)."
    The noble Lord said: I very much take on board the very mild reprimand from the Lord Privy Seal that I strayed widely off the mark during the debate on the previous amendment. By way of excuse, I was trying to put that in context. He responded to this amendment during his response to the previous one, so he fully understands what I am about to say.
    The amendment is designed to draw attention once again to the danger of undesirable people taking control of the local community safety partnerships—an issue that has been debated many times. I need say no more about that, because the Lord Privy Seal has responded on it.
    The noble and learned Lord has responded with a great deal of faith and hope rather than with a huge amount of reassurance as far as I am concerned. However, I take his point. I wonder whether he has considered, as he listed the various agencies that would be participating in local community safety partnerships—housing executives and so on—whether greater amounts of money than he envisages might be channelled towards these LCSPs. Has he considered how that money is to be managed, how he is to ensure that it is not there to provide the opportunity for less desirable individuals to set up community safety patrols with people supplying cameras and so on? Those matters concern me—the looseness of the drafting concerns me; hence Amendment No. 241A. I do not need to explain it further. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I have tried to deal with the issue, which I know concerns him. We debated his principled objection at some length yesterday so I shall not weary the Committee, having given the Government's response yesterday, about whether or not paramilitaries, or those who have been convicted of particular offences, should be automatically excluded.
    I simply reiterate, first, that I am not sure that that approach is needed. We are talking about organisations in these partnerships, not individuals. Secondly, there is the question of money, which is dealt with on page 61 of the Bill, where subsection (4)(d) allows a local community safety partnership to,
    "provide any such financial or other support".
    Subsection (9) of the same clause empowers the Secretary of State to "make grants".
    It is true that, in the nature of things, one will either be optimistic—although realistic at the same time-or intensely gloomy. If gloom is to be our only guide, then we are all wasting our time on the Bill. In the nature of things, if we are moving forward, there will be
    CWH192
    disappointments; nobody pretends differently. There will have been some disappointments in the experience in England and Wales but, by and large, the system has worked well and it is holding out the opportunity for a better life for everyone in Northern Ireland.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for those explanations and detailed responses. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
    Lord Maginnis: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 242:
    Page 61, line 34, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 242 follows on from the debate that we have just had. The provision includes a requirement to publish a report on local community safety partnerships but it uses the word "may". It seems entirely appropriate, when new structures and organisations such as these are set up—I take what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said at face value—that we should be optimistic. We hope they will work but there will be hiccups. My amendment is appropriate. The provision should use the word "shall"—that provision should be forced on the partnership to deliver a report. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has concisely pointed out, this amendment, if accepted, would make the publications of all local community safety partnerships obligatory, not discretionary. We believe that those partnerships should operate in as open and transparent a manner as possible. The noble Lord's amendment improves that prospect and I happy to say that, at the appropriate time, I shall accept it.
    Lord Glentoran: I wondered whether that day would come on this Bill! I thank the noble and learned Lord.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure of the technicalities—this is a novel experience. I am instructed by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that the amendment can be agreed to now.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 244:
    Page 61, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).
    The noble Lord said: Once again I criticise the extraordinarily wide powers that subsection (8) allows the Secretary of State. It allows the Secretary of State to specify bodies which must co-operate with the partnerships. Unless the Minister has already given us this information, which may be the case—if so, I apologise—my question is: what kind of bodies might the Secretary of State wish to specify? I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy. The answer is essentially what I indicated earlier. Because of the review of public

    CWH193
    administration, most people engaged in the review have come to the view that there are likely to be significantly different structures and potentially different changes of responsibility. All that is wished is that the flexibility should be allowed to the Secretary of State to add new functions and partners as appropriate, as issues develop.
    There is the more fundamental question, of course, which is that as the partnerships develop and grow in confidence, it may be necessary to alter them simply to make them better. That is the flexibility that the Secretary of State is looking for. I have to say that the subcommittee of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had no difficulty with this.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation. We had looked at the report before we came to Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 245 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 246:
    Page 62, line 3, at end insert "and Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland"
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 246 seems very appropriate to me in the context of subsection (8). Subsection (10) states:
    "The Secretary of State must consult the First Minister and deputy First Minister before making an order under this section".
    It seems equally appropriate that, as well as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, he should also consult the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That would be logical and tie in—it is about safety. Policing and security clearly have a major role to play, particularly because paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (8) give quite a lot of scope. I beg to move.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I support the amendment. It is an excellent suggestion about the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and having someone who has an objective oversight of the entire Province. They should have the role that is envisaged in this amendment.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I see the superficial attraction of this amendment. I do not mean that to be in any way disagreeable.
    The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are in a different category. Plainly it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to discuss all the partners in community safety partnerships, and obviously the Chief Constable would be included in any consultation. He would not be singled out but would be one of the persons and organisations consulted in any event. I suggest that it is invidious simply to mention him rather than any one else.
    6.30 p.m.
    Baroness O'Cathain: Clause 70(4)(b) says that before devising or making alterations to a strategy, the Secretary of State must consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and then the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. If the Chief Constable is to be involved in devising the strategy, I would have thought that there was merit in getting him involved, along with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, under Clause 71(10).
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The difference is that Clause 70 deals with community safety strategy. Clause 71 deals with partnerships and their operation. Since the partnerships will contain many organisations, subsection (10) says that before the Secretary of State makes an order under Clause 71—not a decision under Clause 70—he has to consult the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, in the nature of things, any order that he makes under Clause 71 must inevitably affect the community safety partnerships. Therefore they would need to be consulted, as would the Chief Constable. My proposition is that it is unwise simply to select one consultee in Clause 71, where there are many potential consultees who ought to have their views addressed.
    Baroness O'Cathain: To pursue the point for 30 seconds more, the community safety partnerships are the tactical end of the community safety strategy. I would have thought that the person who devised the strategy, along with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, should also be involved under Clause 71(10).
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: He would be involved, but there is no necessity to specify him.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Question, Whether Clause 71 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Glentoran: While we have heard some detailed explanations as to why Clause 71 should stand part of the Bill, there are a number of areas where the Government have not satisfied the Committee. These concern security, the amount of administration involved, the way in which the DPPs are to be tied into it and the total strategy into which it will fit. In particular the intervention by my noble friend Lord Brooke needs to be answered in more detail. It is therefore likely that we shall oppose Clause 71 on Report.
    Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The noble and learned Lord properly reprimanded me, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
    Baroness O'Cathain: And me.
    Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I appear to be in good company. It was based on a misunderstanding

    CWH195
    into which I was inadvertently led by another Member of the Committee. I apologise for having taken it in the wrong place.
    I have a question, the answer to which I am happy to delay until Report. The implementation plan dealing with recommendation 196 of the criminal justice review is marked for further consideration with the NIO in the lead. Reading the remarks on Second Reading in the Commons, the remarks in the implementation plan and the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee in the House of Commons, it is not absolutely clear whether the Government have rejected for all time the bringing together of these two bodies at some stage in the future when they introduce primary legislation. Just as the noble Baroness drew our attention to the fact that it would be possible in the future to do something that is not prohibited in the Bill, I would be interested to know whether the Government have for all time ruled out that possibility on the wording of Schedule 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, or whether it is a subject on which they retain an open mind as the words "for further consideration" seem to imply.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am very grateful for the courtesy of the noble Lord. I shall draw together all the references which he kindly gave and write to him sooner rather than later, if that is acceptable.
    Clause 71 agreed to.
    Clauses 72 to 78 agreed to.
    Clause 79 [Powers and duties of court security officers]:
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 247:
    Page 65, line 37, at end insert", or
    ( ) arrest any person in any court-house and must act in accordance with any general or specific instructions which have been given to him (whether orally or in writing) by a person in authority"
    The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment on a point of detail, but it seems to me that court security is vital. Court security in a country riddled by terrorism is even more vital. The court security officer has several powers, including the power to prevent someone from coming into the court, escorting a person out of the court and so on. It seems logical, and it might he necessary, for him also to have the power I suggest in my amendment in order to enable him to carry out the other activities with which he is charged. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that an amendment in the terms he suggests is not necessary. The powers in Clause 79 are based on the powers of equivalent court security officers in England and Wales under Sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which do not contain provision for the power of arrest. We are not aware of any need being demonstrated for this power in England and Wales.
    It is of course the case that court security officers have the power of arrest in relation to more serious offences under Article 26 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland)— Order 1989. Therefore
    CWH196
    we believe that court security officers have sufficient powers in the Bill to enable them to maintain order in the courtroom or surrounding court premises. In addition, the Bill already clearly provides that court security officers must act in accordance with instructions given by a person in authority.
    It may be helpful if your Lordships were to cast an eye over Clause 79 concerning the extent of powers currently held by court security officers. They may search persons entering a courthouse and they may exclude or remove any person who refuses to permit such a search or who refuses to surrender an article which the court security officer reasonably believes may jeopardise the maintenance of order in the court. Furthermore, they exclude or remove any person from a courthouse, or to restrain any person in the courthouse, where such action is reasonably necessary to maintain order. In addition, court security officers have the power to detain a person misbehaving in court until the court has risen.
    Of course it would be our expectation that if the need arose for the police to be called after the court security officer had discharged his extensive duties, then that would occur.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. It is because the security officer has those powers that I felt he also needed the power of arrest. Perhaps I was prompted to seek that power because a friend of mine who is a judge would hope to have—and indeed used to have—a policeman on duty in her court. Today, because of pressure on the police, it is often no longer possible for the police to be present in a court to support the security of the judges and the members of the legal profession who are represented there. If the Bill provided for the security officer to have the power of arrest, that would tidy things up a little. I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 79 agreed to.
    Clauses 80 and 81 agreed to.
    Clause 82 [Reserved matters: new institutions]:
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 248:
    Page 67, line 2, at end insert—
    "(za) in paragraph 9, after sub-paragraph (g) insert—","
    (h) local community safety partnerships.","
    The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment, the purpose of which is to add the local community safety partnerships to the list of organisations set out in Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The only effect is to make it possible for those partnerships to be devolved along with other criminal justice functions, once a decision has been taken to transfer responsibility for such matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly—and only then. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 83 and 84 agreed to.
    Schedule 12 agreed to.

    CWH197
    Clause 85 agreed to.
    Schedule 13 [Repeals and revocations]:
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 249:
    Page 128, line 27, column 2, leave out "89(3), the words "10(4) or"" and insert "89(4), the words "9(4),""
    The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 249, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 250. The amendments derive from the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. That committee, to whose work we all pay tribute and careful attention, accepted that 16 powers contained in the Bill to amend this Bill or other legislation were an appropriate delegation. However, the committee said that there ought to be four changes in favour of an affirmative procedure.
    The first is the Assembly's power to omit an office from those made subject to the Judicial Appointments Commission under Schedule 1 was of constitutional importance and ought to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The committee felt that any order removing an office from those in respect of which the oath must be taken or affirmation made merited similar affirmative procedure. The same applied to orders adding organisations to or omitting them from the list of organisations within the criminal justice inspectorate's remit. Finally, it was felt that affirmative procedure was appropriate for any decision to abolish the Court Service, because Parliament would wish to debate that.
    We considered the report carefully, as always. The recommendations are persuasive, and the amendments give effect to those recommendations. I hope that that finds favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am sure that the Government's decision will be received with satisfaction. That was a rather gratuitous remark on my part.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 86 to 88 agreed to.
    Clause 89 [Statutory rules]:
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 250:
    Page 69, line 34, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
    "(2) An order containing provision made by virtue of section 2(2)(b) (whether or not together with other provision) shall be subject to affirmative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(4) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33)).
    (3) An order containing provision made by virtue of section 2(2)(a) or (c) (whether or not together with other provision) which is not subject to affirmative resolution shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33)).
    (4) No order containing (whether or not together with other provision) provision made by virtue of section 9(4), 19(4)(b), 45(6)(a) or (b), 71(1), (3), (7) or (8) or 77 shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
    CWH198
    (5)The following instruments—

    (a) an order under section 10(4), 12(3), 19(4)(a) or (c), 28(2), 45(6)(c), 62(2), 71(2) or 84(2), Schedule 4 or paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 8, and

    (b) a scheme (or alterations to a scheme) under section 67,

    shall, unless a draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in the same manner as a statutory instrument: and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies accordingly."
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 251:
    Page 69, line 42, after "84(2)" insert "or 86(1)
    The noble Lord said: I am a little nervous about this amendment at this stage, because it is technical. If I understand it correctly—and I hope that I do—it concerns the commencement of various parts of the Bill, which, as we know, can be brought into operation at different times when the Government think fit. I hope that this allows it to come before the House and to be prayed against and, to some extent, debated. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The amendment would require parliamentary scrutiny of the commencement of every provision in the Bill. That would be very unusual, although that is not necessarily a determinative argument, even in your Lordships' House. However, it would place a wholly disproportionate, unreal burden on Parliament and would delay the process of implementing the review. I pray in aid what I said on the last amendment, which was met with gratuitous acclaim. I am very sad that the former Attorney-General has fallen so much into poverty that he is now driven to making gratuitous remarks. I share his feeling of loss, as neither of us is at the Bar in practice any more.
    We looked carefully at the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's report. The committee said that we had got it wrong in four places, but was perfectly content with the rest. I am happy to follow that advice. The amendment would be exceptionally burdensome and rather counter-productive.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that good-humoured response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): I apologise to the Committee. I should not have called that amendment because of pre-emption. I beg the Committee's pardon for wasting a little time.
    Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 90 to 92 agreed to.
    Bill reported with amendments.
    The Committee adjourned at twelve minutes before seven o'clock.

  Sexual Offences
  Sexual Offences
  Watchkeeper Project
  Watchkeeper Project
  Youth Convention on the Future of Europe
  Youth Convention on the Future of Europe
  RBG Resources
  RBG Resources
  NHS: Violent Incidents, Accidents Involving Staff and Sickness Absence
  NHS: Violent Incidents, Accidents Involving Staff and Sickness Absence
  Defra Sustainable Development Strategy
  Defra Sustainable Development Strategy
  Hunting with Dogs
  Hunting with Dogs
  Agricultural Grants and Subsidies: Administration Costs
  Agricultural Grants and Subsidies: Administration Costs
  National Museum of Science and Industry
  National Museum of Science and Industry
  Museum of London, Horniman Museum and Geffrye Museum
  Museum of London, Horniman Museum and Geffrye Museum
  Toll Roads
  Toll Roads
  Golden Jubilee Medal: Palace of Westminster Collection
  Golden Jubilee Medal: Palace of Westminster Collection
  Written Answers: House of Commons
  Written Answers: House of Commons