Sitting of 26 June 2002

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

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 9 July at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Famine (Southern Africa)
    Huw Irranca-Davies: If she will make a statement on international efforts to tackle famine in southern Africa. [62468]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The causes of food shortages in southern Africa this year are drought and misgovernment. In Zimbabwe, which accounts for over half of the region's total food requirements, economic mismanagement and grossly mis-organised land reform have seriously exacerbated the effects of the drought.
    The World Food Programme will next week launch a regional appeal for food for Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. The WFP estimates that 4 million tonnes of cereal imports will be needed. Of that, 2.8 million tonnes will need to be provided by the private sector and government imports, and 1.2 million tonnes through food aid, which will be distributed free. Hardly any preparations have been made in Zimbabwe, and I am fearful that we are facing a serious catastrophe.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full response. It is undoubtedly true that current levels of bilateral aid to Africa, with the pledges, will be treble what they were under the last Tory Government. However, in central Mozambique, there are one in five people with AIDS-related HIV, which is exacerbating the problem. In Zambia, there is the worst drought for 20 years. In Zimbabwe and Angola, Governments interfere in food aid. In Malawi and Zambia, people are scouring the bare maize fields for weeds to eat. There are corruption, political problems, HIV and famine.
    860
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Please be seated. Perhaps the Minister will try to reply to that question.
    Clare Short: Yes, Africa is the poorest continent. Nearly half its people are abjectly poor. On current trends, the continent will become poorer. However, we have progress in a number of countries—for example, Uganda, Mozambique, Ghana and Botswana, and Ethiopia is turning round. We must take the plight of Africa seriously and we must ensure that there is a move forward to peace and development.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We recognise that some of the problems are self-inflicted, as in Zimbabwe. However, will the Secretary of State tell us how Malawi was guided by the World Bank to release about £750,000 worth of wheat stock, which would now have been helpful to it?
    Clare Short: That is an untrue excuse that has been given by the Government of Malawi. The country had large food stocks, but they must always be rotated to keep them fresh. Malawi borrowed money at great expense to have its food stocks. The IMF suggested that it could slim them down and rotate them. Malawi sold the lot. It is not clear where the money or the food went. That has exacerbated the crisis. That is the responsibility of the Government of Malawi. They are co-operating with the international community, and I hope that we can help the people of Malawi through. The situation in Zimbabwe, where nearly half of the people are in trouble, is much more worrying.
    Barbara Follett: Have the South African Government been involved in providing food aid in the region?
    Clare Short: I am not aware whether the South African Government have provided food aid. Much of the food has to come through South Africa and South African transport routes. We are talking not only about quantities but about getting the food in to the places where it is needed. It is a major logistical task and South Africa has been very involved. I think that we will also need to bring in food also through the ports on the coast of Mozambique if we are to get in enough food.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: While the famine in southern Africa has been developing and numerous aid agencies have been warning of an impending crisis, there have been 13 world summits. I will not read out the list, Mr. Speaker, because it would make you cross. What does the Secretary of State estimate to be the cost of all this talking? With far less than a dollar a day, how many people could have been saved with the money expended?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Lady's underlying point. There are too many conferences on international development. There are too many grand declarations and too little implementation. We have been trying to get a grip on not having endless repeat UN conferences where we renegotiate the text that was agreed last time, and instead report on progress against what was agreed last time. The recent run of summits from the millennium

    861
    assembly tying the world to the millennium development goals, to Doha, to the commitment to a development round, to Monterrey to a reformed agenda and more money, and I hope, to Johannesburg, to get a commitment to sustainable development and poverty reduction, constitutes a good round. We should then implement and have fewer conferences.
    Helen Jackson: At a recent conference in madrid attended by African and European parliamentarians and organised by the Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa, there was concern among the African parliamentarians that the emphasis on the New Partnership for Africa's Development initiative needed to have more links with the emphasis on relieving poverty and debt in southern Africa, and therefore relieving famine. Will my hon. Friend comment on how famine and poverty relief will be worked into the NEPAD initiative that is being discussed at the G8 summit?
    Clare Short: The whole point of NEPAD and all its targets is to move Africa forward to meet the millennium development goals. It is all about reducing poverty sustainably. That is the purpose of NEPAD. My hon. Friend's comments reflect the fact that there has been too little work across Africa to let the people of Africa know what NEPAD is about. We, through the Global Coalition for Africa, will engage in such an exercise.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: In our debate on Zimbabwe last night, the Secretary of State said that
    "we cannot feed those who will be hungry unless the Mugabe regime permits the private sector to import food."—[Official Report, 25 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 844.]
    What additional pressure is being brought to bear on Robert Mugabe to enable food imports to stave off famine?
    Clare Short: As the hon. Lady knows, it is very difficult to bring sensible pressure to bear on President Mugabe. He does not take advice, it seems, from anyone. The Government of Zimbabwe are not yet making credible plans to deal with the impending disaster. In order for the private sector to operate, price controls need to be removed, the exchange rate needs to be adjusted, and the state grain monopoly must be abolished. Otherwise, the private sector will not be able to operate. There will be lots of people with money and there will be no food to buy. We must get food aid through to the people with no money. Kofi Annan and the leader of the World Food Programme are trying to exert pressure, but the situation remains extremely worrying.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: With regard to Malawi, is my right hon. Friend saying that the President of Malawi sold the food to Kenya and that the money is missing? In that case, what electronic information can the International Monetary Fund give us about where the money has gone?
    Clare Short: No, I am not saying that the food has been sold to Kenya. We do not know where the food is. There is about to be a crisis, and people sometimes hoard and speculate with food when countries are facing famine, as my hon. Friend probably knows. We do not know
    862
    where the money is or where the food is, and we know that there is an impending crisis in Malawi but the Government are co-operating. There is an inquiry into these matters, but we must get people fed while we make inquiries about what happened.
    Mrs. Spelman: Last night the Secretary of State also said that the only way she could see the Mugabe regime being brought down was as an inexorable consequence of the famine. How does that square with the Prime Minister's rhetoric about healing the scars of Africa and declaring no tolerance of the activities of Mr. Mugabe? Were those just empty words?
    Clare Short: The hon. Lady and her party were banging on about that last night in a most foolish way, and I am sorry that she has returned to the matter today. The presumption is that the UK Government can fix catastrophes in the world, when Governments are determined, against all international advice, to wreck their country. No UK Government can do that. The present UK Government have done everything in their power to try to dissuade the Zimbabwe regime from the course that it is taking. Even in the face of impending famine conditions, the regime goes on making errors that will make matters worse.

    Third World Debt
    Andrew Selous: If she will make a statement on the repayment of third world debt. [62469]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Twenty-six of the 37 eligible heavily indebted poor countries have now qualified for debt relief of $62 billion. That has been provided through the poverty reduction strategy process, which has led to improvements in economic management and improved spending of local revenues and aid money.
    Of the remaining 11 countries, many are mired in conflict and misgovernment. We are working to try to achieve progress on peace. We estimate that because of the fall in commodity prices, we will need an extra $1 billion by 2003 to get the countries that qualify to debt sustainability levels.
    Andrew Selous: Do the Government agree with the Jubilee debt campaign that the number of countries that benefit from the HIPC initiative should be extended to include further countries that have unsustainable levels of overseas debt?
    Clare Short: No, I do not agree with the Jubilee debt campaign. For example, it is proposed that Nigeria should benefit. Nigeria is massively oil-rich, and oil prices have gone up. It is terribly misgoverned and its resources are not used for the benefit of its people. To write off debt unconditionally would not bring any benefits to poor people. We are using the leverage of debt relief to write off unpayable debt and get good economic policy and better social spending. That is the right way. Countries such as Sudan, Burma, Somalia and Liberia could qualify if we could get them to peace. It is no good giving them debt relief while they are still buying arms and fighting, so I disagree. We must drive those countries forward,

    863
    achieve peace and reform, and reward that with debt relief so that the countries get better economic management and the life of the people improves.
    David Taylor: Further to the previous question, there are nevertheless several dozen countries that lie just outside the HIPC—heavily indebted poor country—criteria. Can the Secretary of State tell us what our Government are doing to help those countries to move forward to a sustainable debt framework not unlike the HIPC one?
    Clare Short: The other thing that hon. Members must understand is that, because there has been such a wonderful campaign on debt, people sometimes talk as if it were the only problem. Many very poor countries do not have a debt problem, but need continuing support. For example, in Uganda, which has qualified for debt relief, 50 per cent. of the Government's revenues are supported by aid, and the country has made enormous progress in reducing poverty and getting all its children to school. We are helping country after country in the appropriate way and not pretending that the only problem is debt. Some countries are poor but do not have debt, and they need help as well.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Secretary of State will be aware that the debt of many heavily indebted countries is not only sovereign-to-sovereign debt, but involves private finance in the banking system. She will also be aware that back in the 1970s and 1980s, when most of the debt was extended, many of the banks knew that they were very unlikely ever to be repaid and are quite happy to continue to exercise their leverage. Given that they have now written off the amounts in their own balance sheets, should it not be possible to persuade them, in exchange for having direct access through NGOs rather than Governments, that that debt should now be relieved?
    Clare Short: My understanding is that those countries have limited commercial debt and that as they are such poor countries, they did not get much commercial lending. However, some commercial debt that should be part of the HIPC process is not properly being written off, and we need to attend to that issue. In general, commercial debt is written down through the London Club. If the hon. Gentleman would like to explain his points more fully, perhaps in a letter, I shall look into the matter and respond to him.

    Angola
    Vernon Coaker: What assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Angola. [62470]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The humanitarian situation in Angola remains very serious. More than 80,000 former fighters, 160,000 family members and 4 million displaced Angolans are all facing a humanitarian crisis. The United Nations has launched an appeal for $141 million to provide support until the end of 2002. We are contributing directly and trying to improve the effectiveness of the international response to the crisis, but Angola is at peace for the first time since the 1960s and this is a fantastically important opportunity to help it to move forward.
    Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend deserves a lot of praise for the way in which she has highlighted the plight of the poor in Africa. Is it not also the case, however, that some countries in Africa do not get as much publicity as others? On a visit to Angola with UNICEF a few months ago, it was clear that Angola was almost a forgotten country. According to UNICEF figures, Angola is the worst place in the world in which to be born. Will she do all that she can to ensure that Angola is mentioned in all the international discussions that take place and features in any anti-poverty drive?
    Clare Short: Yes, I will give that undertaking. As my hon. Friend knows, the biggest chance that Africa has is that Angola, the Congo and Sudan are all ripe for peace. If we can capture peace in those three massive resource-rich countries, the prospects of the continent will be lifted. Angola has enormous and rich resources, but they are not well used for the benefit of the people. If we can get peace and development there, they will act as an engine for development in Africa.
    Tony Baldry: It is incredibly good news that Angola is at last at peace. It is also good news that Africa as a whole wants to take forward partnership through the NEPAD agreement. Great hope was held out at the G8 meeting, but there is a danger that the initiative may be distracted by other issues. Does the Secretary of State feel that, if it is distracted, it may be sensible to try to hold a summit that is devoted to African issues? I suspect that if the G8 does not make the progress on Africa for which many people hope, there will be considerable disappointment.
    Clare Short: The priority that is being given to Africa at the summit is remarkable, and it is down to the efforts of our Prime Minister. A third of the summit's time has been allocated to Africa, which is unprecedented; the G8 countries do not usually discuss development, let alone the poorest continent. The hon. Gentleman is right: Africa cannot be fixed in one summit. NEPAD is a long-term development relationship that we all have to commit to and drive forward through all the channels of the international system. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will try through his Select Committee to ensure that that is done as well as possible.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The overwhelming recollection of many of us who went to Angola during those terrible years when the war was taking place is the dreadful devastation arising from land mines. Will my right hon. Friend assure us, as I believe that she would want to, that the Government will do as much as they can to remove the legacy of those land mines?
    Clare Short: Yes. Four million people are displaced in Angola as a result of the war. Getting them home, getting them farming and getting their lives moving again is crucial, and land mines have to be removed to allow that to take place. When I was recently in Luanda, members of UNITA, the rebels who were defeated in the war, said that there are fewer land mines than has been suggested to the

    865
    international community. So there is a problem, but it is probably resolvable. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an important priority to get people back on to their land.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Although, as the Secretary of State said, the peace in Angola is very welcome, I am sure that she agrees that Angola has suffered greatly from drought and starvation, as well as from wars and bad governance. Aid to the people of Angola is being delayed as a result of protracted negotiations between the United Nations and the Angolan Government, who failed to provide the security guarantees that the UN required. What steps do the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government propose to try to end that stalemate and to ensure that the aid reaches the people who desperately need it?
    Clare Short: The first point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that natural disasters rarely become catastrophes without misgovernment. Countries can cope when they have a decent Government, but the combination of natural disasters and misgovernment leads to catastrophe and famine. Unfortunately, Angola has suffered from war and misgovernment, but it now has a great opportunity.
    As regards the UN, the problems are completely resolved. We have been attending to that. The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs is about to make its appeal. We are getting food through to families and to fighters—otherwise there is a danger that they will roam about with weapons, and the country will be full of disorder. We are following the situation closely. I believe that all the problems with the UN system have been resolved, but, given what the hon. Gentleman says, I shall look at the matter again to make sure that that is correct.

    Afghanistan
    Andrew George: What recent assessment she has made of the international effort to provide humanitarian relief to Afghanistan. [62471]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): About half the Afghan population—about 9 million people—rely on food aid, but a complete humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided through the efforts of the international community, which has provided more than £1 billion n humanitarian aid to the country since October last year. We now need to refocus our efforts so that we not only provide people with food, but ensure, in conjunction with the transitional Administration, that livelihoods and public services are restored and that the security sector is reformed.
    Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The leadership of her Department in this regard is widely acknowledged, but does she not share my concern that last month the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had to cut by two thirds food aid to returning refugees? There are worries that food rations might need to be stopped altogether in certain areas. What action will
    866
    her Department take in the international sphere to ensure that assistance is increased and peace is effectively secured?
    Ms Keeble: We are pressing others to provide the aid that was promised to the country. We are also considering other factors, including what happens in the regions and security sector reforms, to ensure that food aid can get out—not only into Kabul, but throughout the countryside.
    Linda Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend give the Department's assessment of the capacity of women to help to deliver that humanitarian aid effectively?
    Ms Keeble: It is extremely important to ensure that women can play a proper role in the reconstruction of the country. The transitional Administration have made the education of women a priority, and women have acted independently in the Loya Jirga. We will monitor the situation closely to ensure that the commitment to appoint a women's Minister is carried out.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment has the Minister made of the ability to get all land back into productive use for agriculture next season, if not this season? What effect will that have on the need for humanitarian food aid?
    Ms Keeble: The ability to get land back into productive use is important because approximately 85 per cent. of the population live in rural areas and rely on it for their food. There are perhaps two key factors: the administrative reforms that I mentioned, and ensuring that we encourage farmers to produce different crops instead of cultivating poppies. My Department is taking a lead on that.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can it possibly be true that specific Afghan cultivators have easily acquired land mines to protect their poppy crops?
    Ms Keeble: I was not aware of that. The Government have provided some £3 million of support for removing land mines. I shall make inquiries and keep my hon. Friend informed.

    Interdepartmental Discussions
    Norman Baker: What mechanisms exist for discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence and Department of Trade and Industry collectively to resolve questions of common interest. [62472]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We have close dealings with other Departments at official and ministerial level on debt, International Monetary Fund and World Bank policy, conflict, trade policy, international environment agreements, agricultural and fisheries policy, money laundering, corruption and many other subjects.
    Norman Baker: The mechanism for arms sales and the clearance of arms exports—the F680 procedure—is not working properly. I understand that the Department was

    867
    not consulted or even informed about BAE's application for the Tanzanian air traffic control system. Should not the Department be involved much earlier? It is unsatisfactory if the Ministry of Defence gives clearance at an initial stage and that is the end of the matter.
    Clare Short: I agree that it is worrying that there is a procedure for saying that it is a good idea to go ahead with a project when other Departments have not been informed. That does not commit us to the licence, but it is a strange procedure. We are reviewing the application of the sustainable development criterion. The question needs examining.
    Ms Julia Drown: My right hon. Friend is aware of the impact of conflict on developing countries. The availability of small and large weapons plays a part in fuelling that conflict. The UK is one of the largest producers of weapons and therefore has a responsibility. What mechanisms exist whereby my right hon. Friend can engage in conversations with other Departments to ascertain what can be done to diversify away from that dangerous trade into more productive trades? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to come to order. The noise is unfair to hon. Members who are interested in this matter.
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. However, there are responsible arms sales. For example, South Africa has equipped itself to help resolve conflicts in Africa, and that is desirable. Arms can therefore be sold responsibly, but they can also clearly be sold irresponsibly. When he was Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House negotiated with other EU member states a tightening of standards for licensing applications. That process is beginning to flow through, including a new control on arms sales that might damage sustainable development. The application of that rule is currently being reviewed. We are making progress, and there is room for more.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Given the generally effective way in which the Department has come to work over the years with the Ministry of Defence, to the great advantage of delivering aid to those who most need it, will the right hon. Lady consider developing with her colleagues in the EU a system of best practice whereby Ministries of Defence in other European countries adopt the same method of operating?
    Clare Short: We work well together when the Army is in developing countries and can help to stabilise matters, get schools working and re-establish other aspects. It is also important to work together to reform the security sector in badly governed countries so that people have peace, order and stability, which contribute to the development of the economy. We have worked closely with the Ministry of Defence on that. A good example is Sierra Leone. I have held discussions with the NATO leadership about the way in which we might spread such good practice throughout NATO. I shall keep the hon. Gentleman informed of progress.

    AIDS (Africa)
    Mr. Ian Davidson: What steps the Government are taking to help curb AIDS in southern and western Africa. [62473]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): The Government are strongly committed to working to combat HIV/AIDS, and provided more than £150 million for programmes in southern and western Africa last year. We continue to work with the Governments of developing countries, and other bodies, to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and to help those affected by it. We need to replicate the progress that has been made in Uganda, where the prevalence of the disease has been more than halved in the last decade.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that the scale of the problem is enormous, and that the resources required are substantial? If Britain and other countries are to be expected to play their part in fighting this evil, we must also ensure that governance in these areas of Africa is improved. Will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that money given to fight AIDS is not being siphoned off or stolen?
    Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend is right about the scale of the disease, and about the related problems. Each year, 2.3 million people die of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. While it is extremely important that we ensure that there is good governance, so that all the money that goes into fighting AIDS is spent properly, we do not at present have any evidence of the kind of problems that my hon. Friend mentioned. If he would like to provide me with any such evidence, I will certainly make sure that it is looked into, because we want to ensure that all the money goes into AIDS prevention and into treating the people who suffer from the disease.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 June.
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] If I may continue—my right hon. Friend the Prime

    869
    Minister is currently attending the G8 summit in Canada. Today, the summit will discuss world terrorism and proliferation
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Where's Prescott?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) shouting. He often shouts, and he must not.
    Mr. Cook: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker. Today, the summit will discuss world terrorism and proliferation. Tomorrow it will discuss how it can help to promote development and prevent conflict in Africa.
    Mr. Prosser: On the day that marks international drug abuse and trafficking day, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the hard-working people in Dover and elsewhere who police our borders and who have contributed to the year-on-year increase in the number of seizures of illicit drugs?
    Last week marked the second anniversary of the tragic discovery of 58 Chinese people found dead in a container in Dover. What progress have the Government made on cracking down on the evil people-smugglers and on improving border security on the other side of the channel?
    Mr. Cook: There can be no greater menace than those who make large profits out of trading on the misery and desperation of others. That is why we hope shortly to introduce proposals that will increase sentences for those who trade in human beings. We made good progress at the Seville summit on getting agreement on joint action—[Interruption.] Indeed, we did—to ensure that we take forward our joint policing into those areas of entry. The measures that we have taken in Bosnia, for example, have been dramatically successful, and have contributed to a 90 per cent. reduction in the number of people being trafficked by organised gangs.
    On my hon. Friend's point about the United Nations drugs day, we fully support the initiative by the UN, and the strategy of taking action on both supply and demand. My hon. Friend has already given the House figures on our success in cutting supply, and the whole House will want to congratulate the police and customs on their progress in seizing an extra £140 million worth of drugs in the past year. On the action against demand, we have doubled the amount of money available for treatment of those who abuse drugs, and we are on target to get the majority of drug abusers into treatment by next year. That is a solid achievement—[Interruption.] I would hope that the whole House, including Opposition Members, will recognise that drug addiction is not only tragic for the individual but a menace to the community, and that we must give it a high priority.
    Mr. Eric Forth rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
    Mr. Forth: When the Chancellor hit pensions with his £5 billion a year tax, he said that it was justified because of the buoyancy of the stock market. Last week the Prime Minister said that the stock market was
    870
    "massively up on where it was five years ago."—[Official Report, 19 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 272.]
    Is he right?
    Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend was absolutely right in the statement that he made. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman requires a lecture on this from me. The nature of the financial markets is that they go down as well as up. Stock markets around the world have been going down in the past 48 hours. There is no way in which any Government can insulate their stock market from that effect.
    What is the right hon. Gentleman asking us to do—bring in price controls on stock exchange movements? I am surprised that the stock market going down should come as a revelation to him. Surely he must remember that during the Conservative years the stock market collapsed several times, and the change over the past few days is still only a quarter of what occurred in the worst week in the Conservatives' 18 years.
    Mr. Forth: When I question the Leader of the House at business questions, he is normally remarkably honest and straightforward with the House. In fact, on occasions he has even apologised to the House when he has been mistaken. What is it about appearing at the Dispatch Box at this time of the week that renders him unable to give a straight question? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Forth: This is my first, and probably only, Prime Minister's questions. I was about to say that the Leader of the House may be representing the Prime Minister but he does not have to impersonate him. The fact is that the stock market today is almost 5 per cent. below where it was when the Chancellor first hit pensions. I shall give the Leader of the House another chance. When the Prime Minister said that the stock market was "massively up", was he right or was he wrong?
    Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend was absolutely right. [Interruption.] I am not clear what other answer Conservative Members were expecting. My right hon. Friend was right with reference to the period from the general election to the time when that question was asked last Wednesday. As I said, stock markets went down even more spectacularly under the Conservatives. The difference is that, at the present time, we have a sound economy with the lowest inflation for 40 years, the lowest interest rates for 50 years, and 1.5 million more people in work. On all those points it is better now than on any single day during 18 years of Conservative Government. If the right hon. Gentleman does not find that good enough, what heights of new rhetoric can he scale to describe the appalling record that his party had in Government?
    Mr. Forth: Well, the Leader of the House really does have a touch of the Prime Minister today. The truth is that the Prime Minister was wrong, we know he was wrong, and what is more important, pensioners know he was wrong. The sad truth is that shares in pension funds have lost a fifth of their value as a result of the Government's pensions tax, and that is more than four times the fall in

    871
    the stock market. May I ask the Leader finally whether he will apologise to pensioners for what the Chancellor has done to their pensions?
    Mr. Cook: I am astonished at the right hon. Gentleman's brass neck. I most certainly will not apologise for the Government's record on pensions. Next April, the average pensioner household will be £22 a week better off than under the Conservative party. We have increased pensions by double the level of earnings, whereas the Conservatives cut them behind earnings. We have provided a pensioner tax credit that increases the incentive for those who want to save, and will reward pensioners who have a little bit extra income from savings, whereas the Conservative Government continually penalised them by introducing a means test. I will most certainly not apologise to pensioners for our record.
    When the right hon. Gentleman next comes to the House, he may, because of his own special brand of compassionate conservatism, like to tell us how he will fill in the form from the Leader of the Opposition inviting him to spend a week with vulnerable people in his constituency. I should appreciate it immensely if he could tell us which week it will be and whether I can come, so that I can hear him explain to the vulnerable in his constituency how the last Conservative Government doubled unemployment, doubled homelessness and trebled the number of children in poverty. One week will not wipe out the memory of 18 years.
    Mr. John Hume: In the light of recent serious public information about the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane, will the Prime Minister and the Government respond positively to the Finucane family's request for a special inquiry into that terrible murder?
    Mr. Cook: I know that this is of serious concern to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and his community. He will be aware that two investigations are in progress. Sir John Stevens has been appointed by the United Kingdom Government to conduct one of them, and we have also agreed with the Irish Government on a joint inquiry led by Mr. Justice Cory of Canada. Should Mr. Cory recommend a public inquiry, we will of course implement that recommendation.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: A couple of weeks ago, the Leader of the House told me here:
    "I believe that the best, most secure and most transparent way to fund political parties that is least open to misconstruction is from the public purse."[Official Report, 13 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 1005.]
    This morning, responding to a debate on state funding in Westminster Hall. the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), said that there was nothing wrong with the way in which political donations are sought and made. Which is Government policy?
    Mr. Cook: I must confess that I had other things besides visiting Westminster Hall on my mind this morning, but as always I will study Hansard with great care tomorrow.
    872
    I made it plain to the House during business questions that I spoke as an individual, not on the Government's behalf; but I say now that the Government have absolutely nothing to apologise for in regard to their record on donations. We have indeed been open and transparent, and we still look forward to the Conservative party's response to my repeated challenges to publish the names of those from whom it received donations during its years in government.
    Mr. Tyler: Should not the Government have a policy on this issue? Is this not a matter of trust, given current concerns about the influence bought by, among others, Andersen, the owner of the Daily Express and the RMT? Do the Government not think it about time they settled the issue? Does the Leader of the House not recognise that the public think that when auditors, owners of major newspapers and major unions believe they are buying influence, it is time the Government had a policy so that trust could be maintained?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has raised the precise point on which I have expressed concern—that although we have been impeccable in declaring and screening our donations, they are open to misconstruction. That is why I personally believe that putting the matter in the hands of the British electorate through public funding is the best answer.
    The matter belongs to the British people, because it reaches fundamentally into the way in which their democracy is conducted. That is why it is right for the British people to decide, and why there should be a public debate.
    I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that the RMT is buying any influence. Spectacularly, I myself have refused to accept the money on the basis of an oath of loyalty. So have a dozen RMT Members of Parliament, and so should any honourable Member of this free and sovereign Parliament.
    Mr. Roger Berry: Yesterday I received a distressing e-mail from my constituent Sue Brown, who is again under curfew in Bethlehem. Is she not right in saying that repeated Israeli invasions of the West Bank
    "cause untold misery, suffering and death to the hapless and largely innocent civilians of the West Bank"?
    Is she not right when she asks how on earth such action can be justified under international law, and in the light of successive United Nations resolutions?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to a serious issue that is, I am sure, of concern to all Members. We warmly support President Bush's call in his speech the other day for a viable Palestinian state. The way to achieve that is through movement on both sides—an end to the occupation and the settlements on one side, and an end to terrorism on the other. Without both, we shall not see a successful return to the negotiating table. The future of both the people of Israel and the Palestinian territories depends on that return, because it is the only way in which we will achieve a secure and just peace.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Returning to the subject of the £5 billion a year stealth tax on pension funds, can the right hon. Gentleman name

    873
    anyone who believes that siphoning off millions of pounds from pension funds does not undermine their ability to pay pensions? Can he name anyone, that is, apart from the Prime Minister and, of course, the late Robert Maxwell?
    Mr. Cook: If I remember correctly, the right hon. Gentleman had some responsibility for pensions during the previous Conservative Government. The electorate have already given their verdict on how he managed his stewardship of their pensions during his time in office and I am happy to put our records side by side. On the question of the withdrawal of advance corporation tax, the right hon. Gentleman is intelligent and well informed enough to know that that was done in order to ensure that we did not distort the tax system to encourage dividends rather than investment. He is a fair-minded man, so I am sure that he will be delighted to hear that that decision has succeeded and that investment in British industry is now £20 billion a year higher than it was under the Government of whom he was a member.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend join me in offering condolences to the 2,500 UK workers of WorldCom in my constituency, whose jobs are now at risk as their company teeters on the edge of bankruptcy—a bankruptcy compounded by corporate greed and dishonesty and a $3.8 billion dollar fraud covered up by crooked accountants? Does he agree that it is high time we heard less bleating and whingeing from the corporate world about the burden of regulation and saw more effective supervision of international accountancy practices?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to express the concern of his constituents about a matter that will be of grave concern for the economy of his constituency. On the issue of auditing standards and the quality of auditing, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has already set up an inquiry to consider ways in which we can improve the quality of auditing standards and whether we can learn any lessons from what has happened on the other side of the Atlantic. I am sure that that inquiry will wish to consider the latest collapse as well as the Enron collapse. We expect the report in the summer and we will look closely at any action necessary and try to take it as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: Is the Leader of the House aware of the escalating problem of TB in cattle? In Gloucestershire, 1,500 whole-herd tests are yet to be carried out—a backlog caused by the shortage of technicians and vets. That situation has been brought about by the 10 per cent. cut in the budget for tackling that problem. Will he do all that he can to persuade the Government to provide sufficient finance to tackle the escalating problem of TB in cattle and, more importantly, will he speed up the Government's investigation into the real cause of the spread of that disease?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter that is of great concern to the farming community and which the Government take very seriously. I am slightly surprised that he should allege that the problem is exacerbated by a cut in funding. This Government have substantially
    874
    increased the funding necessary to ensure that we police our economy and society and have safeguards in place. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that is committed to cutting public spending and whose leader has said that he would like to cut it to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product. That would be the equivalent of cutting the entire education and health budget and the salaries of all police officers. The hon. Gentleman cannot continue to support a party that demands cuts while at the same time demanding increased expenditure.
    Mr. David Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the greatest challenge facing the international community is fighting global poverty, when 1 billion people exist on less than $1 a day? Is not the war on poverty the acid test of the G8 summit? Does The right hon. Gentleman also agree that in the future the culmination of success must be enhanced debt relief and fair aid and trade? What we need is a new Marshall plan for Africa.
    Mr. Cook: I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the issue. That is why the G8 summit will examine tomorrow how the world's wealthier nations can combat poverty, child mortality and illiteracy throughout Africa. The UK Government go to the summit with the strength of having increased by half, since the last general election, the amount of aid that we give. We have also just made a commitment that we will increase by another billion our aid to Africa. That reverses the cuts experienced under the previous Conservative Government.
    It is right that the G8 summit should address the issue of world terrorism, but it is also important to bear in mind the fact that tackling world poverty can make an important contribution to that, as world poverty provides the breeding ground for terrorism and the recruiting ground for the fundamentalists.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Does the Leader of the House agree with the Lord Chancellor's Department that the payment of fines in this country has become voluntary?
    Mr. Cook: I always find it prudent to agree with the Lord Chancellor's Department in all particulars.
    Mr. Forth: That was a remarkably complacent answer. We have discovered the sad truth from the National Audit Office, and the Lord Chancellor's Department has admitted it, and it is that fewer than two thirds of fines are collected now, and that half of all uncollected fines are written off.
    That would be bad enough, but it is not just fines that are failing. Will the Leader of the House say how many criminals failed to complete their sentences to community service last year?
    Mr. Cook: On the question of fines, we will study with care the forthcoming report from the Public Accounts Committee. I assure the House that there will be plenty of legislation, on the criminal justice and courts systems, in the next Session. That will enable us to address some of these issues.

    875
    I cannot answer the question that the right hon. Gentleman asked. However, given that he asked it, I suspect that we are about to hear the answer.
    Mr. Forth: How well the Leader of the House knows me. The answer—and it will not give the right hon. Gentleman any pleasure to hear it—is that 40,000 criminals failed to carry out their full sentence last year.
    The Lord Chancellor has said that sentences
    "send important messages to the British people. They show what should not, and cannot, be tolerated."
    Is it any wonder that crime is soaring, when the message being sent to criminals by the failure of the Lord Chancellor's Department is that, in the unlikely event that they get caught and convicted, they will get off scot free?
    Mr. Cook: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his courage in choosing to go on crime. He will be aware that the British crime survey shows that the amount of crime has fallen by a fifth under this Government. The number of police officers is going up, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is in stark contrast with what happened under the Conservative Government, who doubled the amount of crime, more than doubled the amount of violent crime, and saw police numbers fall in five successive years. When I get back to my office and look up the figures on those who have completed community service, I suspect that I shall find that they were even worse under the Conservatives.
    Liz Blackman: My local police have had reasonable success in targeting drug traffickers. Today, 1.5 tonnes of cannabis was confiscated, and five people were arrested. A little while ago, a large heroin organisation was busted, but the victims of addiction remain. Pursuant to the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser)—that the amount in the drug budget devoted to support for victims has doubled—will my right hon. Friend undertake to keep the adequacy of the resources under review? Will he also monitor closely the pace at which new and more effective drugs are getting through to drug addicts?
    Mr. Cook: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising, in her question, a very serious matter in a very serious and proper fashion. Of course, I give an undertaking that the Government will continue to make sure that we put in adequate resources to tackle the supply of drugs and to promote the cut in demand for drugs. We are confident that at present we are on course to achieve our target of getting 55 per cent. of drug users into treatment by 2004, two years from now. Obviously, we will keep the target under review. When we hit the target, we will want to go further, and I assure my hon. Friend that the matter will remain a high priority for the Government.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Last week at his press conference, the Prime Minister attacked my constituents when, in response to their concerns about the proposed asylum centre at Throckmorton, he claimed that they wanted asylum seekers
    "anywhere else but where I am".
    Yesterday, the Bishop of Worcester said that that was
    876
    "an unwarranted slur on the serious intentions of people from the churches of our diocese."
    Can the Leader of the House identify any Church, charity, trade union or non-governmental organisation that supports the Home Secretary's plans to put asylum seekers and refugees in large, remote, rural camps? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary appears to be having his own private exchange with Conservative Front Benchers on this matter. However, as he has quite properly pointed out, Conservative policy for a long time was to make sure that all asylum seekers would be detained.
    Of course I understand local pressures and the difficulties in local constituencies, but it must be right to ensure that we provide centres that can offer all the services required by asylum seekers, such as proper education facilities for children, proper health facilities and an ability to be integrated, through language, with the local community. I appreciate the local pressures that these factors give rise to, but this is a national issue. It is important to ensure that we provide a basis on which to hold and handle those who seek asylum. It is a vast improvement on the attitude of the Conservative Government, which was to pretend that the policy was not there and let asylum seekers disperse across the whole of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all those students who will be graduating from universities in the next few weeks? Does he agree that our universities play a massive role in achieving the knowledge-based economy and enjoy a fine reputation throughout the world? While I welcome the Government's commitment to 50 per cent. access for all young people, does he agree that such expansion will require adequate funding for research and teaching and a fair pay settlement for academic staff, as well as looking at the problem of student poverty, so that those who can benefit most from higher education are not deterred by unreasonable debts?
    Mr. Cook: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We have increased funding in higher education by a sixth. However, more important to the future of Britain as an economy and a country that can make its way in a highly competitive global economy is the fact that we now have one of the highest participation rates in higher education of any of the OECD countries, something of which we can all be proud.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Leader of the House aware that I was recently contacted by a constituent, Mr. Robert Blunden, whose wife sadly died of cancer last year? Her cancer specialist recently wrote to a national newspaper deploring the fact that he was prevented from using two new cancer drugs as the result of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence not permitting their use on the national health service. My question is simple: given the

    877
    Government's welcome emphasis on cancer treatment in the NHS cancer plan, why are there no cancer specialists on that committee?
    Mr. Cook: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for our commitment to treating cancer. Indeed, we have increased the number of cancer specialists throughout Britain and are reducing the waiting time for treatment by them.
    On the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I am absolutely confident that the Government were quite right to make sure that we put the decision on whether a drug should be prescribed on the NHS in the hands of NICE, which represents medical opinion. It is much better that such decisions are taken by medical experts than that they are taken by politicians. I shall, of course, consider the hon. Gentleman's point and make sure that the Secretary of State for Health writes regarding the membership of NICE; but on the fundamental principle, I think that it is much better for doctors to decide such matters rather than the hon. Gentleman and I doing so across the Floor of the House of Commons.
    Mr. John MacDougall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the continued trend in the fall of unemployment, particularly since 1997? In Fife, especially in my constituency of Central Fife, unemployment fell by 14 per cent during that period, despite the dramatic loss of jobs in traditional industries. Will he join me in welcoming the many efforts made by unsung heroes who have contributed to this success, including Fife council, Scottish Enterprise Fife, and voluntary organisations such as the Leven development trust?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those who worked in the partnerships in Fife on making their contribution to cutting local unemployment. We should always remember that much
    878
    of the progress in providing jobs and securing the local economy is made in the local community by members of that local community. It has also, of course, been helped by the measures that we have taken nationally, such as the new deal, opposed vigorously by the Conservative party, which has created 3,000 new jobs and placed people in such jobs in Fife—2,000 of them for young, long-term unemployed people. One of the great achievements of the Government is that we have almost removed long-term unemployment among our young people, who will be the work force of the future, and that is a great investment in the future of Britain.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: In response to the outrageous slur made by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who said that she would not touch some comprehensive schools with a bargepole, and in fairness to the pupils, parents, teachers and governors of good comprehensive schools, will the Leader of the House name names and tell the House to which comprehensive schools the Secretary of State was referring?
    Mr. Cook: What my right hon. Friend said in her speech was that she had taught for 18 years at a comprehensive, and would not have taught at any other type of school. I will not take criticism of my right hon. Friend from a Conservative party whose leader will not touch any state school with a bargepole when it comes to sending his children to school, and who has sent his children to Eton. Of course—[Interruption].
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Cook: Of course not all comprehensive schools are as good as we would wish; that is why we have introduced a new deal for schools which has resulted in our being able to take out of special measures the majority of the failing schools that we inherited from the Conservative party. If I remember rightly, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was the Education Minister from whom we inherited them.

Meeting with French Interior Minister
3.32 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: To ask the Home Secretary if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the French Interior Minister.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being elevated to membership of the Privy Council today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I am sure that it will make all the difference in the world.
Yesterday I held a meeting with the Minister of the Interior in the new French Government, Nicolas Sarkozy. The meeting was the first to be held between us and the new French Government on tackling illegal immigration across the channel. This is not something that needs to divide the United Kingdom and France; it is not an adversarial contest, but a matter of finding a joint solution to shared problems. Migration has global causes and global consequences. No single country can solve its problems alone.
Yesterday was a satisfactory start to the process, especially bearing in mind the fact that the National Assembly elections were held only 10 days ago. We have made concrete progress in a number of key areas. First, we agreed to install at the port of Calais British detection technology, including acoustic heartbeat detectors and millimetric wave imaging. A start will be made within weeks. We shall also provide the latest forgery detection technology in order to tackle the use of false identity documents.
In addition, a package of measures to increase security at the Frethun freight depot was agreed. The success of the security investment at Coquelles has put increased pressure on the Frethun yards. Services have been disrupted and a great deal of cost has been incurred. It is therefore crucial that we close that loophole for illegal immigration as quickly as possible. We agreed to use our best endeavours to complete the double fencing at Frethun by 31 July, substantially speeding up the earlier timetable. The French Government will accelerate deployment of additional gendarmes and security personnel in the depots. A financial contribution will be made by the Strategic Rail Authority. That will allow the reintroduction of a full and reliable service no later than the end of September.
We also agreed to enable our intelligence and operational officers to work together in joint teams. We are determined to work in partnership to detect, arrest and prosecute the criminal gangs who profit from the barbaric trade of people trafficking. To monitor progress, we shall establish a joint reporting system to track illegal immigration on both sides of the channel, and publish the statistics every six months.
I also outlined yesterday the comprehensive measures that we are taking to reduce the pull factor to the United Kingdom, in particular by clamping down on illegal working and by spelling out the new measures in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. That was welcomed by the French Government, who committed themselves to the closure of Sangatte, which is now a joint objective of both Governments.
As I said yesterday, this is a marathon, not a sprint. I did not expect to secure full agreement on every issue yesterday. I specifically indicated that I did not expect an
880
immediate resolution of a timetable for closing Sangatte. However, we made significant progress and a number of issues are now on the table for the next meeting, which will be held in Paris on 12 July. I know that the House will welcome this long overdue progress in resolving those difficult issues.
Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his statement, and for his congratulations. We of course welcome the promises that he has received on security and joint monitoring from the French—without welcoming nearly so much the fact that Britain will be contributing millions of pounds to paying for that security. How is it that the French managed to persuade the Home Secretary that it was our responsibility to pay for security on their side of the channel? On how many occasions in the past years have promises been made to increase security on the French side of the channel, and what assurances does the Home Secretary have that on this occasion they will actually be fulfilled?
How real was the offer to construct, in due course, a timetable for delivering the possibility, in due course, of closing the Sangatte camp? How did the Home Secretary manage to persuade the French Interior Minister that his accommodation centers—which, at the present rate, it can be calculated may cure the backlog of asylum applications in the UK over a period of 40 years and 11 months—would be sufficient, in his words, substantially to reduce the pull factor?
I now turn to what is overwhelmingly the most important question, which the Home Secretary specifically avoided mentioning in his response: the bilateral agreement that used to be in place between Britain and France, which at one time provided that those coming from France to the United Kingdom would be returned to France within 24 hours, to have their asylum applications processed there. The Home Secretary has described me and my party as the "militant tendency" in pressing for a resurrected bilateral agreement, and I have therefore three specific questions to ask him.
First, if it was always impossible to negotiate such an agreement with the French, how was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary, able to do so in 1995? To which miraculous powers does the Home Secretary ascribe that achievement? Secondly, if it is impossible to negotiate such an agreement with the French, is it not also impossible to negotiate it with other Governments—and if it is impossible to negotiate such an agreement with any Government, why did the Home Secretary take the trouble to legislate in the House and in the other place to provide for such bilateral agreements to be compatible with UK law?
Thirdly, if it is impossible to negotiate such an agreement, why did the Home Secretary write an open letter to me on 23 May, in which he said:
"I am committed to negotiating a new bilateral agreement with the French government. But I intend to negotiate something that will work".
Is it not time for the Home Secretary to make an application to his right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary—the current Foreign Secretary—who is the agent who brought chaos to an asylum system that was once in order—[Interruption]. That person is now responsible for our diplomatic efforts; might he not be

881
expected, notwithstanding the Home Secretary's brilliant assault on all the policies that he pursued when he was Home Secretary, to assist the current Home Secretary in negotiating with the French to achieve successfully what this country desperately needs—a new bilateral agreement?
Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. Gentleman's first question was: why are we prepared to negotiate a commitment to the technology and security at the French border? The answer is very simple: this is a unique position—we are trying to persuade a country to prevent people not from getting into its territory, but from getting out of its territory. We are trying to persuade the French to stop people leaving France and entering Britain.
We are prepared to use British technology—advanced as it is—to assist in the process precisely because if we can use the technology that we have at Dover in Calais, to prevent people from crossing the channel, they will not be able to claim asylum, so we will not incur the substantial costs of processing their applications for the first decision or the adjudication decision, or for the judicial review, the appeals tribunal or the further review, or the cost of removal. If we stop just a few dozen people wrongly claiming asylum—those who cannot show that they are at risk of death or persecution—we will save the amount invested in the millimetric and heartbeat technology several times over.
The second question related to Sangatte. It was fairly obvious from the negotiations and from studying the French papers that it is necessary to persuade the French that actions taken concerning the closure of Sangatte will resolve the pull factor and the signals that are sent to individuals and traffickers, so that they do not end up with hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of Calais and surrounding areas. That is necessary not because this is not a French problem—it is—but because it becomes our problem if those people continue to try to get through the tunnel or across on ferries.
In resolving and helping to sort out the French problem, we substantially resolve our problem. That is what an intelligent approach seeks to offer, and it is why I was prepared to spell out what we were doing in our own legislation and in non-legislative matters, which the French believed required legislation, to reduce the pull factor to this country. That is why, of course, I spelled out aspects of the new Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, as the House would have expected me to, and those proposals were welcomed and understood.
The reports in this morning's French papers, which I have looked at, were accurate and the quotes from myself and Nicolas Sarkozy were in line with what we actually said yesterday, as opposed to what someone made up along the way.
The substantive question related to returning people to France. In 1995—two years before the Dublin convention, to which the then Conservative Government signed up—there was an interim gentleman's agreement to see the situation through to what was presumably believed to be a very welcome Dublin convention. I presume that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is sitting along the Bench from the shadow Home Secretary, will recall that very well.
882
He will recall that, as he believed that the Dublin convention would solve the problems, he was right to agree in 1995 that the gentleman's agreement would cease once the Dublin convention was introduced. When it was implemented, of course, the gentleman's agreement ceased. I must say that the gentleman's agreement was not all that it was cracked up to be—last year we returned to France 6,000 people who had not claimed immigration status, whereas in the last year of the gentleman's agreement, just over 500 people were returned to France—[Interruption.]
The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is right to say, sotto voce, that many more people tried to get in last year than in 1996. That is true, and that is precisely why we have a much more substantial problem than we had when we inherited the Dublin agreement, which we had not signed up to. It is precisely for those reasons that I am taking steps now to reach agreement with France. I want an agreement on returners to original countries when the first decision has been turned down, and, as I said in my letter of 23 May to the right hon. Member for West Dorset, I want an agreement that will be workable and acceptable.
I describe the right hon. Gentleman's words as coming from the militant tendency because in the 1980s and 1990s, the Labour party went through a process in which impossible demands and unsurmountable barriers were placed in our way—everyone knew that the demands would be unachievable—so that a handful of people could claim failure before we had even started on the policy concerned.
That is what the right hon. Member for West Dorset did when he announced on the "Today" programme yesterday morning that I should simply turn people who arrived in Britain round and send them back to France. Any Member who seriously believes that every person arriving in this country who we believe might have passed through France can simply be turned round and sent back without negotiating terms of reference, and without an understanding that we have considered the case—as we are doing with the non-suspensive appeals and clearly unfounded cases—does not deserve to be in government.
Fiona Mactaggart: Is not one of the problems the continuing policy in France of allowing what I think the French call tolerated illegal presence? Despite their so-called robust preventive measures such as identity cards and so on, they continue to allow people from third countries who intend to claim asylum to avoid doing that while they are in France. In his very welcome discussions with France, has the Home Secretary been able to make any progress in persuading the French authorities to consider remedying that practice?
Mr. Blunkett: On a lighter note, I did point out that, given the wine, the food and the sunshine—and the women—I was amazed that anyone would want to leave France to claim asylum anywhere else. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that the tolerated illegal presence of so many people in France is a major problem. It means that those people are not encouraged to claim asylum, to seek another form of legal status or to leave the country legitimately. That is why the problem has accumulated in northern France. The problem also exists partly because the measures that have been taken make it very much more difficult for those people to leave northern France to reach

883
Britain, and partly because of the pull factor that I have described and acknowledged this afternoon. In consideration of discussions not just with the Interior Minister but with the Justice Minister, with whom I am also seeking a meeting in July, I intend to press the point vigorously that those who are not there, and who, I presume, have not got French identity cards, should be dealt with rigorously so that we can get a grip on this problem.
Simon Hughes: May I join the Home Secretary in congratulating the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), on his elevation to the Privy Council? I also join the Home Secretary in accepting the idea that when we can have good relations with our neighbours—including, obviously, France—we should seek to do so.
Will the Home Secretary tell us whether the French Government are insisting on any preconditions or action from the British Government before the French Government implement any of their terms of the agreement? Has any estimate been made of the cost to the French Government of the measures that they are taking?
Does the Home Secretary accept that closing Sangatte, building fences or having more gendarmes will not stop people moving around Europe? The only real substitute for the nonsense of a policy that Europe has to deal with asylum seekers would be a common way of processing all asylum seekers, wherever they appear in the European Union. We need a common set of conditions and entitlements to which they will thereafter be entitled, and a common basis for deciding who is a refugee and therefore entitled to that status. The logic of that is that we should have a common agency to act on behalf of all member states, so that there is a common standard throughout Europe.
If we close the existing way of entry, how will Britain honour its obligation to allow people to come to this country to seek asylum legally? Given that we are not the nearest country to any of the land-mass countries in eastern Europe, how will we take our fair share commensurate with burden sharing if we close off all legal routes into the country for asylum seekers?
Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman's first and last questions were the same: how do we facilitate a legal and legitimate route for those who face persecution or death? In the White Paper on 7 February, I spelled out the fact that we would commence negotiations with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on a legitimate route for, first, a few hundred, and then for an expanded number of nominated and verified cases who could be allowed directly into the country, having sought refugee status outside Britain. That is the only way in which we will be able to make progress. We should discuss it with the United Nations and use the good offices of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see how we can facilitate such work in our embassies and high commissions in an acceptable way.
The process is taking time, but I hope that we can make substantial progress, not least with the UNHCR, and on minors under 18, who form part of a worrying trend and are now fodder for traffickers. There are 2,000 youngsters with Kent social services alone.
Simon Hughes: Six thousand in the country.
Mr. Blunkett: Six thousand in the country as a whole.
884
It is true that simply putting higher fences round Frethun and closing Sangatte will not solve the overall problem. I agree that substantial measures must be taken EU-wide both in sharing the challenge and in finding administrative ways of dealing with it. However, I am not sure about a unified central agency. All of us, including those working for it, know how difficult the role of the immigration and nationality directorate is in this country. God knows what it would be like if it were run from Brussels. However, I accept that a common issue needs to be shared, with a common solution.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I welcome the new joint arrangements—and I say that as someone who has been highly critical of the slowness with which the French have moved to secure their sites. I welcome the new approach.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the French authorities can build a system that approaches anything like the level of security that we have in place in the port of Dover—my right hon. Friend and I looked at the measures for detection, forgery surveillance and other matters only last week—we shall be near to closing the last of the gaps in the security system, and to bringing order back to it? That will give confidence to my constituents and others that we have the system under a measure of control.
Mr. Blunkett: I again congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has handled a very difficult situation. Without any spin and advance preparation, last Monday he and I saw the operation of the new technology that detected the presence of people in a vehicle coming from France. Five people had been picked up from the same vehicle on the French side of the channel, but because the French did not have the equipment to look deep into the freight being carried, they had missed half the human cargo. That is why it is crucial to do that job, not merely for border protection purposes, but in a humanitarian sense, too. We all remember the desperate incident in which 58 Chinese people died because people were prepared to make money out of sacrificing their lives.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Leader of the House earlier today and the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the evils of people trafficking and the need for legislation. When does he anticipate that draft legislation will be available for scrutiny?
Mr. Blunkett: We have a partial measure in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. I promised when we published the Bill and on Second Reading that the sentencing and criminal justice legislation, which we are committed to introduce in the next Session, will include measures necessary to increase the penalty to 14 years and to tackle trafficking, including trafficking for sexual exploitation purposes. The legislation will be available for scrutiny as soon as it is drafted.
Mr. Tom Levitt: I find it a little astonishing that the Conservative party, having tabled the private notice question, cannot find one Back Bencher to contribute.
Does my right hon. Friend believe, as I do, that one reason why so much attention has focused on Sangatte and the tunnel in recent months is our success in reducing

885
illegal entry into this country by air, lorry and boat? Does he accept, as I am sure he did in his opening remarks, that the present situation is doing grave damage to the rail freight industry, its reputation and its prospects? He talked about resolving that problem by September, and I hope that he will do whatever he can to restore the status quo on rail freight for British exports.
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely about the freight industry. Freight operators have had to contend with horrific circumstances that are deeply undesirable from their point of view and for the commercial well-being of our country. The installation of double fencing by the end of July and the substantial increase in security personnel, which the French have promised, will facilitate the provision of the electronic surveillance necessary to back up the fencing. I hope that by the August deadline the fencing will have made an enormous difference to the difficulties currently experienced and to the rapid return of a full service.
Norman Baker: What conditions did the French Interior Minister require the British Government to meet before he would agree to the closure of Sangatte? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on, and rebut if necessary, a statement in one of today's nationals that he has allegedly pledged to introduce new measures to curb illegal working, including a national identity card scheme, as part of the agreement? Is that true?
Mr. Blunkett: No, there are measures in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill that relate to our position on illegal working. We made our view clear when we clamped down on that problem by developing ways to improve on section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. I said that we will shortly undertake a consultation on entitlement cards. I made that clear to the House in an answer on 5 February and reiterated it in a statement to the House on 7 February. The consultation measures that I mentioned to the French were only what I reported to the House several months ago.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Were he so minded, the Home Secretary could legitimately answer my question by saying, "Easier said than done." Although I do not doubt that the detection equipment for forgeries is now formidable, what about the forgers themselves? Are not some people making a mint of money out of forgery? What effort is being made with Governments in the far east or elsewhere to get at the root of those who are doing the forging, who are making enormous and odious profits?
Mr. Blunkett: Easier said than done, indeed, but I will give my hon. Friend a more comprehensive answer than that. The commitment to joint intelligence working is a step in the right direction to get people to acknowledge that there is a worldwide problem and that people will go to whatever expertise is available anywhere in the world to obtain fraudulent documents. Therefore, it is a common problem.
The European Union in the form of the Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner, and his equivalent in the United States, are committed to working with individual Governments on finding a way around the problem.
886
We will need to adopt more secure methods, in addition to the passport control measures, to establish that we are part of the strengthened system, which in future will include biometric techniques. Otherwise, it is almost certain that the United States will reintroduce visas.
Mr. George Foulkes: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on Monday I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he would ensure that security measures at Sangatte freight depot are speeded up. Naturally, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is back so quickly—it makes me feel that I have more power on the Government Back Benches than I ever had on the Government Front Bench.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), I had assumed from my right hon. Friend's statement that EWS and other freight operators would be able to run normal services after 31 July, when the security measures will be in force. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is his expectation? When he meets his counterpart in July, will he ensure that all the work is on schedule, because in the past there has been some slippage?
Mr. Blunkett: I will do my utmost, here and elsewhere, not to claim deadlines, timetables or success where they do not exist. I indicated that double fencing and security personnel measures will be in place by the end of July. That will substantially improve the ability of EWS to run its services, but the electronic and surveillance measures inside the terminal will not fully complement the external security until September; only then will we be able to guarantee the substantial turnround that has been achieved at Coquelles.
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend's second point. I am extremely pleased that his intervention earlier this week was so successful.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Following the suggestion of the Father of the House about focusing on the forgers, does the Home Secretary think that there is potential for the security and intelligence services to try to infiltrate the lines of illegal immigration, so that people inside the system can, as it were, expose it from the inside? I appreciate that at present terrorism is their top priority, but surely that would be one way of exposing what is going on and discovering who is organising it.
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I do. I was deeply impressed when I went to see Operation Reflex yesterday. Every agency, including the security agencies combined, were working in unison and with their equivalents in Europe and elsewhere, precisely to try to bring that sort of expertise to bear. Given that the traffickers are organised in a $12 billion business, and given that the misery it causes is so great, we are justified in allocating even greater resources to our endeavour.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: In addressing the pull factors, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we should have a reliable and compatible system that identifies who is in the country and ensures that those who apply for employment, education or other benefits are truly entitled to do so?
Mr. Blunkett: This very interesting question will be addressed next month in the consultation document on

887
entitlement cards. I have given an undertaking, both publicly and in Government. that that will deal with the pros and cons of such a card. I am absolutely certain that the issue of proper and acceptable identification for employment purposes will form one of the pros, rather than one of the cons.
Mr. Roger Gale: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for the fact that preparation for a Select Committee hearing prevented me from hearing the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), to whom I add my congratulations, and the Home Secretary's answer, but modern technology enabled me to hear all the exchanges in my own office.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be in the Chamber to hear statements. I therefore cannot call him. I thank him for listening to the exchanges, but I must put it on the record that hon. Members must be in the Chamber to hear the statement, not listening on a monitor.
Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend is aware that the geography of France is very different from that of the UK. France has borders with a large number of countries. Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to discuss what the French Government are doing to secure their borders with their other neighbours, and what might happen in future as desperate or gullible people still try to come to this country? Are the French Government prepared to start thinking about their eastern and southern borders?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right to say that the eastern and southern borders of France are extremely important. That is why discussions both at the Justice and Home Affairs Council and in Seville concentrated on that wider issue, including questions around accession countries. There is a much broader issue of collaboration on border control and surveillance, and on the unified handling of those who clandestinely enter the European Union. The French Government are interested, but I will not speak for them; they can speak for themselves about acquiring the technology that I described this afternoon. I hope that British companies will he able to benefit from that.

Points of Order
4.7 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the question of the immunity of British, American and other forces operating abroad on peacekeeping duties has become a bone of contention between the United Kingdom and the United States in the United Nations, threatening the continuation of the UN peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia, I raised the issue on Thursday last week and asked the Secretary of State for Defence about it. He said:
"On the ICC"—
the International Criminal Court—
"the Government negotiated an effective immunity for British forces—Obviously, that degree of immunity is available to any country that chooses to sign the treaty."—[Official Report, 20 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 413]
Today, when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Defence, the Secretary of State corrected that statement. He said:
"Immunity is not quite the right word."
He went on to explain that the only protection from malicious accusation will be "appropriate procedures" in the International Criminal Court. In the circumstances, would it not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to correct the record and explain why the Government's policy is in such a mess?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Secretary of State; it has nothing to do with the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, during his statement following the Seville summit, the Prime Minister indicated in response to a question from me that the Sangatte protocol, which is directly relevant to the statement that we heard earlier, was overtaken by the introduction of the Dublin convention. My understanding is that the Sangatte protocol was signed following the Dublin convention and in the light of the effects of the Dublin convention, and therefore takes precedence over it. That being so, and the Prime Minister being aware of that, have you had a request from the Prime Minister to correct his statement?
Mr. Speaker: Those are matters that the hon. Gentleman will have to put to the Prime Minister. I chair the proceedings of the House of Commons; I do not answer questions on various protocols.

Indirect Taxes (Disclosure)
4.9 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require retailers to include on receipts the amount of VAT and excise duties paid on goods and services purchased.
I am not sure whether anyone knows how much tax they pay. Those in work will know how much national insurance and pay-as-you-earn they pay from their payslips and P60s, and those who are subject to self-assessment will get a summary of their income and the tax that they have paid on it, but direct taxes are only part of the picture. With very few exceptions, almost every one of us will pay indirect taxes in the form of excise duties, fuel duties and VAT on the goods and services that we buy. Occasionally, we will get a VAT receipt or bill that sets out the net amount, the VAT charged and the gross amount; hotel bills, telephone bills and invoices from tradesmen usually fall into that category. However, we are rarely told how much VAT we have paid, and even more rarely will we know how much we have paid in excise duties.
If the revenue raised were trivial, it would not matter too much how much we paid. It would be of no consequence to us, as a few pence here and there would not make much difference. However, the amount that we pay through such taxes is not trivial. This year's Red Book shows that the outturn for indirect taxes for 2001—02 is as follows: VAT, £61.1 billion; fuel duties, £21.9 billion; tobacco, £7.8 billion; spirits, £1.9 billion; wine, £2 billion; and beer and cider, £3 billion—a total of £97.8 billion. In comparison, the yield for income tax in the same year was £110.2 billion, so VAT and other indirect taxes raise almost as much as income tax. As I said, everyone knows how much income tax they pay, but how many people realise that they are paying almost as much through VAT and other indirect taxes?
The cost of VAT and other taxes soon mounts up. Let me give a few examples. An England fan watching the match last Friday and wearing a £30 England top would have paid £4.46 in VAT for the top. The tax on the four cans of beer that he might have drunk during the match—costing, say, £4—would be £1.20. If he decided, having heard the result, to drown his sorrows in a bottle of whisky costing £14, he would have to pay £8.50 in tax.
As another example, The Grocer, a retail trade magazine, has a standard shopping basket called "The Grocer 33". In the 15 June edition of the magazine, the cheapest shopping basket containing the 33 items featured was £38.67, of which £5.83 went to the Chancellor in a combination of VAT and excise duties. More than 15 per cent. of the amount paid at the till went straight to the Exchequer.
How many people know that a litre of petrol costing 74.6p includes duty of 46p and VAT of 11p? Refuelling a family car with a 40-litre tank will benefit the Chancellor to the tune of £22.80. At the time of the petrol tax protests a couple of years ago, people knew how much they were paying, but memories have faded. The Bill would ensure that every time people filled up they would know just how much they were paying the Chancellor in taxes.
As those examples show, VAT and other duties mount up quickly, but such taxes have another aspect that we need to consider. I believe that indirect taxes are a form
890
of stealth tax, because no one knows how much tax they are paying to the Treasury every time they make a payment. When a tax is taken by stealth, people cannot assess the true cost to them of the services that the Government provide. Of course, that is in the Government's interests—it is far better to raise taxes by stealth than take tough decisions on spending priorities. It is far better to extract the money in taxes from the purse or the wallet, where it is mixed up with the price of a bottle of wine or a litre of petrol, than to take it from the pay packet, where the tax paid is all too visible. It is far better to add the tax to the price of goods, so that retailers take the blame for price increases. We need to remove that opportunity for the Government to disguise the amount of tax that they raise from our spending.
If people do not know how much tax they pay, how can they judge whether they are getting value for money for the services that they receive? If their perception of the amount of tax that they pay is based solely on the amount that is taken from their pay packet, what reaction will they have when they realise that they are paying almost as much again through indirect taxes? Making sure that taxpayers know how much indirect tax they are paying in total would change the dynamic of the relationship between taxpayers and the Government. A greater awareness of the cost of services would lead to people giving much more thought to value for money. More people, whether their taxes are taken through their pay packets or through their spending, would question decisions on how money had been spent—the true cost of Government would become known. How much more dissatisfied would people become with failing public services when they realised that those services were costing them twice as much as they thought?
Another group of people—those who pay no income tax at all—would realise the extent of their contribution to the state. They would know how much tax they were paying towards Government services. Those on benefits would see how much of their income they have, in effect, paid for themselves through indirect taxes extracted through their weekly shopping and other spending. To use a biblical allusion, even the widow would see how much of her mite the Chancellor was taking.
In an ideal world, we would receive a statement setting out the taxes that we have paid—both direct and indirect—so that we could see at a glance the tax burden that each of us suffers personally. I readily accept that that is impractical, but vie can progress towards the goal of increasing the transparency of our personal tax burdens by requiring those who supply us with goods and services to give us receipts telling us how much tax we have paid on our shopping, whether it is for food, drink, electrical goods or petrol. Every time we bought something, we would know straight away how much of what we had paid the retailer or the publican would go to the Government. It would be a powerful jolt to each of us if we knew that most of the price of a bottle of wine was going to the Chancellor; perhaps we would stop and think about whether we were getting value for money. That is what they do in the United States. Every receipt shows the amount of sales tax that one has paid. Perhaps that is one reason why people in the US are much more conscious of the taxes that they pay and why taxes may be lower. People who know how much tax they have paid are more likely to hold the Government to account, so the pressure

891
to restrain spending growth and to ensure that each pound of tax is spent wisely is great. We should perhaps learn that lesson from the United States.
This is a simple measure that I hope and believe would change the political climate. Politicians would find it less tempting to increase indirect taxes rather than income tax because people would be able to see the increase every time they paid for their shopping. Realising the full extent of their tax bill, voters would challenge the Government on value for money. Everyone would be able to understand the price that they pay for the Government services that they receive and to decide whether they are getting value for money.
It is time to lift the lid on taxes so that we can have a proper debate about how much we pay and the value that we get. Ensuring that we know how much VAT and other indirect taxes we pay on goods would be the start of that process.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Hoban, Dr. Andrew Murrison, Mr. Hugo Swire, Mr. Mark Field, Mr. John Baron, Mr. Mark Francois, Mr. Mark Simmonds, Mr. David Cameron, Chris Grayling, Mr. George Osborne, Mr. Paul Goodman and Mr. Peter Duncan.

INDIRECT TAXES (DISCLOSURE) BILL
Mr. Mark Hoban accordingly presented a Bill to require retailers to include on receipts the amount of VAT and excise duties paid on goods and services purchased: 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 155].

Tax Credits Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2002],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Tax Credits Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10th December 2001:

Tax Credits Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
  Consideration of Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday. at Seven o'clock on that day.

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

Orders of the Day

  Tax Credits Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  4.20 pm
  Mr. Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6, 11, 15 to 17, 19, 22 to 27, 32, 35 to 37, 39, 52, 53, 66, 71, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81, 85 and 102, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to the Lords amendments, I shall ensure that an appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Tax Credits Bill

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 2, to insert the following new clause—Annual report to Parliament—
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the Government amendment in lieu, a new clause—Annual reports.
    Dawn Primarolo: Noble Lords introduced the new clause in a desire to ensure that Parliament was furnished with sufficient information about the operation of tax credits properly to scrutinise that operation. That is undoubtedly a wholly desirable intention and the Government wish to ensure that there is maximum transparency in providing information on the operation of tax credits and in enabling proper scrutiny.
    As Baroness Hollis explained in another place, the sort of information sought by the proposed report will be available through existing channels, primarily the board of the Inland Revenue's annual report, which is laid before the House each year. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the Lords' view that it would be useful for the relevant information to be contained in a single document, and I am therefore pleased to move a Government new clause in lieu of the Lords amendment.
    The Government new clause covers much the same ground as the amendment made in another place. There are some changes in the drafting, and it would be helpful if I explained them in more detail.
    First, it is properly up to the board of the Inland Revenue, rather than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to produce such a report and present it to the Treasury. As hon. Members know, the Inland Revenue reports to Treasury Ministers. That is why subsection (3) of the new clause imposes on Treasury the requirement to lay the report before both Houses.
    Secondly, the Lords amendment intended that the report should include the amount of tax credits paid out each year as reported in the Inland Revenue's departmental accounts. That was not clear in the Lords amendment and subsection (2)(a) of the Government new clause sets it out in detail.
    Let me consider the other items that we propose to cover in the annual report. Subsection (2)(b) makes it clear that the report will set out the number of awards of each tax credit in the year. The Inland Revenue currently publishes detailed statistical reports on the number of awards of

    893
    working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit on a quarterly basis. However, the Government understand the value of including information about awards in an annual report on tax credits. That matter is therefore now covered.
    Subsections (2)(c),(d)and(e)cover information relating to compliance inquiries, penalties and prosecutions. Of course, there must be the utmost transparency in reporting the Inland Revenue's compliance activity. This was a matter of considerable concern to hon. Members during our debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee. Much of this information is already provided in relation to the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit, as part of the Inland Revenue's annual report, but the Government acknowledge the convenience of bringing all the information together in a single report.
    Mr. Steve Webb: On a point of clarification, I am following the Paymaster General's references to subsection 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), and so on, in the Government's amendment in lieu. However, these provisions are numbered 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), and so on, on the Order Paper, and I wonder whether I have a different version to the one that the right hon. Lady is looking at. It is on page 2341 of the Order Paper. I just want to be sure that we are looking at the same amendment.
    Dawn Primarolo: I most certainly hope that we are looking at the same amendment, otherwise I would be moving something that was not before the House, which would be even more difficult. I know that the House fully appreciates that I always try to be as helpful as I possibly can, but anticipating the views of the House on a matter that is not yet before it would be beyond even my ability to ensure that Members are properly advised. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish making these points, because I want to make it clear that the amendment before the House today is the Government's amendment to replace the Lords amendment. It provides for the same information, but in a form that is readily translatable into our legislation. I will return as quickly as I can to the hon. Gentleman's question about whether we should be referring to subsection 1(c), (d), (e) and (f); certainly, in terms of how the amendment is drafted, it should read "1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d)". I can only say that perhaps when I was putting my notes together, I transposed numbers that I should not have done.
    Subsections (c), (d) and (e)—I shall stick to calling them that—cover compliance inquiries, penalties and prosecutions. As I was saying, there was much discussion in the House and in Committee about this. Much of this information is already provided in relation to the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit, as part of the Inland Revenue's annual report, but hon. Members and noble Lords made the point that they would prefer it to be brought together in one publication. To be perfectly honest, I do not think that the House would expect us to disagree on this point about duplication, in such an important piece of legislation, for the sake of an argument about whether the information has already been published in one report, or whether it should be published in another.
    Finally, the House will no doubt be aware that the new clause does not include reference to the cost to employers of operating tax credits. The Government continue to take
    894
    the view that it would not be appropriate to provide an estimate of employers' costs in an annual report. That matter is properly and comprehensively addressed by the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill. That assessment is being revised in the light of announcements made in the Budget, and the revised assessment will be made available to Members of both Houses.
    Regulatory impact assessments are the right place to deal with the impact of tax credits on employers. That is the process that the House now uses to assess all its legislation, in terms of its likely impact on employers. The Board of Inland Revenue cannot be responsible for accounting formally for costs other than its own. More important, the assessment of employers' costs does not need to be taken on an annual basis. The assessment of the impact on employers is based on the provisions of the Bill. Such an assessment will not fluctuate significantly year on year, because there is a constant set of legal obligations. As the obligations of employers do not change, the assessment of the impact on employers is not likely to change.
    4.30 pm
    I remind the House that the Government produce comprehensive impact assessments whenever legislation that contains a significant regulatory impact is introduced or amended. The Government take the regulatory impact of legislation seriously. We introduced the concept of a regulatory impact assessment, and we intend to be nothing less than transparent on this issue.
    I do not want to revisit the debates that we had in Committee about the changes in the Bill, such as the lessening of the requirement on employers and the £1 million a year saving that is expected as a result of these changes, which has been widely welcomed by employer groups. I hope from what I have said about the importance of regulatory impact assessments that the House will appreciate that we keep a close eye on these matters.
    The Government have listened sympathetically to the arguments put in the other place, as we did on many issues when the Bill was considered in Committee in this House. We have considered the arguments put in the other place for an annual report, and we want to be helpful to their lordships and to hon. Members in this House. I urge the House to accept the Government's amendment in lieu of their lordships' amendment. The only issue that the Government's amendment does not deal with is the annual assessment of the impact on employers. To all other intents and purposes, the Government amendment is the same and is correctly drafted to fit into our legislation.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for correcting my references to subsection 2: I should have said subsection 1. I am sure that the record will ensure that that correction is made.
    Mr. Howard Flight: The Bill seems to have been dogged by incorrect definitions and references. As the Paymaster General said, the Government are seeking to substitute their own prescription for an annual report in lieu of a rather broader if less specifically defined annual report prescription passed on an Opposition amendment in the other place.
    The purpose of the annual report as introduced by Conservative Peers is to ensure the submission of data giving an account of the care and management of tax

    895
    credits. In particular, the report would contain estimates of the total take-up of each tax credit, the statistical and other assumptions on which such estimates were made, and the actual take-up of each tax credit. The Opposition amendment prescribed that the board's reports should be published by the Treasury. As the Paymaster General said, it is correct that the report should be made by the Board of Inland Revenue to the Treasury.
    The key point is that Parliament should know when the take-up of any tax credit is less than the forecast level, and the report would set out the estimate of the amount of moneys not spent by reason of the deficiency of take-up to which that estimate related. It would also include the Government's proposals for increasing take-up to the forecast level. It would deal with fraud, and with other issues on the Government's list.
    The report is considered necessary because of the vastness and complexity of the Bill and the fact that the new arrangements are untested. We still fear that there could be major administrative difficulties in their implementation. Unless the legislation is monitored, what is actually happening will be inscrutable for some time.
    Lady Hollis described collecting the information from existing sources as a simple cut-and-paste task. Perhaps I am a little slow-witted, but I do not think collating such information is at all easy, and I think it is right to require it to be presented in a digestible form. Conservative Members are pleased that the Government have accepted the case for a single, clearly understandable—I will not say "easily understandable"—report.
    The Government's alternative raises certain issues. The Paymaster General has commented on the differences between the two proposals, but I should like to extract a little more information before agreeing to the Government's version. Take-up is a key issue on which the Paymaster General did not comment. If the measure is about what it is supposed to be about—helping the needy—a crucial aspect will not have been covered if we do not know whether it is being effective, what the targets are, and so forth.
    The reference to numbers in what I think is subsection (1)(c), not subsection (2)(c), could be interpreted to cover the process of reporting on the estimated and actual take-up and the reason for the difference, if any, and on what the Government are doing to improve take-up. I should be grateful if the Minister could elucidate a little further.
    The Government seem to think it fairly impractical to report on costs to business. There is an argument to that effect, but if the Bill encounters administrative problems, it will be to employers that the Revenue will be forced to go to find information it may be seeking in order to check that awards have not been made that are materially in excess of entitlements. The Government, MPs and indeed businesses should want to know whether costs to businesses are turning out to be significantly greater than was estimated. I ask the Paymaster General to consider, at least, avoiding a meaningless exercise and requiring the report to include any comment on whether there is evidence on administrative costs to business are proving larger, or indeed smaller, than expected.
    Take-up is crucial to whether this complex machinery helps those who are most in need. In Committee and on Third Reading, I observed that it was somewhat ironic that when in 1974 the outgoing Conservative Government
    896
    proposed similar arrangements for tax credits, then called negative income, it was the leaders of the Labour party who produced a minority report warning that such mechanisms might be rather blunt and unsuccessful in helping those most in need. Despite all the wonders of modern computers—which invariably go wrong or break down—the basic issue remains of whether the tax credits will do their first duty of helping those who are in real need. We believe that an analysis of, and report on, take-up is important and we hope that the Government will confirm that their reference to numbers will cover that point.
    The second area of concern, to which the Paymaster General has already referred, is the investigations into fraud and what I call fiddling, because most of the problems will not be of sufficient magnitude to deserve the label of fraud. It is important that we know what is happening, including how many prosecutions and convictions have occurred. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will talk in more detail on that issue later, but new subsection (1)(c), (d) and (e) appear to cover that territory and we are happy with that.
    On the issue of cost to business, the history of the Bill shows a little obfuscation. If the Government expected costs to decline or be less than forecast, they might have been keen to boast about that. If they are unwilling to say anything, we infer that they think that the news could be bad. In the other place, the Government responded that their initial estimate was that the new working tax credit and child tax credit arrangements would cost business £11 million per annum less than the WFTC. We are pleased to hear that, but it was only after being pressed that the Government came clean that the cost to business had been £100 million a year. Therefore, it will still be £89 million a year. [Interruption.] The Paymaster General will find that Baroness Hollis gave that figure in the debate in the Lords.
    Dawn Primarolo: There is no secret about that figure. The regulatory impact assessment clearly details the figure and I have given it repeatedly in the Chamber. Baroness Hollis was not imparting any new information, because I even gave that information on Second Reading.
    Mr. Flight: I am delighted to be corrected, because that means that the Government will have no problem keeping tabs on the future cost to business. If there is any significant increase, they will be able to tell us about it.
    Problems could arise because the Inland Revenue will have a demanding task when it comes to check awards paid against entitlements at the end of the year. One key area will be whether people have met the requirements for number of hours worked. Presumably, except for the self-employed, that check can be done—if the Revenue wishes to go further than what people report to them—only by making inquiries of employers of the number of hours worked. If the administrative difficulties that I fear arise, employers could have to deal with large numbers of inquiries from the Revenue to check information, and that could add considerably to costs.
    The overall background to the need for a report is that the complex new arrangements must be monitored to determine whether those in need are getting the help that they need. I confess that our concern is that the general drift of policy, and especially the contents of the Bill,

    897
    is that the Government should be seen to be giving money to large numbers of people. Some 6.5 million families—38 per cent. of the total—will be eligible for the means-tested benefits. The Government seem more concerned with that than with focused efforts to help those in need.
    4.45 pm
    There are widespread concerns about fraud and fiddling, and the House will be familiar with the much quoted fears of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is worried that
    "the whole of the family tax credit venture is fraught with great dangers. It offers huge bonuses for dishonesty. It strengthens the employers' hold over working people—'these are the conditions: cheat and both of us will be better off'. It thereby pulls employers into a spider's web of dishonesty and corruption. It rewards employers paying low wages. It takes the pressure off improving productivity and thereby the scope for increasing real wages."
    It is crucial for the House, the Government and the community to know, when the system is up and running, whether those fears prove justified. We are pleased to note that the Government have covered that.
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman has alluded to some points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I refer especially to the point about depressing wages. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the previous Conservative Government would not support the introduction of the minimum wage? If he is so concerned about depressing wages, why did the previous Government allow that to happen in the absence of a minimum wage?
    Mr. Flight: I do not think that we are really discussing minimum wages today, but their very existence is a tacit admission by the Government of the need for legal protection in a situation where too many factors are driving wages down. As I have noted before, I have to my regret encountered in my dealings with businesses a feeling among many of them that the provision is to be greatly welcomed, as it can be considered to be a big subsidisation of wages.
    Dawn Primarolo: Okay, let us try this another way, as I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered the point. The former Select Committee on Social Security conducted an investigation specifically into the use of tax credits in the United States, to see whether their existence depressed wages. Tax credits have been in use for much longer in the US, but the Select Committee found no evidence that they depressed wages there. Is the hon. Gentleman disagreeing with that assessment? The Conservative party supported neither tax credits nor the minimum wage, yet there is no evidence that they depress wages.
    Mr. Flight: First, I cannot resist noting, in connection with the US experience with similar arrangements, that evidence did emerge that there had been some $4.7 billion in unjustified claims. Also, the Select Committee duly noted the serious concerns raised about increased potential fraud in working families tax credit, as compared with family tax credit.
    898
    These are new arrangements. Let us hope that the right hon. Lady and the Committee are correct that the measure will not depress remuneration. However, rather cynically, one reason for businesses welcoming many aspects of the Bill is because it is seen in the business community—as similar measures have been seen in our history—as a jolly good way of subsidising employment, enabling companies to pay less because their staff will get more from the Government. However, it is the business of the House to know whether the concerns of many are justified and how the legislation will work out in practice.
    I repeat that we are glad that the Government have essentially accepted our argument. We think that extracting the evidence will not be easy. On cost, it was not clear until the Bill was in Committee that the tax credits would cost some £15 billion overall, as I recollect pointing out. The Government have now agreed that the figure will be £16 billion, which is not easily identifiable in their statistics. It was not clear until the Bill went to the other House that 90 per cent. of tax credits will be accounted for as Government expenditure paid as benefits and not treated as bogus deductions against tax revenues. We think it thoroughly healthy for the proper accounting principles of the Government that the objections of the Office for National Statistics should eventually have won the day.
    The Budget Red Book estimate for 2002 shows that tax credits will cost some £4.6 billion next year. That figure is based on a take-up assumption of 85 per cent. If the take-up were 100 per cent, tax credits would cost some £5.43 billion. It will be necessary to know, for reasons of cost as well as meeting the target of helping the needy, what take-up is expected and how much more or less than budgeted the measures will cost as a result of the actual take-up figures.
    It is important to know the total public expenditure on social security, including the 10 per cent. that will not be treated as expenditure. The figure for 2001–02 seems to be £110 billion—about 30 per cent. of total expenditure. That figure has increased in the past five years by more than spending on health or education and despite a massive and welcome fall in unemployment, and is expected to grow to £126.7 billion next year—an increase of £34.58 billion or 37 per cent. over the past seven years. That contrasts with increases of only £22 billion for education and £28 billion for health.
    Rob Marris: Only £22 billion?
    Mr. Flight: I remind the House of the Government's commitment in 1997 that the additional spending on education and health would come from rationalisation and reforms of social security expenditure. It is important to note that in reality the reverse occurred: at a time of prosperity, spending in that sector has increased by more than spending on health or education.
    The crucial point is whether the money is reaching those in greatest need. The latest estimates on income-related benefits for 1999–2000 showed disappointing take-up figures, mainly for pensioners where the figure was between 74 and 78 per cent. by case load; 1.2 million pensioners had not received council tax benefits, while 580,000 had not received their income support and 150,000 had not received housing benefit. About £3 billion in benefits were unclaimed.

    899
    The arrangements for the new tax credits are rather more complicated than the long-standing arrangements in the areas to which I have just referred. I beg to differ strongly with anyone who does not think that take-up data are important in a humanitarian sense.
    Our main concern is that the tax credits should address their key objectives—helping those in need. The report is about that and about not wasting money. In essence, the Government's version fine tunes the Opposition's proposals, but before I agree to it I should like the Paymaster General to confirm two points: first, that the reference to numbers will cover everything that I mentioned in respect of take-up; and, secondly, that, although it is sensible not to have annual estimates or guesses as to the cost to business, the Government will encourage the Revenue to indicate any evidence that costs to business are rising substantially as a result of administrative problems with the tax credits.
    Mr. Webb: I congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on the breadth of his contribution, although I was slightly disappointed that he did not ride into battle on behalf of his noble Friends, instead seeming meekly to accept the Government's half-offering in the form of the amendment in lieu.
    We are being asked to consider two versions of an annual report to Parliament on tax credits. It is instructive to reflect on the fact that when the proposition was first put to the Government in another place, they felt that no annual report was necessary. The Government advised their lordships that Parliament was able to scrutinise such matters through parliamentary questions—we all know what an effective and lucid means they provide for obtaining information—or that perhaps the appearance, once a year, of the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue before the Treasury Committee would enable us to acquire all those hard data. It strikes me, however, that the Treasury Committee might want to raise other issues with the chairman.
    I welcome the fact that, after their defeat in another place, the Government have conceded the principle of an annual report.
    Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean inadvertently to mislead the House. The annual report of the Inland Revenue is placed in written form before the House. It is not dependent on the attendance of the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue before the Public Accounts Committee—the Committee to which he reports, as accounting officer. The report is already produced in written form and presented annually to the House. If the House decides that it wants to receive the report in another form and that it wants more bureaucracy—something that it normally does not want—the Government will provide it.
    Mr. Webb: The right hon. Lady is right; there is an annual written report. However, in another place, Lady Hollis referred to the written report and said:
    "the chairman of the Inland Revenue appears annually before the Public Accounts Committee so that the committee can more closely scrutinise the details of the annual report."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 289.]
    If we want scrutiny of detailed aspects of tax credits, an annual response to a report that covers the whole range of the Inland Revenue's activities may not provide the necessary degree of detail.
    5 pm
    Dawn Primarolo: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have a very effective Select Committee system in the House, and the Treasury Committee calls me, as the responsible Minister, before it. I have just appeared before the Treasury Sub-Committee as part of its examination of that very annual report. There are checks on the accounting officer and on the Minister, and there is a printed form in the annual report, so there are three ways to check the information. Our amendment merely provides a fourth way for exactly the same information to come before the House. Quite rightly, Baroness Hollis pointed out that the House already had this information; but if hon. Members insist that they want more bureaucracy and a fourth way of expressing the same information, we are happy to provide for it in the amendment.
    Mr. Webb: I think I am right in saying that the amendment in lieu before us is a Government proposal to produce an annual report containing the information. Therefore it is the Government who are today offering to produce it. If the Government consider that that would be a waste of time and a duplication and would add nothing else, they should have stood against—[Interruption.] No, they should be standing against the Lords amendment today. They have decided not to, and essentially accept the principle of an annual report.
    Dawn Primarolo: Let me get this right. The hon. Gentleman is saying that, when something is pressed on the Government that they do not believe to be necessary. but which Members of the House and the other place continue to insist they would like in a particular form. the Government should turn their face against those propositions and continue not to provide it. He is saying that, consequently, when a Minister comes to the House saying, "Even though we do not believe that this is necessary, we will do it anyway because that is what the Members of the House want," that Minister should be criticised. That is a bit crazy.
    Mr. Webb: The right hon. Lady told us that the information that her proposal would make available was unnecessary because it would be available in three other ways, but she proposes to ask the House to support its publication.
    We have before us two alternative proposals for different variants of the annual report, which the Minister considers to be unnecessary. There are two differences between the Lords and Commons versions of these annual reports and, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said, one relates to take-up and one relates to the burdens on business.
    If we accept the Government's version, we have sold the pass on take-up, because the Lords version refers in paragraph (d) to
    "an estimate of the take-up of the working tax credit"
    and in paragraph (c) to
    "an estimate of the take-up of the child tax credit".
    The word "take-up" can be used by different people to mean different things. Let me make it clear what we are talking about here.
    If the information published is an estimate, it must be an estimate of the proportion of those who are entitled to the credit who take it up. It cannot be statistics on the

    901
    numbers who get it, because the Government know the precise number, so if it is an estimate, it must be information about rates of take-up—the proportion of the eligible population who claim the credit—which is very valuable information indeed. The Government have taken that out of the Commons version of the report. The Government's amendment in lieu simply refers to "the number of awards".
    I absolutely agree with the Minister on that point. The number of awards will be available trivially, all over the place. The value added of the Lords report would be an estimate of take-up rates, which are, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said, absolutely central to any means-tested or tax credit-based approach. It is a central issue: what proportion of the money available is claimed by those who need it, as compared with other routes. I am sure that the Minister's amendment in lieu takes out the requirement to give an annual report on tax credit take-up as part of the overall report, and that is a very important thing to keep in, because not enough work is done on giving the House up-to-date information on take-up.
    The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs quoted take-up figures for 1999–2000—three years ago. The House should have much more up-to-date information on take-up, and if the Lords amendment requires that that information be provided annually, systematically and together with all the other information on tax credits, that amendment is preferable to the amendment that the Government have asked us to accept today.
    The second thing that is different about the two versions of the annual report concerns burdens on business. When I first read the ministerial response, I thought, "That's fair enough." An initial assessment on business would be undertaken, and then things would be left to run, so why would anyone want to keep picking away at the burdens on business each year? However, one reason why things might change would not be picked up by the initial regulatory impact assessment.
    The legislation on tax credits might not change, but the environment in which they are applied will change. For example, the balance between small and large firms changes over time, as does the minimum wage. Because of those changes, the effects of the tax credit regime on business will change over time. So it is no good saying, "We did an impact assessment when we passed the legislation a year or two ago and things will always be more or less the same until we change the primary legislation."
    The world in which the legislation operates is changing all the time. For example, one can imagine that a Government who substantially increased the minimum wage and floated large numbers of people off tax credits would substantially reduce the burden on business because far fewer people would claim the credits. However, if the minimum wage were allowed to drift below the wages of the low paid over a period, people would be drawn into tax credits and the burden on business would increase, but none of that would be captured in the initial regulatory impact assessment.
    Obviously, if nothing else changed, there would be no point in carrying out a reassessment every year for the sake of it—but the world is changing all the time.
    902
    The measure's impact on business will change because unemployment and employment rates, working patterns and business patterns are all changing.
    Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman is light to be concerned about the costs to business of operating the working tax credit scheme, but does he think that it might be possible to assess the benefits to business of that scheme? What does he think those benefits might be?
    Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman may not recall this, but we voted for this legislation. We do not dispute the attractions of supporting the low paid. There is no difference between us on that. However, in all these things, there is a balance to be struck between the advantages to individuals and the burdens on business. In my view, delivering the tax credits through the pay packet creates a burden on business, with no advantage to the citizen, so updating information on the burden on business each year will help us to make the case that such things should be done differently. It would help us to keep an eye on the problem inherent in the scheme that has been adopted.
    I shall not detain the House any longer. There are two differences between the Lords version of the report and the Commons version. The Lords version is superior because take-up and other information would be provided every year and because it would provide an up-to-date picture of the burden on business, which will change over time. For those reasons, we are disinclined to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, and we hope to find out in due course whether the House agrees with us.
    Hywel Williams: I, too, am glad that the Government have given ground on the annual report issue, despite the arguments against taking the step proposed on their behalf in the other place by Baroness Hollis. Hon. Members will perhaps have noted that Baroness Hollis argued that the various statistics were available from a variety of sources and all that the curious needed to do was track them down. That may be so, but that does not detract from the value of publishing all the statistics annually and in a form that is easily accessible not only to hon. Members but to the public, in the fine tradition of open government.
    Baroness Hollis also said that she was against what would be a cut-and-paste exercise, so I am glad that, despite her persuasions, we will now have an annual report. I am sure that the Government are poised, even now, with the scissors and glue. I congratulate the Government on changing their mind, and look forward to the result.
    However, unlike the Lords amendment, under the Government amendment in lieu, the report would note only the number of child tax credit and working tax credit awards and the number of inquiries, penalties, prosecutions and convictions. It will not contain an estimate of the take-up rates. The Lords amendment would require
    "(b) an estimate of the take-up of the working tax credit;
    "(c) an estimate of the take-up of the child tax credit".
    I am sure that the Government are always pleased to report positive figures to the House, such as the number of awards made. They are always pleased to report how often they have hit a particular barn door. In itself, that is interesting; it might lead to favourable headlines of the

    903
    variety that say, "Barn door targeting—another Government success!" However, I am sure that that consideration could not be further from the Government's mind. Of equal interest is not only how often the Government have hit the barn door, but how often they have missed it. Indeed, such a comparison is essential for any serious assessment of the success or otherwise of the tax credit system.
    The statistics are available on take-up, or they can be worked out. The noble Baroness noted that
    "in the first year, take-up of WFTC…was 76 per cent—which is close to the 81 per cent for family credit".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2002; Vol. 636. c. 291–2.]
    I do not regard a difference of 5 per cent. as close, although, in terms of barn doors, I suppose that it might be.
    The Government are, of course, reticent in talking about take-up rates, for good, if not laudable, reasons. Those who have a right to means-tested benefits but who do not claim them are a continuing demonstration of the inefficiency of means-tested benefits as a way of relieving poverty. Given the higher proportion of people in Scotland and Wales who are dependent on those means-tested benefits, drawing attention away from the deficiencies of the system is not a politically neutral step. Apart from our interest in promoting open government, that was one more reason why Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party were very much in favour of the Lords amendment and why we are disappointed with this Government revision.
    Mr. James Clappison: With the leave of the House, I shall intervene briefly—as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) suggested I would—on the subject of fraud, which has been of some interest to me and other Members during the passage of the Bill.
    I congratulate the Paymaster General on the eloquence of her opening remarks, and the elegance with which she executed a strategic retreat from the position of the noble Baroness Hollis, who told the House of Lords that the amendment was wholly unnecessary, and that it amounted to a scissors-and-paste job. If I may say so, the right hon. Lady has carried out a scissors-and-paste job today with our hardly noticing. After my initial admiration for her elegance, however, I began to feel a sense of unease about the way in which she responded to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and other hon. Members on eligibility as part of the information required to assess take-up, and on the question of burdens on business.
    If one looks at the difference between the Lords amendment and the Government amendment, whether subsection (1) or subsection (2), it strikes one immediately that the Government have changed the wording from "estimate" to "number" and that the question of business costs is left out altogether. I feel a slight sense of concern about what the Paymaster General said about a figure for business costs being available later and being revised. First, in the regulatory impact assessment, the Government conceded that the impact of some of the proposed legislation could only be estimated once the system is up and running, and that there may be an additional cost to businesses as a result of the need to respond to in-year changes in recipients' circumstances.
    904
    Secondly, if the right hon. Lady is right in her statement that it is inappropriate to include business costs in the annual report, and she is right that the cost will be fixed, what are the Government afraid of? Why are they shy about including that as part of the annual report? They will be able to say, "Look here, we were right. There was only this fixed cost for business. It isn't changing each year. The amount isn't increasing." Whether the arguments of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) are right or wrong, the Government will be able to say that there is not an increased cost to business every year. What would be the harm of including that in the annual report? Many businesses, especially small businesses, will feel some small sense of unease that that has been left out of the annual report.
    On fraud, an important question arises from the Lords amendment. The right hon. Lady will recollect that concern has been expressed in many quarters. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs was absolutely right to talk about fraud and misdirection of public money in tax credits. He quoted the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is in a good position to judge given his previous experience in the Department of Social Security, and whose contribution on Second Reading we all recollect. He said that
    "some people in Whitehall are less keen on countering fraud than hon. Members."—[Official Report, 10 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 617.]
    I know that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about fraud and Conservative Members are certainly keen to bear down on it. We recognise that fraud is a misuse of public funds and we recognise the affront that it causes to hard-working taxpayers and claimants alike.
    5.15 pm
    The vast majority of those in receipt of tax credits are, of course, decent and honest people who properly claim what they are entitled to and, when we talk about fraud, we are not talking about those who simply make a mistake and thereby receive more than their entitlement. The Paymaster General will recall that, throughout our proceedings, we have been at pains to draw a distinction between those who commit fraud and those who make a mistake. We have tried to argue that the Government should not bundle the two groups together. However, members of the public want those who set out to cheat the system and who sometimes obtain substantial sums of money to be brought to justice.
    Under the amendment in lieu, the annual report will give details of the number of prosecutions and convictions for offences connected with tax credits. Members of the other place were right to press for that information to be made available in the annual report because, thus far, the record of prosecutions for tax credit fraud has been feeble. In the first two years of the working families tax credit, there were 22 prosecutions for false working families tax credit applications. That is for the whole two-year period up to September 2001, the first two years of the working families tax credit.
    It is true that a little more vigour has been shown since then. In the six-month period since September 2001, 26 prosecutions were instigated for fraud. according to a written parliamentary answer that I received on 1 May this year. However, even if there has been that slight

    905
    increase in the past six months, on any view of the potential scale of fraud in tax credit, it remains a low number of prosecutions. We note that there have been no prosecutions at all for fraud in the child care element of the tax credit, but stories abound of what members of the public regard as irregular practices in that area.
    In a written answer. I was told:
    "As at 31 December 2001, there were a total of 542 Inland Revenue staff involved in investigating possible false applications for tax credits. The figure comprises 27 Investigators and 226 support staff employed centrally at the Tax Credit Office. There are a further 247 Inland Revenue Network staff who also deal with tax credit investigations, and a specialist team of 42 staff dealing with the most serious cases including those resulting in prosecution."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 326W.]
    All those staff for the annualised equivalent, on the latest figures. of 52 prosecutions a year! According to my simple maths, that means we employ 542 staff for 52 prosecutions, so there are 10 man-years for each prosecution that is brought by the Inland Revenue.
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman said that stories and allegations of fraud abound. Is he suggesting that the Inland Revenue does not investigate those allegations or that the investigations do not come to fruition in terms of prosecutions?
    Mr. Clappison: I remind the right hon. Lady of what I said. I pointed out the number of staff
    "involved in investigating possible false applications for tax credits."
    I hope that she is not suggesting that the record of prosecutions is anything other than feeble. She has also conceded in written parliamentary answers that there have been no prosecutions whatever in cases involving child care. Even if one takes into account the number of investigations and the number of penalties—they run into a few hundreds—the performance is less than spectacular.
    Prosecutions and the threat of imprisonment have the greatest deterrent effect, or so the Government would have us believe with their television advertising campaign. The right hon. Lady looks quizzical, but their campaign shows a benefit cheat languishing in a prison cell. When it comes to the facts, the truth is rather different.
    Dawn Primarolo rose—
    Mr. Clappison: I will give way to right hon. Lady, but she may want to comment on the fact that in the first two years of tax credits only seven people have been sent to prison for fraud.
    Dawn Primarolo: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that allegations should not be investigated and proven before a prosecution on fraud takes place? I am a little confused. The hon. Gentleman talks about allegations and the number of investigating staff. Has it crossed his mind that sometimes allegations are made but not proven?
    Mr. Clappison: The right hon. Lady is a little confused about the role of the prosecution in the criminal justice system. It is not the role of the prosecutor to prove the offence—
    Dawn Primarolo: The role is to get the evidence.
    Mr. Clappison: It is the role of the prosecution to get the evidence—[Interruption.] Of course they carry out an
    906
    investigation. They then make a decision based on whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, to which they apply the public interest tests, before taking the case to court. Is the right hon. Lady trying to persuade us that the 26 prosecutions in six months or the 22 prosecutions in the previous two years are representative of the scale of fraud in tax credits? I will give way to her if she is prepared to defend that.
    Dawn Primarolo: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Inland Revenue should take cases to court without evidence to support the allegation that fraud has been committed? Is that the centre of his argument?
    Mr. Clappison: No, the centre of my argument is that the Inland Revenue's record of prosecuting fraud under this Government's policies is feeble to have brought such a small number of cases to court. That amount of fraud beggars belief.
    The right hon. Lady will he familiar with the estimates by the Department for Work and Pensions on the extent of fraud within the rest of the benefits system. It estimates that total fraud varies from £2 billion to £7 billion. Some 12,000 prosecutions are brought each year, but when the Labour party was in opposition it said that that was inadequate. The right hon. Lady's Government have brought only 26 prosecutions in the past six months and 22 prosecutions in the previous two years. That hardly bears out the gist of the Government's advertising campaign.
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: How many cases were investigated and what percentage were found to be fraudulent?
    Mr. Clappison: We have obtained a massive amount of statistics on that which the hon. Gentleman can find in the responses to written parliamentary questions. The fact of the matter is—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will find those if he looks at the written answers for the relevant periods. I do not have the figures in front of me, but I can tell him that the number of prosecutions in relation to the extent of possible fraud is very low. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady is defending that, but however one looks at it, the number is very low.
    Dawn Primarolo: I hate to spoil the hon. Gentleman's speech, which he obviously prepared before he read the Government's amendment, but has he noticed that our amendment goes further on fraud than the Lords amendment by making it necessary to provide more information on such matters? If he is arguing against the Government's amendment in favour of the Lords amendment, he should realise that the other place asked for less information to be provided than we will give to the House on penalties, prosecutions and other matters.
    Mr. Clappison: If the right hon. Lady will exercise a little patience, I will come to that. In the spirit of being open about information and given her remarks about the extent of fraud, perhaps she will tell us something else so that we can make a judgment on the information requested in the amendments. The extent of take-up can only be judged when we compare the number of people who take up the benefit with the number who are eligible. The right hon. Lady is defending the number of prosecutions, and

    907
    her hon. Friends joined her in that. Perhaps she will be as bold as her words in defence of the Government's policy by telling us one thing: how much fraud is there? So far, the right hon. Lady has refused to tell us. She will remember that she wrote to me in April 2001A telling me that the Inland Revenue was conducting a benchmarking exercise to establish the level of fraud in tax credit claims, and that that would run from September 2000 for 12 months. At the end of that 12 months—we shall see whether the right hon. Lady's openness will be forthcoming again—I asked the question again. That was in December. She told me that the results would be known "early next year".
    That was earlier this year, and we had the opportunity to ask the right hon. Lady about these matters when we were considering the Bill in Committee. When I asked her again about the extent of the fraud and the outcome of the benchmarking exercise—[Interruption.] This is of interest to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), because this is the answer to his question. The right hon. Lady told me:
    "I cannot give him a guarantee that I will be able to publish that information because it deals with specifics of possible frauds that it would be unwise to put in the public domain. However, I will consider how to ensure that he is properly informed so that he can discharge his parliamentary duties."—[Official Report. Standing Committee A, 24 January 2002; c. 239.]
    That was me.
    I did not hold my breath when I received that reply from the right hon. Lady. It says something about the Government's mentality that they presume that they are the judge of what information can be given to the Opposition and to other hon. Members. I suspect that I was right not to hold my breath because when I raised the question again after a reasonable interval in April 2002, I was referred back to an earlier answer in February 2002, which told me:
    "The Inland Revenue are currently analysing the data from their compliance benchmarking exercise. We shall be considering the results, and questions of publications, within the next few months."—[Official Report, 5 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 851W.]
    We are talking about a report that Ministers have had since September 2001. We have asked repeatedly for information, and months have elapsed. In response to our questions, we have had one blocking answer after another. We have been referred back to previous answers. The right hon. Lady had much to say earlier when I was asking about numbers of prosecutions, and suggesting that there were not very many. Perhaps she will now be as brave as her words and tell us whether the Government will publish their own report—Ministers have had it in their hands since September 2001, at least—and state how much fraud there is within the working families tax credit mechanism. Will the Government publish the results of their own benchmarking exercise?
    We simply want to obtain this information. We will be able to judge both sets of amendments when we know how much fraud there is. We shall then know whether the numbers of prosecutions and convictions are an adequate reflection of the level of fraud. Once again, I am waiting with bated breath. I hope that I will not again have to use the procedure of parliamentary questions, because we know how effective that is when the Government are determined to withhold something. My sad experience is that that has been the case so far in this instance. Will the Government tell us how much fraud there is in the working families tax credit mechanism. I ask for a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
    5.30 pm
    Roger Casale: I wish to speak in support of the Government amendment in lieu and in support of the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.
    There is much common ground between what the Government are proposing and the Lord's amendment. I welcome the Government's decision to publish an annual report. I am sure that there will be a great deal of interest in the report from both sides of the House—given the level of support for the tax credits system—and in the way in which it operates in practice.
    We have heard that there is common ground on the issue of tackling fraud. The Government's amendment goes much further than the amendment from another place in terms of a commitment to report on the steps that they are taking to tackle fraud. That is despite the huff and puff that we have heard from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).
    There is also common ground on reporting on the take-up of tax credits. Again, the commitment that the Government make to that in their amendment is much stronger than that in the Lord's amendment.
    Mr. Flight: The hon. Gentleman has just said something that may be important or may not be quite right. I await the Minister's response. All we know is that the Government will publish a report on numbers. We do not know what the commitment is under the Government's measures to report on take-up. If the hon. Gentleman can tell us, we would be delighted to hear.
    Roger Casale: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the text of the Government amendment, which refers to the number of awards, the number of inquiries conducted and the number of penalties imposed by the scheme. The Government have got the balance right in terms of the focus of the annual report. They are right to reject the suggestion that there should be an annual assessment, in addition to the regulatory impact assessment that will have been made, of the cost of the scheme to business.
    It is interesting that in the other place it was Lord Saatchi who drew attention to the cost to business of the working of the tax credit schemes. During the debate in the other place, he explained why he was asking for an assessment of that cost as part of the report. He said:
    "Why do we ask for this? Because we believe that such a responsibility being placed on the Treasury will have the healthy effect of focusing the Treasury's attention"—
    and, presumably, everyone else's—
    "on the cost of the Bill to small business."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 May 2002; Vol. 635, c. CWH 31.]
    It is rather ironic that in moving the amendment in the name of cutting red tape on business, Lord Saatchi seems to want to do so by imposing a greater burden of red tape on the Inland Revenue—it would be onerous to run regulatory impact assessments every year. I am not saying that we should not be aware of the impact on business and seek to ameliorate that, but we must set the costs that there may be to business against the real benefits to business of increasing the number of people who are in work and participating in the labour market through the operation of the scheme.
    Of course, it was Lord Saatchi who, 20 years ago, drew everyone's attention to the costs of "Labour's not working," as he put it then. It seems ironic that he is now

    909
    drawing everyone's attention to the costs when Labour is working. We have more than 1 million more people in work as a result of labour market interventions such as the tax credit scheme.
    It is all very well for the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats to say that they support the tax credits, but if the tax credit schemes are to have their full beneficial effect in practice, it is important that they have the full support of the business community in their implementation. By drawing attention the whole time to the cost to business of operating the tax credit scheme, rather than taking a more balanced approach which emphasises the great benefits to business, especially if there is a high take-up of the scheme, the Opposition get the balance wrong.
    In responding to the wishes of hon. Members in all parts of the House for the tax credit scheme to be effective, for a way of benchmarking that from year to year, and so for an annual report, the Government have got the balance right in their amendment. If the Opposition intend to support the scheme, they should stop carping about the form of the annual report and support the Government's amendment.
    Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the three major points that have been made in the debate this afternoon, although I get the feeling that it does not matter what I say in my concluding remarks; the Opposition have already made up their mind that they will vote against the Government regardless.
    The three points refer, first, to the cost to employers; secondly, to take-up; and thirdly, to fraud and the enforcement of the compliance system to reduce the level of fraud. I shall deal briefly with each point, starting with the cost to employers. As I said earlier, it is not for the Government to assess and account for employers' costs. However, it is for the Government—and it is we who introduced the process—to monitor and evaluate the introduction of measures that may impact on employers' costs, as the regulatory impact assessment does in relation to the regulations required under the Bill.
    Two further issues were raised. First, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) accepted my argument that, if the regulations were set, they would not change. He also said, however, that the Government would do other things that might impact on employers and that the situation had to be seen in the round. The Lords amendment did not ask us to deal with such matters—it asked only for an annual report on the Bill—so even if he votes against the Government and in favour of the amendment, he will not get the assessment for which he has called on the Floor of the House. As the Government are committed to regulatory impact assessments, an evaluation is conducted of every measure's impact on employers and presented to the House.
    I would also go further—the hon. Member for Northavon is aware that the same issue has arisen in previous debates on the working families tax credit, the disabled person's tax credit and the new tax credits—and say that the Government have worked very closely with business on the design and development of the systems. The consultative group has given an enormous amount of time, for which the Government are grateful, to ensuring
    910
    that we properly take forward the work. That group will continue to have the ability to monitor and consider the situation should any changes occur that might impact on business. It will then be for the Government to bring the matter to the House. We take the view that the suggestion that we must conduct an annual report on regulations that will not change, costs that will not vary and an impact on business that is not yet accounted for is a waste of time, as such a report would produce information that would take the House no further forward.
    The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) demonstrated that he still did not quite grasp what employers are being asked to do. In particular, he said that employers would be asked to supply a lot of information about hours. Precisely because of the way in which the new tax credits are structured, however, people will claim on the basis of information that the Revenue already has. Furthermore, the end-of-year checks will not routinely involve employers, so even his suggestion that the checking system will cause extra work is incorrect. The idea that we should conduct an annual report on something that is not happening is somewhat bizarre.
    I turn now to the question of fraud and tax credits. The irony is that the Government, having listened closely to debates in this House as well as the other place, tabled an amendment that goes further than their lordships requested in their amendment. The Inland Revenue system does not operate only on the basis of prosecutions; the position is fundamentally different in relation to the Department for Work and Pensions. We also impose penalties, as we have a process that graduates through the system. The original Lords amendment asked for details on the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions. The Government amendment requires the inclusion of both sets of information in the annual report. In addition, it requires that the report set out details of the number of penalties imposed under the Bill. That is an area on which hon. Members concentrated when we discussed the matter on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
    On the first two points, hon. Members are asking for information as regards employers for which the Lords amendment does not provide, yet claim that that amendment is better. On the second amendment, about fraud and compliance with the system, the Government listened not only to their lordships but to this House, and tabled an amendment that goes further. We have also dealt with the issue of take-up.
    Mr. Clappison: I am afraid that the Paymaster General is doing it again—she is bracketing fraud and non-compliance together. Does she appreciate that it is fraud that really angers members of the public, and will she now tell us how much fraud was involved in the working families tax credit?
    Dawn Primarolo: I was hoping to save the House the explanation of the difference between how the Inland Revenue operates what it calls its non-compliance regime and how the Department for Work and Pensions conducts its regime for prosecutions. I fear that I will now have to give that explanation, because although the hon. Gentleman has repeatedly had the matter explained to him, he has not grasped it.
    It is true—I think that the hon. Member for Northavon would entirely support this proposition—that the Government want to ensure that all those who are entitled

    911
    to the new tax credits claim them. Of course, there is no reason not to tackle fraud where it arises, but the development of the regime must not have a negative impact in frightening or discouraging people from applying for their rights.
    The Inland Revenue has a long history of dealing with non-compliance. Since 1999, that has been extended to dealing with tax credit claimants in order to ensure that tax credit claims are subject to a suitable compliance strategy. That experience, together with that obtained by the Department for Work and Pensions in operating the benefits system, has led to the development of a robust new compliance regime for the tax credit systems. That will make full use of automated systems and data sources used by the Inland Revenue to counter non-compliance. If we can prevent people from committing the fraud in the first place, we will not need to prosecute them because it has been picked up at an early stage.
    The Inland Revenue can use penalties as forms of prosecution. We should consider the improvements that have been made. The Bill, like the previous tax credits provisions, contains structural improvements that should help further to reduce fraud. First, there is a move away from payment by the order book to payment directly into the hank account. Misuse of the order book is a well known and extensive area of fraud. Secondly, one of the biggest areas of fraud is understated earnings, which the Inland Revenue has long experience in tackling. Moreover, the measure of income for the tax credits will be aligned much more closely with those that are used for tax. Along with links between different Inland Revenue systems, that will make it much harder for claimants to hide sources of income.
    The Bill goes further. It provides new powers to tackle fraud effectively, including powers to charge penalties and to provide the Revenue with the necessary power to obtain information, to check claims and to carry out inquiries where fraud is suspected. It allows for a co-ordinated approach of investigating tax and tax credit non-compliance. It includes new powers to investigate criminal fraud when necessary. It creates a new criminal offence of tax credit fraud and provides for powers that will allow the Revenue to recover overpayments. That contrasts with the system in the Department for Work and Pensions, which the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) keeps mentioning.
    Compliance activity in the Department for Work and Pensions traditionally depends more on prosecutions, and contrasts with the Inland Revenue's approach of a compliance regime that reinforces at every point that the application is correct. The Inland Revenue's approach to tax credit fraud is consistent with its approach to other sorts of fraud. So the points made by hon. Member for Hertsmere are simply not valid.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Clappison: The Paymaster General has been generous in giving way, but I want to press her on the matter. Whatever one's view about dealing with the matter as fraud or non-compliance, surely she agrees that it is important to know the amount of fraud. She wrote me a letter, which stated:
    "The Inland Revenue are carrying out a benchmarking exercise to establish the level of fraud in tax credit claims."
    912
    Will she tell us the amount of fraud and publish the report?
    Dawn Primarolo: That is precisely what the Government new clause will do annually. Where has the hon. Gentleman been? It will provide annual information to the House on penalties, prosecutions and convictions.
    Let me consider take-up. It is argued that the Government should somehow put in place estimates of take-up. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Northavon, who is well versed in the various surveys that are conducted and on which the Government draw. He also well knows that there is a gap between the studies being conducted and publication of the evidence. He knows that the studies do not always cover points that may now be relevant and need to be asked in the context of tax credits.
    Estimating take-up rates is not as straightforward as hon. Members suggest. The purpose of an annual report is to provide the House with meaningful and structured information so that it can assess the impact of the tax credits. The matter is not straightforward because the take-up rate is calculated by dividing the number of awards by an eligible population. Survey data are used to estimate the number of eligible non-recipients. There is a time lag between conducting the survey and publishing the data. For example, the family resource survey for 2000–01 was published earlier this year. Eligibility tests, not only on household income but on hours worked, makes estimating the eligible population, especially those without children, far more complex.
    Take-up was discussed when I appeared before the Treasury Sub-Committee. I explained the difficulty with the surveys on which we depend. I also explained that the Inland Revenue was in discussion with the bodies responsible for conducting the surveys to ensure that they included relevant questions for gleaning the information that would provide a more accurate measure of eligibility. We do not currently have that information. Producing an annual report now, when the information is unavailable and unreliable, would be a waste of Parliament's time and would not give us a true picture.
    We have tried to be helpful; we have listened to the debate here and in another place, and we have tabled a better new clause. Despite the force of the argument, some people prefer to vote against the Government for the sake of doing so.
    Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 188.

    Division No. 284]

    [5.50 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Battle, John

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Ainger, Nick

    Beard, Nigel

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Benn, Hilary

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Bennett, Andrew

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Benton, Joe

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Berry, Roger

    Austin, John

    Betts, Clive

    Bailey, Adrian

    Blackman, Liz

    Baird, Vera

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Barnes, Harry

    Blizzard, Bob

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Borrow, David

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    913

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Grogan, John

    Brennan, Kevin

    Hain, Rt Hon Peter

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Bryant, Chris

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Burden, Richard

    Hanson, David

    Burgon, Colin

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Burnham, Andy

    Havard, Dai

    Cairns, David

    Healey, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hendrick, Mark

    Casale, Roger

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hesford, Stephen

    Challen, Colin

    Hill, Keith

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Chaytor, David

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hope, Phil

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Clelland, David

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cohen, Harry

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Coleman, Iain

    Hurst, Alan

    Connarty, Michael

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cooper, Yvette

    Illsley, Eric

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Irranca—Davies, Huw

    Cousins, Jim

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cranston, Ross

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Crausby, David

    Jamieson, David

    Cruddas, Jon

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    David, Wayne

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dawson, Hilton

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Kelly, Ruth

    Dobbin, Jim

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Khabra, Piara S

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Doran, Frank

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Lammy, David

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Laxton, Bob

    Edwards, Huw

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Efford, Clive

    Lepper, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ennis, Jeff

    Levitt, Tom

    Fisher, Mark

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Linton, Martin

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Love, Andrew

    Follett, Barbara

    Lucas, Ian

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Luke, Iain

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lyons, John

    Foulkes, George

    McCabe, Stephen

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Gapes, Mike

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gardiner, Barry

    MacDonald, Calum

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    McDonnell, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    McFall, John

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gilroy, Linda

    McKechin, Ann

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Goggins, Paul

    McNulty, Tony

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McWalter, Tony

    McWilliam, John

    914

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mallaber, Judy

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Simon, Siôn

    Mann, John

    Singh, Marsha

    Marris, Rob

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Miller, Andrew

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Soley, Clive

    Mole, Chris

    Southworth, Helen

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Speller, Rt Hon John

    Moran, Margaret

    Squire, Rachel

    Morley, Elliot

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mountford, Kali

    Stevenson, George

    Mudie, George

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Mullin, Chris

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Tami, Mark

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Organ, Diana

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Owen, Albert

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Perham, Linda

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Picking, Anne

    Timms, Stephen

    Pickthall, Colin

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pike, Peter

    Todd, Mark

    Plaskitt, James

    Touhig, Don

    Pond, Chris

    Trickett, Jon

    Pope, Greg

    Truswell, Paul

    Pound, Stephen

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Tynan, Bill

    Purchase, Ken

    Vaz, Keith

    Purnell, James

    Wareing, Robert N

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Watson, Tom

    Rammell, Bill

    Watts, David

    Rapson, Syd

    White, Brian

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rooney, Terry

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Ross, Ernie

    Winnick, David

    Roy, Frank

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Ruane, Chris

    Wood, Mike

    Ruddock, Joan

    Worthington, Tony

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Ryan, Joan

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Salter, Martin

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Wyatt, Derek

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sawford, Phil

    Mr. Ian Pearson and

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Arness, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Bercow, John

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Bacon, Richard

    Boswell, Tim

    Baker, Norman

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Barker, Gregory

    Brady, Graham

    Baron, John

    Brake, Tom

    Barrett, John

    Brazier, Julian

    Beggs, Roy

    Breed, Colin

    915

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Letwin, Oliver

    Burnett, John

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Burns, Simon

    Liddell—Grainger, Ian

    Burnside, David

    Lidington, David

    Burstow, Paul

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Burt, Alistair

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Butterfill, John

    Loughton, Tim

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Luff, Peter

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Carmichael, Alistair

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cash, William

    Malins, Humfrey

    Chidgey, David

    Maples, John

    Clappison, James

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Mates, Michael

    Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Collins, Tim

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Mercer, Patrick

    Cotter, Brian

    Moore, Michael

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Norman, Archie

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Oaten, Mark

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Doughty, Sue

    Öpik, Lembit

    Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Evans, Nigel

    Ottaway, Richard

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Page, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Paice, James

    Fallon, Michael

    Paterson, Owen

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Pickles, Eric

    Flight, Howard

    Price, Adam

    Flook, Adrian

    Prisk, Mark

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Pugh, Dr John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Randall, John

    Francois, Mark

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Gale, Roger

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Garnier, Edward

    Rendel, David

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Gibb, Nick

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)

    Goodman, Paul

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Gray, James

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Grayling, Chris

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Ruffley, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Salmond, Alex

    Harris. Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Harvey, Nick

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hawkins, Nick

    Selous, Andrew

    Hayes, John

    Simmonds, Mark

    Heald, Oliver

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

    Heath, David

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Holmes, Paul

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Horam, John

    Spink, Bob

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Spring, Richard

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Steen, Anthony

    Hunter, Andrew

    Streeter, Gary

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Stunell, Andrew

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Swire, Hugo

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Syms, Robert

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Key, Robert

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Lamb, Norman

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Lansley, Andrew

    Thurso, John

    Laws, David

    Tredinnick, David

    Trend, Michael

    Leigh, Edward

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Tyler, Paul

    916

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Viggers, Peter

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Wishart, Pete

    Watkinson, Angela

    Yeo, Tim

    Webb, Steve

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Whittingdale, John

    Younger—Ross, Richard

    Wiggin, Bill

    Willetts, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Mr. Charles Hendry and

    Willis, Phil

    Mr. David Wilshire.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

    Clause 3

      CLAIMS
      Lords amendment: No. 2.
      Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 6, 12, 18 to 23, 33, 34, 37 to 40, 42, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52 to 64, 66, 72, 73, 75 to 78, 80, 81, 85, 86, 88, 91, 93, 99, 106, 108 to 113, 115, 118, 121 and 124.
      Dawn Primarolo: The debates that we will have as we proceed through the remainder of our considerations today will be on technical and drafting amendments that the Government believe will improve the Bill by clarifying and rationalising its provisions. I shall briefly introduce the purpose of each group, and many of the amendments are consequential.
      This group of amendments deals with the interaction between awards and entitlement, and includes technical changes to the provisions on recovering overpayments and paying out underpayments when entitlement turns out to be different from the amount paid under an award during the year. In addition, it makes clear that awards are not revoked by a decision of the board, but are instead terminated by such a decision.
      I shall briefly explain why these technical changes are necessary. The new tax credits introduced by the Bill are designed to target support according to the current circumstances of claimants within the context of a system that bases entitlement to tax credits on annual income and can respond by adjusting support if claimants experience a change in their level of income.
      As the credits are designed to ensure support is delivered to claimants during the year, the Bill enables the Inland Revenue to make awards, and payments under those awards, during the year, and to adjust those awards and payments as claimants' circumstances change. That is precisely what we intended.
      However, there were some technical problems—as there often are—with the relevant provisions in the Bill as it stood. The amendments do not change the basic operation of the Bill. Awards and payments under those awards are the vehicle for delivering support during the year. Entitlement is different. I am sorry that we need to be so precise, but legislation needs to be precise in these

      917
      circumstances. Entitlement depends on the underlying facts, some of which cannot be determined until after the end of the year. However, that distinction was not clearly drawn in the Bill as it stood, so we decided that a number of technical changes were necessary to clarify matters.
      The key changes are the amendments to clauses 3 and 5. A considerable number of purely consequential amendments to later clauses were also necessary. That accounts for the bulk of the amendments in this group.
      In addition, the Bill was unclear about the effect of income on awards and entitlement. As the new tax credits will respond to changes in income, entitlement cannot finally be determined until after the end of the year, when current year income is known. As the Bill stood, however, the lack of a clear distinction between awards and entitlement meant that claimants could face having their entitlement curtailed because of decisions taken by the board during the year based on expectations about income.
      If the board decided not to make an award at all, in the expectation that a claimant's income would be too high for entitlement to any tax credits, that could cut across the claimant's entitlement. Awards will of course be finalised at the end of the year, once all the relevant details about income are known; but if no award was ever made there would be nothing to finalise. Someone might be entitled to receive money, albeit perhaps not very much, when his or her final income was determined according to the facts but the submission of expected income over the rest of the year had suggested no entitlement. To avoid that problem, amendments to clause 14 will allow the board to make awards at a nil rate.
      The idea of someone receiving a notice telling them that their award is nil may strike some people as bizarre. However, the reason for that is that at the end of the year the assessment of entitlement against award allows for action if it is indicated that money is outstanding.
      The group of amendments also contains minor drafting changes, the main change being replacement of references to the board's revoking awards with references to its terminating them. Once made, an award cannot simply disappear, which is what the reference to revoking awards might be taken to imply. If the award disappeared, it would not be possible to decide on the entitlement at the end of the year.
      Provisions relating to both overpayments and underpayments are amended. That enables the board to recover overpayments before the end of the year when the person to whom the award was made never met the basic qualifying criteria for the tax credit, and also makes clear that the board is obliged to pay any extra tax credits to claimants when there have been underpayments. It was always clear in Committee that the Government intended to make such provision, but I was told that the technical definitions should be made clearer.
      I am sorry that there are so many technical changes, but it was necessary to change every reference throughout the Bill to ensure that there could be no dispute about claimants' entitlements.
      Mr. Flight: We support these technical amendments, which, along with others, correct drafting errors.
      918
      The many amendments tabled in the other place were, I think, largely tabled at the last minute. They seem to have been grouped into nine categories here, whereas there were five in the Lords. Essentially, however, they reflect a drafting muddle that occurred when the Bill went there—a muddle concerning both the definitions and the operation of awards and entitlements.
      Lord Higgins, who contributed a great deal to sorting out the problem, was strongly vexed. He said it would be "far more appropriate" to describe the amendments as structuring amendments, because there were
      "fundamental inconsistencies…between the earlier and later parts of the Bill."
      He said the Bill was "fundamentally flawed", and added
      "Rarely in almost 40 years in both Houses have I seen such a badly drafted Bill—in fact I probably never have."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 266.]
      6.15 pm
      I must confess that it took me a long time and a lot of digging to establish the essence of the structural errors. I must also confess that in Committee I focused on the related territory rather than on specific drafting issues. The Revenue is being expected to make awards during the year, not necessarily based on adequate evidence, to check entitlement in terms of meeting all the qualifications and criteria at the end of the year, and then to recover overpayments.
      I think that the mechanism remains questionable and potentially flawed. I remember making the crucial point that unless claimants completed the tax credit equivalent of a tax return at the end of the year, I could not see how the poor devils in the Revenue could easily obtain all the information they needed to confirm that the provisional awards they had made would be correct in terms of legal entitlement.
      Let us consider the technical issues. The credits are designed to ensure that support is delivered to claimants during the year. The Bill enables the Revenue to make awards—and payments according to those awards—during the year, and to adjust the awards and payments as claimants' circumstances change and are confirmed. But because the credits will also respond to changes in income, entitlement cannot be finally determined until the end of the tax year when current-year income is known.
      Awards, and any payments made according to them, are simply a vehicle for the delivery of support during the year. Entitlement, however, depends on the underlying facts, some of which—those relating to income—will not be determined until the end of the year. That distinction was not originally clear in the Bill, and gave rise to some technical problems.
      In particular, there was a contradiction between clause 5 and the decision-making provisions in clauses 14 to 16. What were then subsections (3) and (5) of clause 5 were intended to make provision regarding claimants' entitlements. When people cease to meet the basic requirements necessary for qualification for one of the credits, it is sensible for their entitlement to stop. That was the aim of clause 5(5).
      As couples will be jointly entitled to the new credits, it is axiomatic that the entitlement of a couple—as a couple—should stop if the partners break up. Similarly, the entitlement of a single person as an individual will

      919
      stop if that person takes on a new partner. That was the aim of clause 5(3). The provisions in clause 5, however, were cast in terms of the effect on awards rather than entitlement. They implied that awards would or would not end in particular circumstances. Clauses 14 to 16 make it clear that the existence of awards depends on decisions made by the board. Thus there was a conflict. The Bill as it stood left unresolved the question of what would happen in a case in which an award ought to end under clause 5, but the board had made no decision to end it under clause 16—or vice versa.
      These, then, are technical amendments intended to correct the misdrafting. Clause 5, in particular, now makes clear that awards run until the end of the tax year, and end during the year only if terminated by a decision of the board.
      I could bang on about the technicalities, but I think I have put on record what the technical issue was. The amendments relating to awards, entitlements, overpayments and underpayments are the key ones, although I believe that four other groups relate to those matters as well.
      Mr. Webb: It may reassure the House and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to learn that I shall not try to catch your eye on any further group of amendments, unless goaded. The amendments relate to overpayments and underpayments and other technical issues, and one practical issue arises.
      It would be helpful if the Minister would say how the system, which will come into operation in April 2003, will work in the following example of a typical person. We were told in Committee that the tax credits are modelled on the tax system and that they will bring benefits and taxes closer together. The tax liability for 2003–04 is based on income in 2003–04. My understanding is that eventually entitlement to tax credits for 2003–04 will be based on outturn income in 2003–04, which will obviously be known for sure only at the end of 2003–04.
      What is the position of someone who makes a fresh claim in March 2003? I have a constituent who has had a letter from the Inland Revenue to tell her to hold on to her P60 for 2001–02. I have written to the Minister on this issue. My constituent is very concerned, because her income has fallen since 2001–02. She is worried that she might make a claim in March 2003, hand in her P60 for 2001–02, and be told by the Revenue that she had a high income and will not get much tax credit. The relevant adjustments would not be made until the end of 2003–04, when her income could be determined definitively. For someone who makes a claim in March 2003, the assessment of income should be based on a best guess for income for 2002–03, not on outturn income for 2001–02, which will be two years out of date by then.
      Dawn Primarolo: When the system starts up in April 2003, we will not have P60s available for 2002–03. Therefore we will start, effectively, at P-1, so we will use the base year of 2001–02. In the circumstances the hon. Gentleman describes, when someone's income has fallen in 2002–03, we might move to current-year income. We would consider the actual income at that time. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has written to me, because I wish to consider his point, but that is my
      920
      understanding of the situation. In the first year, we have to use P-1, which will be 2001–02 and that should suffice, except in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes of someone experiencing a fall in income.
      Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for that constructive response, but unfortunately it raises several concerns. First, my constituent rang the WFTC helpline, but the staff did not have a clue about the system that will start in April. Many people will want to know how it will work, and I would be grateful for confirmation that the staff will start to give prospective advice on how the new system will work as soon as possible.
      Secondly, when I have received the Paymaster General's reply, I will write to my constituent and advise her to point out to the Inland Revenue when she makes her claim that her income has fallen and that she wants to be judged not on the previous year's income but on the present year's. My constituent will know what to do, because she has talked to me, but many people will not. They will be asked for the previous year's P60, but if their income has dropped they will be underpaid for up to 18 months.
      Thirdly, I do not understand why we will not always have that problem. In March 2004, we will not have P60s for 2003–04, so we will have to use P60s for 2002–03 for assessments for 2004–05, unless three months into every tax year, when the P60s are published, all assessments are revisited in one go.
      Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman's constituent on being ahead of the game in applying for something that the House has not yet decided will he available to be applied for. It is difficult for a helpline to advise on something that has not yet been agreed by the House. None the less, I apologise if his constituent has not received the advice that she should have received.
      On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I agree that, once the House has agreed the new system, it is important that we start training programmes and put the helpline in place. I will certainly pay particular attention to that.
      On the third point, the Bill allows for assessments to be made on a combination of previous year and current year. In Committee, we discussed the timing of the changeover of the rates so that it was in place with the issuing of the P60s. Although the claim is made from April, an increased payment might start a little later. That will even out the system. I realise that my intervention is too long, and I do not wish to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will write to the hon. Gentleman on those points. If he agrees, I will send a copy to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), because I am sure that he is interested in the same points.
      Mr. Webb: The system will be introduced in nine months. My constituent has taken or is considering taking—I forget the exact circumstances—another job that will mean a drop in income. She is looking ahead and wondering whether she can take the job. She has rung up for advice on a system that Ministers have said will be available next April, so it is a little harsh to criticise her. It is not unreasonable to ring a helpline for advice on a system that Ministers have repeatedly mentioned and that will be in place next April.
      Given that P60s are provided to everyone a couple of months into the new financial year and that, presumably, most people will need some adjustment to their rates—

      921
      because of overtime or whatever—will we routinely see millions of adjustments to tax credit awards in, say, June every year? Some will be overpayments and some will be cuts, so what certainty will people have that the money they start getting in April—presumably a continuation of the previous year's money—will continue?
      I also wonder about the culture of the changes. We have been told that tax credits are supposed to be like income tax, but everybody's rates might change in June, whereas income tax rates apply for the year from April—although I appreciate that allowances have been changed mid-year in the past.
      Dawn Primarolo: I certainly did not criticise the hon. Gentleman's constituent. In fact, I congratulated her on her forward thinking. In April 2002, the Inland Revenue published a document entitled "The Child and Working Tax Credits: The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System, Number 10". Paragraph 4.5 on page 19 deals with how we would adjust the credit and the calculation. As we ran on past the beginning of the tax year, we would have information about what people had already had. We would then be able to make the calculation for the next year accordingly. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
      6.30 pm
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is vital that the correct advice is in place for people who want to plan for their futures and to take advantage of what will be an excellent source of support for them and their families as they enter the labour market or change jobs.
      Mr. Flight rose—
      Mr. Webb: I thank the Minister, and give way to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight).
      Mr. Flight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I simply remind him of the extensive debate on these matters in Committee. The central problem in moving to a system based on the current year rather than the previous year is how the Revenue can obtain the relevant information. That is not about income alone; it also involves the numbers of children involved, housing benefit details, and all sorts of other things. There is also the difficult problem of the number of hours worked.
      The administrative process is not up to speed at present, and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is right to point out that that problem will continue beyond start-up. The Revenue will have a nightmare working out entitlements at year-end against awards paid in the course of the year, and in its attempts to collect overpayments. That is one of the problems with the Bill.
      Mr. Webb: Not all the items listed by the hon. Gentleman are especially complex. For example, the number of children involved should be fairly predictable, and housing benefit does not feed into this calculation—rather, it is the other way around. However, the practical problem with the number of hours worked may be the big one.
      922
      My point about the amendments is that we are faced with 137 of them this evening. I sat through the Standing Committee debates and did not spot the problems that the amendments resolve. Will the Minister say something about how the problems came to light? The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs implied that Lord Higgins spotted them, and brought them to the attention of the House. I am worried that the House allowed the Bill to go through without spotting the problems. By what mechanism were they brought to light, and are there any lessons about how that mechanism could be brought to bear earlier in the process? I am as embarrassed as anyone that we are having to discuss 137 amendments to a Bill that I waved through.
      We support the clarifications and technical corrections in the amendments that remain, but I hope that the Minister will comment on how we reached this point.
      Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the points that have been raised.
      The Government consulted widely on the Bill, which is far better as a result. We continued to undertake consultation, and then moved these amendments. Lord Higgins's complaint was that we tabled them.
      Mr. Flight: The Government tabled them late.
      Dawn Primarolo: No, we did not table them late. The lesson mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) involves Governments who want to ensure that legislation going through the House is subject to constant scrutiny. This is a complex Bill, but it would have operated without the changes suggested in the amendments. The Government are very grateful for the continued contribution made by the experts involved. They have made the Bill better as a result, but we had to decide whether to table the amendments.
      The other problem has to do with the point made by the hon. Member for Northavon—that the Bill has been eagerly anticipated by our constituents. Before the Government can put in place the apparatus for advice and support in connection with the Bill, and before we can publish the details about it, we need the House to agree it. I deeply regret that the amendments were tabled at such short notice in the other place. I should have preferred to avoid that, but they were purely technical in nature and everyone—including Lord Higgins and Lord Russell, who was extremely supportive and generous—agreed that the Bill would be improved by them. In the light of that, it would be a very poor House of Parliament—Commons or Lords—that stood on procedure and prevented the amendments from being agreed and improving the Bill.
      I accept that inconvenience was caused to the House of Lords, but the situation is not unique. The previous Conservative Government often tabled, at the last minute, matters of substance in the other place. These amendments do not change the substance of the Bill, but, as a result of the partnership in the consultation, they do make it better.
      Inland Revenue officials have worked tirelessly to ensure that all the information was available to Members of this House and the other place, and to those organisations outside the House that were actively helping us to design the Bill. I must even tell the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs that the speaking note that

      923
      he read out and attributed to Lord Higgins was, in fact, prepared for Baroness Hollis. When we accepted that the amendments had been tabled late, the Government provided the House of Lords with all notes and ministerial speaking notes. We also provided all the technical details, and full explanations of them. We offered their Lordships meetings with officials, and I would even have honoured the meetings that were, rather baldly, set up with me. However, I am glad that that did not turn out to be necessary.
      Amendments may improve a Bill, but it may be inconvenient for the House to deal with them. Ministers must decide the balance between those two factors. I decided that we should continue to improve the Bill as much as possible.
      I apologise to both Houses for any inconvenience caused, but I remind hon. Members that most of the amendments are consequential. Lord Russell was very generous in his comments, and even Lord Higgins said that the Bill was improved by them. His objections therefore perplexed me.
      Mr. Webb: My observation—it was not a criticism—was not that amendments were tabled late. If a problem is spotted, it should be corrected. However, why did not the mechanisms that allowed outside observers to spot the problems come into action earlier in the process? Legislation is under constant scrutiny after it has finished its passage through the House, but why did not the process of technical clarification happen earlier?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the Minister is responding to questions that have been raised, but we are not at present dealing with the amendments that are before the House. I hope that she will respond briefly to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), but then she really ought to turn to the amendments.
      Dawn Primarolo: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman answered his own question, which is that legislation is normally scrutinised in detail after it has been passed. The option is to take much longer and have draft legislation available for years in advance, to do it as the Government have attempted to do, or to do as people suggested and table amendments once the legislation is finalised. Points on most legislation are made afterwards, causing amendments to be tabled.
      I think that I have dealt with the point of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs about the amendment. If there were a criticism to be made of the Government—because it is the Government who found that changes needed to be made—it would be that they were trying to be too helpful. This may be a dangerous thing for a Minister to say, but long may the Government and their Ministers continue to be helpful in ensuring that legislation is improved.
      I am grateful to the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs and for Northavon for the positive way in which they have commented on the amendments. I look forward to their continued involvement as we roll out the tax credits up to April 2003; they have touched on important issues that can be dealt with only when the legislation is finalised.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 6 agreed to.

    Clause 7

      INCOME TEST
      Lords amendment: No. 7.
      Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 8, 24 to 31, 84, 98 and 100.
      Dawn Primarolo: I will be as brief as I can on these amendments, which make technical and drafting improvements to the provision in clause 17 about the processing of the final entitlement at the end of the year. Before I explain the main changes made by the amendments, I should perhaps explain why the group begins at clause 7. That is simply because, as a result of the changes that I am about to describe, the terms "current year income" and "previous year income", currently defined only for the purposes of clause 7, will in future have an application elsewhere in part 1. For this reason, amendments Nos. 7 and 8 make the purpose of the Bill clear.
      Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are short, technical amendments, intended to clarify the scope of the Treasury's regulation-making powers under subsections (6) and (7) of clause 7.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Lady has jumped ahead a little. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 come in a later group.
      Dawn Primarolo rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no reason why we should not put the two groups together, if it makes life easier for the right hon. Lady and everybody else.
      Dawn Primarolo: That is extremely generous of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not quite sure that it will make life easier, but I will start again.
      We are discussing amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 17—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can I help the right hon. Lady? We are debating Lords amendment No. 7—that is the principal amendment. In the same group are Lords amendments Nos. 8, 24 to 31, 84, 98 and 100. There is a subsequent group, that we have not yet come to, which consists of Lords amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 17.
      6.45 pm
      Dawn Primarolo: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I now discover that I was correct before I changed direction. I am not sure what made me change direction, but I apologise, and will return to the amendments before the House.
      Let me resume by saying that this group of amendments deals specifically with finalising entitlement at the end of the year, dealt with under clause 17. However, the main changes made by this group of amendments start with clause 7. That is simply because, as a result of the changes, the terms "current year income" and "previous year income" which are defined only for the purposes of clause 1, will in future have an application elsewhere in

      925
      part 1 of the Bill. For that reasons, amendments Nos. 7 and 8 make it clear that those terms are defined for the purposes of part 1. At the same time, amendments Nos. 98 and 100 add those terms to the list of terms as defined in clause 44, the interpretation clause.
      The most important changes are those to clause 17, which sets out the machinery for finalising the end-of-year awards. As discussed in previous deliberations, entitlement to tax credits will be based on annual income. This means that entitlement can finally be determined only after the end of the tax year, when all the relevant information is known. Clause 17 therefore requires that claimants be given an opportunity, after the end of the year, to provide details of their income and circumstances so that the Inland Revenue can finalise their entitlement.
      None of the changes in this group of amendments is intended to change the process and the way in which the Bill works. However, as originally drafted., clause 17 required the board to ask claimants to confirm details of their relevant income. The clarification of relevant income is important. Requiring claimants to report details of their relevant income at the end of the year would mean that to arrive at the correct figure to report to the Inland Revenue, they would have to carry out a comparison of their previous year income with their current year income, applying the threshold for rises in income where relevant. In addition, most claimants would also need to report their actual current year income to the Revenue at the same time, so that their award could be renewed.
      There is no need for the Bill to impose such a burden on claimants, nor was it intended to do so. The amendments clarify the correct explanation of relevant income and therefore the obligations that are placed to supply that information to the claimant are made clear in the Bill. Before the changes, the provisions could have been interpreted to mean that claimants were being asked to undertake all the calculations themselves, but that job is undertaken by the Revenue.
      Thank you very much for your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that that is now clear.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 9.
      Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 17.
      Dawn Primarolo: This group of drafting amendments clarifies the scope of the powers to make regulations about income and about the child care element of the working tax credit. Clause 7 provides that entitlement to tax credits will depend on the income of the claimant or claimants. In particular, entitlement will be based on the income for a tax year. The amendments to clause 7 in this group are concerned with subsections (6), (7) and (8) and relate to the computation of income, the period in which income is taken into account, what counts as income, and when the Inland Revenue can treat a person as having income or not.
      926
      Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are short, technical amendments that are intended to clarify the scope of the Treasury's regulation-making powers under subsections (6) and (7) of clause 7. Those subsections allow regulations to be made about how income is to be allocated between particular tax years.
      We discussed that matter in the Standing Committee. I point out to the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that, through these changes, we are trying to make as clear as possible the question of relevant income and to ensure that the application of the regulations delivers that.
      All the amendments will improve the legislation and will clarify some of the meaning, but they do not change the operation of the Bill and I commend them to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 12 agreed to.

    Clause 8

      ENTITLEMENT
      Lords amendment: No. 13.
      Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 16 and 101.
      Dawn Primarolo: These amendments are all aimed at ensuring that we have the flexibility to ensure that, if appropriate, any family responsible for caring for a child or young person could have access to the appropriate level of support.
      I shall explain the Government's reasoning for introducing these amendments, as the matter did not detain us during the Committee stage, nor is it directly relevant at present, but given what might happen in the future, it is important to include in primary legislation the ability to respond to change. I shall thus set out in a little more detail why we believed it was appropriate to introduce the amendments.
      Clauses 8 and 9 provide the framework for entitlement to the child tax credit. The draft Child Tax Credit Regulations, which were made available on 9 May, provide the detailed provisions that will sit within that framework. Together, those measures create a system that ensures that the family with main responsibility for a child will be provided with a suitable level of support, depending on their needs. That is similar to many current systems of support for children, and we believe that—currently—it provides the most suitable means to ensure that we can focus support on raising children out of poverty.
      Our present aim is to enable one family to claim support for any particular child at any one time. That is the principle on which the Bill, the draft regulations and the business systems being developed are based. There are several sound reasons for that approach. Usually, the person or couple who have the main responsibility for care of a child bear more of the everyday responsibilities for the child, and meet the everyday expenditure for him

      927
      or her. It is vital, especially for families on lower incomes, that enough support is directed to that family to lift the child from poverty, or to keep him or her out of poverty.
      However, we recognise that patterns of care may be changing. That is the reason for the amendments. Many more families share responsibility for children than was previously the case, especially where a family has split up—resulting in both parents sharing responsibility for the children from the former relationship. The increase in shared responsibilities between families raises the question of whether, in future, directing support to one family will continue to be the right approach. We are determined to keep the provision of Government support in such cases under review, in order to ensure that we meet the needs of the children involved.
      We have no intention, however, of making any hasty or ill-considered changes to our present approach. The question of shared responsibility for children goes wider than tax credits and affects other systems of support that recognise the needs of families with children such as housing benefit. Even if, in the light of the changing climate on this issue, we became persuaded that a change in approach was warranted, such a change could not be made overnight.
      The consultation exercise on the tax credits and our continuing contact with lobby groups have shown that payment of support to the family with the main responsibility for the child is seen as the most appropriate way to deal with the vast majority of families with children. If there were to be a change, it would have to be carefully thought about; there would need to be careful preparation of the ground with claimants and advisers. Any change would also entail extensive—and expensive—IT and business systems changes, which would require detailed analysis and take time to establish.
      We will continue to stand by our intention to direct payment to the family containing the person with the main responsibility for the child, and entitlement will not be divided in cases where more than one household is involved in care of a child.
      Against that background, we see the need to make some protective changes to the Bill to equip us to change the way we deal with shared care cases—if it became apparent that a different approach was more appropriate. To provide us with that flexibility, Lords amendment No. 14 would allow us to vary the amount of the individual element in the child tax credit to reflect any relevant factors, such as shared responsibility for a child. That mirrors a similar power already present in the family element.
      Lords amendment No. 15 would enable us, where more than one claim is received for a particular child or children, to pay each family a reduced amount of any element payable in respect of any particular child—to reflect the level of care that the family provides. If we decided, in the future, to recognise a claim for a child by more than one household at any one time, we would not want those households to be in a better position in terms of tax credits than a family who had stayed together throughout and were solely responsible for a child.
      Lords amendments Nos. 13, 16 and 101 allow us to define the phrase
      "being responsible for a child"
      928
      separately for the purposes of the child tax credit and the working tax credit. However, the key factor in making the amendments is to make clear in the Bill that, if, in future, tax credits have to reflect shared care responsibility, entitlement can be divided and not duplicated.
      The new tax credits will provide an important source of financial support, especially for families on the lowest incomes. We recognise that it is important to be able to process claims as quickly as possible and get awards into payment. However, as with all forms of support, we have to reflect the complexities of real life; the rules may be complex. That is why we do not think it appropriate to rush into making changes.
      7 pm
      We are already aware that in many cases where a dispute arises over who is responsible for a child, its resolution can be time consuming and difficult. Those difficulties are unlikely to reduce if, in future, we recognise more than one claim. It will be necessary to undertake a great deal of detailed discussion and consultation about the practicalities of how we could deliver such a change. For example, we might wish to confine access to child credit to those who care for a child for at least three or four days a week, or, looking at the matter more broadly, for about 40 per cent. of the time on a regular basis. The powers that we have taken would enable such matters to be covered in secondary legislation, which can be fine tuned more readily if necessary, following detailed considerations and consultation.
      I hope that I have made it clear that the Government's intention is as was stated on Second Reading, in Committee and in the debates in another place, and that that is purely to provide for a secondary legislation route if at any time we need to take account of shared care.
      I have been careful to give a fuller explanation to the House on this issue because it had not been covered previously in debate in Committee or on the Floor. I hope that hon. Members recognise that it is necessary to have the power, although it does not mean that we will use it, because there is a long way to go in changing the system before such a power could be contemplated.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 31 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

    Clause 17

      FINAL DECISIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 32.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Dawn Primarolo.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 65, 67 to 71, 74, 79, 82, 83, 87, 89, 90, 92 and 94.
      Mr. Webb: I apologise if, by my earlier remark, I indicated that I would not speak on this group of amendments. Something that arose in debate prompted me to make a brief comment. Lords amendment No. 36 would insert a new clause, subsection (5) of which refers to the

      929
      revision of decisions. It arises from our earlier discussion about the revision of decisions where a person is being made an award on the basis of an out-of-date P60 and then, within a year, they get a revised decision. I have one question for the Minister, which I hope to put briefly and simply.
      The new system is starting in eight or nine months' time and everyone will be starting afresh on it. Let us assume that, very roughly speaking, the income of three quarters of the population goes up from one year to the next, as a result of inflation and so on, and the income of the remaining quarter goes down—in reality, most people's income goes up. In terms of revising decisions, is it correct that the three quarters of people who, for the sake of argument, will be assessed in March 2003 on the basis of their 2001–02 P60, will be overpaid and then, a few months into the financial year, will have to have that award revised downwards in light of their 2002–03 P60?
      Will it be the case that, three months into the system, three quarters of all tax credit claimants will have their awards revised downwards? What effect will that have on public perceptions of the system? Will everyone face revisions, will most of them be downwards and will that undermine the system?
      Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is asking a question on quite a technical point. My understanding is that the answers to his questions are basically no, no and no, but I shall read what he said in the Official Report. This comes back to the way that calculations of what has already been received are taken into account when deciding future entitlement. The ability to revise is exactly that—for instance, where an application may be moving from previous year to in-year—so it does not imply what the hon. Gentleman said; quite the contrary.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 137 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

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

      IMMIGRATION
      That the draft Immigration (Entry Otherwise than by Sea or Air) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

  Brightlingsea Shipyard
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am privileged, and indeed extremely grateful, to have been granted the opportunity to raise the subject of this Adjournment debate—the development of the James and Stone shipyard, Brightlingsea. I should explain that the shipyard is quite a large site on the waterfront of a small Essex fishing town on the Brightlingsea creek, which is part of the River Colne estuary in my constituency. The site has been derelict for a number of years: it certainly requires development, and no one would oppose the principle of development. What is wanted, however, is development that is sympathetic in character to the town and in scale with the existing buildings of the town; that is the nub of the case that I wish to present to the House and the Minister this evening.
  I have set out all the salient matters in correspondence both with the Deputy Prime Minister, who now has responsibility for planning matters, and with his predecessor, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). I very much hope that having read those and other representations the Minister will see fit to call for a full public inquiry into that planning application, which is in effect trapped in outdated thinking, and I shall set out the reasons why. The result would involve plonking a very large and inappropriate development into that very sensitive site in an historic fishing town, which would be to the detriment of the community.
  Before I set out the key points, I should add that the situation has had a long gestation. For many years, I have been seeking to engage the developers in more constructive conversation and the local authority in putting more severe pressure on the developers to produce more practical and sensible proposals and to engage the townspeople more actively in the process. In the end, I got the false impression that the scheme would be accepted. It was only when I finally launched a campaign to hold a public inquiry that I was absolutely overwhelmed by the strength of representation against the development and in favour of a public inquiry.
  I have circulated a questionnaire, and the response has been huge. There have been no more than a couple of dozen returns against. It is overwhelmingly in favour of a public inquiry. I hope shortly to submit a petition to the House that will carry a substantial number of signatures, certainly representing a substantial minority of those on the voting register in Brightlingsea, if not a majority of those who live in the town. I have the support of the town council in making these representations. So let there be no doubt that there is overwhelming public support for the position that I have adopted, and that the townspeople have moved from sullen acceptance of what they thought was inevitable to the hope that Ministers might be able to do something to rescue the situation.
  I also wish to place on record the fact that I do not believe that the local authority is to blame for this situation, because planning policies have developed very dramatically in the past 10 years. We started with an

  931
  out-of-date concept of what the development should be. Outline planning permission was given some 10 years ago for a very much larger development than modern planning guidance would suggest is reasonable. That is shown in a curious conflict: the current local plan, which is nearing its renewal date, suggests not more than 100 residential units for the site, but the outline planning permission already allows for 150 units. If one looks at the design brief, which is also much more recent than the outline planning permission, it becomes apparent how the difficulties have arisen.
  The local authority has been trapped in a conundrum involving a succession of events, and it is pre-committed to proposals that would not be acceptable if they were begun from scratch now. Indeed, they are completely out of line with the much more enlightened planning policies on modern and sensitive design. Some of those policies were introduced by the previous Government, but I fully admit that others have been introduced by the present Government.
  As I say, the planning authority is preparing to grant approval in principle based on conforming with the outdated design brief, which gives a range of 100 to 150 units, although the local plan gives only 100 units. The authority appears beholden to the numbers in the design brief, which is 14 years old, antiquated and quite inappropriate for today's standards. An impracticable and unsustainable development is proposed. The new design brief, based on modern thinking and reflecting Brightlingsea today, would specify a much more limited and sympathetic development.
  The design brief is inherently flawed: it is impossible to see how 150 units could ever be delivered, given the other requirements of the brief, according to which the development should
  "be sympathetic to its position within the Brightlingsea Conservation Area in terms of style, diversity and scale"
  and
  "maintain and enhance the sense of place at The Hard".
  I should emphasise that the Hard is social centre of activity on Brightlingsea waterfront, where people sail small craft and a few yachts—all very much locally based waterfront entertainment.
  Bob Russell: There are lots of beach huts.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may he a regular visitor to those beach huts, and I am grateful to him for his support today.
  The design brief goes on to say that the buildings should be
  "set back into the site"
  and of
  "domestic and vernacular scale…in sympathy with the neighbourhood".
  There is absolutely no doubt that the proposed buildings are not set back or built in vernacular style, as a layman would understand it. I am not allowed to show the plans on the Floor of the House, so I have to describe them.
  There is a problem with any waterside development in a place like Essex in that all the new housing has to be built above a certain datum that is significantly above the maximum high-water mark of the tide to prevent flooding. Moreover, the properties would be built out of piers that
  932
  are thrust into the creek. Admittedly, many of those piers already exist, but they would have to be raised very substantially to meet the requirement to be beyond flooding level.
  The development would not only be very much higher than the existing buildings on the surrounding land, but would thrust deep into the creek, blocking views, completely dominating the waterfront and completely changing the character of Brightlingsea. It would be detrimental to the amenity that the waterfront provides. Nowhere does the design brief make it obvious that the development would stick into the creek to such an extent and to such a height.
  The current application, if granted, would result in a large, dominant high-density development, which would be out of character with the small scale of the coastal location. It would be a London Thames-side development in character, but it would be imposed on a small Essex creek.
  The proposal exploits the brief to justify a major addition to the site, which would protrude well out from the foreshore. Some 80 units would be on the foreshore, where there are currently no permanent buildings. That would be to the detriment of the harbour, its users and visitors. The harbour is a vibrant summer sailing centre and small commercial port, with national and international regattas and regional events. Some 38,000 visitors are afloat each year, apart from local residents.
  Much training and launching from the adjacent historic Hard and sailing club slipway are at risk because of the proposal's wind effects and the Hard is at risk of silting. It may well be that those technical matters can be addressed, but they underline how big the development's likely impact would be. Although the development would not intrude inside the harbour boundary, it would be right against the narrow fairway, where people launch and haul out their boats and where ships manoeuvre at high tide.
  As I have already said, the views are unique to the town. They are the superb, unspoilt coastal Essex views across the Colne estuary to Mersea island and over to the Blackwater estuary. Those views are important in attracting 188,000 tourist and leisure visitors to the town each year, and the numbers are growing. The views will be largely blocked by the development on the foreshore. Some 90 local jobs are sustained by tourism and leisure.
  I have written to the Deputy Prime Minister about the environmental concerns which have been raised by English Nature. The conundrum at the heart of the proposal is that it is intended that the environmental concerns should be addressed by closing the marina, which will be enclosed by the large piers, for a proportion of the year. Practically speaking, what is likely to happen is that once the marina is built, and people have their boats there, they will want to take them out at times different from the season. Of course, they will want to keep testing—reapplying for—the planning permission to open up the marina for different times of year. I guarantee that it is only a matter of time before the condition placed on the development is ignored or set aside, as it will come to be seen as completely unreasonable. Whether or not it is the right place for a major marina—there is certainly scope for mooring of boats and a small—scale marina—it is wrong that environmental concerns should be addressed in this temporary and unsatisfactory way.

  933
  As a final aside, there are serious traffic concerns about a major development at Brightlingsea. Only one access road into the town exists, the B1029, which is an accident-prone access road that ends at a tangle of narrow streets and blind bends by the site. The local plan notes that traffic and parking are key issues, and the town council is particularly concerned that those have not been sufficiently addressed. The highways authority avoided its responsibility, however, by making no comment whatever on the application. That reflects a general neglect of Brightlingsea.
  Brightlingsea is a town right on the edge of Essex—people never go there unless they are going there. Not many people really know Brightlingsea. I know Brightlingsea. It is one of the favourite corners of my constituency, an historic Cinque port, which gives a sense of the history of the place. Part of the development of the site includes what is known as "The Old Wreck House". The people of Brightlingsea are a very stable population with a tremendous community spirit, and they feel that their wonderful town is very precious. The development represents a very serious threat.
  A viable, sustainable, medium-density low-rise scheme is possible on the dry land without the considerable expense of constructing major new and much higher protrusions from the shore haul. That would meet all the environmental and statutory requirements and be to scale and in character with the location. Such an alternative concept—one has been drawn up by a local architect—could sustain perhaps 50 to 60 units with a variety of community uses, such as retail and so on.
  The current application has very little to commend it. I am disappointed that the developers have made so little effort to engage constructively with me to come up with a more viable proposal. Against the background of an outdated design brief, only a full public inquiry can unblock all the issues that have been raised, take a seriously objective view, set aside the history and decide in favour of what the vast majority of the people of Brightlingsea seem to want—a recommendation for a much smaller and more sympathetic development.
  7.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on securing this debate. As it happens, I know Brightlingsea. The parents of very good friends of mine had a hostelry down in Brightlingsea. Although I confess that I have never been to the beach huts there, Brightlingsea was at that time blessed with several hostelries that were all rather close to each other. That made for inviting tours, popping in and out of each one. I did that many years ago, so I am familiar with the location and the description given by the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman's interest in the proposed redevelopment of the James and Stone shipyard site comes as no surprise because, as he said, he made the Government Office for the East of England aware of his concerns about this matter back in February. I am also aware that he subsequently wrote on 30 April to the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr.
  934
  Byers), setting out his concerns in more detail and requesting that the planning application be called in for my right hon. Friend's determination. Tendring district council was formally directed on 14 June, under article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, not to grant planning permission until we have had the opportunity to decide whether call-in would be appropriate.
  Before I proceed, it might be as well to remind the hon. Gentleman that our general approach is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for day-to-day planning control in their areas, and it is right that they should normally be free to carry out those duties. There will be occasions, however, when we may consider it necessary to call in a planning application for determination by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister instead of leaving the decision to the local planning authority. Our policy is to be very selective about using that power and, in general, we will take that step only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. We have given as examples of cases that might be called in: those which may conflict with national policies on important matters; those which could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality; those which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy; and those which may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments. I am not saying that the shipyard falls into the latter category.
  In addition, potential candidates for call-in are those applications that raise significant architectural and urban design issues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that our consideration of this case has only just begun, and that it will be a while yet before we will be in a position to reach a view as to whether call-in would be appropriate.
  Mr. Jenkin: I had not thought of raising the issue of national security, and I shall refrain from doing so. I submit that I make this plea on the grounds of architectural and urban design. I ask merely that the Minister refers to some of the very enlightened spatial development policies that the Government have introduced in recent years and that the Deputy Prime Minister has championed. The Minister will see that this development falls far short of what we expect in modern planning guidance. I hope that he will consider it in those terms.
  Mr. McNulty: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will touch on many of those policies and policy documents to which he refers.
  As I was saying, I can give no undertaking at this stage about a call-in, and neither would the hon. Gentleman expect it, given my position. I can assure him, however, that the case will be looked at on its individual merits, and that very careful consideration will be given to the arguments for intervention that he has made today and in writing. I should make the point that in reaching our decision on call-in, we will look solely at the issues raised by the proposed development and not at its planning merits. It is not for us to judge whether planning permission should be granted, but only to decide whether that decision should be taken by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister rather than Tendring district council, which is, essentially, the call-in process.

  935
  The hon. Gentleman underlines the importance of design in new development, and the Government are committed to encouraging good design. It is central to creating high-quality, sustainable places wherever new developments take place. It is central to delivering the vision set out in the urban White Paper, and is integral to the rural White Paper. Urban design is the art of making places for people. It is not just about making places visually attractive, important as that is, but is crucial to how places function, to maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of villages, towns and cities, to regenerating rundown areas, and to creating safer communities where people feel secure.
  The planning system is a key means of delivering good design. Planning policy guidance note 1, "General Policy and Principles", sets out what is embraced by design and looks to all developments to uphold the principle of good design. It is policy to encourage good design and reject poor designs. That is underlined in more recent PPGs, and in particular in PPG 3 on housing. We expect local planning authorities to promote developments that bring together environmental, transport and planning best practice to create places with their own distinct identity and yet which are sympathetic to the local built environment. New development should help make places that are safe, attractive and of a quality that will endure. It should also be in sympathy with the character and setting of its surroundings.
  Policy on design is supported by a number of good practice guides, and the hon. Gentleman alluded to some of them. "By Design", the companion guide to PPG 1, sets out the key principles of good urban design, how they might be applied and how to incorporate them into the planning and development process from the pre-application stage right through to the planning decision. "By Design" makes it clear that, as a matter of good practice, the fundamental design principles of a scheme should not be relegated for later consideration. They must be acceptable at the time that planning permission for the development is granted. "Better Places to Live", the companion guide to PPG 3, sets out the design principles and good practice that can secure quality in the design and layout of new residential environments, and it is equally important. "Places, Streets and Movement" emphasises the importance of designing new housing developments with people, and not just traffic, in mind.
  Local planning authorities may have produced their own design guidance to aid applicants to bring forward development proposals, but they are expected to have regard to the more recent advice on design published by the Department and to ensure that this advice is reflected in any future revision of local design guidance that might be necessary.
  In this case, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that an extant outline consent for development of the site to provide a mix of residential, leisure, marina and ancillary uses was also granted in 1994, with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. That permission was renewed in 1997, and I understand that an application for further
  936
  renewal is also before the district council, although the article 14 direction, which I mentioned earlier and which has been served on the council, prevents it from determining that renewal application.
  Local planning authorities are able to grant outline planning permission and reserve decisions on certain details until a later stage. Applications for approval of reserved matters—siting, design, external appearance, means of access and the landscaping of the site—effectively convert an outline into a full permission and must be approved before work can commence. Although design is a separate reserved matter, as is external appearance, it is important for local planning authorities to remember that urban design goes much wider than simply aesthetics. Siting, means of access and landscaping of the site all impact on the overall urban design.
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is able to call in an application for approval of reserved matters, but I must emphasise that intervention at the reserved matter stage is likely only in wholly exceptional cases. It must relate solely to the reserved matters and cannot look to reopen issues concluded by the granting of the outline planning permission.
  Mr. Jenkin: Given that the previous planning permission is up for renewal and that, if there were a public inquiry, it would consider the renewal of that planning permission, am I wrong to assume that, within the purview of that inquiry, it could conclude that the number of dwellings in previous planning permissions granted has been excessive?
  Mr. McNulty: With the best will in the world and given that I have had this role for only four weeks, I shall certainly not speculate on the outcome of public inquiries that may or may not happen in the immediate future. I am not entirely sure whether the article 14 direction, which would prevent a determination of the renewal, would lump the application for renewal in with the initial application that is before my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that, because I am not entirely sure of the answer and it would be wrong of me to suggest that I am. I shall not be going into the other elephant trap that has been set because I have been in this post for only four weeks.
  Once again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on what is clearly an important issue in his constituency. At present, however, we are concentrating on examining the case for calling in the latest full application. His points, together with those made in the petition when it is presented, will—if they raise material planning matters—be taken into account together with all other material planning matters.
  As I said, I have a personal knowledge of Brightlingsea; I like the town. I have not been there for ages but, given the comments about beach huts, I may be tempted to visit them as well as the hostelries.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Transport (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Mike Gapes: London is booming. More people are living and working in our city, yet our transport infrastructure is inadequate and overcrowded. Trains are unpleasant. They operate at massively overcrowded capacity. Our roads are congested. There are road works and delays. Badly planned junctions and badly phased traffic lights are causing serious problems for people who commute into this city.
It is not all bad news, however, because improvements are being made in some parts of London. I draw attention to the work of the Thames Gateway local authorities. Their document "Transport Agenda" sets out proposals to extend the docklands light railway from City airport to connect with the north Kent line and the tunnel connection between Silvertown and the Greenwich peninsular, and the shared use of the Thames Gateway bridge. They are also supporting crossrail, as are many other organisations. There is currently a stakeholder consultation on the crossrail 1 option.
I want to add my voice strongly to the call that was made some months ago by the Corporation of London for the classic crossrail route—the route from Liverpool Street station to Stratford through Ilford and on to Shenfield. That will be the best option in the early stages for ensuring that pressure eases on the Central line, making conditions far better for my constituents and many others who commute from east London and Essex to work in central London. Hopefully, the channel tunnel rail link will connect at Stratford with crossrail and the Central and Jubilee lines. It is vital that the first development of that beyond Ebbsfleet should go to Stratford, not St. Pancras, because of ease of communications and its ability to take people around London, not through the centre.
Some problems have been caused by a lack of leadership, sensitivity and focus. I shall not concentrate today on congestion charging. We dealt with that in this Chamber about four months ago. I shall not deal with London Underground and the public-private partnership because that will be debated tomorrow. I shall focus today on the problems of Transport for London, an organisation that should be at the forefront of improving matters in partnership with the 32 London boroughs, the Association of London Government and central Government.
Sections 142 to 144 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 require the Mayor to prepare a transport strategy for London and to encompass all forms of transport, including movement of goods as well as people. Section 154 of the Act established Transport for London and its powers. The Mayor is given wide powers of control over TFL. Members of the Greater London
238WH
Authority have limited powers to scrutinise and challenge, but the Labour group and others on the GLA have challenged TFL for its lack of openness and on its ability to deliver on its programme—unfortunately, not with great success.
What, then, are the problems with TFL, and why do they occur? Let me quote from a column in The Independent on 10 June 1998:
"Unfortunately, Gordon's economic misjudgements are the major factor threatening our chance of gaining a second term in office … An insight into Gordon's subservience to the City comes from an examination of the credentials of those he has chosen to appoint to the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England. How on earth a Labour chancellor could feel that a former CIA agent would be of value in pursuing Labour's wider agenda on the MPC is a matter that 'passeth all understanding'."
I was a member of the Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Bill, as was the author of that column, the then Member for Brent, East, Mr. Ken Livingstone, who was elected in May 2000 as the independent Mayor of London.
On Saturday 13 January 2001, BBC Online reported:
"Former CIA agent Bob Kiley has been drafted in to try to save London's ailing Tube network. His four-year contract started on Monday.
It is the most unlikely of alliances: the left-wing rebel, scourge of the Establishment, and the former CIA man and one-time union basher, united against the plans of Big Government.
Now ensconced in a £2m house in Belgravia and on a £2m four-year contract, Kiley is rising to meet the challenge before him. He is said to want to bring 100 of his former American colleagues to manage London's transport"—
Richard Ottaway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mike Gapes: May I finish the quote? I shall then certainly give way. It continues:
"currently run by what Ken Livingstone has cuttingly described as 'dullards'."
Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong point. He will recall that I served on the Committee, too. The Opposition pointed out that this is exactly what would happen. The then Minister was asked what would happen if the Mayor were not of the same party as the Government. We were told, "That can't happen." The hon. Gentleman's party set the authority up that way, and his party must take responsibility for it.
Mike Gapes: My recollection of the Committee—and if we were to read the transcript, we would find that I am right—is that those words were not used, although we may certainly debate what happened all those years ago. I will deal with that matter as I go on.
Mr. Kiley came with an impressive CV. The Sunday Telegraph's City editor, Neil Bennett, wrote last August:
"Ever since he was appointed by Ken Livingstone last year, Kiley has paraded himself as the answer to all the capital's transport needs. He has been regarded as a near-messianic businessman by adoring journalists, who credit him with the transformation of New York's subway from a graffiti-sprayed crack den into a space age neural network.
Kiley's track record in New York deserves closer examination. By the time he quit in 1990, the subway was an altogether more dangerous place than when he had taken over seven years earlier, with a sharp increase in muggings and fires.

239WH
Only months after he departed, the subway suffered one of its worst-ever disasters at Lexington Avenue that caused five deaths and 150 injuries.
Kiley has an unfortunate habit of taking the credit for other people's successes. Much of the improvement in the subway during his tenure should be credited to Richard Ravitch, his predecessor, who won approval for a $6.6bn capital improvement programme. This provided the new trains Kiley likes to talk about so much.
Kiley says less about his consistent failure to hit targets for passenger growth on the network—numbers actually fell in his last year in charge—and his bungling financial management that drove the authority ever-deeper into the red."
TFL recently appointed RMT leader Bob Crow to its board. However, the unions should be wary. In New York, there were no strikes during the changes that took place under Kiley, due no doubt to the state's punitive laws against strikes. Leaders could lose their homes, and for every day of strike action, an employee would lose two days' pay.
Mr. Kiley has little experience of running a modern and complex bus service and comes from a city in which buses are still in the dark ages, with no advanced technology, few bus lanes, no effective route co-ordination and half the ridership of London. There are 4 million passengers in London, and slightly more than 2 million passengers in New York.
Mr. Kiley's career has been dogged by continual accusations of cronyism and fat cat pay. In New York, he and his sidekick, David Gunn, both earned substantially more than the mayor. In London, he has assembled more or less the same team as was with him in New York, all funded by the London taxpayer.
Another article in The Sunday Telegraph, by Jonathan Petre and Sonia Purnell last August, pointed out that several of the specifically recruited team were paid grossly inflated salaries. An independent report commissioned by Mario Cuomo, then governor of New York, found that some posts had been filled by Mr. Kiley's right-hand man, David Gunn, without having been advertised and that normal job requirements had been waived.
In 1985, a report by the inspector general of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, of which Kiley was then chairman, said that there was "clear salary favouritism". The 1985 investigation by the inspector general, Sanford Russell, found that several staff taken on after Mr. Kiley took over the New York subway had received excessive salaries and expenses. The salaries of a group hired from Pennsylvania, formerly headed by Mr. Gunn,
"increased approximately 80 per cent on average over the previous salaries".
Mr. Gunn, who was president of the New York Transit Authority under Kiley, is one of the consultants on the payroll of Transport for London. Last year, he was said to be Mr. Kiley's first choice to run the tube. However, he is now president of the troubled Amtrak, which is under investigation by the US Senate because its "general state is dire", and faces closure. I am therefore not sure whether Mr. Gunn will be coming over after all. He clearly has more pressing matters with which to deal in the United States.
240WH
Bob Kiley has appointed a large number of Americans to TFL in long-term consultancy positions. Most have worked before with Bob Kiley or Jay Walder in the United States.
Jay Walder is an interesting man. He is the finance and planning managing director, and now calls himself chief executive, of TFL. He is a former professor at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. According to a document that I acquired from within TFL, he was
"employed on a consultancy basis while working at Harvard University".
From November 2000 until the end of January 2001, he provided advice to the commissioner on the PPP proposals and congestion charging—that is, before and immediately after Kiley officially started work for TFL. The fees paid were £18,662. From 5 February 2001, he was hired on a four-year contract worth £200,000 a year as TFL's managing director of finance and performance, although he seems to have time to lecture in the United States. Last week, he gave a lecture on
"Transport for London: A Discussion of Modern Transportation"
at New York City technical college.
I found that information on the internet. It was widely advertised several months ago. I do not know how many other lectures Mr. Walder has given during the period and how much time he has spent in the United States. Those are relevant questions that need to be investigated.
Maggie Boepple, a New York lobbyist who worked on the MTA in New York, was employed from February to August 2001 on a consultancy basis and was involved in early work on the PPP and TFL's alternative investment programme. She was later appointed on a fixed-term contract until 30 October 2002 to manage the transition of London Underground into TFL.
Steve Polan, a senior legal adviser on the MTA, works for a firm called Kalkines, Arky, Zall and Bernstein, which is engaged on a consultancy basis to provide specialist legal advice to the commissioner on financial contracts. The total fees paid to Kalkines, Arky, Zall and Bernstein for work done by Steve Polan to the end of August 2001 amounted to £183,112.
Tom Amenta worked in the finance group of the MTA. He advises on the PPP, focusing on the integration of London Underground. His salary is about £90,000 to £100,000. The total fee paid between November 2000 and the beginning of February 2001 was £28,859. From February 2001, Tom Amenta was employed as a senior projects manager reporting to Jay Walder. His contract ended in March 2002.
Drew Hyde worked for TFL on a consultancy basis between October 2000 and May 2001, and drew fees of £58,540. Charles Monheim has worked on ticketing and the smart card project, and Eric Rothman works for Jay Walder on approval of business plans
In total, about 20 Americans do regular consultancy work for TFL, and they have been given that work through Bob Kiley. The consultants can earn around £1,000 per day, which is all paid for by Londoners through Ken Livingstone's precept on the boroughs and other income generated by TFL.
Tom Brake: In the interests of balance, will the hon. Gentleman set out with similar detail tomorrow the consultancy fees that have been charged by the various consortia that work for the Government on PPP? Alternatively, will he mention Cap Gemini Ernst and Young, which is working on Railtrack in administration? I understand that its fees are £700,000 a week.
Mike Gapes: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his own speech if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall continue with my speech.
Bill Bratton is the ex-commissioner of police in New York city. Previously, he was chief of New York's transit police. TFL paid to bring him to London. He spent lots of his time meeting the Home Secretary, other political figures and people in the Metropolitan police. Bill Bratton runs The Bratton Group in New York city. A TFL document states that the group
"were engaged by TFL to inventory the issues surrounding congestion, bus movement and security".
The group published a report entitled "Adopting a Modern Enforcement Strategy for London's Buses" in September 2001. It is known in London Assembly circles as the Wasserman report, after its principal author and Bratton employee, Bob Wasserman. He is an adviser to TFL and is well known in the American police for his work on the broken window theory: if one deals with the small crimes, the big ones will sort themselves out.
Bob Kiley has made at least 30 key appointments throughout the organisation. As far as I understand, they have not been advertised externally. Some of the appointments are new, and some are major promotions. They include a senior communications position that was advertised at a salary of around £50,000 and appointed at £70,000. Kiley's own speech writer, Sarah Moule, is on around £400 per day plus an agency fee. Jeroen Weimar recently moved from being Kiley's chief of staff to director of corporate services. The sum effect of that is that Kiley and Jay Walder have introduced a regime with centralised power. Kiley's Americans are rewriting the transport strategy at this moment with no consultation whatever, and frequently recommending things that people are querying and saying do not fit into British law or experience.
Kiley and his team are not following correct procedure. They are insensitive and, in the opinion of many people working in TFL, totally ruthless in the way in which they operate. New US staff are being sought all the time. For example, there is an ad on the alumni news and information website of Northwestern university for the transport planning opportunity of the decade: the post of transport planning director in London. It says that the post will be appointed by Transport Commissioner Bob Kiley and Jay Walder, and adds that this is a unique opportunity. That is being advertised on US university websites. I understand that it is not being promoted via human resources at TFL; it is being done directly by the Kiley operation.
Mr. Kiley recently sent someone to Harvard to investigate direct recruitment from there. As I speak, well-paid US consultants and contract-holders are sitting together on the 14th floor of Windsor house,
242WH
where the American colony has been established, watching CNN and Bloomberg TV over coffee, gossiping about baseball, discussing old times together in the CIA and FBI and their operations in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, reading specially delivered copies of The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and The New York Times and planning their next first-class trip back to the big apple. It seems that we have a big problem if an organisation is created and run by an abrasive, autocratic and aloof group of people, who appears to believe that all British employees of TFL who were there before they arrived are not to be trusted.
There is clearly a culture of fear within TFL, and I understand that at least 10 senior British managers earning £70,000 and above have been asked to leave the organisation. On the whole, they appear to have signed gagging orders, and they no doubt received substantial pay-offs in the region of one year's salary. Recent departures include Richard Smith, director of integration, and Mike Swiggs, who was acting chief executive in the pre-Kiley era, and who left his post as corporate director two weeks ago.
Ken Livingstone is chair of TFL, but what has he done? He seems to have some kind of pact with Bob Kiley not to interfere in the management of TFL as long as Kiley gives him good political cover and support on the PPP. There is now no one left in TFL with senior management experience of London Underground. One of the only senior British staff left there is Peter Hendy, managing director of London Buses, who is an extremely wealthy man from buying out his bus company during the Thatcher era, and the improvement in bus services is about the only visible achievement made during the two years of TFL. Then there is Derek Turner, the managing director of street management, who is the only senior manager left from the start of TFL. He will presumably be there as the fall guy when Ken's foolish congestion charging scheme ends in disaster.
It was not meant to be like this. The essence of the Greater London Authority Act was for partnership with the ALG, the boroughs and the Government. However, the Kiley team has acted more unilaterally than in partnership. It has not consulted the boroughs. For example, last year, Jay Walder proposed to change the system for paying the boroughs the intermediate transport programme grant from quarterly in advance to monthly in arrears. That led to very sharp exchanges with the director of the ALG transport and environment committee, Nick Lester, and the boroughs were incandescent. They protested, but nothing changed. The Kiley model is going ahead regardless.
Kiley and his American team seem to believe that London boroughs ought to be in the same weak relationship to the city government as the boroughs in New York are to the New York city government. They do not understand that this is the United Kingdom and that London has a very valuable tradition of strong borough-based local authorities. It is essential, if things are to work effectively in London, that the London administration co-operates and does not ride roughshod over local authorities in our capital.
Richard Ottaway: May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that that was exactly the Opposition's argument in the Committee stage, when he voted against it?
Mike Gapes: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Act, he will see t hat it makes it absolutely clear that there should be partnership between the Greater London Authority and the Mayor, and the boroughs. That is what I am calling for.
Mr. Mark Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mike Gapes: No, I do not have time. I need to make a few more points and then conclude. I understand that other hon. Members want to make contributions. I should be happy to carry on talking but they might not like it.
Recently, London Buses entered into a joint arrangement with the Metropolitan police service for a contract worth £25 million a year. The Met's lead on that project is Commander Alan Shave, and the money is coming from Transport for London to pay for policing relating to bus routes. I gather that that has been introduced rather quickly, without considering whether it will necessarily be value for money. It was not piloted. The contract between TFL and the Metropolitan police service was signed without the business case having been approved. I understand that, as part of the project, a group of 10 TFL and Metropolitan police staff were taken first class to New York to meet police there and to see how they were operating.
Before the GLA came into existence, there was a London bus initiative with the boroughs. Recently, London bus initiative 1 has been developed into London bus initiative 2. Initially, the boroughs played the leading role in the initiative, but now they are being excluded and there is no partnership with them. That was, again, brought in without any consultation or discussion with the boroughs. Centralisation of control is damaging to effective government in London. It is also damaging to the way in which TFL is operated.
It takes, on average, eight months to get basic business cases within the organisation approved. Kiley's team in charge of business cases, run by Jay Walder, decided recently to recruit 10 additional staff to try to clear the backlog of cases that has built up because no one makes a decision, rather than devolving the powers to the managing directors. Everything has to be taken through the centre. The result is that projects are delayed and cannot proceed unless they are Bob Kiley's own pet projects.
TFL was established with optimism. There was much new money to be invested and it seemed that transport in London was at last going to get the work and investment that it needed. Sadly, since the publication of the flawed transport strategy, things have gone from bad to worse. Serious questions need to be asked about why there are so many staff on sick leave, why people believe that stress in the organisation is leading to chaos, why meetings of the chief officer group and its decisions are not minuted, why people get decisions made by talking to Jay Walder in corridors rather than through formal meetings and why there is a culture of a lack of trust of the British employees in TFL by the American management team that has come in and colonised the 14th floor of Windsor house. Serious questions must be asked about the money being spent outside. Fishburn
244WH
Hedges is being paid £60,000 to £80,000 a month to run media relations, despite the fact that there are 11 staff in TFL's media office.
Other issues need to be examined. Questions must be asked, and I call today on the district auditor and the Audit Commission urgently to investigate employment practices. Were posts correctly advertised and filled? How much has been spent on headhunters and consultants here and in the United States? How much has TFL spent on transatlantic flights and hotels for its consultants and employees? Has the equal opportunities policy on recruitment been followed? How much has been paid to experienced staff who have resigned or been dismissed, and how much extra was paid to buy their silence in gagging orders and deals?
Have the various appointments and consultancies been value for money? Was the £1.5 million on legal work, including legal challenges to the PPP and the costs of losing the last judicial review, correctly spent? Was TFL right to spend £37,000 during the 2002 London borough elections on the "last chance for Londoners to say no to the PPP" campaign? Is it appropriate that TFL spent £3 million last year and will spend £7 million this year on matters related to the underground and PPP? Is all that money being spent correctly?
Londoners deserve and need a modern transport system. As chairman of TFL, the Mayor bears ultimate responsibility for the actions and regime of his appointed Transport Commissioner, Bob Kiley. Londoners deserve better, and we want answers.
10 am
Mr. Mark Field: I will deal with issues relating to transport in the capital, particularly the underground. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on securing the debate, which is very important to Londoners and the significant number of people who live outside the confines of the M25 but work in London and rely on transport in London.
When the hon. Gentleman says that the situation was not meant to be like this, I am inclined to say, although I was not in the House at the time, that Conservatives warned the Government about it. The idea that Londoners would elect a London Mayor with a huge personal mandate and that that Mayor, whoever the person was, would not take to himself many centralised powers was unrealistic, to put it mildly.
I shall discuss issues that specifically relate to central London, such as the congestion charge, which I shall mention shortly. Tomorrow, we shall debate on the Floor of the House the report on the PPP by the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The current state of affairs in London Underground is nothing short of a national disgrace. There is little doubt that if animals were subject to the conditions that many underground passengers have to put up with, it would immediately become a national scandal. The problems occur not just in the rush hour but for much of the working day.
Clearly, the massive strategic problem with funding the underground must be addressed. Unfortunately, a case is going to court. The only thing that we can safely say is what the Mayor has said: there will be scratchy public transport for the next 10 years. There is little

245WH
doubt that the London Underground situation will get worse before it gets better, irrespective of the resolution of the court case in the next few months.
The Mayor has significant powers, and I appreciate that the hon. Member for Ilford, South has great concerns about the execution of those powers within the confines of Transport for London. All the bickering will not get us anywhere. It is important that London MPs play their part in facilitating matters. For our part, Conservatives have spent much of the past year encouraging Ken Livingstone and Bob Kiley to ensure that the right thing is done in the interests of Londoners. We have done our best to be constructive in the matter.
However, politicians and, more importantly, our constituents are running out of patience because of the mess that is being created in Transport for London and the poor relationship between the Mayor of London and central Government. At the heart of the PPP issue is the funding of the programmes that we have in place. It is easy for all of us to blame the Mayor or Transport for London, but the Treasury has deliberately held on to the purse strings not just for transport and crucial day-to-day issues concerning transport, which is specifically within the confines of this debate, but for public services as a whole. London gets an appallingly bad deal from central Government.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when looking at transport problems in London, all roads lead to the Treasury? On the PPP, London Underground could be wholly privatised—I would not support that, but it could be done and would have intellectual consistency—or it could remain in the public sector. However, the Government's chosen course of PPP is the worst of all possible worlds.
Mr. Field: I suspect that I shall not utter these words too often in my parliamentary career, but I entirely agree with the hon. Lady's sentiments. PPP is absolutely the worst of the available options. The Select Committee knows considerably more about the details, but it is clear even from a cursory look at the PPP document that the Government are saying that transport in London will get worse for at least the first seven and a half years of PPP's operation, assuming that it can be got under way.
It strikes me that the whole fiasco of Railtrack and the oft-repeated phrase that there would be an integrated transport policy under the Deputy Prime Minister, the former Secretary of State who now has responsibility for the regions, point to a lack of central Government credibility. The Government's transport policy for London and where it is going is greatly worrying.
On congestion charging, the big idea of the Mayor was predicated on the fact that there would be great improvements in public transport prior to the introduction of the congestion charge. Indeed, that is self-evidently necessary because, if the congestion charge is to be effective, it will take some 15 to 20 per cent. of capacity from central London's roads. That capacity must go somewhere and the obvious idea was that it would go into the public transport system.
We have seen a lot of publicity from the Mayor about improvement with the buses. There has been an improvement and there is clearly a long-term investment
246WH
structure for buses in central London. However, the great worry—the reality is undeniable—is that the buses can make only a very small difference in capacity. However much they are improved with bus lanes and so on they will not be able to make the necessary difference. The flag that has been run up by the Mayor and Transport for London that buses are the answer to all the problems prior to the introduction of congestion charging is a political red herring. Things will get worse before they get better, and it is now incumbent on the Mayor of London to postpone congestion charging for the foreseeable future until those improvements are in place.
As many hon. Members know, my local council—Westminster city council—is taking the matter to the High Court in the middle of July. It is regrettable that it has been forced so to do, but it is understandable given the concerns of many local residents.
Mike Gapes: Does the hon. Gentleman suspect, as I do, that the Mayor might secretly welcome Westminster city council's legal challenge because a delay in introducing the congestion charge might avoid a political fiasco and disaster for him?
Mr. Mark Field: I had suspected that and I pacify a number of my local residents associations and constituents on that basis. My only caveat to that theory, which goes back to funding, is that the one significant benefit of congestion charging for Mr. Livingstone, over and above the environmental advantages and other political aspects that have driven the policy forward, is the prospect of £130 million to £150 million a year that he can securitise for transport and other projects in the years ahead. So little money is coming through from central Government that he may find it difficult to resist such a prospect, notwithstanding the potential political fiasco, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, of introducing a congestion charge in that way.
London needs a strong and credible Mayor with the legal authority to drive through an agenda. Unfortunately, over the past two years, we have had little more than a media personality using his celebrity to proclaim a vision without any idea of how to deliver it.
Central Government need to understand that the devolution of power in London must at the same time ensure that the city is suitably rewarded for being the economic powerhouse of the country. It is little short of a disgrace that the Government have largely ignored the quality of life of so many Londoners. They are happy to take the taxes, the increased stamp duty and inheritance tax that flow from the wealth created by Londoners, but do not invest in the basic transport infrastructure that is so necessary.
10.10 am
Ms Diane Abbott: Transport is one of the most fundamental issues for all Londoners, whether rich like some of the voters in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), or poor like many of my constituents in Hackney. It is a crucial issue for people who use public transport, but also for those who do not. There are no more passionate advocates of

247WH
investment in public transport than London taxi drivers, who know that in order to make a living travelling around London, it is essential to ease the congestion, which requires state-of-the-art 21st century public transport.
Transport was a key issue in the last mayoral campaign. Let me remind my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and Conservative Members that my party brought the whole weight of the Labour machine to bear in the last mayoral campaign in support of policies such as PPP—and it was humiliatingly smashed. A good man whom I personally like and admire, the then Member for Holborn and St. Pancras ended his national career in a regrettable way.
It amazes me that colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South are still trying to re-fight the mayoral campaign. Too many of my Labour colleagues are like Japanese soldiers in the jungle, still fighting the second world war. They cannot acknowledge that Ken Livingstone won on a policy that is directly contrary to those that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and others are still trying to peddle. Londoners were opposed to PPP. Ken beat the Labour party on PPP in the mayoral election. Londoners remain opposed to PPP. By the time the next mayoral election comes around, Londoners will not have seen any gains from PPP. Colleagues arguing that PPP is the way to get things done will have to eat their words.
On behalf of Londoners, I urge my colleagues to put an end to this petty and personal sniping at the Mayor, which is based on the ignominious failure of the Labour candidate at the last mayoral election, and to work constructively with him. When it comes to the big political issues, such as PPP, the importance of investment in transport, and the need to put pressure on the Treasury to make the money available, the people of London are solidly behind their Mayor. Parties and people who are seen to be involved in petty, personal sniping and retaining tittle-tattle about TFL—
Mike Gapes: Is my hon. Friend saying that she does not care about the way in which Londoners' money is spent? Is it right for the Mayor to appoint a Transport Commissioner and allow him to do what the hell he likes, with no one allowed to query or challenge it? Is my hon. Friend really saying that?
Ms Abbott rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Before the hon. Lady resumes, may I remind her that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is still a Member of Parliament?
Ms Abbott: I am grateful.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, of course I care about Londoners' money. He is as knowledgeable about the legislation and construction of the Assembly as I am, so he will be aware that a detailed structure of scrutiny, appraisal and report ensures that the Mayor and TFL have to account for the
248WH
money penny by penny and year on year through the committees, the Assembly and the reporting systems. The structures exist for scrutiny and to make the Mayor accountable. For my hon. Friend to imply otherwise suggests that he has not read the legislation or has not been to Romney house recently.
Mike Gapes: It is vital.
Ms Abbott: Yes, it is vital. This is where my hon. Friend swept up the tittle-tattle with which he has been detaining the Chamber. Of course it is vital that there is scrutiny and accountability. Fewer public officials in this country have more statutory scrutiny and accountability structures and requirements than the Mayor. Londoners may set their minds at rest. If there is any problem about scrutiny and accountability in relation to the Mayor, I suggest that my hon. Friend takes it to members of the Assembly. The responsibility for scrutiny rests fairly and squarely with the Assembly. Let us kill this notion here and now that there is no scrutiny or accountability where the Mayor is concerned. If anything, the legislation and institutional arrangements provide for an excess of scrutiny and accountability.
On the questions raised about TFL, the people of Ilford are as dependent on transport as anyone else. They will therefore be surprised to read that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South seeks to detain the Chamber this morning with all sorts of whinges and tittle-tattle from nameless people at TFL, rather than to call for more money for transport and an end to the misbegotten public-private partnership, or to work more constructively with the Mayor.
I know that there are many hard-working and pleasant people at TFL, who are no doubt kind to their grandparents, small children and animals. However, as my hon. Friend will be aware, there has been a longstanding issue at TFL about the overall quality of management. I have heard colleagues make the same point about project management, although not everyone at TFL has been lacking. It would be surprising if the new Transport Commissioner did not bring in new people to address the systemic failures in management. Indeed, it would be remiss of him not to. My hon. Friend has gone sweeping the corridors of Romney house for tittle-tattle about complaints about the new management structure, and brought it to the Chamber as if it constituted a substantive critique. The sort of whinges and complaints about Americans with which my hon. Friend has sought to detain the Chamber are inevitable when one is trying to strengthen a management structure that is notoriously weak, with all due respect to individuals. They are inevitable when one is trying to put in place international expertise, to fill the gaps and to make TFL an institution that can manage a 21st century transport system for a 21st century city.
The people of Ilford would prefer a Member who seeks to work positively with someone who is, after all, the elected Mayor. When you sneer at the notion that Ken Livingstone was elected Mayor, you sneer not at the individual, but at the thousands of your Ilford

249WH
constituents who came out and voted for you. You need to take the views of the people of London more seriously.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she is supposed to address the occupant of the Chair, not the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes).
Mike Gapes: I do not want to get into a personal argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), but my constituents may judge me on my record and, no doubt, my hon. Friend's constituents will have things to say about her record in due course. It is important that hon. Members are prepared to represent the concerns that are brought to us. Just because someone has been elected does not mean that they can do what on earth they like for the period of their mandate. We have a duty as London MPs to ensure that public money—our money—is spent properly.
Ms Abbott: As I said, there is no question of the Mayor being able to do what he likes. The law does not allow that. Nor does the Assembly or, if I might say so, the Evening Standard. If there were no Assembly or institutional structures, the Evening Standard would keep any Mayor on his or her toes. The notion that I am saying that the Mayor should be able to do what he likes is nonsense.
To return to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South on Transport for London, there are bound to be stresses and strains as TFL modernises and as the type of international management expertise that it needs is introduced. It would be highly surprising if none of the people who had to leave or modify their working practices had complaints. As I have said, it is surprising that an hon. Member, rather than raise substantive issues, has brought such tittle-tattle before the Chamber.
I want to comment on the congestion charge as a London Member who does not drive and therefore does not perhaps have the same heartfelt feelings about it as other hon. Members. Although I do not drive, I am well aware that in the 14 years that I have represented Hackney, increased congestion has meant that it has taken longer and longer to make the journey to Westminster. A journey that took 30 minutes in the rush hour when I was first elected in 1987 now takes between 45 minutes and an hour. Considering that London is the economic heartland and motor of this country, especially with the financial services in the City, something must be done.
People in other cities in Britain and around the world will examine how the congestion charge works in London. The Mayor has no choice but to see whether it can work. Something must be done because the congestion is an economic and social problem with potential health effects.
The congestion charge is a weapon, but I am mindful of the fact that in a borough such as Hackney many poor people have to drive. A single mother who works shifts as an office cleaner and has to get her child to nursery has to have an old banger to get around. I stand at bus stops and see those ladies. They are not rich, or even
250WH
middle class, but because of the transport deficiencies in Hackney and other parts of London, they have to own a car.
In principle, the congestion charge is right, but as I have told the Mayor in private and now say in public, it must be thought through properly. He must ensure that it will not have an unnecessary detrimental effect while dealing with congestion. Some of the potential inequities must be thought through.
Mr. Mark Field: Speaking for myself rather than my party, I have no objection to the principle of a congestion charge. Ultimately, if we believe in free markets, road pricing is a potential element. However, there is a clear crisis in the public transport system, and the only viable alternative is for people to use their cars, so does the hon. Lady agree that now cannot be the right time to introduce such charges? The Opposition have also raised ongoing concerns about the fact that congestion has become worse with TFL's policy of reducing three-lane roads to two-lane roads and altering traffic light sequencing. When the charge is introduced, some of those changes may be reversed and prove that the congestion charge has improved the situation from very bad to not quite as bad.
Ms Abbott: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments, and there is a sense in which the congestion charge is a gamble. It has never been done in a city of the size and density of London, so it must be carefully thought through, but I suspect that there will never be a right time to introduce the charge. It would have been better to see a step change in the quality of public transport before we introduced the congestion charge. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South had spent some of the energy that he spent on petty personal sniping against the Mayor on trying to get the Chancellor of Exchequer to provide the funding and support needed to give Londoners the public transport that they deserve, his constituents would have reason to be grateful.
I do not want to detain the Chamber, because I know that many hon. Members want to speak. However, it would be wrong for this debate to pass without reminding the Chamber that London's elected Mayor retains the support of most Londoners for his transport policies. In particular, all the polls show that he retains the support of most Londoners for his opposition to PPP, and that Londoners are grateful to TFL and the GLA for the improvements that have been made to bus services.
Londoners are looking to hon. Members on both sides of the House to stop engaging in the petty warfare that stems from the mayoral campaign, to look forward and to work constructively with the Mayor. No one can say that he has not attempted to run an inclusive administration, and to work with people. The time is long overdue for some of my colleagues to put their anger and bitterness about the mayoral campaign behind them and to seek to work constructively with the Mayor. The people of London deserve no less.
10.25 am
Richard Ottaway: The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) hopes that this debate will be the end of

251WH
petty warfare. I suspect that it is very much the opening salvo of what will become a sustained campaign over the next 22 months, and that it will be entrenched rather than petty warfare.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on securing this debate on an important subject. In truth, however, he missed his opportunity. As we look around the Chamber, we see the Minister, who has given up a morning to be here, his officials, the people who run the building, and members of the public who have come to listen. In fact, we have witnessed internal warfare between the various factions of the Labour party. It is a shame that such debates are used in that way.
To respond to the speech by the hon. Member for Ilford, South, if ever there were an endorsement of the Opposition's position during the passage of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, that was it. Most of the things that he complained about were things that we said would happen. He is right to raise those issues, but he must accept that that is what devolution means. His party is committed to devolution in a way that my party is not, but that is what democracy is all about. As the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, Mr. Livingstone was democratically elected—he got his mandate. If the hon. Member for Ilford, South does not like the way that the Mayor is running the show, tough. That is what politics is all about.
The hon. Gentleman made some quite serious allegations about the conduct of a number of officials at the Greater London Authority. [Interruption.] I am prepared to give way to him if he says that he will repeat those allegations outside the Palace of Westminster.
Mike Gapes: Many of the things that I said were quotes from press articles published in August last year. Other quotes were from the internet. They are already public information
Richard Ottaway: That is a slight fudge of an answer. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his allegations outside this Chamber?
Mike Gapes: I see no need to do so. I am happy that my information is based on reliable sources.
Richard Ottaway: That sounds like a waiver of privilege to me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No hon. Member can waive their privilege.
Richard Ottaway: I hesitate to disagree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that the courts have found that there can be a waiver of privilege. Anyway, I do not want to dwell on the point and I am sure that you are right. I shall move on because we have limited time.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South said that the boroughs were not being properly consulted and their views were being overridden. The Opposition tabled an amendment to allow the boroughs more powers and more involvement, but the hon. Gentleman voted against it in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
252WH
The hon. Gentleman complained about the precept. In Committee, he and I were given assurances that the precept would be capped. However, the cap was lifted in the House of Lords. Two hundred amendments came back and were debated in four hours on the Floor of the House. Among them was the removal of the cap on the precept. That is what happened. The way in which the hon. Gentleman's party took the legislation through the House led to all the things that he has complained about. If he continues with this line over the next 22 months, we will consistently remind him and his party that they are completely responsible for this state of affairs.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. The Mayor has been profligate. He has hired too many special advisers and he has achieved little. There are more pigeons in Trafalgar square than when he started. He has done absolutely nothing as Mayor. We will feel the impact of his policies when he introduces road-user charging. There are two sides to that debate. I happen to be against it. Of all the places in Britain to introduce the pilot scheme for congestion charging, central London is not it. It will lead to a lacuna in the middle. The constituents of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington will be able to drive with ease through the centre of London, oblivious to the complete chaos that will surround the area. It is a disastrous policy, but again the Labour party gave the Mayor the power to do this. It has to live with the consequences. It voted for and welcomed road-user charging. We will hold the Government to account.
There are many more policies that we could talk about for a long time. It is so sad that London has such potential on the transport side. There is a huge underground network, which, if it were run properly and if this disastrous PPP were scrapped, could be the best metro system in the world. We have taxis. We have buses running through the night. The buses have been a success story, but as they have been given an £800 million subsidy, it would be a scandal if they were not. If there is good will on all sides, proper funding and commitment, things can be achieved. The Government are responsible for the present state of affairs and they must answer for it.
10.31 am
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on securing the debate. He heaped praise on the Government for their role in transport and castigated Transport for London. I hope to be a little more balanced. He should perhaps have called the debate "Get Kiley". We would then have known what notes to prepare. I take it that he is against the use of consultants in any capacity, and will object to the Government's use of consultants in relation to PPP and Railtrack in administration and to the £36 million paid in success fees to tube lines. I will listen to tomorrow's proceedings with interest.
What is interesting about the figures that the hon. Gentleman produced on spending on different consultants is that he managed to obtain them. Can the Minister provide hon. Members with a similar level of detail about the spending on PPP and on Railtrack in administration, so that we can see precisely how much the individual consultants who have been working on

253WH
those jobs have received over the past four to five years? I bet the hon. Gentleman that the Minister will tell us that it will cost too much money to produce that information.
The hon. Gentleman was lucky in securing his information. Many of his final questions about the way in which TFL has operated could be addressed to the Government in relation to PPP and Railtrack in administration. I am perhaps disappointed that he did not do that this morning. He said that it was not supposed to be this way. Of course it was not. A compliant Labour Mayor was supposed to be elected. That did not happen and now he is partly to blame for the mess that we are in.
I will not make the tube the focus of my comments this morning because I want to keep my powder dry for tomorrow's debate. There are clearly many unresolved matters to which the hon. Member for Ilford, South did not refer such as the funding gap, whether the financiers now have partial responsibility for safety, success fees and the conflict between what Londoners expect and the reality, in view of the headline figures and the billions that will allegedly be invested as a result of PPP.
Many matters could and should be raised today. Crossrail is an important project, which is vital for the sustainability of London. As regards phase two of the channel tunnel rail link, I hope that the Minister can confirm that the ongoing discussions about Network Rail have not caused problems.
Ms Abbott: Another project, the Chelsea-Hackney line, is vital to my constituents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) should lobby the Treasury for money for it.
Tom Brake: Indeed, it is a vital project for a part of London that has no access to the tube, as I well know from my time as a councillor there.
Congestion charges were the subject of a debate several months ago. If time had allowed, we could have mentioned a positive development at Connex, which has allowed its staff to train as specials. That is a useful development, which I hope other train companies will take up. We could have considered commuter rail services and the franchise negotiations. What is happening to South Central, where is it going in terms of a new franchise, and will it deliver what commuters want?
We could have talked about cycling, and it is a pity that the Mayor is scaling down the plans for the cycle network. We could have talked about road safety. I am concerned about the way in which TFL is operating in that regard. I know of a pedestrian crossing that is desperately needed in my constituency, but we have been told that it will take six months to consider the matter. Work must be done on such issues.
There are problems with consultation. TFL recognises that it is perceived as seeking views on schemes after they have been drawn up, rather than at the formative stage. It is belatedly undertaking to provide clear and accessible information, to consult on schemes at the formative stage and not to refuse to attend local meetings to which it is invited, which is clearly important. Minicabs are a significant issue in London, but what progress has been made on licensing?
254WH
There is the issue of co-ordination between train-operating companies and those that run the Croydon tram. Information about connections with the tram system is, for instance, not available to people who buy tickets at Connex stations.
Those are some of the issues, but, in the few minutes that remain, I want to concentrate on buses, to which the hon. Member for Ilford, South referred. TFL must significantly improve the information that it provides and, more specifically, the countdown system. For the benefit of those who do not use the buses, that system tells passengers, in theory, when the next bus is due. Some 4,000 displays are to be installed by 2005, but that is not ambitious enough. We must ensure that information about the arrival of buses is available throughout the network, because that is the only way to get people on to the system. In future years, any significant sums that we raise through congestion charging could be used to achieve that.
The accessibility of buses is a significant problem in London and, I suspect, elsewhere. Ramps may not work, or drivers may not be trained to use them. Those who have been trained may feel unable to use the ramps because they are worried that they will not be able to pull them back in. The bus would then have to stop, everyone would have to be thrown off, and a replacement bus would have to be found. I hope that TFL and the Government will tackle those significant issues, which may also require action elsewhere.
I think that all hon. Members agree that London is not moving, and the Minister must accept that he shares responsibility for the crisis. His Government were responsible for drafting the legislation, his party was responsible for creating Ken the martyr and for underfunding London's transport infrastructure for many years.
10.39 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: I quote:
"The capital is bogged down with funding arguments, planning arguments, congestion charging scheme arguments, endless roadworks and projects that are already facing ballooning costs. London needs investment and delivery of significant improvements to keep it on the move. Political infighting over the past two years has let London down at the very time swift, decisive action has been required."
So concluded Tourism Alliance in its report published in April 2002. That influential body, led by Digby Jones, brings together all the tourism interests in the United Kingdom, but it concentrates on London, where tourism represents economic activity worth about £10 billion each year, about 8 per cent. of gross domestic product. It is London's second largest industry.
Tourism Alliance homed in on the issue of political infighting. If anyone doubted that that was happening, those doubts were removed today. I cannot understand the motive of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) in introducing the debate in the way in which he did. I congratulate him on his success in the ballot, but it is regrettable that he chose to spend half an hour laying into people who are in no position to defend themselves in this Chamber, instead of concentrating on the real issues that affect Londoners, such as the appalling state of transport in London. I do not know

255WH
whether he has been put up to it by the Government, who are worried about what may happen in the High Court in July—
Mike Gapes: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not been put up to it by anyone.
Mr. Chope: I accept that. The hon. Gentleman takes full responsibility for what he said, but this is part of a pattern, whereby Labour Members are more interested in political in-fighting and point scoring than in delivering services to Londoners.
Let us remind ourselves of the awful nightmare in which Londoners currently live. Traffic crawls at 9.9 mph, the lowest speed since the era of the horse and cart. The Mayor of London has taken down his red flag from County hall and now carries it before him on the streets of London. In any 24-hour period, almost the same number of vehicles enter London now—1.6 million in 2001—as in 1987, when the figure was 1.59 million, yet as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, her journey has increased during that time from 30 to 45 minutes because of congestion. That congestion is not caused by an increase in vehicles, because there is hardly any increase in the number of vehicles entering London; it is caused by other factors, such as road works, manipulation of traffic lights and ill-designed traffic-calming schemes.
Back in the days of the Greater London council, I remember a half-baked scheme to try to close off most of the roads in London. Fortunately, that scheme did not go ahead because of central Government intervention, but we now have an independent Mayor, who seems to be able to achieve now what he was unable to achieve before.
Significantly, road safety is deteriorating fast. In spite of the lowering of traffic speeds, we are witnessing totally unacceptable carnage on London roads. Some 357 people were killed on London's roads in 2001, an increase of 73, or 25 per cent., on the previous year's figure. Almost one in 10 of the people killed on Britain's roads are killed in London, where the traffic is travelling relatively slowly. That is a major indictment of Transport for London and the Labour party.
Ms Abbott: Briefly on the point about road safety, there are particular concerns about children. The sad fact is that children in poor areas are far more likely to die on the road than other children. That is a serious issue.
Mr. Chope: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. When I was the Minister responsible for road safety, I was conscious of that. I am disappointed that the road safety statistics are now going in the wrong direction and that the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of society are suffering most.
London has the most disrupted, overcrowded and costly underground network in the world. We shall debate that tomorrow, so I will not pursue the matter now. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ilford, South would
256WH
have been better employed dealing with London Underground rather than attacking the personalities involved in the debate.
What is the prospect for the future? It is for more litigation, more political in-fighting, higher fares and charges, more congestion and pollution and the nightmare of congestion charging—40 or 50 per cent. of it to be paid for by the people living by the gateway at which the charges will impact. That will create diversion of traffic, distortions in the market, additional journeys and a nightmare for Londoners. We have the prospect of higher tube fares or much higher precepts in order to deal with the enormous funding gap that has been identified in the papers for London Transport, particularly for London Underground. There might have been some improvements on the buses, but overall the costs have shot up, investment has fallen and service is deteriorating. It is a nightmare, yet the hon. Member for Ilford, South spent hardly any time talking about that.
In contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made some constructive comments, based on his experience and that of his constituents in facing up to what is happening in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) rightly drew attention to the extent to which the hon. Member for Ilford, South must share responsibility for what has happened: he is the joint author of the situation that he described so vividly. He introduced us to superb political theatre. The fantasy was enhanced by clear evidence of his short-term memory loss: he had been involved in the wrong side of the argument when Conservative Members were warning Londoners of the consequences of what the Government were doing.
The Government's attitude seems to be to say, "Hands off. It's nowt to do with us guy. The congestion charging scheme is a matter for the Mayor. We are not involved in it." There was an amazing response in the other place whenViscount Astor asked whether the Government endorsed the Mayor of London's proposals on inner-London congestion charging. He was told by the Minister responsible, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston:
"The particular scheme that the Mayor of London is planning to introduce is his responsibility, not the Government's."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 June 2002; Vol. 626, c. WA81.]
Today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has briefed us on what he will say at the Mansion house dinner tonight. He has said how important it is to increase productivity. At the same time, the Government are saying that they are not interested in actions taken by the Mayor of London that will result in higher costs and lower productivity, more congestion and less competitiveness for London. That is a disastrous situation. It has been brought about by the folly of the Government's policies over the past few years. It is incumbent on the Government to own up and accept responsibility, apologise and do something to help Londoners to get out of the jam that they are in.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes)

257WH
on securing this important debate. I often sit in debates, listen to Back Benchers on both sides of the Chamber, and to Liberal and Conservative Front Benchers. I have long given up on hearing a policy proposal from the Liberals. Today, we heard a former Minister with responsibility for transport, speaking for the Opposition, who gave us little insight as to what his policies would be. I always take note. As a regular contributor to the Chamber, I live in hope that one day a box will open and we will see some of the policies that the Opposition have to offer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South spoke forcefully and eloquently, as always. He raised some important matters. I cannot comment too extensively on the issues to do with the Mayor, but I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend said, and I am sure that it will be noted in other quarters. As we speak, the process of accountability is taking place in the London Assembly itself. The Mayor is answering questions at this very moment.
My hon. Friend raised several important points in his well-researched manner. Transport for London is a best value authority, and it must therefore demonstrate best value for money and services. It is answerable to the district auditor for its plans. The actions of TFL are subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly, and decisions require the approval of the TFL board. Accountability for many of the matters that he raised is down to other sources, and properly so.
My hon. Friend spoke at some length about appointments that the Mayor has made to his management team. That is a matter for the Mayor. If the voters do not like what he has done, or are concerned about the matters that my hon. Friend has raised forcefully today—I am sure that they will be mentioned at any future election—it is for the people of London to hold the Mayor to account. I am sure that they will.
My hon. Friend gave an outline of how things were in London. If we are to sustain a vibrant and flourishing economy across Britain, and particularly in London, we need to reform and to invest in our transport infrastructure. Our transport system has suffered not years but decades of under-investment. Wherever we look, whether at rail, road or air, there are tremendous strains and stresses. However, we are the world's fourth largest economy. I am pleased to say that in recent years our economy has grown and improved.
London is important not just in Britain but as a world city. It is a major financial and business centre. I note that the latest Healey and Baker European cities monitor rates London as the best European city for external links and the second best for internal travel. It is worth putting London in the context of the rest of Europe. However, we should not be complacent. The scale of London and the complexity of the transport system, coupled with the enormously high demand, mean that the city's transport problems are of a considerably different magnitude to those in other parts of the country. London's successful economy has placed great strains on roads, rail and the underground network, especially at peak times. I am sure that the pressures of demand will increase.
It is worth giving a statistic: since 1989, London's population has increased by 600,000. That is roughly the population of a city such as Sheffield. In the next few
258WH
years, London's population will further increase substantially. It is probable that something like the population of Leeds will be added to it, although I am not saying that everyone will move from the north to London. There are many more people now in work. There is more economic activity, and so more strain on London's transport system.
The 10-year plan that we published two years ago set out our vision and objectives, and the means by which we will achieve real change this decade.
Ms Abbott: The Minister mentioned the importance of transport to people who work. However, I remind him that there are big pockets of unemployment in London, and developing the transport infrastructure has an important role to play in regenerating areas such as my constituency.
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and what she said applies throughout the country. It is necessary to improve transport, especially bus services, for people who are not in work or who live in areas of long-term high unemployment. There are certainly large pockets of wealth in London, as there are large pockets of poverty; that is the position in many other cities. Improving transport links, particularly to enable people to enjoy some of the benefits of the improvement in the economy, are important.
Tom Brake: Can the Minister confirm that there has been no threat to the channel tunnel rail link phase two, and that that is not the reason why the negotiations about Railtrack in administration and Network Rail seemed to have been prolonged?
Mr. Jamieson: I am hoping to cover such matters later.
The plan takes a long-term approach to the problems that face us. It is a working document. We want to see it develop. We have put in place the funding to carry out many schemes. I am pleased that the stop-go funding that characterised previous Governments has now come to an end.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and others mentioned the crossrail development, in which much interest has been shown. The Government will support viable proposals for a new east-west rail link across London. The project is highlighted in the transport plan as potentially contributing a 15 per cent. increase in seating capacity on the rail and underground network in central London during the morning peak. I know that my hon. Friend has particular ambitions and the actual detail of the project will come to pass shortly.
We are debating London Underground tomorrow on the Floor of the House, but it would be remiss of me not to refer to it today. Through the PPP, the modernisation of the tube is almost ready to begin. The plans are designed to unlock unprecedented sums for investment—some £16 billion over the next 15 years, including £4 billion from the private sector.
We know that London Underground's old procurement methods have let down passengers. The Jubilee line extension was a prime example, being late

259WH
and with a 76 per cent. cost overrun. By contrast, the modernisation plans under the PPP provide the right incentives to contractors and give them the freedom to innovate, to seek efficiencies and to satisfy customers. We have great confidence in the PPP. We want it to work. We want the extra investment that is so needed in our transport system.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and others drew attention to congestion charging. I cannot comment on the legal challenge that has been made by Westminster. That is a matter for Westminster and the Mayor to sort out between themselves. We are keeping a close eye on the development of congestion charging. We provided such powers under the Greater London Authority Act, and other Acts have given local authorities throughout the country the ability to introduce congestion charging. Enabling powers have been given to the GLA and local authorities. It is for those authorities to make sure that they account democratically to their local population for schemes, whether they work or whether they do not. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that improvements to public transport must go hand in hand with the congestion charging policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made a similar point.
Whenever I speak at meetings outside London, all I hear is that the south-east and London are getting all the money, so it is interesting to hear those who represent constituencies in and near London saying that the money is not being spent in London. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will know that, under the 10-year plan, £182 billion will be spent—a massive 44 per cent. increase on the previous decade—and that £25 billion of that sum will be allocated to London in the next 10 years. That is a substantial amount of money.
As always, I have not had time to respond to all the points that have made in the debate, which at times was more like a London Assembly debate than a debate in the House of Commons. None the less, I have enjoyed it and many valuable points have been made. If hon. Members wish to pursue points that were not answered, I shall be delighted to do that through correspondence.

Political Party Funding
11 am
Matthew Taylor: I start by saying that I welcome the debate. Given the interest of several hon. Members who hope to participate, I know that the subject is a matter of considerable interest and concern throughout the House. That is indicated also by previous debates on ten-minute rule Bills and Adjournment debates on the subject. Those debates had one thing in common; they were serious efforts to address the real issues that surround state funding of political parties, the problems of the present system and the public's perception that the emphasis is on scrabbling around for large amounts from a few individuals which raises worries about undue influence or access being offered or asked for in return.
It was notable from those debates that although political warfare outside the debates is often concentrated on individual examples and criticism of the Government of the time—we can all think of allegations and scandals of possible sleaze and corruption—the debates themselves did not focus on that, but on solutions. I plan to do the same today.
This debate is being held at an important time, because we are clearly entering a process in which there is great focus on major changes that might take place to the basis on which political parties are funded. Research has been undertaken by organisations such as the Institute for Public Policy Research. The Electoral Commission is about to embark on a serious piece of research on both the overall spend of political parties during elections and how parties raise the money. There will be lengthy deliberations, but the process is starting to kick off and the commission will reach its conclusions toward the end of next year. This is an appropriate time for the House to consider the issue.
The reason to hold the debate is perfectly apparent. At a time of declining membership, political parties' fundraising efforts are increasingly focused on small numbers of individuals who are able to pay large amounts. In the past, fundraising was focused on businesses and trade unions, but all parties—especially the major parties—are now focused on encouraging a tiny number of personally wealthy individuals to make very large donations.
At the time of the last election—to give a sense of scale—some individuals made single donations that were more than my party could spend in total; £5 million. That raises worries that affect us all, including my party. Such donations raise the question of what individuals want and might be given in return. That adds to a general reputation that politicians are corrupt and that favours are offered in return for money. I suspect that most members of the population do not draw a great distinction between donations to political organisations and the thought that the party might be in someone's back pocket, although I do not believe that that is the case.
Previous work on the issue was essentially about greater transparency and exposing donations to the light of day. The Neill committee report recommendation to put all donations on the record has not delivered the solution that was expected. It made the process more public, which means that criticisms are

261WH
there to be made. The major reason that the present Government have suffered so much is not that they are any different from any other Government, but simply that they are the first Government to have put the information so publicly on record. Future Governments will suffer in exactly the same way—
Mr. Jim Murphy: More.
Matthew Taylor: Possibly more, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. All political parties raise donations. Opposition parties raise less, because they are in opposition, and, perhaps more importantly, because they are less liable to be asked what favour is involved, as Opposition parties can, by definition, offer less. Nevertheless, the process corrupts the reputation of all political parties, and it is time to bring it to an end.
I believe that partly because I believe that those questions are real. It is hard to understand how a party treasurer or leadership that is desperate for funds does not leave at least a crack open for someone to push for something that is in their interests. At the very least, they will have a level of access that no other person is likely to have; a seat at the top table or personal meetings with Ministers, who undoubtedly—indeed, overwhelmingly—intend to do no more than perhaps say, "Thank you."
An even more important reason for tackling the issue is the creeping process of state funding for political parties. The proportion of funding of political parties undertaken by the state is rising rapidly, but by the back door, and not with public support, a Bill in the House or in a way that has been properly open to public scrutiny. I am not suggesting that the process is secret, but funding is happening in ways that do not involve an announcement that we are moving to a formal system of restricting big donations and replacing them with state support. It is happening with an increase in Short money; huge increases in the case of the Opposition parties. There has been a huge increase in taxpayer-funded political advisers for Ministers, so it is not only Opposition parties that are benefiting; the Government are too.
Research funding has been introduced, and I hear that there may be further increases relating to the introduction of information technology by political parties and the training of activists and officials. All those ways of funding avoid having to make the big announcement that we are going to change the political system, and they do not make the big and necessary change which is to stop the whiff of corruption that surrounds the desperate search for a small number of multi-millionaire donors.
The system is highly undemocratic. It rewards the establishment, of which all of us present are part, in one form or another. It rewards the status quo and penalises those who might try to challenge it. It is extraordinary that the research money explicitly relates to the work of political parties in developing European manifestos and manifestos for Scotland and Wales, but is tied to representation in this place. Organisations such as the Green party or the UK Independence party are excluded, even though the money will help us develop manifesto policies for elections to bodies to which they are elected and in relation to which they compete.
262WH
The current system is the worst of all worlds. The whiff of corruption and the desperate search for multimillionaire donors remain. The current development of central state funding rewards the status quo and is unattached to proper democratic developments and the wishes of the electorate and does not prevent any emerging problems.
What could and should be done? I strongly believe that—as others in the House, from all parts of the party spectrum have argued—we need to end donations of such a size as to suggest that they might influence party or Government policy. That means keeping them relatively small; to thousands of pounds, not tens of thousands, and certainly not hundreds of thousands or millions. I believe that the public are looking for a situation where donations are on a small enough scale that there can be no suggestion or belief that they could possibly influence Government, or the policy of Opposition parties, or that sums of money can buy one's way to the top table of influence; they will be insufficient to do so.
If we are to make that change, it is equally apparent that in a vibrant, functioning democracy, political parties need to be able to raise sufficient funds to do all the work of a democracy. Incidentally, that includes campaigning. The idea that we should fund political parties for everything except the campaign seems to be nonsense. Ultimately, the campaign itself is the most vital ingredient of democracy. The counter-arguments between the political parties, and their ability to communicate those arguments allow the electorate to take their decision. A manifesto of which no one has ever heard, or a policy of which no one is aware, is not part of the process that delivers democratic government.
The campaigning process is important. Therefore, we need a system that will bring in the necessary funding to allow that. If we cut donations to very small levels and do nothing else, I believe that we will not achieve such a vibrant, functioning democracy. The latest figures from the Conservative party show that of their funding of £20 million in a general election year, £1.4 million came from small donations from individual figures. Similar figures could be given for any of the political parties. I use those figures because they are the ones that have recently been analysed.
I believe that we need a system of match funding in which the state links any funding it gives to the individual small-scale donations that are raised. I do not suggest that the rate should necessarily be £1 for £1, 30p for £1 or £3 for £1. The rate will be determined by proper debate about what we need to raise and spend so that political parties can work. That debate has to be tied to the work of the Electoral Commission on the capping of spending by political parties. We need to look at what they can reasonably raise, and what they reasonably need to spend. Clearly, there should be a limit on how much can be raised. If we are going to cap how much parties can spend, there is a limit to how far state funding will go.
Equally, it is important that the funding is tied to legitimate political parties, in the sense that they genuinely contest elections. It may be that, whether it relates to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or this place, there is a minimum requirement to contest seats and attain a minimum level of support. I am not trying to exclude groups because they have an extreme

263WH
view. I am simply saying that we do not want people to set up pseudo-parties, as we have seen in some parts of the world, to access funds to buy themselves a holiday home, a pensioners' rest home or one of the other examples that we have seen.
I have heard an argument that the proposal might help some extreme groups; I would say that we have to contest with them democratically. I would point out that the present system has the potential for one multi-millionaire to fund the British National party, the National Front or any other party at higher levels than the existing political mainstream parties. It is just a matter of chance whether someone comes along with sufficient money to do so.
Under the system that I propose, it is a question of whether they can recruit sufficient individual members willing to put themselves up publicly as party donors, in order to win match funding. I do not believe that the extremists in this country can win that membership support. All the evidence is quite to the contrary. If a group such as the Greens, which has developed in relatively recent decades, could build up membership and a measure of electoral success, why should it not be able to obtain funding in the same way as those of us who are already privileged to be here already? It should be all about the ability to find people who will join, support and make small donations to groups that reflect their political beliefs.
So far, I have made arguments very similar to those of other hon. Members, but the reason, above all, why I wanted to take the opportunity to make my argument was to highlight another issue, on which I shall finish. It is my belief that there have been a couple of major drivers affecting turnout that have tended to be under-stressed. One is a loss of belief in the political system itself. That loss of belief is very closely tied to the feeling that all political parties are much the same and, above all, that they are all in it for themselves; they are all scrabbling around with multi-millionaires and are not really interested in the concerns of ordinary people. All of us here know that that is generally far from true and that we all deal with individual cases all the time, which is our primary job. However, that is the perception and it has gone a long way towards distancing the electorate from the political parties.
The second factor relates to the fact that people are less involved in community groups. That has affected not only political parties, but everything from the Women's Institute to the local parish council. People are less willing to get involved in the community because they can make other choices; through television, through video and through the ability to get in the car and travel much longer distances to join friends and relatives. They no longer have to be involved in the local community in the same way. Because of that, we have seen a huge decline in political membership and in activity on the doorstop. As a response, political parties have increasingly moved their smaller and smaller numbers of troops to a handful of political seats that they think can be won in any election. In a safe seat, people are unlikely to see anyone knocking on the door or much in the way of literature because the activists there will have been asked to go to the next-door seat, which might be more easily won or lost.
264WH
We see that happening as a strategy in all the political parties. We know that where there are the highest levels of political activity, there are the highest election turnouts. Where there are the lowest levels of political activity, there are the lowest turnouts. A process of refocusing the political parties so that they move away from a large number of people concentrating on a small number of individual donors—the high donation unit—and concentrate instead on building individual membership will in itself not only deliver a sleaze-free political funding system, but generate a much higher level of political activity on the ground. Parties will then be forced to concentrate on building membership in order to fund their activities, rather than on a few dinners with multi-millionaires, which is what happens with much of the effort at the present time.
I have some figures, which, again, by chance, relate to the Conservative party. However, I make no particular criticism of the Conservative party. Figures recently released on the breakdown of staff show that, in 1997, the Conservative party employed 59 regional and 147 central staff, but that that has now changed to 18 regional and 172 central staff. That centralisation process is happening across the board.
If we are to have a genuinely vibrant democracy, we need not only to move away from tying funding to very wealthy individuals who inevitably seek some return, but to rebuild the membership on the ground to deliver the electoral message in the conventional way. We should never forget that the original reason for the development of mass-membership parties was the extension of the franchise and the need to get the vote out. It is not simply the case that, somehow, people today are massively less willing to vote. It is also true that political parties spend much less time persuading large numbers of people on the ground to become involved in getting people out to vote. That has made a very significant difference.
Mr. Andrew Love: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the start of his speech. I understand his concern about the very large donations that have caused difficulty across the political spectrum, but how can we move towards a system of state funding, as he suggests, at a time when the standing of politics and politicians is so low? Surely he recognises the considerable difficulties with public opinion in moving in that direction.
Matthew Taylor: I am well aware of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and, not least, the Government. We have a chicken-and-egg situation; if we are not prepared to tackle the reasons for the decline in public standing, one of which is the issue of funding, we will never solve the problem. Therefore, the issue must be faced head on. In the scale of things, we are talking about tiny amounts of money. All in, £10 million or £20 million might be needed to achieve the process.
Crucially, it is exactly that concern that is leading to the development of state funding in a much less upfront way. Back-door funding does not tie in with building membership on the ground or developing dynamic, active political parties. It leads to the freezing of the existing system and the development of central funding of political parties, which is exactly what has led to the near-death of active memberships in other countries in

265WH
which parties have such funding. If hon. Members want a lot of money to go to central headquarters—untied to membership and freezing the success of existing political structures—they should allow development to continue as it is. It does not confront the electorate, and the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph are less likely to run attacking editorials on politicians because we have introduced state funding. But the truth is that we are introducing state funding, although we are doing it in the worst possible way.
It is time that the House said no to that and developed a system that is about making parties concentrate again on attracting and involving ordinary members. That is how we will deliver a vibrant democracy. We have to take it on the chin, because people would far prefer the results of that system to the present accumulation of sleaze that affects every Government, no matter how principled their intentions may be.
11.22 am
Caroline Flint: One thing is certainly true; democracy is not cheap. I have been a member of the Labour party since 1979 and have always been a grassroots activist. I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats, but we in the Labour party value our grassroots activists. I see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), in her place; I can assure the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) that, in Doncaster, we canvass and campaign, even though we are in a safe Labour area. That is probably why the Liberal Democrats have not had much success in Doncaster.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell on securing the debate today. We need a debate in which we can explore several different options, because the subject is complex. Let us have an honest debate about the different ways in which the state funds parties, whether through Short money, MPs' salaries or, at local government level, time off for councillors to carry out their civic responsibilities and allowances for councillors to do their job.
Perhaps we should consider an audit of what is currently provided to allow democracy to flourish. It could be the starting point for further exploration across the party divide of how we can address some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. There is no doubt that we will have a job in achieving public support and confidence in any such moves. Even an audit might cause certain negative reactions. It would be interesting to see how the press and broadcasting media respond to it.
As I said at the outset, democracy is not cheap. In 1997, I had the opportunity to visit America as part of an all-party delegation. We met representatives from Congress and state legislatures. I asked some of them about funding in America, why so much had to be spent and why a reasonable cap was not put on the amount of money allowed to be raised and spent. I was told that a price could not be put on democracy; my response was that if the price were the same for everyone, we would all have an equal chance within the framework.
I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak, but I want to make a few points about some of the areas that could be looked at. The cap on election spending could be revisited to see whether it should be reduced.
266WH
In the debate and in the language we use, it is easy to play to an agenda of defending our position as politicians. Dare I say it, but most of the people I meet from all parties in this House try to do a decent job and represent their constituents well. Across the party divide, we may have different ideas of what we want and how to get it, but we generally have a set of beliefs that drives our politics. Many of those beliefs are tied into how we believe communities can better be represented and served by appropriate laws, depending on where we come from. We should not allow ourselves to fall into the trap of always defending ourselves against the negative backlash against politicians. Whatever we do, politicians will not top a poll of people's favourite profession. Such polls, even on the august "Today" programme, are rather flimsy in their contribution to the general debate about politics.
We should use language that can be branded—perhaps that is not the right word—democracy-building and explain how we can achieve that. I have a couple of ideas to throw into the pot. I believe that individuals who want to make a contribution to a political party should be served in the same way as those who give to charity through the gift aid programme. People often say they are not interested in politics and do not want to take part, but we do not encourage activity and involvement in politics by suggesting that giving to a political party is not as nice as giving to a charity. I fully support charitable giving, but we could consider whether individual donations of up to, for example, £5,000 should be tax-free.
Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Lady remember that the Neill committee suggested in 1998 that there should be tax relief for donations? I am not trying to cause her difficulty—I am sure that I could not even if I tried—but the proposal was turned down by the Labour Government.
Caroline Flint: As I have said, today we are debating how to move forward. I am making my contribution to that debate and I believe that such matters are up for discussion again. The Labour party never thought, having had openness and transparency in our funding rules before 1997, that when we came into government and proposed legislation to make political funding more transparent, that would not calm or reassure people, but would lead to negative press comment so that everyone who gives money is scrutinised. That is not good for democracy.
The debate is open again and we should revisit areas against which political parties, including my own, may have set their face. I am referring to relatively small donations that people may want to make because they feel it is their civic duty; those people are interested in politics and want to be part of it.
Another area that is worth considering is the establishment of what I would call a democracy fund. By that, I mean that individual donors or companies that are interested in supporting politics or a political party could donate to a democracy fund, which could be administered by the Electoral Commission and would be like a blind trust. Donors would use the commission as a third party and could designate that they want the money to go to the Liberal Democrats, Labour or the

267WH
Conservatives. That would then he sent via the Electoral Commission and, as far as possible, it would not be in the public domain.
Companies or individuals might wish to give money to support democracy or political parties in general, so a formula could be devised to decide how the commission should divide such money between the political parties. That could be based on the number of MPs or councillors, or on their share of the vote. That is one way in which the larger donations could be channelled to move us away from the present publicity, which does none of us any good.
Although I believe that we should do an audit of how the state supports democracy to help inform the debate, I am not sure if state funding could totally provide for political parties. I am also unsure about whether we could win the argument on what matters parties need to fund but that the public may not want to fund. There will need to be a mixture of state funding that should, if possible, be agreed across the party divide, as well as a framework in which people can support their party's activities.
We should support the people who, individually and in small ways, support their parties of choice through the tax system, and establishing a democracy fund that allows the Electoral Commission to act as a broker for large donations might be a way of overcoming the negative publicity that has been continually fed to us for what seems like a very long time.
11.31 am
Mr. Robert Syms: I also welcome the debate, which was intelligently introduced by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor). The subject needs a wide public debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will be the Conservative's official spokesman, but I am vice-chairman of the party and will say something about our position.
We are opposed to the principle of state funding. Why should taxpayers who do not subscribe to the views and values of my party be forced to contribute towards it? Do we think that people's priorities—which may include the national health service, the police and schools—should be displaced by taking money from taxpayers, many of whom may not be particularly well off, and contributing it towards political parties? There may be less hostility towards giving to a mainstream party, but such a funding system always includes the possibility of extremists—whether they are the British National party or Sinn Fein—benefiting from state funding. When listening to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, I wondered whether the contribution to the parties would come out of the 1p rise in income tax advocated by the Liberal Democrats. I am not convinced by any of the arguments.
I fear that a major state contribution would dissuade many people from making smaller contributions in the constituencies; they would not want to contribute because the state was supporting the parties. There is that danger, although how the scheme is designed would be relevant. We have heard a great deal about how it would make politics rather more honest. People talk about purifying the system, but there is a danger that
268WH
state funding could ossify the system. State funding would tend to go to political party headquarters, which would inevitably build up power at central office, the Labour office in Millbank and other major centres. That would not be good for a political party's diversity and grass roots.
Looking abroad, we can see that whether political systems are corrupt has much to do with the culture of the country. Germany has heavy state funding and yet, recently, Chancellor Kohl and many others within the German system have had problems because of illegal funding. Even today Kohl is in difficulty because he will not give up certain donors to the CDU because of the problems of funding in the past.
There have just been presidential and Assembly elections in France, and there has been some comment about the French President, some of the funding arrangements and the use of that money in France. The French system is funded fairly heavily by taxpayers. Indeed, one of the driving forces behind the centre-right coalition to support the President in the recent Assembly elections was that for every seat won, there would be a matching contribution from the state. Culture has a lot to do with it. Despite what one reads in the papers, I believe that the culture of British politics is honest. There is not a vast number of former colleagues or former party treasurers in jail at the moment. The reason is that although sometimes a party's activities do not smell as good as they could, no one has been convicted of any wrongdoing. By and large, we have pretty high standards in the United Kingdom.
As has been mentioned, we have Short money and Cranbourne money. The reason for that is simple. We have an over-mighty Government system, backed by the full power of intelligent civil servants. If one believes in a democracy of Government and robust Opposition, there should be some contribution towards the policy making of the parties that may form today's Opposition and tomorrow's Government. That has been our tradition of recent years and is not unreasonable. My party is also fairly relaxed about funding some degree of foreign travel for politicians so that they can look at the alternative systems abroad, moving forward the e-democracy agenda and modernising things.
There may be a logic, which the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell has mentioned, in training councillors. They fulfil important roles in a large corporate structure that delivers many important services. There is always a balance to be struck and it is a matter of where one draws the boundaries. I do not think that the case has yet been made for saying that money should be given to political parties for overtly campaigning purposes. I tend to take a different view about large donors. People have given to all political parties; even the Liberal Democrats have been the beneficiaries of large donors in the past. People give their hard-earned money to a cause in which they believe and are often vilified, possibly unjustly.
If one tells people who may well have deep pockets that they cannot contribute, one must also question whether trade unions should be able to contribute. If we put caps on individuals, what do we do about political action committees or pressure groups? A group that wished to ban hunting could easily raise a lot of money to give to a political party. There are many issues here

269WH
and I do not see why wealthy individuals should be excluded from spending their money in the way that they want. Some people would want to buy villas; others will want to give to political parties. We have been pretty well governed over the last 50 to 100 years—one need only look at Argentina to see a state that is very badly governed—and we have a lot to be proud of within the UK.
I do not think that the case for state funding has been made, although there are different ways to deliver a particular outcome. The point my hon. Friend the Member for Stone made about the Neill committee's reference to tax advantages might be a means of putting money through to small individual contributors, rather than centrally through the parties. By and large my party does not think that the argument has been made. As the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, supporting political parties would not be popular. However, political movements should be sufficiently vibrant and successful to be able to raise the money needed to run political campaigns.
In any case, we all have a limited budget to spend on general elections. I know of no party that could not put up some 600 candidates at the general election. I do not know whether there have always been sufficient funds for an essential national campaign. However, all political parties have been able to fund at least their local campaigns by selling jam, cheese, wines and so on. In Poole, there are endless raffle tickets from my association. This is an interesting debate, but I do not think that the case has yet been made. We should be cautious before we go down this road, because the consequences may adversely affect the vibrant grassroots politics that we need.
11.40 am
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I hope that my contribution will at least be interesting in terms of the sociology of Parliament. I replied as a Minister to an Adjournment debate on 22 May, which the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) proposed. Hon. Members may be interested to hear what I have to say a month later as a non-Minister on what is, in essence, the same subject. As I said at the time, the hon. Gentleman's contribution to that debate was thoughtful and substantially right. If he contributes this morning, he may want to add to his comment that there is a crisis, with which I concur.
We must be clear that there is a crisis in the future funding of political parties. Funding for political parties, as established in recent years, will not dry up overnight. That crisis will not suddenly appear upon us tomorrow, but the rules on disclosure and all the paraphernalia that goes with them mean that eventually it will. Some parties may believe that they can buck the trend; the remarks made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) seem to suggest that that is in the mind of the Conservative party. However, a substantial donor to that party recently said that the Government had made it almost impossible for companies to give money without appearing corrupt and that they now had to justify it to their shareholders. However, with all the allegations about sleaze, they could not say that it helped to gain access to, or keep up their profile with, the Government. It was a bureaucratic nightmare, and not worth the hassle.
270WH
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) that the arrangements that our party made before legislation was enacted in 1997 are a good thing, and shed much light on the question of donations. It is true that the public do not want companies or individuals buying their way to political influence. Nor do they believe that large donations are given just because the donor felt like it. We are in this conundrum for honourable reasons. Donations have largely been cleaned up and made more transparent, so the problems surrounding them will largely disappear. Does that matter? Yes, it does. In his previous contribution, the hon. Member for Chichester pointed out that politics in general is alive and well as a public activity, but that party politics is not. We should ask ourselves why politics in general is alive and well.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) suggested that participation in communities has dropped off. That is true of communities of place, but all the evidence suggests that that is not true of the activities that relate to social capital more generally. People are engaging in different activities that are nevertheless substantial and vibrant. They are active in what one might call participative politics; making representations and petitions, and engaging in campaigns for organisations. The question that we must ask is to whom are those people making representations when they are acting in their role as participative politicians. The answer is political parties; local government, the Opposition in Parliament, the Government or whatever. In other words, they make representations to the agencies whereby the representative process is determined.
If we believe that this country can have a representative process without political parties, we are bucking the trend of every representative or democratic process throughout history. Even in the Athenian agora, two parties were represented to try to organise different ideas for representation in the democratic debating processes of the Athenian body politic.
The politics of a body that seeks representation must be different from the politics of a pressure group that participates in the democratic process, but it will incorporate many features of the politics of such a group. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell mentioned that one activity of a political party is campaigning. In many ways, that goes alongside the processes undertaken by participative political organisations, but it is only part of the process that culminates in the seeking of representation and political power nationally or locally.
A body that seeks representation must have an overall programme that mediates between the concerns of the various participative political groups. Communities and pressure groups cannot run towns and cities, or indeed national Governments. The process of deciding on the priorities of various participative groups must be undertaken through the representative process. However, there seems to be a crisis not only of funding, but in the imbalance between the participative and representative processes.
Mr. Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman perhaps falling into a slight trap in his argument, in that part of the problem is the overwhipping of decision making in the parliamentary system? A great deal of disillusionment is

271WH
caused when the electorate know the reason why, for example, he is taking a slightly divergent view now from the position that he took in government; that is part and parcel of that problem. I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman. I am simply saying that the question of why there is low turnout and cynicism is somewhat deeper than that of where the money comes from.
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right to say that there is a deeper issue. We need to discuss a number of issues, but the position that I am taking this morning is not fundamentally different from what I was saying just a month ago. Perhaps I am expressing it in rather clearer terms. The hon. Gentleman talked about overwhipping, but he needs to relate that to the ideas that I have advanced.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) achieved election as a result of a participative democratic campaign, but the idea of 600-odd people representing something similar in the Chamber and organising anything like the representative process is absurd. That would not happen. Instead, various people would coalesce to form parties to decide how a representative programme should be undertaken. We should not spend too much time considering the idea that loose whipping or, in some people's ideal world, the removal of political parties would somehow solve the crisis of representation, because that simply would not happen. It would not produce anything like a satisfactory representative process.
The result of the crisis is that most members of the public treat political parties as fixtures of the landscape, with mysterious people who are lobbied, pilloried or asked to do certain things, depending on how the public view their position at any particular time. Why they are there or how they have got there is not usually asked.
What can we do about the problem? How do we ensure that the process of representation is kept alive? Some hon. Members suggested a block grant, which I agree might well ossify political parties. A political party in Sweden receives block grant funding from the state but, because of the way in which the block grant system operates, it has not contested two general elections.
It is not a question of whether the state funds political parties, but of the circumstances under which it does. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell pointed out that, by accretion, we are funding—according to the hon. Member for Chichester—about 40 per cent. of the activities of political parties between elections and about 60 per cent. at elections. However, we are doing so under an unaccountable and ineffective block grant system, which replicates many of the problems in other countries that hon. Members criticised.
Clearly, the idea that participative democracy should be "of the people" and a representative democracy "of the state" is deemed inappropriate, yet surprisingly many voluntary organisations are effectively funded by the state—by the local authority, Home Office grants, project funding and so forth—without becoming clients of the state in the process.
The hon. Member for Chichester suggested matching funding on money raised through the activities of political parties, which is one way of looking at the
272WH
problem. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has suggested a tick-box on tax returns, whereby people could tick a box that would give money either to a particular political party or to none. That strongly counters the hon. Member for Poole, who said that taxpayers would object to blocks of money being given to political parties with which they disagree. If taxpayers can play an active role in deciding whether their bit of tax should go to a particular party or to no party, it overcomes the objection. Furthermore, if political parties were incompetent in engaging the public in support for the political process, people would not tick any boxes and political parties generally would not secure large amounts of funding.
After this morning's debate, I am confident of drawing out two principles and one prediction. First, it is widely acknowledged that funding must relate to the effect of party activity; otherwise we will have a ghost system. Secondly, there must be a consensus; otherwise the temptations to free-ride on the initiative of a particular party while actually doing it down will be enormous. A unilateral decision by a party in government would be seen simply as a party in power voting money for itself. It is essential that the political community—inside and outside the House—debates the issues and that the debate ranges more widely than considerations of party advantage. Finally, my prediction is that it will happen, so we should take care to do it well.
11.53 am
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I have already participated in an Adjournment debate on this subject, so I shall not delay Westminster Hall for long today. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) for his comments. I agree with virtually everything that he said.
I should like to make a few quick points. First, we cannot go on with the public perceiving political parties to be inherently corrupt. It is not just the short-term issue of Mittal, Ecclestone, Hinduja, Enron or PowderJect: it goes much deeper and is infecting respect for our entire polity. Whatever the reality, the perception is corroding trust in politicians generally. In any case, the public is partly right. Does anyone seriously believe that these donors never bend an ear and never have any influence? Of course not. One way or another, they manage to get privileged access to those with power and influence.
Secondly, everybody knows that honours are trafficked. Peerages can be bought and parties fund themselves partly from those donations. That is wholly unacceptable. Mass parties are dying—they are 10 per cent. of the size that they were 50 years ago—so the parties alone cannot finance themselves. It is not possible to fund political parties through individual subscriptions and no major democracy tries to do so any longer.
Thirdly, recent attempts to clean up politics where party donations are concerned have failed; with the best of intentions, they have made the situation worse. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said, the shareholder declaration rules have destroyed the broad

273WH
base of small donations from companies. While there is a broad base, people do not believe that parties are dependent on each individual firm. Once that has gone, they do believe that the small number of large donations confers influence. The individual declaration rule's £5,000 threshold has swept away a range of people who would be prepared to donate money but are not willing to take the public flak for having done so. As a result, all parties have been thrown into the hands of a small number of large donors and the public perception of corruption has worsened. I am in favour of the transparency rules, but we should be under no illusion about the crisis that they have generated.
Point four is that the unacceptable practices that take place in order to fund political parties infect public perception of other issues—the standing of politicians and the credibility of the Government—and respect for all those in public life. We cannot carry on in that way.
What can be done? First, we must acknowledge the scale of the problem. That is what we are all trying to do today. Secondly, we must discard the myth that we would be crossing a Rubicon if we introduced state funding. I tried to show in an article in The Times, and I have shown elsewhere, that 40 per cent. of funding of political parties between elections and 60 per cent. of the campaigning costs of parties already comes in cash or kind from state sources.
Thirdly, we must work towards a system that encourages the recruitment of grassroots members; we must try to stabilise our party structure at that level in the course of introducing a state funding system. That is why I am in favour of match funding and I was delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrat party is too. Our view is shared by many in my party and, I suspect, by a large number in the Labour party. There is scope for agreement.
Fourthly, whatever we end up having to introduce, we must do it on the basis of firm caps on overall spending. We must not allow the perception to get about that very rich people can buy political parties. That will happen if there are no such caps.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) referred to what we can learn from the experience of the United States. She might like to read an interesting passage in the Neill committee report. The US has very firm caps on funding of political parties and political activity. However, those are circumvented under the first amendment, which has led to the proliferation of political action committees. I am deeply concerned about that matter; the Neill committee, although it addressed it, did not analyse it correctly. In addition, the introduction of the Human Rights Act into our law has worrying implications. In the 1998 Bowman case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that in certain circumstances the UK's existing caps are illegal. That may set a precedent for erosion of the existing caps.
In the Bowman case, the defence of margin of appreciation was used. I shall not go into that, but we could not go much further if all our caps were illegal. I merely make the point that there is a danger in applying the Human Rights Act. Similarly, American attempts to place caps on spending have been destroyed or circumvented by reference to the first amendment in the Supreme Court.
Mr. Cash: Perhaps I could help my hon. Friend with respect to the Human Rights Act. Lord Hoffmann made it clear in an important case—Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms and O'Brien—that the British Parliament is still able to amend that Act, provided that any amendment is clear and unambiguous. My hon. Friend said that we would have to accept the political cost, although I do not necessarily think that that applies, but we could ensure that we would not be trapped, were we subsequently to table amendments to remove the difficulties that he described.
Mr. Tyrie: I thought that something of a legal nature might draw my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to his feet. I urge him to read the exchanges that took place on the matter in the Neill committee, which are extremely detailed and deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). The extent to which the Human Rights Act may impinge on our ability to impose caps is a matter of considerable controversy among experts, and many leading political scientists and lawyers think that there is cause for concern; I put it no higher than that at the moment, because it is not yet a cause for alarm.
I shall just make one or two more points, because I have already had a good innings on this subject on other occasions. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole that state funding is no elixir for curing the sickness of political corruption in any political system. He is right to say that there is corruption in many countries that already have state funding. He is right that the origins of corruption are much deeper than a country's structure and lie in its culture. There is no doubt, however, that the perception of corruption is deepening in this country. Action might assuage it, and we should act urgently. We cannot allow the impression to deepen that influence is for sale, and that political parties can be bought.
The Government already know that, and it is interesting that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test came to the Chamber to make another speech today. Why are they not acting? I suspect that it is because they do not want to take the political flak for introducing state funding. They want a coalition, so that they can share the political flak. I see that Labour Members are nodding; in agreement, I think. Of course, the public do not like politicians voting themselves money in any shape or form. Whoever takes the lead in introducing state funding will take the flak. Governments have to give a lead on such issues. There is no avoiding the flak; the governing party must take it on the nose. Whenever there is a row, for example about sleaze in the House, the governing party always ends up being hit harder than anyone else. The governing party must govern.
Martin Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyrie: I will not, because I am about to conclude.
If the Government propose a fair system, such as a system of match funding—I think the Liberal Democrats would agree with that, and many Conservative Members would go along with it—they will find that they have a huge amount of support and win the argument. Already, the pass has been sold on

275WH
that by the increasing acceptance of the need for some tax relief on donations to political parties. If a fair hearing is given to the argument, I am confident that we can win it. If we win it, we will make the British political system less corrupt and better respected.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): In calling the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), I remind hon. Members that we are moving towards the closing speeches.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Cummings. Is it not the custom that the last half-hour is allocated to the three Front Benchers? It is already four minutes past 12. Would not the Liberal Democrat spokesman normally be called by noon at the latest?
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): I am mindful of the fact that hon. Members have been waiting a considerable time to make contributions. If they adhere to my request, I am sure that everyone will be allocated time.
12.5 pm
John Mann: I will be extremely brief, even though people in the villages of Bassetlaw speak of nothing but the state funding of political parties.
Let me demonstrate my point by proposing that representatives of the three parties stick their election leaflets through people's letterboxes in the villages of Bassetlaw, and then ask voters, "Would you care to pay for the leaflet that we have chosen to give you? That will be your contribution to removing sleaze from British political life." I suspect that even I would have problems persuading the good people of Bassetlaw to pay, and I certainly would not envy Conservative colleagues who attempted to persuade them. That highlights the fundamental difference between electioneering and other forms of political activity. Any suggestion that the state should fund electioneering and political campaigning is fundamentally wrong and has no popular support.
There is a certain irony in hon. Members talking about the low standing of politicians, when those same hon. Members are the most enthusiastic about increasing the number of politicians by means of elected regional assemblies, elected mayors and an elected House of Lords. That irony will hit home, because the general public are somewhat cynical about the numbers of politicians and about attempts to increase them.
The examples of France and Germany have been well illustrated and demonstrate that state funding does not remove sleaze. However, the United States example is even more powerful. Changes were made before the 1996 presidential elections; I visited the country at the time to study state funding. The result of those changes was that the different political parties and politicians found different ways to get additional money. The new, tighter rules came in, but the amount of money doubled. Whatever rules are introduced on state funding, people will find other ways to give money, such as by using outside bodies.
276WH
It has been said that the size of political parties is declining, but that is wrong; there is a short-term problem. The Labour party did not contest the majority of seats in the country until 1935, and the Liberal Democrat party did not contest all national seats until 1970. My family has been active in the Labour party since 1901, so I know that the "halcyon days of large party membership" is a myth. There have been periods of large membership and periods of small membership. In the 1950s, when all sides fiddled the figures, levels of active membership were extremely low. Hon. Members who look at the records at Warwick university and elsewhere, and at the membership books of constituency and branch Labour parties, will see how low the levels of active membership have sometimes been.
There is an alternative, which has been tried and tested for 100 years. There is a cap of about £10,000 on what we can spend in elections at constituency level, and that system works well. If we increased the amount to £30,000 or £40,000., people would start to spend that much. Setting the level at £10,000 creates fairness at the local level, but we have failed to impose a sufficiently low cap at the national level.
I would like party political broadcasts and billboards to be banned, and I have tabled an early-day motion on billboards, which has been signed by more than 30 hon. Members. I would also like paid advertising in newspapers to be banned. The most effective way to do that would be significantly to lower the national expenditure limit at elections. The present level of fundraising would then not be required, and politics would be much healthier.
12.8 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) for introducing a thoughtful and interesting debate, which is one of several that we have had on the subject. It should be encouraging that a remarkable degree of consensus is developing.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is probably the only person in the country who personally delivers his election address with his colleagues in his constituency. There is a huge amount of state funding, both in kind and in cash, and we deny that at our peril, because, as my hon. Friend said, we are conning the electorate.
The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) struck a rather discordant note when he suggested that the Conservative party is "opposed to the principle of state funding". Let me remind him that Short money in the current year to the Conservative party was £3,459,536. Cranborne money in the House of Lords came to £230,556. The Leader of the Opposition's office and all the other bits and pieces around it cost £765,394. The policy development fund is a new fund of £438,890. If the electorate knew that the so-called official Opposition was taking some £5 million, not counting the amount in kind, they might very well react in the way that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw suggests.
It is an absolute hypocritical illusion to pretend that we do not already have state funding. What my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell said is absolutely true; people do not know it. That is what I think is so critical. I shall not quote the hon. Member for

277WH
Chichester at length; he has already taken up so much of my time that it would be unfair. On several occasions he has pointed out, very fairly and accurately, that there is a real concept of a sleaze operation in this place, and that is not fair. We are bringing upon ourselves the opprobrium of the electorate for totally absurd reasons. However, we are doing so because people think that there must be some good reason for people donating to political parties.
I have several quotes from people of all parties on this issue, who feel that the time has come to bring out into the open some effective linkage between state funding and the actual membership of the political parties, as my hon. Friend said. Let me quote two who think that the present system does not work. On the occasion of the award of a peerage to Michael Ashcroft, a major donor to the Conservative party, Lord Cranborne, former leader of the Conservatives in the Lords, said it was
"an affront to the dignity and the standing of the party".
Sir Edward Heath, in robust form, went even further:
"It has lowered the whole standing of our political institutions throughout the world".
He pointed out that clearly the £3 million donation to the Conservative party must have been for some purpose, and he said:
"and now we see what the purpose was."
I am not going to quote the chairman of the Labour party, but I am going to quote the Leader of the House of Commons, who said a fortnight ago:
"It is my personal view—I do not claim to speak for the Government collectively—that the credibility of Parliament is being undermined by the current argument over the funding of political parties. We cannot have parliamentary democracy without political parties, and we cannot have political parties unless they are funded."—[Official Report, 13 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 1005.]
From all sides—a former Minister, a very distinguished member of the Conservative party who has done a great deal of work on the subject, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell—there is a great gathering consensus.
In the past the Government have taken the view that unless there is a centre of gravity—a view that all parties can subscribe to—they cannot move. I endorse precisely what the hon. Member for Chichester said. It is up to the Government to lead on this—not just in the interests of the present Parliament or in order to deal with the problems of Enron and Andersen and all the other controversies that have been taking place—but for the health of our democracy. We have to re-engage the actual commitment to the political process with the way in which the political process is funded. That is why I think that the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has made that funding has to be related to the membership of the party, and what it gives to that party, is critical.
If I may say so, the tax issue—the use of some tax credit arrangement—is a bit of a red herring because a large number of people do not fill in tax returns. Many people do not pay tax. To exclude them from the ability and the opportunity to contribute to the political process would be utterly wrong. The way to proceed is precisely the way in which my hon. Friend has suggested
278WH
Mr. Cummings, I want to give maximum time for the Minister to respond because I look forward with great interest to see the extent to which her text, from the new Department responsible, differs from the previous text of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead).
As a final comment, I would say that I cannot go back as far as the Athenians, but I know that every single party during the time of parliamentary democracy in this country has suffered from this problem. My party, in its previous incarnation as the Liberal party, suffered from it. As we all know, Lloyd George abused the system disastrously and did great harm to the political process and Parliament, but why did he do it? He did it because he became detached from the political party that he had previously led. He was no longer the leader of the Liberal party when he became Prime Minister. So, the political process was detached from the real people who mattered; the electorate. We have got to reattach it.
We must make sure that there is a consensus on the way in which the funding of political parties takes place, whether or not that is direct funding. I have already quoted examples of the way in which the Conservative party is funded, and the Government are also very substantially funded to undertake their political duties. We need a consensus on being open and honest about funding, but we should also recognise that that is simply not enough. We must find ways of ensuring that party members' commitment to political parties is translated into cash support for the democratic system.
12.16 pm
Mr. William Cash: I have found the debate interesting. It is an important debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) for having introduced it. It is an ongoing debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has made clear. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) has also participated in the debate, and I have no doubt that we shall go on discussing the matter for some time.
At this juncture, I do not need to add more than was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). The view that he has expressed on the subject is his, mine and that of the Conservative party. In the limited time left, it would be unnecessary for me to repeat word for word what he said. That is the line that our party takes. However, I have some observations to make on the reasons why we are engaging in this debate at the present time. I have already said that I do not believe that low turnout and some of the problems attributed to such things as sleaze are going to be solved by the state funding solution proposed.
I agree entirely that an element of state funding is already available through the Short money and the Cranbourne money. That is clear. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole said, that is really for technical objectives rather than for broader democratic aims. If we look at what is going on in Germany, we can see that in 1998, £180 million was made available for the party-political system, the biggest state funding of which I am aware in Europe. However, no one could say that the German system is free of corruption and sleaze. The perceptions of politics in Germany, and the criticisms heaped on politicians at the top, in a country

279WH
that receives such vast sums of state funding, in my view contradict the whole basis of the argument for state funding. We in the Conservative party believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole suggested, that it would be better for the money to go on other priorities such as schools, transport and health. We are opposed to the taxpayer funding political parties and do not think that the case has been made for state funding.
I have touched on the question of over-whipping. There is some cynicism. Before I was appointed to my present position, I spoke from the Back Benches in the debate on the strengthening of Parliament on what I believe are the real reasons why there is so much cynicism in the electorate today and why low turnouts are so prevalent. The real answer is that the fault lies, as I said in a Committee yesterday, in the increase of money, from £1.5 million to £7.5 million, being made available to the Electoral Commission for so-called public awareness on democracy and the electoral systems. Such things are seeping into the system. People think that the problems of cynicism and low turnout can be solved by throwing money at them. That is just not true. The whole question of spin and lack of trust, about which we have heard much in the past few days—broken promises and so on-has much more to do with the problem.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Therefore, I do not intend to go on much longer, as she will not have a chance to say anything. However, the then Home Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), summed up the matter well in the debate on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 when he said that
"rather than underpinning representative democracy, over-reliance on state funding could in the end undermine it.
Political parties should be the champions of the people, ensuring that the state is their servant and not their master. An over-reliance on state funding could absorb parties into the fabric of the state, thereby putting their own institutional needs and those of the state above the needs of those whom they are elected to represent. The health of our democracy is far better served if parties are principally reliant on their own efforts to secure adequate funding. Such an approach compels parties to engage with their members and supporters."—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 34.]
The Prime Minister himself stated two years ago that he was unequivocally against state aid.
The words of the then Home Secretary are eloquent. I happen to agree with him and think that he addressed the real problem. Powerful arguments against state funding were also put forward in the Neill committee report, and I would have liked an opportunity to go through them. However, as they are on the record, it is as well that I simply refer to them.
The question of compulsion to contribute to the support of political parties even if people strongly disagree with one or other of the parties is extremely important. The Neill committee report stated:
"The strength of this argument of principle would be all the greater if, for example, racist or explicitly anti-democratic parties became eligible for state funding."
We had a vigorous Communist party in this country that, some would say, was essentially undemocratic. Other parties could appear. Serious questions arise,
280WH,
irrespective of how repugnant the policies of such parties may be, if, through a system of state funding, we were to impose censorship.
12.22 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on securing a debate on what is clearly a topical issue. Judging from the contributions that have been made today, it is of great interest to the House. I know that this debate is one of a series that have taken place. I thought that the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) was extremely clear, and I reassure the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that my text may be slightly different; he will not be able to draw the comparison that he wants to draw.
We have heard much today about consensus. The consensus that came through in the debate was that we all agree that political parties are at the root of our democracy and provide an opportunity for grassroots involvement, a forum for debate and a means of engaging with the electorate. More than a million people in Britain are members of political parties, and we would all wish to pay tribute to them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) did so eloquently. Such people in our constituencies spend their lives encouraging others to use their right to vote, helping on polling day, delivering leaflets and canvassing. Obviously, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell has some difficulties in motivating his party members, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley would be happy to give him some tips on how she does it so successfully in Doncaster.
However, party political activities cannot just be supported by voluntary labour. They need funding, and that is what we are discussing today. There is nothing inherently wrong with parties seeking donations and funding from supporters. Many hon. Members made the point that it is a right of individuals to support a political party as they choose. Members of Parliament should not be embarrassed about that, and we should make the point more often. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made an interesting contribution on that matter. We must safeguard that right against possible abuse by parties or donors.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall touched on the fact that perception of abuse is important and the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) said last month:
"During my five years as an MP, I have come to the conclusion that, contrary to public perception, it would be difficult to find a group of 659 people more dedicated and less corrupt than my fellow MPs."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 22 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 115WH.]
We should make that point more often.
There is a desire that we take steps to provide a framework in which we ensure openness and transparency in political fund raising. The Labour Government implemented the recommendations of the Neill committee. I intended to go through some of those recommendations, but that is not possible in the time available.
I turn to the work that is being done by the Electoral Commission because I know that hon. Members are interested in hearing more about that. The commission

281WH
has begun a review of the issues concerning state funding. Many hon. Members referred to international comparisons, and the commission's preliminary work is to make a comparison of international systems. It will also examine the main methods of supporting political parties by making an assessment of their benefits and disbenefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley asked whether it would look at the audit of existing support. That is obviously something that the commission will need to do.
The commission's preparatory work will be used to test public opinion with a series of public hearings to take evidence. The scope of the study will include, among other things, the link between state funding and donations, and the relationship between parties and their supporters. It will also examine the case for change. From its findings will emerge recommendations to the Government
The review is intended to be comprehensive and wide-ranging, and I shall outline the timetable. The initial research should be ready by the end of the year and submissions will be invited during the first quarter of 2003 with an options paper being ready for the summer. We can expect to see a final report early in 2004. Many contributions have been made today and I hope that hon. Members will use the opportunity of the commission's work to make their views known to it.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell about support being available at the moment to political parties. he suggested that that was in some way secret. Such matters are discussed in Parliament, so his sense of creeping state funding by the back door or as an excuse should be challenged. Parliament has an input into that debate and the whole issue of Short money. It is important to examine closely all the issues that have been raised today. As we have heard, there are many differences of opinion among Members of Parliament, but I am sure that today's debate will make an important contribution to those ongoing discussions, and that hon. Members have benefited from the contributions that have been made.

East Coast Main Line
12.30 pm
Mr. Iain Luke: I am glad to have the chance to raise the issue of the electrification of the east coast main line rail link north of Edinburgh. As a member of the all-party rail group, I am aware that electrification is an investment priority across the United Kingdom rail network. I hope to show why the north-east of Scotland north of Edinburgh should be given serious consideration for the earliest possible upgrading.
One of the most liberating features of the modern world is the opportunity to travel—to transport oneself, either for business or leisure purposes, from the ordinary, humdrum realities of domestic existence to fantastic and mind-expanding distant destinations. As someone from a far distant part of the UK—Dundee—I know that it is good to travel and see the world.
The key that opened the lock of limitation on movement was the expansion of the railways in the 19th century, an era often referred to as the age of steam. The building of the famous Tay rail bridge crossing the silvery Tay caught the nation's attention, following the initial botched efforts and the rail disaster of 1879. The construction of that bridge, which spans the two-mile breadth of Scotland's longest river, was part of a dynamic process—the revolutionary industrial communications and transport transformation that changed the world.
The building of that immense structure, which predated the Forth rail bridge, was specifically promoted by Dundee's city fathers and business men, who wanted to reduce rail travel times from Dundee to the south and link Dundee and its hinterland to the rest of Britain. The bridge also excited the passions and poetry of a famous Dundonian, William McGonagall, the 100th anniversary of whose death we are currently commemorating. A poem will be placed by the Tay rail bridge addressed to the
"Beautiful railway bridge of the silvery Tay!
With your numerous arches and pillars in so grand array".
That is clear testimony to the excitement of rail travel in McGonagall's day.
The epoch of steam was encroached upon first by the motor car and then by the aeroplane, but rail still has great relevance today, with the railways continuing to provide an important and popular mode of travel in the 21st century. Railways give direct, frequent and usually trouble-free access to major centres of population, business and leisure destinations across the UK and with the advent of the channel tunnel, in which I have had the pleasure of travelling several times—to destinations further afield in continental Europe.
The competitiveness of the railways, despite pressure from 20th-century transportation innovations, is a lasting tribute to the appeal of rail travel and the benefits it offers. The relative comfort, safety and cheapness of rail compared to the aeroplane, and the extent of the network—despite the cuts of the 1960s—have ensured the railways a niche in the travel market that allowed the network to carry 958,000 million passenger journeys in the UK last year. My colleagues from Scotland and I travel by plane weekly, and our journeys to the House

283WH
from other Scottish airports cannot be completed without catching a train, whether it be the Paddington or Gatwick express or, in my case, the Jubilee tube line.
I cannot fail to acknowledge the troubles that rail travel has experienced lately. The spate of tragic derailments, signal failures and collisions has contributed to general public concern about the safety of that mode of transport. That concern has only partly been assuaged by the plans of the Government and the Strategic Rail Authority to make long-term improvements to the track, which will improve safety aspects and, hopefully, enable the railway system to regain its standing as a viable and reliable transport network.
Whatever the proposals, we have a long way to go before we fulfil the famous slogan "Let the train take the strain", which was coined in a marketing effort to encourage motorists to abandon their cars and switch to rail in the 1980s. A side effect of disenchantment with rail travel has been to force more people on to the roads, which has created a chaotic and frustrating situation on Britain's motorway system, further impeding the ability of road users safely and freely to reach their destinations. I shall return to that point in connection with the north-east of Scotland.
I welcome the Government's 10-year transport plan and the SRA's proposal for improvements to the rail network. They will create a balance in the travel options open to us and reduce the problems currently being encountered by users of the road and rail network. The plans, along with the Government's White Paper on aviation and regional airports that is to be issued later in the year, will go a long way to set the context in which the needs of travel in the United Kingdom will be met for the next 50 years. My fervent hope as an MP for a distant constituency is that all the Government's policies will be given a priority that puts investment and accessibility at the heart of the solutions that are needed to satisfy the transport needs of all Britain's regions and communities in the years ahead.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to focus on the electrification of the east coast main line. I want to bring to the Government's attention issues of investment in the railway infrastructure that need to be addressed. The goal of electrification has been shared by all communities north of Edinburgh for some time. It is a goal that has transcended the political divide and brought the often diverse and sometimes conflicting urban and rural communities that make up the northeast of Scotland together in a joint campaign. I am happy to acknowledge the work done by Create, the promoter of the campaign. I have been a long-standing member of the organisation since being involved in local government in the area. I hope that the campaign will be successful and that the benefits that flow from electrification of the rail line south of Edinburgh will be extended north from Edinburgh up the east coast main line.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Does my hon. Friend agree that if electrification of the east coast main line north of Edinburgh and any improvements to the route north of Edinburgh are to be utilised to the full, it will be necessary to clear some of
284WH
the bottlenecks on the network? I am thinking particularly of the need to transfer freight to the Alloa and Stirling line to take passenger services off the Forth rail bridge and to improve the tunnel capacity east of Edinburgh. Does he agree that such matters need to be part of the package of electrification or any other improvement, and that it would be helpful if the Minister looked into such matters?
Mr. Luke: I bow to my hon. Friend's detailed knowledge of the railway system in Scotland and his constant advocacy of improvements to that system. He is right. The SRA's current policy is, as a first step, to smooth out bottlenecks and tackle problems on the line. He is right about that first step, but to achieve the end result and ensure faster journey times involves electrification.
The part of Scotland to which my hon. Friend refers—the central belt into Fife and the north-east—has long suffered from its peripheral position and relatively low population density compared with other centres of population in Scotland and the UK. Many who, like me, hail from that area, whether they are involved in politics or business or must travel frequently for other reasons, feel that they have been at a transport disadvantage for some time. That is what we want tackled.
Although the recently published SRA rail investment strategy will tackle that to some extent, it falls short of satisfying what, in terms of railway development, is the ideal solution. It does not go far enough in the medium and long terms to create parity of opportunity in relation to rail haulage and rail travel accessibility. The proposals to improve and straighten the line where possible will make rail travel marginally quicker and improve travel times in the long term, but such improvements should be only the first step towards allowing electrification to proceed eventually. It is therefore essential that we elected Members of Parliament, the Government and consumers are not fobbed off by the halfway house proffered by the SRA's investment plan.
The proposed improvements are short-term solutions. However acceptable they are as a means of improving travel times, they do not secure the improvement in travel time required to ensure the heightening of business competitiveness that is necessary to counter cut-throat competition in producing goods and promoting sales in far-off markets; nor will the proposals achieve the travel times required to encourage business travellers and other commuters who are unable to meet the higher cost of air fares to abandon the roads and take to a more environmentally friendly form of travel.
Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the chair of the UK passenger transport forum that the SRA's plan is a plan for London and the south-east of England? Does he agree with the growing consensus in Scotland that the best solution for the investment required in Scotland would probably be the full devolution of railway powers to the Scottish Parliament?
Mr. Luke: I am aware of comments made and a recent debate in the Scottish Parliament sponsored by the

285WH
Scottish National party. The national rail network is a national issue, and I think that, given its connections to the UK, its integrity should remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament, especially as I am keen to ensure that Dundee, Scotland and the UK remain closely linked to Europe. Issues raised in that debate deserve attention. They include possible new branch lines and the lines north of Aberdeen to Fraserburgh and Peterhead. We Members of Parliament need to continue to put the case. I hope that we shall have time at the end of the debate to make the case for what to do next.
The SRA's improvement plans for north-east Scotland are based on the presumption that diesel-powered engines will remain the main form of traction, debarring that part of Scotland from the benefits that will accrue to Edinburgh and its passengers going south. By any comparison, electric trains would provide improved passenger environments and more pleasant journeys, and they are less polluting, cheaper to run and faster. Electrification is the only option that deserves to be considered.
I am reading Lord Jenkins' recently published and excellent biography of Sir Winston Churchill, who was for 14 years a Member of Parliament for Dundee. In that account I was interested to read that, after Churchill's electoral success as a Liberal candidate in 1908, he settled down for the 10-and-a-half-hour journey between London and Dundee to take up his seat in Parliament. One hundred years later, the journey time for the 460 miles between Dundee and London has been cut to about six hours; however, it takes an hour and a half to get from Dundee to Edinburgh—a quarter of the time that it takes to get from Dundee to London even though the distance is much less than a quarter of the distance between Dundee and London. One of the major bottlenecks on the line is between the Forth and Tay rail bridges. The severity of the delay is amplified if one travels south from Aberdeen.
We need only look at the French network to see the real improvements that could be achieved. For example, a train left the Gare du Lyon at 12 o'clock today. It will cover the 228 miles between Paris and Lyon in a staggering 1 hour 55 minutes. If we had the same system in Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, we could hope for a travel time between Dundee and London of far less than four hours. That would be a difference that we could really applaud.
Let us take a further step north on the east coast main line. Any improvements that we could make would be of great significance to many rail stops north of Aberdeen that often recede into the very real mists of rail improvement policy. Such rail stops are Inverurie, Huntly, Keith and Elgin. They have rail links to Aberdeen, but no direct link to London. They need speedier access to Aberdeen as a staging post to the south and south-east of the UK. Electrifying the line all the way to Inverness would be of immense benefit to us all, and especially to those rail stops.
It is sad that some people in the north-east of Scotland have no rail link at all. Towns such as Peterhead and Fraserburgh suffer a double dose of distancing, from vital access to rail services, and consequently from vital access to markets and visitor destinations. Those places might not be familiar to the Minister. On a map they might look fairly accessible to the nodal point of the east coast main line in Aberdeen, but in reality, the distances
286WH
are great. I have travelled occasionally by car up there and I know that many of the roads are of a secondary nature.
The reinstatement of a rail service to these areas, which were deprived of access to the east coast main line due to the infamous Beeching cuts of the 1960s, is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive under the devolved powers of the Scotland Act 1998. However, I believe that the UK Government have reserved powers and the requirement and duty to ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority does all it can to improve that major trans-Britain railway line. That is doubly true given the very difficult journey that one can have when travelling by road for either business or for the pleasure of gaining access to the delights of our capital city.
On two occasions since my election last year, I have had the dubious pleasure of making a 12-hour car journey from Dundee to London. That is a course of action that I would not recommend to my worst enemy. The journey can be embarked upon with minimum disruption, but travel times can be considerably lengthened if one encounters the worst of the hold-ups—luckily, I avoided them—that can be experienced on what is without doubt the worst stretch of road in the UK: the M6 around Birmingham. That major west coast highway is the most heavily used motorway in the country, due to lack of investment in the A1/M1 corridor, which would be the shorter east coast trip.
I believe that if a quicker east coast rail alternative were available, many people who currently use the road might reassess their travel arrangements and switch to rail. Better still—given improvements south of Edinburgh and electrification north of Edinburgh—would be the reintroduction of the train services on which one can put one's car, as can be done in Europe. The journey to London and abroad could then be made causing less pollution.
I know that electrification is expensive, but I firmly believe that we must pursue it strongly. I am conscious that Members of Parliament use Adjournment debates to ask for attention to be given to problems that affect their constituencies, but this topic extends wider than the boundaries of Dundee, East. I am sorry that no Conservative or Liberal Democrat Member is present to take note of my concerns, although I note the presence of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), a constituency neighbour of mine.
The east coast main line impacts on a wide geographical area that is home to urban and rural communities. As I said, the north-east of Scotland is at a disadvantage in relation to transport because of its peripheral location in the UK and the wider European Union. I was once the chair of economic development on Dundee city council, and I know how much a company's decision to locate to a particular area can be affected by transport costs and the accessibility of towns such as Dundee to major markets and financial decision-making centres of the UK.
Recently discussions have taken place between the Scotland Office and the SRA on the proposals for improvements in the north-east of Scotland, and I wrote to the new Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), asking her to let me know what progress was made. On behalf of all MPs for the area, I am also writing to

287WH
Richard Bowker, chairman of the SRA, to ask for an early meeting to discuss the current proposals for the north-east of Scotland, and to seek to review with him and his officials the details of those improvements and the priority that the SRA is giving to electrification.
As an MP, I am committed to continuing to campaign for Dundee, East and the north-east of Scotland, and I work with the support of my fellow MPs for that area, whatever their political persuasion. With the assistance of the Minister and his colleagues at the Scotland Office, we will succeed in our worthwhile endeavour to ensure that electrification stretches northward from Edinburgh as far as Inverness, or at least to Aberdeen as our first option.
12.51 pm
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the possible electrification of the east coast main line north of Edinburgh. He rightly raised related issues that are of importance to his constituency and to Scotland as a whole, and asked whether some of the names of the stations to which he drew attention were familiar to me. As I recall, many of those stations had branches of the old EETPU—the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union—with which I used to deal.
I was interested to hear about my hon. Friend's road journey to London. He will welcome my announcement yesterday of £263 million that will provide motorway-standard roads through Yorkshire and improve links between the south and the midlands to Scotland. That is of interest to Scotland, especially to the north-east.
As my hon. Friend said, the east coast main line is the high-speed link carrying Britain's fastest train service between London, Yorkshire, the north-east and Edinburgh. It also links into Scotland's prime routes to Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness. It handles cross-country, commuter and local passenger services and carries considerable freight and mail traffic. The route is primarily a two-track railway, with four tracks in certain sections, mainly at the southern end of the route. Line speeds on part of the route between Newcastle and Edinburgh range between 80 mph and 125 mph, and between Edinburgh and Aberdeen speeds are about 90 mph. On an average day, 1,900 passenger trains carry 200,000 passengers and there are 250 freight services with a loading of approximately 200,000 tonnes.
By any measure, the route is vital to the economic health of many regions of Great Britain. All parties have long accepted that upgrading the east coast main line is a priority. It would provide additional capacity for both passenger and freight demand, and improve the network to enable train operators to deliver significant improvements in the quality and reliability of their services that customers rightly expect. A substantial Railtrack design team has worked on the scheme for nearly three years to enable the route to carry more passenger trains, faster trains and more freight services. A fundamental part of the scheme is the use of parallel routes to provide extra capacity and, in effect, a four-track railway from London to Newcastle.
288WH
Railtrack informed the SRA of an increase in its cost estimates for the upgrade, and the SRA recently examined the details of the cost increases with Railtrack. As a result, a two-year extension was agreed with GNER to secure some early benefits for passengers. The extension will give the SRA more time to formulate the requirements for this important section of the railway before going out to tender for a long-term replacement franchise.
That gives the general picture on the line, so let me deal with the case for electrification. Our concern is much more with outputs than with inputs. We intend to ensure that passengers get an appropriate level of service, but we are less concerned about how train operators achieve that. In the 1970s, electrification brought undoubted and numerous advantages, such as reduced fuel and maintenance costs, rail vehicles with better acceleration, higher top speeds and quieter operation, but in the current climate that is no longer true. Diesel fuel is now much cheaper, so the fuel cost differences have been largely eliminated. The performance characteristics of modern diesel trains have improved considerably and they are now at least as good as equivalent electric units. Although the maintenance costs of electric trains are slightly less than those of diesel trains, when the cost of maintaining overhead line equipment is included, the balance shifts in favour of diesel.
The so-called "sparks effect" was well known in the 70s. It was the name given to the tendency of electrification to increase patronage on train routes compared with when they were operated by other forms of motive power. The effect is less prevalent now—indeed, recent studies detect a "nose cone effect", whereby if trains have an aerodynamic front and appearance, there seems to be an increase in the number of passengers. Interestingly enough, a similar phenomenon is found in connection with light rail and buses.
Mr. Luke: Does my right hon. Friend accept that for those trains that stop more frequently, electric-powered engines have a quicker start-up time and gain swifter speeds earlier?
Mr. Spellar: I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about that. There has been a considerable closing of the performance gap between modern diesel trains and electric trains.
The Edinburgh to Aberdeen line is in need of some improvement. We are anxious to secure greater capacity, better signalling and increased line speeds, but electrification is not required to provide that. It is extremely expensive and would not eliminate the problems caused by lack of track capacity, the winding nature of the line as it hugs the shoreline and various other factors associated with the physical shape of various sections of the line, together with the single track section at Usan, which restricts capacity.
We already have plans for improvements on that route. An extra signalling section is proposed on the Forth bridge to increase track capacity. The Waverley station scheme, as well as enhancing that station, will increase track capacity. A scheme to re-open the route from Stirling to Longannet, which was mentioned by

289WH
my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), will increase track capacity by diverting freight trains to avoid the Forth bridge. We are anxious to improve the route from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, but do not regard electrification as the most effective solution in the short to medium term. We have a number of projects in hand to assist with that, and the SRA and the Scottish Executive are commissioning a study to investigate the most effective ways of improving capacity in the Aberdeen area.
New trains have already been introduced on the route. Scotrail's new Turbostar trains and Virgin's new Voyager trains are part of the dramatic change that is taking place in the cross-country system. They both have characteristics similar to those of electric trains. The recent two-year extension of the GNER franchise, which I mentioned earlier, included a commitment by the company completely to refurbish the high-speed trains that operate to Aberdeen and Inverness. Incidentally, all those types of diesel trains are already exceedingly popular with passengers and have created a step change in travel and in perceptions.
The Strategic Rail Authority is working with the Scottish Executive—
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. We have to move on.

Yarl's Wood
1 pm
Alistair Burt: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the report recently published by Bedfordshire county council on the incident on 14 February at the Yarl's Wood detention centre. I welcome the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration to her new position. We have known each other for some time and I understand that she is in a difficult but interesting ministerial post. We all wish her well.
I have three aims in today's short debate—to call attention to the report, to highlight some of the outstanding issues and to call attention to the lack of interest from the Home Office, which is causing my constituents real anger and frustration. Shortly after the fire on 14 February at Yarl's Wood detention and removal centre, the county council, led by Councillor Philip Hendry, resolved to conduct its own inquiry. It had three guiding reasons for doing so: it recognised its position in giving leadership to the local community that felt most concerned about the construction, operation and destruction of Yarl's Wood; it wished to give the community a public voice; and it recognised the cost of the national policy to the whole of Bedfordshire. The council understood that the local position had national resonance.
The council has succeeded in its aims, and I pay tribute to Councillor Hendry, Councillor David Thompson who chaired the inquiry, the cross-party councillors who sat on it and the county council's administrative staff who worked over and above the call of duty to make it a success. The inquiry team publicly interviewed many witnesses ranging from Group 4 and the emergency services to community groups and refugee support workers. It has been thorough, and within the constraints imposed by concurrent police and Home Office inquiries—not to mention the possibilities of criminal or civil proceedings—it found its way to sound conclusions. The shadow of other inquiries is real—I shall return to the problem—as the spotlight now switches to the Government's response.
The product of seven hearings, other visits and deliberations was set out in a report published on 18 June, and a copy was dispatched to the Home Secretary forthwith. It raised considerable interest and attention in the county, and I am pleased to see in attendance this morning my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall).
The key recommendations of the report include the creation of an independent inspectorate for detention centres and similar establishments; the removal of both Crown immunity and the ability to use special planning procedures from Government developments, except those needed for defence or national security; and the engagement to a far greater extent of local communities in the planning process. Other recommendations include supporting the local police authority in its defence of the insurance claim brought against it by the insurers of those running Yarl's Wood; ensuring that no

291WH
costs fall on the local community as a result of such actions; and reviewing the practice and policy of insuring this and similar establishments.
Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend agree that Bedfordshire's council tax payers would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that they will not have to pay the costs of the Yarl's Wood fire through their council tax? Furthermore, the county would appreciate a reassurance that the Government will put in place measures to ensure that similar events centering on national facilities do not fall on the shoulders of local council tax payers.
Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend makes a firm point on behalf of his constituents and all people living in Bedfordshire. The Minister is likely to deal with the point. The insurance issue has yet to be resolved in the courts, but it has caused national concern. If my understanding is correct, the date to insure a variety of privately run facilities around the country is rapidly approaching. What is the current position? My hon. Friend is right to call for those assurances.
The fifth aim of the report is to ensure the use of sprinklers against fire and to improve fire drills and fire safety at detention centres and similar establishments. The sixth is to improve detainee access to third-party advice to resolve disputes, and to improve record keeping and back-up record keeping of detainee information. The last, but locally by no means least, aim is to establish an independent process to determine the need for alternative access to Yarl's Wood rather than having to use Twinwoods road alone. That would accommodate the interests of many local people, and it should be carried forward as a matter of urgency.
I endorse all those recommendations and will return later to one or two of the issues raised. The report also makes special mention of the extraordinary work of the emergency services, which I strongly endorse, and of Group 4 staff at the site, who were put under severe pressure. It also mentions the action of certain detainees who took effective action to secure their safety and that of their friends.
As I mentioned, the inquiry process raised issues that could not be resolved because of the limitations imposed by other inquiries. It is essential for the local community that the Minister addresses the problem of how these matters will finally be determined to public satisfaction. She should also reconsider the instruction, which must have been given by her Department, to tell Home Office official Stephen Moore of the Prison Service, who is conducting the inquiry, not to hold hearings in public. There is a stark contrast between the openness of the county council procedure and the closed nature of the Home Office's inquiry. That is not acceptable.
We should consider two issues that appear in the report. It is known that, contrary to the strong advice of Bedfordshire fire brigade, no fire sprinklers were in place at Yarl's Wood. Why was a substantial timber-framed building, which it was known would go up in flames quickly, allowed to be built as it was, to house 450 people being held against their will, several miles from a fire station and with fairly poor water supplies?
292WH
Home Office evidence submitted to the inquiry through Paul Quibell, which appears on pages 208 and 209 of the transcripts, says that the costs of fitting sprinklers
"wasn't really a factor for us at the time."
However, I introduced in evidence a letter from Jeff Goddard, who was acting chief fire officer of Bedfordshire at the time of negotiations with the Home Office about sprinklers. He is now the CFO of Buckinghamshire and was prepared to state unequivocally:
"There was a meeting early in 2001 at Bedfordshire Fire Headquarters attended by myself, officers of Bedfordshire and Luton Fire and Rescue Service, the Head of the Immigration Service and a representative of the H.M. Fire Service Inspectorate, when the fitting of sprinklers was a single topic of debate. The Fire Service's stance being to strongly recommend sprinklers, this recommendation being resisted by the Head of the Immigration Service on grounds of cost."
That is a clear and serious contradiction, and I would have expected the Home Office inquiry to want to address it, but when I telephoned Mr. Goddard yesterday, I was astonished to learn that Stephen Moore had not contacted him. Why was he not contacted? Is Mr. Moore, a Home Office official, not hopelessly compromised in the search for the truth by his lack of independence?
Mr. Quibell went on to say that, because of conflicting advice, the Home Office commissioned a study before Yarl's Wood was built about the benefits of sprinklers. Beyond expressing incredulity that after years of experience the Home Office could need another study, I am stunned to read that that study's findings are still awaited—after one decision by a Home Secretary not to fit sprinklers and a subsequent one to reverse the policy. Both decisions were made without recourse to the policy advice—why? Mr. Moore was asked at the inquiry whether he intended to call Ministers; he answered, "No". Will the Minister ask him to reconsider and have hearings in public? Is not that small part of the jigsaw an illustration of appalling policy procedures and decisions?
Another crucial issue in the evidence is that of police access to the site during the incident. Shortly after 14 February, many reports indicated that the police had not gained access as soon as they arrived at Yarl's Wood, but were instead held outside for some hours. I am not aware that the police have denied those reports. The police were unable to give evidence to the county council inquiry for legal reasons that I understand and respect, but Group 4 did so through David Banks, the managing director of its custodial services. On page 230, he says:
"You have asked, relative to access for the police. Were the police denied access to the site on the night of the incident? The answer is no, the police were not denied access to the site."
That is a fundamental issue. How does the Minister intend to resolve it and how may the public see that that is done? After all the legal restrictions on the police are lifted, will she contemplate giving them a public opportunity to present their description of events on the night?
My constituents and I look to the Home Office or subsequent procedures to clarify other matters. For what was the Home Secretary apologising on his visit to the area in March when he referred to errors being made

293WH
in terms of the people who were at Yarl's Wood? Which detainees were there inappropriately and why? Why did Group 4 not know? How were decisions made to build such a fire risk to house people who had nothing to lose? Why were no serious fire precautions taken, save for showing detainees a video on arrival?
How were the insurance arrangements made? A parliamentary answer tells me that the Home Office has an insurable interest in Yarl's Wood because it is Crown property. The insurers for its interest are the same as those for the contractors running the centre: Mr. D. J. Pye's Lloyd's syndicate, acting through Capita Maclaren loss adjusters. As we know, it has taken the smart but immoral decision to sue the local police for £100 million and rising under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, but the Home Office is a party to that. What insurance details were considered at the time of placing the contract to run Yarl's Wood? Did anyone think to ask what would happen in the event of a riot? If so, what was the answer? If not, why not? What will happen now to lift the threat of that massive bill off local taxpayers?
There are many other questions, but time is short, so I shall touch only briefly on the role of Mr. Moore. I understand from his evidence that he intends to submit his report to the Home Secretary by the end of June—a week from now. How many people at Group 4 has Mr. Moore interviewed? How many witnesses has he interviewed independently, by which I mean not relying on statements made to others? Which Home Office Ministers or officials has he interviewed? Has he sought access to the records of every detainee at Yarl's Wood on 14 February who was subsequently deported? Why has he held no hearings in public?
What is Mr. Moore's, and the Minister's, view of commercial confidentiality? That has been used as a screen to prevent access to certain issues. My view and that of my constituents is that when safety advice has been rejected by those responsible for the lives and safety of people kept under lock and key, commercial confidentiality should go out the window. The public are entitled to every scrap of knowledge about cost, contract, and price arrangements for insurance, and the details of every piece of correspondence or meeting through which decisions were made. Does the Minister agree, given her need to satisfy a new audience who are concerned about the planned accommodation centres?
With regard to my constituents' concerns, I asked for this debate partly because of the Home Office's failure to live up to the expectations built up by the Home Secretary on his very welcome visit to my constituency in March. If the Minister has had a chance to read the transcripts of the inquiry—I do not blame her if she has not—she will have noticed a common complaint running through the comments of virtually all groups and individuals in my constituency that were involved with the Home Office at the decision-making and planning stage for the building, and in dealing with the vital issue of access to the site. That complaint is of the Home Office's lack of attention to any matter beyond the boundaries established by a rather successful liaison committee. I pay tribute to the local councillors and those of my constituents who gave up much time to serve on that committee month after month. It provided
294WH
the Home Office with substantial support, recognising its responsibilities in the face of a very difficult national situation.
However, advice about construction and safety and public warnings about security breaches were not heeded, and questions raised on a variety of issues, from who would be in the centre to the treatment of detainees, were dealt with reassuringly. No one had any reason to doubt the accuracy or good faith of those replies until we had the evidence of our own eyes on 14 February. Since then, as I have said in the House before, that confidence has been extinguished as surely as the fire was that night. People began to remember the fob-offs and the less-than-full answers.
To put that right, the Home Secretary came in March to assure us that full answers would be given to concerns raised by those close to the site. Those concerns go far beyond their own property rights or safety. My constituents, including those on the liaison committee, have always played an active part in refugee and asylum seeker support groups. That is not always popular, but I pay tribute to them for their care and compassion. I have not dwelt on their concerns, but I have not forgotten them. Certain aspects of the detainee regime might be a key part of any findings of the Home Office inquiry.
I wrote to the Home Secretary to follow up the meeting, and suggested a way forward, particularly in relation to access issues which could be dealt with quickly before rebuilding commenced and while other issues were stalled or sub judice. I cannot stress enough how vital that is. There might be some conflicts of interest, but they can he resolved with good will and energy if the Home Office gets off its collective backside and goes out to talk to people, as I suggested in March. It has not done so, and people living on Twinwoods Road—the only route to the centre—have had their patience stretched near to breaking point. I am grateful for the efforts of the local councillors and the residents' leader for keeping tempers in check, even though the chairman of the liaison committee has not had her letter answered, nor has Oakley parish council.
I put some of that strongly, but with good reason. May I remind hon. Members, stripping all niceties away, what Yarl's Wood is about and why people are justifiably concerned? On the night of 14 February, 385 people were being held lawfully but against their will in my constituency. They were in a supposedly secure environment, in a timber-framed building known to he highly combustible but without water sprinklers, and had received nothing more than rudimentary fire safety instructions. They were miles from a fire station, and the local fire brigade had warned against the absence of sprinklers but had been rebutted by the Home Office, which took precautions against accidental fire but did not seem to appreciate the risk of deliberate fire. Due to criminal activity, for which the perpetrators when convicted deserve the severest punishment, potentially lethal fires were started, endangering detainees, those guarding them, my constituents and those in the emergency services who attended and performed bravely in the face of severe difficulties.
Residents nearby were largely unaware of the incident for many hours because no system existed to alert them, nor were they aware when the supposedly safe environment was breached. Police attempting to deal

295WH
with the incident were denied access when they first needed it. The aftermath includes a destroyed centre, a £100 million insurance bill, no public access to the Home Office inquiry, no action by the Home Office on a series of concerns advanced by residents, and little evidence of understanding of the frustrations being expressed. I regret to place all this before the Minister, but it is my duty to do so. On behalf of my constituents, I call upon her to recognise the severity of the issues facing her Department and to grasp this golden opportunity to make a difference.
1.17 pm
Mr. Patrick Hall: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and to the Minister—
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. Do you have the permission of the Minister?
Mr. Hall: I do. I thank the Minister and the hon. Gentleman for allowing me a couple of minutes to follow a measured and thoughtful contribution to the Yarl's Wood debate. I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the public's concerns, many of which are held by my constituents as well as his, and I add my appreciation of the task carried out so responsibly and thoroughly by Bedfordshire county council.
I want to emphasise three of the many issues that have been raised today and on other occasions by the hon. Gentleman and others, and by me. First, the purpose of Yarl's Wood must in future be absolutely clear. The fact that it was not used as was apparently originally intended, only for end-of-process asylum seekers, but that such people were mixed freely together with other applicants at the beginning of the process plus convicted criminals, must have contributed to the tensions that exploded on 14 February.
Secondly, Stephen Moore's Home Office inquiry needs to be published soon and must be as open as possible. Only information relating to the police criminal investigations should be withheld. Matters relating to the Home Office contract with Group 4 must be placed in the public domain.
Finally, regarding the disgraceful attempts by Group 4's insurers to send the bill for reconstruction to Bedfordshire police, the Government must ensure that contracting out public services to the private sector means that the contractor does not simply keep the profits when things go well, but that it carries the risk for when things go wrong.
Lessons must be learned from Yarl's Wood before something else happens to the detention estate. It is imperative that public confidence be restored.
1.19 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I thank the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for his kind welcome at the start of the debate. I also thank Bedfordshire county council for its report and for the work that it put into it. I endorse and associate myself with the hon.
296WH
Gentleman's remarks about the excellent response by the emergency services and others at the time of the fire. I also thank him for his work and for the constructive way in which he has tried to find a way forward for his constituents. He recognises the need for centres such as Yarl's Wood, and has tried to find a way through the issues surrounding them.
I also thank local people for the way in which they have responded. I have spoken to some of them today. I accept that the issue is difficult overall, and I perfectly understand how disturbing the incident at Yarl's Wood would be for ordinary local people. I can imagine myself in those circumstances, and I share and acknowledge their feelings. I understand that their trust must inevitably have been challenged by the events of 14 and 15 February, regardless of whether that feeling is completely justified or whether some of the hon. Gentleman's points about who was in the centre and so on were accurate.
The hon. Gentleman asked many questions, and he will understand that I cannot give a simple answer to some of them. He will also understand that I cannot discuss the report and the recommendations that will inform Stephen Moore's overarching inquiry, except where the Government have already said that they have made decisions. Before I deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's more general but none the less important points about the nature of Stephen Moore's inquiry and about consulting and involving local people, let me deal with some of his specific points.
Sprinklers are clearly a critical matter. I understand the keen interest in why there were none at Yarl's Wood. All that I can say at this stage is that the then Home Secretary decided not to fit them on the basis of a range of advice from different sources. However, the current Home Secretary has undertaken that sprinklers will be fitted in the remaining accommodation at Yarl's Wood, at Harmondsworth, and at future immigration removal centres, and we have begun consultation work on that matter. The hon. Gentleman also referred to a review on the use of sprinklers, but its scope is more general, and includes several different types of estate within the Home Office. It will be concluded shortly.
The hon. Gentleman asked why events took the course that they did, notwithstanding the range of advice available to the Home Secretary. Such questions are important, and the inquiry will have to deal with them. He also mentioned inspection. He will know that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 gave Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons the statutory power and responsibility to visit all immigration removal centres and detainees. Before taking on my present responsibilities, I was Minister with responsibility for prisons and I worked closely with the chief inspector. I took a keen interest in and have some knowledge of her work and I am perfectly happy with it. She is the person to inspect the custodial environment in the centres, just as she does in prisons. She takes an holistic approach, and I think I am right in saying that she intends to write a thematic report on the immigration estate, as part of her work programme. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about inspection, which is important, but the chief inspector of prisons is the right person to carry that out.
All three hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in the debate raised the question of insurance. I echo the comments made by the Home Secretary on 25 February

297WH
about the implications of the Riot (Damages) Act. I cannot say more on that now because the matter is subject to continuing negotiations between the insurers for Group 4 and Bedfordshire police authority, but I reiterate the Home Secretary's comment that we recognise that the claim made by the insurers is unquestionably beyond the resources of Bedfordshire police. We will take whatever advice is necessary and work with the police authority to protect its interests and those of the council tax payers whom it serves. We shall certainly want to ensure that the police are not burdened with the bill.
We are carefully considering the more general question of the implications of the incident for future insurance. That is a big question which we must sort out, because we cannot continue to provide significant establishments, for which insurance is necessary, without ensuring that the insurers will deliver when an incident occurs.
The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire raised several issues about the Stephen Moore report. He mentioned June in connection with the time scale, but I understand that Stephen Moore has said that he will try to deliver the report to the Home Secretary by September, because he must wait for other investigations and reports to be concluded before he can complete his report.
Alistair Burt: I mentioned June because that is what Mr. Moore said when he gave evidence to the Bedfordshire county council inquiry.
Beverley Hughes: My information is different, but I shall certainly investigate that. I want to ensure that the scope of the inquiry is as comprehensive as possible in terms of those from whom evidence is sought, and that it covers the hon. Gentleman's questions. We do not
298WH
want the validity and credibility of the final report to be open to challenge because people believe that not all the available evidence was sought. There will not be a public meeting of the sort requested by the hon. Gentleman, but it will be open to everyone to contribute to the inquiry process. The hon. Gentleman asked many questions that are germane to the inquiry, and I want to satisfy myself about the way in which it will be conducted and about its scope. Its terms of reference are the fire itself, but I hope that the inquiry will be comprehensive, so that it is not open to challenge.
The hon. Gentleman also raised several important points about consultation, which I discussed with residents before the debate. I say to the hon. Gentleman, and through him to his constituents, that we must get this right. As I said earlier to his constituents, they and my officials may have different expectations about the process of communication, and we need to bring the two sets of expectations closer together. I understand if some of my officials think that there is nothing much to say at the moment. That is true, because we are working hard considering the options. Inquiries are taking place, and we cannot make any definitive judgments until we have considered the results. Equally, I understand that, even if there is nothing to say, local people can be reassured in this interim period by being told that we are still here and are still interested. I give my commitment to try to ensure that that happens.
I am not going to apologise for the fact that we have a removals centre. I cannot do that because we need the facilities. I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. Wherever we site them, there will always be difficulties, but I accept that that puts the onus on Government and officials to try to ensure that we minimise the inherent difficulties as much as possible, and to work as cooperatively and openly as we can—although there are some limitations on that—with local people.

Business Park (Audenshaw and Denton)
1.30 pm
Andrew Bennett: I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate the proposals by North West Water and the developers Arrowcroft to remove a treasured piece of green space in my constituency and turn it into a business park.
I am delighted to see the new Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), in his place. I congratulate him on his well-deserved promotion. To some extent, I also commiserate with him because I understand that in planning matters Ministers have a semi-judicial function, and I accept that he is not going to be able to say all that much at the end of the debate because of that function. Anyway, I am very grateful that he is here to listen.
My constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) would not understand it if I did not take up this opportunity to press their total abhorrence of the proposed scheme. My right hon. Friend would very much have liked to be here but, unfortunately, other parliamentary duties made that impossible for him. He has been steadily paging me all morning, insisting that I put on the record the fact that he is as strongly opposed to the scheme now as he was 10 years ago when it was first proposed.
The area of land concerned is on the east side of Greater Manchester, between my right hon. Friend's Gorton constituency and mine, Denton and Reddish, in which a little of the land lies. In the 1800s, the old city of Manchester cut off one of the small streams flowing down to the Irwell and built two small reservoirs on it. Water was taken from the then Ashton canal into the top reservoir during the wet period of the winter, and was stored to provide fresh water to the people of Manchester.
Some 50 years later, in about 1885, the authorities got parliamentary approval to build five further reservoirs above the lower reservoirs, as they are now called. In fact, only three were built—very fine reservoirs, which are still there. The authorities then decided that there was more demand for water than could be coped with by expanding the Audenshaw reservoirs, and went up to the Lake district to get water from the area around Thirlmere and Ullswater. On the site of the two proposed reservoirs that were never built, first Denton golf club and then Fairfield golf club—uniquely, Fairfield is also a sailing club—grew up on the land, and they have been very successful ever since. That is a brief history of the site.
In addition to the two golf clubs, a large number of people come out from Gorton, Audenshaw, Reddish and Denton to walk through the site. It is a very important lung to the people living in that area. It is also a bit of countryside—something that I find very difficult to get across to developers and other people. The nature of the reservoirs' construction is such that someone walking through the area can look up and see first the grass walls of the reservoir, and beyond that the Pennine hills. They have a feeling that they are out in the countryside, yet they are a relatively short distance from the centre of Manchester. For local people, the area has been a lifeline for years and years.
300WH
Very sadly, just over 10 years ago, North West Water, aided and abetted by Tameside council, decided that the site could be turned into a business park. It came forward with a planning application, but much to my delight and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton, the then Secretary of State felt that the scheme was so large that he would have to call it in and hold a proper public inquiry into it. When it came to the public inquiry, the whole thing collapsed because it was not possible to come up with a viable road system to get to the site. On the scale that was being discussed, it would not have been possible to get traffic in or out of the site, especially if a business park were constructed.
Those in my constituency know the area as "the reservoirs" or "the stonewalls". The developers at first decided that they would call the site Kingswater; more recently, having abandoned that name, they call it Waterside Park. It is an insult to local people to come up with a name like that. Having failed at the first public inquiry, Tameside council decided that it would put a business park into its unitary development plan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton and I spent a lot of time trying to convince the inspector at that inquiry that the council should take the area out of the plan and earmark it as public open or recreational space. We managed to convince the inspector that if a business park was to be built, it was essential that an alternative golf course be found. On that basis, he said that the scheme could go ahead, but when the council came forward with a development proposal, it could not come up with an alternative golf course. It is not possible to find the land for one in that area. If it could find the land, the business park could be built there.
We persuaded the Secretary of State that he should call the development in, and when the proposals were brought forward, my right hon. Friend and I went to the inquiry and put all the arguments to the inspector. Eventually, the case found its way on to the Deputy Prime Minister's desk, who said very firmly that the scheme should not go ahead. He gave seven major reasons why it should not go ahead. I believe that those seven reasons are still valid. Unfortunately, developers decided to challenge my right hon. Friend's reasons, and on three of them the court found that he needed to reconsider his position. During the past few months, a whole series of representations have been made suggesting that the Deputy Prime Minister got it right—or that he got it wrong. I have to say that the vast majority of my constituents have written to me saying that the Deputy Prime Minister got it spot on when he turned down the original proposal. I want to emphasise that.
I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will take a decision fairly soon. We want the matter settled as soon as possible. It is possible for him to decide to hold a further public inquiry, but I think that far too much has been said about the matter already. An awful lot of trees have been cut down for the paperwork on it, and it would be much simpler if he confirmed his decision to refuse approval.
However, there is another aspect to the issue. I have continually pleaded with North West Water that it should understand the strength of local feeling against it and the damage that pushing ahead with the scheme does to the company's own image. North West Water is

301WH
one of the major sponsors of the Commonwealth games. People will enjoy themselves at the games in July, but their importance to Manchester is that they will help to secure major regeneration of the city's east side. On the east side, the emphasis will be on new sports facilities: the stadium, the baths and the cycling facilities. It seems absolutely crazy for North West Water to want credit for helping to make those sports facilities work in the east side of Manchester while simultaneously working to wreck two golf courses.
In effect, North West Water saying is that one golf course will close and the other will have buildings put on it so that the whole course will have to be remodelled. That seems absolutely crazy. I would argue that it is in North West Water's interest to say, even at this late stage, that it is going to scrap the scheme and get credit for encouraging the development of sporting facilities in the east side of Manchester. It is interesting that Sport England has made very strong objections to the loss of the golf course.
Fairfield golf and sailing club has what might be described as a working-class membership. It is in no way elitist, but is a place that welcomes local people from Gorton, Audenshaw, Denton and Reddish. It cooperates with Wright Robinson school, which is a sports academy. The school overlooks the facilities, and many of the youngsters are encouraged to play on the golf course, which is a facility for the area.
My pleas are that the Deputy Prime Minister make his decision quickly and enforces it, and that, even if it does not happen before the Commonwealth games, North West Water accepts that it should not push ahead with the scheme but go for good publicity and abandon it.
Let me deal with some of the issues. We will not just lose a golf course but an open space that is, as I said, a lung for the whole of the east of Manchester, including the people in Gorton, Audenshaw, Denton and Reddish. People can walk out from narrow terraced houses that have only yards, not gardens, and walk through the site which has mature hedgerows, a huge bird population and attractive wild flowers. It is a place where adults can walk and kids can mess about. That does not always please the golf club, but it is important in urban landscapes to have places where kids can mess about, because they can do an awful lot of damage if they mess about on the wall outside some elderly person's dwelling. They might upset elderly people, with the result that there is conflict between youngsters and the elderly. However, if they can go out to "the reservoirs" and "the stonewalls", kids can be kids and mess about and enjoy themselves without upsetting anyone, apart from occasional minor upset to people on the golf course. Therefore, it is an important area for kids.
It is also an important area for walking dogs. There is an absolute lack of open space in east Manchester. Another aspect to emphasise is that the facilities are free. Increasingly, people in urban areas must pay for facilities. It is important that people on low incomes are able to take their kids out or put them in the pram and push them through the area at no cost.
The lower reservoirs are a major fishing site. Manchester education committee offers water sports on one of the lower reservoirs, and the Fairfield golf and sailing club used to have sailing facilities on one of the
302WH
others. It is sad that, because the issue has gone on for more than 10 years, it has been difficult for Fairfield golf and sailing club to invest in improving its clubhouse and reinstating its sailing facilities. Another strong reason for making the decision quickly is so that such facilities can be reinvigorated. The open space and recreation facilities are very important.
People say that 3.000 jobs would be created. I am the last person to stop jobs coming to Tameside. However, in the 10 years that we have been arguing about the site, Tameside has had an extremely successful record in attracting inward investment. The council has managed to attract new industry to several brownfield sites. So, although it was claimed 10 years ago that we would not be able to bring unemployment down unless we had the development, unemployment has come down.
Several other sites have become available for development, most at prices that industry can afford rather than at a price that supports the sort of expensive business park development that was planned. The Hyde group is now developing a business park on the old Stratton and Henshaw site in my constituency. I could go through a list of other sites that have been or could be developed. Reeb has presented a very good site for shopping in the centre of Denton. If the same imagination had been shown by the council, a project could have been put together for a business park if necessary, but the jobs argument does not stack up.
Turning to traffic, the M60 and M67 meet at the edge of the site and the M67 ends at a roundabout. That is unsatisfactory for a motorway and there is huge traffic congestion at that point. To build a business park with 3,000 jobs. to which many people will have to commute from south Manchester instead of walking to work locally, will make the traffic worse at that point. There is talk about building a flyover or making some other arrangement, but local people are sick and tired of the traffic problems.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister will be happy with about 10 minutes in which to respond, so perhaps I may take a few more minutes without upsetting him. I want to finish by emphasising that the Government's policy in recent years has been brilliant. They have understood the need to regenerate urban areas, to bring new developments to brownfield sites, to reinvigorate old town centres and to reduce car dependency. In PPG3, which covers housing, and the new draft regional guidance for the north-west, the emphasis is on previously developed land.
The proposed business park flies totally in the face of that concept. Manchester has a successful business park. Manchester science park is close to the academic excellence of the university, and it is on brownfield land that needed redevelopment and has good transport links. We do not want a repetition of the 1980s and the failed idea that people must be attracted to sites by offering them green fields and trees. That is not necessary. What is important is that developments have good transport and communications links.
Developers have claimed that people can use Denton station, which is a joke. It has one train, in one direction, one day a week. That is sad and I have often tried to think what could be done to reinvigorate that station, but unfortunately the railway line goes in the wrong direction and the station is in the wrong place. To claim

303WH
that Denton station will have any significance for the proposed business park is nonsense. Two bus routes pass the site, but at a considerable distance from where the developers want to build. They are now talking about the possibility of setting up a shuttle service to the site, but the shuttle service can be introduced only if the 3,000 jobs materialise and most people are cynical about that.
In terms of Government policy, the proposal is a disaster. The Secretary of State was spot on when he refused permission the first time. I greatly regret that the developers did not accept that and thought they could go to judicial review. The whole planning system is under review at the moment. One of the worst aspects of the present planning system is the way in which people rush to judicial review and then complain that the planning system is slow and cumbersome. I hope that the developers will now accept that the role of the Secretary of State is to implement Government policy, and that that policy is to have development on brownfield sites and to reinvigorate old town centres, and not to allow developments such as the proposed business park, which would simply encourage car dependency and destroy a very important lung for people in my constituency.
I shall listen with interest to my hon. Friend the Minister. I accept that what he can say today is limited, but in Denton, Audenshaw, Reddish and Gorton, there will be cheers when the Deputy Prime Minister confirms his decision that the development should not go ahead.
1.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) for his kind words at the beginning of his speech, and I congratulate him on securing the debate and raising the issue of the proposed development, which, as he says, has a long history. I thank him for putting his concerns and those of our right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on the record.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, there is little that I can say about the application for the proposed development of Waterside park, but it might be helpful if I explain the development proposal and place the current planning application into an historical context.
Waterside park is a large greenfield site of some 90 hectares adjacent to the M66 at Denton. It is owned by United Utilities, formerly North West Water. Its development for business purposes was first proposed in 1990 under the name Kingswater park. The proposal proved controversial to say the least, and was called in by the then Secretary of State. An inquiry was arranged but the application was withdrawn shortly before the inquiry was due to take place.
The local planning authority, Tameside metropolitan borough council, took forward the idea for a business park on the Denton site, and developed proposals for the land as part of its unitary development plan. Again, the proposal was strongly opposed by local people.
304WH
There was a thorough debate about the proposals at the UDP inquiry, where views both for and against the proposals were expressed. The UDP inspector recommended that the policy be retained. The council accepted his recommendation that the land be allocated for business use, and accordingly adopted the UDP in September 1996.
Under present proposals, the business park will have 74,000 sq m of BI business space, with ancillary shops, pubs, leisure facilities and some 200 homes, and will involve the relocation of an existing golf club and the creation of new public open space. The development is now called Waterside park, as my hon. Friend knows. The Secretary of State decided to call in the planning application in February 1999, so that he could consider the possible implications for open space provision in the Greater Manchester area. Considerable concern had been expressed about the possible loss of the golf club: a green lung in an urbanised area.
A public inquiry was held in December 1999, and views both for and against the proposal were expressed. The inspector reported in May 2000 and recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. The Secretary of State did not agree with the recommendation, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, and he set out his reasons for that in his letter of 30 November 2000. Among his concerns were the loss of the golf club and the fact that half the proposed housing would not be on previously developed land, commonly known as brownfield land. National planning policy for new housing has a preference for using previously developed sites, and he therefore refused planning permission.
The applicant launched a High Court appeal against the Secretary of State's decision. The grounds of challenge were wide ranging, and the Secretary of State, having taken legal advice, submitted to judgment in respect of two of the grounds for the challenge: the point about environmental assessments and procedures, and the point about housing densities. The decision of the High Court means that the Secretary of State has to redetermine his decision about Waterside park.
My hon. Friend knows that the Secretary of State has to play a quasi-judicial role in determining planning cases that come before him; he alluded to that in his speech. Not only does the Secretary of State have to be impartial, he also has to be seen to be acting impartially. My hon. Friend will therefore understand that I cannot discuss the merits of the case in advance of the Secretary of State's new decision.
As part of the redetermination procedure, officials have written to parties at the inquiry inviting comments on the two issues in which the Secretary of State submitted to judgment. That is a requirement under planning legislation. We have also invited views on two issues that have arisen because the world has moved on since the initial decision. Those issues are the North West Development Agency's search for strategic sites in the region, and the emerging new regional planning guidance for the north-west.
The deadline for the submission of new comments was 14 June. We are now in the middle of considering all comments, both from those at the inquiry and other interested parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish will be interested to know that we

305WH
received 133 responses from interested parties and local residents. I thank him for forwarding the letters that he received from his constituents.
One of the issues that the Secretary of State will have to consider in the light of the representations is whether the inquiry needs to be reopened to explore the issues further, or whether the information available is sufficient for him to reach a decision. My hon. Friend will understand that it would be premature to make a decision on that point, but there does not seem to have been any great pressure to reopen the inquiry. It would also be premature to comment on the representations that we have received, but I assure him that all representations—both those in favour and those against the proposals—will be taken into account before the Secretary of State makes a new decision.
My hon. Friend outlined his wish for developments in three key areas: first, the decision; secondly, the speed of the decision and, thirdly, matters relating to North West Water. As he knows, I can say absolutely nothing about the nature of the decisions. I hope, through my good offices and those of the Deputy Prime Minister, to ensure that the decision is made as swiftly as is practicable, but I cannot offer him any timetable. It is not for me to exhort North West Water—or United Utilities, as it is now—about its corporate responsibility, advertisement plan, business strategy for the future or any other such matter. Such aspects are of more concern to United Utilities.
Andrew Bennett: May I press my hon. Friend about a further inquiry? My constituents consider that the
306WH
situation is unfair in that United Utilities—or North West Water, whatever it is called—can afford to have barristers present at such a inquiry, whereas it is not possible for them to raise the money that would be needed to hire legal representation. I hope that he will take that into account and that he will accept that we need a speedy decision, not another inquiry.
Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I repeat, there does not seem to be any growing pressure to reopen the inquiry, but that remains an option to be considered by the Secretary of State. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the matter to the attention of the House. He has put his case in his usual robust and forceful way on behalf of his constituents. I happily accept the reasons why our right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton cannot be with us today, but I know that he, too, has a long-standing interest in the application.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish can be assured that the Secretary of State will take note of his views on the matter. My right hon. Friend will reach a decision on the planning merits of the proposed development as soon as possible and will take full cognisance of all representations that have material planning concerns at their core. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that I shall take as much interest in issues in the north-west as I will in those in London or elsewhere in the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  G8 Summit
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the G8 summit in Canada as it relates to trade with developing countries. [62474]

  Clare Short
  The G8 leaders are meeting in Kananaskis today and tomorrow so it is too early to be able to comment on the outcome of discussion of the G8 Action Plan for Africa. The UK is putting forward specific proposals in the key areas of conflict, education, health, development assistance, debt and trade.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the G8 summit in respect of international aid. [62485]

  Clare Short
  The G8 Summit is addressing a number of issues of vital significance to developing countries. These include: conflict reduction; trade; debt relief; universal primary education; health, including affordable essential medicines; the effectiveness of development assistance; and support for Afghanistan. A G8 Action Plan for Africa is being drawn up, with the aim of responding to African countries' own efforts to pursue policies aimed at the elimination of poverty and reverse the economic marginalisation of their continent.

  International aid in support of these initiatives should be available from the additional money promised by G8 countries, and the European Union, at the International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey last March. But G8 action in support of poverty elimination requires more than just additional aid. Significant progress also needs to be made in areas such as free-trade access and the reduction of G8 countries' agricultural subsidies. It is essential that G8 countries meet all the commitments they made at Monterrey.

  Cuba
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the provision of bilateral aid to Cuba. [62475]

  Clare Short
  We do not have a bilateral aid programme to Cuba, we provide small scale support. The Scheme is appreciated by the Cuban authorities and has recently supported financial management training, export promotion environmental management and organic agriculture. Our share of the EC development programme is $2.6 million per annum which is drawn from the Department for International Development budget.

  Belarus and Ukraine
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on how much funding her Department provides to Belarus and the Ukraine. [62476]

  Clare Short
  This year, we plan to provide £16 million to Ukraine, of which half will be through our direct programme and half as our contribution to multilateral agencies, particularly the European Commission Tacis programme. In Belarus, where our programme is limited due to poor government, we expect to provide £0.8 million mostly as our share of the EC Tacis programmes.

  Famine (Africa)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on famine in Africa north of the Limpopo. [62477]

  Clare Short
  The causes of food shortages in Southern Africa this year are drought and misgovernment. In Zimbabwe, which accounts for over half of the region's food aid requirements, economic mismanagement and grossly misorganised land reform have massively exacerbated the effects of the drought.

  The World Food Programme will next week launch a regional appeal for food for Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. They estimate that four million tons of cereal imports will be needed. 2.8 million to be provided by private sector and government imports, and 1.2 million tons through food aid will be distributed free.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much food aid her Department has earmarked for the World Food Programme to be distributed in southern Africa from the year beginning September 2002. [62480]

  Clare Short
  We have allocated £18.75 million in response to the World Food Programme regional appeal for six countries in southern Africa for immediate food purchases. This is part of an overall allocation of £45 million through international organisations and NGOs for food and inputs for the next planting season. We will review our commitment as the relief programme proceeds.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to tackle food shortages in southern Africa. [62492]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Banbury on 17 June 2002,Official Report, columns 58–59W.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on famine in southern Africa. [62497]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Banbury on 17 June 2002,Official Report, columns 58–59W.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how her Department is working with the EU to reduce delays in delivering debt relief due under the HIPC initiative to poor countries. [62478]

  Clare Short
  In 1999, the UK helped to secure, through the European Union, a pledge of 1 billion euros towards debt relief for the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC), from the European Development Fund (EDF). This was to be provided in the form of 680 million euros for the HIPC trust fund and 320 million euros in debt relief for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries' debts owed to the European Investment Bank (EIB). To date 650 million euros have been spent, with a further 300 million euros planned for disbursement this year.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how her Department will ensure that poor countries which do not qualify for the opportunity of HIPC debt relief achieve sustainable debt funding. [62484]

  Clare Short
  Countries that are not eligible for debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative can still achieve sustainable debt levels through the traditional debt relief mechanisms available. This includes a stock-of-debt operation under Naples terms (up to 67 per cent. cancellation of debt) by the Paris Club and comparable treatment by non-Paris Club official bilateral and commercial creditors. To qualify for HIPC relief, a country must be judged to have an unsustainable debt after the full application of traditional debt relief measures, and to have met the other HIPC requirements. It is therefore possible for countries, as in the case of the Comoros, the Gambia and Malawi, to be added to the list of HIPC countries, depending on their circumstances.

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made on debt relief for poor countries; and if she will make a statement. [62488]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on 21 June 2002,Official Report, column 583W.

  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how her Department is working with the European Union to reduce delays in delivering debt relief due under the HIPC Initiative to poor countries. [62487]

  Clare Short
  In 1999, the UK helped to secure, through the European Union, a pledge of 1 billion euros towards debt relief for the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC), from the European development fund (EDF). This was to be provided in the form of 680 million euros for the HIPC trust fund and 320 million euros in debt relief for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries' debts owed to the European Investment bank (EIB). To date 650 million euros have been spent, with a further 300 million euros planned for disbursement this year.

  Palestinian Authority
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure that development funding for the Palestinian Authority is not used to support terrorism. [62479]

  Clare Short
  Our bilateral development programme in the west bank and Gaza Strip is largely technical assistance, funded through, and managed by, a range of local and international organisations on behalf of Palestinian beneficiaries. Commissioner Patten has stressed that the Commission has investigated Israeli claims about European Commission (EC) support and found no evidence to corroborate the allegations that EC funds have been misused to finance terrorist activities; or for anything other than their original purpose. The EC attach strict conditionality to the budgetary assistance provided to the Palestinian Authority (PA). The conditions mainly reinforce the need for transparency of the PA's public finances, strengthening the prudent management of the budget, and encouraging progress on overall financial and administrative reform. We are satisfied that the EC, with the assistance of the IMF, is ensuring the conditions are met.

  Pharmaceutical Provision
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to improve pharmaceutical provision in the developing world. [62481]

  Clare Short
  The Government are committed to addressing the four key factors which are recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as affecting the provision of pharmaceuticals in the developing world. These are sustainable financing, affordable pricing, reliable health and supply systems and the rational selection and use of existing drugs.

  On sustainable financing, we have pledged $200 million over five years to the Global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. The fund will support increased coverage of proven interventions for these diseases by providing developing countries with resources to purchase key commodities, and strengthen systems to procure and deliver them.

  The Working Group on Access to Medicines, which I chair, is working with the pharmaceutical industry and foundations, developing countries, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation and the European Commission to bring about more affordable pricing. The Group will report to the Prime Minister after its final meeting in July.

  We have committed over £1 billion since 1997 to strengthening developing countries' health systems, building their capacity both to deliver medicines to the poor and to make effective choices about the selection and use of drugs.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether UK development assistance to Zimbabwe is administered by Zimbabwe Government authorities. [62482]
  873W
  Clare Short
  UK development assistance is delivered through international, non-Government and parastatal organisations. Some commodities provided through our HIV/AIDS and emergency medical supplies programmes are distributed through public health service outlets. The bulk of our assistance is for food aid which is delivered outside Government channels.

  Sustainable Development Summit
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what she aims to achieve at the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg in respect of reduction of poverty. [62483]

  Clare Short
  The UK's strategic objective is to make globalisation work for sustainable development, especially for the poorest. At the summit, the UK would like to build on other processes, including the Doha Development Agenda and Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, to focus the efforts of Governments, international institutions, business and civil society on delivering the sustainable development necessary to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The summit is a critical opportunity to bring the development and environment movements together in a systematic attempt to both reduce poverty and pursue sustainable development. I also refer my right hon. Friend to the speech I gave on the summit in London on 20 June, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  UN Aid Target
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress she has made since June 2001 towards meeting the UN target for percentage of gross domestic product devoted to international aid. [62486]

  Clare Short
  In 2001, UK official development assistance was 0.32 per cent. of gross national income (GNI)—up from 0.26 per cent. in 1997. The Government are committed to the target of raising development assistance to 0.7 per cent. of national income, and will significantly raise the amount of our development assistance and its share in national income, in the next spending round. This will be announced soon, and will cover the years up to 2005–06.

  The UK played a major role in securing the commitment by the European Union at the Financing for Development conference in Monterrey to raise its average official development assistance as a share of national income to 0.39 per cent. (from 0.32 per cent.) by 2006. This will mean an extra $7 billion of official development assistance per year from Europe.

  EU Development Assistance
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her role in achieving a sharper poverty focus in EU development assistance. [62489]

  Clare Short
  DFID has worked hard since 1997 to improve the overall effectiveness of EC development assistance in contributing to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by improving its poverty focus and quality. There have been some steps in response 874W
  to our efforts to reform EC development assistance. We are pressing the EC to pursue its reform efforts vigorously in order to implement the November 2000 EC Development Policy, which for the first time makes poverty reduction the central objective of EC development programmes. We are also working for agreement that a much greater share of EC aid should be allocated to low income countries where it will have the greatest impact on poverty reduction. In 2000, only 38 per cent. of EC aid was spent in low-income countries compared to 70 per cent. in 1990. Last year we secured a substantial increase in the external actions budget for Asia. This year we hope to see the budget share for Asia maintained and further increased where possible.

  Great Lakes
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what Britain's contribution is towards the UN OCHA appeal for aid across the Great Lakes region. [62490]

  Clare Short
  DFID's contribution to the 2002 OCHA appeals for the Great Lakes are as follows:

  £

  Contribution

  OCHA Emergency Humanitarian Initiative

  500,000

  OCHA Coordination

  400,000

  Office for the High Commission of Human Rights

  250,000

  UN Security

  400,000

  UN OCHA Emergency Humanitarian Initiative1

  500,000

  1 Part of the United Nations Flash Appeal for the Goma eruption.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to increase aid to former Yugoslavia for reconstruction. [62491]

  Clare Short
  From 1991 to 2000, the UK's total contribution to the former Yugoslavia, comprising our share of EC funding and bilateral aid, including humanitarian aid, was £972 million.

  EC aid committed to the states of the former Yugoslavia through the CARDS and other programmes between 2000 and 2006 is £3.19 billion, of which the UK share, which is funded from DFID's budget, is £600 million. In addition, we are providing support to economic and social reform through our bilateral programmes, through which we are providing £16.1 million this year. We also contribute to the other multilateral agencies assisting the states of the former Yugoslavia, including the World bank and EBRD.

  We do not propose to increase these commitments.

  Tanzania
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she expects a response from the Civil Aviation Authority in respect of its assessment of Tanzania's military air traffic control system. [62493]
  875W
  Clare Short
  The International Civil Aviation Organisation has produced a report looking at the Government of Tanzania's (GoT) civil air navigation requirements. This is now being considered by the GoT and we are awaiting their response.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussion she has had with the Ministry of Defence about co-ordinating activities in supporting nation building in Afghanistan. [62494]

  Clare Short
  A reformed security sector is vital to the future stability of Afghanistan.

  My Department, in consultation with both the Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is contributing to the creation of accountable national military and police forces subject to the rule of law and under central and civilian control; anti-narcotics activities; and the re-establishment of an appropriate judicial system. The UK has in principle committed £22 million to this process for this financial year. My Department has worked closely with British forces serving in the International Security Assistance Force on the identification and implementation of quick impact projects in Kabul and its environs. These projects contribute to stability, thus allowing political processes and development activities to take root.

  Health Services
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her support for basic health services for poor people. [62495]

  Clare Short
  My Department is engaged in efforts to strengthen developing countries' health systems to deliver effective services for poor people and to address the priority health problems of the poor. Since 1997, the Government have committed over £1 billion to health systems strengthening. The UK has also committed $200 million over five years to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, which will help pay for increased coverage of proven interventions for these diseases and some associated health systems strengthening to ensure drugs and commodities are delivered safely, effectively and equitably.

  Millennium Development Goals (Africa)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment is of the challenges faced by Africa in reaching the millennium development goals. [62496]

  Clare Short
  Unlike the rest of the world, on present trends Africa will not meet the MDGs and halve poverty by 2015:economic growth needs to be more than twice as high, at 7 per cent., to meet the income poverty target.
  20 per cent. of Africans are affected by conflict costing the continent 2 per cent. a year of growth on average.
  maternal mortality has got worse, not better, over the last decade. over 25 million Africans are living with HIV/AIDS (70 per cent. of the global total).
  as a result, life expectancy has fallen by up to 20 years in some countries.
  876W
  If this continues, it will be a tragedy for Africa's people and a threat to the future safety and stability of the world.

  But this fate is not inevitable. Africa faces an enormous challenge in meeting the MDGs. But that challenge is not insurmountable. First, it requires that African nations commit to fundamental reform and a process of learning from one another. Second, it needs the developed world to alter the nature of its partnership with Africa, not just by increasing and improving aid but by tackling the whole range of policy constraints which affect Africa's development. NEPAD and the G8 can play a critical role in both.

  Science and Technology
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure information arising from scientific breakthroughs in(a) medicine, (b) agriculture and (c) other technologies, are shared for the benefit of the developing world; and if he will make a statement. [63915]

  Clare Short
  DFID places great importance on improving the access to research results to poor people who could benefit. DFID ensures that appropriate dissemination strategies are an essential and integral component of all research activities we support. We also recognise the need to facilitate interaction between researchers, policy makers and other users of research, not just in respect of research funded by DFID.

  DFID uses a range of mechanisms for knowledge sharing. These include all the usual mechanisms—books, journal and newspaper articles, conference proceedings and technical bulletins, leaflets and manuals, posters, videos, training and exposure through workshops and research partnerships. DFID will continue to support these and innovative mechanisms for knowledge sharing, including the use of information and communication technologies. Current information and communication technologies initiatives include health communications, distance education, empowerment and conflict reduction, science for development, a policy research institute network in conjunction with the World bank and a website which disseminates highlighted summaries of research that can help reduce poverty.

  Research outputs are promoted through packaging them into policies, strategies or technologies relevant to the needs of the poor. Promotion is usually managed in collaboration with target institutions, often locally based. Working with local agencies helps to foster long-term relationships for the successful transfer and adoption of research outputs that can help poor communities to prosper.

  A review of DFID's dissemination practices is currently under way and will feed into future work.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place in the Library a copy of the departmental guidance for officials on answering parliamentary questions. [63808]

  Clare Short
  I will place a copy of the guide, which was written by officials for officials, in the Library of the House.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Redundant Churches (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many churches in the Greater London area have been made redundant in each of the last five years. [63586]

  Mr. Bell
  A total of 15 Greater London churches have been declared redundant in the last five years, broken down as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997

  4

  1998

  5

  1999

  2

  2000

  2

  2001

  2

  In eight of these cases, a new church or place of worship was provided.

TRANSPORT

  New Roads and Street Works Act
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, (1) pursuant to the answer of 17 October 2001, from the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions,Official Report, column 1228W, on road works, what assessment has been made of the pilot schemes in the London borough of Camden and in Middlesbrough; how many daily charges have been made; what assessment has been made of the disruption to road users; and if he will make a statement; [61839]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 17 October 2001, from the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Official Report, column 1227W, on the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, if he will place the interim report in the Library; if the further report has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [61838]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Consultants—Halcrow—were appointed by the Government last year to measure the effectiveness of the powers under section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 by which highway authorities are able to impose charges on utility companies, where the latter dig up the highway and these works are not completed by an agreed deadline. These powers were activated on 1 April 2001.

  An interim monitoring report, covering the first few months of the new powers was produced by Halcrow in March. I am arranging for copies of this to be placed in the Libraries of the House. However, a full report, covering the first 12 months of the operation of the scheme, is due to be delivered to my Department shortly.

  Pilot schemes to test further powers under which local authorities can charge utility companies "lane rental", whenever the latter dig up highways to install or maintain their apparatus, began on 4 March 2002 in Camden and Middlesbrough. We do not yet have reliable data on the effect of the pilots. However, the Government also appointed Halcrow to measure the impact of lane rental, both in terms of the effect on the disruption caused by
  878W
  utility works and the costs which it imposes on those utilities. Halcrow are due to deliver their first report to my Department, covering the first few months of the scheme, later this year.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many local authorities by 31 March, had(a) shown intent to fine and (b) fined utility companies under the powers given in section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991; and if he will make a statement. [61378]

  Mr. Jamieson
  To date 112 local authorities have notified my Department that they are using or intend to use the section 74 powers to charge utility companies. We understand that all, or nearly all, of those have already imposed charges for overstaying.

  Nuclear Material (Rail Accidents)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the recent accident involving a train carrying nuclear material; and if he will make a statement on the performance of the emergency services in response. [62150]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The recent incident at Brookland crossing in Kent on 11 June involved a train carrying an empty nuclear fuel flask destined for Dungeness nuclear power station. The collision is estimated to have occurred at less than 5 mph. There was no damage to the flask, and minor damage to the front of the locomotive and the heavy goods vehicle, which it struck. Emergency services and specialist support from the nearby nuclear power station attended and information suggests that the response was adequate to deal with this incident.

  The UK is currently undergoing an audit, at our request, by the International Atomic Energy Agency under the auspices of its Transport Safety Appraisal Service (TranSAS). The audit team is formed from expert participants and observers from several countries and international bodies. The audit is intended to examine the regulatory and enforcement infrastructure in the United Kingdom related to the transport of radioactive material. This incident occurred while the TranSAS audit team were examining emergency response arrangements. The team visited Dungeness nuclear power station on 18 June and investigated the effectiveness of the response to the incident. The final report of the TranSAS mission is due later this year and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Silverstone Bypass
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the(a) circumstances, (b) sum involved and (c) purpose of the expenditure for which a direction was sought, relating to when an accounting officer sought direction from the Minister for Transport, Local Government and the Regions before authorising expenditure relating to the Silverstone bypass. [62148]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Silverstone Bypass was due to open in time for this year's Formula 1 British Grand Prix but progress was severely delayed due to last year's foot and mouth outbreak and exceptionally wet autumn.
  879W
  In previous years there have been serious problems with access to the Silverstone Circuit with resulting traffic congestion. The FIA, motorsport's governing body, had threatened to remove the British Grand Prix from future Formula 1 seasons and a major factor behind their agreeing to retain the British Grand Prix was the commitment by the Government that the access difficulties would not arise this year.

  Authority was sought to pay for different working methods to recover lost time and to guarantee a temporary use of part of the bypass for the Grand Prix to be held this July. This was done in recognition of the wider national interest in ensuring the security of the British Grand Prix for future years.

  The cost of accelerating the works is £8.064 million. This covers the cost of additional dry materials suitable for winter working; out of hours working at quarries, bituminous material production sites and the associated additional cost of transporting those materials; additional earthworks to remove the saturated material and provide accelerated drainage, and additional contractor's costs.

  Tram and Light Rail Schemes
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) published on the respective costs and benefits of tram and light rail schemes compared to schemes to promote greater bus use. [62805]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has commissioned a number of research projects which have looked at the impacts of particular light rail and bus schemes, but have not sought to compare alternatives. There are many published studies which seek to compare the respective cost and benefits of the two modes. These include 'Bus or light rail: making the right choice' (Environmental and Transport Planning, 2000), for which my Department was among the funders.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average public subsidy per journey is for(a) tram and light rail schemes, (b) bus routes and (c) underground railway schemes. [62810]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Relevant statistics are published in "Transport Statistics Bulletin", from which the following are extracts:

  Local bus services, Great Britain, 2000–01

  A. Concessionary fare reimbursement—£468 million

  B. Fuel duty rebate—£362 million

  C. Total subsidy (A+B)—£830 million

  D. Number of passenger journeys—4,309 million

  E. Subsidy per passenger journey (C/A)—£0.19.

  In addition, public transport support of £386 million was paid by local authorities mainly to support local bus services which were socially necessary but were not commercially viable. This includes Rural Bus Subsidy grant, Rural Bus Challenge, payments to operators, professional and technical services, and Pension Increase Act costs.

  For tram and light rail schemes and Glasgow Underground, the only public subsidy is concessionary fare reimbursement, the figures for which cannot be
  880W
  disaggregated from those for ferries. The combined figures for this expenditure are in Table 21 of "Transport Statistics Bulletin".

  For London Underground, concessionary fare reimbursement was £26 million in 2000–01, and passenger journeys 970 million, giving a figure per journey of 3p.

  Transport Strategies
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures he is taking to ensure that integrated transport systems receive high priority from local planners; [63575]

  (2) what measures he is taking to ensure that local people are fully involved in consultation processes when transport strategies are being drawn up by a local authority. [63576]

  Mr. Spellar
  Our guidance to local authorities on local transport plans (LTPs) and LTP annual progress reports (APRs) makes clear the importance of public participation not only in the development of the strategies and measures proposed within the plan but also on-going consultation during implementation. Evidence of participation is considered as part of the assessment of LTPs and APRs in determining the annual local transport capital settlement for authorities.

  We have also made clear in our guidance the need to demonstrate consistency between an authority's local transport plan and its local development plan. Guidance issued to local authorities on planning policies further emphasises the role of land use planning in delivering our integrated transport strategy. It is for the local authority to determine its local priorities but we have, as part of the planning Green Paper published last December, put forward proposals to improve the planning processes.

  Traffic Reduction Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has issued to steering groups and local authorities on how road traffic reduction targets should be considered in multi-modal studies. [63503]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department issued guidance in April 2002 on the way in which multi-modal studies should assess the contribution of strategies to the eight public service agreements set out in the 10-year plan for transport, published in July 2000, including the target"to reduce road congestion on the inter-urban network and in large urban areas in England below current levels by 2010".
  The guidance is a supplement to the DETR publication "Guidance on Methodology for Multi Modal Studies", dated March 2000. These documents can be found on the Department's website at www.dft.gov.uk.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who the designated Green Minister is for his Department. [63506]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am the Green Minister.

  Rail Regulator
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Office of the Rail Regulator. [63763]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement on 12 June 2002,Official Report, column 1261W.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will be represented on the board of Network Rail. [63761]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rates of interest apply to the short-term loan made available to NATS by the Government. [62994]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This matter is commercially confidential.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the role of(a) Bechtel and (b) other contractors on the West Coast Main Line. [64097]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack plc announced on 13 February that they had appointed Bechtel to lead a strengthened delivery team for the West Coast route modernisation. Railtrack employ a wide range of other companies in connection with the project.

  Railway Crime
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the railway industry with regard to railway crime; and if he will make a statement. [64141]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Regular discussions are held with the railways industry on a variety of matters that effect the operation and safety of the railway, including the prevention of crime. For example, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport launched a scheme on Monday 24 June involving Connex Trains who are sponsoring their staff to become Special Constables with the British Transport police by giving them time off work for their police duties and an annual bonus payment.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reward payments have been given to each train operating company in each year since 1994; and if he will make a statement. [64145]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The annual reports of the Strategic Rail Authority and its predecessors (the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority and Office of Passenger Rail Franchising—OPRAF) contain tables showing, for each franchise, the amounts paid and received as basic (non-incentive) payments and incentive regime payments. These documents are in the Libraries of the House.
  882W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in re-franchising in respect of each train operating company; and if he will make a statement. [64211]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Rail Industry
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) representations he has received and (b) discussions he has had with (i) the SRA, (ii) the Rail Regulator, (iii) ATOC and (iv) the rail industry with regard to the conditions of carriage; and if he will make a statement. [64095]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Roundabout, Hunter's Cross
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the Highways Agency study into the construction of a roundabout at the junction of the A35 and the B3165 at Hunter's Cross, Raymond's Hill, Devon. [63801]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency has commissioned a study to consider the options for improving the junction between the A35 trunk road and the B3165 at Raymond's Hill near Axminster in Devon. A number of options are being investigated, including the provision of a roundabout. I will ask the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member with details of the study's conclusions when they have completed their investigations. This is expected to be in the autumn.

  Disabled Parking Scheme
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, (1) pursuant to the answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 73W, on disability vehicle stickers, how many local authorities collect data on the number of charges and convictions for misuse of disabled persons' parking cards; [64449]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 17 June 2002, Official Report, column 73W, on disability vehicle stickers, why records on the number of charges and convictions for the misuse of disabled persons' parking cards are not kept centrally; and how trends in the misuse of disabled persons' parking cards are recorded. [64450]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no legal requirement for local authorities to hold such records and the Department does not currently ask for that information as part of its annual blue badge statistical survey of local authorities in England. The devolved Administrations are responsible for the scheme in other parts of the UK.

  The issues of misuse and abuse of badges are being considered as part of the review of the scheme which is currently under way.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action he is taking to prevent able-bodied drivers using disabled parking spaces; [64356]

  (2) what powers (a) the police and (b) local authorities have to deal with the abuse of disabled parking bays by able-bodied drivers. [64394]
  883W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Blue Badge scheme only applies to on-street parking. There is a wide variety of powers to tackle abuse available to local authorities, who are responsible for administering the Blue Badge scheme. It is an offence under section 47 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to park a vehicle which is not displaying a badge in a designated disabled person's parking bay.

  Off-street car parks are private property and charges and conditions of use are a contractual matter between the owner and the motorist. In these car parks, spaces marked for badge holders only are in most cases not legally enforceable, but depend on the courtesy and consideration of other drivers. Car park operators could ask a non-disabled driver to move their car from a space set aside for disabled people but they might not be in a position to insist upon it.

  The Department has, however, given its full support to the 'Baywatch' campaign run by a coalition of disability organisations (including the Disabled Drivers Association and the Disabled Drivers' Motor Club). They are committed to encouraging greater protection of disabled persons' parking bays in retail car parks from abuse by non-disabled drivers.

  The issues of abuse and misuse of badges are a key part of the major review of the Blue Badge scheme that we are currently undertaking.

  In the meantime, it is open to anybody to bring instances of fraudulent use to the attention of the police, traffic wardens, the appropriate local authority or car park operators and we will continue to work with these bodies and stakeholder groups to minimise the potential for abuse and misuse.

  Eye Tests
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the DVLA research project into visual field eye tests will be completed; and when the results of the study will be published. [64348]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Two complementary research studies are in progress.

  One study uses subjects with peripheral visual field defects and assesses their performance in a range of tasks that may be relevant to driving impairment. The report on this study is likely to be available in mid 2003.

  The other study is similarly examining the effect of visual field loss in the central area of the field. The report of this study is likely to be available towards the end of 2003.

  Station Accessibility
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what additional funds the Strategic Rail Authority plans to make available to(a) train operating companies and (b) Connex South East to upgrade stations to conform with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; [64253]

  (2) when the Strategic Rail Authority will have completed its review of train operators' disabled people's protection policy to identify where station facilities need to be improved. [64252]
  884W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Although it is the responsibility of the station facility operators to ensure that their stations meet the requirement of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995, the Strategic Rail Authority has said in its strategic plan that it will make available additional funding to ensure train operating companies are resourced, where necessary, to implement the requirements of the DDA on access to stations. Until the review of the Disabled People's Protection Policy for each train operator has been completed—the SRA expects by the end of this year—the full scope of the work required will not be known and priorities will then have to he applied to implementation.

  Manchester-Waterloo Rail Link
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed direct rail link from Manchester to Waterloo. [64350]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The train operator Wales and Borders currently provides one direct service between Manchester Piccadilly and London Waterloo via Leominster, but there is no requirement under the terms of the franchise for any such service.

  Home Working
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to encourage employees to work from home; and if he will make a statement. [64532]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Working at or from home is one option for working flexibly which is available to staff in my Department. At present over 350 staff currently have remote access to out IT systems to enable them to work from home or on the move.

  South London Metro
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals the Government have to develop a south London Metro. [64286]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]: Implementation of the Strategic Rail Authority's plan will deliver increased frequency of suburban services and substantial investment in stations. Many stations in south London already receive high frequency services but more will be done to improve journeys and make better use of the established network in south London. Improvements will be delivered via franchise replacement, major projects such as the East London Line extension, and specific programmes for station improvements. The SRA is considering fares integration in London as part of its wider review of fares policy. It is also working with stakeholders to develop improved journey information and branding.

  Pelican Crossing (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to revise the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994; when his Department will give approval for the operation of the pelican crossing in Chelmer Village Way, Chelmsford; and if he will make a statement. [63940]
  885W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We expect to introduce revised and updated Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions in the autumn. My officials received an application on 6 June to authorise signals for a Toucan (pedestrian and cycle crossing) in Chelmer Village Way and the authorisation was issued on 20 June.

  Thames River Crossing
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what cost estimate his Department made of a new Thames river crossing from Cliffe Marshes in Kent to Canvey Island. [63797]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no proposals with detailed cost estimates at this time for a new Thames crossing between Cliffe Marshes and Canvey Island that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is considering.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to consult local hon. Members, local councils and Essex county council on the possibility of a new Thames river crossing. [63792]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  Consultation with local hon. Members and local councils, including Essex county council, is currently taking place in relation to the Government's London Orbital multi modal study (Orbit). Consultants published a provisional strategy for Orbit on 11 June 2002. This includes recommendations for further work on a lower Thames crossing. Details of the provisional strategy are included in an Orbit newsletter sent out to 3,000 key stakeholders in June. The content of the provisional strategy has not been formally considered by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister or his officials at this time.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings, and on what dates, his Department(a) has had and (b) are planned with the Thames Gateway South Essex on a possible new Thames crossing; and what the agenda for these meetings was. [63796]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has not had any meetings with the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership about this specific issue. Furthermore no such meetings are planned at this time.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Thames Gateway South Essex on possible new Thames river crossings. [63795]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  No discussions about this specific issue have taken place with the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what options he has discussed for a new Thames river crossing to the east of the existing crossing at Dartford. [63794]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.
  886W
  There are no proposals at this time for a new Thames river crossing east of the existing crossing at Dartford that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is considering.

  Electoral Arrangements
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public expenditure was incurred in organising the 2001 general election in(a) the UK, (b) Greater London and (c) Enfield; and if he will make a statement. [58967]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The funds made available to acting returning officers to conduct the 2001 general election were as follows:

  (a) England and Wales—£27 million;

  (b) Greater London—£5 million; and

  (c) Enfield—£153,000.

  These figures represent advances made; when final accounts are submitted and paid they are expected to rise. In addition in England and Wales, around £18 million was paid for the delivery of candidates' election material and for electoral equipment. No further breakdown of this figure is available in the form requested. The responsibility for funding parliamentary elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Broadband
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of benefits of access to broadband services for SMEs; and if she will make a statement. [61791]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have conducted studies of the benefits of ICT and e-commerce to business and SME's. Other organisations have conducted studies which suggest that broadband has a range of benefits, with the potential to bring about productivity improvement e.g. lower transaction costs when communicating with customers and suppliers.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what comparative research she has commissioned on the delivery of broadband in(a) other European countries and (b) the US. [63665]

  Mr. Timms
  UK Online: the broadband future published in February 2001 sets out our research activities. The UK also has bilateral contacts with countries in the EU and around the world, and has a memorandum of understanding on co-operation with the US Federal Trade Commission. This allows us to benchmark progress more qualitatively.

  We are also keeping in close touch with analysis of developments in broadband markets being carried out by the OECD.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with business leaders regarding broadband; and what was the result of those discussions. [63667]
  887W
  Mr. Timms
  I have recently met with a number of business leaders, including representatives of several mobile telecommunications firms, BT, Cable companies and Tesco.com. I hope to meet shortly with several other major players, both from within and outside the telecoms sector. I have also met Keith Todd, the chairman of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, to hear the views and comments of the 250 members of the Stakeholder Group.

  The Government have worked closely with business and other stakeholders to develop and take forward the UK broadband strategy and will continue to do so. Latest developments in this strategy can be found at www.e-envoy.gov.uk, and my speeches and press notices on broadband can be found at www.dti.gov.uk.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on the target set in February 2001 to make the UK the most competitive and extensive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. [63666]

  Mr. Timms
  The UK Online annual report of December 2001 stated that the UK had the fifth most extensive market and the fourth most competitive market in the G7.

  Since then the market has continued to develop, with prices falling, coverage increasing and take-up accelerating. Around 66 per cent. of the population are now able to access one or more of ADSL, cable or wireless technologies, with nearly 40 per cent. having a choice.

  BT has now enabled 1,115 exchanges to deliver broadband services, and has given customers the ability to register their interest with a promise to make broadband available when the level reaches a specified figure. This allow more than 40 resellers of BT's wholesale ADSL to offer broadband to customers.

  The Government have set out a comprehensive programme of action, including a £30 million fund to help the regional development agencies develop innovative schemes to extend broadband networks, as well as measures to tackle competition, supply, demand and content.

  We will shortly be announcing the next steps for public sector procurement, with a view to maximising the buying power of the public sector and ensuring that broadband is bought in a cost-effective, joined-up manner.

  Freepost Services
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement about the Consignia freepost service for services for the blind; [63178]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the continuation of the Freepost service to the blind. [63674]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Friend to the answer given on 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 1560W.

  Prize Draws
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information her Department has collated regarding unsolicited prize draws sent from foreign addresses. [63492]
  888W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department have received a large amount of correspondence from the public about unsolicited prize draws, many of which originate from overseas, making it difficult for consumers to identify the source of mailings.

  The Office of Fair Trading currently have over thirty cases of mailings from overseas under investigation. In response, the OFT is gathering intelligence on each deceptive mailing in order to trace the originators and to actively pursue those responsible.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with relevant authorities in other countries regarding unsolicited prize draws sent by mail to addresses in this country. [63493]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department works closely with enforcement bodies, such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), who work with their European and other international counterparts on unsolicited mailings.

  The OFT has the status of a "Community qualified entity", which enables it to bring proceedings under the Injunctions directive (98/27/EC), in other European Community member states in order to protect UK consumer interests.

  The OFT raised the issue of misleading mailings at the most recent European meeting of the International Marketing Supervision Network (IMSN), with a view to co-ordinating Europe-wide action against such mailings. The OFT has also held discussions on misleading mailings with north American law enforcement agencies, including Industry Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Business Affairs, the Ontario provincial police and the US federal trade commission.

  The ASA supervises the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion and works with national and international regulators. Where misleading mailings may have originated outside of the UK, the ASA liaises with regulatory bodies in the EU via the European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA).

  Post Offices (Fraud)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices were temporarily closed because of suspected fraud within their premises in(a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom in each year since 1995. [63488]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters which fall within the operational responsibilities of Post Office Limited and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences for military supplies to(a) India and (b) Pakistan have been granted which are still being used by supplying companies. [63347]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Because the granting of an export licence does not necessarily translate into an actual export, it would entail disproportionate cost to contact all
  889W
  exporters with current licences to India and Pakistan to establish which, if any, are still being used by supplying companies.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) small and (b) medium size companies have contacted the Small Business Service since 2000; and if she will make a statement on future operational activity of the SBS. [63670]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service (SBS) was set up in April 2000. It works through 45 local Business Links to deliver business support services to SMEs. Small businesses are able to access these services via a number of channels—by calling the Business Link National Enquiry Line on 0845 600 9006; by logging on to the www.businesslink.org website; or by directly contacting their local Business Link. These channels became operational in April 2001.

  Although we do not hold comprehensive information on the size of the companies that have contacted us, statistics for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, are as follows:

  Number of SMEs that were provided with information or advice by their local Business Link—244,685

  Number of calls to the Business Link National Enquiry Line—68,053

  Number of e-mail inquiries generated via www.businesslink.org—4,989.

  Prior to April 2001 comprehensive contact statistics were not recorded.

  In addition, from April 2000 until the end of May 2002 the SBS National Enquiry Line (0114 259 7788) has dealt with over 11,860 inquiries.

  SBS future operational activity

  The SBS Business Plan for 2002–03 will be available on the website www.sbs.gov.uk in July. This sets out the operational priorities.

  Engineering
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make engineering more attractive as a career to students. [63664]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department supports a number of activities that are intended to encourage the young to appreciate the benefits of careers within the engineering sector. The individual programmes are as follows:

  Through SETNET, the Science, Engineering, Technology and Maths Network, DTI supports the 53 SETPoints across the UK with delivery into schools of activities intended to enhance the curricula. Each SETPoint is in the second year of a three-year Business Plan through which they will ensure that every child under 16 has the opportunity at least once in each Key Stage, or the equivalent, to participate in an appropriate activity. This is bolstered by our support for the Science Engineering Ambassadors (SEAs) programme, which encourages people working in STEM based careers to pass on their experiences to those in school.
  890W
  The Department is also supporting the Engineering Technology Board one of whose core aims is to reverse the downward trend of people, including students, with appropriate qualifications and skills taking up Engineering and Technology based careers.

  In addition, there are a number of smaller programmes, which the Government support. These include:

  The WISE (Women in Science and Engineering) Programme which aims to encourage more women to enter these fields;

  Work being done by Forum for the Future to link engineering sector with sustainable development;

  Part of our grant in aid to the Royal Academy of Engineering is used to support a range of educational programmes, collectively known as BEST;

  The Engineering and Physical Research Council (EPSRC) funds a large schools programme, which is aimed, in part, to future engineers;

  The Copus grant scheme aims to make engineering more attractive as a career to students funded by the Office of Science and Technology and the Royal Society; and

  A number of programmes aimed at encouraging engineering in specific sectors.

  Total funding is approximately £10,500,000 per annum.

  Arms Sales (Israel)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on export controls on UK companies selling arms to Israel. [63970]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Companies exporting arms and other items controlled for strategic reasons from the UK to Israel require an export licence from the Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on 15 April 2002, Official Report, columns 722–23W.

  Office for Civil Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent appointments have been made from her Office for Civil Nuclear Security to advisory bodies of the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. [63846]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Deputy Director of the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) has been appointed to the IAEA's Advisory Group on Nuclear Security which held its first meeting in February this year. Advisory group members are appointed by the Director General and are recruited in their own capacity as recognised experts in the field of nuclear security.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on paragraph 4 of the report of the Director of Civil Nuclear Security, covering the period October 2000 to March 2002. [63838]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Director of Civil Nuclear Security, the security regulator for the UK civil nuclear industry, stated in paragraph 4 of his first annual report on the "State of Security in the Civil Nuclear Industry and the Effectiveness of Security Regulation" that it is essential that stringent security precautions are taken by the civil nuclear industry in view of the consequences that the misappropriation of nuclear material or a successful
  891W
  sabotage attack on a nuclear facility might have. It is not our policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites. I am satisfied by the assurances the director has given me about the security measures in place which are kept under continuing review.

  Civil Nuclear Industry
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the development of design basis threat planning documents for the civil nuclear industry. [63841]

  Mr. Wilson
  I cannot add to the information about the key planning document known as the design basis threat (DBT) which the Director of the Civil Nuclear Security referred to in his recent annual report on the "State of Security in the Civil Nuclear Industry and the Effectiveness of Security Regulation", placed in the Libraries of the House on 11 June 2002. The assessment is classified and no further details can be published. The Director of Civil Nuclear Security assures himself that a site operator's ability to protect against the DBT is adequate and is tested.

  Wave Power
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to establish a publicly owned wave power production company. [63857]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. The Government's renewable energy programme includes £5 million to support demonstration and testing of wave and tidal technology projects.

  Terrorist Threats
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Office for Civil Nuclear Security contacted the United States and Japanese regulatory authorities in respect of the security arrangements to deal with the potential terrorist threats to plutonium mox fuel in transit by sea. [63842]

  Mr. Wilson
  Regarding the MOX fuel that was exported to Japan in 1999 to be returned to the UK, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security maintains regular contact with the Japanese Government and regulatory authorities, most recently in January this year to consult on security arrangements for the return shipment. They have not been in direct contact with authorities in the United States in this context; any business with the US Government is normally carried out through the embassy in Washington.

  Staff Transfers
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will extend the Redundancy Payments (Continuity of Employment of Local Government etc.) (Modification) Order 1999 to cover staff transferred from a local authority to a private contractor undertaking a contract longer than five years. [64310]

  Alan Johnson
  Employing bodies who wish to be included on future amendments to the Redundancy Payments (Continuity of Employment in Local Government etc.) (Modification) Order 1999 should write to the Department's Employment Relations Directorate, giving 892W
  full particulars of their organisation and its functions. All such requests are considered in the context of the employing bodies' connection with or involvement in the public sector.

  Copyright
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations she has received in the last 12 months asking that trading standards officers should take responsibility for enforcing copyright offences; and if she will make a statement; [64307]

  (2) what plans she has to introduce section 107A of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988; and if she will make a statement. [64306]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The industry umbrella group, the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy, has lobbied for section 107A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be brought into force. The specific investigatory tools to enforce the copyright offences that would be given to trading standards officers by section 107A would be in addition to the ones they have under related trade marks and trade descriptions laws. The delay in bringing section 107A into force arises from concerns about possible resource implications that we are seeking to resolve.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to explain to UK electricity consumers the proportion of their energy costs due to the Renewables Obligation. [64347]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the statutory consultation on the Renewables Obligation, published in August 2001, it was estimated that its introduction would result in a maximum increase in average electricity prices of just under 5 per cent. by 2010 in comparison with 1999 prices. Actual costs arising from the Obligation will depend on what suppliers actually pay for any additional renewable energy supplies or for Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs).

  In a competitive electricity market, it is for individual electricity suppliers to determine the price of the electricity which they provide to consumers. In determining those prices, suppliers will have to take account of a wide range of influencing factors, including any arising from the Renewables Obligation.

  The buy-out mechanism operates to ensure that any extra costs arising from the Obligation do not reach an unacceptable level. Recycling of buy-out receipts will provide an incentive to further investment in renewables—thus helping suppliers to work towards reducing overall costs.

  NETA
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the workings of NETA during its first complete year. [64344]

  Mr. Wilson
  Ofgem, the gas and electricity regulator, is currently preparing a report on the operation of NETA in its first year. This is due to be published in July 2002.

  Selby Coal Mine
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the report prepared for the Department on the economic and geological prospects of the Selby coal mine complex. [64584]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is my intention to publish this report after we have received the final version.

  Press Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) full-time equivalents were employed by her press office and (b) secondees were placed in the press office in the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [64583]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of press officers was as follows:

  As at 1 January

  Press officers

  1998

  17

  1999

  24

  2000

  25

  2001

  23

  2002

  23

  There have been a number of short-term loans to the press office from other Government Departments and agencies, but none over this period from the private sector or non-Government bodies. We do not keep records of the number of loans from Government bodies to the press office.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Scientific and Technical Committee for the Community Fund for Tobacco Research and Information 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. [61722]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Scientific and Technical Committee for the Community Fund for Tobacco Research and Information is a scientific committee set up to assist the European Commission in the management of the Community Tobacco Fund. The Community Tobacco Fund finances action in the areas of improving public awareness of the harmful effects of tobacco consumption and identifying specific measures to help tobacco growers switch to other crops or other economic activities.

  The Scientific and Technical Committee for the Community Fund for Tobacco Research and Information is not attended by officials of Her Majesty's Government and does not give rise to costs to UK public funds.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General which inspectorates have been involved in the thematic inspections undertaken by the HMCPSI; and what the title was of each thematic inspection. [60208]

  The Solicitor-General
  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has participated in six joint inspectorate thematic inspections since April 1999. The names of the other inspectorates and titles of each inspection are as follows:How Long Youth Cases Take. A joint inspection by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, HM Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (published May 1999).
  Casework Information Needs within the Criminal Justice System. A joint review by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, HM Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Inspectorate of Probation and the Social Services Inspectorate (published April 2000).
  The Implementation of section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Act 1998. A joint inspection by HM Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (published November 2000).
  Report on the Joint Inspection of the Progress made in Reducing Delay in the Youth Justice System. A joint inspection by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, HM Magistrates' Courts Service and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (published February 2001).
  Report on the Joint Inspection into the Investigation and Prosecution of Cases Involving Allegations of Rape. A joint inspection by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (published April 2002).
  Report on the Joint follow-up Inspection of the Progress made in Reducing Delay in the Youth Justice System. A joint inspection by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, HM Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (published May 2002).

  A joint inspection of Discharged Committals in the West Midlands Area has just been completed by a team of inspectors drawn from HMCPSI, HMIC and HMMCSI. This is the first joint inspection of any part of the work of the same CPS, Police and Magistrates' Court Service area. The report is expected to be published in July 2002.

  In addition, work is continuing on two other thematic reviews. One is a review into Listing Procedures in the magistrates and Crown courts in conjunction with HMIC and HMMCSI and the other is a review, entitled "Joint Inter-Agency inspection of Safeguards for Children", examining the protection afforded to children by the relevant agencies. This latter is being undertaken by HMCPSI and seven other inspectorates:

  (i) Social Services Inspectorate

  (ii) HM Inspectorate of Education and Schools (Ofsted)

  (iii) Commission for Health Improvement (CHI)

  (iv) HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC)

  (v) HM Inspectorate of the National Probation Service for England and Wales

  (vi) HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons)

  (vii) Her Majesty's Magistrates' Court Service Inspectorate (HMMCSI).

  895W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria the HMCPSI uses to determine the quality of CPS casework. [60209]

  The Solicitor-General
  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate assesses the quality of CPS casework by a careful evaluation of how the CPS performs its four key functions: the provision of pre-charge advice to the police: reviewing cases following the commencement of proceedings; preparing cases for court; and presenting cases in court.

  Inspectors focus on a number of main themes under each of these functions. Under pre-charge advice and case review, inspectors assess whether the law, the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and charging standards agreed between the CPS and police nationally are all being correctly interpreted and applied; and whether all actions and decisions regarding cases are being taken at the right time. Inspectors pay particular attention to special categories of cases, including those involving racist incidents, child abuse and domestic violence cases.

  The evaluation of case preparation is more process based. Inspectors consider how the CPS discharges its duties of disclosure, the timeliness of its source of material upon the defence and the court, how the CPS prepares cases for trial, file management and endorsements, and the effectiveness of specific processes such as the monitoring of custody time limits.

  In relation to case presentation, inspectors assess whether prosecuting advocates have the appropriate skills to present cases fairly, thoroughly and firmly and to test defence cases rigorously, and whether they exercise these skills to enable courts to reach just decisions.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action has been taken by the HMCPSI to ensure that scrutiny is consistent across the areas to provide objective assessment and comparisons between areas. [60210]

  The Solicitor-General
  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ensures that scrutiny is consistent across all areas by applying the same methodology in all its area inspections, but with a balanced approach that takes into account different practices and characteristics between the areas. Therefore, inspectors always examine key aspects of an area's performance, such as the application of the tests contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the area's compliance with the duties of disclosure of unused material and the standard of advocacy. These findings are always published in a table of performance measures in the report, and compared with performance data of other CPS areas inspected to date. Key issues peculiar to the area are highlighted and discussed elsewhere in the report.

  Assessing the quality of legal decision-making is difficult as decisions frequently turn on legal or evidential issues that are essentially matters of professional judgment. Inspectors therefore assess whether a decision or an action by a prosecutor was one which was properly open to a reasonable prosecutor having regard to the principles set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and other relevant guidance. The application of this objective test means that inspectors do not "disagree" with a
  896W
  decision unless it is wrong in principle, and not merely because an individual inspector may have come to a different conclusion.

  The Inspectorate is not a large organisation, and guidance has been formulated, and training opportunities used, to help develop a uniformity of approach. Each inspection team consists of several inspectors. They will have worked on different areas and with different colleagues. This allows the exchange of ideas and opinions before conclusions are drawn, and so the risk of different standards being applied are minimised. Finally, the scrutiny given to the draft report by the relevant Group Director and the Chief Inspector, together with discussions about the emerging findings and the draft report with senior area managers, help to ensure a consistent approach and the fair and objective assessment of the performance of each area.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the reports which have been produced by HMCPSI since the inception of the service for the DPP and the Law Officers. [60212]

  The Solicitor-General
  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has carried out a total of 86 CPS branch and area inspections since 1997. A list appears at the conclusion of this answer.

  47 branch reports and one report on a complete area (London) were published between 1997 and 1999 when the Crown Prosecution Service comprised 13 large areas with over 90 branches.

  In April 1999 the CPS was reorganised into 42 areas and restructured in accordance with the recommendations of the Review of the CPS (the Glidewell report). Since that time, 37 area inspection reports have been published. The inspections of the remaining five areas are currently at different stages of completion and all reports should he published by September 2002.

  HMCPS Inspectorate has also published nine thematic reports and has participated in six joint inspections.

  The Chief Inspector for the time being of HMCPSI has, in addition, published four annual reports. Three were on a non-statutory basis. The inspectorate, which had previously been part of the CPS itself, was placed on an independent statutory basis on 11 October 2000 when the Crown Prosecution Service Act 2000 came into effect. The first statutory annual report was laid before Parliament on 2 May 2002.

  Branch reports (August-July 1999)

  Branch office

  Date

  Number

  Dorset

  August 1997

  1/97

  Exeter

  August 1997

  2/97

  Leeds, North

  September 1997

  3/97

  West Kent

  September 1997

  4/97

  Liverpool, South

  October 1997

  5/97

  Derbyshire

  October 1998

  6/97

  Cambridgeshire

  November 1997

  7/97

  Gloucestershire

  November 1997

  8/97

  Teeside

  November 1997

  9/97

  London (area report)

  December 1997

  Norfolk

  January 1998

  1/98

  Humberside

  January 1998

  2/98

  Leicestershire

  January 1998

  3/98

  Warwickshire

  February 1998

  4/98

  Wiltshire

  February 1998

  5/98

  Hertfordshire

  March 1998

  6/98

  Surrey

  March 1998

  7/98

  897W

  Branch reports (August-July 1999)

  Branch office

  Date

  Number

  Lincolnshire

  March 1998

  8/98

  Bedfordshire

  April 1998

  9/98

  North Yorkshire

  April 1998

  10/98

  Gwent

  May 1998

  11/98

  Northants

  May 1998

  12/98

  West Mercia

  June1998

  13/98

  Durham

  June 1998

  14/98

  Suffolk

  June 1998

  15/98

  Cumbria

  July 1998

  16/98

  Chester

  July 1998

  17/98

  Brent, Harrow and Uxbridge

  August 1998

  18/98

  Bolton and Wigan

  August 1998

  19/98

  North Staffordshire

  September 1998

  20/98

  Highbury

  September 1998

  21/98

  North-Wales

  October 1998

  22/98

  Portsmouth

  October 1998

  23/98

  Camberwell

  November 1998

  24/98

  Stockport/Sale

  November 1998

  25/98

  Wearside

  November 1998

  26/98

  Marylebone/West London

  December 1998

  27/98

  Coventry

  January 1999

  01/99

  Humberside

  January 1999

  02/99

  Enfield/Waltham Forest

  January 1999

  03/99

  Fylde

  February 1999

  04/99

  South Glamorgan

  February 1999

  05/99

  London Youth Branch

  March 1999

  06/99

  Bristol

  March 1999

  07/99

  Barking

  April 1999

  08/99

  Manchester, South

  May 1999

  09/99

  Birmingham 1

  May 1999

  10/99

  Central Casework

  July 1999

  11/99

  Area reports

  Area office

  Dorset

  May 2000

  01/00

  Merseyside

  May 2000

  02/00

  Gloucestershire

  July 2000

  03/00

  West Mercia

  July 2000

  04/00

  Northumbria

  September 2000

  05/00

  Derbyshire

  September 2000

  06/00

  Essex

  September 2000

  07/00

  Nottinghamshire

  September 2000

  08/00

  Joint Inspections

  Subject

  Date

  How Long Youth Cases take (with HMIC and HMMCSI)

  May 1999

  Casework Information Needs within the CJS (with HMIC, HMMCSI, HMI Prisons, HMI Probation, SSI)

  April 2000

  Implementation of Section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Act 1998 (this was an HMMCSI report assisted by HMCPSI and HMIC)

  November 2000

  Progress Made in Reducing Delay in the Youth Justice System (with HMIC and HMMCSI)

  February 2001

  Cases Involving an Allegation of Rape (with HMIC)

  April 2002

  Joint Follow-up Inspection of the Progress Made in Reducing Delay in the Youth Justice System (with HMIC and HMMCSI)

  May 2002

  HMCPSI annual reports

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the use of lay inspectors within HMCPSI inspections; and if she will list the nominating bodies. [60218]

  The Solicitor-General
  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has used one or more lay inspectors in each area inspection undertaken (save for one in which the lay inspector was unable to attend through illness). Lay inspectors observe and assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service through a process of observation, inspection and evaluation,
  898W

  Branch reports (August-July 1999)

  Branch office

  Date

  Number

  Cambridgeshire

  November 2000

  09/00

  Durham

  November 2000

  10/00

  Lancashire

  November 2000

  11/00

  South Wales

  January 2001

  01/01

  Suffolk

  January 2001

  02/01

  South Yorkshire

  February 2001

  03/01

  Cheshire

  February 2001

  04/01

  Kent

  February 2001

  05/01

  West Midlands

  March 2001

  06/01

  Hampshire IoW

  March 2001

  07/01

  Northamptonshire

  March 2001

  08/01

  Cleveland

  April 2001

  09/01

  Norfolk

  April 2001

  10/01

  Gwent

  May 2001

  11/01

  Lincolnshire

  June 2001

  12/01

  Gloucestershire (re-insp)

  June 2001

  13/01

  West Yorkshire

  July 2001

  14/01

  Humberside

  September 2001

  15/01

  Staffordshire

  September 2001

  16/01

  Warwickshire

  November 2001

  17/01

  North Yorkshire

  November 2001

  18/01

  London

  December 2001

  19/01

  Bedfordshire

  January 2002

  01/02

  Thames Valley

  January 2002

  02/02

  Dyfed Powys

  March 2002

  03/02

  North Wales

  March 2002

  04/02

  Greater Manchester

  March 2002

  05/02

  Leicestershire

  April 2002

  06/02

  Cumbria

  April 2002

  07/02

  Hertfordshire

  May 2002

  08/02

  Thematic reports

  Cases involving Child Witnesses

  January 1998

  01/98

  Cases involving Domestic Violence

  May 1998

  02/98

  Advice Cases

  September 1998

  03/98

  Adverse Cases

  June 1999

  01/99

  Evaluation of Lay Review and Lay Presentation

  August 1999

  02/99

  Advocacy and Case Presentation

  February 2000

  01/00

  Disclosure of Unused Material

  March 2000

  02/00

  Performance Indicator Compliance and Case Outcomes

  July 2000

  03/00

  Casework with a Minority Ethnic Dimension

  May 2002

  01/02

  primarily in relation to the service's dealings with the public and its ability to assess and interpret the public interest in its decision-making under the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

  Lay inspectors help to:

  assess the extent to which the CPS undertakes the care and treatment of victims and witnesses;

  assess the extent to which prosecutors comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors specifically in relation to the application of the public interest test;

  assess the effectiveness of the relationship between the CPS and the local community; and

  assess the effectiveness of the CPS in dealing with complaints.

  Lay inspectors bring the broad perspective of an informed member of the public to the CPS inspection process. They contribute to the inspection of CPS areas and assist in formulating recommendations to improve

  899W
  performance where necessary. While lay inspectors are governed by strict rules of confidentiality in relation to individual cases, they play an important part in helping to promote people's awareness of the work undertaken by both the CPS itself and the Inspectorate.

  Most lay inspectors have been nominated by:

  the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders;

  the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; and Victim Support.

  Some have been nominated by diverse local groups, such as:

  local Racial Equality Councils;

  the Terence Higgins Trust; or

  established local community groups.

  In practice, lay inspectors will observe trials in both the magistrates courts and the Crown court and speak to prosecution witnesses when they have finished giving evidence; consider a number of complaints made to the CPS area; consider some files which have been the subject of contentious or borderline decisions, either to proceed or to discontinue the case, under the public interest test in Code for Crown Prosecutors; and, if possible, to join in some interviews both with CPS staff and local representatives of other organisations. Wherever possible, lay inspectors join in the evaluation of the performance of the area, contribute a short report on their observations and findings, and comment upon the draft report.

  The Law Officers who held office at the time the first cycle of area inspections was commenced and encouraged the use of lay inspectors and I support the continuation and development of their role.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General which HMCPSI inspections have reviewed discontinuance rates in magistrates' courts since 1999. [60204]

  The Solicitor-General
  Every HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Report contains the comments of inspectors on the discontinuance rate in the area inspected. The discontinuance rate is a comparative calculation of case outcomes in the magistrates courts collected by each CPS area.

  The Inspectorate publishes in its area reports its assessment of whether decisions to discontinue cases examined during the inspection comply with the Code and compares this with the assessments made in all the areas inspected in the current cycle to date. Inspectors examine the timeliness of the decisions to discontinue, and analyse the reasons for discontinuance of cases and assess the quality of decision-making in a sample of cases, that is whether these decisions are taken in accordance with the law, the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and other relevant guidance.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on(a) the number of women and numbers of minority-ethnic groups working at SCS level within the HMCPSI and (b) the number of men working in an administrative or secretarial capacity with HMCPSI. [60217]

  The Solicitor-General
  On 24 June 2002 there were no women or members of a minority ethnic group at SCS level within HMCPSI.
  900W
  HMCPSI employs one male at administrative assistant grade and four males at administrative officer grade. There are four secretaries (including one agency staff), all of whom are female.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what changes in inspection methodology have been undertaken by HMCPSI following publication of the report entitled Review on Evaluation of HMCPSI Programme and Methodology 2001. [60222]

  The Solicitor-General
  Changes in inspection methodology following publication of the Report, Review and Evaluation of HMCPSI programme and methodology (2001) include:a small reduction in the numbers of files requested from CPS areas for examination;
  streamlining of file examination to focus on key aspects of decision-making and case management;
  adjustment of the inspection timetable to allow extra time for evaluation and report writing;
  a more consultative approach with areas, in particular over the draft report;
  an increased use of questionnaires for external consultees;
  the development of a report template to help consistency, concision, and presentation of information.

  In the medium-longer term, the Inspectorate currently has working groups examining its methodology in relation to both casework and management and operational issues with a view to developing more focused and flexible arrangements for the next inspection cycle. These will have greater emphasis on the business excellence model principles, greater use of risk management, and the encouragement of self-review and performance measurement within the CPS itself.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on, and explain the variation in, the annual budget allocated to staff training in each CPS area, with specific reference to(a) Warwickshire and (b) Northamptonshire, in 2001–02. [59349]

  The Solicitor-General
  CPS areas allocate elements of their administration budgets to fund training courses on the basis of locally determined factors and priorities. The sums allocated, which were set out in my reply to the hon. Member on 6 March 2002, exclude the opportunity cost of backfilling front-line staff when attending courses, and also associated travel and subsistence costs. They also exclude the costs of national training initiatives funded centrally from within the CPS HQ allocation or from the allocations to the service's 10 service centres.

  CPS Warwickshire, being the smallest area in the country, is proportionately resourced and elected to set its training budget to reflect only the costs of external courses and fees for admission to conferences. Other expenditure on training was subsumed within its allocation of administration costs. Apparent variations can be misleading and it is significant that in a recent inspection, HM Chief Inspector commended the area on its approach and delivery of training.

  CPS Northampton has focused resources on leadership training building on its recent Investors in People accreditation and as part of its application to the Business Excellence Model, particularly to assist in its establishment of a co-located Criminal Justice Unit with the Northamptonshire police. The area's budget is also distorted by an additional

  901W
  allocation that the area bid for separately to undertake a specific project designed to improve advocacy skills. In the event, the project was deferred because the coincidence of its timing with other national training initiatives would have adversely affected operations. The area subsequently reduced its allocation to training accordingly.

  Significant funding was set aside centrally for the delivery of a number of national training initiatives over the period which included legislative and procedural training on the implementation of the Human Rights Act; diversity and equality issues; advocacy training for higher court advocates and designated caseworkers; and, more recently, computer literacy training to complement the rollout of the CPS connect 42 infrastructure. Both Warwickshire and Northamptonshire benefited from this training. This funding, amounting to £1.34 million in 1999–2000; £1.53 million in 2000–01; and £3.70 million in 2001–02, cannot be directly associated with each of the 42 CPS area budgets.

DEFENCE

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the status of proposals to close AWE Burghfield; [63456]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the documents pertaining to proposals to close AWE Burghfield. [63453]

  Dr. Moonie
  AWE plc, which manages AWE on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, has conducted a feasibility study into whether it would be cost-effective to undertake all operations at a single site. However, this is simply a feasibility study—no decision has been made and no proposals exist to move to a single site, consequently there is no documentation pertaining to the closure of AWE Burghfield.

  Air Tankers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the remaining life expectancy is of the existing air-to-air refuelling tankers. [63630]

  Dr. Moonie
  The existing Royal Air Force refuelling fleet is made up of two aircraft types comprising 19 VC1Os and six TriStars. On current plans, all the VC10s are due to go out of service by the end of this decade with the TriStars leaving service shortly afterwards. Precise dates can be amended as necessary to ensure a smooth transition to the new air-to-air refuelling capability to be provided by the future strategic tanker aircraft when it enters service.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Hercules C-130Js are capable of air-to-air refuelling. [63631]

  Dr. Moonie
  Each of the Hercules C-130Js can be refuelled in the air as and when necessary.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air-to-air refuelling operations occurred in each of the last 12 months. [63594]
  902W
  Dr. Moonie
  The table shows the number of air-to-air refuelling sorties that have occurred in each of the last 12 months since June 2001. These figures exclude 456 sorties where no fuel was transferred, including sorties carried out for training purposes.

  Air-to-air refuelling sorties

  Month/year

  Number

  2001

  June

  198

  July

  179

  August

  269

  September

  165

  October

  264

  November

  252

  December

  198

  2002

  January

  200

  February

  177

  March

  132

  April

  162

  May

  152

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the A340 air tanker project will have a helicopter refuelling capability. [63595]

  Dr. Moonie
  I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the future strategic tanker aircraft project for which the potential aircraft solutions are the Airbus A330 and the Boeing 767. The future strategic aircraft will provide air-to-air refuelling capability in support of our fast jet and large aircraft fleets. It will not be a suitable platform from which to undertake helicopter refuelling.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expected cost of the A340 air tanker project is. [63596]

  Dr. Moonie
  I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the future strategic tanker aircraft project for which the potential aircraft solutions are the Airbus A330 and the Boeing 767. We are evaluating the potential for the future strategic tanker aircraft capability to be provided via a PFI service based contract. Under such an arrangement costs will depend upon usage of the service. Based on our expected usage over the anticipated 27-year duration of the contract, we currently estimate the whole life cost of the capability to be around £13 billion at outturn prices.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Treasury about the A340 Air Tanker project. [63598]

  Dr. Moonie
  I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft project for which the potential aircraft solutions are the Airbus A330 and the Boeing 767. Officials of the Ministry of Defence regularly discuss the project with their counterparts in the Treasury as a matter of routine. Ministers of the two Departments have not recently discussed the project.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will have completed negotiations with the bidders for the A340 Air Tanker project; when he will
  903W
  announce the preferred bidder for the project; when production of the A340 Air Tanker project will commence; and when it will be fully operational; [63593]

  (2) what savings he expects from the 12-month delay to the Air Tanker project; [63599]

  (3) for what reason the A340 Air Tanker project is to be delayed. [63597]

  Dr. Moonie
  I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft project for which the potential aircraft solutions are the Airbus A330 and the Boeing 767. This prospective PFI project is currently in a competitive assessment phase and two consortia have submitted bids for the contract. I announced to the House on 17 June 2002 that commercial discussions with industry are taking longer than anticipated to complete. It is not yet possible to confirm when we will be in a position to announce the preferred contractor and move to financial close on the contract. We are working closely with industry to ensure that sound decisions are taken as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we have delayed the planned introduction of the PFI service until 2008. This will allow further time for these complex negotiations to be completed. The service is expected to be fully operational by 2012. We do not expect to achieve any overall cost saving as a result of the delay.

  Shoeburyness
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many compensation payments were made for damage caused by range activities at Shoeburyness in each of the last 20 years. [63786]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following compensation payments were made in each of the years in question.

  Number of payments

  1982

  9

  1983

  6

  1984

  19

  1985

  17

  1986

  12

  1987

  18

  1988

  17

  1989

  15

  1990

  17

  1991

  8

  1992

  16

  1993

  17

  1994

  77

  1995

  34

  1996

  54

  1997

  24

  1998

  46

  1999

  55

  2000

  36

  2001

  36

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect the change in ownership of QinetiQ will have on the number of ranges and range activities; and if he will make a statement. [63782]

  Dr. Moonie
  These matters are among a number of 904W
  subjects currently under discussion between the Ministry of Defence and QinetiQ. We will announce the outcome at the earliest opportunity.

  Health Spending
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for increased spending on health provision in the armed forces. [64316]

  Dr. Moonie
  As a consequence of the Strategic Defence Review, an additional £140 million over four years was invested in the Defence Medical Services. We will be considering the conclusions of the recent Medical Quinquennial Review in our next planning round, which I announced in a written answer on 11 April 2002,Official Report, column 558W to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright).

  Oil and Pipelines Agency
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Quinquennial Review of the Oil and Pipelines Agency will take place. [65179]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Quinquennial Review of the Oil and Pipelines Agency (OPA) has started. The aim of the review is to examine how the OPA has performed against the Managing Agency Agreement instituted between the Ministry of Defence and the OPA, and to recommend whether there is any potential to improve the cost-effectiveness of its service to its customers.

  The review will proceed in two phases. In the first phase a number of 'framework' issues will be examined, including whether its present position as a non-departmental public body (NDPB) is the most appropriate arrangement for delivery of the required services. It will also examine whether existing Government arrangements require adjustment. The report of this first phase of the review is expected in August 2002.

  In the second phase, the review will address, in the light of the answers to the 'framework' issues examined in the first phase, a number of questions concerning the operational efficiency of the OPA, including the scope for Strategic Partnership and further streamlining of business processes both within the OPA and between the OPA and the Ministry of Defence. The report of the second phase of the review is expected in September 2002.

  The review will be carried out by a small team, which will consult closely with the OPA management and other stakeholders, including the OPA's customers. The Ministry of Defence is interested also to hear the views of other organisations or individuals who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those wishing to do so should send their contributions to the OPA QQR Team, Room 24, DFG HQ, West Moors, Wimborne, Dorset BH21 6QS.

  Astute Class Submarines
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the Astute class submarines will be based. [65180]

  Mr. Ingram
  Both the first and second batches of Astute class submarines will be at based HM Naval Base Clyde. The first batch is already on order and a decision on the procurement of the second batch of up to three further Astute class submarines is expected later this year.

  Medical Treatment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average(a) in-patient waiting time and (b) out-patient waiting time was for armed forces personnel in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002 treated in (A) the NHS and (B) the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [54136]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: Service patients in the United Kingdom are mainly treated in Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA) administered Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHUs) situated in NHS trusts. The DSCA measures treatment waiting times for service personnel at the MDHUs against its Outpatient and Inpatient Key Targets. Details of the Agency's Outpatient and Inpatient Key Targets for 2000–01 and 2001–02 and the Agency's performance against these are given in the tables:

  Table 1—2000–01

  Key target

  Outcome

  Out-patients

  45 per cent. of service patients to be offered a first out-patient appointment within four weeks of receipt of a referral and 85 per cent. within 13 weeks

  34 per cent. within four weeks and 89 per cent. within 13 weeks

  In-patients

  75 per cent. of service patients to be offered a treatment date which is within 13 weeks of the decision to give in-patient treatment

  68 per cent

  Table 2—2001–02

  Key target

  Outcome

  Out-patients

  45 per cent. of service patients to be offered a first out-patient appointment within four weeks of receipt of a referral and 90 per cent. within 13 weeks

  33 per cent. within four weeks and 68 per cent. within 13 weeks

  In-patients

  80 per cent. of service patients to be offered a treatment date which is within 13 weeks of the decision to give in-patient treatment

  73 per cent.

  Table 1 covers referrals to MDHUs Derriford, Frimley Park, Northallerton and Peterborough and to the Royal Surrey County Hospital (for oral and maxillofacial surgery only). Table 2 also includes referrals to MDHU Portsmouth, which was created on 1 April 2001.

  Service personnel can opt to be treated in other NHS hospitals and are referred to these where there is a need for specialised care not available in the Defence Medical Services (DMS) or for geographical reasons. This patient activity is subsumed in overall NHS waiting lists.

  The DMS do not maintain a central record of treatment waiting times for the service personnel that they refer to the independent health care sector. Such referrals are made under a variety of schemes managed by either the DSCA or the single services.

  Armoured Personnel Vehicles
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to consider the replacement of armoured personnel vehicles in use by the UK armed forces. [62901]
  906W
  Dr. Moonie
  Planning for a replacement armoured personnel carrying capability includes the Future Rapid Effect System, the Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle and the Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle. We continue to review existing armour personnel vehicle programmes to ensure that they remain coherent with evolving United Kingdom strategic requirements.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in her Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60940]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The level of ministerial salaries are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body. From May 1997, in this Department's predecessor, the Department for Education and Employment, there was one Cabinet Minister, at an annual salary of £43,991; three Ministers of State, two in the Commons paid at an annual salary of £31,125, and one in the Lords paid at an annual salary of £51,838; and three Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of States, at an annual salary of £23,623. From June 2001, there was one Cabinet Minister, at an annual salary of £68,157; two Ministers of State, at an annual salary of £35,356; and three Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, two in the Commons paid at an annual salary of £26,835 and one in the Lords paid at an annual salary of £60,961.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61052]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills is responsible for encouraging and supporting learning and development throughout the UK. It has set itself the objective of becoming an exemplar learning organisation. To this end it has established leading edge e-learning facilities and continues to develop this and other learning solutions for its staff.

  As currently constituted, the Department is barely one year old, following a Machinery of Government change. The figures for 1997–98 to 1999–2000 below relate to the Department for Education and Employment. Figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 have been adjusted to reflect the Department's current responsibilities.

  As a percentage of all staff costs the figures are:

  Year

  1997–98

  1.5

  1998–99

  1.5

  1999–2000

  2.0

  2000–01

  11.8

  2001–02

  12.6

  Estimated

  These figures represent the more formal aspects of learning and development. They do not, for example,

  907W
  capture such areas as coaching by line managers, interchange, secondment, mentoring and self-managed learning.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of pupils living in(a) a residential care home and (b) with foster parents were (i) in special schools and (ii) excluded from school in the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by (A) Government office region and (B) LEA. [62658]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is not currently collected centrally in the form requested. Information collected by the Department of Health shows that 1.5 per cent. of children who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months at 30 September 2000 had received a permanent exclusion during the 1999–2000 school year.

  From January 2003, the Annual Schools Census will identify children who are or have been in care, though the type of care will not be recorded.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many fixed-term exclusions from schools in England there were in(a) 1990, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [63656]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Fixed term exclusions have been collected for the first time this year on a trial basis. A more regular collection is being considered.

  Training Organisations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost has been of national training organisations in each year since coming into existence. [63968]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The first NTO recognitions were in 1997. NTO recognition was withdrawn as of 31 March 2002. The totality of payments recorded for each financial year since April 1997 made by the Department in respect of work contracted to NTOs is as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  4.158

  1998–99

  8.136

  1999–2000

  15.008

  2000–01

  13.214

  2001–02

  11.948

  Bullying
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received to make it a statutory obligation for schools to allow pupil participation when(a) drawing up and (b) reviewing the school's anti-bullying strategy. [63655]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Bullying is a serious problem which can put the emotional well-being and educational achievement of young people at risk. From September 1999 head teachers of maintained schools have been 908W
  under a duty to draw up measures to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils; these need to be reviewed regularly.

  We have not received recent representations to make it a statutory obligation to allow pupil participation when drawing up or reviewing a school's anti-bullying policy. We recommend such participation, although it is for schools to decide whether this is appropriate particularly if they have very young pupils. In our pack for schools "Bullying: don't suffer in silence" we mention that schools which involve pupils have found their suggestions practical and sensitive to the school's ethos.

  We are currently funding new research by ChildLine to obtain young people's views on schools' anti-bullying policies as part of a project on what works in combating the problem. The results should be available early next year.

  Independent Television Commission
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if members of the Independent Television Commission are appointed on a regional basis. [64582]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  Members of the Independent Television Commission are appointed in accordance with the provisions of the 1990 Broadcasting Act. Schedule 1 to that Act provides that three of the members of the Commission, other than the chairman and deputy chairman, shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to be suited to make the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively, their special care.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Pets
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce licensing for(a) cats and (b) dogs that breed. [54695]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 as amended by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 anyone who is in the business of breeding and selling dogs will require a licence from the local authority. There are no plans to extend this legislation to cats.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [58721]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA was created on 7 June 2001, and since then up to 31 March 2002, our special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity, including accompanying the Secretary of State on nine occasions, at an average cost of £1,788 per trip. The countries visited were Belgium x 2, France, Luxembourg, Morocco, USA, Poland, India and South Africa.
  909W
  All travel by special advisers is undertaken fully in accordance with the guidelines set out in the "Ministerial Code" and the "Civil Service Management Code".

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when and where she advertised the positions for special adviser in her Department. [63644]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: The Government's position on advertising special adviser posts remains as set out in the Government's response to the report of the Public Administration Select Committee on special advisers published in December 2001.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many computers were replaced in her Department in each of the past three years; how the replaced units were disposed of and by which companies; and at what cost. [60756]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA, created on 8 June 2001, has recently completed the roll out to all staff of a replacement office system started for the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1999. During this roll out, the following numbers of desktop computers were replaced for staff in the core Department.

  June

  MAFF

  DEFRA

  1999–2000

  119

  —

  2000–01

  1,650

  —

  2001–02

  —

  2,878

  Where appropriate, existing computers have been re-used elsewhere in the Department, including to enable flexible working arrangements for staff, but surplus redundant equipment has been disposed of as follows:

  In 1999–2000, the Ministry had a considerable backlog of 1,265 computers for disposal and arranged for ICL (now Fujitsu) to carry out a one-off exercise to clear this before the roll out of the new office system, at a cost of £46,000 plus VAT.

  In 2000–01, 1,172 and in 2001–02 3,361 computers were disposed of by Northern Realisations Limited, Bolton, Lancashire at no cost to the Department, but a gain to the Exchequer of £35,000. The contractual arrangement provides for units to be sold on at auction, passed to schools or charities or scrapped according to the terms of all the relevant legislation and regulations.

  Banned Pesticides/Plant Treatments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure that traces of(a) pesticides and (b) other plant treatments which are banned in the United Kingdom are not found on fresh imported produce. [60835]

  Mr. Morley
  There are a large number of substances which are not approved as pesticides in the UK but may be used in other countries. Differences in approvals between countries can arise because different approval conditions are applied or because commercial approvals 910W
  are not sought in all countries. The fact that a compound is not approved in the UK does not mean that residues of that compound in imported produce are unsafe.

  The Government conduct a wide-ranging annual surveillance programme for pesticide residues in food including imported food. Some 4,000 samples are analysed annually and the programme generates results for over 100,000 pesticide/commodity food combinations. All the results are published on a website: www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc.htm.

  The surveillance programme includes monitoring for some of the compounds among the 21 banned throughout the EU.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [61025]

  Mr. Morley
  Reliable figures for 2002–03 are not yet available as staff costs and total expenditure are dependent on the outcome of pay negotiations, which are currently under way.

  For 2001–02 the pay bill cost is estimated as £495 million which represents 18 per cent. of the departmental expenditure limit.

  National Scrapie Plan
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she intends to bring forward legislation to place the national scrapie plan on a statutory basis; [61536]

  (2) by what date she intends to make compliance with the national scrapie plan compulsory. [61537]

  Mr. Morley
  In addition to provisions relating to foot and mouth disease, the Animal Health Bill provides for enabling powers to make for the genotyping of sheep compulsory. This would accelerate the development of a national flock which is resistant to TSEs. These powers would provide a legal-enabling basis for making it compulsory to comply with, and participate in, the national scrapie plan. As part of the original consultation it was made clear that these measures would be compulsory at some stage. We will continue to discuss timescales with the sheep industry and we are progressing with the scheme on a voluntary basis.

  A motion was passed in another place on 26 March 2002 that postpones further consideration on the Animal Health Bill in its entirety until the Government have published their response to the consultation on implementation of powers in the Bill, and published the findings of the Royal Society inquiry into foot and mouth disease and the National Audit Office value for money evaluation. These two studies are due to report this summer.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate
  911W
  of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare 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. [61693]

  Mr. Morley
  The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare (SCAHAW) is an advisory committee established under Council Decision 97/579/EC of 28 August 1997.

  The committee has six scheduled plenary meetings a year. In addition there are also six scheduled subcommittee meetings dealing with animal health and animal welfare. The 16 members of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare do not represent their countries; rather they attend as individual experts.

  The committee has no legislative function; it provides authoritative scientific advice to the Commission. This advice is published.

  The members' travel expenses and travel costs are reimbursed by the European Commission.

  The sub-committee on animal health deals with scientific and technical questions concerning all aspects of animal health, hygiene, animal diseases and therapies, including zones of non-food origin and zootechnics. The sub-committee on animal welfare deals with scientific and technical questions concerning the protection of animals, notably in regard to animal husbandry, herd management, transport, slaughter and experimentation.

  Information relating to the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare can be found on the following websites: http://europa.eu.int//comm/food/fs/sc; http://europa.eu.int//comm/food/fs/sc/scah/index—en.html.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the EU Implementation Committee for Spirit Drinks 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. [62921]

  Mr. Morley
  The Spirit Drinks Implementation Committee (SDIC) is mandated by council regulation 1576/89 and is responsible for the implementation of the general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks as laid down in that regulation. It considers draft Commission legislation and gives its formal opinion on Commission proposals.

  SDIC has met twice during the last 12 months. It is next due to meet on 17 July 2002. One DEFRA official is expected to attend the meeting.

  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. Members of the Scottish Executive did not attend the two SDIC meetings held over the past 12 months.
  912W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the EU Committee on Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs 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. [62916]

  Mr. Morley
  The Regulatory Committee on geographical indications and protected designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs has met three times over the last 12 months. The date and time of the next meeting is unknown at this stage. Its mandate is laid down in Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92. Its activities include helping the Commission to decide on the registration of protected food names and to draw up Commission regulations relating to the operation of the scheme.

  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. If Scottish Executive colleagues do not attend, they work closely with DEFRA officials to ensure that Scottish interests are fully taken into account.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the EU Joint Meetings of Management and Regulatory Committees in the field of agriculture is; how many times such meetings have taken place 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. [62922]

  Mr. Morley
  There are many management and regulatory committees in the field of agriculture whose mandates stem from individual pieces of Council legislation relevant to those sectors. Details of the past and next meetings of these committees and any involvement of the Scottish Executive could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandates of(a) the EU Committee on conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture 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. [62924]

  Mr. Morley
  The purpose of the Committee on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture is to advise the Commission on draft measures made under Council Regulation 1467/94 on:

  (a) assisting the co-ordination, at Community level, of certain national measures for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture to permit the rational organisation of the means employed within the Community and the efficient utilisation of the results and to achieve an approach in line with the aims of the Common Agricultural Policy.

  913W

  (b) the development and implementation of programmes of measures for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture at Community level to support or supplement action taken in the member states; and

  (c) other relevant questions.

  Regulation 1467/94 established a programme for the conservation. characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture for a period of five years. The Commission has made proposals for a successor regulation, which is currently under consideration.

  The Committee has met once in the last 12 months. It was attended by officials from my Department. No decision has been made regarding the date of any future meeting. UK representation varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where they consider that there are items of sufficient interest.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandates of(a) the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Committee and (b) the working party on irregularities are; how many times they have met over the last 12 months; when they are next due to meet; what the UK representation on them is; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive (i) have been and (ii) are members of them; and if she will make a statement. [62923]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Committee was set up under Council Regulation 17/64 EEC on the conditions for granting aid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. Provisions which currently define the role of the Committee, confer powers on the Commission and establish rules for consultation and adoption of legislation are contained in Articles 11 to 15 of Council Regulation 1258/99 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

  The Committee has both voting and non-voting functions. The procedures for adoption of legislation by the Committee are set out in Article 13 of Regulation 1258/99. This is a management committee procedure (variant IIa). The voting procedure is applied to regulations made under Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation 1258/99 (essentially concerned with accreditation of paying agencies and submission of annual CAP accounts). In addition, a number of other regulations require the EAGGF Committee to express an opinion via Article 13 procedures, in particular on measures adopted under the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), some horizontal regulations, eg on calculating the costs of financing intervention measures, and certain commodity regime provisions which involve the grant of aid from EAGGF funds (in the latter case the sectoral management committee normally sit as a joint management committee with the EAGGF Committee).

  The EAGGF Committee may also be consulted in circumstances set down in Article 14 of Regulation 1258/99. This provides for the Fund Committee to be consulted:
  in cases where provision is made for it to be consulted;
  for the assessment of the Fund's credits to be entered in the Commission's estimate for the coming financial year and, if necessary. on additional estimates;
  914W
  on draft proposals from the Commission to the Council concerning the application of Regulation 1258/99 and on draft reports on the Fund to be submitted to the Council.

  The Committee may also examine any other question referred to it by its chairman either on its own initiative or at the request of a representative of a member state. It should be informed regularly of the activities of the Fund. Consultation is required by Article 6 of the Regulation (essentially concerning payment of monthly advances from the Fund and decisions on clearance of annual CAP accounts). Consultation does not involve a vote.

  The Committee has met 13 times over the past 12 months. The next meeting is on 18 July. The UK representation on the Committee is led by DEFRA, and the UK Co-ordinating Body usually also attend. Additional 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. Members of the Scottish Executive have attended two meetings over the past 12 months.

  The Irregularities and Mutual Assistance Working Group is a technical sub-group of COCOLAF (Advisory Committee for the Co-ordination of Fraud Prevention). This working group looks at issues arising from irregularities within EAGGF guarantee section schemes. This working group is chaired by OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office), which operates under an independent director-general.

  This working group met once in the last 12 months, in April 2002. It is due to meet again after the summer break.

  The UK representation on the working group is led by DEFRA, however the total representation depends on the agenda. A briefing meeting, organised by DEFRA, is usually held before the working group to discuss agenda items and decide on representation. The Rural Payments Agency (responsible for submitting irregularities on behalf of all UK paying agencies) are invited to attend as well as Treasury, Customs and Excise etc., and various other Departments who may have an interest in an agenda item. No expert nominated by the Scottish Executive attended the meeting last year.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the EU committee on organic production of agricultural products 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. [62912]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Regulatory Committee on Organic Farming is set out in Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Standard rules of procedure were adopted by the Commission on 31 January 2001 in accordance with Council Regulation 1999/468/EC.

  The Regulatory Committee on Organic Farming met four times in the last 12 months and is due to meet next on 9 June. The UK is represented by officials from DEFRA but officials from the devolved Administrations are kept fully informed of the progress of the committee's

  915W
  work. In the last 12 months DEFRA officials also attended a further 24 out of the 26 meetings held of the committee's associated working groups.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information is held by her Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings, (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61823]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers and officials in this Department have access to published reference sources, as well as to the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business.

  Foot and Mouth
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent representations she has received about foot and mouth spot checks, conducted by police and trading standards officers, on farmers moving stock in the Vale of York; [62260]

  (2) what recent representations she has received about the interruption of the moving of farmers' stock by police and trading standards officers conducting foot and mouth spot checks in the Vale of York; [62262]

  (3) what recent representations she has received about the use of the police and trading standards officers to conduct foot and mouth spot checks on farmers moving stock in the Vale of York. [62261]

  Mr. Morley
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has not received any representations on this matter.

  Across the country, trading standards officers, with police support, are carrying out spot checks on animal movements as part of their enforcement responsibilities for the post FMD interim movement arrangements and I know that checks were carried out in the Thirsk area on 30 May, but we have not received any representations about them. My Department is encouraging local authorities to undertake these checks, based on local assessments of risk from the illegal movement of animals.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sheep were disposed of at Great Orton, Cumbria; how many of those sheep tested positive for the foot and mouth virus; and if she will make a statement. [61603]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: During the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease, 448,508 sheep were disposed of at the Great Orton burial site, Cumbria.

  We are not able to say whether any of the sheep were from premises that returned positive laboratory results as this specific set of information has not been collated.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of 916W
  payments made under the CAP went (a) directly to farmers and (b) to other sectors, with specific reference to (i) the food processing industry and (ii) storage companies, in the most recent year for which statistics are available. [60555]

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of payments made through the CAP went to(a) farmers, (b) the food processing industry and (c) other sectors in the last year for which figures are available. [62534]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Payments throughout the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy totalled 40,465 million euro in the budget year ending in October 2000. 25,529 million euro of this was spent on direct subsidies to farmers, 4,176 million euro on rural development (outside objective 1 areas), and 10,654 million euro on market support measures. The remainder was spent on veterinary and phytosanitary measures, and various information programmes.

  Almost all of the direct subsidies will have gone to farmers. They will also have received most of the rural development expenditure, although other businesses are eligible for certain programmes. For example, payments under the rural development measures that were implemented in England as the processing and marketing grant scheme are largely received by food processors, although processors of non-food crops are also eligible.

  The 10,654 million euro the Community spent on market support aimed to keep EU commodity prices above those prevailing elsewhere. This included the cost of export refunds (5,646 million euro), and of various intervention programmes (5,008 million euro). The cost of providing for public storage of products withheld from the market under these programmes came to some 379 million euro (excluding purchasing or financing costs); the cost of private storage was 574 million euro. Although many of the market support payments will in the first instance have gone to businesses specialising in trading or storage, these programmes will indirectly have improved most farmers' incomes.

  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the local authorities who have not yet provided a High Level Target 1 policy statement for flood and coastal defence; [62908]

  (2) if she will name the local authorities who have indicated that they are not prepared to produce a policy statement under High Level Targets for flood and coastal defence. [62906]

  Mr. Morley
  I placed the Environment Agency's report listing those local authorities from whom a policy statement under High Level Target 1 was awaited in the
  917W
  House Libraries on 24 May. Since the agency's report was compiled, statements have been received from the following local authorities:

  Mid Sussex district council

  Rotherham borough council

  Rushcliffe borough council

  Stockton-on-Tees borough council

  Teignbridge district council

  Burnley borough council

  Chesterfield borough council

  East Hampshire district council

  London borough of Bromley

  Mid Suffolk district council.

  We have not ascertained whether the authorities who have still not yet produced a policy statement are refusing to do so or if it is for other reasons. We plan to work with the Environment Agency and Local Government Association to encourage the production of policy statements especially by those local authorities who have significant flood and coastal defence responsibilities.

  £million

  DEFRA grant and credit approvals

  Environment Agency

  Other operating authorities

  DEFRA other expenditure

  ODPM SSAs

  Total

  1996–97

  45.9

  51.5

  5.2

  207.1

  309.7

  1997–98

  43.0

  38.5

  5.5

  225.4

  312.4

  1998–99

  33.8

  36.9

  5.4

  239.8

  315.9

  1999–2000

  33.0

  36.2

  5.1

  252.0

  326.3

  2000–01

  41.9

  24.6

  4.9

  257.1

  328.5

  2001–02 (prov)

  61.5

  29.5

  5.7

  268.4

  365.1

  Notes:

  1. Figures are outturns of actual cash spent.

  2. 2001–02 figures for Other Operating Authorities are provisional, as credit approvals are yet to be finalised.

  3. The allocation for 1996–97 was increased significantly in-year by the redistribution of funds from elsewhere in the Department.

  4. In 2000–01 and 2001–02 local authorities under-achieved on coast protection works compared to their plans. They have recognised the need to improve project planning and the reliability of their forecasts.

  5. In addition to the above, some £40 million annually comes from other sources such as drainage rates and charges paid by farmers.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason no preferred scheme for improved flood defences in Lewes has been announced by the Environment Agency; when such an announcement is expected; and if she will make a statement. [63548]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: It is important to consider the need for flood management measures within an overall strategy so as not to create problems elsewhere. The Environment Agency has commissioned consultants to prepare a strategy for the river Ouse catchment, covering flood problems at Lewes and other points in the valley. I understand that detailed checking of data and modelling work is being undertaken prior to the planned presentation of the strategy to the Sussex Flood Defence Committee in July prior to submission to DEFRA. I also understand that the strategy includes a preferred option for defence measures in Lewes.

  I understand that the agency has consulted widely in preparing the strategy and, subject to consideration by the Sussex Flood Defence Committee, plans to arrange a public exhibition.
  918W
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money the Government have allocated to the Environment Agency in flood defence grants in each year since and including 1997; and what the overall expenditure spent on flood defence by the Government in the United Kingdom was in each year since and including 1997. [63819]

  Mr. Morley
  Flood and coastal erosion risk management is a devolved responsibility. The bulk of spending on flood and coastal defence in England comes from central Government either through the ODPM's support to local authorities through standard spending assessments (SSAs) which are intended in part to fund local authority levies to the Environment Agency, or through capital grants (and local authority Supplementary Credit Approvals) from DEFRA direct to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities (Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards). Additional expenditure is incurred by DEFRA, for example to pay for the Storm Tide Forecasting Service. The table shows expenditure for England only:

  Flooding (Insurance)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she is making in securing an extension to the agreement in place between the Government and the Association of British Insurers to provide cover in flood affected areas, with particular reference to Lewes. [63547]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: The Government are working hard with the Association of British Insurers to try to ensure the continued, widespread availability of affordable flood cover beyond the end of 2002. There have been regular meetings with the insurance industry, at both ministerial and official level, to consider their calls for increased investment in flood and coastal defence, controls on development in areas at risk of flooding, simplified arrangement for implementing flood defences and better information on real flood risk. I expect to meet again with the industry later in the summer.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her reply of 10 June 2002, ref. 53704, on illegal meat imports,
  919W
  how many (a) operational enforcement officers were employed in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999. (iv) 2000, (v) 2001 and (vi) 2002 to date and (b) seizures of illegal meat imports there were in each of those years. [62612]

  Mr. Morley
  There are enforcement officers employed by local and port health authorities, HM Customs and Excise, Meat Hygiene Service and DEFRA who contribute directly or indirectly to policing laws on meat imports. Total numbers are not held centrally.

  A central database of information on seizures was created in April 2001. The details of seizures made during 2001 and the beginning of 2002 are still being received. Our database currently shows 1,224 seizures of consignments containing meat made in 2001 and 274 seizures in 2002.

  Peat Alternatives
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to promote the use of peat alternatives in horticulture; and if she will make a statement. [62268]

  Mr. Morley
  Peat is a major constituent of growing media used in gardening and commercial horticulture. It is well suited to a wide range of uses and comes from a variety of sources in the UK, the Republic of Ireland and the Baltic states.

  The UK Biodiversity Action Plan commits the Government to undertake and promote research and development into sustainable alternatives to peat and provide advice on the development and marketing of peat alternatives. The aim of the plan is for 40 per cent. of the total market requirements to be peat free by 2005 and 90 per cent. by 2010.

  There has already been some substitution of peat by other materials, such as coir and bark, with some degrees of success. We have been funding seminars for the ornamentals sector for some time to increase awareness of and to examine the potential for using reduced-peat and peat free alternatives and to encourage commercial growers and others to take them up where they are already available.

  However, it is recognised that substantial peat replacement will take some time to achieve and there are still considerable difficulties to be overcome in producing alternative growing media of sufficiently reliable and consistent quality to replace peat in the full range of its present uses.

  We will be working actively with interested parties to build on progress made so far in this area. As part of this, we have decided to build on the work of the Peat Working Group by establishing a new group, under the chairmanship of DEFRA, which will bring together all this Department's policies that affect the production and use of peat and peat alternatives, and provide a forum for consideration of the various factors in working towards the targets for peat substitution.

  Holsworthy Biogas Project
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will discuss with the managers of the Holsworthy Biogas project the 920W
  recently published Composting Risk Assessment; and if she will instruct the Environment Agency to discuss with the managers of the project the Provisional Pollution Prevention and Control Permit BK 5088 issued in relation to this project; and if she will make a statement. [61771]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The risk assessment commissioned by DEFRA on the treatment of catering waste through biogas plants was presented at a conference on 7 June. We are reviewing the Animal By-Products Order 1999 in the light of the assessment. Representatives from Holsworthy Biogas are included on the expert panel which is assisting with the review.

  We regard to the Pollution, Prevention and Control permit, officials from the Environmental Agency are in discussion with Holsworthy Biogas.

  Ministerial Visits (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) date, (b) location and (c) purpose was of visits by Ministers in her Department to Wales since 1997; and when she next intends to visit Wales. [62073]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: 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.

  Since the creation of DEFRA on 7 June 2001 the Department's Ministers have been on the following visits to Wales:

  Date

  Purpose

  Venue

  Alun Michael

  25 July 2001

  National Park Authority AGM

  Cardiff

  I February 2002

  Rural Affairs Q & A session

  Cardiff

  25 April 2002

  Question Time

  Caernarvon

  11 June 2002

  Queen's Jubilee Thanksgiving Service

  Bangor

  20 June 20021

  National Park Authority AGM

  Cardiff

  Lord Whitty

  1 February 2002

  Bilateral with Carwyn Jones

  Bridgend

  Elliot Morley

  11 October 20021

  IWS 2002 Annual Convention

  Cardiff

  1 Planned

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to integrate good standards of farm animal welfare into her strategy for the future of farming; and if she will make a statement. [63046]

  Mr. Morley
  Encouraging high standards of animal welfare on farm is already at the heart of Government policy and will continue to play a role in the Department's new strategy for sustainable food and farming.

  Timber
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department has put in place to ensure the authenticity of certificates identifying the origin of tropical hardwood imports. [63062]
  921W
  Mr. Morley
  Central Government Departments and their agencies are required as a matter of policy to actively seek to buy their timber and timber products from sustainable and legal sources, for example, those identified under independent certification schemes such as that operated by the Forest Stewardship Council.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, (Mr. Meacher) has written to Green Ministers to explain that his Department has commissioned consultants to suggest guidance that will assist Government buyers to implement this policy. The consultants' report will address the issue of verifying claims made by contractors for the origin of timber supplied, including claims supported by certificates. The report is expected to be completed in the summer of 2002. In the meantime Departments have been given a model contract specification clause that requires suppliers to: (a) establish a chain of custody from the source of timber through to delivery of the final product, and (b) to provide documentary evidence and independent verification of the claims being made. The Forest Stewardship Council's certification scheme is identified as one way in which these requirements would be satisfied but the clause makes clear that suppliers may offer alternatives evidence of compliance.

  To complement the Government's timber procurement policy we are pursuing a strategy of seeking to reach bi-lateral agreements with producing countries that would see the development of independently verified documentation to prove the legality of timber shipments to the UK. Once such memorandum of understanding has been entered into with the Government of Indonesia. The forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development may crystallise the interest of other countries around this issue.

  The Government are considering whether there is scope for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to play a bigger part in helping to control the export and import of illegally logged timber and proposes to explore options with EU member states and the CITES range states.

  To help tropical countries meet the Government's requirement for legally logged and sustainably managed timber, UK Government officials have participated in an expert advisory group tasked with developing guidance for tropical countries on establishing verification mechanisms and in international meetings convened to explore co-operation between the various certification initiatives.

  Tree Diseases
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the threat to(a) alders and (b) willows by phytophthora infections; how that assessment is influencing her policy; and if she will make a statement. [61601]
  922W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: Phytophthoras are a group of microscopic fungal pathogens responsible for plant diseases in many parts of the world. While some cause severe damage, including death of trees, others are of little consequence.

  The Phytophthora disease of alder is present in England, Scotland and Wales and is most active in the south-west and south-east of England. Surveys of the disease in 2000 and 2001 established that an estimated 600,000 trees were affected: around 12 to 14 per cent. of the alder population. Researchers at the Forestry Commission Research Agency (FCRA) have established that the cause of the disease is a new hybrid pathogen which is very damaging to alder. The putative parents cause little or no damage to alder but can be aggressive pathogens of other woody hosts.

  In addition to the UK, the disease is present in 10 other European countries. Movement of infected plants has probably facilitated its rapid dissemination and infected stock may start new foci of infection when planted out. Research is continuing to further improve methods of managing the disease and diagnosing the pathogen. As with most Phytophthoras, control is difficult and eradication from already infected riparian habitats would be impossible. As this particular disease is so widespread, quarantine controls would be ineffective.

  It is rare for willows to suffer from disease caused by species of Phytophthora and they do not appear to be susceptible to the new hybrid Phytophthora that causes disease of alder.

  Sheep Movements
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on how her Department intends to overcome difficulties in the manner in which the 20-day standstill is being interpreted for sheep movement in(a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales. [62989]

  Mr. Morley
  (holding answer 19 June 2002]: DEFRA officials are in regular contact with their counterparts in the National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department and together they seek to find a solution to any practical difficulties arising from the differences in the livestock movements controls.

  The Government will not make decisions about possible changes to the current standstill rules until Ministers have seen the recommendations of the Royal Society and lessons learned inquiries. Those decisions will be taken in discussion with the devolved Administrations and with stakeholders.

  Salmon
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total percentage of salmon caught by(a) the Scottish Nets, (b) Northumbrian Nets, (c) Yorkshire Nets, (d) Scottish Rods and (e) Northumbrian Rods was in each year since 1990; and what the total number of salmon caught in the United Kingdom was in each of those years. [63363]

  Mr. Morley
  The most recent information is set out in the following table:
  923W

  Scottish nets

  Northumbrian nets

  Yorkshire nets

  Scottish rods1

  Northumbrian rods1

  Total UK

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  catch1,2

  1990

  33.9

  97,400

  15.0

  43,048

  3.0

  8,482

  24.9

  71,600

  0.5

  1,449

  287,328

  1991

  36.4

  76,300

  10.8

  22,525

  1.4

  2,904

  30.0

  62,400

  0.6

  1,263

  209,534

  1992

  39.0

  101,600

  7.0

  18,567

  0.6

  1,577

  31.4

  82,900

  0.7

  1,749

  263,846

  1993

  32.2

  86,800

  13.8

  37,097

  1.7

  4,703

  29.5

  79,500

  0.6

  1,656

  269,638

  1994

  34.0

  106,400

  13.6

  42,547

  1.3

  4,007

  26.7

  83,300

  0.6

  1,772

  312,529

  1995

  31.9

  93,900

  16.9

  49,801

  1.2

  3,409

  29.3

  86,100

  0.7

  2,053

  294,134

  1996

  30.7

  64,700

  8.4

  17,784

  0.4

  797

  33.0

  69,600

  1.2

  2,466

  210,860

  1997

  21.1

  37,100

  11.3

  19,828

  1.2

  2,094

  34.6

  60,700

  1.3

  2,356

  175,556

  1998

  17.9

  31,800

  9.2

  16,298

  1.1

  1,967

  41.2

  73,100

  1.6

  2,786

  177,244

  1999

  12.9

  17,900

  18.1

  25,013

  1.3

  1,820

  37.9

  52,500

  1.8

  2,540

  138,385

  2000

  18.0

  35,500

  20.1

  39,635

  1.9

  3,719

  33.2

  65,600

  1.7

  3,45I

  197,426

  1Includes data on catch and release.

  2Excludes any NI rod catch for which no details are available.

  Salmon and Trout
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the stocking programme for salmon and trout on the River Esk has been over the last 20 years; when it was last stocked; and who provided the finance. [63362]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of salmon stocking on the River Esk are shown in the table. The Esk was last stocked with salmon in 2002 in mitigation for a pollution accident-compensation was obtained from the polluter. No sea trout have been stocked but between 700 and 1,200 brown trout have been stocked annually by angling clubs or fishery owners.

  Salmon

  Unfed fry

  0+ parr

  1+ parr

  smolts

  Total

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  19841

  —

  —

  —

  30,320

  30,320

  19851

  50,000

  —

  —

  —

  50,000

  19861

  50,000

  —

  —

  —

  50,000

  19871

  50,000

  —

  —

  —

  50,000

  19881

  —

  —

  15,000

  —

  15,000

  19891

  —

  —

  12,000

  —

  12,000

  19901

  —

  —

  10,900

  —

  10,900

  19911

  50,000

  —

  50,000

  —

  100,000

  19921

  50,000

  —

  60,000

  —

  110,000

  19931

  10,000

  —

  5,202

  —

  15,202

  19941

  50,000

  —

  6,866

  —

  56,866

  19951

  —

  —

  7,852

  —

  7,852

  19961

  —

  —

  3,700

  —

  3,700

  19972

  —

  14,000

  —

  —

  14,000

  19982

  —

  60,000

  —

  —

  60,000

  19992

  —

  25,000

  —

  —

  25,000

  20002

  —

  30,000

  —

  —

  30,000

  2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  2002

  —

  —

  12,000

  —

  12,000

  1Joint: River Esk Action Committee/Environment Agency or predecessor

  2River Esk Regeneration Programme (including European funds through Objective 5b)

  Countryside, Liberty and Livelihood March
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if representatives of the Government will attend the Countryside, Liberty and Livelihood march on 22 September. [63925]

  Alun Michael
  There are no plans to do so.

  Tallow
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much tallow produced under the over-thirty-months scheme has been sold in each year since the scheme began(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) when exported overseas; and for what purpose it has been sold. [63535]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: Since the introduction of the over-thirty-months slaughter scheme (OTMS) a total of 384,345 tonnes of tallow has been produced to date.

  All tallow generated from cattle slaughtered under OTMS is to be incinerated (with energy recovery).

  A total of 170,897 tonnes has been incinerated to date. This equates to a total of 13,271 tonnes for 1996, 29,711 tonnes for 1997, 15,896 tonnes for 1998, 28,188 tonnes for 1999, 37,409 tonnes for 2000, 27,274 tonnes for 2001 and 21,315 tonnes to date for 2002.

  No tallow has been exported.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much revenue has been raised from the sale of tallow produced under the over-thirty-months scheme in each year since the scheme started in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) overseas. [63537]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: No financial information is available in a calendar year basis. Please see the income from tallow sales by financial year.

  Financial year

  £

  1996–97

  1—

  1997–98

  1—

  1998–99

  333,397.00

  1999–2000

  1,454,308.00

  2000–01

  968,638.00

  2001–022

  734,069.00

  1Income for tallow sales not separately identifiable, included under general receipts.

  2Invoice payments are outstanding.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the notification and results of tenders to dispose of tallow produced under the over-thirty-months scheme are not published in the Official Journal. [63538]
  925W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: The RPA is currently evaluating the bids received in connection with the OTMS tallow disposal tender. Following contract award, details of the successful tenderers will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. The original contract award date was spring 2001 but the tender was suspended due to the foot and mouth crisis. The disposal was readvertised with a planned contract start date of spring 2002. The RPA expects contract award in mid July 2002.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what restrictions apply to the sale of tallow produced in the United Kingdom under the over-thirty-months scheme(a) in the UK and (b) when being exported overseas. [63536]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: Over-thirty-month slaughter scheme (OTMS) tallow produced is currently incinerated (with energy recovery) at plants in the UK only. No tallow has been exported.

  OTMS tallow remains the property of and under the control of RPA until it is incinerated.

  EU Management Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Management Committees of the common organisations of agricultural markets for milk and milk products is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members; and if she will make a statement. [63933]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products is to facilitate the implementation of measures relating to the common organisation of the market for these products.

  The committee has met 22 times over the last 12 months. It is due to meet next on Thursday 27 June 2002.

  The make up of the UK delegation is dependant on the agenda for each meeting, but would normally be lead by a DEFRA official and would include an official from the Scottish Executive if there was an item of particular interest. However, there have been no occasions in the last 12 months where the Scottish Executive have sought to have an official form part of the delegation.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what decisions have been made by her Department in the last year under authority from the royal prerogative. [63129]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I provided on 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 172W.

  Sheep National Envelope
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has reached decisions on implementation of the sheep national envelope in England. [65178]
  926W
  Margaret Beckett
  Under the revised EU sheepmeat regime national envelopes were introduced to provide member states with an element of flexibility in how they support their sheep sectors; funds under the envelope can be used to provide extra support to producers, improve the marketing and production of sheepmeat and encourage more environmentally friendly farming practices. National envelopes can be implemented on a regional basis; this is being done in the United Kingdom.

  In England, the national envelope is worth £5.4 million in 2002. There is also a provision in the revised regime permitting member states, or parts of member states, to increase the size of the national envelope by reducing the basic rate of Sheep Annual Premium by up to one Euro. This could increase the size of the envelope in England by around £5 million.

  The Government issued a consultation letter in January seeking views on how the national envelope should be used in England. We have now considered the responses we received, and have reached decisions on the way forward.

  The Government intend to make maximum use of the flexibility we negotiated at the Agriculture Council to switch support from subsidies per breeding ewe to support for restructuring and modernising the industry in line with the strategy set out in the Curry Commission Report. This means that, after a transitional year this year, we will by 2003 use the maximum available under the scheme to reduce sheep numbers in historically overgrazed areas by encouraging extensification in the uplands and to improve the quality and marketing of sheep.

  For the transitional year of 2002, we intend to introduce a scheme to reduce sheep numbers in areas subject to historic overgrazing. Under the scheme the Government will purchase sheep quota from producers, who in return will be required to undertake to maintain lower stocking levels on the land in question. The scheme will operate by tender; in deciding which offers should be accepted we will take into account both price and other relevant factors such as the extent of historic overgrazing. The scheme will be open for applications in the autumn, and we hope that offers will be dealt with before the close of the next quota-trading period.

  £2 million will be allocated to the quota purchase scheme in 2002. The remains of the 2002 national envelope will he paid to producers as a top-up to Sheep Annual Premium payments; this will be worth some 46 pence per eligible animal.

  For 2003, and in subsequent years, we intend to make full use of the opportunity in the new regulation to increase the size of the national envelope by reducing the rate of the Sheep Annual Premium. This will enable us to fund a range of schemes from the national envelope.

  The quota purchase scheme will be retained in 2003 and beyond; the level of resources allocated to the scheme will be decided in the light of our experience this year, but we expect it to be at least £1 million a year.

  We are minded to introduce two further schemes in 2003: an upland Extensification Scheme and an Industry Development Scheme.
  the Upland Extensification Scheme will be linked to Hill Farming Allowances, and will pay additional sums, on a per hectare basis,

  927W
  to producers in less favoured areas who stock sheep below certain stocking levels; there are likely to be different stocking criteria and payment rates for different categories of land;
  the Industry Development Scheme will seek to encourage producers to participate in existing initiatives intended to improve the marketing and quality of sheepmeat. The details of the scheme still need to be developed, but the intention is to pay producers, via an uplift in their Sheep Annual Premium payments, who participate in eligible schemes. These might include recognised assurance schemes; sire referencing and genetic improvement schemes; schemes linked to the National Scrapie Plan; recognised local-marketing initiatives.

  We will be consulting interested parties further on the details of these two schemes. We will also be considering, in the light of further views we receive, whether any further schemes should be introduced in 2003 or thereafter. Schemes will be operated by the RPA.

  The Government believe that these schemes will make a major contribution towards addressing the problem of historic overgrazing in the uplands and improving the responsiveness of the sheep industry to the market. We recognise, however, that schemes funded from the national envelope can only form one element of the co-ordinated programme of measures needed to restore habitats damaged by historic overgrazing. We will be looking to English Nature to take appropriate action under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, encouraging producers to make use of agri-environment schemes and considering what steps we can take, including use of the cross compliance rules where appropriate, to reduce stocking pressure on land in unfavourable environmental conditions.

  Livestock
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) sailings with livestock and (b) consignments have passed through UK ports in each of the last five years. [61161]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The Department does not hold information on the number of sailings with livestock which pass through UK ports.

  The information on livestock consignments which pass through UK ports is not available in the form requested. The number of export health certificates for livestock issued in Great Britain (including those for export to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands but not including exports from Northern Ireland) in the last five years was as follows. The computer system from which the following data were obtained does not record whether the consignments were exported through seaports or airports.

  Year

  Number

  1997

  4,585

  1998

  5,457

  1999

  5,378

  2000

  4,656

  2001

  555

  These figures may be subject to updating and amendment and may not include some exports which took place during December 2000. This was due to a computer malfunction.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) on what date he expects the Government to receive their first payment under their profit sharing agreement with Meridian Delta and Anschutz Entertainment; [64576]

  (2) if the profit sharing agreement between Meridian Delta and Anschutz Entertainment and the Government includes a guaranteed (a) minimum and (b) maximum return; [64578]

  (3) if he will publish the profit sharing agreement between Meridian Delta and Anschutz Entertainment and the Government; [64575]

  (4) when he expects the cost of the Millennium Dome to be fully recouped by the Government under its profit sharing agreement with Meridian Delta and Anschutz Entertainment; [64577]

  (5) if he will list the minimum profit thresholds that are part of the profit sharing agreement between Meridian Delta and Anschutz Entertainment and the Government. [64568]

  Mr. McNulty
  As stated previously, the net present value of the agreements signed between English Partnerships and Anschutz Entertainment Group and Meridian Delta Ltd. on 29 May, is around £240 million, or up to £550 million in cash terms, assuming the full scheme is developed.

  English Partnerships and the Lottery will receive a fair split of the proceeds from the sale of the dome and land on the Greenwich Peninsula. No decisions have yet been made on the split, including timing.

  Under the terms of the deal, Anschutz Entertainment Group and Meridian Delta Ltd. will receive a priority return from the dome redevelopment, to reflect the £200 million investment that will be made in the dome. The details of the priority returns, and of the legal agreements as a whole, are commercially confidential. Release of commercial details could affect on-going 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.

  On the wider land, English Partnerships will receive payments for development at the point when legal ownership of the site transfers from EP. Ownership will transfer on a plot by plot basis over the lifetime of the joint venture with Meridian Delta Ltd. (MDL) and will occur only after MDL has spent substantial sums on planning, marketing and installation of the infrastructure needed to support the redevelopment of the peninsula. The precise timing of all these payments depends on when planning permission is granted and the precise phasing of development.

  The timing of the first payment to English Partnerships under the profit sharing arrangement for the dome depends on how long it takes to obtain planning permission, how long to undertake the development and how long to generate profits.
  929W
  Anschutz and Meridian Delta Ltd. are required to maintain the dome until 2018. Should they then decide to remove the dome structure and redevelop the land, English Partnerships will be entitled to a 50 per cent. share of redevelopment proceeds.

  Fire Brigades Union
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on pay negotiations with the Fire Brigades Union. [64622]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have no statutory role in determining firefighters' pay. Representatives from local government, representing the employers, and from the Fire Brigades Union, representing employees, are responsible for negotiating firefighters' pay and conditions of service. These groups meet in the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades. We understand that the two sides are currently in discussion on the Fire Brigades Union pay claim, which was formally tabled on the 28 May. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on the progress of these negotiations.

  Supporting People Grant
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Supporting People grant. [64521]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have allocated £40 million to local authorities to fund the implementation of the Supporting People Programme in 2002–03. This is in addition to the £15.2 million allocated to local authorities in 2001–02. The Programme goes live in April 2003, and baseline allocations for 2003–04 will be based on current spend in 2002–03, plus an allowance for inflation. ODPM is providing guidance to assist local authorities in identifying current spend. Allocations for 2004–05 should be derived from the final report of the Supporting People Allocation Formula project, which is due by March 2003. The report will summarise the main features of the funding model, how it has been derived, target allocations and pace of change issues.

  China
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations concerning the situation in Tibet he made to Li Ruihuan, Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, during Chairman Li's recent visit to the UK; and what response he received. [63862]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor discussed the situation in Tibet with Li Ruihuan during his recent visit to the UK. I made no representations to him on the matter.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he made to Vice Premier Wen Jiabao and other Chinese leaders concerning the situation in Tibet during his recent visit to China; and what response he received. [63861]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  China is well aware of the UK Government's position on Tibet. I made no representations to Wen Jiabao or other Chinese leaders concerning the situation in Tibet during my recent trip to China.

  Mobile Home Parks
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidelines he plans to issue to councils on their responsibilities concerning mobile home parks. [63835]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have, in the last two years, issued good practice guidance to local authorities on how to deal with incidences of harassment and illegal eviction of mobile home residents, and on the licensing of mobile home parks.

  Research is planned to review the Model Standards on which these site licences are based. After its completion revised standards will be issued to local authorities in conjunction with further guidance.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many lone parents aged 16 and 17 years reside in local authority accommodation with(a) on-site support, (b) floating support and (c) no specialist support. [62578]

  Mr. McNulty
  Available information reported by local authorities in England on last year's Housing Investment Programme returns indicated a total of some 260 units with on-site support, and 390 with floating support occupied by lone parents under the age of 18 as at 1 April 2001. The corresponding number in non-supported accommodation on that date was not collected, but authorities reported making just over 1,800 lettings to lone parents under 18 years of age during 2000–01.

  Stunt Performers (Health and Safety)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it compulsory for stunt co-ordinators and performers in film and television work to obtain certificates of qualification in health and safety. [64309]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans to put in place such requirements.

  Pavements (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funds he is providing to enable local councils to make pavements accessible by wheelchairs in(a) England and (b) Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [64444]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Apart from major local transport schemes (those with a gross cost exceeding £5 million) local transport capital allocations are provided to English local authorities outside London in the form of a single block allocation the use of which is at their discretion. Such allocations can be used to make pavements accessible to wheelchair users. It is for local authorities to determine their local priorities.

  For 2002–03, Gloucestershire county council has been provided with a single block allocation of £16.489 million from within a total allocation for England of £1.2 billion.

  Our Ten Year Transport Plan reiterated our commitment to transport that is accessible to disabled people. It made clear that building in accessibility for disabled people in all new investment is a condition of public money being provided.

  Human Rights Commission
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans there are to create a Human Rights Commission for the UK; and how such a Commission will cater for the rights of children and young people. [63099]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The case for a Human Rights Commission for the UK is currently being considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Government will consider carefully any recommendation the Committee may make. I understand that the Committee is looking into how any Commission may cater for the rights of children and young people.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Membership
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many candidate countries for EU membership he has visited since 7 June 2001. [62194]

  Peter Hain
  Since 7 June 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited Poland in October 2001 and Turkey in October 2001 and February 2002. He will be visiting some of the other candidate countries in the near future.

  I visited the Czech Republic in September 2001 and January 2002 (for the Visegrad 4 meeting), Poland in March 2002, Hungary in September 2001, Slovenia in January 2002 and Cyprus in April 2002.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas party; and how many people attended. [61662]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office held a Christmas carol concert on 17 December 2001. Staff and members of their family and friends wishing to attend purchased a ticket at a cost of £5 per adult and £1 per child under 11 years. A total of £1,923 was received from the sale of tickets.

  The costs attributed to staging this event amounted to £2,832.64.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the last 12 months the requirement to engage in a competitive tendering process has been waived by his Department due to national security obligations under paragraph 6(h) of the supply regulations. [62817]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have claimed the security exemption and subsequently not held a tender competition on four occasions over the last year. Once for the purchase of aircraft equipment, and on the other occasions, for the purchase of armoured vehicles for use at our overseas posts.
  932W

  Marwan Barghouti
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the UK Government have made to the Government of Israel about the conditions in which Marwan Barghouti is being held by the Israeli authorities. [63495]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I referred to Marwan Barghouti's detention with the Israeli Ambassador on 18 June 2002. The UK and EU partners will continue to monitor developments closely and will continue to raise our concerns about Palestinian detainees, including Barghouti, with the Israeli authorities.

  Al-Qaeda
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of Chechen involvement in al-Qaeda; and if he will make a statement. [64456]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are numerous reports of links between al-Qaeda and some groups fighting in Chechnya. Emir Khattab, the recently assassinated leader of the Arab mujaheddin in Chechnya, fought in Afghanistan and was reputedly a close friend of UBL. Shamil Basayev, an ethnic Chechen who shares UBL's extreme brand of Islam, underwent advanced combat training in a camp in Afghanistan. However, the nature of the al-Qaeda organisation makes it impossible accurately to assess the full extent of Chechen involvement.

  Victims of Torture
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom plans to mark UN International Day for Victims of Torture. [65240]

  Mr. MacShane
  On Wednesday 26 June, UN International Day in support of Victims of Torture, the FCO will launch phase 3 of the UK anti-Torture Initiative.

  During the first two phases of the UK Anti-Torture Initiative, launched in October 1998 and December 2000 by the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the UK combined a global lobbying campaign for universal ratification of the UN Convention against Torture (at the time ratified by just over 50 per cent. of UN member states) with a number of practical measures, including the publication and distribution of 20,000 copies in seven languages of a handbook giving guidance on reporting instances of torture, financial support for the UN's work with torture victims and the secondment of a senior UK police officer to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

  Phase 3 will combine continued global lobbying with new practical steps. Since December 1998, 13 more countries have ratified the UN CAT. Our target is to secure another five ratifications by the end of 2003, bringing the total to 134 or 70 per cent. We will also be lobbying with EU partners for the adoption of the Draft Optional Protocol to the CAT. The Protocol is intended to help prevent torture by allowing both UN and independent national teams the right to inspect places of detention in signatory countries.
  933W
  New practical measures for Phase 3 will include:
  A new publication on judicial safeguards to provide judiciary and law makers worldwide with examples of best practice regarding judicial control of torture;
  Support for the African Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Prisons in particular her monitoring role of prison conditions with regard to the prevention of torture;
  Establishment of a visiting programme to UK for senior clinicians who work in countries where the practice of torture is widespread for work placements with leading NGOs involved in torture rehabilitation; and
  The FCO will also continue to provide financial support of £175,000 per year to the UN Voluntary Fund for the victims of torture which provides urgent medical and legal support worldwide.
  Phase 3 will be the last stage of activity. After this, to consolidate efforts of the past three years to combat torture, the FCO is planning to mainstream torture work within the FCO's general Human Rights mandate and set up a panel of experts to advise on future strategy.

  Chagos Archipelago
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans have been made for the Chagossians to visit the Chagos Archipelago. [65241]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government of the British Indian Ocean Territory is organising and paying for the charter of a ship to take about 100 Chagossians to the outer islands of the Chagos Archipelago to visit ancestral graves. Subject to agreement with the representatives of those concerned, the ship—the M/S Mauritius Trochetia—will depart from Port Louis on 5 October and will visit the islands of Peros Banhos and Salomon. It is expected to return on 17 October. The British high commissions in Mauritius and Seychelles are in contact with the leaders of the various Chagossian groups and are inviting them to draw up a jointly agreed list of passengers.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60933]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The level of ministerial salaries is recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body. From May 1997, in this Department there were two Cabinet Ministers, with a total annual salary £125,308. From June 2001, there was one Cabinet Minister, at an annual salary of £68,157 and one Parliamentary Secretary, at an annual salary of £26,835.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in his Department in 2002. [64645]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  In my Department, staff with less than 10 years service are entitled to 25 days annual leave each year; staff with 10 years or more service are entitled to 30 days. Annual leave entitlement for members of the senior civil service is currently set by the Cabinet Office at 30 days.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which organisations which were in receipt of a grant from her in 1997–98 no longer are; what the annual saving is; which organisations which were not in receipt of a grant in 1997–98 now are; and what the annual cost is. [61397]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member on 17 June 2002,Official Report, columns 136–37W.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the members of the Ministerial Group for the Golden Jubilee. [64214]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: 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

  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.

  Licensing (Live Music)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to reform the two in a bar system; and if she will make a statement. [62777]

  Dr. Howells
  Our plans for the modernisation of the licensing regimes were set out clearly in the White Paper "Time for Reform" (Cm.4696) published on 10 April 2000. We proposed that the current exemption from public entertainment that allows two musicians to perform live in premises licensed for the sale of alcohol should end. This is because one or two live musicians using powerful microphones and amplifiers can make more noise and so generate more nuisance for local residents than three without. Alcohol and public entertainment
  935W
  licensing will be integrated into a single scheme. This will remove at a stroke a considerable amount of existing red tape and reduce the licensing costs which currently deter many venues from providing live music and dancing. The reforms will be implemented by means of primary legislation to be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Independent Television Production
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement of the value to the economy of the independent television production sector in the United Kingdom; [64570]

  (2) if the proportion of programmes required to be sourced from the independent production sector is based upon that sector's estimated contribution to creativity in UK television. [64569]

  Dr. Howells
  Independent productions are an important component of the television landscape in the United Kingdom. The 25 per cent. independent productions quota, set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990, has helped maintain the diversity of British television, supported the development of creative and technical skills and helped create a thriving and innovative production industry—total expenditure by UK broadcasters on independent programming was around £750 million in 1999. We want this to continue to develop and have therefore retained the obligations in the recently published draft Communications Bill (Cm 5508-I).

  Film Council
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what were the total employment costs of staff employed by the Film Council in each year of its operation; [64572]

  (2) how many staff are employed in each department of the Film Council. [64573]

  Dr. Howells
  The total employment costs of staff employed by the Film Council for each full year of the Film Council's existence, building up from its foundation as a new organisation, are:

  2000–01: £2,461,000

  2001–02: £3,739,000.

  There are 83 people employed at the Film Council. These include staff transferred from the British Film Institute, the Arts Council of England, the British Film Commission and the British Screen Finance group of companies, all previously employed using public subsidy.

  In addition, the Film Council has taken on extra work such as statistical evidence gathering, called for by the Government's Film Policy Review, and the UK Media Desk.

  This can be broken down as:

  Strategy—15

  Funding—28

  Resources—24

  British Film Commission—12

  Business Affairs—4.

  936W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many consultants were employed by the Film Council in each year of its operation, stating for each consultant(a) the purpose of their employment arid (b) the number of hours they were employed for; [64574]

  (2) what the total employment costs were of consultants employed by the Film Council in each year of its operation. [64571]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2000–01, the Film Council's first full year of operation, £526,289.55p or 0.8 per cent. of turnover was spent on employing consultants. In 2001–02, £897,423.18p or 1.4 per cent. of turnover was spent on consultants. In 2000–01, 30 consultants were employed. Of the 30 consultants in total employed, 17 were paid less than £10,000 and 22 were paid less than £20,000.

  In 2001–02, the Film Council employed 46 consultants. Of the 47 consultants in total employed, 25 were paid less than £10,000 and 29 were paid less than £20,000.

  The consultants were employed to help set up the new organisation's infrastructure and to inform the development of its new strategy. They worked on a wide range of specific projects, including areas of strategic development, training, monitoring, cultural diversity and development of European policy.

  It is not possible to state the number of hours for which the consultants were employed.

  These figures exclude the cost of legal advice, corporate print and design, and internal and external auditing advice.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the films for which it has been a condition of a grant made by the Film Council that a member of their staff receive a personal credit on the film. [64581]

  Dr. Howells
  The list of films for which it has been a condition of a grant made by the Film Council that a member of their staff receive a personal credit on the film is shown in the following list. This list comprises feature film projects where an offer has been accepted and has not lapsed. The credits reflect the roles played by Film Council staff in creative development, structuring of finance (in addition to Film Council investment) safeguarding finance, creative roles undertaken during production and post-production and advice given during the marketing and distribution processes.

  New Cinema Fund titles:

  Anita and Me

  Ape

  Bloody Sunday

  Body Song

  Emotional Backgammon

  Entering Blue Zone

  Helen of Peckham

  Hoover Street Revival

  Live Forever

  Magdalene

  Noi the Albino

  Once upon a Time in the Midlands

  937W

  Revengers Tragedy

  Tomorrow La Scala (aka Sweeney)

  The Wooden Camera

  This is Not a Love Song

  Premiere Fund titles:

  Braids, Twists and Tales

  Five Children and It

  Gosford Park

  L'Homme du Train

  Miranda

  Mike Bassett. England Manager

  The Importance of Being Earnest

  Water Warriors

  Young Adam.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the total cost of(a) the Millennium Dome and (b) the Millennium Experience in each year since 1996. [64580]

  Dr. Howells
  Expenditure incurred on the Millennium Experience by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) was as follows:

  £ million

  April 1997–March 1998

  90

  April 1998–March 1999

  179

  April–December 1999

  330

  January–December 2000

  177

  January–December 2001

  18

  These figures include the cost of the London Riverside new year's eve celebrations of 31 December 1999. It is not possible to separate the amount of expenditure by NMEC on the dome as the national programme included elements both at the dome itself and throughout the country. Expenditure incurred by NMEC before 1 April 1997 is included under 1997–98. The figure for 2001 takes account of rebates and savings on costs provided for in the previous years' accounts.

  Expenditure on the Millennium Dome by English Partnerships was as follows:

  £ million

  March 1999–February 2001

  6.70

  July–December 2001

  9.75

  All costs incurred by English Partnerships will be recovered from eventual sale proceeds.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Volunteers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many members of his staff in each of the past two years have been granted a day's paid leave to work as a volunteer; and if he will make a statement. [39735]
  938W
  Mr. McCartney
  The Department's special leave policy actively supports voluntary public service by allowing staff both paid and unpaid leave for public duties, including carrying out voluntary work. However the information on the number of staff granted paid leave to enable them to carry out voluntary work is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensions Policy
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in his Department are involved in monitoring and developing pensions policy. [39987]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are currently around 150 people in the teams responsible for developing, designing, supporting and monitoring state and private pension policy. Many more people across the Department, including staff providing the day-to-day service to customers, computer specialists, statisticians, economists and legal advisers, contribute to planning for and delivering the Government's agenda for both today's and future pensioners.

  Welfare Spending
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 17 April 2002 to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison),Official Report, column 1004W, on welfare, what plans he has to calculate the proportion of the total welfare bill spent on those living below 60 per cent of the median income. [52153]

  Malcolm Wicks
  None.

  Appeals
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many appeals against decisions made at(a) all-work tests and (b) personal capability assessments were (i) heard and decided and (ii) decided in the appellant's favour in each of the last 10 years; [58756]

  (2) what the average length of time was between lodging an appeal against (a) an all-work test and (b) a personal capability assessment decision and having that appeal heard in each of the last 10 years. [58757]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Neil Ward, Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. He will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Letter from Neil Ward to Mr. Paul Holmes, dated 24 June 2002:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent parliamentary questions on the subject of appeals against all work tests and personal capability assessments. You asked:
  How many appeals against decisions made at all work tests and personal capability assessments were (i) heard and decided and (ii) decided in the appellants favour in each of the last 10 years (58756), and;
  What the average length of time was between the lodging of an appeal against an all work test and a personal capability assessment decision, and having the appeal heard in each of the last 10 years (58757).
  Figures are not available for the last 10 years as requested, but are available from 1998.
  The information is in the following table.
  939W

  The number of all work test/personal capability assessment appeals heard (in relation to current IS, IB and SDA case loads), found in favour of the appellant, and the average time taken between receipt at the Appeals Service and first hearing

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Income support case load

  3,824,000

  3,834,600

  3,876,700

  3,949,600

  Incapacity benefit case load

  2,299,700

  2,267,400

  2,310,400

  2,342,900

  Severe disablement allowance case load

  371,600

  370,100

  367,500

  362,300

  Number of appeals heard

  56,910

  53,580

  37,935

  30,880

  Number of appeals found in favour of the appellant

  23,410

  22,625

  15,535

  13,110

  Average waiting time, in weeks, between receipt at the Appeals Service and first hearing

  22.7

  17.2

  11.7

  12.1

  I hope this is helpful.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff were employed by his Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60895]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office (Douglas Alexander) on 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1402W.

  Polygamous Spouses
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what circumstances benefits can be paid to polygamous spouses; and what benefits can be paid to polygamous spouses. [59905]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Income-related benefits (income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit) are payable to people in polygamous marriages where the relationship has been solemnised by a marriage ceremony in a country where polygamous marriages are permitted, and where the general conditions of entitlement are met.

  The amount of benefit payable includes personal allowances for the male spouse and one partner at the appropriate couple rate and, for each other partner, the difference between the higher rate for a couple and the higher rate for a single person. In general there is no financial advantage to claiming for those in polygamous marriages. Having separate claims for a couple and for other members of the marriage would normally result in more benefit being paid. Benefit entitlement for any additional partners is restricted to an allowance which is less than the rate for single people.

  In addition, any member of a polygamous marriage can claim a contributory or non-contributory social security benefit in his or her own right where he or she satisfies the relevant conditions of entitlement.

  Pensioner Credit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the costs of the introduction of pensioner credit in 2003 and in each of the subsequent five years. [61255]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer my right hon. Friend to table A.2 (page 156) of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report and Financial Statement and Budget report April 2002 (HC 592).

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which assessment he has made of the cost of 940W
  introducing a winter fuel allowance, equivalent to that received by pensioners, for those in receipt of disability benefits. [62389]

  Mr. McCartney
  The cost of extending the winter fuel payment scheme in this way would be approximately £510 million each year.

  Notes:

  1. Based on the 2000–01 Family Resources Survey and data taken from DWP administrative records for November 2001.

  2. Assumes that the payment is made to people in receipt of incapacity benefit, disability living allowance, severe disablement allowance or to claimants receiving incapacity benefit credits.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his recently published latest estimates of occupational pension receipt among the newly retired. [61385]

  Mr. McCartney
  The "Pensioners' Income Series" publication contains guidance about how to interpret the information contained within it. In particular, it warns that great care should be taken when interpreting changes in income over short periods of time since random sampling fluctuations mean that estimates should be regarded as broad indications of trends only.

  Table 12 of the "Pensioners' Incomes Series 2000–01" contains estimates of the proportion of pensioner units with occupational pension income and the average amount for those in receipt from 1994–95 to 2000–01. It shows that 59 per cent. of recently retired pensioner units received income from occupational pensions in 2000–01, lower than the corresponding estimate for 1999–2000 of 64 per cent. Estimates for both singles and couples were lower in 2000–01 than in 1999–2000, but the drop was greatest for singles from 51 per cent. in 1999–2000 to 44 per cent. in 2000–01.

  There are various possible explanations for these changes, including the possibility that they are due to random sampling fluctuation. More years of FRS data would be needed to confirm whether this is the case.

  The "Pensioners' Income Series" publication warns that the time series of results based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1994–95 to 2000–01 is too short to provide an accurate picture of detailed changes in pensioners' incomes over time. It also warns that estimates of proportions in receipt of occupational pension income should be treated with caution because they may be subject to under-reporting by respondents to the FRS.
  941W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a breakdown by gender of his latest estimates of occupational pension receipt among the newly retired. [63690]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: The information required can only be supplied for Single Pensioners. As published in the Pensioners' Incomes

  The proportion of recently retired pensioners with occupational pension income and the average amounts for those in receipt,1994–05 to 2000–01

  1994–95

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Proportions in receipt of occupational pension income

  All single pensioners

  51

  51

  52

  51

  44

  Single male pensioners

  57

  54

  59

  56

  52

  Single female pensioners

  48

  50

  48

  48

  39

  Average amount of occupational pension income for those in receipt (£pw)

  Mean amounts

  All single pensioners

  88

  93

  93

  97

  95

  Single male pensioners

  104

  107

  103

  108

  115

  Single female pensioners

  77

  83

  86

  89

  79

  Median amounts

  All single pensioners

  55

  63

  58

  62

  57

  Single male pensioners

  62

  66

  65

  66

  81

  Single female pensioners

  49

  57

  52

  58

  47

  Notes:

  1. Estimates of the percentage of pensioner units in receipt of occupational pension income are based on respondents' own assessment and may be subject to under reporting.

  2. Recently retired single pensioners are defined as single women aged 60–64 or men aged 65–69.

  Medway Unitary Authority
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Medway Unitary Authority. [65242]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) report on Medway Unitary Authority was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Inspectors found that the council's previous good performance had been adversely affected by a number of factors including the move of staff to a central location, the loss of staff to a neighbouring authority and the introduction of a new IT system. This has led to a backlog of work. The council recognised these shortfalls and put in place proposals to tackle the backlog and address many of the other problems.

  The report notes that the council needed to implement its stated aim to increase awareness of housing benefits. The council had run no take-up campaigns since 1999.

  Inspectors found that most staff applied a high standard of scrutiny to claims, but limited management checking removed any means of identifying inconsistency and training needs.

  There was a high level of accuracy in classifying overpayments but some improvements were needed in overpayment recovery.

  Medway's fraud investigations unit is experienced and some good quality investigation work had been done.

  Medway administered some £51 million in housing benefits in 2000–01.
  942W
  Series publication, estimates for pensioner couples cannot be split by gender, as the extent of income sharing within the pensioner units is not known.

  Information for "All Single Pensioners" and for "Single Male Pensioners" and "Single Female Pensioners" is in the table.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

TREASURY

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets he has accepted through public service agreements with(a) the Isle of Wight council, (b) Lewisham council and (c) Staffordshire county council; and what steps he takes to monitor those targets or audit the quality of information delivered to him as to their performance against those targets. [62215]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  A copy of the Local Public Service Agreement with the London borough of Lewisham is in the Library. We are currently finalising an agreement with Staffordshire county council. Negotiation of an agreement with the Isle of Wight council is scheduled to begin on 1 July 2002.

  The targets relate to performance at the end of the period of the agreement; agreements normally run for around three years. An authority earns a reward grant for the achievement of its targets, and will provide information to enable the performance on which the grant is based to be verified.

  Taxation
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the percentage change in income per income decile after tax as a consequence of changes to direct and indirect taxation from 1998–99 to 2000–01. [4632]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table shows the estimated percentage impact on the net income of UK households of direct and indirect tax and benefit changes introduced over the last Parliament and taking effect by 2001–02.

  Net income decile

  Percentage change in net income

  Bottom

  +11

  2

  +9

  3

  +7

  4

  +4

  5

  +3

  6

  +2

  7

  +2

  8

  +1

  9

  +1

  Top

  0

  Note:

  The estimates are based on Family Expenditure Survey data with incomes and expenditure projected forward to 2001–02. The decile groups are of all households ranked by net income before housing costs and equivalised using the McClements scale.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he plans to announce the appointment of the next Deputy Governor of the Bank of England with responsibility for financial stability. [63903]

  Ruth Kelly
  The term of office of Mr. David Clementi, the Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, runs until 31 August 2002. Mr. Clementi is not seeking reappointment. His successor will be announced in due course.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of fuel duty changes since May 1997 on the tax burden on families in the lowest income quintile; and if he will make a statement. [12800]

  Mr. Boateng
  Changes to fuel duties since May 1997 have cost families with children in the lowest income quintile around £30 a year on average in real terms. Personal tax and benefit changes introduced since 1997 have benefited families with children in the lowest income quintile by £2,400 a year on average in real terms.

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the projects funded in the first three rounds of the Capital Modernisation Fund; what funding each project has received to date; and if he will make a statement. [64550]

  Mr. Boateng
  Table 1.12 of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02 (CM5101) lists all allocations made in the first three rounds of the Capital 944W
  Modernisation Fund which had been announced at that date. Details of projects announced since then have been placed on the Treasury's public website.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 April 2002,Official Report, column 336W, on the Budget, what the levels of housing benefit and council tax benefit take—up were in 1997–98; what the caseload numbers for those receiving family credit were in 1997–98; what the levels of housing benefit and council tax benefit take—up were in 1999–2000; what the projected caseload numbers of those receiving WFTC or DPTC are for 2002–03; and what the projected caseload numbers are for those receiving the new tax credits in 2003–04. [64207]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There were some 4.77 million recipients of housing benefit in the UK in May 1997. This had fallen to 4.44 million by May 1999.

  There were some 5.5 million recipients of council tax benefit in Great Britain in May 1997. This had fallen to 5.17 million by May 1999.

  There were around 780,000 family credit recipients in the UK in May 1997.

  The UK caseload of recipients receiving WFTC or DPTC as at November 2001 was 1.325 million.

  The projected UK caseload of recipients of the child or working tax credits is about 6 million in 2003–04.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electoral Fraud
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action will be taken by the Northern Ireland Office in conjunction with the Electoral Office headquarters to inform the electorate in relation to the requirements of the Electoral Fraud (NI) Act 2002; and when this information campaign will commence. [63534]

  Mr. Browne
  The Electoral Commission, which assumed responsibility for voter education and awareness for the whole of the UK on 1 July 2001, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Office and the Electoral Office, is planning a public awareness campaign in Northern Ireland. It will focus on the changes brought about by the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, in particular voter registration and identification, and will begin in the autumn.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Postal Voting
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the pilot studies on postal voting at local government elections. [63825]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.
  945W
  The Electoral Commission is evaluating the local authority pilot schemes that ran all postal ballots in the May 2002 local and mayoral elections and will provide a detailed assessment of the impact of each scheme to the Deputy Prime Minister by 2 August 2002.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which organisations which were in receipt of a grant in 1997–98 no longer are; what the annual saving is; which organisations which were not in receipt of a grant in 1997–98 now are; and what the annual cost is. [61401]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 136W.

  Tables 1 and 2 detail those organisations now in receipt of grants that were not in 1997–98.

  Table 3 details those organisations that were in receipt of a grant in 1997–98 that are not now.

  Marriage and relationship support grant programme 2002–03 Programme funding1

  £

  University of Exeter, School of Psychology

  Money management and marital commitment in new couples: An evaluation of the efficacy of the FOCCUS Inventory

  43,000

  Care for the Family

  Asian family matters

  19,000

  2 as 1

  Development and adaptation of Relate training material

  66,000

  The Minster Centre

  Aracas project (domestic violence)

  72,000

  2 as 1

  Partnership project (Relate)—Generic awareness campaign to promote MARS

  120,000

  Sussex Family Mediation Service

  One Stop Shop

  26,000

  The Church of England

  Marriage Preparation and Support in the south-east

  54,000

  Brook in Birmingham

  Counselling for young couples

  39,000

  The Richmond Centre

  Videos are Valuable

  38,000

  Talking Matters

  Infrastructure for Marriage Preparation in the Orthodox Jewish Community

  24,000

  Total

  501,000

  1Programme grant is paid in respect of defined project costs of the recipient organisation.

  Marriage and relationship support discontinued 1997–98

  £

  Marriage Resource

  126,900

  Marriage Resource—Glossop

  11,228

  African Caribbean Family Mediation Service

  89,900

  Lighthouse Christian Care

  29,580

  Total

  247,608

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61061]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table details the amounts spent on staff training and development for each of the last five years by LCD.

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  2,253,686

  1998–99

  3,166,424

  1999–2000

  3,071,804

  946W
  The saving from discontinued grants is £247,608.

  The cost of new grants totals £1,303,000.

  Marriage and relationship support (MARS) grant programme 2002–03

  Core funding1

  £

  Funding allocated

  Parentline Plus

  62,000

  2 as 1

  150,000

  Totnes Family Partnership

  58,000

  Somerset Family Partnership

  50,000

  Family Matters York

  50,000

  Prisoners Families and Friends Service

  12,000

  The Lesbian and Gay Foundation

  48,000

  Muslim Women's Helpline

  20.000

  The Salvation Army

  40,000

  Aquila Care Trust

  88,000

  Project for Advocacy, Counselling and Education

  46,000

  Basic for Life

  34,000

  The Cogwheel Trust

  4,000

  Poole Community Family Trust

  50,000

  CFP Guildford

  40,000

  Bristol Community Family Trust

  50,000

  802,000

  1Core grant is paid in respect of administration costs of the recipient organisation.

  Year

  £

  2000–01

  3,818,095

  2001–02

  3,154,397

  1Provisional

  The Department's commitment to the training and development of its staff is demonstrated through our successful achievement of the Investors in People status. LCD received accreditation in 2000 and the Court Service was re-accredited in 2001.

  Training is delivered via a range of methods, including job shadowing and mentoring. Formal development activities include professional training, NVQs and the Princes Trust Volunteer Scheme.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (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; [61047]
  947W
  (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. [61638]

  Yvette Cooper
  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.

  Magistrates Courts Committees
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reform magistrates courts committees. [62060]

  Yvette Cooper
  Sir Robin Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales makes wide-ranging recommendations, including several concerning magistrates courts committees. The period for comment closed on 31 January. The Government are now considering the recommendations in detail, taking account of the comments received. The Government hope to announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper before the summer recess.

  Freedom of Information
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the membership of the Advisory Group dealing with the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [61413]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Lord Chancellor announced the formation of the Advisory Group on Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in his statutory report to Parliament in November 2001. Mrs. Elizabeth France, the Information Commissioner, and myself jointly chair the group. The members of the group are:

  Mr. James Leslie MLA: Northern Ireland Executive

  Mr. Denis Haughey MLA: Northern Ireland Executive

  Ms Alison Sutherland: Local Government Association

  Mr. Tim Ricketts: National Association of Local Councils

  Deputy Chief Constable Mr. Ian Readhead: Association of Chief Police Officers

  Dr. Michael Wilks: British Medical Association

  Ms Christine Miles: NHS Confederation

  Mr. Michael Malone-Lee: Universities UK

  Ms Jane Phillips: National Association of Governors and Managers

  Ms Santha Rasaiah: Newspaper Society

  Mr. Jonathan Baume: First Division Association

  Mr. Maurice Frankel: Director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information

  Mrs. Christine Gifford: former Metropolitan police civil servant

  Professor Robert Hazell: Director of the Constitution Unit, University College London

  Dr. Dilys Jones: former consultant psychiatrist, Department of Health

  948W

  Mr. David Henke: The Guardian

  Mr. David Reynolds, Director of Investigations at the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

  Ms Sarah Tyacke, Keeper of the Public Records

  Mr. Alan Cogbill: Director, Civil Justice and Legal Services, Lord Chancellor's Department

  Mr. Lee Hughes, Head of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Division, Lord Chancellor's Department

  Mr. Graham Smith. Deputy Information Commissioner.

  The Secretariat is provided by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Division in the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will set out the timetable for the(a) repeal and (b) amendment under section 75 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 of the primary and secondary legislation which contains provisions prohibiting the disclosure of information. [63090]

  Yvette Cooper
  My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), made a statement on 30 April 2002,Official Report, columns 699–700, announcing the publication of an interim report detailing the progress made so far in reviewing legislation prohibiting the disclosure of information. A further report is being prepared and will be published at the time of the Lord Chancellor's annual report in November on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the Ministers with responsibility for implementing freedom of information policies. [61411]

  Yvette Cooper
  Policy responsibility for the Freedom of Information Act rests with the Lord Chancellor and myself. The Lord Chancellor chairs the Cabinet Ministerial Sub-Committee on Freedom of Information and its members are responsible for implementation of the Act in their Departments. The sub-committee's terms of reference are"To consider policy and other issues arising from the Government's decision to legislate on freedom of information and from legislation on data protection; to oversee implementation of the relevant legislation; and to report as necessary to the Committee on Constitutional Reform Policy".

  The membership of the committee in the light of the recent Cabinet reshuffle will be confirmed shortly.

  Crown Court (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, which locations she is considering for the site of future Crown court buildings in Buckinghamshire. [61560]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Court Service is currently considering both Aylesbury and Milton Keynes as potential locations for a new Crown court in Buckinghamshire.

  Judges
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many representations the Lord Chancellor has received concerning the(a) conduct of judges and (b) operation of the Legal Services Commission since 1997. [62779]
  949W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  (a) The principle of judicial independence means that it is not open to the Lord Chancellor or his Department to entertain complaints about judicial decisions. However, as Head of the Judiciary, the Lord Chancellor does consider complaints about the personal conduct of individual judges and other judicial office holders and is able to reprimand or rebuke judges who have behaved inappropriately. In the most extreme cases the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Lord Chief Justice, can remove a judge below the level of the High Court from office.

  No figures for complaints about judges' conduct are available for the period before August 1998, when the Lord Chancellor established a team of officials dedicated to make thorough inquiries on his behalf into all complaints about judicial conduct. Between August 1998 and 31 May 2002, the Lord Chancellor received 1,351 complaints which appeared to relate to judges' personal conduct. In 1,089 cases the complainant agreed that the Lord Chancellor could investigate the complaint by asking the judge for his or her comments. The Lord Chancellor then considered the complaint and the response, and informed the complainant of the judge's comments and his own conclusion. The great majority of these complaints were from disappointed litigants and were found to be without foundation. However, on 23 occasions, the Lord Chancellor thought it appropriate to rebuke or reprimand the judge concerned in relation to conduct.

  (b) The Legal Services Commission was established by the Access to Justice Act 1999, and came into being on 1 April 2000 to replace the Legal Aid Board. Since that date 67 representations have been received (although some of these will relate to the old Legal Aid Board). Of these, 17 were from politicians and 50 from the public.

  Overall figures on representations about the two bodies received by the Lord Chancellor's Department are unavailable for 1997. Since 1 January 1998, the Department has received 238 separate representations, relating to either the Legal Aid Board or the Legal Services Commission. Of these, 155 have come from members of the public, with the remaining 83 from MPs and peers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Coroners
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) part-time and (b) full-time coroners have been met by members of the review team examining the future of the coroner system as part of their work; and if he will make a statement; [62835]

  (a) if he will list the shire counties visited by members of the review into the coroner system as part of their work; [62837]

  (b) when he intends to publish the findings of the review of the coroner system; and if he will make a statement. [62836]

  Hilary Benn
  Responsibility for the review team's consultation and fact-finding arrangements lies with the Chair of the review, Tom Luce. I have accordingly asked 950W
  him to write to the hon. Member direct about the visits which the review team has made and the coroners they have met.

  Mr. Luce has recently assessed that the work involved in conducting the review will require a little more time than originally agreed, but I now expect to receive the findings by April 2003 and to publish them shortly thereafter.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive in respect of providing for the education of the children of asylum seekers in Scotland. [62414]

  Beverley Hughes
  My officials and the Scottish Executive continue to discuss the provision of education for the children of asylum seekers in Accommodation centres proposed for Scotland.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which detention facilities in which asylum seekers are detained are defined as(a) short-term and (b) long-term; and what is the average length of time he estimates asylum seekers will be held in (i) short-term and (ii) long-term detention [63462]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are short-term holding facilities at Manchester, Dover, Cheriton, Felixstowe and Harwich. Detainees are held at these centres for no longer than five days, or no longer than seven days in cases where removal directions have been set.

  The immigration removal centres at Campsfield House, Harmondsworth, Tinsley House, Dungavel House, Dover, Haslar, Lindholme and Yarl's Wood (which is closed at present) may be used to hold detainees for whatever period is necessary for the purpose for which detention was authorised. This period will vary from case to case.

  In addition, Oakington Reception Centre is used to detain persons whose asylum claim is assessed to be straightforward and capable of being decided quickly. The fast-track asylum process at Oakington typically takes between seven to 10 days.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is regarding(a) when and (b) for how long asylum seekers should be detained. [63461]

  Beverley Hughes
  Our policy regarding the use of detention was set out in the 1998 White Paper "Fairer, Faster, Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" and the recent White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven".

  Detention will usually be appropriate to effect removal; initially to establish a person's identity or basis of claim; or where there is reasonable belief that a person will fail to comply with the conditions attached to the grant of temporary admission or release. In addition, persons whose asylum claims appear straightforward and capable of being decided quickly may be detained as part of the fast-track asylum process at Oakington Reception Centre.
  951W
  Detention under the Immigration Act 1971 is not time limited. However, it is used sparingly and is kept to the minimum duration necessary for the purposes for which it was authorised.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons asylum seekers may be moved from one place to another within the detention estate. [63463]

  Beverley Hughes
  The transfer of detainees between removal centres, for whatever reason, is kept to a minimum. However, a transfer may occur for reasons of security; for health care reasons, as not all centres have in-patient facilities; and, on occasion, for domestic or compassionate reasons, or to enable a detainee to be more easily visited by a representative. Transfers may also be arranged for operational reasons as a stage towards removal from the United Kingdom, or to create vacancies in a particular centre.

  Initial decisions' made on applications for asylum in the UK, excluding dependants, 2001

  Czech Republic

  Slovakia

  Bulgaria

  Romania

  Total initial decisions made

  885

  85

  145

  2,125

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  —

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  5

  2—

  15

  70

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave

  850

  80

  130

  2,055

  1The information relates to initial decisions made in 2001, which in some cases will relate to applications received in previous years. Figures have been rounded to the nearest five and are provisional.

  2Equals one or two

  Information on initial decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the period up to June 2002, and will be available from 30 August 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what criteria the National Asylum Support Service uses to assess the(a) existence and (b) suitability of accommodation for those leaving induction centres; [58917]

  (2) what proportion of those who stayed in the Home Office induction centres in the last 12 months now reside in London. [58918]

  Beverley Hughes
  The first induction centre opened in Dover on 21 January 2002. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) does not keep separate figures showing the destination of those passing through the induction centres.

  Applications for support from those in the induction centre are considered in the same way as any other. Only asylum seekers who request that accommodation he provided as part of an application for support are liable to be dispersed. Each application is considered on its individual merits. It is open to the asylum seeker to put forward reasons why they should either not be dispersed or should be sent to a particular area. Generally speaking NASS does not provide accommodation in London. Normally the only exceptions are where the asylum seeker has been accepted for treatment by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture or where
  952W
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether local grant claims for supporting adult and family asylum seekers for the period 1 April 1999 to 5 December 1999 have been met. [65177]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have laid before Parliament today a Special Grant Report which sets out the arrangements for reimbursing local authorities in England for amounts outstanding in respect of claims for supporting asylum-seeking adults and families for the period 1 April 1999 to 5 December 1999.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were accepted as refugees from(a) the Czech Republic, (b) Slovakia, (c) Bulgaria and (d) Romania in 2001. [63955]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is given in the table. These statistics relate to initial decisions only and exclude the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  the asylum seeker is transferring to the NASS system of support and has school age children who have been at school for over one year.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reimburse local authorities for their expenditure on supporting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. [65174]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have laid before Parliament today a Special Grant Report which sets out the arrangements for reimbursing local authorities in England for the costs of supporting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children as a result of their duties under the Children Act 1989.

  The Special Grant Report explains the areas of expenditure which will be eligible for the grant and the time scales for local authorities to make their claims.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) the cost is of building accommodation centres at each of the three sites identified, (b) the cost is of providing facilities at those centres as set out in Clause 25 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and (c) use is planned for the accommodation centres at the end of the experimental period if the evaluation of them deems them unsuitable. [58395]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have not yet tendered for the provision of accommodation centres.

  We expect the trial centres to be successful. If in the light of the evaluation of the trial there is a need to modify any aspect of the centres, we will address that at the time.
  953W
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on the use of accommodation centres for asylum seekers in other EU countries on(a) decision times, (b) removal rates and (c) the welfare of applicants. [62529]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office has looked at the use of accommodation centres for asylum seekers during visits to Belgium, Denmark and Sweden. As far as we are aware, none of these countries has systematically evaluated the use of accommodation centres for asylum seekers or carried out any comparison of the impact of accommodation centres on decision times and removal rates. There has been some analysis of the impact of accommodation centres on the welfare of applicants. Published sources include: Dutch Refugee Council (1997) "Asylum seekers—don't let them just sit and wait: six months in a centre is the limit"; Danish Red Cross leaflet 2001 "Danish Red Cross and the Asylum Work"; Willigen, L. van and Mooren, G.T.M. (et al) (1993) "Study on the difficulties in the reception and care of children of refugees and asylum seekers in the Netherlands", in Willigen, L. van (ed) "Health Hazards of Organised Violence in Children", Pharos Foundation for Refugee Health Care, London.

  In January 2002, the Home Office commissioned research to examine the reception policies and practice of four European countries (Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany). This includes an analysis of the impact of accommodation centres on: (1) application rates; (2) the speed of the determination process; (3) the facilitation of return and removals; and (4) integration.

  Prison Service (Meat Supplies)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what (1) proportion of meat and meat products purchased by HM Prison Service is derived from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) other EU countries and (c) countries outside the EU; [61595]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the sourcing of meat and meat products for consumption in UK prisons; [61596]

  (3) what steps his Department has taken to increase the proportion of meat and meat products sourced from UK producers by HM Prison Service; what assessment he has made of the benefits to UK prisons of the purchase of UK produced meat; and if he will make a statement. [61593]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Her Majesty's Prison Service for England and Wales procures meat and meat products using contracts awarded in accordance with European Union (EU) procurement regulations and on a best value for money basis which takes account of quality of product, cost and availability. The EU regulations are designed to support fair and open competition allowing British suppliers to compete for business with other members. British suppliers have been awarded contracts under this mechanism and have access to a global market as part of their supply chain to ensure availability and the cost-effectiveness of the product at all times.
  954W
  Data available from existing contracted suppliers show the following information:
  64 per cent. of meat and meat products purchased by HM Prison Service is from the United Kingdom;
  17 per cent. is derived from other EU countries; and
  19 per cent. is derived from countries outside the EU.

  No steps have been taken by the Department to increase the proportion of meat and meat products sourced from United Kingdom (UK) producers by HM Prison Service and no direct assessments have been made regarding possible benefits or disadvantages to prisons in England and Wales from the purchase of UK produced meat. The Service has no plans to change the current situation as any move to discriminate in favour of UK producers would be deemed to be in contravention of the EU supplies directive, 93/96/EC Purchase of Goods, by disadvantaging other member states.

  Information about the procurement of meat and meat products for prisoners in Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office respectively.

  Victim Support
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what performance indicators are utilised to describe the efficiency and effectiveness of Victim Support; when the indicators were established; and if they have been reviewed. [62716]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: A range of means are used to measure the effectiveness of Victim Support including two performance indicators. The first, which was established under the Victim's Charter in 1996, is that Victim Support should aim to contact victims within four working days of the necessary details being passed to them by the police. The second, established in 1999–2000, was that Victim Support should, with Home Office funding, set up a witness support service in all magistrates courts by April 2002. This was substantially achieved by the due date.

  The National Audit Office (NAO) is currently looking at the work of Victim Support and the Home Office's oversight of its substantial annual grant to the organisation. The NAO's findings will be published and considered in due course.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the terms of reference and membership are of the body which replaces the Victims Steering Group; and who has been working on the terms of reference for the group. [62714]

  Hilary Benn
  (holding answer 19 June 2002]: The Victims Steering Group was formally disbanded in November 2001, as it was recognised that the new services for victims in recent years, together with planned developments, required a more proactive, delivery-focused national group.

  A new draft national strategy for victims and witnesses has been developed which the Government are planning to publish later in the year. Once the national strategy has been agreed, we will give consideration to the membership and terms of reference of the group or committee which is required to support, evaluate and review it.
  955W
  To complement the group, and other existing official groups or ministerial committees, we also plan to establish a Victims Advisory Panel. The panel will have the opportunity to comment on a range of policy developments and on service delivery issues, and we are currently considering how best to set it up.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if officers interviewing convicted criminals in prison on the basis that the criminal is a victim of a crime give prisoners the opportunity to be contacted by Victim Support; and how it is ensured that each prisoner receives a Victims of Crime leaflet. [62712]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) to her question on 27 February 2002, Official Report, column 1388W.

  It is for individual officers to determine the most appropriate course of action in the particular circumstances of the case.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the review of the Victims Charter will be completed; who and what agencies have been involved in the review; and what recent developments have been included in the review. [62718]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: The following Departments, organisations and victims groups have been directly involved in the review of the Victims Charter:

  Home Office Justice and Victims Unit

  Home Office National Probation Directorate

  Home Office Research and Statistics Unit

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation

  Prison Service

  The Court Service

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  Criminal Cases Review Commission

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Department of Health

  Department of Work and Pensions

  Department of Transport

  Department of Local Government and the Regions

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

  Justices' Clerk's Society

  Magistrates' Association

  Judiciary

  Victim Support

  Campaign Against Drink Driving

  Brake

  RoadPeace

  Headway.

  The work on the new benefits for victims—a bill of rights, a victims commissioner, a new complaints procedure, and new services for particular victims—is well advanced, and the Government expect to make an announcement later this year. Those leading and involved
  956W
  in the review have taken into account all new developments which impact on victims, including lessons to be learned from individual cases and important initiatives such as the street crime initiative.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government have taken in response to the responses from individuals in relation to the review of the Victims Charter. [62715]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: Individuals who responded to the consultation exercise on the Review of the Victims Charter received a letter of acknowledgement and were advised on how the work would be taken forward. A summary of the responses to the consultation process was placed in the Library and published on the Home Office website in July 2001.

  The Victims Charter Review Implementation Group was set up in October 2001 to take forward the work on the Review of the Victims Charter and has now met on three occasions. The group's work, and that of its subsidiary groups working on the Victims Ombudsman/ Commissioner and the inclusion of the victims of road traffic incidents within the scope of the revised Victims Charter, is progressing well. The views expressed by individuals during the public consultation process have been taken into account by all of these groups.

  Overstayers
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of visitors from overseas entering the UK in each of the past five years by visa became overstayers; [63435]

  (2) what proportion of visitors from Jamaica in each of the last five years to the United Kingdom became overstayers. [63434]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available.

  Extradition
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been extradited from the UK in each of the last three years; and to which countries they were extradited. [63584]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The information requested is as follows:

  Numbers surrendered

  Year

  Men

  Women

  1999

  33

  4

  2000

  43

  4

  2001

  52

  3

  The countries to which those 139 fugitives were surrendered are as follows:

  Country

  Fugitives

  Australia

  1

  Belgium

  8

  Canada

  3

  Cyprus

  3

  Czech Republic

  5

  Denmark

  2

  957W

  Country

  Fugitives

  Finland

  3

  France

  5

  Germany

  25

  Greece

  1

  Hong Kong

  2

  India

  1

  Italy

  8

  Lithuania

  1

  Luxembourg

  1

  Netherlands

  14

  Norway

  3

  Portugal

  6

  South Africa

  1

  Spain

  4

  Sweden

  5

  Switzerland

  13

  Uganda

  1

  United States of America

  23

  Prison Farms
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the proposed closure of prison farms following the review of the future of the Farms and Gardens Estate. [63633]

  Hilary Benn
  Proposals on the future of prison farms are to be put to Ministers for consideration shortly.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's estimate is of the size of the Sikh community in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) England and Wales. [63613]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: At present, there are no accurate data available on the size of the Sikh community in either the United Kingdom or England and Wales. Current estimates for the United Kingdom Sikh population range from 350,000 to 500,000.

  Next February we hope to have a clearer picture. Demographic data about Sikhs in the United Kingdom—and specifically England and Wales—will be available for the first time from the results of the religious identity question in the 2001 Census.

  However, the Labour Force Survey is also introducing a question on religion this spring. The results will be evaluated and, if possible, released towards the end of the year.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sikhs are employed in his Department. [63607]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: The Home Office keeps ethnicity data on its employees using the 2001 Census categories of ethnic groups. Information is not currently kept on the religious beliefs or affiliations of employees.

  Immigration
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken to process 958W
  applications for indefinite leave to remain submitted by people admitted for settlement as the fiancé(e)s of British citizens was in the last 12 months. [64151]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: Information on decision times for individual types of general immigration applications is not available. Our aim is to decide straightforward applications within three weeks and this was achieved during the first half of 2001. Due to an exceptionally large increase in the number of immigration cases in the latter part of the year the turnaround time increased. This has now been reduced to four weeks and we are working to return performance to three weeks shortly.

  Information on initial decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the period up to June 2002, and will be available from 30 August 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he changed the advice on his Department's website that applications by people admitted as fiance(é)s for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, would be dealt with in six weeks; what the reasons were for that change; and if he will make a statement. [64152]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: The information on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website reflects the current average length of time between the receipt of all postal immigration applications in Croydon and their initial consideration. In early March the average length of time quoted on the website was changed to six weeks. This was changed to five weeks at the beginning of May and to four weeks at the beginning of June. These changes reflect the improvement in initial processing times over recent months towards the target of three weeks.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of letters received by the IND in 2000 went unanswered; [64236]

  (2) what the average response time was for letters sent by (a) hon. Members and (b) others to the IND in the last 12 months; [64240]

  (3) for what reason it is not the policy of the IND to acknowledge all correspondence; what percentage of written communications are acknowledged; and if he will make a statement. [64238]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]: Information on all correspondence received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) in 2000, and on the average length of time taken for officials to respond to hon. Members' correspondence over the last 12 months is not recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. IND received over one million pieces of correspondence during 2001–02, and systems are not yet in place to identify whether responses were given to all categories of correspondence we have seen.
  959W
  We are however now developing measures to record and track all categories of public correspondence, including MP's correspondence. The Home Office Customer Communication Foundation project was suspended last November and has now been replaced by a short term/tactical Correspondence Tracking System (CTS) project to address the handling of correspondence and the provision of accurate management information. The project is due to begin on 1 July 2000 and will be rolled out for operational use during the autumn. IND's ministerial and treat official correspondence are both included in the intended scope of the project.

  The Home Office's service delivery agreement for 2001–04, which commits all directorates, including the IND to replying to 95 per cent. of public correspondence within 20 days by the end of 2001–02, does not require that such correspondence also be acknowledged. However, it is IND's policy to acknowledge the receipt of all immigration, asylum, asylum support and citizenship applications either by the sending of a letter or the issue of a form. Other casework-related correspondence is not routinely acknowledged at present although we are considering the feasibility of acknowledging certain categories, when backlogs are reduced to a frictional level.

  Hunting-related Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences against(a) hunt personnel, supporters or their property and (b) opponents of hunting or their property (i) were reported, (ii) were prosecuted and (iii) led to convictions in each year since 1997. [63880]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the report on the operation in 2000 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. [65176]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am pleased to say that J. J. Rowe's report on the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act will be placed in the Library today.

  Permanent counter-terrorist legislation was enacted in the Terrorism Act 2000, which came into effect on 19 February 2001.

  Temporary Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to his Department was of employing staff in(a) London and (b) the south-east from employment agencies in each year since 1997. [56510]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Detailed breakdowns of costs of employment agency staff by region are not held centrally nor captured by the Department's accounting systems. Data are recorded under broad expenditure headings. Further detail could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  960W
  The Department's policy is that staff from agencies may be employed to provide short-term cover for vacancies while permanent staff are recruited.

  The recorded expenditure on agency staff by the core Home Office is shown in the table:

  £000

  Year

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  298

  1998–99

  466

  1999–2000

  1,189

  2000–01

  3,014

  2001–02

  6,641

  The increase since 1999 is mainly due to the expansion of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) in response to the increased numbers of asylum seekers. Agency staff were employed until long-term recruitment plans were implemented, enabling us to drive home the backlog and speed up the time taken for vital decisions.

  Throckmorton
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to purchase residential properties at Throckmorton in the immediate vicinity of the site of the proposed asylum accommodation centre, where residents are attempting to sell their homes; and if he will make a statement. [57235]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: We have no plans to purchase such properties.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [57370]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), on 23 May 2002, Official Report, column 563W.

  Regional Organisation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [58936]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office operates through the Government offices for the regions, who carry out a number of functions at regional level such as the regional management of crime reduction and drug treatment programmes and liaison with local partnerships. A table
  961W
  setting out the structure of the Government office regions and the counties and unitary authorities in 1997 and 2002 is as follows.

  Other parts of the Department with specific operational responsibilities have their own regional organisational structures. Since April 2000, the Prison Service has operated an area manager structure that is based on the Government regions. Two regions are divided between two area managers: the south-east (one for Thames Valley, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and one for Kent, Surrey and Sussex) and east midlands north (Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, Derby and Nottingham) and south (Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, Leicester and Rutland). Previously area managers had been based in London. The National Probation Service regions mirror the Government office regions.

  Both the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) and the Immigration Service (IS) in Immigration and Nationality Department operate regional structures. NASS, which became fully operational in April 2000, has regional representatives in each Government region, and

  Regions, counties and unitaries in England

  Region

  County authorities

  Unitary authorities

  East of England

  Bedfordshire

  Luton*

  Cambridgeshire

  Peterborough*

  Essex

  Southend-on-Sea*

  Hertfordshire

  Thurrock*

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  Derby*

  Leicestershire

  Leicester*

  Lincolnshire

  Nottingham*

  Northamptonshire

  Rutland*

  Nottinghamshire

  London

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Bexley

  Brent

  Bromley

  Camden

  Corporation of London

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Merton

  Newham

  Redbridge

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Southwark

  Sutton

  Tower Hamlets

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  962W
  operates broadly within that regional structure, with some minor differences for local operational reasons.

  The Immigration Service operates at ports and airports across the United Kingdom and had, until 2002, an Immigration Service regional organisation with four regional districts: Scotland, Northern Ireland, North-west England and north Wales; North-east England, the east midlands and East Anglia and South-west England and mid and south Wales. London and the south-east came under Immigration Service South East. From 2002 the regional boundaries of the IS were realigned to more closely match the Government office regions. The present structure, managed by regional operations headquarters in Manchester, comprises:

  Scotland

  North-west England, Northern Ireland and North Wales

  North-east England (which includes Yorkshire and the Humber)

  Southern England

  West midlands

  Eastern (east midlands and East Anglia, including Lincolnshire)

  South-west England, mid and south Wales.

  London (including Heathrow and Gatwick) and Kent are managed by Immigration Service headquarters, Croydon.

  963W

  Regions, counties and unitaries in England

  Region

  County authorities

  Unitary authorities

  North East

  Durham

  Darlington*

  Northumberland

  Hartlepool

  Middlesbrough

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Metropolitan authorities in Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  North Tyneside

  South Tyneside

  Sunderland

  North West

  Cumbria

  Blackburn with Darwen*

  Cheshire

  Blackpool*

  Lancashire

  Halton*

  Warrington*

  Metropolitan authorities in Greater Mancheste

  Bury

  Bolton

  Manchester

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Stockport

  Tameside

  Trafford

  Wigan

  Metropolitan authorities in Merseyside

  Knowsley

  Liverpool

  Sefton

  St. Helens

  Wirral

  South East

  Buckinghamshire

  Brighton and Hove*

  East Sussex

  Isle of Wight (County)

  Hampshire

  Medway*

  Kent

  Milton Keynes*

  Oxfordshire

  Portsmouth*

  Surrey

  Southampton*

  West Sussex

  Unitary authorities in Berkshire:

  Bracknell Forest*

  Reading*

  Slough*

  West Berkshire*

  Windsor and Maidenhead*

  Wokingham*

  South West

  Cornwall

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Devon

  Bournemouth*

  Dorset

  Bristol

  Gloucestershire

  North Somerset

  Somerset

  Poole*

  Wiltshire

  Plymouth*

  South Gloucestershire

  Swindon*

  Torbay*

  West Midlands

  Shropshire

  Herefordshire*

  Staffordshire

  Stoke on Trent*

  Warwickshire

  Telford and Wrekin*

  Worcestershire

  Metropolitan authorities in West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Sandwell

  Solihull

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  North Yorkshire

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Kingston upon Hull

  North Lincolnshire

  North East Lincolnshire

  York

  964W 965W

  Regions, counties and unitaries in England

  Region

  County authorities

  Unitary authorities

  Metropolitan authorities in South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  Doncaster

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  Metropolitan authorities in West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  Calderdale

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  Wakefield

  Note:

  The unitary authorities that came into being as a result of the last local government review were established over three years. Those established on or after 1 April 1997 are asterisked.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public consultations undertaken by his Department since June 2001, stating in each case the(a) number of respondents and (b) percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. [60150]

  Table of consultations

  Subject of consultation exercise

  Start date

  Deadline for responses

  Number of Responses1

  The Halliday Report—making punishments work

  5 July 2001

  31 October 2001

  305

  Consultation Paper on the Review of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997

  30 July 2001

  19 October 2001

  46

  Use of x/gamma radiation scanners for the detection of clandestine illegal entrants

  17 July 2001

  27 August 2001

  30

  Extension of civil penalty to eurotunnel

  18 July 2001

  29 August 2001

  8

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code F

  15 September 2001

  31 October 2001

  10

  Ratification of the driving disqualification convention

  25 September 2001

  18 December 2001

  46

  Review of family visitor appeals

  29 October 2001

  14 December 2001

  23

  Young people's substance misuse plans: supporting joint working at local level

  21 November 2001

  11 January 2002

  440

  Consultation paper on revising the definition of categories of deaths of members of the public during or following police contact

  14 December 2001

  31 January 2002

  14

  White Paper "Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform"

  5 December 2001

  21 January 2002

  1,200

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code A

  11 March 2002

  19 April 2002

  45

  Motor Salvage Operators Regulations 2002, made under the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001

  4 January 2002

  1 March 2002

  26

  White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with diversity in modem Britain"

  7 February 2002

  21 March 2002

  330

  Proposed changes to the misuse of drugs legislation

  4 March 2002

  17 May 2002

  6

  1The number of responses does not include hits on internet sites and may include both targeted and non-targeted respondents.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations which were in receipt of a grant from him in 1997–98 no longer are; what the annual saving is; which organisations which were not in receipt of a grant in 1997–98 now are; and what the annual cost of each is. [61390]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Smith), on 17 June 2002,Official Report. column 136W.

  The aggregate figure for Government grants to private organisations and individuals was £28.6 billion in 2000–01 (the last year for which full outturn data are available) compared with £24.8 billion in 1997–98. This excludes social security payments classified as grants in the national accounts and includes lottery grants.
  966W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The Home Office has undertaken 14 formal national public consultations since June 2001. The table lists consultations that started after 1 June 2001 and finished by the time of this response. The number of respondents in each case is noted but the percentage of those specifically consulted is not, as Departments are not routinely required to keep such records.

  The figure do not include internet hits which are an increasingly popular method of the public accessing Government consultations.

  Detailed analysis of departmental spending is contained in Departments' annual reports. Comprehensive data on individual grant recipients are not centrally available.

  Non-UK Minors
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for the employment of children not of UK nationality and under the age of 16 years there were in the UK in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001, broken down by employment sector. [62218]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to
  967W
  him dated 22 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Mohamed Tavs (Niaz). [61676]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 June 2002.

  Videos (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful prosecutions have been brought since 1997 against persons making videos involving the payment of people to injure themselves or others; and if he will make a statement. [62054]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Racism (Prosecutions)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been undertaken against members of racist organisations in each of the last five years. [61851]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Prisons
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the annual budget for prisons in England is designated for(a) education and(b) health care. [62287]

  Hilary Benn
  Figures are available for education expenditure in prisons in England and Wales only. In the financial year 2002–03, the sum of £70 million is planned to be spent on prisoner education, which is 3.1 per cent. of the overall departmental expenditure limit for the Prison Service.

  Information is not held centrally in a way that allows expenditure on health care to be readily identified. Research conducted for "The Future Organisation of Prison Health Care" (published 9 March 1999) estimated that establishments spent £85 million on prisoner health care in the financial year 1997–98.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial contribution he plans to make to the reconstruction of sewers and drains on the Isle of Wight prison estate to facilitate the(a) adoption of roads, drains and lighting, (b) implementation of planning permissions for new housing on the estate and (c) construction of new prison places which have been announced. [62963]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service has been seeking outline planning permission for residential development on 11 sites adjacent to former prison housing estates. Outline planning permission has been received on seven sites to date and are expected on a further two later this year. Two amended applications may be re-submitted in due course.

  The future development schemes for the 11 sites include proposals to upgrade to adoptable standard a number of roads, street lights and drains leading to these
  968W
  sites, either by the Prison Service to facilitate a sale and maximise sale receipts, or by future owners under planning agreements.

  Consideration is also being given to upgrading other roads, storm water drainage and street lighting not directly accessing future development sites. It is hoped this will he to a standard suitable for maintenance adoption by the local highways authority. There are a number of legal and technical issues to resolve before formal proposals are made. Progress is also dependent on obtaining further outline planning consents, with sustainable planning conditions and the relative strength of the property market during a future land sales programme. To date no decision has been taken as to the extent of the Prison Service's contribution.

  It is not anticipated that it will be necessary to upgrade roads and drains within the estates as a result of the construction of the additional accommodation unit at Albany prison for which the Prison Service secured planning clearance in April 2002. In the event that it would be necessary to do so, this will be done in consultation with the Isle of Wight council. Should the Prison Service decide to proceed with a development on the site to the west of Parkhurst prison (for which it secured planning clearance for a 416-place prison in 1997), it would ensure that it was properly accessed and supplied with mains services.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of cells in segregation units in each category B prison have forced ventilation; and if he will make a statement. [62376]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service does not collect this information centrally and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All segregation cells in secure penal establishments are built to a category B type standard. After 1980 the standard provision for all segregation cells is mechanically ventilated or natural ventilation through grilles. Before 1980 segregation cells will have natural ventilation, unless they have since been refurbished with fixed windows and in these cases the provision will be mechanically ventilated systems or natural ventilation through grilles. Certain "short term holding" cells in segregation units within the prison estate have "forced (mechanical)" ventilation when this is required.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sessions of purposeful activity were(a) delivered and (b) lost (i) per prisoner and (ii) in total in each category B prison in the most recent year for which information is available. [62381]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service does not collect centrally, the number of purposeful activity sessions delivered or lost in prisons. Average weekly purposeful activity hours achieved in each category B prison and in total during 2001–02 are given in the table.

  Establishment

  Activity hours1

  Albany

  24.2

  Blundeston

  25.8

  Dovegate

  27.5

  Garth

  23.4

  Gartree

  30.5

  Grendon

  35.6

  Kingston

  24.3

  969W

  Establishment

  Activity hours1

  Lowdham Grange

  27.2

  Maidstone

  21.0

  Parkhurst

  19.1

  Rye Hill

  29.4

  Swaleside

  24.3

  Total in all prisons

  23.4

  1Average weekly purposeful activity hours 2001–02.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what way the EU Directive for shellfish waters is inhibiting the adoption of roads on the Isle of Wight prison estates. [62962]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government are not aware that the European Union (EU) Directive on shellfish waters is directly inhibiting the possible adoption of existing roads and drains within the former prison housing estates.

  There are currently seven development sites owned by the Prison Service, adjacent to these estates, with outline planning permission for residential developments. One of the standard planning conditions is to agree with the water company Southern Water proposals for the disposal and treatment of foul and storm water generated by future developments. Southern Water may be required to consider the relevance of the EU directive when negotiating with the Prison Service or future owners.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many hours, on average, non-segregated prisoners were confined to their cells in each category B prison in the last year for which information is available. [62383]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service does not collect centrally information to distinguish time out of cell for specific categories of prisoner. The average time out of cell on weekdays for all prisoners in each category B prison during 2001–02 is given in the table. Comparative figures are not available for privately managed prisons.

  Establishment

  Time out1

  Albany

  9.3

  Blundeston

  10.1

  Garth

  10.0

  Gartree

  10.1

  Grendon

  15.4

  Kingston

  11.8

  Lowdham Grange

  12.4

  Maidstone

  10.4

  Parkhurst

  9.7

  Swaleside

  9.7

  1Average weekday time out of cell 2001–02—all prisoners.

CABINET OFFICE

  Waste Strategy
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what research contracts have been let by the Performance and Innovation Unit as part of its review of the Government's waste strategy; when these research contracts will be completed; and if he will put copies of the resulting research reports in the Library. [63817]
  970W
  Mr. Alexander
  The PIU waste study has commissioned some independent research to inform its work, mainly in the form of data gathering and specific contributions to the modelling of waste management options. A report on the role of new and emerging waste management technologies has also been commissioned, but contains commercially sensitive information and will remain confidential to the PIU. The intention is that the PIU waste study will be published.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the pay bands are for special advisers; how many special advisers are in each pay band; how it is decided which pay band a special adviser is in; and if he will make a statement. [64566]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government have already announced the introduction from 8 June of a new special adviser pay system based on individual job evaluation. The paper deposited in the House Library by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20 July sets out how special advisers will be allocated to pay bands. Further details will be made available once the process of job evaluation is complete.

HEALTH

  Teenage Pregnancy Report
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Government response to the Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy's annual report. [65173]

  Ms Blears
  The Government's response will be published on 27 June. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many osteoporotic hip fractures have been recorded in each health authority in the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [56136]

  (2) what guidance he provides on osteoporosis risk assessment; and what percentage of fracture patients aged 50 years and over received an osteoporosis risk assessment in the last 12 months. [56138]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information about identifying those at risk of osteoporosis was included in the Department's "strategy to prevent fractures caused by osteoporosis", which was issued to all health authorities in 1998. This was based on the Royal College of Physicians' clinical guidelines for strategies to prevent and treat osteoporosis.

  Osteoporosis has since been included in the Falls Standard of the national service framework for older people (NSF), which requires the local development of interventions and advice to prevent osteoporotic fracture. To support the NSF we have asked the National Institute of Clinical Excellence to develop clinical guidelines for the prevention, treatment and assessment of osteoporosis.
  971W
  Information on the percentage of fracture patients who have received an osteoporosis risk assessment is not available centrally.

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon

  1,302

  1,280

  1,334

  1,419

  1,416

  Barking and Havering

  442

  425

  438

  563

  487

  Barnet

  205

  344

  349

  421

  484

  Barnsley

  267

  266

  398

  304

  300

  Bedfordshire

  487

  516

  646

  592

  573

  Berkshire

  705

  781

  806

  792

  789

  Bexley and Greenwich

  491

  537

  522

  476

  437

  Birmingham

  1,090

  1,123

  1,093

  1,322

  1,161

  Bradford

  500

  511

  639

  582

  598

  Brent and Harrow

  459

  510

  443

  419

  140

  Bromley

  437

  426

  438

  503

  496

  Buckinghamshire

  651

  664

  775

  904

  852

  Bury and Rochdale

  405

  459

  429

  478

  464

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  763

  637

  647

  705

  683

  Cambridge

  —

  —

  —

  1,117

  1,064

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  475

  523

  514

  —

  —

  Camden and Islington

  427

  422

  413

  447

  411

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  624

  1,042

  1,082

  1,090

  908

  County Durham

  779

  797

  871

  901

  859

  Coventry

  362

  347

  422

  430

  378

  Croydon

  349

  262

  281

  341

  233

  Doncaster

  321

  338

  365

  336

  379

  Dorset

  1,101

  1,138

  1,128

  1,140

  1,244

  Dudley

  380

  407

  538

  362

  424

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  589

  652

  640

  650

  580

  East and North Hertfordshire

  488

  530

  520

  608

  563

  East Kent

  1,198

  1,102

  1,052

  1,116

  1,031

  East Lancashire

  504

  622

  586

  658

  577

  East London and The City

  605

  526

  561

  632

  599

  East Norfolk

  1,211

  1,309

  1,390

  —

  —

  East Riding

  176

  95

  682

  720

  637

  East Surrey

  582

  517

  556

  571

  577

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  1,354

  1,245

  1,213

  1,286

  1,280

  Enfield and Haringey

  437

  434

  437

  449

  468

  Foreign

  —

  —

  152

  142

  93

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  474

  587

  528

  605

  621

  Gloucestershire

  727

  969

  966

  963

  853

  Herefordshire

  253

  253

  213

  196

  289

  Hillingdon

  212

  20

  202

  214

  204

  Isle of Wight

  228

  229

  214

  191

  237

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  364

  420

  396

  422

  447

  Kingston and Richmond

  365

  323

  319

  352

  397

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  704

  651

  630

  664

  660

  Leeds

  812

  857

  879

  862

  813

  Leicestershire

  993

  993

  1,106

  1,030

  989

  Lincolnshire

  845

  766

  887

  860

  874

  Liverpool

  799

  847

  778

  713

  711

  Manchester

  485

  477

  531

  563

  439

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  736

  594

  681

  710

  706

  Morecambe Bay

  331

  397

  430

  329

  414

  Northern Ireland

  6

  3

  0

  5

  0

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  647

  633

  717

  743

  676

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  1,763

  1,811

  North and East Devon

  792

  997

  1,156

  1,127

  1,301

  North and Mid Hampshire

  566

  571

  544

  636

  735

  North Cheshire

  276

  303

  301

  358

  328

  North Cumbria

  435

  408

  502

  559

  510

  North Derbyshire

  430

  380

  461

  425

  460

  North Essex

  1,271

  1,418

  1,312

  1,276

  1,250

  North Nottinghamshire

  417

  469

  500

  543

  528

  North Staffordshire

  487

  595

  602

  657

  643

  North West Anglia

  346

  704

  776

  —

  —

  North West Lancashire

  814

  770

  817

  839

  614

  North Yorkshire

  996

  614

  970

  936

  913

  Northamptonshire

  409

  677

  697

  779

  782

  Northumberland

  429

  418

  462

  424

  504

  972W
  The numbers of finished consultant episodes where hip fractures were recorded in national health service hospitals in England in the last five years are shown in the table. Hip fractures are invariably osteoporotic.
  973W

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Nottingham

  846

  813

  826

  803

  758

  Oxfordshire

  605

  569

  662

  687

  710

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  807

  935

  909

  1,034

  1,044

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  579

  503

  527

  577

  596

  Rotherham

  245

  226

  289

  287

  240

  Salford and Trafford

  555

  448

  486

  540

  568

  Sandwell

  360

  309

  394

  354

  372

  Scotland

  49

  38

  0

  55

  60

  Sefton

  408

  428

  398

  373

  429

  Sheffield

  784

  710

  734

  649

  745

  Shropshire

  408

  404

  434

  428

  453

  Solihull

  199

  216

  244

  267

  278

  Somerset

  711

  693

  794

  837

  773

  South and West Devon

  784

  917

  913

  1,104

  1,390

  South Cheshire

  795

  797

  754

  768

  794

  South Derbyshire

  504

  647

  622

  658

  637

  South Essex

  1,364

  1,104

  1,136

  1,316

  1,153

  South Humber

  279

  328

  342

  360

  401

  South Lancashire

  318

  314

  425

  391

  389

  South Staffordshire

  539

  723

  658

  705

  672

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  696

  681

  814

  794

  858

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  342

  329

  370

  336

  383

  Stockport

  313

  296

  360

  378

  348

  Suffolk

  942

  1,121

  1,195

  1,228

  1,124

  Sunderland

  345

  370

  415

  378

  388

  Tees

  570

  576

  685

  683

  692

  Wakefield

  301

  300

  342

  315

  349

  Wales

  204

  180

  197

  210

  215

  Walsall

  252

  270

  217

  295

  278

  Warwickshire

  609

  587

  652

  677

  643

  West Hertfordshire

  587

  550

  615

  580

  560

  West Kent

  1,079

  1,107

  1,134

  1,087

  1,172

  West Pennine

  453

  500

  491

  508

  551

  West Surrey

  919

  857

  758

  710

  627

  West Sussex

  1,179

  1,242

  1,006

  1,115

  1,174

  Wigan and Bolton

  484

  551

  611

  635

  669

  Wiltshire

  765

  705

  805

  716

  734

  Wirral

  490

  490

  473

  581

  490

  Wolverhampton

  238

  162

  228

  266

  321

  Worcestershire

  739

  720

  720

  765

  710

  Not known

  1,257

  1,277

  395

  122

  172

  Total

  60,718

  62,307

  64,967

  66,792

  65,814

  Notes:

  Figures are presented by health authority areas of residence.

  Patients from other UK countries and abroad are indicated separately in the table.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Department of Health

  Hospital Patients
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the Q4 2001–02(a) emergency re-admissions and (b) delayed discharge figures in the Library, broken down by (i) age, (ii) region, (iii) health authority and (iv) reason. [58846]

  Jacqui Smith
  All the available information on emergency re-admissions and delayed transfers of care in Q4 2001–02 has been placed in the Library. This includes:number and rate of emergency re-admissions for patients aged 75 and over,
  length of delayed transfers of care for patients of all ages,
  numbers and rate of delayed transfers of care for patients aged 75 and over, and
  reasons for delayed transfers of care.>

  Each set of figures is provided on a national, regional and health authority basis.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for a second new linear accelerator for the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital; and if he will make a statement. [56187]

  Ms Blears
  Plans for the future provision of a second new linear accelerator are the subject of on-going discussions by the North-west Midlands Cancer Network, of which the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital National Health Service Trust plays a key part.

  Obesity
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will support the annual National Obesity Awareness Week organised by the Obesity Awareness and Solutions Trust. [61477]
  975W
  Ms Blears
  The Obesity Awareness and Solutions Trust (TOAST) is supported financially by the Department through the section 64 grant scheme. We support the National Obesity Awareness Week, which forms part of their healthy living events outlined in their action plan.

  BTE Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many BTE digital hearing aids have been issued by the NHS in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001; and in each case what proportion of the cost was borne by (i) the NHS and (ii) employers. [61973]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has never collected information separately on the numbers of behind-the-ear (BTE) or in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aids provided by the national health service. However, when the NHS issues hearing aids, the cost is borne by the NHS. I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions also issues hearing aids in some circumstances. That would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of pupils living(a) in a residential care home and (b) with foster parents had special educational needs (i) with and (ii) without statements in the last five years for which figures are available broken down by (A) Government office region and (B) local education authority. [63116]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: This information is not collected centrally.

  NHS Budget
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage increase in real terms of the budgets of(a) the NHS and (b) local authority personal social services has been in each year since 1997; and what the projected percentage increases are for each year for which planning assumptions have been made. [64289]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is requested is set out in the tables.
  976W

  Table 1: NHS expenditure, 1996–97 to 2007–08

  Year

  Net NHS expenditure (£ billion)

  Percentage real terms increase

  1996–97

  133.0

  –0.1

  1997–98

  134.7

  2.0

  1998–99

  136.6

  2.7

  1999–2000

  139.9

  6.4

  2000–01

  144.2

  7.8

  2001–02

  249.4

  8.9

  2002–03

  353.7

  6.1

  2003–04

  361.3

  7.3

  2004–05

  367.4

  7.3

  2005–06

  374.4

  7.6

  2006–07

  381.8

  7.3

  2007–08

  390.2

  7.5

  1Outturn

  2Estimated outturn

  3Plan

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure pre 2000–01 is shown on a cash basis.

  2. Expenditure figures from 2000–01 to 2002–03 are on a Stage 1 Resource Budgeting basis. This was introduced in April 2001 and introduced accruals accounting, ie accounting for resources consumed against cash paid out.

  3. Expenditure figures from 2003–04 to 2007–08 are on a Stage 2 Resource Budgeting basis (to be introduced from April 2003) and include non—cash items such as capital charges and the cost of new provisions.

  4. Because of the introduction of Resource Budgeting Stages 1 and 2, the figures are not consistent across the whole period.

  Table 2: Local authority expenditure on personal social services, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Year

  Outturn1 (£ million)

  Percentage increase

  1996–97

  8.991

  —

  1997–98

  9.284

  3.3

  1998–99

  9.677

  4.2

  1999–2000

  10,483

  8.3

  2000–012

  10,963

  4.6

  1 Outturn figures at 2001–02 prices.

  2 Latest available figures.

  Notes:

  No planning figures are available for future years because local authorities set budgets once central Government allocations are announced, and decisions have been taken locally about council tax. However, following the 2002 Spending Review total personal social service resources (as allocated by central Government) are set to increase by on average 6 per cent. per annum in real terms over the next three years—2003–04 to 2005–06.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Child Abuse
Baroness Walmsleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures are in place to ensure that Connexions personal advisers are able to deal with children who are suspected to be at risk of abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, besides their existing professional qualifications, Connexions personal advisers receive additional training to deal with children at risk, including discussion of child protection issues and referral protocols. This covers how best to work with other agencies working with children at risk, such as social services.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that all Connexions personnel and the managers of Connexions partnerships should be obliged to undertake training in child abuse—in particular how to recognise signs of abuse and neglect since most of their clients are very vulnerable children? Can she give the House a date by which all Connexions partnerships should have a child protection policy and a designated individual with responsibility for child protection in place?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the partnerships are operating in such a way to ensure as much training as possible for personal advisers but are working with social services so that each vulnerable young person has a designated individual. That may not be the Connexions individual. For young people leaving care, for example, it could be the person already designated as their key worker. One of the most important factors, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, is to ensure that Connexions develops links between the seven government agencies and departments involved so that each young person who is vulnerable is assigned an individual, not necessarily the person concerned. Training is taking place. I cannot give the noble Baroness a precise date. I shall write to her if I can obtain that information.

Universities: Science and Engineering
2.39 p.m.
Lord Sheldonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to increase the proportion of students at university studying science and engineering.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government are working to promote science and engineering as study and career options through a variety of initiatives, including Science Year and Science and Engineering Ambassadors. We are also considering the recommendations of the recent report by Sir Gareth Roberts on the supply of science, engineering and technology skills.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. As scientists and engineers do not enjoy the same position here as they do in so many other countries, is there not a particular problem in our universities? So long as great attention was paid to the quality of scientists and engineers in universities, there was always the hope that at least some of our preeminence might be retained for the future. That is now in serious doubt, and this matter must be examined at the highest level.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my noble friend raises important issues. I must say to him, however, that there are more young people in the UK with science and engineering degrees than in most OECD countries. It is important to recognise that, of the G8 nations, only France has more.
We know that there is a difference in the way in which young people are choosing to go forward into science. I fully recognise the noble Lord's concerns about the number of young people who are entering the sciences. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that we have seen a dramatic increase in the numbers of people choosing to study, for example, computer science. But in some subjects— engineering in particular and chemical engineering, an area about which I am particularly concerned—we have seen the number of students decrease. It is worth noting that between 1994–95 and 1999–2000 there was an increase of 13.9 per cent in the number of biologists.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work done by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle at WISE—Women in Science and Engineering? Is that initiative continuing, and are we seeing any growth in the number of women entering the field of science and engineering?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot give precise figures for the number of women entering science and engineering. If I have that information, I shall be delighted to pass it on to the noble Baroness. We are funding a number of activities to support women in science and engineering, and we have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, to look at how government can take an even stronger approach. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said, this is an important matter. Indeed, one of the planks of our Science Ambassadors programme is to ensure that we have good role models for our young people, particularly for young women who might be considering applying for a career in engineering, to enable them to see that it could be for them.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that mathematics is the key to studying

1351
science and engineering at university? Is she aware of the worries among, for example, the London Mathematical Society about the drop-off in the numbers taking A-level mathematics as a result of the introduction of Curriculum 2000?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I understand it, the number of people entering university to study mathematics has increased by 3.3 per cent. The purpose behind Curriculum 2000 and other initiatives is to enable young people to have a range of opportunities to study maths; for example, AS qualifications in maths or further maths and the free-standing maths units; and from September 2001 young people will have the opportunity to study for a new qualification known as "AS use of mathematics"—from which I might have benefited had I been the right age at the right time. I take nothing away from the noble Baroness's question. It is important to ensure that we have mathematicians coming through the system—hence the efforts that we are putting in to ensure that people continue to study mathematics and, of course, become mathematics teachers.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, what steps is my noble friend taking to work with the Engineering Council and the various institutes to further the need for young people to go into engineering?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Engineering Council and others have been involved with us. The Association for Science Education and the Royal Society have also been working closely with us, particularly on the Science and Engineering Ambassadors programme, which is designed to ensure that young people have the opportunity to meet others who have gone into science and engineering and, as importantly, to understand the relevance of science for many different careers. We have produced videos that show young people the use of science in everything from designing new films for television or the big screen right the way through to the manufacture of beauty products, in which science is key to ensuring that we can provide women in particular with some important products.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the biggest problems is the lack of inspirational science teaching in schools? How do the Government intend to get more specialist teachers who can inspire young people to be excited about science and engineering?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have a manifesto commitment to introduce a national centre for excellence in science teaching. We consulted on the idea earlier this year. As the noble Baroness will be aware, everything depends on the outcome of the spending review. We are looking to negotiate with a number of potential sponsors to work with us. We have some truly inspirational science teachers, but I recognise that we need to do more to enhance the quality, knowledge, skills, curriculum and resources available to
1352
help our science teachers to talk with young people, particularly about some of the science issues that are currently on people's minds. We hope that the national centre will be a key tool in enabling that.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, as part of their widening access programme, do the Government have any plans to include special programmes to attract young women from areas where there is no tradition of attending university? There is a tremendous amount of talent to be tapped among women and men, but special activities will be needed to bring women into that important area.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is very important to ensure that the access programme attracts young women into science. However, the issue begins even earlier. We need to look at the strategy in key stages 2 and 3. That is under way. It is important to produce a framework for teaching science that supports learning and teaching for all our pupils and, as I said earlier, ensures that young women in particular have the opportunities to be able to consider science and engineering as real options for their careers.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, it is pleasing to hear of Britain's pre-eminence in science and engineering in Europe, but what is the comparison with Japan and the United States?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not have those comparisons. I have only the information about our standing within the G7 nations. It is important to recognise that Britain has a strong position in science and engineering across the globe. I am sure that every noble Lord wants to ensure that that continues in the best possible way. It is why we developed this year as Science Year: to enable all our young people across education to recognise the relevance and importance of science. The associations with which we have been working are very concerned to ensure that we have graduates coming through who can be our scientists of the future, particularly in some of the areas that I mentioned earlier, such as chemical engineering. We are beginning to be concerned that young people consider those subjects and understand what careers chemical and other engineering professions can offer them.

Pensioners Living Abroad: Payments
2.47 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshieasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any reason other than economy for withholding pension increases from British citizens living in certain Commonwealth countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, annual upratings have never been generally paid abroad. Exceptions apply under the EC's social security regulations, which apply to pensioners who have a UK pension and live in the European Economic Area, and under reciprocal social security agreements with other countries that allow increases to be paid there. Pensions are not uprated in any other country.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, but I do not consider it satisfactory. It is extraordinary that, although someone who goes to live in the south of France, enjoying themselves on the Riviera, can draw the full increases as they come along, as can someone on the United States side of the Niagara Falls, those on the Canadian side cannot. That is manifestly unjust. I know that it would cost money to change the situation, but is it right for one section of the community who do not live in privileged areas to pay for the poorest sections in this country? Should that not be paid for by all of us? Will the Government consider starting the process by at least paying the increases to pensioners living abroad—most of whom go there to be beside their children and grandchildren—when they reach 75, which is when they begin to need it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the first point—the unfairness, as the noble Lord perceives it, between pensioners in the United States and those in Canada—the fact is that we have a reciprocal agreement with the United States whereas we do not have one with Canada. Canada was offered one but rejected it back in the early 1970s; in 1972,I think. On the second point, uprating, the fact is that the basic state retirement pension is uprated to compensate pensioners living in this country for the increases in the cost of living in this country. That is the reason. It therefore seems to me perfectly proper that it is not paid elsewhere, other than where there are reciprocal agreements or, as in the EU, reciprocal arrangements for pensioners.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to tell us whether, when people emigrate to one of these countries, they are informed that they will not receive their pension?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords; I have a copy of the leaflet here. It makes clear in very strong terms that the retirement pension can normally be paid to people living anywhere and that annual increases may be payable to people living in the EEA or in a list of countries provided. However, it goes on to say that, otherwise,
"you will not get annual increases in benefit if you go to live outside the UK or one of the above-mentioned countries".
It is very clear, in very large letters.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while appreciating that reciprocal arrangements are best, is it not true that these people have earned their pension while working in this country and that they are therefore entitled to full benefits? They are British citizens albeit they live abroad in one of those countries.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords, I do not agree. The benefits have not been paid for by the individual pensioners. The first point is that the state retirement pension of current pensioners is funded by current taxpayers. It is not a funded scheme. It is contributory only in the sense that one's contributions entitle one to a pension; they do not necessarily en title one to an uprating. The second point is that the national insurance contributions paid by today's married pensioner who had been on average earnings for his entire working life fall far short of what he is currently receiving in retirement pension. He does not pay for it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in the 1970s, there was considerable resentment in the Commonwealth over the terms on which we entered the European Union? Is she aware—as she will be if she reads the Sun or the Daily Telegraph—that the effects of that resentment are still with us? Does she think that this is a sensible time to increase it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the reciprocal arrangements, apart from those associated with the EU, were made largely in the 1950s and 1960s. As far as I am aware, although some commitments took some time to deliver, no new commitment has been made in the past 20 to 25 years. We are in this case following the policy of successive governments of the past 20 to 25 years.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, is she aware that many Members of this House and of the other place have heard the answer she has just given, in exactly the same terms, from successive governments? We have long thought that those answers are not good enough, and that feeling is now stronger than ever.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord's views have not been shared in the past by this House or by the other place. There were votes on this issue in the passage of the Pensions Act 1995, the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 and the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. On all three votes, under different governments, this House and the other place voted by an overwhelming majority to continue the current policy.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, the Minister says that the proposal made to the Canadians in the 1970s was rejected. Does she agree, if it does not try her patience too much, that perhaps the time has come to try again?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords. We believe that the pension uprating increases are to compensate for the cost of living increases in this country. Pensioners who are living in this country need them. We have no knowledge about the cost of living increases in the other 150 countries to which UK pensioners have retired. I therefore do not think it appropriate to single out Canada or any other country in that respect.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the case of Annette Carson, who took the issue to court on behalf of the one half million "frozen pensioners"? She lost the case and was ordered to pay costs. Will the Minister say whether the Government intend to pursue her for costs?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the Carson case except to say that the Government were obviously pleased to receive the favourable judgment of the High Court, which shows that our policy is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can my noble friend offer any estimate of the cost of conceding parity?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords; £400 million—nearly half a billion pounds.

Racism
2.55 p.m.
Lord Lyellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions that British society is institutionally racist and that all, or almost all, Britons are racist.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the Director of Public Prosecutions expressed his personal views on the radio programme. The Government would not agree with the suggestion that everyone in Britain is racist. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will set out his vision of a modern approach to tackling racism in a speech that he will give this evening to the Social Market Foundation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am most grateful for that fulfilling Answer from the noble Lord, and delighted to hear that the comments were only the personal thoughts of a very eminent gentleman, Sir David Calvert-Smith. However, does the Minister agree that many people, including me, were concerned when Sir David went on to say that various—I hope I get this right—"stereotypical assumptions" are made when dealing with subjects such as asylum and sport? I hope that all members of the Government have been quite politically correct in the past few weeks when watching
1356
events on television, including Wimbledon. Have they been? Was it only the personal view of the Director of Public Prosecutions?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I did seek to say that. I wish that I could connect more positively with the point on Wimbledon, but unfortunately time has not allowed me to watch much of it. The real issue, I think, is perhaps the need to move away from paying overmuch attention to what was or was not said in a journalistic interview, to the serious issue of how we make our public services appropriate for the future by ensuring that they deliver proper and fair services to all the people of Britain. On previous occasions this House has celebrated the fact that we are a multicultural society. It is crucial, therefore, that public services are appropriate to all residents of Britain. That is why this House, with great wisdom, passed the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, staying with sport for a second, my noble friend will be aware that some of the worst examples of racism and xenophobia in recent years have been displayed by England football supporters. Will he therefore pay tribute to the behaviour of the England fans in Japan, who have contributed by their exemplary behaviour to the success of the tournament despite their disappointment that it is Brazil rather than England which is in the final on Sunday?
Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords. I think that we all celebrated the success of the England team as far as it went and were delighted that English fans were a credit to the nation rather than the reverse, as might have happened if past events had been repeated. I also think that we as a country have seen considerable progress in Association Football in eradicating some of the quite appalling racist abuse that used to occur on our terraces. However, we are not completely free of that, and I think that there are still one or two clubs that need to look to their laurels in that respect. Nevertheless, we have moved considerably forward in ensuring that that type of behaviour is no longer seen as acceptable.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister say what progress the Government have made in producing race equality schemes, as all public authorities are obliged to do, and what advice has been given by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to local authorities on the race equality schemes that they should also produce?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, all designated public bodies were obliged in April to introduce their implementation plans under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. While I have not carried out a full check on compliance, I shall do so as that fits with one of my current responsibilities. Similarly, I know that advice has been given to local authorities, I think by both the LGA and the CRE, to ensure that they approach this responsibility not only with vigour, but much more imaginatively than simply seeking to

1357
comply on paper with the Act. I look forward to future discussions with the LGA about the progress being made across local government, and to ensuring that best practice is mirrored and picked up rapidly by those who can benefit from learning it.
Lord Ouseley: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, may we hear from the Cross Benches?
Lord Ouseley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of two public attitude surveys which have been conducted in the past two years by MORI on behalf of, first, Reader's Digest, and, secondly, the Commission for Racial Equality, in which the majority of respondents across a broad range of people in the UK indicated that they believed that racial prejudice was on the increase? In other responses they alluded to the fact that there were many more asylum seekers and immigrants in the country than was actually the case. When asked how they formed their views, they said that they had heard that said by politicians and the media.
Will the Minister respond to the issue of how we report race matters through the media? How do the Government seek to counter negative and sensationalised reporting which does as much damage to race relations as racist attitudes? Will he also comment on the responses of government through education in dealing with the needs of all our young people in the next generation to ensure that they are properly educated about cultures, values and people other than themselves so that they have respect for, knowledge of and appreciation of each other? I think that the Minister would agree that that is clearly important in building good race relations and in acknowledging the many people in this country who make a positive contribution to race relations. Education plays a very important part in ensuring that this country maintains its tradition of valuing fairness, equality and equal treatment for all.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the specific reference to MORI does not immediately leap to mind. However, one that does leap to mind is the statement from recollection that some 86 per cent of people in Britain believe that you do not need to be white to be a British citizen. That may sound an obvious statement but it is important that that proportion of the population is quite clear that a black person or a person of Asian origin is as much a member of British society as anyone who is white.
Having said that, the evidence that the public have become more tolerant and that public bodies have become better in this regard does not for a second mean that we have reached the stage where we want to be in the future. There is considerable need for further progress as regards a range of public bodies and private organisations to ensure that they look at how policies are formed, that they recognise the diversity of
1358
our society and to ensure that employment practices are fair. I am sorry that I cannot give noble Lords more of an idea of David Blunkett's speech which will be made this evening, but it will set out a clear stance on that matter and will state quite clearly his commitment and the Government's commitment to eradicating racism and to equality.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the welcome replies which the noble Lord gave to my noble friend Lord Lyell, will he confirm that there is a long-established convention that those holding full-time, non-political legal appointments should avoid making controversial public statements?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is not my area of expertise but I can well believe that the noble Lord is correct. I am sure that anyone who has experienced the joy of finding that they are front page news reflects afterwards whether they quite captured in their interview exactly what with hindsight they would have wished to express.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that Sir David Calvert-Smith was being interviewed in his capacity as the Director of Public Prosecutions and not in a private capacity? Is it not a gross slander, libel and insult to the people of this country to be described by a very senior public official as all being racist? Is it not a fact that the people of this country, particularly those working people living in terraced houses and semi-detached houses in our cities up and down the country, have done a marvellous job in assimilating people of different cultures from many parts of the world? Is it not a fact that what we should be doing is praising them, not condemning them?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, although I did not hear the programme I read a transcript of it. It is quite clear that Sir David was speaking in his role as Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the CPS. Nevertheless, he expressed his personal views. They were certainly not the views of the Government. The Government's view, and my own, is that it is quite clearly untrue that everyone in Britain is racist. That is a nonsense. On the other hand, neither is it true to say that no one in Britain is racist.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have the privilege of coming from an area in the London Borough of Brent where no group enjoys a racial majority. Will the Minister take note that that situation does wonders for racial tolerance?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, having enjoyed working in the London Borough of Brent for some years when it was becoming a rich, multicultural area, I agree with the noble Earl.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that most racism is entirely unconscious on the part of the person practising it? Is he aware that in some London schools no black adult can visit if he or she is

1359
not wearing a sharp business suit or the female equivalent without it being assumed that they are either the cleaner or constitute a one-parent family? That is an element of racism which does exist and which we should take account of.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that much racism, but not all, can be unconscious. Some is conscious and deliberate. I was not aware of the point that he made about the mode of dress in certain London schools.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions actually made the statement based on the empirical data that he found in the job that he is doing? There is a lot to be said for studying his report.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is why it is important to make the distinction between the particular words that caught the media's attention—the statement that everyone in Britain is racist—and the fact that Sir David was responding to two reports on practices in the Crown Prosecution Service which quite clearly demonstrated that management had failed to manage staff in ways that did not allow segregation to take place. There was strong concern that areas of prosecution decision-making could not categorically be seen not to have been tinged by racial assumptions. There were issues which had to be attended to. That is why Sir David gave a commitment on the programme to introduce changes which are needed in the Crown Prosecution Service.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
1360
Clause 50 [Attendance targets]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 101:
Leave out Clause 50.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government should have an expectation that pupils will attend school at all times. The attendance target, therefore, for children attending school should be 100 per cent. For the purposes of my amendment, I emphasise the word "target". It is no more and no less than a target. If the Secretary of State does not have a target requiring all children in our country to attend school so far as possible at all times, that would be a pretty poor do. The Government should expect no less.
For schools with poor attendance records, it is a function of the governing body and the head teacher to analyse the problem, to work—where possible—with parents and to develop strategies to improve attendance records. As part of that, and as part of reaching the desired goal of 100 per cent attendance, the school may adopt incremental targets as a management tool to improve the situation.
In the more serious cases of non-attendance, it may be necessary to encourage enforcement of the law, especially where parents wilfully collude with or condone the absence from school of their children. In the case of authorised and unauthorised absences, I refer to the statistics quoted by the Minister in Committee. She said:
"In the last academic year, 0.7 per cent of half days were missed due to unauthorised absenteeism but 6.5 per cent of half days were missed due to authorised absenteeism".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 982.]
We know where the problem lies: with absences that are authorised by our schools. That suggests that the problem lies with the schools.
Authorised absences are those days that are taken out of school by a pupil where the school regards the reasons for absence as unavoidable—for example, an accident or illness—or where the reason for the absence is so serious that the school takes the view that time out of school is reasonable and appropriate; I refer, for example, to a death in the family. Unauthorised absences are those where a child does not attend school, with or without parental permission, and where the reason for such an absence is inexcusable. I use the examples given by my noble friend Lord Lucas at col. 983 on 23rd May, which were that a child might be out buying a hamster or taking a skiing holiday. They rank as unauthorised absences. Any school authorising such an absence should be subject to an adverse report from the inspectorate. Information about all school absences must be included in the school's annual report.
The notion that the Secretary of State can set targets for about 24,000 schools in the land is ludicrous. School governors should make a school's policy for authorised and unauthorised absences and they should make it clear to all parents. Local education authorities and the Government should have only one target for schools; that is, that children should attend at all times.

1361
Schools and their governors should of course remain accountable to parents, the community and, more formally, to the inspectorate. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it is realistic to set targets for improved attendance in LEAs and individual schools, particularly in the most socially deprived areas. However, it is not—here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—necessary to spell that out in legislation. The only acceptable attendance record is, as she said, 100 per cent.
My own experience of sitting for 20 years or so as a juvenile court chairman in socially deprived areas leaves me with little belief in the effectiveness of draconian measures to fine or imprison parents of truanting children, although I accept that that may work in some instances. If parents physically or verbally abuse teachers, firm deterrent penalties are required.
By the time a child gets to court, usually as a result of an offence, the truancy pattern is firmly established and parents are bewildered and unable to exert any authority. In other words, the prevailing anti-school culture of that area has taken a firm hold.
One of the facts that emerged from the Minister's reply to my Written Question on 24th April is that across the whole range of LEAs—from those with the worst average attendance figures to those with the best—truancy in the worst schools in each area is about six times as high as that in the best schools in the same area. That is why more imaginative and innovative schemes are so badly needed. One way—my noble friend Lord Northbourne, who is not yet in his place, has been an advocate of this approach for many years—is to start working with and supporting deprived families from the earliest possible age. We shall come to that later, so I shall leave it for now.
An innovative approach for already disaffected older truants came to my notice recently. I believe that it will be debated during the dinner hour tomorrow. It is run by the skills force of the Ministry of Defence and is funded from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's special fund. Apparently, it shows encouraging signs. The young person concerned gets individual expert help with challenging tasks and training but will receive that only if he or she goes regularly to school. I gather that it has been running in some 13 towns and cities for 18 months. Heads are already reporting less truancy and better behaviour.
I remember many years ago a scheme in Lyon, France, where crime statistics rose dramatically during the long summer vacations. A joined-up offensive from the appropriate public services and private companies provided a positive blitz of stimulating alternatives to crime. It worked. Even longer ago in Japan, it was normal practice—now, sadly, discontinued—for business leaders to take on responsibility for those showing early signs of disaffection. It was their duty to provide the guidance
1362
and opportunities that those young people had previously lacked. Again, it worked—crime figures were amazingly low.
That kind of thinking, which produces innovative public/private schemes and involves the practical in put of successful individuals with high leadership skills, is badly needed. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that many such schemes a re indeed under way and are showing signs of equal success.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches have not put a great deal of emphasis on this issue. By and large, we were convinced by what the Minister said last time. The kinds of programme that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, discussed are precisely the efforts that are being put in place in some of the more difficult areas in which there are great problems with attendance. The target of 100 per cent attendance is obviously one at which we should aim—we all have sympathy with that idea—but the achievement of that figure is by no means always possible. The setting of targets has proved to be relatively successful. This is not an issue on which we part company with the Government.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by reassuring noble Lords that our belief is that schools should aspire to 100 per cent attendance. We want to tackle the problem of non-attendance head on. That is why we have put considerable resources into dealing with that issue. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Sharp, said, we try to be as innovative as possible and to support the schemes of other government departments and schemes from schools, voluntary organisations and communities. That is why we have also highlighted truancy sweeps, which identify children who are out of school, as an important part of that effort. We did so not least because they send a message to pupils, parents and the wider community that children should be in school, and they can be used to identify parents who are not taking the attendance of their children seriously. They underline the extent of the problem and our determination to tackle it.
Our position is absolutely clear. Children have a right to education and parents have a duty to ensure that their children are educated. Good school attendance is crucial if our children are to achieve at school. Our objective is that all children should attend school every day unless there is an extremely good reason for not doing so. Absence from schools represents a loss of 7.2 per cent of school time. In some schools the situation is even worse than that average.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, tackling non-attendance at school is a complex and long-term task that requires a number of different solutions. Recently, we have seen that those can extend to the gaoling of a parent. We want to add to the current action that we are taking in this area, and we believe that setting appropriate targets can play a role, both in school improvement and in raising community

1363
awareness of the issue. Such targets can provide realistic milestones for schools to work towards. Of course, many schools are already working hard to improve attendance and already set their own targets for improvement with their local education welfare service.
Therefore, through this clause the Secretary of State will he able to set school level targets to reduce all types of absence and not only those which are not authorised by the school, as is presently the case. It is very important that we are clear about this issue. Attendance targets are already in existence, but they relate only to unauthorised absence. We have been in discussion with the Local Government Association and with schools, and believe that it is preferable to widen the focus of these targets in the future and, instead, to have a single target covering all types of absence.
It is, of course, important that schools have the right incentives to take seriously all types of absence. Requiring schools with an above-average level of absence to set targets will ensure that they put their energy into working with parents and with the education welfare service to get children back to school. At present, the targets for unauthorised absence can result in debate within schools as to how each individual absence should be recorded. We believe that that distracts from the real issue. The emphasis should not simply be on why the child is not in school but on ensuring that the child returns to school as soon as possible.
We also recognise that targets can be used to acknowledge improvement and applaud it. I give an example. Ofsted recently said of a secondary school:
"Attendance levels are very good. The high level of attendance makes a very positive contribution".
That school has an overall absence level of 6 per cent. Eighty per cent of those absences are due to pupil illness; 10 per cent are due to unavoidable family holidays; and other absences are due to funerals, religious festivals and events such as child protection reviews. The school continues to take attendance very seriously, putting all possible measures in place to encourage good attendance.
Another example would be a school attended by traveller children. Our policies mean that traveller children are registered at one base school and, when they move around the country, they are marked as taking authorised absence. A target of 100 per cent would, of course, be impossible for the base school to achieve. However, that does not mean that it cannot improve attendance in other areas and set itself targets for that improvement.
Statistics have shown that 45 per cent of all children and 83 per cent of primary school children stopped by truancy patrols were with their parents. There may be a variety of reasons why children are not at school, but the important point is to stress that children miss out on their education if they are not in school for whatever reason.
1364
As I said, the targets will not he additional to existing ones; they represent a widening focus that we know will be welcomed by schools and local education authorities. Some 35 local authorities have chosen to have a local public service agreement target on attendance for 2004 and beyond.
The effect of the amendment would not be that there would be no targets for attendance; it would he that the targets could relate only to unauthorised absence, ignoring other forms of absence. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that that was a topsy-turvy answer. During debate on the previous stage of the Bill, the noble Baroness told us that unauthorised absences totalled a mere 0.7 per cent. The number of authorised absences—those authorised by the schools—is 800 per cent greater. Therefore, the problem relates to authorised absences. Who is authorising them?
The noble Baroness said that one problem was that parents did not take the issue seriously. We have heard and read about truancy sweeps, which have been very successful. However, we have only been told about absences involving parents walking around shopping areas with their children and other absences involving activities totally unrelated to education which the parents condone. If that is the case, and if such absences form part of the 6.5 per cent, then who is authorising them? The schools must be doing so.
If the Government were really addressing the problem, they would do something about defining "authorised" and "unauthorised" absences, but they have completely left that issue aside. The Secretary of State is simply sitting in Whitehall and taking a power to set a target for each individual school.
My particular objection to the provision is that I believe that responsibility and accountability for what a school does should be vested in the governing body and the staff of the school. As I said when I spoke to the amendment, the issue of incremental targets to improve the attendance of children is a matter for the schools. It is a day-to-day management tool of schools. We are trying to get away from the situation where "Whitehall knows best" and where Whitehall becomes involved in the day-to-day management of schools. I believe that such issues are a matter for the schools.
I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats do not consider that this is an issue for them and that they are satisfied with what the Government say. I believed that they would have agreed that this was a matter for schools and not for someone sitting in Whitehall. We know that the Secretary of State for Education has many issues on her plate at present. Frankly, I am surprised that she is concerning herself with the direct management of schools and setting individual attendance targets for them. Indeed, the fact that the Secretary of State is indulging in setting individual targets below 100 per cent presupposes that she is

1365
dealing with the minutiae of individual schools. Where are the civil servants who will become involved in those minutiae in the department?
I believe that there should be an overall target of 100 per cent and that all schools should aim for that. The setting of incremental targets in order to aspire to that overall target should be a matter for schools and governing bodies. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
3.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 101) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Arran, E.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inge, L.

Biffen, L.

Jopling, L.

Blaker, L.

Kimball, L.

Blatch, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Boardman, L.

Lindsay, E.

Bowness, L.

Lucas, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Luke, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Burnham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Byford, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Caithness, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Montrose, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carrington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chalfont, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Northesk, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Crathorne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cuckney, L

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Parkinson, L.

Denham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peel, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elles, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elton, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Ferrers, E.

Prior, L.

Flather, B.

Rawlings, B.

Fookes, B.

Reay, L.

Freeman, L

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Geddes, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rogan, L.

Habgood, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hanham, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe,B. [Teller]

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

Higgins, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Holderness, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Thatcher, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

1366

Trumpington, B.

Wakeham, L.

Vivian, L.

Warnock, B.

Waddington, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Addington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ahmed, L.

Layard, L.

Alli, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Andrews, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lipsey, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bach, L.

McCarthy, L

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Bhatia, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Borrie, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNally, L.

Bragg, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mitchell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morgan, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Northover, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Orme, L.

Dixon, L.

Palmer, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dubs, L.

Paul, L.

Erroll, E.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Ezra, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Puttnam, L.

Filkin, L.

Quirk, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Radice, L.

Gale, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Geraint, L.

Randall of St. Budeaax, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Redesdale, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rennard, L.

Golding, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rooker, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Roper, L.

Goudie, B.

Russell, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Gregson, L.

Sandberg, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sandwich, E.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Haskel, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sheldon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hooson, L.

Simon, V.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Slim, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Stallard, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Islwyn, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Taverne, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jones, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jordan, L.

Thornton, B.

1367

Tomlinson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wilkins, B.

Uddin, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walmsley, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. {Lord Privy Seat)

Weatherill, L.

Whitty, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.37 p.m.
Clause 60 [Power to require LEA to obtain advisory services]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 102:
Page 40, line 38, at beginning insert "following consultation with the local education authority,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are both linked to Clause 60, which gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene and direct a local education authority to bring in external service operators to run a school or a group of schools when such schools have been shown to have serious weaknesses or to be in need of special measures. The Secretary of State may intervene only when he or she is of the view that insufficient progress has been made in eliminating the deficiencies in a weak or failing school, and that the LEA of its own volition is unlikely to act, or when the LEA has a disproportionate number of schools in that position. External partners may be successful schools; successful LEAs; further or higher education institutions; or public, private or voluntary bodies. Their job will be to provide advice to the LEA and/or the school governors.
The two amendments, both of which we moved in Committee, are slightly different in their two provisions. However, we tabled them in order to make good what we believe are deficiencies currently on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 102 makes clear that, before taking the decision to send in external partners, the Secretary of State must have exhausted the route of internal discussion with the LEA. For the Secretary of State to take those powers is yet another centralising act, undermining the position of the local education authority. It should be the local education authority which acts in such cases. An intervention by the Secretary of State must be an act of last resort. Indeed, that was made clear in the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Committee. As we argue here, it would be essential for the Secretary of State, first, to consult with the local education authority in order to assess what the LEA is doing or is proposing to do in such a situation. He stated:
"There are only two possible instances when the power could be required. First, when an LEA is preparing an action plan following an Ofsted inspection which has judged a school as having serious weaknesses or requiring special measures, it may be necessary to require the LEA to involve external support where action is clearly necessary and the authority has no plans to take such action. Alternatively, a direction may be necessary later in the process if it becomes clear that an LEA's recovery plan is not working.
In either case, we shall have been working closely with the LEA in question".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 989.]
1368
The amendment seeks to put the process of consultation on the face of the Bill. Given the assurance that in all cases there will be close consultation with LEAs, it seems sensible for that to be included on the face of the Bill as reassurance to local authorities. The matter is rather crudely and toughly stated in the Bill.
Amendment No. 103 makes it clear that it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for laying down guidance on specifications for such contracts. The contracts will have substantial financial consequences for the LEA. In circumstances when the Secretary of State has intervened, it is right that, where there are local council tax implications, council taxpayers should recognise that the council is acting on the instructions and under the guidance of the Secretary of State.
In Committee, the Minister was quite clear that not only would that happen in exceptional cases but that it would be in conjunction with the local authority and that there would be some agreement. He referred to his own borough, Haringey, where the Secretary of State stepped in and insisted that external contractors were brought in to help run educational services in the borough. The big PFI in Haringey has not been entirely successful. I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen the recent report produced by the Rowntree Foundation about the Haringey PFI and the difficulties that it is causing. That is all the more reason where there are financial implications that it should be made clear to council tax payers that ultimately it was the Secretary of State who was responsible for requiring such levels of expenditure. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is right that I said in Committee that we would be using the powers in Clause 60 only in exceptional circumstances; as the noble Baroness said, as a last resort. We would use the power when other efforts to tackle failure had not worked. In Committee, I gave the figures of how successful policies to tackle failure had been. I think the figure was that around 900 schools have been brought out of failure. That is carried out in partnership with local education authorities.
Amendment No. 102 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to consult an LEA before a determination is made to direct it to enter into a contract or some other arrangement to obtain advisory services to help it turn around failing schools. We accept the concern, as I made quite clear in Committee, but we do not consider that the amendment is necessary.
At the risk of repeating what I said in Committee, there are two situations in which we might use the power under Clause 60. First, where it is clear that the LEA may need to involve an external partner to remedy failure where the authority is not considering that action. The second—later down the line—is where an existing recovery plan is not working.
In both cases—this is the fundamental point—the powers will have involved discussion with the LEA. We do not think that there is any benefit in delaying

1369
the process further by formal consultation, which is what the amendment involves. In those circumstances, the impetus will be for a rapid turnaround in the school's fortunes, which will involve deliberation with the LEA. If we had to have a full consultation process, we could delay matters. In any case, it would be unnecessary since we will have been considering the best way to tackle the problem with the LEA during the whole process. The key is the difference between the discussions which will have to take place with the LEA under our proposals and a formal consultation.
I turn to Amendment No. 103. We propose to provide guidance on the way an LEA might use external partners to provide advice on turning around failing schools as part of new guidance on tackling schools causing concern. That guidance will establish a framework within which LEAs and schools might work. It will describe the respective roles of the LEA, the school and the external partner and might also include model contracts. But when the LEA enters into an agreement, it needs to have the flexibility to include terms and conditions appropriate to its individual needs. The experience of LEA interventions demonstrates that a solution tailored to the specific circumstances is necessary.
So we do not believe that it would be helpful for the Secretary of State to issue detailed guidance about the terms and conditions she might include in a direction. That would be a centralising move, which is not particularly desirable. Terms and conditions could vary from case to case, depending on the matters which cause the problem in the first place. Therefore, statutory guidance would limit the flexibility available to both the Secretary of State and the LEAs in preparing an appropriate contract or an agreement.
LEAs and governing bodies already obtain advisory services without the need for a direction. Our guidance will help those LEAs and governing bodies to obtain a solution which is suitable for their individual requirements. I hope that on that basis the amendment will not be pressed.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. We felt, in response to the previous discussion of the amendment, that there was a case for including at least the first amendment on the face of the Bill.
I take on board what the Minister has said. We shall think further on these matters. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 62 [Academies]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 104:
Page 42, line 36, leave out "broad curriculum" and insert "curriculum satisfying the requirements of section 74 of the Education Act 2002, but"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, I welcomed Amendment No. 234 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, and I
1370
promised to bring forward a government amendment. We want academies to deliver broad and balanced curricula to their pupils. The amendment extends the legislative requirement on academies so that it more closely reflects the requirements placed on maintained schools in terms of the breadth and balance of the curriculum, the emphasis on meeting the moral, spiritual, cultural, mental and physical needs of young people and preparing them for later life. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment which, as he says, repeats entirely the amendment that we tabled in Committee. It will give slightly greater coherence to the Act in that the concept of a broad and balanced curriculum relates to Section 74. I thank the Minister.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I first declare an interest. Today, I accepted a governorship at one of the new academies that are being formed. I ask the Minister: what was the deficit before the amendment was brought forward? I understand the arguments for the amendment and I understand the points put by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. But has there been evidence of a lack of a broad and balanced curriculum being taught in the academies, in the city technology colleges and in the other schools of that ilk that come under the legislation? What material difference will the amendment make in terms of what is expected of academies? My feeling is that the amendment is otiose.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her new appointment. I hope that she enjoys her governorship. The amendment is not put forward in the sense of criticism of existing academies, which is what I think she believes, but it is important that we should so far as possible make academies reflect the requirements placed on maintained schools. Those requirements are that they should reflect, in terms of the breadth and balance of the curriculum, the emphasis on meeting the moral, spiritual, cultural, mental and physical needs of young people and of preparing them for later life. In view of our continual emphasis on the fact that academies have to conform to the rules for maintained schools, it is desirable to make that clear in the Bill.
Lord Quirk: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, but we are on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 105:
Before Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
"PROPOSALS TO ESTABLISH ETC.
( ) A proposal to establish, alter or discontinue a school can be made by an admission authority or potential admission authority, the Secretary of State in the case of a City Academy, or the local education authority where the authority is not the admission authority.

1371
( ) All proposals shall be considered and determined by the School Organisation Committee which covers the area in which the proposed school is to be situated."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when we tabled an identical amendment in Committee we said that we were concerned that the Bill offends against local democracy by taking power from the LEAs and giving it to the Secretary of State. Logically, perhaps we should also have tabled an amendment to remove the whole of Clause 67 because it is peppered with powers for the Secretary of State to direct the LEA on this, that and the other in relation to what it should do and whom it should consult when proposing to establish, alter or discontinue schools. However, we did not do so.
In her reply, the Minister offered to table an amendment. That appears today as Amendment No. 106, which seeks to remove the words,
"with the approval of the Secretary of State",
from line 44. That is welcome and I thank her for it.
The Minister may be surprised that I have tabled this amendment once again. The reason for the amendment is that, given the power vested in the Secretary of State in Clause 67, the words,
"with the approval of the Secretary of State",
in Clause 66 are superfluous. Their removal, although welcome, achieves nothing. I therefore wish to debate the amendment again to probe a little further the Government's intentions for the role of LEAs in establishing new schools, and to highlight our view that the power to decide should be in the hands of local people—in this case personified by the school organisation committee. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify their intentions in the light of the major role to be played by the Secretary of State, as described in Clause 67. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should like the Minister to go a good deal further than that, although I doubt that she will. It is high time to shoot the old canard that there should be controls on who can start new schools. Schools that open and do not attract pupils cannot exist for long. Why should we want to stop people from founding new state schools? If someone wants to found a state school and to try to live off the amount of money that we are prepared to provide per pupil, good luck to them. Why should not they do that? Why should they have to go through endless committees to do that? Those committees will be stuffed with the kind of people who will think that they may suffer from new schools, such as those representing existing schools.
If existing schools are not providing a good education, or if people want to provide education of a particular religious character or of a type that is not currently available—and enough parents want that to make a new school viable—why should they not have one? Why should it be the business of the state, the
1372
local education authority or the schools organisation committee to tell them that they should not provide what they have sufficient parents saying they want?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall try not to pre-empt the amendment that my noble friend Lady Farrington will be moving, but the purpose of that amendment is to remove the provision that before publishing a notice a local education authority would have to seek the approval of the Secretary of State. That is superfluous and I am delighted that we have been able to table that amendment.
The intention of the new clause is to reverse the provisions in Clause 66. I shall with pleasure turn later to the canard of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Our purpose is to increase the opportunities for a wider range of partners to put forward proposals to become involved in school provision in the state sector. I must tell the noble Lord that anyone can make proposals for a school at any time through the school organisation committee.
In this part of the Bill, we are focusing specifically on the opportunities for new secondary schools. First, it is for local education authorities to decide that a new school is appropriate. They are therefore in the driving seat, which is precisely where we want them to be. Where a local education authority considers that it is important for its locality to have a new school, it must publish a notice inviting proposals from interested parties. That is to ensure that as many people as possible who may be interested can propose their ideas for a new school. Of course, the LEA may make proposals of its own. The proposals will then be considered together and decided by the Secretary of State.
I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that initiatives for new schools should come from those most involved with educational provision in the local area and should take account of the needs of the area as a whole. I also understand the concern that the local school organisation committee should be fully involved. We believe that our proposals meet those concerns.
Everyone will be made aware of the need for a school at an early stage. Everyone will be able to consider how they can contribute to it. The LEA will still be able to make any proposals that it can make at present, and these will be considered alongside any other proposals. Importantly, details of all of the proposals will be published together in a notice in the local newspaper and parents and other local people will be able to comment on the proposals and, indeed, to object to them.
The school organisation committee will not be cut out of the picture. All of the proposals and any comments on or objections to them will be considered by the school organisation committee. The committee will then put forward its views on the proposals to the Secretary of State, who will take them fully into account.
As I said, I have tabled Amendment No. 106, to which the noble Baroness referred, which removes the need for the Secretary of State to approve an LEA's

1373
decision to publish. That is important. We believe that our proposals will encourage a greater range of providers to think seriously about establishing new secondary schools.
Should any of your Lordships be interested to know how many new secondary schools are opened, the average is about four per year. New schools are important, but there is no deluge of new schools to give LEAs reason to feel that they are not in the driving seat. We are making this provision because we want to try to encourage innovation across the state sector. I hope that, on the basis of my explanation and the assurances that I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. We shall have to wait to discover how the local authorities involved with that small number of new schools feel in future. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Proposals for additional secondary schools]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 106, I must point out that if the amendment is carried I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 107 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonmoved Amendment No. 106:
Page 44, line 8, leave out ", with the approval of the Secretary of State,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 106 removes the necessity for an LEA to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before publishing a notice inviting proposals for the establishment of an additional secondary school, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, recognised in the previous debate. All noble Lords who were present at—or read in Hansard—the proceedings in Committee, at a rather late hour, on 23rd May, will be aware that, as the noble Baroness said, my noble friend promised to consider the issue and table an amendment. An opposition amendment to the same effect was tabled in another place.
That demonstrates that where we agree that there is a better way forward, we are prepared to support it. Having considered the matter further, we agree that there is no real need for the Secretary of State to have to agree in advance that an LEA may invite proposals for an additional secondary school in its area. We therefore seek to remove that requirement. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 107, standing in my name. The clause is one of several in this part of the Bill that do not apply to Wales. I referred to that in Committee, when we were discussing Clause 62, which relates to the new concept of academies. Regrettably, that clause does not apply to Wales either. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, told us why. He said that the
1374
National Assembly did not want the power to establish academies. I refer noble Lords to column 993 of Hansard for 23rd May. That is short-sighted of the Assembly, and it may live to regret it, particularly if there is substance in the speech given by the Secretary of State earlier this week and in her critique of the comprehensive system.
The clause enables the establishment of new secondary schools—cornmunity, foundation and voluntary schools and academies—in England only. My amendment would extend that power to Wales. I am surprised that the Assembly government have not sought the power for themselves. Al though we may not need new schools in Wales at present, it is not inconceivable that we may need new schools—and schools of a different kind—in future. Legislation is not just for the present. It should have regard to possible future needs, and it should err on the enabling side. What if there were a major new town development or a major inward investment project, employing hundreds of people and requiring schools of a new and different kind? It may not be likely, in current circumstances, but it cannot be ruled out either. There have been such developments in the past, and it could happen again. It could also be that schools of a different kind from those that we have prove advantageous and that there is a popular demand for them. It would be odd if such a demand could be met in England but not in Wales.
I do not think for a moment that my amendment will be accepted. At least I have had the opportunity to castigate the Assembly government for their blinkered view of Welsh educational needs and their failure to take advantage of what is on offer in the Bill. I would never argue that provision in Wales should always be the same as in England, but I would always maintain that any decision to differ should be well founded and advantageous to Wales. I am far from convinced that that criterion is met by the deliberate opt-out front this clause and others, notably Clauses 62, 65 and 67.
4 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for the amendment. We welcome it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, recognised, Clause 66 introduces new procedures for establishing new secondary schools in England. The National Assembly for Wales set out its strategic view of educational needs in its paving document, The Learning Country. That document has been widely welcomed in Wales.
In Wales, as in England, there has been a longstanding commitment to enabling schools to build on their strengths and overcome their weaknesses. In Wales, that commitment finds expression in the close partnership arrangements with LEAs and in the Partnership Council, established by the Government of Wales Act 1998, which consists of Assembly Members and members of local authorities. Given that situation, it is right that we should respect the fact of

1375
devolution and the decision of the Welsh Assembly that, in the light of its approach, it does not wish to have the powers in this clause. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, will accept that devolution means that we should not second-guess or castigate—to use his word—the judgments that are made, particularly when they have such wide support in the Principality.
Most LEAs in Wales have surplus school capacity, so it is not expected that there will be many instances of a need for an entirely new secondary school, rather than for the replacement of an existing school. However, three new secondary schools have been opened in Wales in the past five years. The noble Lord may be reassured by that fact. As he is aware, all three were established to cater for the growing demand for Welsh-medium education. That demonstrates that existing systems for establishing schools already allow for LEAs to accommodate parental wishes for different types of schooling and to meet changes in circumstances such as rising pupil numbers, to which the noble Lord referred. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
"MAINTENANCE, EXPANSION AND FUNDING OF SCHOOL SIXTH-FORMS
After section 113 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (inadequate sixth-forms) there is inserted—
"113A MAINTENANCE, EXPANSION AND FUNDING OF SCHOOL SIXTH-FORMS
(1) Where the Learning and Skills Council for England proposes a change in sixth-form provision, there shall be a presumption that a school sixth-form will not be closed where the governing body of the school proposes that it should continue and believes that it contributes to the success of the school as a whole.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if an inspection has shown that education for those above compulsory school age is of an unacceptable standard.
(3) A maintained school which provides education for pupils above compulsory school age but below the age of nineteen may submit proposals to the relevant authority to increase the number of sixth-form places, and the relevant authority shall provide funding for those places at the same rate per capita as for the existing places, provided that the schools can demonstrate sufficient demand for those places.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not rehearse the arguments that we considered at length in Committee, except to say that I still regard this as an important amendment. It is important that we protect sixth forms.
During the passage of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, concern was expressed about the future vulnerability of sixth forms. We were given assurances at the time that there was nothing to worry about. When the learning and skills councils—unelected, appointed bodies—were set up, it was again feared that sixth forms would be vulnerable. We now know that to be the case. There is huge concern about funding. I do not know who is to respond to this
1376
debate; it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, at the last count. Before he tries to tell us that everything is all right on the funding front, I shall disabuse him of that idea. Since I proposed the amendment in Committee, I have been contacted by so many sixth forms, pleading for the Government to fulfil their pledges on per capita funding and the assurances that they gave on funding for sixth formers. People are nervous about the adequacy of funding for sixth forms.
There are also staffing benefits. Not everybody believes that sixth forms are a good idea. Many believe that tertiary education for 16-plus children is the way forward, and, for a long time, it was Labour Party policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, who was a partner of mine in local government in East Anglia, made no secret of the fact that Labour Party policy was that tertiary education was preferable.
I shall talk about staffing policy. We know that schools that have sixth forms attract staff and that staff looking for teaching posts are often attracted to schools that offer the opportunity to teach children aged from 11 to 18 who will go on to college and university. There is an educational point involved.
My third concern relates to rural schools. Rural schools feel even more vulnerable than many urban schools. Choices in an urban area are much greater. In rural areas, there is the logistical problem of travelling from one school to another, and it is not easy to link up all rural secondary schools with the nearest tertiary college or sixth-form college. The position of rural schools is important.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said:
"The Bill, together with the regulations and guidance for which it provides, will have the effect of ensuring that the LSC proposes changes to the pattern of sixth form education only where there is real evidence of local need and only where change would clearly benefit the young people in the area".
He went on to say:
"That is why the LSC will be able to make proposals only under clear conditions. Therefore, I want to dispel the anxieties of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the LSC may be conducting its affairs in some position of prejudice against small sixth forms".— [Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 1031.]
From talking to people in the local skills councils we know that there is a preference for rational post-16 provision. It is felt that if all post-16 pupils were in tertiary education it would be an administratively tidy solution. The Minister continued that proposals would be published only where there was clear, objective evidence for local need. He said that proposals would be based on a clear assessment of the overall need in an area. He then gave the game away by using the phrase:
"by linking the possibility of closure simply to the views of the sixth form concerned regardless of the wider local needs".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 1032.]
There is the rub. We know that the Learning and Skills Council is minded to take the view that it would be better for an area as a whole to have all the sixth formers at either the local technical college, further education college, tertiary college or sixth form

1377
college. That could be argued to be in the wider local area's interests. The views of a small number of people who represent the sixth form of a school, which, as my amendment makes it clear, would not be subject to an adverse inspectorate report, must be taken into account. It is still possible for the Learning and Skills Council to come forward with a proposal that in its view is beneficial to the area as a whole but is definitely a disbenefit to a particular school.
If the Minister meant what he said the last time we met in Committee, that schools need not be worried and that there are reassurances, it is important that my amendment is accepted. It says that,
"Where the Learning and Skills Council for England proposes a change in sixth-form provision, there shall be a presumption"—
—no more than that—
"that a school sixth-form will not be closed where the governing body of the school proposes that it should continue and believes that it contributes to the success of the school as a whole".
That does not prevent proposals coming forward, but they would be tested against the case made by the school recognising that presumption.
The second proposed subsection in my amendment proposes the safeguard that, the first subsection,
"shall not apply if an inspection has shown that education for those above compulsory school age is of an unacceptable standard".
The third proposed subsection states that,
"A maintained school which provides education for pupils above compulsory school age but below the age of nineteen may submit proposals to the relevant authority to increase the number of sixth-form places"—
—that is sometimes the salvation of many sixth forms in rural areas—
"and the relevant authority shall provide funding for those places at the same rate per capita as for the existing places"—
—no more, no less. They shall be treated fairly, and on all fours with the existing places. The schools will have to demonstrate sufficient demand for the extra places. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to speak to the other amendments in the group that are in my name. We support the amendment because we are worried by what the Learning and Skills Council is doing. When we passed the Learning and Skills Act 2000 we made it clear that we wanted small sixth forms to remain. We passed a clause in the Act which ensured that sixth forms retained spending in real terms at the level they had been receiving it.
That has been important and I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the number of sixth forms that are unhappy with the degree to which the Learning and Skills Council has been throwing its weight around. Noises have been forthcoming in a number of areas which indicate that the council has clear ideas about what it wants to do: sixth form colleges work well, so why don't we have more?
1378
We firmly believe in diversity of provision at the 16 to 19 level. It is horses for courses. Some young people want to get away from school. They want to go to a college where they have a greater degree of freedom. My daughter was one: she benefited enormously from moving out of the school sixth form and taking her A-levels at what was then the local technical college. She enjoyed the freedom and was a well-motivated student; she went on to Cambridge.
Other students do not want to move away and want to be in the more sheltered environment of the sixth form. That may be particularly true of some of the smaller schools. Many schools in rural areas have small sixth forms. We feel the beady eyes of the Learning and Skills Council on some of those schools asking why the pupils cannot attend the further education college in the large local town.
The answer is that it is a leap to some of those children. It often involves a lengthy journey which they may not want to undertake. They may be happy in the environment they know. Sixth form colleges can differ from further education colleges, which often have 10,000 students. Sixth form colleges often have around 1,500 to 2,000 students. Some students benefit greatly from the different environment.
We feel strongly that the current diversity on offer is a strength of our 16 to 19 system. It enables individuals to be suited to the environment they like best. It would be a shame if we were to close some of the smaller sixth forms, which have relatively higher costs than larger sixth forms. The Learning and Skills Council's remit is to make the most efficient use of its resources. Undoubtedly it compares those costs and recognises that it costs as much as £1,000 more per student to keep students in a small sixth form than for them to take their post-16 courses at the local further education college. But that diversity is vitally important. We want a clear assurance from the Minister that the Learning and Skills Council will not close down small sixth forms just because they cost more money and because it believes larger colleges will be more efficient.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 110 to 112. The first more substantive amendment was tabled in Committee. It relates to local accountability on sixth forms. It asks that proposals for changes go before the local school organisation committee and that consultation takes place. It provides an opportunity for assurances that the Learning and Skills Council will operate within local consultative frameworks.
In Committee the Minister replied that,
"The consultation paper on 16 to 19 organisation and inspection that we published in the autumn made it clear that we envisaged that school organisation committees and LEAs, school and college interests must be fully consulted".
He went on to reiterate the fact that there would be consultation, stating:
"We wish to ensure that the process for local proposals takes account of the views of the full range of young people and parents who might be affected by the changes in their local area".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 1033.]
That being the case, I put forward the argument that I made in Committee: if you agree with us, why not put it on the face of the Bill? It would be good to see it in

1379
the Bill because it would reassure local authorities that it is not a case of the Learning and Skills Council coming in and throwing its weight around, but that it will listen to local people and organisations. The Minister said in Committee that it should be doing that. If that is the case, why not place that on the face of the Bill?
The final two amendments change "may" to "shall" and are the only two tabled on Report. Clause 68(8) states:
"Regulations may make provision about proposals under this section and may in particular make provision about … information to be included in or provided in relation to the proposals".
If the Learning and Skills Council makes far-reaching proposals on restructuring sixth-forms—the new section is headed "Restructuring of sixth-form education"—it is vitally important that information, consultation and so forth are made clear. I should like to see written on the face of the Bill a provision relating to information, but if that cannot be the case, let us at least have it clear in the regulations. Regulations must be made because we need them in these circumstances.
Baroness David: My Lords, there is probably only one chance in every generation in which to reform, develop and change post-16 education. The historic split between vocational and academic education continues to bedevil the nation. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said:
"But it is the case … that this nation is under-educated and under-trained.—[Official Report, 18/6/02; col. 615]
Clause 68, which enables the Learning and Skills Council to make proposals for re-organising post-16 education, is a necessary power in order to achieve coherent and cohesive education provision for all young people from 16 to 19. The system we have at the moment cannot be sound with so many different bodies with responsibility for setting the pattern of school, college and work-based learning provision post-16.
I do not believe that we would tolerate a system in any other area of public life, especially with the work of institutions being important to us as a nation. We must ensure that all young people have the right skills for work and life and I cannot see how that can be done when responsibility is shared by so many bodies. If it means that in the long run fewer secondary schools will have sixth-forms but that young people will have a better education in larger, comprehensive sixth-forms and colleges, so be it. It is more important to put the needs of the nation and young people over the institutional autonomy of schools.
The Bill gives to regulations the circumstances by which the Learning and Skills Council may make proposals. There are always concerns when such important issues are left to regulations. The suggestion in Amendment No. 108, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that a governing body should be allowed to keep its sixth-form where it believes that it contributes to the success of the school, is too subjective. She said that the protection of sixth-forms
1380
is as important. That greatly depends on the sixth-form. Perhaps it is important in a rural area because children may not want to travel very far. On the other hand, if the sixth-form is small, opportunities for the children are fewer. The number of subjects they can take is smaller and the competition and stimulation in having a number of brighter young people around would also he absent. Therefore, I do not agree with the noble Baroness on that point.
I strongly believe that one should not automatically say that a small sixth-form must be retained. It must be examined extremely carefully. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that we need diversity. We need a choice of sixth-form colleges, of further education colleges, but the proposal has not been properly thought out and it is important that the Learning and Skills Council does a good job.
People may be worried about what is taking place, but there will be area inspections. The Secretary of State can require the LSC and relevant LEA to prepare a 16-to-19 area plan, which would seem to meet the concerns of Amendment No. 109.
I support the Government's line on this issue, but I want to ask a few questions. Will the Minister confirm that there will continue to be an action plan after every area inspection? Will the plan be subject to public consultation? Will the Minister approve the plan? Will the Minister find additional funding to implement key actions from the plan? I hope that whoever is responding to the amendment can answer some of those questions, but I support the Government's general line on this issue.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not see why such decisions should not be left to pupils and parents. We may believe that pupils receive a better education in a sixth-form college than in a small school sixth-form. That would be the decision I would take for my children, but many people believe otherwise and their children do very well. Why do we have to decide such matters at the centre?
Surely, we should be providing a diversity of opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said. If children have the choice, as they do around Cambridge, of staying in a small school sixth-form or moving to one of the extremely good, large sixth-form colleges, and if they choose to stay in their school sixth-form because that is the environment they want and it offers them what they need, why not? We do not need to fund those sixth-forms to excess. I do not see why we should provide an automatic subsidy for sixth-forms. However, if the school decides to run its budget that way because the governors believe it is best for the school, surely that is a decision we can safely leave to them. I can think of many circumstances in which that is right and true for the school as a whole.
I believe that it is fine for the Learning and Skills Council to make proposals and to say, "Why don't we do these things?", but if a school or two stand back for a while and say, "No, we will hang on to our sixth-forms and see how that goes", that will not undermine a great bureaucratic juggernaut that must be allowed

1381
to proceed. It seems to me to be all right to provide for children to move to sixth-form colleges but those who do not join immediately can join later. Like the euro, it can accumulate further layers of mud as it rolls along. We do not have to impose these provisions on people at the outset.
Furthermore, it may seem wonderful to be able to save £1,000 a pupil by shoving everyone into a big sixth-form college in some local centre, but in rural areas that will probably cost the parents £1,000 in transport costs. It is not uncommon for parents and pupils to be spending close to £1,000 if they live, say, in rural Dorset and the children have to travel to a suitable FE college because they need FE rather than the local sixth-form. It is an extremely expensive business to obtain further education in rural areas. To impose that additional cost on even more people by centralising academic education in the way vocational education was centralised, and to regard that centrally as a saving when all that is being done is passing costs from the Government to individual parents, is not a constructive way of looking at the issue. I very much support my noble friend's amendment and I was delighted by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I agreed with every word.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have one comment to make and two questions to ask. We know that in education as in many other activities there are significant economies of scale and scope. It seems to me to be quite wrong to say that just because someone has a sentimental regard for a small sixth-form we can ignore matters of such fundamental importance. A fortiori, since we are discussing public money here, it seems to me worse than foolhardy to say, "We brush that aside because we like our small sixth forms". It is not a matter which can be left to the school. The school is not given a fixed budget, being able then to choose. It is more complicated. Other considerations rather than those of the school must at least be brought to bear.
Without the amendment, the position is not that suddenly all small sixth forms have to be closed down. Unless I have misunderstood, the proposal does not say that remotely. The amendment goes to the other extreme, saying that none of them can be closed down in practice without a great rigmarole. Therefore, the view that unless we accept this amendment, or something like it, it is the end of small sixth forms and of parental wishes in rural areas seems slightly far fetched. It would be wrong for this House to brush aside considerations of efficiency and the correct use of public money. That is my contribution on the substantial side.
My two questions arise anecdotally so I do not have the evidence I should like. However, people have been in touch with me about the following problem. I have been told that schools are adopting an increasingly selective approach about who is allowed to stay on in the sixth forms. Various people have said that it is yet another example of the damaging effect of examination systems——we have them excessively in our country today—and school league tables. They say
1382
that in order to look better, schools are not allowing young people who would like to stay on in the sixth form to do so. First, can the Minister bring us up-to-date? What are the current legal rights of young people who, having been in that school, wish to stay on in the sixth form? What rights do they have'? If they have the normal set of examination passes at the age of 16, in what sense can they demand to be allowed to stay on? In what sense can the school say, "No, we do not think you will do well enough in our sixth form and you have to go somewhere else".
Secondly, whatever the current legal rights up to the passing of the Bill, does this Bill change those legal rights in any significant way, not merely for the comprehensive schools, which are my main interest, but also for the multifarious other schools—the ragbag of schools, as I am prone to call them —which are being introduced? Do the children have the same rights, more rights or fewer rights?
I support the remarks of my noble friend Lady David on the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was reflecting how happy I am to speak from the Dispatch Box having had such supportive speeches from my noble friends on the Back Benches. I appreciated the contribution from my noble friend Lady David emphasising the positive aspects with regard to the Government's policy for 14 to 19 year-olds. I am changing my perspective slightly on supportive Back-Benchers in view of the more knotty issues introduced by my noble friend Lord Peston. I shall address his questions in a moment.
I reassure my noble friend Lady David. The answer to her question is that after an area inspection there would be an action plan. It would be subject to consultation. It is not a requirement legally for it to be approved by the Secretary of State but the Secretary of State is likely to take a keen interest in such an important development in terms of local provision put forward after an area of inspection.
I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has concentrated overwhelmingly on school sixth forms. But let me reinforce what my noble friend Lady David said. This Government are not about closing down facilities and opportunities for 14 to 19 year-olds. The whole concept behind the development of the LSC and of government policy in the Green Paper, 14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards, relates to how we can extend provision. It is a little strange that we should have the major debate on the LSC constrained within the framework of a rather narrow perspective about what are purported to be threats to small sixth forms.
I hear what the noble Baroness says about schools being anxious about funds. I have never been inside any school or any education institution without it expressing anxiety about funds. Creative people as they are, they can always make use of additional money, intelligently, ably and to the benefit of the community. That is an experience which we expect. But the noble Baroness knows that under the real

1383
terms guarantee the Government ensure that every sixth form must have funding at least equal to its previous funding and it is uprated for inflation. So the concept that the LSC has some hidden agenda in order to close down school sixth form provision does not tally with the strategy that the Government are adopting: the passing of the measure relating to the role of the Learning and Skills Council in the year 2000; and extending opportunities for young people.
No single body has the power and responsibility to ensure that planning of local sixth form provision and of other types of 16 to 19 learning can be effectively integrated, or that the organisation of 16 to 19 learning in an area as a whole gives young people a wide range of high quality opportunities that will meet their needs and the needs of their communities.
Clause 68 gives that planning role to the LSC to complement its existing duty under the Learning and Skills Act. But it is not a role that the LSC can exercise in isolation from, and with disregard for, other local interests such as schools and colleges.
I have previously described to your Lordships' House in some detail the statutory procedures which we shall be putting in place through regulations and statutory guidance to ensure that any proposals from the LSC are founded on robust evidence and subjected to full and open local consultation. I hope that I may be forgiven if I do not return in detail to that issue.
It is important to recognise that the LSC will take no decisions itself. It may propose only a local reorganisation that includes changes to sixth forms. The decision will in all cases be taken by the Secretary of State. In making that decision, the Secretary of State will take account of the strength of the evidence that a reorganisation is needed to raise attainment and participation, including whether options other than institutional changes have been considered; whether the statutory procedures have been properly followed, including full local consultation based on a clear analysis of any local weaknesses; the range of options for tackling them; the impact of the proposals on the range, quality and diversity of local provision and on individual schools and colleges; and the degree to which the proposal attracts local support and the nature and extent of any objections.
We have built into our proposals a series of checks and balances to ensure proper analysis of local needs, full and open local discussion and careful and balanced consideration of the options available to raise attainment, participation and range of opportunity.
It is in that context that I want to address myself to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It is clear that she suspects that there is some hidden agenda of hostility to school sixth forms. The noble Baroness considers that the operation should be on some rational provision at local level. Of course I share that objective. As I have described, the whole concept driving the LSC is to pursue procedures which guarantee that all its decisions are rational. If a school sixth form is providing an education that is valued and
1384
meets a sufficient standard; and if, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated, parents and students support that educational provision and are eager to participate, then the rational operation of the LSC will not distort that arrangement in seeking to fulfil some kind of secret agenda for closing down school sixth forms.
We believe that school sixth forms have a vital role to play in our vision of providing diverse and flexible learning for 14 to 19 year-olds. Such sixth forms are well placed to respond to the challenge of developing coherent programmes because they, alone among the main types of providers, can offer continuity over the full 14 to 19 year-old phase between students and the institutions they attend. We know that many parents value such provision and, at least as important, so do students. That is why substantial numbers of students choose to stay on in school sixth forms.
We do not seek to create what the noble Baroness hinted at; namely, a form of tertiary policy with regard to the LSC. On the contrary, we are putting in place a framework whereby a range of provision can be extended and developed according to local needs and local interests. I emphasise, therefore, that good sixth forms that meet the required standards have nothing to fear from the LSC. Institutions which offer their students high standards and which contribute effectively to the range and quality of learning in an area should—and will—be allowed to flourish. It would be nonsensical to do otherwise, both in terms of our aspirations for the 14 to 19 year-old sector and the learning experiences of young people.
In her remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, focused particularly on the possibility of closing school sixth forms. Our proposals are just as likely to result in proposals either to create new ones or to extend the sixth form provision of those which are presently coping successfully but which may have barriers to the extent of their activities.
I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness with regard to rural provision. The matter does raise issues with regard to choice. We all recognise that we can assist in extending the choice and opportunity available to young people which, at the present time, in some rural areas can be very attenuated indeed.
Perhaps I may cite one of our targets to illustrate the point. We want some 50 per cent of our 18 year-olds to enjoy the benefits of higher education. We could not conceive of reaching the target of 50 per cent by 2010 if we were to provide only limited opportunities for 14 to 19 year-olds and if we do not address the levels of drop-out. At this point I insist on making the point that that rate of drop-out is greater than almost any other advanced country. That is why the Government are so committed to extending opportunity. We recognise that there is a gap.
In my view, it ill behoves the noble Baroness to suggest that there is a massive, negative and secret agenda here which seeks to chop opportunity for those already enjoying further education in a school setting, as well as reducing the range of provision on offer.

1385
Clause 68 and the regulations and guidance which will arise from the legislation will guarantee that the voice of individual sixth forms will be heard in the proposal and decision-making processes; and that discussion and consultation leading to local 16 to 19 year-old reorganisation proposals will look openly and thoroughly at local needs and the full range of options for meeting them. In short, the legislation we propose will promote local solutions, debated and considered locally, to meet local circumstances.
Amendment No. 108 takes a wholly different approach by setting the corporate views of individual sixth forms above the carefully analysed and debated interests of young people in the area. I see little in that prescription to promote a rational analysis of local needs and the delivery of a well-planned, diverse and coherent network of opportunities, which is exactly the strategy the Government intend to pursue.
I hope therefore that your Lordships will reject the amendment. I fear that my powers of oratory will not be sufficient to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw her proposal. However, for a few blissful moments, I rest in hope.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, at the beginning of his remarks the Minister pointed out that the real-terms guarantee still holds. Can he tell the House how long that real-terms guarantee is likely to last? Will it hold indefinitely or is there a time limit on it?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the guarantee is indefinite; there is no timetable with regard to it. However, we recognise that what it does is to ensure that school sixth forms can pursue effectively their strategy to develop educational opportunities against an increasingly changing environment. The Government's policies would not be succeeding unless that environment was changing. However, it is changing very much for the better so far as concerns school providers. That is because of the increased opportunities that will be provided in each local area.
I wish to turn now to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness. They seek to specify on the face of the Bill elements of the process by which the LSC will prepare and consult on proposals relating to school sixth forms.
We do not think that it would be appropriate to write the full procedural details which these amendments suggest on to the face of the Bill. Indeed, we believe that in some cases the processes already in place will be able to deliver more effectively the results which the noble Baroness has identified and which I share with her.
The Government fully accept the spirit and intention that underpin the amendments. In Committee, I offered the noble Baroness assurances about how we shall incorporate into regulations and guidance both the spirit and the detail of the processes which the amendments seek to put on to the face of the Bill. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel that I have met some of her anxieties.
1386
However, there is one matter that I should like to add to the substance of my assurances. It is evident from this and earlier debates that the circumstances under which the LSC may initiate proposals are a matter of some concern. At the moment, the Bill specifies that proposals may be initiated either as a result of following up on the recommendations of an earlier inspection—to which my noble friend Lady David referred—or, less specifically, under other circumstances prescribed in regulations
That reference to regulations is intended to allow further discussion and consultation before settling on a full specification of circumstances in which the LSC may act. It has always been our intention to ensure that any proposals must relate to the objectives of raising standards of achievement and raising participation in the area as a whole.
Nevertheless, I accept that the breadth of the drafting has raised some concerns, which were voiced eloquently in Committee, about the latitude which it appears to offer and the extent to which it might open the door to reorganisations arising from other issues such as—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, more than hinted at this—the comparative unit costs of local 16 to 19 year-old education providers.
I can therefore offer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and to the House a commitment that we shall bring forward at Third Reading a government amendment to ensure that the purpose of any proposals initiated by the LSC under regulations will be to raise achievement, improve participation or extend the range of opportunities available to young people. That will stand as a clear guarantee to sixth forms and to others that the new power for the LSC is a lever to improve standards and breadth of opportunity. We intend to ensure that the amendment we bring forward will preclude proposals that seek primarily to secure other objectives related, for example, to the relative costs of otherwise effective provision or the management of surplus places in an area.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend for a moment. I am a little horrified by his words. Are the Government taking the position that a set of proposals could not be brought forward which would be as efficient as the status quo but rather cheaper in their use of public money? believe that the Government are saying that that will not be allowed to occur.
As someone who takes seriously the economic use of public funds, I shall be rather horrified if that is the Government's position. I cannot believe that my noble friend is saying that.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I emphasise that cost considerations are not the driver behind the work that we want the LSC to do. We want an extension in opportunity and provision. Of course costs are involved, but in order to protect the provision for school sixth forms, which we value, we need to have a real-terms guarantee to ensure that schools have adequate funds.

1387
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Peston is with me on that. I recognise that he is rather more highly qualified than I am in the noble art of economics, but he will recognise that the Government are not approaching the exercise as a rationalisation proposal on how to reduce costs. We are thinking of the needs of the country, which are to invest in education and training, which means extending provision. Of course there will be additional costs, but the Government have said since coming to power that education is an important investment area for which such expenditure must be made.
I hope that I have succeeded in reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that her amendments are not necessary in view of the amendments that I intend to introduce at Third Reading.
My noble friend asked whether students beyond the age of 16 have the legal right to stay on in such institutions. There never has been a legal right, as such. Schools have always had the capacity to decide whether to welcome students post-16 into their sixth form. The only thing that I would emphasise, and I am at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on this, is that schools are eager to extend opportunity. It is not a question of gates coming down, particularly when schools have behind them all the commitment of government to ensure that our education system expands rather than contracts.
For the first time, the Bill provides a right of appeal for pupils who are not admitted to sixth forms in their schools. They will be put on a par with pupils applying to the schools from outside. I hope that that reassures my noble friend. I hope, too, that the amendments will not be pressed, but if not, that the House will reject them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that it will not destroy the reputation of the noble Lord if I say that he has a charming and persuasive delivery, but I cannot honestly say that I am taken in by the content of his remarks.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and my noble friend Lord Lucas, I do not want to criticise other forms of sixth form education in any way. The noble Baroness, Lady David, and I, know how well that the Cambridge system works. There are successful sixth form colleges, individual school-based sixth forms and very good further education available to young people in the area, who have the choice of all of those, which is important. On the fringes of Cambridge there are smaller schools sixth forms, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that if they are what parents choose because they suit the needs of their children, who are we to second-guess them?
I rest my case on that. Diversity is a benefit and the more choice in the system the better. There is an arrogance about us when we say, "We think it is not good for your child to attend a small sixth form; a tertiary or further education college is better for your
1388
child". I am fighting for diversity and for the right to try, as far as possible, to allay the fears and vulnerability that is now felt by sixth forms.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, confirmed all my worst fears on the issue. She asked why we should have small sixth forms when we could have a much more rational system of provision among larger sixth forms. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, followed that up by talking about cost-effectiveness as opposed to being educationally effective. I was further dismayed when the Minister said that he agreed with what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. She also referred to the confusion that there has been and said that it is more rational for the Learning and Skills Council to have responsibility for 16-plus education.
There is now greater confusion. A single 11 to 18 school now has to have a learning and skills council; an organisation committee; it must develop organisation and development plans; action plans are needed; and there is an adjudicator for the 11 to 16 part of the school and the LSC for the 16 to 18 part of the school. The local authority devises the organisation and development plan, which must be approved by the Secretary of State. But if, for example, a decision is made to expand or close a school, there has to be a feed across to yet another body—the Learning and Skills Council—to make a judgment about the impact of that on the sixth form in that same school. Yet the headmaster, staff, parents and pupils are all part of one single school.
There is huge confusion and I wonder whether the Minister would like to reflect on the answer that he gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She asked a pertinent question about the guarantee. I understand that it is not an all-time guarantee. It would help if the Minister would think about that. Secondly, I believe that the guarantee does not extend to increased numbers in the sixth form. It may extend to historical numbers, but when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was pressed on whether the guarantee would extend to increased numbers, we were not given an assurance. There is certainly some confusion on the question of funding.
I do not agree with the 50 per cent target, but the Minister went on to say that the Government cannot possibly achieve their target of 50 per cent of the cohort going on to universities without the input of sixth form education. I agree with that. He said that we are not in the business of limiting opportunity, but my fear is just that. There are bodies, including the Learning and Skills Council, which believe that by moving from a sixth form school-based education into tertiary or further education, opportunities will be extended and that it will be more cost-effective. I believe that that is the main attraction for the LSC. It may please the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when I say that we know that it is rumoured among people involved in the LSC that it would be more cost-effective to go for the solution favoured by him.

1389
My fears are current and are shared by many of our school-based sixth forms. Our children are well served by them and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and my noble friend Lord Lucas that we want a tapestry of choice. I believe in diversity. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 108) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ampthill, L.

Jopling, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kimball, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Avebury, L.

Kingsland, L.

Biffen, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blaker, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Bowness, L.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lyell, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McNally, L.

Burnham, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Byford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monson, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Montrose, D.

Colwyn, L

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cox, B.

Newby, L.

Craigavon, V.

Noakes, B.

Crathorne, L.

Northesk, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peel, E.

Elles, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Falkland, V.

Plumb, L.

Ferrers, E.

Prior, L.

Fookes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Reay, L.

Freeman, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Renton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanham, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rogan, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Roper, L.

Higgins, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Russell, E.

Holderness, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Hooson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe, E.

Sandberg, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sharpies, B.

1390

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Tope, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Strange, B.

Waddington. L.

Walmsley, B. [Teller]

Strathclyde, L.

Walpole, L.

Swinfen, L.

Weatherill, L.

Taverne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Wilcox, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ahmed, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Alli, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Islwyn, L.

Andrews, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jeger, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bach, L.

Jones, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jordan, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bhatia, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Billingham, B.

Layard, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bragg, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

May of Oxford, L.

Crawley, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dixon, L.

Morgan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Northbourne, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Orme, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L

Evans of Watford, L.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Fitt,L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gale, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gilbert, L.

Radice, L.

Golding, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rea, L.

Goudie, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rooker, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gregson, L.

Sawyer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Sheldon, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Simon, V.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harrison, L.

Stallard, L.

Haskel, L.

Stone of Blackheath,L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thornton, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Tomlinson, L.

1391

Turnberg, L.

Whitty, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wilkins, B.

Uddin, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Warwick of Underdiffe, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.9 p.m.
Clause 68 [Proposals relating to sixth forms]:
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 112 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 113:
After Clause 71. insert the following new clause—
"ACTS DONE IN DISCHARGE OF PUBLIC FUNCTION
Where, in consequence of the operation of any provision of the Education Acts (as defined by section 578 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56)), the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) and of any subordinate legislation made under those Acts, any person other than a local education authority or governing body is or becomes responsible for the establishment or maintenance of any school, the acts done by that person in that regard shall for the purposes of section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54) be treated as having been done in the discharge of a public function."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment to tease out the Government's intention regarding the role of private companies in education. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that a private company is potentially subject to judicial review, whatever the provision in any education legislation. This will ensure that all private companies are accountable whatever their role in the education system.
The issue has already been a matter for some debate in this House in regard to Clauses 10 and 12. As has been said, even if "for profit" companies are tightly regulated—under the terms of their contracts—in terms of operating under comprehensive equal opportunities criteria, their whole raison d'être is to make a profit for their shareholders, not to provide a democratically accountable education service. At LEA level, for example, the majority of out-sourcing contracts to date have included bonuses as financial incentives for companies to meet performance targets, although not all contracts have included financial penalty clauses.
By way of illustration, Nord Anglia's interim results to June 2001—the company that has been involved in Hackney, Waltham Forest and Sandwell—show that its annual turnover increased by 9 per cent, to £34 million, and its pre-tax profit increased by 50 per cent to £1.5 million. As, according to Kevin McNeany, 40 per cent of its profits came from running council education services and schools, Nord Anglia made a profit last year of nearly £600,000 from public funds.
There is already some accountability regarding the role of private companies in the system. Ofsted's review of Nord Anglia's running of the school improvement service in Hackney concluded that the service was still discharged unsatisfactorily. Nord Anglia's contract has not been renewed. Hackney
1392
education will be run by an education trust chaired by Mike Tomlinson, who is still currently Chief Inspector of Schools. The new body has significant flaws, including a lack of teacher representation, but the ending of Nord Anglia's contract is welcome.
The amendment would properly increase the level of accountability for private companies in line with the public sector. In addition, there are issues for the education service relating to the support given to schools by private companies, the education offered to pupils, relationships with the community, local democratic accountability, financial accountability, profit motive and the situation at the end of the contract.
The question is whether a private company carrying out a public duty should have more accountability. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this is an interesting amendment, but we do not believe that the law in this area needs further clarification. The effect of the amendment is largely already reflected in common law. Its aim is to ensure that all bodies responsible for maintaining or establishing schools should be subject to judicial review. LEAs, governing bodies and the Secretary of State, in respect of CTCs and academies, are rightly subject to judicial review. Case law has held that independent schools, apart from city technology colleges, are not subject to judicial review.
That seems about right. Parents who choose to enter into a private contract with a school to educate their children for payment have the usual private law remedies against the school. For that reason alone, I would not be happy to accept the amendment, which would bring independent schools under the courts' judicial review jurisdiction. We are content for the courts in this area to decide whether various education bodies should be subject to their jurisdiction. That includes the bodies to which the noble Baroness referred.
We have set up independent appeal mechanisms for most of the usual disputes that arise in education—on exclusions, admissions or special educational needs—to give less formal redress in suitable cases. Judicial review then acts as a fallback if these bodies are said to have got it wrong. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that, on balance, the Government's position and the Bill meet the requirements of proper opportunity for justice in case law and that she will therefore consider withdrawing the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not think that the situation of an independent school is analogous. Clearly, if parents send their son or daughter to an independent school they will not seek judicial review, but in this case an independent school may be operating in the public sector as a company. That is a different issue. If they operate on a public contract, they will have to meet certain obligations.

1393
We shall look more carefully at what the Minister has said and think about it. We may bring the issue back again. This was a probing amendment, but we may wish to probe a little further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 [Interpretation of Part 6]:
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 114:
Page 48, line 40, at end insert "which shall have the greatest flexibility possible for the purposes of interpretation by the teacher within general criteria"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115 and 116, which stand in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady David. Noble Lords with long memories will recall that I last spoke to Amendment No. 115 on 21st June 1988—almost 14 years ago to the day. However, I am talking on a different Bill this time.
My starting position, which I think I share with most noble Lords, is that I strongly favour having a national curriculum. It has evolved over the years, but whatever its deficiencies, it has led to higher standards and a more thought-out approach in our teaching. I am not questioning whether we should have a national curriculum.
I am concerned about how we can use the curriculum flexibly. We have discussed flexibility in a broad sense on other occasions on the Bill. I have one or two questions about the treatment of the individual child and providing enough flexibility to take account of their needs.
I start from the negative or pessimistic side. There are two reasons why it is extremely hard to take account of the needs of the individual child or for the teacher to produce the flexibility that I have in mind. One, to which I referred not long ago, is the dead hand of the examinations system. No matter what one says about education principles and the curriculum, anyone with any direct experience of education knows that the system is driven by the examination system. I am afraid that the position is even worse than it used to be, because coupled with the examination system is all the nonsense of league tables and the rest. Part of the motivation of a school is the need to look right in its league table position. The school is judged to an extraordinary and excessive extent by the exam system.
I am not going to the other extreme of saying that we do not need examinations or assessment, but it is worth asking whether we have too much of them. Being able to do examinations is a skill. As someone who was marvellous at it, I think that it is a useless skill. I have believed all my life that many very bright people have been misjudged because they were not good at exams. Their careers were often—I might go so far as to say—blighted as a result of their inability to cope with exams.
We sometimes hear proud parents say, "My son or daughter has umpteen grade this or that at O-level and A-level". The notion that a large number of such grades is a better performance than a few has always struck me as absurd. However, I agree that the
1394
examination system is not nearly as absurd as the intelligence measurement system. Whatever else it measures, I have never believed that it measures intelligence.
The examination system is one cause of the difficulty in gearing the curriculum to the individual child's needs. The other—and I am always careful about this—is the expense of gearing the system to the needs of the individual child. As my noble friend Lord Davies said, anyone who has been to a school will know that schools can always use more resources. That does not mean that, willy-nilly, we can simply wave our hands and say, "Therefore let there be more resources". Indeed, I always make the point that, no matter how many resources we give schools, they will still be constrained and have to decide how best to use those resources. One of my worries is that an attempt to deal specifically with the needs of the individual child might be thought to be too expensive.
If I may go into anecdotal mode, I do not usually watch serious programmes on television; I watch mostly westerns and football matches. However, a couple of weeks ago, I watched the first of a three-part set of programmes on ITV to do with children who have mental illness. It was an astonishing programme about a young boy who had a form of schizophrenia. The boy himself must have been enormously courageous to appear on the programme, and the programme deeply moved me. He was amazingly fluent and remarkably mature in his understanding of his own position. He was also clearly very intelligent. Yet, in the end, the feeling that one had looking at this young boy was that the school, possibly doing the best that it could, was simply failing him. It could not offer him what he specifically needed as an individual.
The programme ended leaving me in a state of deep depression, as the school took the view that the best place for the boy was not there but in a type of college that dealt with large numbers of people with that kind of problem. My immediate reaction was that that was about the worst possible decision that could be taken for such a young person. What shocked me was that he seemed overwhelmingly educable and not lacking in any ability to do the right things despite having a form of schizophrenia. Yet the curriculum could not be tailored to his individual needs.
That is an extreme example, but, as we know, schools have many other pupils who need rather more individual treatment than they get. I am not criticising schools or blaming teachers; in a sense, I am blaming the system broadly without knowing quite what we should do. What I am looking for today is some response from my noble friend on the Government's view on flexibility and the interpretation of the curriculum in relation to helping the individual child. Within that, as the Government have rightly placed great emphasis on innovation, will the Government encourage schools not to innovate narrowly but to innovate for young people who have individual needs? I have not used the words special needs because I am

1395
not really talking about special needs. I am talking about individual needs and a child's need for quite individual support. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, much of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said has certainly struck a chord with me. As strict application of the national curriculum does not work for all children in school, flexibility is important. My understanding is that earlier legislation allowed all schools—but perhaps the measure has been overtaken by later legislation—to disapply the national curriculum for particular children.
I visited a special school in the North East which was truly inspirational in everything it was doing. It was applying the national curriculum to many children for whom one would have thought it inappropriate. Such was the erratic nature of other young people's receptiveness to education—they had the types of problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has referred—that the school had to disapply the national curriculum in order to ensure the necessary flexibility to meet their educational needs properly. I am wondering whether that flexibility still exists. If it does, I believe that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, can be met.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is opening the door on what should be a very exciting 20 years. A great deal will come out of the review of the 14 to 19 curriculum. If it works, it will start to offer real flexibility to the kids who are going to be part of it. We can see it beginning already. In my son's school, those who are good at mathematics will take GCSEs a year early and then go on to do an AS-level. They will therefore have pocketed that before reaching sixth-form college and have that ability to move ahead.
The 14 to 19 curriculum will also enable broader undertakings. It may take time, but I hope that we eventually have examination systems and timings that suit pupils and their achievement level, rather than operating as a metronomic schedule by which pupils face examinations at the end of each of the last four years of school. All exams should be rather like music exams, which pupils take when they are ready. It is extremely difficult to get one's head round how schools can be organised and timetabled to do that. However, if we move in that direction, schools will be offered much greater flexibility.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we have to look very carefully at how we measure and restrict schools. Any form of measurement over time tends to affect schools' behaviour, so that they teach to succeed in that measurement rather than simply to teach pupils. I have developed an increasing loathing for the requirement that GCSEs be administered to pupils at 16 and not to pupils in a given year group. That is making it very difficult for kids who are dropping a year behind to find a school that will let them drop a year behind. Such pupils count as part of
1396
the school's statistics but have no results, causing real problems in competitive environments such as London.
It is a particular problem when the system provides a totally arbitrary cut-off date to determine pupils' year placement. One day's difference can put a kid in a different year group. If a kid just makes it into the higher year group but is one half year behind in development, he would be much better in the lower year group. However, that cannot be done, and schools will not do it because of the effect on league table results. That inflexibility has long persisted in league tables, and the matter should really be examined. It is starting to cause regular and idiotic problems. We need to be flexible on such matters and ensure that our way of measuring has an effect.
I shall be fascinated to see the effect of value-added league tables when they are introduced. They offer great potential for broadening people's appreciation of what happens in schools. They will affect the way in which schools teach in relation to measurement, particularly at the end of primary school when every extra point in a pupil's grade is the measure of the primary school's achievement and is essentially subtracted from the secondary school's achievement. There will be much tension in that respect.
We should be flexible in these matters. We should not become attached to rigid measurements. We should always consider what is good for the pupil rather than what is good for the system. I hope that that is the direction in which we move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I should like to echo the words of the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Lucas, that flexibility is a thoroughly good thing. We welcome any flexibility that can be introduced into the national curriculum. That is why we very much welcome the broadening of the concept of earned autonomy—which I think addresses some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We now have a commitment to earned autonomy which is to start in a large number of schools and which is to be rolled out to almost all schools within a five-year period. That is a major achievement on the part of this House in terms of improving the Bill as it has progressed through the House. I am absolutely delighted that we have done so.
The big problem with targets is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned, that when you set up a target there are all kinds of unintended consequences in terms of the way in which people react to it. One does have to be careful about that. Our world is now too dominated by targets—the more we can get rid of, the better.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it will surprise no one to hear that I was not quite sure how to respond to this group of amendments. I wish that we could spend an afternoon debating the issue rather than discussing it as part of the Report stage of a Bill. I believe that we would discover a great deal of common

1397
ground on the matter and have the chance to explore it in greater detail. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that my remarks will he reasonably brief but that does not mean that I would not wish to discuss the issue at far greater length when opportunities present themselves in your Lordships' House and, indeed, in the tearoom.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that we have re-examined all the current possibilities as regards exemption, for example, disapplication. That remains possible and would be used in the way that the noble Baroness described and also in other ways.
Like my noble friend Lord Peston, I am a huge fan of the national curriculum. It has been an important development, particularly as regards ensuring that girls do not follow one set of subjects and boys another, as was the case when I was at school. If for no other reason than that—I could give plenty of other reasons—I remain a fan of the national curriculum. It is important that we are careful about what we do in that area although we wish to retain flexibility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred quite rightly to our discussions on earned autonomy. I have no desire to rehearse those. I entirely agree with her that we have debated at great length part of what my noble friend seeks. I also agree with her that we have improved the Bill in that context.
I should like to spend a few moments talking about the young man to whom my noble friend referred and the need for flexibility in regard to individual children. It is important that we develop the opportunities for all our children to have the education that works best for them. That applies to children whom we classify as gifted and talented, to children who have learning difficulties and to children with an aptitude or a desire to learn based on particular interests and so on. In other words, we educate all our children and take them as far as we possibly can within a broad education that recognises the individual.
As regards the young man who was mentioned, I refer to what I describe as the continuum of education. That involves expertise that might, for example, exist within some of our special schools for children who have particular difficulties and particular problems. That support should he available in special schools, mainstream schools or in a mixture of both to enable children to get the support that they need. I entirely agree with my noble friend that innovation, and the power to innovate that is contained in the Bill, concerns all children. We look to schools to consider innovation in terms of children across the spectrum of ability and of need. Such innovation may affect some children who do not get from the education system what we would wish them to get.
I turn to the specific amendments we are discussing. To begin with Amendments Nos. 114 and 115, the arrangements for assessing pupils at the end of the key stages consist of national tests and teacher assessments. I say to my noble friend Lord Peston that teacher assessment is an essential part of these arrangements and the outcomes of the assessments are reported alongside the test results. The two have equal
1398
status and provide complementary information about children's attainment. While the tests provide the inevitable snapshot of a child's attainment, teacher assessment, carried out as part of teaching and learning, covers the full range and scope of the programmes of study. It is intended to take account of evidence of achievement in a range of contexts, including that gained through discussion and observation. For children working at levels 1 and 2—the lowest national curriculum levels—teacher assessment provides the sole means of statutory assessment. That is an important point.
I believe that there is already a good deal of flexibility in the system. It is for each teacher already to use their professional judgment to determine both the method for assessing and the actual attainment level that each pupil corresponds with.
I know, of course, that there is an argument that national testing in some way reduces the potential for teachers to make their own judgment. I can understand that concern. But we think it is right that in our core subjects and at key points in a child's learning, parents, pupils and teachers should have a national standard against which to measure attainment. I do not believe that that reduces teacher flexibility; rather it complements it by ensuring that consistent standards are applied across the country.
We talk about how many times children are tested. We are discussing with schools how often that is appropriate. As noble Lords will know, there are tests at key stage 1, the results of which are not published, at key stage 2, the results of which are published, at key stage 3 at the age of 14 and at GCSE. Those are the key tests up to the age of 16. I, too, welcome value-added league tables. I am responsible for those within the department. It is important to understand that although they will not provide a solution to everything, they will enable us to determine which schools are genuinely adding value between different stages, which schools do well with children they should do well with in any event, and also to identify schools which may be coasting a little.
I also recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, the 14 to 19 strategy provides real opportunities that we shall have to explore. We need to consider how we measure attainment and how we publish that information. I believe that parents expect to have information and expect to be able to find it. I understand the point that the noble Lord made with regard to flexibility in the matter of testing. I am pleased to tell him that we are considering that matter and ensuring that we keep these matters under constant review.
I now turn to Amendment No. 116. I do not believe that the programmes of study constitute a straitjacket. Teachers are not prevented from covering areas not set down within the programmes of study. As long as the programmes of study are covered, it is for teachers to determine what additional matters and materials they want to introduce into the classroom. And they can tackle the programmes of study at an appropriate pace for children. We are giving schools greater freedom to

1399
accelerate through them if that is what their pupils need. But we do want to be sure—this brings us back to earned autonomy—that any school taking on greater freedom is able to use it well and in the best interests of its pupils.
I hope that at some stage we may have a longer debate on this issue. However, I hope that I have said enough to make my noble friend feel that he is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their extremely interesting contributions. I do not disagree—I do not suppose that any of us do—with the need to estimate averages and totals within schools to assess performance. I simply make the point which I believe that my noble friend the Minister made; namely, that any child should be able to ask—no matter what the score for the school is—what about me as an individual? I apologise to noble Lords because, as was rightly said, we could debate this matter at great length and could spend many hours so doing. However, the trouble is that we do not have many hours to spend on it. The Report stage of the Bill is about the only opportunity that I have had to raise the matter.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in case she did not understand the point—although I am sure that she did—that I am not arguing that the national curriculum should be regarded as inappropriate for some young people. I do not think that she would argue that, either. My point is exactly the reverse: that the national curriculum is appropriate but that it must be applied in different ways for different young people.
Finally, I point out how taken I am with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that it would be much better if we assessed people when it was right for them to be assessed and did not say, "On this day of this month you will be assessed on everything that you do". No sensible business enterprise would run itself that way; why our schools have to do so is completely beyond me. We may discuss that issue on another day when a different Bill is before us.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which have heartened me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 116A:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause—
"FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BEFORE THE FOUNDATION STAGE
The Secretary of State may give or make arrangements for the giving of financial assistance to any parent or other person for or in connection with the education or preparation for school of a child prior to his attaining the "relevant time" as defined in section 77(2)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 121D. I grouped the amendments because they both
1400
deal with the early years, which is a crucial period in a child's development when the brain is being prepared for education.
Dealing with Amendment No. 116A, in her reply to a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister drew attention to the Government's commitment to young children and their parents. She referred to the Government's Sure Start initiatives and the Early Years partnership. As promised, she kindly arranged for me to be briefed on Sure Start and its progress. I was extremely impressed by what I learnt about what Sure Start is doing. It is a multidimensional and holistic programme and there is consultation with parents and professionals. I understand that evaluation is beginning to show some results in the areas in which the programme is working well.
The problem is this: when this phase of the Sure Start programme is rolled out completely in 2004, still only one-third of the nation's children in poverty will be covered by it; two-thirds will not be covered. I say in parenthesis that not all children living in poverty are necessarily in need of support and some children living in rich households may need support. Bearing in mind the huge dividends in terms of physical and emotional health and educational potential, which can be achieved by improving the environment in which a young child grows up during his or her first three years, it is surely extremely short-sighted not to roll out the Sure Start programme more quickly.
If the best way to raise families out of poverty is to bring them into employment, surely investment in the child's early years is doubly important because it enables the mother to go out to work earlier. That is good for the mother and the child.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that she and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State will fight as they have never fought before to persuade the Treasury that investment in the very early years is the best investment that it could possibly make.
I turn to Amendment No. 121D. I can be fairly brief because the Minister wrote to me indicating certain assurances that she is likely to feel able to give from the Dispatch Box. On the basis of those assurances, I should accept that the matter had been sufficiently addressed and would not press the amendment. I shall not delay the House for more than a moment because I set out the details of the case in Committee. For the benefit of anyone who was not in Committee then or who cannot remember the issues, I shall summarise my argument in a couple of sentences.
The Soho Family Centre operates an innovative and highly successful centre in Soho, where a group of childminders care for children in premises that are specially equipped for the purpose and shared between them. Ofsted, which recently took over the inspection of such facilities, decided that the Soho Family Centre falls foul of the law in that technically it does not operate in domestic premises, which is a requirement relating to childminders. It felt that it could not turn a blind eye to that technical infringement (Westminster council had done so for many years), and it seemed probable that the centre would have to close.

1401
My noble friend Lady Howe and I were deeply concerned about that for two reasons. First, it would be a great pity if that important facility were closed down. Secondly, it is an exciting and innovative experiment and it would be a great loss if the formula that it has evolved were lost for ever. Under the arrangements that I hope that Minister will advance, the possibility of expanding the formula that the Soho Family Centre has developed would become a reality. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to discuss the Soho centre. Both of these amendments and those in the following group, which appear in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbourne, should have had my name attached to them. However, I am afraid that a mistake was made and it was omitted.
I turn to the foundation stage. Amendment No. 116A would ensure that educational finance and other resources can be made available in appropriate circumstances even when—this is the point about the very young generation—the child in question who is under three is not at that stage being provided with nursery education, as defined in Clause 77(2). It is about tackling from every angle the "cycle of deprivation", which, as I have said on another occasion during the passage of the Bill, has been with us for generation after generation and for far too long. The purpose is to ensure that helpful intervention with deprived families can begin at that earliest possible moment, so that by the time the child concerned reaches compulsory school age, his or her chances of benefiting fully from the educational process will be considerably enhanced. I hope that the Minister will assure noble Lords that the ethos that lies behind the amendment can be accepted.
As the Minister knows, I have considerable admiration for the initiatives that the Government are already undertaking to tackle family deprivation. I was at the briefing that was given to my noble friend Lord Northbourne. There is very little doubt that those initiatives—early excellence centres, neighbourhood nurseries and Sure Start—will be successful. We are all eagerly awaiting assessment and dissemination of the results. With the Minister herself involved, in co-operation with health and social services, in the delivery of those plans, I have little doubt that the will and the necessary resources to succeed will be there. However, as is so often pointed out in your Lordships' House, Ministers, however good, come and go. I therefore hope that the amendment will make certain, by spelling it out in black and white in the Bill, that the department's resources can be made available in the pursuit of those valuable educational objectives if other current sources of funding, from health and social services departments, are diverted to other priorities.
I turn to the Soho centre. The concern was to ensure beyond doubt that, while more appropriate new legislation is being devised, centres that are similar to that in Soho can continue their valuable work. I shall
1402
not repeat what my noble friend Lord Northbourne said. We saw for ourselves the excellent work that is done for the children and the help, guidance and encouragement that child experts provide to the childminders to improve standards and their qualifications.
The centre has been providing this excellent service in the locality for some time. As we know, it is regarded by many experts as an example of best practice worthy of replication in similar areas where space is at a premium. Frankly, it would be a travesty if the Soho centre were forced to close because of a recent legal interpretation by local authorities that activities conducted on non-domestic premises cannot be defined as "childminding".
Therefore, I hope very much that the Minister can spell out unequivocally that the Soho centre, subject to its continuing work of this very high quality, will be able to continue under its present financial arrangements. If that is so, surely it is unlikely that there will be a need for the amendment to be pursued further.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to support the spirit of both amendments. However, I understand that the Minister may tell us that Clause 13 gives the Government all the powers that they need in order to carry out what the first amendment seeks to achieve.
The House will know that I am very supportive of any measures to—at the risk of being drummed out of the House by the noble Lord, Lord Peston; I know that he hates the phrase—level the playing field. It is most important that we do so, in particular, at the pre-school stage. If the Government ensure that children benefit fully from their education when eventually they reach that stage, that will be a very good investment. Therefore, I call upon the Minister to make available more Sure Start programmes so that all children who could eventually benefit from such services receive them. I also support calls to ensure that the good work of the Soho centre does not have to end.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The noble Baroness sent a very helpful letter to the noble Lord, and I understand that she will place much of it on the record for the purposes of this amendment. However, perhaps the noble Baroness will incorporate in her response the reply to some other questions.
On the first page of the letter is a commitment that the Government will, in principle, support models of childcare, such as the Soho centre model, and address the whole issue of domestic and non-domestic premises. The letter states that,
"we would not want the legal or regulatory framework to prevent the development of such arrangements".
My understanding is that they do so at present.
The second indent in that part of the letter states that,
"the primary legislation does not need to be amended to accommodate such arrangements".

1403
However, on the second page, where the noble Baroness refers to having debated the amendment in Committee, the letter states that she,
"argued that the wording proposed made a fundamental change to the childcare definitions in the Children Act".
Therefore, either it is a fundamental problem or it is not. It seems to me that there is a difference in concept between what is said on the first and second pages of the letter.
It is a silly demarcation arrangement. I do not believe that anyone in this House would say that a way does not need to be found and that, frankly, it needs to be found quickly in order to allow the provision of the Soho Family Centre to continue. The fact that a person working in the Soho Family Centre is technically a childminder should not get in the way.
Therefore, with all the promises that have been made to look again at the regulations, at the definition of "childminder" and at the definitions of "domestic" and "non-domestic" premises, and with all the other reviews that are taking place of the Children Act and of the state of the law as it stands at present, it would be helpful to know whether the Soho Family Centre will be allowed to continue legitimately from this moment with the full blessing of the Government. It would also be helpful to know that there will be no visit from the inspectorate to say that what the centre is doing is contrary to the law.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by addressing Amendment No. 116A. I am very grateful for all the comments made by noble Lords about the Sure Start programme. I shall ensure that those responsible for the programme have sight of those comments in Hansard. I believe it is important to give those people the recognition that they deserve. I agree with every noble Lord who has called for the programme to be extended. I shall talk about that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is absolutely right. Sure Start has been the main route by which we have approached the issues about which the noble Lord has greatest concern. It is a cornerstone of the Government's drive to tackle child poverty and social exclusion. Noble Lords who are not familiar with the programme may like to know that it works with parents-to-be, parents and children to promote the physical, intellectual and social development of babies and children under the age of four, and in particular those who are disadvantaged, so that they can flourish at home and when they get to school. In that way, it breaks the cycle of disadvantage for the current generation of young children.
We set up local Sure Start programmes to improve services for families with children under the age of four. Good practice is spread from local programmes to everyone involved in providing services for young children. In particular, the programmes have been extremely successful in involving parents in managing the scheme. They work closely between the areas of
1404
health, education and social care to enable services to—if I may use the term—"join up" most effectively to support parents and young children.
The success of the programme is measured by looking at the level of reduction in smoking among young mothers, at the birth weight of babies and at practical and measurable outcomes for such children. Evaluation is under way. However, I say to noble Lords who are as keen as I am to see the evaluation that whether or not the programme works will become apparent later when the children are educated. Therefore, although we are looking for measurables now, I am also keen that we look for measurables when the children are older. The proof of its success will be apparent in that.
We wanted 500 programmes to be in place by 2004. By the end of May this year, 522 programmes had been announced. When those 522 programmes are up and running, they will reach 400,000 children under the age of four. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, that includes one-third of children under the age of four who live in poverty in England. I accept absolutely that reaching one-third of children in poverty means that we do not reach two-thirds of those children. As noble Lords will be aware, the vast majority of poor children do not live in deprived areas; they live all over the country in every conceivable kind of community.
We have been considering how to ensure that we have a blueprint within the programme—that is, a mainstreaming programme. In a sense, the mainstreaming of Sure Start is the next big area that we shall develop. It includes looking at what we call the "Mini Sure Start" programme—bolting a Sure Start programme on to Early Years and childcare partnerships work. It also includes looking at the role of integrated centres in childcare, Early Years and Sure Start to provide all the different types of provision that we want. In addition, it means focusing on rural communities. There, we need to examine how we can work closely with families who, due to the nature of rural communities, are spread over a distance. Of course, it also means providing an opportunity for all local authorities which are responsible for social care and education to build on a Sure Start model as part and parcel of what they do.
Therefore, we are looking very seriously at how to roll out what, from the early signs, we consider to be a very successful programme. As noble Lords may be aware, I am chairing the childcare review—the inter-ministerial group—on behalf of the Government. These issues form a large part of the work that we are carrying out as part of that review, and they are being pushed forward to the Comprehensive Spending Review. I hardly need to say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that we consider these issues to be most important.
In terms of Ministers coming and going, I accept that one day I shall be gone. However, I believe that the programme indicates a genuine commitment across government. I know the value that Sure Start has and I know the esteem in which the programme is

1405
held across government. On the steering group relating to the programme are ministerial representatives from many different government departments. They have all expressed their support. Therefore, I believe that the programme is valuable and highly recognised. It is, indeed, a cornerstone of the Government's policy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is right; there is provision for this in Clause 13. We have the power to give financial assistance for the provision of education for pre-school children. That will enable resources to be made available to prepare children for school.
We have taken steps to ensure that the scope of the clause is wide enough to fund the education elements of Sure Start or, indeed, other programmes—this need not refer only to Sure Start but, as I said, Sure Start is important—through the Education Bill. Therefore, there would be no additional benefit gained by the inclusion of the amendment. I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
I turn to Amendment 121D. I am grateful for the comments made by noble Lords who received copies of my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, regarding the provision of childminding facilities at the Soho Family Centre. I have spent a great deal of time considering the issues and am happy to put on the record a few assurances that I hope will be relevant and of benefit to the noble Lord, to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and to other noble Lords.
I confirm that in principle the Soho Family Centre model is an attractive one, particularly for some of our disadvantaged communities. The idea of allowing childminders, whose own homes are unsuitable premises for childcare, to use instead non-domestic premises seems eminently sensible. There is an issue about who would take responsibility for ensuring that the premises are suitable if more than one childminder is involved. However, aside from that, we believe that this is worth careful consideration.
Secondly, I confirm that there is nothing in current primary legislation to prevent this type of childcare being established. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Match, the nature of the wording of the amendment, not the principle behind it, created the problem to which I alluded in my letter. The difficulty at present is that the national standards and associated secondary legislation is not geared towards this kind of day care. However, we have a solution in sight. Given our commitment to review the national standards and related secondary legislation next year, we shall consult, as we always do—it is right and proper that we always consult on such issues—on the standards and shall ensure that the Soho Family Centre is involved in that consultation. It will be important in that review to acknowledge that new forms of childcare are emerging, matching the needs of children, parents and their communities to ensure that the standards are appropriate.
Thirdly, I am keen to ensure that the Soho Family Centre is able to continue its valuable service to the local community without changing the ethos of the
1406
arrangements or making the service too expensive for parents because of the additional training obligations and costs of employing childminders.
I can report that Maggie Smith, Ofsted's Early Years director, visited the Soho Family Centre on 11th June and that a possible way forward has been discussed. I confirm that if the centre proceeds with the suggested approach or a similar day care registration proposal, it will not be closed down by Ofsted, nor will it be forced into a substantial change in its finances or ethos.
The proposed approach is to register the childminding service as group day care provision on the basis of the childminders agreeing to work together as a co-operative. It is clearly important to the centre that they preserve the current ethos. Ofsted colleagues will be working with the centre to achieve that. I understand that the next step is for the centre to produce an action plan by September for discussion with Ofsted.
It has been argued that a change from childminder registration to day care registration could make it impossible for the childminders to remain self-employed. Neither the national standards nor Ofsted would require a change in employment status. I understand that the tax authorities will take into account the facts of the working arrangements rather than any pre-conceived notion that childminders are always self-employed and day care workers are always employed.
We have been in touch with the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership and I can confirm that there are ways in which the transition to day care registration might be supported, both financially and otherwise, in the event that additional costs are incurred.
In conclusion, I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. As I explained, the wider implications of the proposed amendment are far reaching. We want to see a full review. We recognise that when we review the standards under secondary legislation, these will be important issues. Our view is that existing primary legislation allows us to register the kind of service that the Soho Family Centre offers, whether on domestic or non-domestic premises. That includes similar types of provision for people whose domestic circumstances prevent them from being registered as formal childminders.
I undertake that we shall review the national standards and associated legislation next year to ensure that the requirements and framework for childcare regulations are able to accommodate the many different kinds of childcare which parents find valuable, including innovative schemes that do not readily fit the historic patterns of provision.
In the mean time I am confident that we have found a way forward with the centre which means that it will not be forced into radical change which would threaten its viability. I commit that we shall do all that we can to support the centre through any changes which might be necessary in order to maximise the value of the service to the children and parents it serves

1407
and to the local community. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her encouraging reply about the Soho Family Centre. I should like to read the details, but I cannot think that we could have asked for more. I am sure that the various people involved will be pleased. Much more importantly, the opportunity for that kind of venture to be replicated will remain open.
As regards Amendment No. 116A, I am grateful for the assurance given by the Minister that powers exist to make the kind of investment which I had envisaged in Early Years. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I do not believe that Clause 13 provides such powers. I assume that the Minister has some other powers up her sleeve. If the Minister is prepared for somebody to write to me to tell me what they are, I should be grateful. I shall not move Amendment No. 121D. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 116A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 [Curriculum requirements for first, second and third key stages]:
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 116B:
Page 53, line 41, after "citizenship" insert "including the opportunities and responsibilities of parenthood and family life"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 116B concerns preparing young people for parenthood. Citizenship education is about learning to be a good citizen. There is probably no single more important role which a citizen performs in his or her life than bringing up his or her children. Those children are the nation's future.
Until the age of three, the nurture and education of the vast majority of children is the responsibility of their parents. Even when a child reaches full-time education, it will spend approximately only 28 per cent of its waking hours in school. The other 72-odd per cent depends, at least for young children, on the parents.
A large and increasing body of research shows that the social environment in which a child spends its early years is highly significant for that child's physical and emotional health and for his or her future achievement in education and employment. Why, then, is the role of being a parent—arguably the most important job that most of us will ever do in our lives—the only job for which we offer young people no preparation? A significant minority of children today come to the important job of parenting without the slightest idea of how to tackle it. Sadly, a number have had no experience of appropriate parenting or of a happy, supportive family life.
Many of us hoped that the Government would take advantage of the introduction of the new citizenship curriculum to confirm and endorse the role of schools in preparing young people for the job of parenthood in
1408
future. I confess that schools may not be the ideal place to do that job, but if it is not done in schools, where else will it be done?
In 1997 the Gulbenkian Foundation published a report of an important experiment in parenting education which took place in five schools in Manchester and was carried out by Phil Hope, who has since become a Member of Parliament in another place. A non-stigmatising, non-judgmental scheme of work was developed. It was a great success and was much appreciated by the pupils.
In 2000, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority carried out a survey of children to find out what they wanted from the curriculum. The answer came back that among other things they wanted help with financial affairs and managing money, and the opportunity to consider the implications of parenthood in future.
In 2001 Ofsted produced a report—a rather dashing red report—entitled Sex and Relationship Education in Schools, which urged that education in preparation for parenthood should be a mandatory subject in schools. The object of education for parenthood is not to lecture children about some magic way of being a perfect parent, but to give them help to do what they want to do, which is to give their future children the best start in life that they can.
The programme of parenting education is not about stigmatising teenage mothers, single parents or any other group; nor is it about any single right way of being a parent. It is, quite simply, about helping young people to have the confidence to do what they want to do—that is, to do the best that they can for their children. There is plenty of evidence that that is possible.
Under those circumstances, I am sorry to have to report that the Department for Education and Skills' scheme for the study of the citizenship curriculum at no point mentions parents or preparation for parenthood. The scheme specifically refers to responsibilities in the workplace and in the community but not to those of parenthood. I ask the Minister specifically: why are future citizens' responsibilities in the workplace more important than their responsibility for raising the next generation of the nation's children?
Even in the non-mandatory framework for the PSHE curriculum, there is no mention of preparation for parenthood. There is a mention of marriage and several of relationships. They are both important, but they are only a small part of the parenthood subject. Do the Government really believe that preparation for parenthood is so unimportant that it should be left out even of the non-mandatory PSHE framework?
There is ample good material and experience available to show how this subject can be taught effectively. The department have kindly sent me about 2.5 kilos of material on the subject. That material is prepared by voluntary organisations. It is very good, but it will not carry the same weight with schools as a

1409
statutory curriculum or a statutory framework. In an overcrowded curriculum it will get edged out—let us be realistic—or it will get put in the "too difficult" tray.
The single most effective way that the Government could overcome the current problems in schools—disruption in the classroom, violence, opting out of learning, exclusion and teacher shortages, the ways in which society fails the 20 per cent of children in school referred to the other day by the noble Lord. Lord Dearing—would be to improve the environment in which disadvantaged young children grow up in a small minority of the nation's homes. That means helping and encouraging parents.
I ask the question: why are the Government not prepared to start helping prospective parents while they are still at school? I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne said. I have an interest to declare. I am heavily involved in a charity called Safeground, which is working with the DfES and the Prison Service to produce an extensive education pack for prisoners on parenting. It received a very good review from NFER in its evaluation. It is immensely popular with the prisoners because these young men know how much they are missing. They can see what has gone wrong but they do not know what to do to get it right. They are desperate that their own children should not suffer from the kind of deprivation which lies in so many in their backgrounds.
However, for 25 year-old men in prison it is leaving it a bit late. If those men had been given a taste of the enjoyment that can be derived from bringing up a family and had been taught how to develop and enjoy a relationship with their children, it would not only have enriched them enormously and perhaps provided them with a considerable motivation not to end up in prison, but it would have given their own children a much better start in life in the time that they were with their fathers before they went to prison. Surely that must be a crucially important thing to do. If one recognises the value of doing that with prisoners, one can surely recognise the value of providing that opportunity much earlier in schools.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the relative importance of relationships in the family and at work. If one makes a mess of relationships at work one goes and gets another job. I suspect that that has happened to many of us. But with families one gets one chance. If one gets it wrong, one leaves other people behind in a great deal of pain and distress. It is much more important to talk about families than to talk about work. I hope that the Government will make a change and align their priorities with those of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I also support everything that my noble friend Lord Northbourne has said on the subject. It is crucial, not only for young
1410
people who come from deprived areas but for everyone, that proper attention is paid at an early enough age to the important responsibilities, as well as opportunities and joys, that parenthood can bring. Frankly, that applies whether the subject of citizenship is taught as a discrete subject or absorbed into other curriculum subjects by the school concerned.
I, too, thank the Minister for the several tonnes of material that have been sent. It helped to give one an idea of the range of issues that were intended to be covered by the course of citizenship which becomes compulsory from September. I am reassured that, in several of the areas where I had concerns, the course contents—depending on the age or key stage when they are taught—-deal with contemporary issues, some of them in a very realistic and helpful way. For example, the media literacy content—a crucial subject in today's world, and one for which Ofcom, I note, is also to have responsibility for imparting to adult citizens—is designed, rightly, to instil a proper degree of scepticism in young people as to the motives behind the message or the image being communicated.
Tolerance—and, indeed, more than that, an interest in and respect for other people's views, cultures and religious beliefs or lack of them—is also of paramount importance for the hugely multicultural world in which we live. When one thinks that in London alone no less than 300 different languages are spoken, the value of discussing those issues is clear.
However, alas, as my noble friend Lord Northbourne has pointed out, little attention is placed on the crucial responsibilities and duties, as well as delights, of becoming a parent, which most young people are almost certain to become in their turn. I am for encouraging young people "to do what they want to do", as my noble friend said, but they also have duties and responsibilities to the community in ensuring, for example, that their children go to school and take advantage of education to fit them for the adult world.
Equally, parental duties apply to both sexes— to boys as dads at least as much as to girls as mothers. Although I am reassured to see that the whole issue of equal opportunities and the changing role of women at work is also covered in the curriculum. I am less sure that there is enough emphasis on the need to share duties at home more fairly than in the past, and especially that there is not enough emphasis on parental duties and responsibilities.
With your Lordships' indulgence, I should like to make one last point on the subject. Although it will be September before the citizenship course begins, I very much hope that there are plans in place to monitor what happens and how the course is received. Feedback will be essential in learning how pupils are reacting to the course and also in learning lessons from those schools which are particularly successful in getting these important messages across. There can be nothing more important in today's world than

1411
ensuring the best possible way of fitting young people for the very complicated world into which they will emerge as adults.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I support the amendments and agree with noble Lords who said that parenting was probably the most important job that we would ever do. Unfortunately, none of us ever does it right. Even those of us, like myself, who were set a good example of how to do it by our parents, look back on the way in which we brought up our children and know that we made mistakes. I had a relatively privileged background and was set an excellent example, but I made mistakes. How much more important is it that we help young people who have not been set such a good example by their parents to learn how to avoid replicating problems in every generation?
We know that, like problems such as sexual or physical abuse, bad parenting replicates itself in every generation. Efforts to ensure that young people are prepared for the difficulties of parenting and are armed with strategies to help them to bring up their children well represent a good investment. I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us how it will be done. I cannot believe that she will not tell us, in some form or other, that the opportunity offered by the citizenship curriculum and by the possible development of the personal and social education curriculum will not be grasped. We know that good parenting is important, and we must not replicate the problems.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I support what was said by my noble friends Lord Northbourne and Lady Howe of Idlicote and by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I have not come across it in prisons, but in young offenders institutions. A high proportion—about 60 per cent—of people in young offenders institutions have had a bad domestic experience. Some of them have talked to me about their confusion and about how they had never learnt how better to carry out the job of parenting. How would they, as 16 and 17 year-olds, learn to do it when they got out?
I support the spirit of the amendment. However, the face of the Bill is not the right place in which to realise the aim of the amendment. It would be better to change the DfES document that defines citizenship to extend it beyond the workplace to that highly important area, the home.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I come at this from a slightly different angle. It is impossible ever to argue against the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. His concern about these matters is second to none, and we all want to think that we could, by some means, achieve what the noble Lord wants to achieve.
I shall repeat a point that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I have made many times. There are many children—a growing number—for whom school is the only anchor in their life. Home is not an anchor, and their domestic situation is often chaotic. There is a problem. As a Home Office Minister, I met young
1412
people in probation centres or—worse—prison cells and could see the opportunities that they had lost so early in their life. I can remember at least one White Paper that identified all the signs, from disruption of classes by small children through to pupils dropping out of secondary school and standing around on street corners, getting involved in petty crime and, then, more serious crime. At the time, it was called the classroom-to-the-prison-cell syndrome, and it was common.
I am concerned at the way in which the curriculum works. Once a subject has been declared to be either a core subject or a foundation subject, civil servants or others are set to work to determine programmes of study, taking a view about what must be taught and what must be included. They will have something to say about the methodology and more to say about assessment and examination. That is where there is a difficulty.
There are strong feelings about whether teachers should be judgmental about lifestyles. Some people ask whether we should expect teachers to preach about desirable forms of behaviour and about right and wrong. I have some fairly old-fashioned views about that, and I have been shot down in flames in the Chamber many times for being rather narrow and prissy about such things. However, to say that a particular approach shall be the way for all children in all schools and that teachers will teach such programmes of study would be to create a practical problem of delivery. What will be the state's view—for we are talking about state education—of family life and the responsibilities of parenting? I do not know the answer to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, said that the Bill was, perhaps, the wrong place for the change. If that is so, it might be that the work could be left to a combination of voluntary bodies. In the prisons, there are some wonderful organisations—the Society of Voluntary Associates is one— that work to bring order to the chaos in people's lives.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I am concerned about citizenship, for many of the reasons for which I am concerned about family responsibilities and parenting. I have no concerns about the objective, but I have real concerns about practical deliverability.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with, I think, every noble Lord who has spoken. The most important job that one does in life is being a parent. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we do it knowing that we will make mistakes. Indeed, our children will remind us of those mistakes—frequently, in my experience. It is an important area.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that our children grow up in a complicated world. It seems to me that it becomes more complicated every year, which may be a sign of my age. All noble Lords recognise the importance of ensuring that we offer our young people the opportunity to learn as much as they can about their responsibilities.

1413
Many children get their knowledge and information from watching their parents, and they will do well by that, whatever mistakes they may continue to make.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in particular, that there are many ways and many opportunities to talk to people about parenting. I understand and agree with the focus on our young people, but I think that it is important that, wherever we can, we work with people of all ages to improve and enhance their parenting abilities. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work that lie does. It is also a fundamental part of the Sure Start programme, which helps parents-to-be to become better parents and supports, in particular, those who live in disadvantaged areas, not because they are worse parents, but because they face more difficulties. Parenting orders are useful when children are out of control and parents need guidance and support. We are dealing with many areas of life, about which we are of one mind. We want people to be good parents, whatever definition of "good" we use, and we want to support them.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the 2.5 kilograms of material that we sent to him, and for the 2.5 tonnes that we sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. However, it is important to ensure that we provide as much information as possible and that everyone knows how much there is.
I take issue with one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said about the role of the voluntary sector. I am a huge fan of the voluntary sector's work in many areas—as, I know, are the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and other noble Lords. The voluntary sector plays a crucial role in providing material to many different organisations and institutions, including schools. We should credit it for the work that it does. We as a department—I am sure that this applied to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, during her time at the department—support organisations that can provide information to schools, as well as doing it ourselves. We are not always the best people to do that. It is important to make that clear.
I shall take the two amendments together. It is important that we give pupils opportunities to learn about responsibilities, whether moral, social, parental or as citizens. That is central to citizenship education at key stages 3 and 4. We set out the statutory requirements for the subject and the programme for study, which is based on the order that we laid on 23rd June 2000, will ensure that from September, pupils will learn about the rights and responsibilities that underpin society. They build on current provision for key stages 1, 2 and 3, so that pupils can consolidate their learning.
As at key stage 3, pupils at key stage 4 will continue to learn about responsibility, which includes parental responsibility, as a tangible, everyday concept. That will complement the framework for personal, social and health education. Perhaps I may give your Lordships some examples of that provision. It provides for pupils to be taught at key stage 2 about the different types of relationships, including marriage and those between friends and families, and to develop
1414
the skills to be effective in relationships. At key stage 3, it teaches about the roles and feelings of parents and carers and the value of family life, and at key stage 4 about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children, as well as the role and responsibilities of a parent, the qualities of good parenting and its value to family life.
The citizenship programme encourages teaching through discussion of issues of national relevance—such as teenage pregnancy—in greater depth, and learning about individual and parental responsibilities as well as public interest issues. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that that understanding is vital if our young people are to fulfil their social responsibilities as adults and as parents.
As noble Lords will be aware, the role of the national curriculum is to set the broad framework that helps schools to provide a broad and balanced education for all pupils. The Government believe that preparing young people for the role and responsibilities of family life is just as important as preparing them for civic responsibility in the workplace or the wider community. We should not, however, expect schools to usurp parental responsibility in the home. Parents are for most children the principal providers of guidance about parenting and family life.
So we believe that the programmes of study for citizenship at key stages 3 and 4 are the right places to define the scope of teaching. Noble Lords may want to note a specific example in the schemes of work sent to all secondary schools in which, while exploring the concept of rights and responsibilities, pupils are encouraged to identify what kinds of roles they will have—for example, a family member or community member—and what rights, responsibilities and skills will be useful to them as they take on those roles.
We want schools to have the freedom to explore with young people a broad range of issues about which we would all want them to behave responsibly as adults. Alongside the PSHE framework, pupils are already being taught about the opportunities and responsibilities of parenthood and family life. We attach great importance to that, and to ensuring that at every other opportunity we can work with young people—and older people—for whom parenting issues are crucial. That is why there is provision for schools within citizenship to be able to teach about social and moral responsibility. We shall continue to monitor what is happening.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for raising the issue. If nothing else, it has made me consider and reflect as the Minister responsible for those programmes. I undertake to endeavour to consider those issues during the corning months and to talk further with the noble Lord. No doubt we shall have the opportunity further to explore the issue. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord is reassured and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that when we have time, I shall have to give her a little education about the nature of parenting courses. It is simply an illusion to think that a well designed parenting course lays down values; it is about discussing values. It lays down facts. For example, a child would probably be taught as a fact that a baby that is constantly hit develops certain characteristics that make it violent. That is a scientific fact. But when it comes to what we do about that and what people want to do about that, young people are encouraged to work out and discuss their solutions, which are often extremely intelligent and sensible. As I said, it is not about trying to dictate a perfect way of parenting because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, no such thing exists.
Turning to the Minister, I thank her very much for such encouraging and helpful remarks. But when I read the framework, it did not read like that. It simply did not say that. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could arrange for someone to show me where she finds what she described in the literature, because it sounded great. But that is not what I read in the statutory framework.
I agree that voluntary bodies have an extremely important role to play. I further agree that it is extremely important to address those issues at all ages. But the long and short of it is that school is the only time when we have the children there, except possibly in the ante-natal clinic. It must be right to make use of that opportunity to begin to encourage them to think about those issues. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 [Curriculum requirements fir fourth key stage]:
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarvemoved Amendment No. 117:
Page 54, line 18, at end insert "and
(d) a modern foreign language"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move this amendment to Clause 81(3), I shall speak also to Amendment No. 118 to Clause 81(2). The aim of the amendments is to ensure that the status of modern foreign language study in secondary schools for 14 to 16 year-olds is not demoted. Neither amendment is intended to insist that one size fits all. Under Clause 82, it would still remain open to the Secretary of State to amend or waive those requirements. There is no Procrustean bed here.
The intention to demote the teaching of language is much more explicitly revealed in the Green Paper on 14 to 19 education published this February. It sets out aspirations that many noble Lords will share, but its proposals for the teaching of modern foreign languages are badly matched with those aspirations. There is increasing evidence of how bad is that match. The unintended consequences of the proposal to reduce the status of modern foreign language study for
1416
14 to 16 year-olds, leaving only 11 to 14 as compulsory years, would inflict widespread educational damage, especially to children whose schools do not have the highest academic aspirations.
There is some safety in trying to ensure that the modern foreign language remains part of the core curriculum at key stage 4 with, as at present, a system for exempting individual pupils for whom further language study would not be feasible or educationally advantageous. Languages are not only part of a broad and balanced education, they are vocationally important in many different walks of life. They are not the preserve of an élite; they are something that every child deserves and that many will need in their future employment.
Undoubtedly, we need to teach languages better. There is no dispute on that point, but stopping teaching them will not contribute towards that end. Unfortunately, since the publication of the Green Paper on 14 to 19 education, things have moved rapidly in the languages teaching world—rapidly downhill. I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the Nuffield Foundation, which has sponsored work on language teaching and a report on which we had a debate on a previous occasion. We have in consequence been in receipt of many comments from language teachers, head teachers and LEAs on some of the changes now taking place.
Let us have no illusions. UK language performance was already in deep trouble before the 14–19 Green Paper was published. That has nothing to do with the special status of being an English-speaking country. Let us make a comparison with the other English-speaking country in the European Union, the Republic of Ireland. More Irish than British schoolchildren take languages to school-leaving level, although the Republic's population is about one-fifteenth of the UK population, perhaps one-twelfth of the English population. I am talking about numbers, not percentages.
In 1999 in the UK 21,333 pupils took French at A-level, and 9,677 took German. In the same year in the Republic of Ireland, 36,871 pupils took French at leaving-certificate level and 10,828 took German. Since schools became aware that language teaching might be demoted to optional status at age 14, some schools have jumped the gun. One northern comprehensive with an almost entirely working-class intake has decided not to take student teachers next year because the head has already decided to make languages optional for year 10 pupils from September 2002.
Previously, all pupils at that school took a language up to GSCE, barring a handful who were disapplied in a proper way under the provisions. Next year, out of a group of 300, 10 have opted for French and 16 for German; a total of 26 out of 300 pupils. One wonders for how long a school in that situation will continue to offer both French and German.
The planning blight is galloping. It may surprise your Lordships that the decision to make languages optional was taken by the school before the

1417
consultation on the 14–19 Green Paper was complete; indeed, it had hardly begun. That was possible because the head of the curriculum division of the Department for Education and Skills issued guidance to schools on 18th February under Section 363 of the Education Act 1996, stating that while,
"it will not be possible for changes to the national curriculum to take effect until August 2004"—
—that is, after the Bill's passage; nevertheless,
"disapplication should no longer be considered exceptional provision".
It smacks of cynicism to make arrangements that undermine a subject while consultation about its reduction is in progress. What will be done if the consultation reveals strong and widespread opposition to the proposal? Will the replies to the consultation be made public? Will the damage already being done to language learning in schools and universities—including teacher—training—be systematically monitored?
As we debate, the basis of opportunity for young people in England to learn any modern language is shrinking. Fewer pupils will proceed to GSCE, A-level and university. University language departments are being closed with monotonous regularity. Hardly a week goes by without a further degree scheme falling. Fewer teachers are training and entering schools, and so on in a vicious downward spiral.
None of that is necessary, and much is damaging. Above all, it damages the employment opportunities of young people educated in England. All around us, marketing and banking, airports and hotels, call centres and the legal profession, secretarial agencies and, yes, government service, need to recruit staff with language competencies. They recruit from those who were not educated in this country. Yet our young people are not given the basic competencies to enable them to work in Frankfurt or Milan.
In boom times, as we remain, that may leave people educated in the UK with sufficient opportunities, although fewer than their counterparts in other European countries. But what is to happen if the boom times end and employment levels here are less robust than in some other countries of the European Union? Young people deserve a broad, balanced education that supports and does not undermine their employment prospects. The amendment seeks to safeguard that aim. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I support the amendment. I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that when the national curriculum was introduced in 1988 one of its goals was to have common breadth—an unrealistic common breadth, we may say in retrospect—with 10 compulsory subjects. What a long way we have retreated from 1988 to Clause 81, where that common core is reduced to three.
The glaring omission which the amendment seeks to redress puzzles me in view of the Government's record on foreign language teaching. Under the Prime Minister's enthusiastic leadership, the Government
1418
have up to now strongly encouraged foreign language learning. I welcome the growth in specialist language colleges—a project with which I was associated in its early years—and the promise of "entitlement" to a foreign language at primary level at some time in the future, whatever "entitlement" will actually mean in practice.
Clause 81 seems a perversely retrograde step that is out of kilter with the general thrust of government policy and indeed perversely widens the gap between public sector schooling and the private sector, where foreign languages will not be downgraded in this way.
Of course it is easy to imagine reasons behind the Government's narrowing of the core. For example, modern language teachers are in short supply, as are those of other subjects in the core curriculum, such as science and mathematics, But EU ambassadors, under the lead of Herr von Ploetz of Germany, have assured us of help with modern language teachers. In any case, the teacher shortage—as my noble friend Lady O'Neill indicated—will be aggravated by falling numbers, which Clause 81 will guarantee; falling numbers at GSCE, A-level and undergraduate level.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, is not in her place, but Universities UK has expressed concern, as the Minister will know, at the bad effect Clause 81 is having through the closure of university language departments.
Yet another reason is the perceived lack of motivation by pupils in anglophone schools to learn a foreign language, given the grossly exaggerated belief that everyone speaks English. Ninety per cent of the world's population do not speak or understand English; a fact that seems to be fully recognised at least by the only other anglophone country in the EU, as my noble friend Lady O'Neill mentioned. In the Republic of Ireland, in proportion to our respective populations, 10 times as many pupils take school-leaving examinations at the age of 17 in German, and 20 times as many in French.
Successive Secretaries of State have rightly deplored the culture of low aspiration that pervades our secondary schools while the present narrow core in Clause 81 moves in the direction of lowering children's aspirations still further. The none-too-obscure subtext tells schools, teachers and pupils alike, "Don't even think of aspiring to the levels accepted without hesitation in the schools of Italy, France, Germany and the Republic of Ireland. While they all expect their pupils to master two foreign languages, don't you even bother to master one foreign language". That modest goal was incorporated in 1988 in the national curriculum, but 14 years on we realise that it is beyond our capability.
What a depressing and defeatist message to come from a Government pledged to improve our educational achievements and, as with health services, to bring the service up to the standards expected in the rest of the EU and widely beyond! There are to be just three years of statutory provision to have one foreign language, with the open invitation to neglect and then

1419
drop it; an invitation which, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, says, has already been taken on board by many secondary schools in this country.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I want to say a few words in support of the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, who has done so much in this House to harry the Government about this lamentable subject.
I should declare an interest, although not a financial one, as I am president of the Franco-British Society and a former member of the Franco-British Council. The result of the picture painted by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord is most evident if one travels in France. It is unusual to see British tourists able to book a hotel room or order a meal in a restaurant in any language other than English. Many British people now go to France to live and many of them are unable to speak the language. That is not good from Franco-British relations as it causes misunderstanding.
The cultural side has not been touched on today. I think in particular of French literature, which suffers badly in translation, especially in poetry which is virtually untranslatable. An example of the decline would be in publishing. Only 40 years ago in English biographies of French authors all the quotations were given in French. At present, I suppose at the insistence of the publishers with an eye to sales, all quotations have to be given in English translation—and very flat they sound in the case of poetry. One sometimes begins to wonder what all the fuss is about.
Why cannot we provide in our schools the kind of modern language teaching which our European partners provide? Why does it have to be left to the private sector? Would it not be better to spend a little more money as they do in Europe? Why cannot we make more effort to encourage more modern language teachers from abroad to come and work here? There was a French teacher in my school and I have always been grateful to him. Why cannot we encourage retired teachers to return to teaching part-time, especially qualified language teachers?
I hope that the two amendments, which I warmly support, will be accepted by the Government.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I never want to see anyone who taught me French coming out of retirement! I loathed learning French and have always been bad at languages. That is ridiculous because in countries where people have to learn more than two languages everyone does so without any trouble at all. It is ridiculous that we find ourselves in this situation and there is much that we could and should be doing about it and I very much hope that the noble Baroness will tell us many of the things we are intending to do about it. In particular, we should begin learning languages in primary school—it should be second nature to all of us.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, perhaps noble Lords will put themselves in the shoes of the pupils in the comprehensive in the North East.
1420
What do they have to gain from learning a language? They are being asked to learn a pretty turgid curriculum which is of little relevance to anyone who expects their life to be centred in the North East of England. I very much doubt whether any of the careers staff have ever thought of suggesting or talking to pupils about jobs in France or Germany—and why not?
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may give him the following example. An airport in the North East is recruiting ground staff in Spain and Scandinavia because no local school leavers have the elementary language skills needed to make announcements. Language learning is not irrelevant to the employment of people who are not going on to higher education. That is one of countless examples.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, but in that case perhaps we should look at the curriculum to see whether what we are including for GCSE languages has any relevance to that kind of career. From what I have seen of what my children are doing, I see nothing of relevance. From the position of those pupils, I can imagine wanting to drop languages because what I was being asked to learn was entirely boring. At age 14, you do not focus on the idea of your career as being part of a local airport ground staff.
It is necessary that effort is made in other directions, particularly by the careers departments and services at an early stage to make pupils aware of the difference it will make to have a foreign language. If we are to move to a baccalaureate system, which I would like to see, a language ought to be part of that. It should he recognised by those considering going on to higher education that they must take a language with them; that that would be part of what they were expected to bring as a portfolio into the future.
There is much that we can do other than what is proposed in the amendment. My wishes would he to go in exactly the opposite direction; to take mathematics and science out of level A because if you are not going into a career which needs mathematics or science, you have studied almost everything you need by the age of 14. Apart from in my degree, I have not in ordinary life used any mathematics that I had not learnt by the age of 14. I enjoy science, but the science knowledge that I need in everyday life I had probably learnt by the time I was 12.
The point of slimming down the core curriculum is to give us the opportunity to broaden and diversify, and to ensure that what is in the middle is the stuff that needs to be there. I believe that these subjects belong where they are going to be—that is, at the second level—but that is against the background of us as a nation needing to be 10 times better at languages. However, I do not believe that the amendment is the way to achieve that.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we had a lengthy discussion on some of these issues in Committee. We then agreed that there was little

1421
difference between core and foundation subjects. Indeed, under Clause 80 modern languages is not one of the core subjects; it is one of the foundation subjects.
I understand that foundation subjects must be part of the curriculum. In terms of key stage 4, Clause 81 provides that modern foreign languages shall be a compulsory part of the curriculum. The issue which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, rightly raised is that under Clause 82 we are moving forward to the 14–19 proposals and the consultation paper raises the possibility of people dropping modern foreign languages more easily than they can under the current disapplication procedures, which are limited. Those schools which are jumping the gun should not be doing so. I hope that they will be duly reprimanded.
I endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, about the teaching of modern foreign languages. The Minister has been leading up to the task force. I hope that she will speak positively about the teaching of languages. The example of Ireland puts us totally to shame. It is appalling that a country with only 2.5 million people is putting more people through French than this country with almost 60 million people. It is vitally important that we do something to regenerate and revive the teaching of modern foreign languages in this country.
7 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 which would put a modern foreign language back into the core curriculum. Sadly, I follow the view of my noble friend Lady O'Neill and others that the present situation as regards language teaching is deeply worrying. The Cambridge Language Centre points to the Government's own Green Paper and sets out the sorry state about which we have already heard: the shortage of modern language teachers; A-level entries down from 1991–92 and so on. The clear urgency for dramatic improvements is there for all to see.
Does the DfES's own paper on language learning provide an answer to this problem? I am sorry to say that in my judgment it does so hardly at all. As is so often the case—one finds this at its worst in election manifestos—it is strong on rhetoric, ambitions, aspirations, challenges, "we wants" and "will be" as though defining a need or expressing a desire is the equivalent of providing a solution.
Frankly, the situation calls for drastic and immediate measures if it is not to deteriorate. It is already deteriorating fast. I must emphasise again ghat in language learning it will be 10 years on, 2012, before long-term plans are fully operational for primary school pupils, rightly identified by a number of people as the key time at which to start language learning. Noble Lords will note that at that stage, they will be entitled to learn a foreign language, not automatically taught one.
In reply, can the Minister give your Lordships some idea of government thinking and a real action plan for the long and short term. For example, are the Government likely to follow up some of the helpful
1422
suggestions put forward by the retiring German ambassador, Dr von Ploetz, and a number of his EU colleagues? It is suggested that the UK embarks on an urgent programme to recruit language teachers from abroad. He is concerned, as I suggest we all should be, that with the use of modern methods, using the Internet and so on, school exchanges with other countries will become increasingly problematical with British pupils unable to communicate in any meaningful way in the language of their opposite numbers while—surprise, surprise—foreign pupils at the other end will be only too happy to practise their English.
Of even more significance—an important example was given by my noble friend Lady O'Neill—he points to the statistics. One in 10 companies is currently losing contracts because of their workers' inability to speak a language. It is not alarmist to say that by continuing along this complaisant path we put our own citizens at a considerable disadvantage in today's increasingly global job market. And, alas, government policies do nothing to correct that sharp downward trend. On the contrary—it is the nub of the amendment—the Cambridge Language Centre puts it this way:
"The Government damages its own ambition, and is defeating its own purposes. It does so by reversing today's promises of languages up to 16 and by not maintaining modern foreign languages with the 14–16 core subjects alongside English".
What is absolutely clear is the result. Again, we have heard plenty of examples. However, it is spelt out explicitly in the response from the Nuffield Languages Programme. Paragraph 4.1 says that,
"there is ample evidence that removing languages from the core curriculum would lead to an immediate and substantial fall in the number of young people learning a language after the age of 14".
Indeed, to make matters even worse, as my noble friend Lady O'Neill pointed out, the Government are not just anticipating but accelerating that process by jumping the gun. It strikes me, too, as cynical that even before the consultation period had been completed, let alone the Bill passed, the Government are steaming ahead with these damaging proposals, thereby increasing the divisiveness of the present system.
There is already in existence a system of so-called "disapplication" which enables children who are unsuited to be exited from the language programme. So why is there need for that system to be extended and accelerated, particularly when it is clear that virtually every independent school will continue to teach foreign languages as part of the basic curriculum? Not simply Ireland, but all European countries will be doing the same. That is hardly the best way to encourage "inclusiveness" in this country which is one of the Government's major objectives. It is in order to prevent those consequences that I fully support the two amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I add my support for the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, who makes the case for all of us who believe that it is an important subject.
What is more disturbing is the way in which the department has jumped the gun. To issue guidance from the department during the consultation period

1423
regarding flexibility about the application of language teaching in secondary schools seems questionable. It would be helpful to have some comment on that.
I touch on an aspect of language teaching which has not been raised. I take issue with my noble friend because I know the North East very well. As Minister I had responsibility for a part of the North East, Teesside, for a very long time, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, knows. One of the features of teaching languages to young people, in particular those who are not particularly academic—the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, referred to young people who are not necessarily high flying academics—is that it increases confidence enormously. There is something about language teaching which enables young people to feel more confident about themselves. It is not the same as the more traditional subjects that they expect to be taught in schools. There is a benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who is not in her place, referred to core and foundation subjects. One distinction is that the core subjects are always full subjects. They are never half subjects as foundation subjects can be. They are also assessed throughout the key stages. Where it applies in a key stage, a core subject is assessed, in many cases formally tested, and that information is made public. It is public information at key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, they are different. One will see the foundation subjects in the secondary curriculum, in particular the post-14 part of the secondary curriculum. But some of the subjects are half subjects and sometimes there is even flexibility about whether they should be applied. As I have said, there is a difference here. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, seeks to make the teaching of modern foreign languages more secure in the curriculum than would be the case if it is left as a foundation subject.
I referred to the deputy head of curriculum in the department and said that he was "jumping the gun". It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could explain why a missive has been sent from the department allowing the subject to be disapplied not only in exceptional circumstances, but presumably at the whim of a school. We know that some schools have already disapplied it. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, referred specifically to one school. I suggest that that is by no means an isolated case; rather it is increasingly the experience in our schools.
The figures comparing Ireland and this country are terrifying. It is the first time that I have heard about them. When we consider the percentage of the respective populations, they are worrying. However, as our world becomes ever more global and job opportunities become available between continents rather than simply between countries, if we are to equip effectively our children for the 21st century—whether or not we enter the European Community—then we ought to eliminate as many barriers as possible. Opportunities need to be increased. I give the amendment my full support.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall begin my remarks by confirming for the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, that since 1988 there have been three core subjects in the national curriculum. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, Clause 81 will reenact without change the existing provisions for key stage 4. Just like core subjects, foundation subjects are compulsory.
As chair of the languages strategy group, I wish to pay full tribute to the Nuffield Foundation which forms a core element of the group. I could speak to noble Lords for a good hour or so on this subject; indeed, it deserves that length of time. However, I am also conscious that we are considering the Bill on Report and that I shall be keeping noble Lords in the Chamber for several more hours to ensure that we finish this stage of our deliberations.
As I said to my noble friend Lord Peston, I shall frame my remarks in a way that I hope will answer some of the key questions that have been put to me, but which will not be taken by noble Lords to mean anything other than a desire to address the amendment as tabled and still allow noble Lords sufficient time to debate all the other amendments.
Perhaps I may confirm that when in the autumn the languages group publishes the languages strategy, I trust that we shall then have an opportunity to debate these issues at far greater length.
As I have already mentioned, Clause 81 re-enacts the provisions of Section 354 of the Education Act 1996 in relation to key stage 4 only. We seek here to develop our ideas on the 14 to 19 curriculum. I should make it clear that we have only just finished consulting on the proposals set out in the 14 to 19 Green Paper and that we are not yet in a position to take any decisions on this. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to alter the requirements of the curriculum at this stage.
It is also worth making the point that, so far as the Government are concerned, schools are required to teach the curriculum as it stands. This Bill re-enacts the curriculum. A school cannot disapply the entire year. The only disapplication that is allowed is the disapplication that is currently in existence. Several noble Lords have referred to specific schools which have, so to speak, "jumped the gun". I should be delighted to be told the details of those schools so that we can look into it. No decision has yet been taken. So far we have put forward proposals. Letters have been written in support of retaining modern foreign languages as a compulsory subject, and letters have arrived in support of the Government's initial proposals. Those responses are being looked at and we shall make the relevant statements at the right time. However, we are not yet in a position to do so in terms of this part of the Education Bill.
We are in the business of creating within key stage 4 the opportunity for greater flexibility. That is from where the proposals in the Green Paper arose. One interesting element is that, for the first time, we now find ourselves moving towards a national languages

1425
strategy. I do not believe that we have ever had such a strategy in the past. To that end, I take issue slightly with the tone of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in her remarks.
When previously we debated the question of modern foreign languages in your Lordships' House, I believe that no fewer than 11 languages were proposed by noble Lords as being the most important languages to be studied. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was absolutely right to comment that we live in a global economy. In today's world it is no longer enough simply to say, "We shall offer one language to all children and that will have to suffice". We want to find a way forward. To that end we are looking at the model from Ireland.
We want to develop a languages strategy for all our citizens. Within that strategy we have made it clear that our focus will be on primary school age children. Any noble Lord who has studied foreign languages will know that the earlier children begin to learn a language, the more likely they are to continue with that language and to be able to learn other languages. In itself, language learning is a skill that we want to ensure our children command.
We want to recognise the global economy. We should also recognise that some of our children are bilingual, trilingual and multilingual. That is perceived in the main as a problem rather than as something to he celebrated.
We are working very closely with the Nuffield Foundation to establish a system of language grading similar to the grading system used in music. Such a system would enable any language to be accredited. Thus when people apply for a job requiring language skills, they need not say, "I can order coffee in nine languages"; they will be able to demonstrate something more substantive. Grading will form a central plank of our proposals. It will not be aimed only at primary school age children; it will be for everyone. If someone wishes to learn Portuguese or Italian, then they will have an opportunity to do so. I am most grateful to the Nuffield Foundation for providing us with high levels of support on establishing a grading system.
We must ensure that we introduce a system that makes full use of the available technologies. Within a short time it will be possible for a Spanish lesson to be taught by a teacher living in Spain. Such technologies will help to address some of the issues with regard to teacher shortages. Students will be able to participate in a science lesson taking place in Nantes, or perhaps a geography lesson in a school in Milan. All this is eminently possible and is currently being explored in the department, working with supportive organisations.
Every education Minister has or will attend a national languages strategy group meeting in order to discuss with the eminent members of that group the ways to ensure that language learning is considered across the entire education system. I should say to noble Lords in the best possible spirit that we cannot possibly decide that the future national languages
1426
strategy should rest on compulsory education between the ages of 14 and 16 years. It is a much bigger issue than that.
I am working towards a strategy of which we shall be proud. I have discussed this with the former German ambassador, Dr von Ploetz. He has commended our work and even asked me to autograph our interim languages document. We are also talking to the French ambassador, M. Bernard, who I believe is to visit the languages group. Indeed, we have made contact with representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office across Europe to ensure that not only will we work together with regard to teachers, but that the assistants programme is revitalised within our specialist schools. We have a raft of ideas to work on.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive my enthusiasm for this subject. I would not wish us to focus on this particular part of the Bill, seeing it as evidence that somehow the Government refuse to take seriously the issue of language learning. We need a national languages strategy and we are committed to providing your Lordships' House and the country with one by the autumn. We are working closely with expert colleagues to achieve that end.
Against that background, in drafting Clause 81 we have taken care to ensure that the current requirements are reflected. We have not anticipated the outcome of the 14 to 19 consultation. We have given our commitment to consultation. Furthermore, we shall give your Lordships the opportunity to debate the orders under Clause 82, as they are subject to affirmative resolution, and we shall take into account the concerns expressed by noble Lords. I have invited everyone to give their views on the 14 to 19 strategy. No decisions have yet been made. We shall ensure, whatever happens with the 14 to 19 strategy, that there is a national languages strategy, which I hope your Lordships will feel able to commend.
Much has been made of the fact that we have set a date of 2012 for the entitlement of all primary age children. It is an end and not a beginning. If we make a commitment and set a time to it, we want to ensure that we can fulfil it. If entitlement is to mean more than basic French—it should mean a lot more than that—we need to ensure that we can deliver it.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I thank her for raising the issue and pay tribute to the Nuffield Foundation. I look forward to further debates at greater length on these issues.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish to pose two questions following what the Minister has just said. First, it is clear that the noble Baroness has a natural enthusiasm for language teaching. Most people have now been led to believe that something exciting will come along for the teaching of languages in primary schools. If there is to be flexibility for 14 to 16 and 19 year-olds who are now dropping languages, where is the cohort of young people who will be sufficiently competent to go on to teach languages in not only

1427
secondary but primary schools? We are talking about an increase from 3,000 or 4,000 schools to 24,000 schools who will require language teachers. That strikes me as an example of the mismatch between aspiration and ability to deliver.
My second question refers to the fact that it seems that anything is up for grabs in terms of flexibility at key stages 3 and 4, except citizenship. Why is there no flexibility in that subject? In all the answers that I have received to Written Questions, it is a compulsory subject. It must be taught, and it must be studied by all young people. It is extraordinary that the status of language is being reduced, whereas there is no allowance for flexibility in the new language of citizenship.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, citizenship is an important subject. Nothing has changed. Schools are not allowed to start dropping languages as of now. We have made no decisions, but have simply suggested ideas. I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on the issue of guidance. I shall also write to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, which I meant to say in my remarks. The position is clear: the law is the law, and these subjects will continue to be taught.
We shall be doubling the number of teachers of primary-school French. Because we have not been teaching languages in primary schools, we do not yet know how many teachers will be available. We want to think creatively about using people who have language specialisms, but who are not necessarily qualified teachers. Thinking of the music example, there are opportunities to teach languages in primary school.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her enthusiastic remarks and the raft of ideas, which are interesting.
It is clear that the amendment cannot speak to the real issue that is of such concern far beyond this House because the material lies beyond the Bill in the Green Paper. It is not a myth that we are suffering from acute planning blight. If one is deep in a hole and has only a rickety ladder by which to climb out, it would be a pity to burn the ladder before one has got out of the hole. I fear that that might be what is happening on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117A and 118 not moved.]
Lord Brightmanmoved Amendment No. 119:
Page 54, line 24, at end insert ", and
(f) geography"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief. This is a repeat of an amendment that I moved and then withdrew at the Committee stage.
Its purpose is to give a student in a grant-maintained school a statutory option to study geography up to school-leaving age, instead of stopping at the age of 14, as at present, and as under the Bill. As I said in Committee, geography is not only a matter of knowing
1428
the countries of the world and their features. It impinges on some of the most important problems of the age, such as global warming, environmental degradation, racial conflicts, economic migration, retreating ice caps and glaciers, disappearing rain forests, disastrous dams and other potential hazards.
If we dismiss geography from the national curriculum at too early an age, we shall end up with fewer trained geographers and we shall he less well equipped to deal with the problems that I have mentioned.
When I withdrew my amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister responded readily to my suggestion that we might meet to discuss the future of geography in the national curriculum. That meeting has taken place, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me almost an hour to discuss geography with her.
The Minister followed our discussion with a letter to me recording the interview and summarising her views on the proper place of geography in the national curriculum. I shall quote a few lines from her letter, which reads:
"I agreed with you at our meeting that it would be good to see a position where any child wishing to study geography during key stage four"—
that is up to school leaving age—
"would be able to do so … I want us to work together to promote and enhance the teaching of geography".
I could not have expected a better response to our discussion.
As matters stand, many if not most grant-maintained schools offer geography up to school leaving age on a purely voluntary basis. They do not have to do so by law. My amendment, if it were accepted as part of the national curriculum at key stage 4, would require a grant-maintained school to offer geography up to the age of 16 to those students who wished to study it. That would avoid a highly undesirable situation, which can obtain at present, in which a student of geography may have to change schools to continue his geographical studies.
I turn to another subject area concerning the difference between core foundation studies and other foundation studies, which are referred to in Section 354 of the current Education Act 1996 and in Clauses 80 and 81 of the Bill. In Committee on 28th May, I commented (at col. 1187 of the Official Report) on the apparent absence of any definition of those expressions and the need for a definition. I have since learned that the expressions stem from Section 2 of the Education Reform Act 1988, now repealed, where they also appear without definition. Despite the inconvenience of having no definition of core foundation and non-core foundation studies, I have come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake and unhelpful to put down any amendment at this stage.
I had a duty to declare my interest in geography. I regard myself as having discharged that duty in Committee. Therefore, I shall not bore your Lordships by repeating it. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the case that has been put by the noble and learned Lord, but perhaps I may pose a question. The letter from the noble Baroness was very warm and enthusiastic—indeed, it was both sympathetic and empathetic—in regard to geography being important and wanting to encourage it and develop it in the curriculum at key stage 4. However, if it is to be offered as a subject for young people to study as of right, it has to appear somewhere in legislation for a child to be able to exercise his or her right to learn geography if it is being singled out as an entitlement in secondary schools. Therefore, the letter on its own is not enough. If the terms of the amendment are to be acceded to, then the amendment itself ought to appear on the face of the Bill.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is quite clear that geographers are better organised than historians. Personally, I would put history up there with geography, or even a little ahead of it. What is crucial is that people learn to study people. Our education needs to include not merely mathematics, sciences and dry facts; it should get down to the interaction between people and an understanding of how people work. We are going to live the rest of our lives among people. The more that we know about them and the more we know about ourselves and where we are coming from, the better. But I place my hopes in Clause 82.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I have anxieties about history, as I do about geography. These are based once again on a proleptic reading of the Green Paper, which talks about an entitlement to "a humanities subject" for 14 to 16 year-olds. I suppose that history, English literature and geography may be asked to compete for their place in a school.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, sadly, the answer seems to be the humanities GCSE, which unfortunately is now prevalent.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall try not to detain the House for long. I was delighted to meet with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Indeed, it was a great honour for me, and I enjoyed our discussions. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that my letter goes on to state:
"But we will need to consider very carefully the implications for schools of delivering entitlements—and, as the Green Paper notes, where changes to the curriculum are envisaged, there will be consultation on the detail of the changes. I am sure you will agree that we must proceed with care and that I have been as positive as I can be at this point".
I am happy to give the noble Baroness a copy of my letter if it would be of use to her.
Clause 81 re-enacts the provisions of Section 354 of the 1996 Education Act, in relation to key stage 4 only. It lists the subjects of the national curriculum that are currently compulsory at key stage 4 and which were
1430
last revised in 2000. Although geography was included as a foundation subject in the 1988 Act, it was never implemented at key stage 4. The subject was removed in response to the review of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in 1993 as a means of providing schools with a greater opportunity to offer a curriculum that meets the distinctive talents and aspirations of individual pupils. Currently, schools are not required to offer geography at all, although most do.
As I said, we recently concluded the consultation, and it would be inappropriate to alter the current curriculum requirements at this stage, before responses to the consultation can be fully considered and without the benefit of a consultation on this particular change.
As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, has said, the relevant proposal in the Green Paper is that pupils should have an entitlement to a subject in the humanities and a subject in the arts which schools will be obliged to make available to pupils who wish to take them. At this stage, we are still considering responses to the consultation and have taken no final decisions on curriculum changes. Therefore, while I cannot give the noble and learned Lord the assurance that he is seeking that all pupils will have an entitlement to geography under the new proposals, I hope that he will be reassured from my letter and from my remarks that our proposals to offer all pupils an entitlement to choose a humanities subject represent an advance for geography from the current statutory position.
This House will have the opportunity to debate any future changes to the curriculum, and no doubt to discuss the merits of history, English literature, geography and other subjects. Such discussions are important. We shall obviously have debates in this House before any changes are made. Meanwhile, with genuine respect, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for all that she has done, and 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 he now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [H.L.]
7.35 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

1431
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Interpretation]:
Lord Campbell of Allowaymoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert "defined as such in the Standard Industrial Classification issued by the Office of National Statistics"
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will no doubt appreciate, this amendment is merely for clarification of definition, as suggested by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It has no bearing whatever on the principle of the Bill or the opposition of government, who are not inclined to entertain any such proposal. But I had the opportunity of having a word with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and explained that I wanted to put the Bill in its proper perspective, dealing with some errors that have crept in—and they are very few.
The first is the suggestion that the structure of the 1999 Act, which amended the consolidation Act of 1992, may not be readily amended to include statutory restriction proposed by this Bill, superimposed on extant law.
Secondly, the Bill is concerned only with containing disproportionate industrial action in the designated public services and only at the behest of the trade unions. It is not concerned with an individual right to strike or with wildcat strikes.
Thirdly, the Central Arbitration Committee is to be given mandatory powers only within this limited context by statute, and otherwise retains its present voluntary role.
The High Court exercises civil, not criminal, jurisdiction and enforces its orders only against trade unions or the officers of a trade union if they are in contempt of an order of the court.
Lastly, the suggestion appears in the Official Report that Lady Castle of Blackburn's In Place of Strife proposals were implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. They were not, to my personal knowledge. They were operated by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, whom I served at the time, under the Heath administration, in the days of Vic Feather in 1971. As the House would expect, these matters have been discussed with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. His position is respected and understood. This is not the occasion on which to renew our debate. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I support both amendments tabled by my noble friend, which are an appropriate accommodation of the comments of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. However, I do not think that they will change the Government's mindset on the Bill, even if they are accepted. That is a pity. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, told the House on Second
1432
Reading that the Government were reviewing the workings of their Employment Relations Act 1999. That review will take place against the favourable background of the industrial dispute figures for 2001, which the noble Lord also gave the House. He then asked:
"what is the problem being identified of industrial disputes in the public sector? Clearly, there are threats of disputes … But the facts do not bear out the claim that there is a new problem of industrial disputes in the public sector".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; cols. 871–72.]
We must all wonder how long that statement will stand, as trade union disaffection with the Government and their policies grows—witness the RMT's withdrawal of support from the Deputy Prime Minister and 13 other Labour Members or the rumblings in the Communication Workers Union. That may be a foretaste of things to come.
Finally, the trouble with legislation in this area is that it is usually introduced just before or just after major conflict. There is much to be said for anticipating such conflicts well before they happen. That is the aim of the Bill. In line with the Performance and Innovation Unit report that my noble friend quoted on Second Reading, the Bill gives top priority to the customers of public services rather than to those who provide them. That is surely right.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not want to prolong the debate. Both the amendments tabled by my noble friend would improve and clarify the drafting in comparatively small ways. That is desirable. We all know the difficulties of pursuing a Private Member's Bill at this time of year, but that is no reason for not trying to improve the wording as much as possible. We also know the Government's view of the Bill, which was expressed clearly and in strong terms by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on Second Reading. As my noble friend Lord Roberts said, there are threats at the moment. I have no wish to trespass on the current problems of the Labour Party vis-à-vis the trade unions, but we have noticed some recent comments. The Bill is not irrelevant to those remarks.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and all those who have not spoken. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy for his support from the Back Benches. Back-Bench support for the Bill is very welcome, although he is also a member of the Front Bench.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Allowaymoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, after "order" insert "made by statutory instrument"
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment and its purpose is self-evident. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

1433
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.47 to 8.36 p.m.]

Education Bill
8.36 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 83 [Establishment of the National Curriculum for England by order]:
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 120:
Page 56, line 18, leave out subsection (12).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 120, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 121.
I have tabled the same amendments as we debated in Committee because I received a quite encouraging response from the Minister when I pointed out the sheer illogicality in this day and age of neglecting to teach in the science curriculum about one of the most serious threats to the health of the whole of mankind—HIV/AIDS—and about other sexually transmitted diseases. So I am hopeful of success if I pursue this matter.
I also pointed out that it is important to teach young people in a way that is relevant to their lives and what is happening around them, and that reference to the science of HIV/AIDS is a very relevant way of teaching about the importance of the immune system and what happens when it breaks down. The subsections removed by my amendments make it illegal to teach about AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and aspects of human sexual behaviour, other than the biological aspects, in science lessons in schools in England and Wales. That is what I want to change. I think that it should be perfectly legal to include these subjects in the science curriculum for children of an appropriate age; indeed, it is essential.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out that Clauses 83 and 104, in which these subsections appear, merely re-enact part of a previous statute without changing it at all. She rightly asked the Minister why this should be done when the only valid reason for reenacting part of a previous statute is to change it.
Since we debated these amendments a few weeks ago, we have had a Question in your Lordships' House about the health of children in which I drew the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to the fact that the number of new diagnoses of HIV/AIDS in this country doubled during the last five-year period for which I could find statistics. A high percentage of these victims are young people, very
1434
many of whom are heterosexual. Some are even babies who were born with the disease, having contracted it from their mothers in the womb.
AIDS is one of the greatest scourges of our age. We are letting down our children if we do not teach them about the science behind it, including how it is transmitted and how devastating it is to the normal functioning of the human immune system. I also pointed out to the noble Lord that the incidence of gonorrhoea among teenagers doubled within the same period and that the incidence of chlamydia among teenage girls doubled in one year alone, between 1999 and 2000. There is clearly a great need for more and better teaching about these issues, and, crucially, children need to understand the science behind them. When they understand that, they will see the logic behind the lifestyle advice on safe sexual practices which they receive in sex education lessons in other parts of the curriculum. It is a matter of joined-up education.
Ofsted has already identified the problems caused by this ridiculous law. Its report Sex and Relationships stated:
"Education about HIV/AIDS is receiving less attention than in the past, despite the fact that it remains a significant health problem".
It continued:
"In secondary schools, the teaching at Key Stage 4 was better than at Key Stage 3. At both key stages teaching about sexual health, including sexually transmitted infections, and the law in relation to sex, was poor in one in five lessons".
One of the reasons for this may be confusion among teachers about what they can and cannot legally do in relation to HIV/AIDS and a lack of confidence in tackling a difficult but vitally important subject.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these amendments and change education law on this matter so that our children can be given the protection of good information. I beg to move.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I support the amendment. I tabled the Question on young people's health to which the noble Baroness. Lady Walmsley, referred. It is an important issue. A key point is that personal, social and health education is not a statutory part of the curriculum. Therefore, there must be a statutory provision to teach aspects of sexual behaviour and sexual health to improve young people's sexual health and well-being. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it may come as a surprise to noble Lords to hear that I am sympathetic to the argument advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It seems to me that science lessons constitute the right forum in which to teach the science of HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and sexual activity. However, there is a practical difficulty in that some parents withdraw their children from sex education lessons—they have the legal right to do so—but it is not beyond the wit of schools to ensure that parents know where that subject will be inserted in the

1435
curriculum. In fact, they have an obligation to tell parents how that subject will be taught and what modules of the curriculum will include it to enable parents to exercise their legal right in that regard.
However, I ask again: what is the purpose of subsection (12)? Unless my memory serves me badly—I am prepared to believe that that might be the case—my understanding was that the science curriculum could include some of the science aspects of some of the matters that are listed in subsection (12) of Clause 83. It would be helpful to know precisely the purpose of subsection (12). As I say, I am sympathetic to the argument advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us who included the provision in a previous Act? It would be interesting to know that. I thought that parents could withdraw their children from sex education but not from science. I may be ignorant on the matter but I hope that the Minister can put me right.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I very much support the amendment, certainly as regards deleting paragraph (a) of subsection (12) which concerns a most interesting aspect of the immune system. All kids know about AIDS in one way or another. It is a fascinating hit of science as to why AIDS is such a difficult disease to attack—it affects the immune system from the inside—and that adds greatly to people's understanding of the dangers posed by the disease. It is a matter of science. I do not see why we should seek to exclude a useful bit of scientific knowledge on the ground that it might in some way verge on the PSHE curriculum from which we want people to have a right to withdraw.
I do not agree that we ought to use the science curriculum to teach pupils about sexual health. That is not what the science curriculum is intended for. But we should not have to blank out bits of science because they happen to have relevance to a subject from which we give parents the right to withdraw their children. I do not see that paragraph (b) of subsection (12) is ever likely to be included in any science curriculum short of degree level. I have not seen anything that touches on it in any science curriculum that I have ever seen. I do not suppose that something that deals with such rare and ordinary diseases is likely to come reasonably into a broad and general science curriculum at the compulsory age levels.
Paragraph (c) of subsection (12) refers to a matter that is often seen in nature programmes on television. It is a pity that one is not allowed to draw parallels between what children are exposed to routinely on television and what goes on between people in that regard. I refer to a most interesting aspect of ourselves as living creatures. One should be able to draw parallels between our behaviour and that of animals. I certainly do not see the reason for ruling that matter out of the science curriculum.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, to differentiate between the curriculum in England and that in Wales one has to move chunks—forgive the vernacular—of legislation and tidy them up. One does not extract little bits and pieces. I hope that that technical explanation will suffice.
I have consulted on the matter as a result of the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked in Committee. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, included the measure we are discussing in previous legislation.
In Committee I agreed to take the matter away and reflect on the debate. I believe I made clear that it is not a question of what can lawfully be taught in the classroom. The subsection we are discussing does not prohibit teachers from teaching the topics that are listed but it prohibits them from being included in the programmes of study for science. By removing the subsection we could, if we wished to, amend the programmes of study for science to make the teaching of those topics compulsory. However, we do not have plans to do that.
I have reflected on the points made in Committee. I agree with what has been said on all sides of the House. I concluded that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is right; the relevant subsections are unnecessary. Accordingly, the Government accept the amendments as drafted.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, all I can say to the Minister is, "Thank you very much". There are not many amendments to the Bill which, if accepted, would save lives, but this is one of them. I thank the Minister warmly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Establishment of the National Curriculum for Wales by order]:
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 121:
Page 68, line 28, leave out subsection (12).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 116 [Review Body: function]:
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 121ZA:
Page 73, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) In discharging its functions under this section the Review Body shall have regard to the need to ensure that—

(a) the conditions of employment of school teachers which relate to their working time are such that they may have a reasonable amount of time during each school day, or by such other allocation of time as may be appropriate, for the purposes of discharging professional duties other than those of teaching pupils;

(b) the conditions of employment of school teachers which relate to their working time are such that they may have an amount of time during each school year for the purposes of their own professional development without unreasonably increasing their overall workload;

1437

(c) the conditions of employment of school teachers which relate to their professional duties are consistent with regulations made under section 129(1) and are such as may be appropriate to secure a balanced working relationship between persons employed as school teachers and others employed to work at each school; and

(d) teachers employed on a day to day or other short notice basis may he remunerated in such manner as may be appropriate to encourage them to take opportunities available to them for their own professional development and further training."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is very similar to one we moved in Committee. It gives us a chance to probe the Government's intentions a little further on the need for non-contact time and time for professional development for both full-time and part-time teachers. The amendment also seeks to ensure that teachers have suitable conditions to work effectively with the growing band of other staff, such as classroom assistants, who now work in our schools.
In Committee the Minister expressed considerable sympathy with the issues raised in the Official Report of 28th May at column 1208. But she said in column 1209 that,
"To impose the requirements in this amendment would greatly fetter the discretion of the STRB to consider current facts and prevailing circumstances and to make recommendations independently".
However, she also made the welcome statement that,
"the STRB's statutory recommendations are as a matter of principle accepted by Government unless there are overriding reasons not to do so. That was the commitment from the start".— [Official Report, 28/5/02; col. 1209.]
I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister what is meant by,
"overriding reasons not to do so"?
Could it be cost or lack of sufficient staff to cover the non-contact time, or what? Can the Minister tell us how the remodelling working party is getting on with its work and about the Government's progress on the workload review? Will the Minister say whether the Government intend to support schools in the provision of non-contact and professional development time, and will extra funds become available? As there is nothing else in the Bill to address the recruitment and retention crisis in our schools, we see the amendment as a means of probing the Government's plans on one of the most pressing problems facing our schools today.
The Government seem to be relying to a great extent on what might come out of the Comprehensive Spending Review but, although that is important, schools are losing staff now. Placing some reassurance on the record that the Government will provide the cash needed to support the hoped for recommendations would be very welcome.
The whole issue of learning support staff and classroom assistants is one that the Government have still not fully grasped. Paragraph (c) of the amendment refers to that. Although primary school teachers may have 15 minutes of non-contact time in the day, many schools employ classroom assistants for hours that
1438
exactly match the teaching sessions. That means either that the teacher has no time for the very necessary liaison work with support staff, which makes for a well-ordered and productive working partnership in the classroom, or that that has to be done on a voluntary basis in the teaching assistant's own time. Many of those workers are very low paid indeed and it is unreasonable to expect them to give of their own time to do something that is absolutely vital if the job is to be done properly. Teachers need the time and the training to be able to manage such support staff properly, especially because some newly qualified teachers have never managed another member of staff before in their lives.
While we are on the subject, can the Minister say something about the way in which the Government plan to encourage schools and LEAs to reward newly trained classroom assistants properly and whether they intend to put in place a proper employment structure and a coherent training and development programme with appropriate remuneration at each stage?
The Minister will be aware that we on these Benches are very keen on the "Grow your Own" route into qualified teacher status as an additional route to the usual degree and PGCE or MEd qualification. The growth of the classroom assistant workforce gives a great opportunity to train more teachers—mature people who are very familiar with what life is really like in a classroom and therefore much less likely to get a shock and to leave the profession after a year or two. Can the Minister tell the House how she plans to use this opportunity to address the recruitment shortfall in schools? I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the issues raised in Amendment No. 121ZA are important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, and they have given rise to some important questions. I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that she raised and I am glad to have this opportunity to respond.
I am well aware of the importance of securing professional time for all teachers for preparation, planning, marking and related matters, and of the need to reduce the time teachers spend on administrative tasks. Those are important and, at this point in the history of education, highly relevant aspirations. Timetabling arrangements generally provide most teachers in secondary schools with some free periods, although we also appreciate that the school day is not simply taken up with teaching; teachers are involved in many other matters. I know from my own experience of being a chair of governors that in primary schools the position can be much more difficult. This is an important issue.
It is for precisely that reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State drew this matter specifically to the attention of the review body, when she asked it to consider the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on teacher workload and to make its own recommendations on that. The remit letter that she gave the review body drew specific attention to the possibility of moving towards a

1439
guarantee of professional time for teachers and managers; of more support staff and better use of ICT—new technology—to free teachers for their core professional role; and of considering changes to contracts to assist with embedding the role of continuing professional development. It is a key concern to all of us for many reasons that teachers have sufficient time to carry out professional duties properly and to undertake continuing professional development, both of which lead to higher standards of teaching and learning.
As noble Lords will be aware, the STRB's workload report has been published and we are now in the middle of a constructive consultation—the working party is progressing well—on the helpful recommendations that were made, several of which deal precisely with the matters that are raised in the amendment.
The noble Baroness asked an interesting question about the phrase "overriding reasons". She will be aware that one always has to be cautious of always saying that one accepts everything. For example, technical pay structure issues may be rejected. Inevitably, one has to look at the workability, as it were, of what is happening. There is also an issue of cost, which has tended to lead to staging. One cannot always say categorically that everything will always be available. The phrase "overriding reasons" is meant to imply that the matter will not be taken lightly; it does not involve simply deciding to reject. The Government's record in that regard is good.
I turn to the key reasons for resisting the amendment. We believe, in the first place, that it is inappropriate to seek to introduce into primary legislation a matter that is currently the subject of quite separate and important consultations. Consultations on the principles underlying the STRB's recommendations are continuing and there will be further consultation on detailed proposals in September, in the light of feedback on the STRB's report and the outcome of the spending review. The spending review is an important part of the way in which government work. It is the determination of what moneys are available. Within that, departments are clear about their priorities. In various speeches that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given during the past year, and in her approach to this issue, she has made it clear that supporting teachers is a crucial part of the matter.
These are sensitive issues. We want an outcome that is good for teachers, that is realistic and workable within the available resources and which at the same time supports improving standards. In this context, the amendment is a little restrictive. I appreciate the need for "early wins" but we are taking that very seriously in current discussions with interested parties and seek to ensure that we get it right.
My second reason for resisting the amendment is that the current pay machinery, whereby the STRB works in accordance with a public remit provided by the Secretary of State, strikes the right balance and works well. It makes no presumptions about the
1440
content of the teachers' contract. We believe that the amendment would introduce such presumptions. The STRB's duty is to make independent recommendations. As we have discussed, we have said as a matter of principle that those recommendations are accepted by the Government unless there are overriding reasons.
The Secretary of State can require the STRB to take certain matters into account when making its recommendations, as has been the case with the latest workload report. But the recommendations are the STRB's and government evidence is taken into account along with all other representations. It would be wrong to fetter the operation of the pay and conditions determination machinery. I know also that the teacher unions would not want to see contractual provisions in primary legislation.
The noble Baroness raised an important point about classroom assistants and the need to ensure that they have sufficient time. I shall take that important point away and write to the noble Baroness about it. I am sure that it is being well dealt with but I do not want to give half an answer when I could give a more efficient one. She rightly said that classroom assistants contribute to education. Some of them may find that that work provides them with an opportunity to become teachers in future. We shall seek to ensure that those opportunities and pathways are available to them.
We are grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing us to discuss this issue but we believe that the amendment would not be helpful in terms of the operation of the STRB. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. The NUT and other teaching unions will take some comfort from her words of clarification and encouragement from the Dispatch Box and from her comments on the interaction between qualified teachers and teaching assistants. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 121A:
Page 80, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) is under the direction or the direct supervision of a qualified teacher."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 121A, and Amendment No. 121B, which is grouped with it, both relate to the subject of assistant teachers. The purpose of the amendments is to tease out from the Government the precise difference between those teachers and the present teaching assistants, and to discover precisely how they envisage they should be used in the classroom. There is a great deal of suspicion—I admit that I share it—that we are talking about a form of substitute teacher.

1441
At the outset, I should inform noble Lords that I contacted staff in the Public Bill Office, who promised that they would make an alteration for me. The word "or" in Amendment No. 121A should be "and", so that the amendment reads,
"is under the direction and the direct supervision of a qualified teacher".
I know that that will not be accepted on the Floor of the House as a manuscript change. I shall not be pressing the amendment this evening but, if I return with it at a later stage, it will come back in its amended form. Therefore, I reiterate that the wording should not read, "direction or the direct supervision"; it should read, "direction and the direct supervision".
Under whatever new ideas the Government may have for the use of teaching assistants, they may intend that they should be under the direction, and, indeed, under the direct supervision, of a fully qualified teacher—in other words, that they should not be left unsupervised to take whole classes on their own. The Government may not accept the wording of the amendment, but it seems to me that the easiest way to allay both my concerns and those of many teachers would he to accept that teaching assistants will be under the direction and under the direct supervision of a qualified teacher. If the Government are not prepared to accept that wording, I believe it is important that they set out the matter more clearly. Simply stating in Clause 129(1)(b) that such teachers must satisfy specified requirements without giving any indication as to what the parameters of those specified requirements will be is not acceptable. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying the issue of "or" and "and". That makes more sense to me and I am perfectly happy to discuss the amendment on that basis.
The difficulty that I have in relation to Amendments Nos. 121A and 121B is that, in a sense, they fundamentally change the effect and purpose of Clause 129. I want to address the effect of the amendments but I shall speak slightly more broadly about the intentions behind them.
Through this clause we are trying to give schools greater scope and flexibility to utilise the full range of skills and abilities of their staff by setting a framework of supervision. That is in order to ensure that we allow certain unqualified staff to undertake work which we shall describe as "of a teaching nature" in support of their qualified colleagues. At the same time, the framework of supervision is there to safeguard the professional status of qualified teachers and to ensure that their primary responsibility for delivering education in schools is not undermined. In addition, the clause is drafted to provide for particular categories of unqualified teaching staff, such as overseas trained teachers and graduate and registered teachers. Perhaps I may concentrate for a moment on that latter point.
If we accepted the amendment, it would mean that specified teaching work could be undertaken by any person under the direction of a qualified teacher. Of
1442
course, legally all staff in schools, from the caretaker to the deputy head teacher, work under the management and direction of the head teacher. The senior manager is also required to be qualified. Therefore, if the amendments were accepted, any member of staff in a school could, in practice, undertake the teaching work specified in the regulations. I know that that is not the intention behind the noble Baroness's amendment, but it is important to understand that that would be the effect.
Secondly, it would not be possible to make detailed provision for certain categories of unqualified teacher. The example that best illustrates that is the position of overseas trained teachers and graduates on employment-based routes to qualified teacher status. We intend that those unqualified teachers will be able to undertake teaching work in schools, as indeed they do at present, but only if they satisfy specified requirements. Those are identified in greater detail under subsection (4) of Clause 129 and will relate, for example, to their being on programmes or courses of training to obtain qualified teacher status or the possession of a suitable qualification.
In addition, subsection (5), which relies on the words that would be deleted by the amendments, provides that regulations may limit the period of time during which teaching work may be carried out by an unqualified teacher. Therefore, for example, a graduate on an employment-based teacher training route who did not qualify within the appropriate period would no longer be able to teach. And overseas trained teachers would, as now, be allowed to teach only for a limited time if they did not gain QTS. The amendments would take away our ability to ensure that the employment position of those staff remains as it is now. Obviously those are important safeguards to ensure that teaching work is carried out by suitable persons. We would not wish to see them lost if the amendments were accepted.
Perhaps I may focus for a moment on what I believe the noble Baroness is seeking. We know that we now have within our schools adults who work alongside teachers and who undertake different tasks. Schools themselves are unsure as to what is appropriate and inappropriate use of teaching assistants. Having talked to people within schools, it is clear that they are looking to us to give them the framework in which to operate. As I said in Committee—I shall repeat it—it is intended that that framework should achieve two things: first, it should ensure that our qualified teachers are responsible for teaching and learning; and, secondly, it should ensure that classroom and teaching assistants are used efficiently and effectively where they can add value when working under the supervision of qualified teachers. Therefore, the intention is for the framework to enable those two things to happen and to allow schools to have the flexibility and scope to use their staff more efficiently.
We have just revised the policy statement, which I am happy to send to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I hope that it will help to allay her concerns on the matter. But I hope that I have also ensured that the House understands exactly what we are seeking to

1443
achieve through this clause. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that answer. I am still slightly mystified. A matter that puzzles me is that teaching assistants can now do almost anything in the classroom so long as they are under the supervision of a qualified teacher. They can help to teach reading; they can help small children with basic arithmetic; and they can do different kinds of tasks in a secondary school. They can do almost anything that the noble Baroness has mentioned thus far in all our debates and even as mentioned in the policy statement, which I now know has been overtaken and superseded by one which is more up-to-date.
I am puzzled as to why the new type of teaching assistant is being created. I am told that there will not be two types; they will all become the new kind of teaching assistant referred to in Clause 129.
Another concern is the wording of Clause 129. Teaching assistants are not mentioned. The wording is obscure. Clause 129 states:
"Regulations may provide that specified work may not be carried out by a person in a school unless he—
(a) is a qualified teacher".
It does not state "teaching work", but "specified work" and we do not know what that will be. We do not know to what "satisfy specified requirements" refers. Subsection (2) states:
"Regulations specifying work for the purpose of this section may make provision by reference to—

(a) one or more specified activities, or

(b) the circumstances in which activities are carried out".

The wording is obscure. Anyone could be forgiven for wondering what Clause 129 means. There is a great deal of suspicion and anxiety about the precise meaning of the clause and what it does for the status of a qualified teacher in the classroom.
Throughout the Bill, with my amendments I have been striving for an honest description of what the Government aim to do. We do not want to find somewhere down the line that we are getting teachers on the cheap. That is the concern among teachers.
The wise use of a teaching assistant can extend disproportionately the amount of work achieved by a teacher in the classroom. I am not convinced that teachers do not know how to exploit the talents of assistant teachers. I have been to many schools and have seen how incredibly effectively teachers will use a teaching assistant. Teaching assistants gather much experience over the years. I have always believed that there should be a proper system of validating some of the qualifications they gather on the way.
There is a pertinent point to be made as regards special schools. I have been in special schools where assistant teachers have gathered much experience over the years of working in the classroom with children with special needs, certainly more than the newly-qualified teachers coming in straight from college. It
1444
seems to me that, first, they are paid badly and always have been, and, secondly, there is a case for validating their qualifications and ensuring that they are properly recognised.
I do not deny that there is a proper role and the scope for that to be used as a stepping stone into teaching, as was mentioned by the Minister. I shall withdraw the amendment and await the new policy paper. However, it would be helpful to know that we shall not find ourselves by stealth with teaching assistants who at the end of the day turn out to be substitute, unqualified teachers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121B not moved.]
Clause 132 [Provision of education]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 121BA:
Page 82, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations made under subsection (1)—

(a) shall not prohibit the provision of education by a person employed full-time who does not have a specified qualification for two years after taking up a first appointment in a further education institution, provided that person embarks on a course leading to such a qualification within that period;

(b) shall not prohibit the provision of education by a person employed part-time who does not have a specified qualification for four years after taking up a first appointment in further education, provided that person has embarked upon a course of study leading to such a qualification within that period; and

(c) may make different provisions as to the specified qualifications and other matters for those engaged in the provision of education on a part-time basis from those engaged full-time.

( ) In determining the qualifications to be specified under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall have regard to the extent to which the qualifications match the standards laid down by any body recognised by her as being responsible for determining the competencies required for persons providing further education."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in Committee. It relates to the training of further education staff. In Committee we agreed that many of the staff come from unconventional backgrounds and that the training requirements laid down in the Bill are not necessarily appropriate to them. In particular, there was concern about the arrangements agreed under the Further Education National Training Organisation (FENTO) standards and the procedures which met those standards which had been agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, at an earlier stage. We sought clarification as to whether or not those agreements still applied.
The Minister was extremely helpful in his reply, for which we are grateful. However, the Association of Colleges, on whose behalf we tabled the amendment, was a little unhappy. The Minister's explanation repeated the position already reached in public discussion. The association believed that there was still a problem because he did not explain how, technically, the Government intend to frame regulations to give effect to that policy. It would appear to allow only

1445
regulations which prohibit the undertaking of teaching by persons who are not qualified. That formulation would preclude the drafting of regulations which would allow teaching by unqualified persons in certain circumstances. I refer, for example, to persons in the first two years of full-time employment who are pursuing a recognised qualification.
Some explanation of the scope of the regulations and how they fit in within the powers granted within this clause would be helpful. I tabled the amendment to seek further explanation on those issues and wonder whether the Minister can help. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity provided by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to clarify what I hoped I had established in Committee, but I recognise the points she has made. I shall do my best to have a better shot at it this time around.
The timescales currently set out in regulations were established on advice from FENTO, the standards setting body for further education. For a full-time teacher the qualification must be obtained within two years of a place becoming available; for a part-time teacher the qualification must be obtained within four years of a place becoming available. Those timescales obviously ease the burden on part-time staff, particularly those who have other current employment, and provides sufficient flexibility to acquire the qualification in service and in stages, as appropriate to their role. It is our intention to continue that policy in the new regulations.
It is reasonable for a student to expect those who teach in further education to be qualified, both in their own subject and in teaching practice. If not, it is reasonable to expect that they should become qualified at the earliest opportunity. Of course we provide support from the Standards Fund, through the Learning and Skills Council, to cover both the costs of teacher training and the staff cover costs so that new staff can he released from teaching duties in order to gain the qualification.
As I mentioned in Committee, we recognise that there is heavy pressure on teachers in their first year of teaching. We maintain that the support given to the staff in the way that I have just outlined, together with good management practice, eases the burden of actual teaching in the college. It should ensure that the lecturer can achieve the teaching qualification without too great a burden being placed upon him. So we look to the colleges—as they have always argued that they are in favour of qualified staff—therefore to assist in the development of the policy.
I can confirm that it is our intention that the existing regulations relating to the qualifications for teachers in FE colleges will continue in force, subject to minor modification for clarification purposes. We do not at this stage plan changes to the timescales, which differentiate between full and part-time staff, as I have indicated. Our intention is to re-enact provisions in Section 218 of the Education Reform Act 1988, as part
1446
of the rationalisation of that section. As I sought to make clear in the debate on the amendment in Committee, if we are to ensure high standards of provision in FE, it is crucial that these powers are retained.
Whether a member of staff is employed full-time or part-time should make no difference to the standard of teaching received by the learner. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will feel reassured by that explanation.
In Committee the noble Baroness described the clause as "rather bleak". I looked at it and I agree with that description. It is expressed as a series of negatives and I understand the bleakness of it. The clause needs to be read with Clause 136(1), which effectively gives a power to make exemptions from the regulations, and a more general provision in Clause 204 where any regulations can make provision generally or only in specified cases. The regulations do not apply to anyone who was a teacher at a further education college or at a maintained school before 1st September 2001. There is also an exemption for a,
"person whose primary occupation or profession is not teaching and who is employed by the college on a temporary or occasional basis to provide updating on current industrial, commercial or professional practice".
I am sure that the noble Baroness recognises that one of the great strengths of the FE system is its ability to call in expertise from people practising in commerce and in business. They are not teachers. It would be unreasonable to expect them to obtain teaching qualifications. But they are able to give the latest insight into the practice in the world which they occupy and bring that into the educational framework. We greatly value that. It is that category of person that we would ensure will continue to be exempt from these provisions. We have no plans to change that exemption although we may make minor changes to the wording in the light of experience.
If we produced changes to regulations we would feel obliged to discuss them with FENTO, with the employers and with the trades unions because we recognise the great sensitivity and interest in the matter. All interests would be considered. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured more fully than she was in Committee. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. That was a most helpful reply. I felt that we had an adequate reply in Committee. However, the Association of Colleges still had these queries. It is extremely helpful that the Minister has set the matter out at such great length. I think that the association will be delighted with the reply. I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 138 [Prohibition from teaching, etc.]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 121C:
Page 85, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) Where a person is a parent of a child at a school, and the work in question under subsection (2) or (3) is provided voluntarily and without payment to or on behalf of the school in

1447
question, the Secretary of State, in relation to England, or the National Assembly for Wales, in relation to Wales, shall issue guidance as to—

(a) the circumstances under which such a parent should be checked for his status under this section;

(b) the persons who shall be permitted to know that such a check has been requested;

(c) the steps that should be taken, if a parent fails such a check, in relation to informing teachers, pupils and their parents of this fact."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last word in the second line of the amendment as printed on the Marshalled List should read, "by". The amendment then makes a little more sense.
I ask the Minister for a reassurance that this part of the Act will not be brought into force until the systems that will be needed to operate it are running rather more perfectly than they are at present. I checked with one county council about the status of the checking that we now, quite rightly, perform. It started about three months ago, if I remember rightly. The council said that during those three months it had made 400 requests. It had so far received three replies—three okays—and all of them were also on the list provided by the authorities of applications of which they had no trace. So there seems to be a fair state of delay and chaos in the system at present. We should not pitch the enormous amount of applications that will come from schools into that system until we are sure that that system is working correctly.
We discussed the matter in Committee, and the Minister was kind enough to write to me afterwards, providing a good deal of explanation as to what was going on. It is clear from what was stated in the letter and what was said in Committee that parents who help out in schools will be caught by the clause, and specifically by subsection (3)(a), which states:
"brings a person regularly into contact with children".
If we are to place such an obligation on schools, we must be a little more helpful to them.
If the school discovers that someone who has been working with children is on the register—specifically, on the sex offenders' register—and that that is why they fall under the clause, there will be a good deal of general uproar in the school community and questions will be asked as to why the case was not cleared earlier. We owe it to governing bodies and others in charge of schools to give them some kind of guidance about how they are supposed to deal with parents who come in to help with reading or with school trips. In village schools, it is often other members of the local community as much as parents who are involved in such activity. It would be a great comfort to governing bodies if guidance were set out for them to follow.
I suggest that a sensible procedure for people who volunteer to help out in school would be for the process of checking them out to start immediately but that they should be allowed to serve two or three days in schools before they are cleared, because the process will clearly take some time. The first part of the amendment is intended to ensure that the process works smoothly for the school.
1448
Secondly, what do we do if a parent or some other member of what the school would regard as its community fails such a check? It will be devastating for the parent and the child for the parent suddenly to be exposed as someone not considered suitable to be around children. That is something for which a school must be prepared.
If we are to believe the BBC—I do not know from where it gets its figures—there are 200,000 paedophiles in this country. That is the figure that it was advertising widely in advance of its latest programme on the subject. That means that roughly one in 100 parents will be a person who should fail such a check. So schools should expect parents to fail quite often. There may be many instances in which parents will fail such a check once the provision is fully in force; there will certainly be some.
In any case, it will be a delicate matter for schools to handle. When they discover that, are they meant to tell everyone? If not—and the Minister shakes her head—they will have to be very careful about how they carry out the check; who knows that the check has been carried out; and how the negative result is transmitted to the parent. Otherwise, it will become known anyway, without the school having to broadcast it, because such matters will travel fast and far. So, there is scope for guidance and for the department to tell the school how it should behave in those circumstances. That is what I seek to achieve, although I will be delighted if there are other ways of doing it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my amendment deals with something slightly different but is, nevertheless, to do with criminal checks. I have no intention, despite what I shall say about the way in which the system works, of speaking against the need to check the background of people who work with young children. It is a real issue, and the policy was decided by the team who worked with me at the Home Office before the 1997 election.
The introduction of the system has been horrendous. The problems appear to be insuperable. On 8th May, Philip Johnston wrote in the Daily Telegraph:
"Two months after the agency started work, long delays in vetting teachers and care workers are being reported by the agencies that recruit them. The problems are so acute that Estelle Morris, the Education Secretary, has urged David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, to take a personal hand in improving the system".
He went on to say:
"Teachers, care workers and others who work with children or vulnerable people need an 'enhanced disclosure' check from the CRB before they can take up an appointment … The system has now been centralised under the CRB, which is supposed to complete 90 per cent of the checks within 15 working days. But only 10 per cent have been completed within that time and agencies say thousands of supply teachers have been waiting for up to 12 weeks—causing many to look elsewhere for work".
Marcia Roberts, the director of external relations for the Recruitment & Employment Confederation said:
"Along with many other organisations we have been warning the CRB for months that it was underestimating the likely demand for checks. All our fears have now been realised".

1449
The delay causes huge problems. The Government have underestimated the impact of an Act of Parliament that was going to affect every teacher and every person who works in a school—the cleaners, the caretakers, the gardeners, the contractors on site, every volunteer, every mother who comes in to help with reading. I am talking only about the education system, never mind the health system or other public services. David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said:
"The CRB system is an absolute disaster. Now, the Government is going hack to an unsatisfactory situation because there's been a monumental cock-up".
I use the words of other people. They work in education and are directly affected by the problems. It is dismaying to see that the company that has been given the work is Capita, the consultancy that also operated the individual learning accounts. It is not surprising that people are concerned.
I have one or two technical questions. On page 8 of the guidance document sent out by the department, there is a reference to health issues. The document says:
"Anyone appointed to a post involving regular contact with children or young people should be medically fit".
My question is technical, but it is important. My understanding is that one cannot discriminate against someone with HIV/AIDS. If, however, staff must be medically fit, will someone with HIV/AIDS be excluded by that part of the guidance?
On page 10, the following question is posed:
"What checks should be made on applicants for teacher training courses?".
My understanding is that courses that start after March 2002 should be asked to apply for enhanced disclosure. I understand that and agree with it. However, should there be a further check when someone takes up a post? All the rules say that they should because they would be working for a different employer in, perhaps, a different part of the country. It would be helpful to know whether the certificate of clearance can be passported around the country from job to job.
The promises about how long it would take to process applications have not been kept. It would be helpful to know what will happen on that front. Every member of staff, volunteer, or contractor working on site who comes in contact with the children in our 24,000 or so schools has to be paid for: an application on behalf of each one of them, costing £12, will be a great expense on the education budget. I know that the guidance says that the cost for schools will be met by the LEAs, but I wonder whether that has been recognised in the budget provision.
I turn to the new checks and the requirement for disclosure, which is why I asked the first question about newly-qualified student teachers. Paragraph 38 of the guidance says that where persons take up,
"a new appointment with a different employer, are re-appointed or re-elected as a governor, have a break in service of three months or more, or move to a post with significantly greater responsibility
1450
for children, or if the employer, school, further education institution or LEA has grounds for concern about their suitability to work with children",
another check is necessary.
Why must a person who has been a governor for many years have another check carried out on re-election? It is no good a Minister returning to the Dispatch Box to say that it is not necessary; it says in the guidance that it is necessary even if there is a current, properly certified clearance document. That seems excessive. Of course we do not want unsuitable people working with children, but this is a belt-and-braces provision too far.
The application form that has to be filled in is intrusive. It asks for information which is of no relevance to whether a person is suitable to work with children. Section E asks for additional information. It says that the information,
"will help us to process your application more quickly".
It asks for marital status and the number of financially dependent children under 18. It then asks for bank or building society account number, sort code, employment status and occupancy status, and mother's maiden name. Many people in this country who have bank accounts and sort code numbers often use their mother's maiden name as a kind of security check. That information has nothing to do with whether someone is suitable to work with children. Why is it necessary?
One answer is that additional information will help to process the application more quickly. I should like to know precisely how that works. Furthermore, my understanding is that it is not a compulsory part of the form. Information given by Warwickshire County Council to its teachers states,
"Unless otherwise told, please answer all questions in Sections A to H".
That includes section E, from which I have quoted. What have bank accounts to do with finding out whether someone is suitable to work with children?
The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me about the checks, for which I thank her warmly. But the letter did not deal with backlog and my concern about backlog needs to be addressed. Schools are losing volunteers and staff because they do not want to wait around. Some people in the community help with reading and tasks in the classroom in more than one school. It is excessive for them to be subjected to more than one check if they work in more than one school.
The noble Baroness's letter states on the second page,
"Parents who seek or offer to do work at a school should be checked in the same way as any other voluntary workers"—
—I do not disagree—
"However, these provisions do need to be applied with a degree of common sense".
When there is guidance from the department, and detailed and pedantic guidance from the local authorities to the schools, they have to follow it, but the guidance is not applied with any degree of common sense.

1451
I have yet another missive—there is so much information concerned with criminal checks—this time from the Criminal Records Bureau of the Department for Education and Skills, but I have no date or other reference for it. On page 5, it states that elected governors should be checked after election. That is even if they were checked before the previous election and the one before that. That seems to be really excessive.
The document also states that they must be checked before appointment. If there are weeks of backlog, how on earth can they be checked before appointment? Once selected, they are appointed to governing bodies within days—and sometimes sooner if they have previously been governors—but the idea that they are kept waiting is unacceptable.
I am sorry that I have spent a little more time than usual on the amendment, but there are great anxieties in our schools. I believe that we are losing important assistance to our schools—that is, volunteers and members of staff—and the Government ought to reexamine the way in which the system is working.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I shall attempt to give them as full an answer as possible and to deal with the significant points they made.
I shall begin with Amendment No. 121C. I appreciate the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the position of parents who undertake voluntary work at their children's school. I hope that it will help to allay his concern to know that provision for checking parents who volunteer is not new. A school may not use the services of a person as a volunteer to work regularly with children where that person is subject to a direction and on my department's list of barred persons—list 99, as it is known. Therefore, where a school seeks to use a volunteer, including parents, to work in regular contact with children, it must be satisfied that that person is not on list 99. In other words, a check must be carried out.
That has been the position since September 1998. However, the arrangements for checking list 99 changed in March this year when the Criminal Records Bureau became operational. Prior to March, a school or education authority could check the list directly and the person concerned would not necessarily know that the check had been made. There were also separate arrangements whereby education authorities could arrange criminal record checks with their local police forces. However, those checks could be made only if the person would have substantial unsupervised access to children on a regular basis.
Since March, checks of list 99 are undertaken alongside criminal record checks by the Criminal Records Bureau as part of what are now called "disclosures". And we have now issued guidance advising that in addition to people who have regular
1452
contact with children, schools should also obtain a disclosure via the CRB in respect of anyone who is eligible to apply for one. I shall be happy to send the noble Lord a copy of the guidance to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred, and to follow up any questions. I hope that he will find it useful.
We advise, for example, that any person who applies, seeks or accepts work with children at school should be asked to obtain a disclosure, regardless of whether the work is paid or voluntary. So, a parent or anyone else who volunteers to help out in the classroom should be checked.
Another category of person who should be checked is anyone who applies for, seeks or accepts any position where his or her normal duties will include caring for, supervising, training, or being in sole charge of children. Perhaps I may give specific examples. Someone who volunteers to accompany pupils on a residential trip and will be responsible for looking after or supervising the children should be checked. On the other hand, we would not expect a volunteer who will have only limited contact with children on a single occasion to be checked; for example, someone who helps out on sports day or accompanies an outing to a museum or local activity.
I can understand that noble Lords might be concerned that we should go too far in advising that parents who volunteer their services should be checked in the same way as other prospective volunteers and employees. However, being a parent does not of itself mean that someone is automatically suitable to work with other people's children or to have responsibility for them. It is a sad fact that a great deal of child abuse takes place within families and many of the people who are deemed unsuitable to work with children are also, unfortunately, parents—and in the case of Lauren Wright, who we will be discussing later, step-parents.
A number of safeguards are built into the arrangements for disclosures to ensure that information is not disclosed indiscriminately, that checks cannot be made without the individual's knowledge and that the individual is told what information the checks reveal.
In the first instance an application for a disclosure must be signed by the individual concerned to indicate his or her consent and then the person is sent a copy of the disclosure so that he or she can challenge any inaccuracy.
If a check reveals that a prospective volunteer is on list 99, however, the same safeguards in regard to confidentiality apply to that information as apply to any information about a person's criminal record that is revealed by a disclosure. Such information is confidential and its disclosure is governed by the Data Protection Act 1998 as well as the law of confidentiality. Also, the disclosure will be issued only to a person registered with the CRB and the Police Act 1997 provides that it is a criminal offence to reveal information supplied in a disclosure in a way that is not provided for in that Act.

1453
It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which any staff other than the head teacher would need to have access to the information and it would certainly not be acceptable for any information to be disclosed to pupils or their parents. Because the individual has to agree and sign to have that check, I think that those with something they would not wish to be known which would make it inappropriate for them to work with children might be discouraged. That is the process that we believe makes most sense in this context.
There are two reasons why we believe that Amendment No. 130 is unnecessary. First, public authorities already have a duty to act reasonably in all circumstances, and they can be challenged in the courts if they do not. Secondly, as I have explained, there are already safeguards in place about the use of information provided by the Criminal Records Bureau.
The amendment raises concerns about two aspects of the new arrangements for criminal record checks, now called disclosures, that are operated by the CRB: the level of personal information that is sought on the application forms for a disclosure; and the fact that a disclosure for the purpose of child protection reveals information about the whole of a criminal record that a person has, not only about offences against children.
The CRB is clear that the information requested on its application form is needed to enable it to establish the identity of the applicant beyond doubt. That is necessary to ensure that highly sensitive information is not issued to the wrong person and that someone cannot obtain a disclosure by using another person's identity. The information requested is used only for the purpose of establishing and verifying the person's identity and is no more than people provide to a variety of organisations in the normal course of their lives—for example, when applying for a credit card. We believe that it is important to know precisely whom we are describing and talking about.
I am conscious of the concern, particularly among parents and others considering voluntary work among children, that some youthful indiscretion that is not relevant to children might become known in the school or the local community. It is not possible to limit the information included in a disclosure only to that which is relevant to the position the applicant is seeking. A person's suitability for work with children is invariably a decision that can be made only on a case-by-case basis in the light of the circumstances of each instance.
If we were to limit the information disclosed in the way the amendment suggests, schools would not be able to obtain information about drugs offences or offences of violence against adults. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would agree that such offences may well be relevant in assessing a person's suitability even if the offence itself did not directly relate to children.
Also the department's guidance about vetting staff and volunteers that I mentioned earlier stresses that a person's suitability for work with children should be judged in light of all relevant information and that a criminal record does not automatically make a person unsuitable to work with children.
1454
The guidance advises employers to take account of a number of factors in deciding whether a criminal conviction is relevant: the nature of the offence; the age of the offence; the frequency of offences; and the nature of the appointment. A copy of the guidance is in the Library of your Lordships' House. I shall, of course, make it available to any noble Lords who wish to receive it. On that basis, I hope that I have reassured your Lordships on the two aspects of the amendment.
I want to talk about the Criminal Records Bureau. It is a large and complex project and is experiencing difficulties. Those difficulties are being dealt with as a matter of urgency. When these initial problems are resolved, we believe that the bureau will provide a more comprehensive and much quicker service than was available under the previous arrangements.
In the meantime, despite the vigorous efforts made by the CRB and noted by the noble Baroness, the position in regard to delays has not improved as quickly as we had hoped. We refuse to compromise on child safety, but we also need to make sure that the appointment of teachers can be done in a fast and efficient manner. We have therefore put in place interim arrangements to allow that. Those interim arrangements will stay in place until the CRB is fully up to date and meeting its performance standards.
Under the arrangements, CRB staff are trawling the backlog of applications and checking new applications to identify those in respect of teachers and other key staff for schools. For those applications, the CRB is performing checks of list 99. If that check is satisfactory, the employer or agency will be able to appoint the person provisionally. The full criminal record and police check will be performed and the relevant disclosure issued by the C'RB as soon as possible after that.
I hope that, on the basis of my detailed explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am most grateful for that explanation. The noble Baroness has answered quite satisfactorily all the questions that I put to her. It will be a great relief when the system starts to work well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121D not moved.]
Schedule 14 [Inspection of nursery education]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 122:
Page 172, line 37, at end insert—
"Rights to require paperwork
In paragraph 18 of Schedule 26 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (rights of entry), in sub-paragraph (2)(b) for "which he requires" there is substituted -which he reasonably requires"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the amount of paperwork and other information that nursery schools will have to prepare for inspection. The amendment is simple and, until we considered this in Committee, I thought

1455
uncontroversial. It adds a specific test of reasonableness to the amount of paperwork that inspectors can require from nursery schools when undertaking inspections.
I do not know how closely Ministers are in touch with the world of nursery education, or indeed with the professional world generally. One only has to glance at the articles, information and comment in the professional press to understand that the nursery world and the teaching world more generally are groaning under the weight of unreasonable demands for paper, partly from the process of inspection itself and partly from the need to comply with a whole range of constantly shifting demands for paperwork.
More and more is piled on to this paper mountain, day by day. The latest demand, which we have discussed elsewhere, is for exhaustive, expensive and time-wasting criminal records checks. By that I refer to those over and above what is necessary to secure information checks on those working with children.
We are also discussing elsewhere in the Bill massive new powers to regulate nursery schools in fields as extraordinary as sex education and religious education. How will their performance in those areas be inspected, may I ask? With no paperwork? I scarcely think so.
If Ministers do not think that there is a case for a test of reasonableness so far as demands for paperwork are concerned, then I fear that such a response would send out the message that there is a total lack of understanding of the problems faced by nursery schools.
I have studied carefully the Government response in Committee, but I regret to say that I was not convinced. Furthermore, those who have been in contact with me on this subject are also not convinced. By agreeing to a specific test of reasonableness, the noble Baroness would provide some reassurance to the world of nursery education. If she does not agree, I will certainly be reinforced in my belief that we need much wider-ranging constraints on the proliferation of regulation to be incorporated in this Bill along the lines of Amendment No. 34, which we discussed last week. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I want to make absolutely clear the reasons why I shall resist this amendment. It is not because I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that requests from Ofsted must be reasonable. That applies not only to the thousands of pre-school playgroups and day nurseries now subject to regular inspection by Ofsted, but also to schools, which for some time now have been inspected by Ofsted. The point I need to emphasise is that adding the word "reasonably" in this part of the legislation would add nothing. If anything, it could have the opposite effect. Perhaps I may take a few moments to explain the position to noble Lords.
As a public body, Ofsted is already under a public law duty to act reasonably in all its dealings with schools, nursery settings and childcare providers. A
1456
specific requirement to act reasonably in one aspect of its dealings with its customers is therefore otiose in law. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, knows very well that adding unnecessary requirements does nothing to clarify the law and, at worst, casts doubt on a general duty to act reasonably. That would not help. We therefore think it better to leave the law as it stands.
I shall say something about what Ofsted has been doing to reduce paperwork requirements. In recognition of the potential burden that Ofsted inspections place on schools and other establishments, it has already reduced its requirements for documentation. It no longer collects detailed staff and curriculum data, performance data from earlier years, or insists on schools supplying data to Ofsted's own format.
Furthermore, the draft framework for school inspections from September 2003 takes this even further stating that, with the exception of the basic inspection forms, the documentation required by inspectors should be limited to what schools would normally expect to have available. The same principle applies to early years settings, in that documentation should not be written specifically for the inspection as that puts an undesirable burden on staff.
Those wholly desirable changes have not been achieved through changes to legislation, but rather through the normal process of dialogue between public bodies and those they serve. I believe that we have a good dialogue and that Ofsted has responded well.
For the reasons that I have given about the effect of the amendment—not the spirit behind it—I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is disappointing. The noble Baroness said that my amendment was otiose. The Government have not been deterred from including otiose provisions in other parts of the Bill. There is so much that the Government have said that is being re-enacted from other Acts of Parliament.
The test of reasonableness is not new in legislation. The amendment would simply change the clause to read, "which he"—the inspector—"reasonably requires". It would present nursery schools with at least a challengeable test. The Minister says that the inspectorate is expected to behave reasonably always, but that could be said of every part of government. The world of nursery education is concerned about the issue, and I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not hearing that concern. Small though the amendment may be, I have had unprecedented contact since we discussed the issue in Committee with nursery schools pleading with me to press on to try to win the battle.
We shall be discussing later a whole new burden that will be put on nursery schools and it would be so easy for the Government to say that there ought to be a test of reasonableness when Ofsted requires information to be prepared ahead of an inspection. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is unable to respond to the

1457
amendment, but I cannot say that it is the last time that we shall discuss the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 123:
Before Clause 171, insert the following new clause—
"DUTIES OF LEAs AND GOVERNING BODIES IN RELATION TO THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN
(1) A local education authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that the functions conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
(2) The governing body of a maintained school shall make arrangements for ensuring that their functions relating to the conduct of the school are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children who are pupils at the school.
(3) The governing body of an institution within the further education sector shall make arrangements for ensuring that their functions relating to the conduct of the institution are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children receiving education or training at the institution.
(4) An authority or body mentioned in any of subsections (1) to (3) shall, in considering what arrangements are required to be made by them under that subsection, have regard to any guidance given from time to time (in relation to England) by the Secretary of State or (in relation to Wales) by the National Assembly for Wales.
(5) In this section—
"child" means a person under the age of eighteen,
"governing body", in relation to an institution within the further education sector, has the meaning given by section 90 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c. 13), and
"maintained school" means a community, foundation or voluntary school, a community or foundation special school or a maintained nursery school."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 123, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 137.
During the Committee stage I gave a commitment to respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, which sought to strengthen the current arrangements for child protection. These amendments now implement that commitment.
Having listened to the arguments of the noble Baroness, and those of her right honourable friend, Gillian Shephard, I am convinced that by placing the education service's responsibilities for making child protection arrangements on a statutory basis, it will add further safeguards against child abuse. Moreover, in examining the issue, we have concluded that the arrangements need to go a little further than those that we debated in Committee. To place a duty solely on schools would leave gaps and might leave some children more vulnerable than others. That would clearly not be right.
Amendment No. 123 would place a statutory duty on LEAs and on the governing bodies of further education institutions as well. LEAs should be covered by this provision, not least because of their role in representing schools on area child protection committees and their responsibilities for groups of
1458
children not currently educated in schools. As to the inclusion of further education institutions, we would be remiss if we did not ensure equity in arrangements for under-18s in these settings, particularly given the proposals in the 14 to 19 Green Paper.
Before I conclude, I should like specifically to address the issue of enforcement of this new provision. For schools and local education authorities we shall have recourse to Section 497 of the Education Act 1996, which is ultimately enforceable by mandatory order. For FE institutions, the Secretary of State's powers of intervention contained within Section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 will provide the enforcement mechanism. Failure by a head teacher or a member of staff to act in accordance with arrangements when they are in force would be grounds on which the governing body, or the employing authority in the case of LEA staff, could properly consider action against the individual either under disciplinary procedures or in terms of competence.
However, the clause does not intend to give rise to private law actions by individuals against an education authority, school or FE institution for breaches of the statutory duties it contains.
I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and her right honourable friend Gillian Shephard for bringing the tragedy of Lauren Wright and the implications of that case to the attention of this House. I hope that the whole House will again be able to support these amendments, which I believe will strengthen the protection afforded to the children in our education system—an objective which I know all noble Lords share. I beg to move.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for sending me a copy of the new clause as soon as she had it to hand. It was very helpful. As she has explained, one of our main concerns has related to the Lauren Wright case; namely, that the head teacher and assistant teacher in that case could not be disciplined although they had failed Lauren in every way. They had not followed the guidelines—but, then, they were only guidelines and had no force in law. Our anxiety is that this amendment will give that force in law, which I believe is what the noble Baroness said. I should like a reassured on the record that failure to observe the content of the guidance would result in some kind of disciplinary procedure, which I believe is the reassurance that the Minister has given me.
Perhaps I may ask one or two questions. In subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, local education authorities are required to ensure that their arrangements are adequate. Who will judge what is adequate? Who will inspect the arrangements? Who will pursue LEAs that are not up to scratch?
In subsections (2) and (3), governors are given responsibility with regard to children at risk. The noble Baroness has said that governors, as employers, would be empowered to dismiss or otherwise to discipline heads and teachers who in some way failed to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children

1459
at the school. But what powers would LEAs have if the governors failed in this respect? In such a case, could they discipline teachers who had failed?
Lastly, is the Minister confident that this new clause will have the teeth that we want it to have? If that is all in order, it is my duty and great pleasure to say thank you to the noble Baroness. With her officials, she has come up with some very useful amendments.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I welcome the amendment, and I share some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. The intentions to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people are important and honourable.
Can the Minister be a little more precise in defining the word "welfare"? It is slightly more difficult than defining "child" or "governing body". Does it apply only to children who are at risk or in need, for example? Following on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, can the Minister say how local arrangements might be developed in practice, including drawing up frameworks for action in schools and monitoring those frameworks? Again, what is the role of the LEA? Do the Government foresee guidance being developed on this? If so, the amendment is a very valuable one.
10 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I warmly welcome government Amendment No. 123. I am delighted that the Minister has responded in her usual thoughtful way to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and the rest of us who spoke in Committee. Schools are on the front line with children and are in a good position to detect abuse and ensure that children receive the protection and services that they need. However, it is right that their duties in this matter should be made clear, as they are in Amendment No. 123.
I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe and Lady Massey of Darwin. I have a different question for the Minister about the resource implications of the new statutory duty that the amendment gives to schools. Teachers and officers of the LEA may need additional training, which costs money, and supply cover may be needed to enable them to benefit from the training offered. Will adequate consideration be given within the Comprehensive Spending Review to the additional funding that LEAs and schools may need to fulfil these important duties?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that the House has given the amendments. Because the guidance will be statutory, it will be subject to monitoring in the same way as all other statutory guidance. Governing bodies will be responsible for making arrangements in schools. It will be their responsibility to ensure that such arrangements are in force and it will be part of the normal framework of inspection to ensure that this is complied with. Anyone who feels that the issue has not
1460
been dealt with properly will have the right to object to the Secretary of State, who will be able to take action under the mandatory orders.
Governing bodies or the local education authority act as employers in this context. Employment law would come into force. The noble Baroness knows far better than I do that in Lauren Wright's case there was nothing on which the governing body could take action. There was no basis on which they could act. Now there will be. We believe that this will go some way to improving the situation, but we shall monitor it, as we do all other issues of children's welfare. Welfare is defined as the health, happiness, prosperity and well-being in general of a person. In this context, it applies to all children.
The amendment will give teeth. In considering what to do, we took the resource implications into account. It is for us to look into that. We gave careful consideration to the issue and we are responsible for that to ensure that the provisions work.
As I said in Committee, we cannot bring Lauren back or do anything for her. I think that the amendment will help to ensure that such a tragedy could not happen again and the plight of a little girl like Lauren will not go unnoticed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I have one question. She said that there was no action that could have been taken and no basis on which action could have been taken in Lauren's case. Even without these amendments, which I very much welcome, do not teachers have a duty of care to the children in their charge? Did not the foster parents have a duty of care? Did not the social workers and the LEA have a duty of care? Were they not all neglectful? Did not they all breach their duty of care?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that is a much wider question. I do not want to give the wrong answer. The particular point that I was referring to was that in Lauren's case, there were no procedures for the head to follow and there was nothing that meant that the head could be disciplined for not taking appropriate action. We have sought to remedy that with the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, knows the case far better than I do, but I have read the details. Huge mistakes were clearly made by a number of agencies and individuals, of which the school was but one. We have said before in your Lordships' House that the stepmother was working as a lunchtime supervisor and therefore looking after other children. There is no question but that the situation that happened with Lauren was a tragedy of huge proportions. This is our response to it, by putting schools and local education authorities in no doubt as to what is required. Other agencies must do the same and I trust that they will do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 124:
Before Clause 171, insert the following new clause—
"CONSULTATION WITH PUPILS
(1) It shall be the duty—

(a) of a local education authority, in the exercise of any of their schools functions, and

(b) of the governing body of a maintained school, in the exercise of any function relating to the conduct of the school,

to have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in relation to Wales) about consultation with pupils in connection with the taking of decisions affecting them.
(2) Any guidance under this section must provide for a pupil's views to he considered in the light of his age and understanding.
(3) In this section—
"maintained school" means a community, foundation or voluntary school or a community or foundation special school;
"pupil" does not include a child who is being provided with nursery education (whether at a school or elsewhere);
"schools functions", in relation to a local education authority, means functions relating to—

(a) maintained schools,

(b) pupil referral units, or

(c) the provision of education for children of compulsory school age otherwise than at school."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 124 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 138. I should like to pay tribute to the contributions of all noble Lords in Committee. It was clear that there was much support for the principle of ensuring that our children and young people participate more effectively in processes that affect them.
These amendments are designed to provide an avenue through which we can ensure that LEAs and schools have access to best practice in actively involving young people when making decisions that affect them. We believe that at the present time the best way to do this is by issuing best practice guidance, sharing information about what many of our best schools do to motivate and involve young people and to raise standards. We do not believe that there is a single best way of doing this. However, we do believe that it is an important issue and one where guidance based on the best can make a very significant difference.
The amendments recognise that many schools are already involving their pupils in different ways. Indeed, I genuinely struggled to recall the last school I visited which did not have a mechanism in place for doing so. I also recognise that schools have different mechanisms which apply depending on the age of the children and the way in which they discuss with the children how they wish to involve them. We want to encourage best practice so that it becomes the norm in all schools.
So we intend to develop an approach that is not prescriptive but means that schools will be able to find the best way for them of involving young people. We
1462
do want to see young people involved more effectively. However, we believe that the issue of how best to achieve that will depend on the circumstances of the school. Our guidance will support schools to develop innovative approaches that work for them. It will offer a flexible menu of options. It will also allow schools to adopt the best-fit model of participation and adapt it over time as circumstances change. It will reflect that pupils have to be engaged differently according to their age and understanding.
Amendment No. 124 ensures that we can pursue this approach. Amendment No. 138 is purely technical and ensures that certain definitions from the Education Act 1996 are read across to this amendment.
Arrangements will also support the flexible citizenship programme of study, allowing schools choice in planning provision, and ensure that Ofsted inspectors will look at a broader range of provision when they come to judge how well schools are involving pupils in the running of their school.I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do apologise for rising to speak to Amendment No. 125 after eleven o'clock at night—if I have counted correctly, there are 11 noble Lords in the Chamber—lbut I feel very strongly about this amendment. It is about a subject, hearing the views of children, about which I have spoken on many occasions over a very long time. Here is another opportunity, and I am afraid that I am going to take advantage of it. The other reason is that I have had very strong support for this amendment, for which I am grateful, from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who has had to leave, for which she sends her great apologies.
I am grateful for the Minister's comments. The Government have gone some way, but not, I think, far enough. The purpose of this new clause is to fulfil our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under Article 12, states must,
"assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child".
When the Committee on the Rights of the Child examined the UK's initial report back in 1995, it noted that this and other general principles the convention were not reflected consistently in our law and recommended that they should be. We regularly tell other countries that they must fulfil their human rights obligations, and we must do so too. This Government have done much towards creating a culture of human rights in this country. Building that culture for the future depends on children. Creating schools in which children feel valued as individual people whose views are to be taken seriously must be a big part of that process. So we need to deliver a clear message to local authorities, and to schools, and, above all, to children.
Saying that schools must have regard to any guidance on consultation which the Secretary of State may give from time to time is not a clear message and is far from reflecting the clarity of Article 12. The

1463
Government's new clause is not satisfactory. Statutory guidance sounds strong and it is strong when the guidance relates to a body of legal duties, as with the code of practice on special educational needs, for example. But there is a complete vacuum in education law on respecting pupils' views.
The Government's new clause simply leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide how far schools should be advised to go. The new clause does not in fact implement Article 12 at all. Local authorities and governing bodies will have to have regard to any guidance and should follow it unless they can think of a reasonable reason not to. The Minister has stated that Ofsted will check up on what schools are doing. In Committee the Minister on 9th May suggested that guidance will offer schools a flexible menu of options and allow schools to adopt a best fit model of participation and adapt it over time. The legal duty in our new clause does not prescribe a particular model of participation. The flexible menu will still be there to be developed and owned by schools themselves, but backed by an essential imperative to respect the principle.
Of course schools need guidance and the encouragement of rigorous inspection. But all of that needs to be based on a clear legal duty. What seemed right to the current Secretary of State when she moved a similar "legal duty" amendment to the Education Bill 1993 is more than right today. One of our new schools Minister's last initiatives as a Back-Bencher was to table a similar new clause in Committee on this Bill in the other place. Our ministerial team are obviously really with us on this issue! The Government should have the courage of their strong human rights convictions and go for a proper duty as the basis for guidance and for inspection.
For more than a quarter of a century, from the Children Act 1975, local authorities have been under a duty to respect the views of children in care. That duty was re-enacted and broadened in the Children Act 1989. There was no question of reducing that clear duty to statutory guidance. In Scotland the first education Act to be passed by the new Parliament includes a statutory duty to have regard to children's views in all decisions that significantly affect them. In education law there has been a principle of respect for parents' wishes in primary legislation since the Education Act 1944, and probably before that.
This really is not an issue to be hesitant over. We know that good schools already respect pupils' views on decisions that affect them; some schools have always done so. The purpose of a legal duty is to ensure that all schools do so in relation to all significant decisions affecting pupils. As far as I can see, the only possible reason for preferring the Government's new clause to mine is if one does not want all schools to be required to respect children's views.
One specific issue about the Government's new clause is its exclusion of nursery age pupils from even guidance on consultation. That seems very strange; there is no age limit on Article 12, and the habit of seeking and respecting children's views, which is not at
1464
all the same thing as following their views, should start young. That is important. You do not necessarily have to follow their views but you must try to hear them.
NGOs, including Save the Children and the National Early Years Network, have promoted very positive initiatives to hear young children's views. The pioneering Children and Young People's Unit, a cross-cutting unit placed in the Department for Education and Skills, has been promoting participation by children across government. The DfES responded earlier this month with its action plan for the involvement of children and young people, which was entitled, Listening to Learn. Its vision is of,
"a department which is young-person friendly and accessible, responsive to their needs and aspirations, and renowned throughout government for leading change in this area".
I note that on page 12 the report prejudges the result of this debate and suggests that the department will develop statutory guidance on consulting pupils on decisions that affect them. However, if the department is serious about its vision and the timetable for achieving it, it must place a clear legal duty in the Bill. It has to be admitted that until very recently the Department for Education and Skills has lagged well behind the Department of Health in terms of respecting children's views. If it wants to be seen to be leading change, here is the opportunity. The Department for Education and Skills has not had a terribly good reputation in the past for being forward looking. Here is an opportunity for it to try to make that better.
If the Minister suggests that there are technical problems with the amendment, as there probably are—there usually are—there is plenty of time to put that right if the Government, having accepted the principle that pupils have a right to be consulted, concede that there should be a clear legal duty.
I hope that the Minister will change the Government's previous view and support the amendment. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords. I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I do not feel that government Amendment No. 124 is good enough, for three reasons. First, the Government are under a legal obligation to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified in December 1991. I do not see how the Government can possibly resist having a statutory right rather than guidance. When the United Kingdom Government were last examined by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is the international treaty monitoring body for the CRC, it strongly recommended action in schools in terms of implementing Article 12, which gives children the right to have their views considered. The Government will next be scrutinised by the committee in the autumn. All the indications are that that committee is more or less certain to issue very critical comments about the UK's treatment of its children. The lack of a statutory

1465
right to be consulted is only one of many criticisms that are likely to be made. I am sure that the Government would not wish to be so embarrassed.
The second reason is that consultation with children and listening to their views engenders a positive relationship between students and their teachers and it stresses a mutual respect and atmosphere of cooperation. The Government state that they would like more young people to be involved in politics and to use their right to vote. They cannot expect young voters to spring fully formed from the womb of the school and to rush to the polling station to put their vote in the ballot box unless they have got used to consultation, to considering the issues and to having those views respected. This would be a very good way of doing that. It would help to encourage young people to participate in the political process when they reach the voting age.
Finally, the approach would bring English education law into line with developments in other public services. The noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned the fact that the health service and social services consult children. I also refer to Scottish legislation and education law in many European countries; Scotland already gives pupils that statutory right. That legislation has been in force for more than a year and there have been no reported difficulties for schools or pupils. For those three very good reasons, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support both amendments. But, unless I hear arguments which are strongly contrary, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, is the one that I would prefer. It is clearly important to include an appropriate level of consultation with school pupils in areas which affect them. As has already been said by all three speakers, it is almost certainly the minimum that will be expected under human rights legislation and, indeed, under Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It is clear that young people are very much better informed than they used to be. We can blame, or praise, modern methods of communication for that. They also have fairly straightforward views and criticisms of purely "adult-imposed" schooling requirements. The latest example of that was when young people spoke in support of a children's commissioner. Such an arrangement has been granted in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK. When young people spoke in support of a children's commissioner on 10th June, they illustrated very well how articulate they are.
It is certainly my view that we need to listen carefully to young people's views. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that we should accept them. I must confess that I should have preferred a decision that the Education Bill should include full provisions for pupil governors. From what I have read in the press, I know that that does not seem to be totally popular with the teaching profession at present. But my views on that form of consumer representation were formed
1466
well over 50 years ago when I worked at the Architectural Association's School of Architecture. That organisation had had student governors for a long time, and very effective they were.
I believe that other countries have such an arrangement at school level. I am told that South Africa, which borrowed much of its school law from us, allows for pupil governors. That country has decreed that the governors must be 16 years of age or older. What might be called the more "sensitive" issues are dealt with by an executive committee of the governors. In relation to the minimum requirements for consultation, as time goes on, there may be hope that this is but a first step in not too long a road to full, important inclusiveness of pupils' views.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, as I introduced in Committee the amendment on the issue of listening to children, I shall be very brief and far less poetic and metaphorical than the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
I am very pleased that there is so much support around the House for the notion of listening to children. However, I should like to be a little more generous than others have been in thanking the Minister for going such a long way and for producing Amendment No. 124, which I find useful.
There is already much good practice in schools on which to build. My own school—a primary school, including a nursery school—does listen to children and takes their views into account. It does not always go along with them but it listens and, many times, it acts on what the children say.
In Committee, several noble Lords contributed vigorously to the discussion on the issue of supporting consultation processes within schools. I believe that the Minister has listened. Consultation with children is important. It is enshrined in legislation and, indeed, in the Children Act. I agree with others that the issue of consultation should be included in all legislation and not only in that relating to education. However, I thank the Minister for acting on this issue and I look forward to her response.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is nothing which divides us in wanting to ensure that we bring children closely into consultation on issues within schools. My problem is not with the amendment per se but with the technicalities of doing what the noble Baroness, Lady David, would like us to do. There is a technical problem with the approach. The difficulty concerns the interpretation in law. That is what prompted us to table an amendment to ensure that we take forward in a real spirit of agreement the desire to consult and involve pupils.
I draw two issues to the attention of noble Lords. First, we want to ensure that schools are able to develop the approach which works for them. As I said in opening, many schools involve pupils but, because of the age of the children, the type of school and the way in which the children have wanted to be involved, they do so in different ways. School councils are a good

1467
example of that. I know of school councils which attend governors meetings and those which do not; those which operate with their fellow pupils in different ways; those which meet to discuss matters with teachers and those which discuss matters with only the head teacher. Those are small points, but they concern a different approach.
I know of schools, of which I have chaired governors, which involve pupils in discussions about anti-bullying strategies and do innovative work, particularly with younger children. We know of schools which involve pupils in important decisions about the future of the school. I refer, for example, to decisions on school uniform, how the school might operate activities, how it orders and buys play equipment, and many other matters. We are trying to allow schools to develop the approach that works for them. That is not because we believe that this is the end of the process, but the beginning.
It is the responsibility of government to consider the implications of their proposals in terms of the law. The introduction of a broad statutory requirement of this kind could cause difficulties for schools over the meaning and interpretation of the law and could increase the risk of judicial review if pupils felt that they had not been consulted when they should have been on a particular issue. That would either lead—
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I rise in a spirit of genuine inquiry. If I understand the noble Baroness correctly, she stated that the difficulty with a statutory right is what might happen in court. If that is the case, why is not there the same problem in Scotland?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not know whether there is the same problem in Scotland. This is the best advice we have in terms of our legal representation and I bring it forward on that basis. I cannot answer for what might happen in Scotland. It may be—I am guessing—that the difference is that the provision is specific about ways in which children are consulted and that thereby that difficulty is avoided. That is precisely what I am trying to avoid, by not saying, "The way to do this is to set up a school council, with this representation with lots of regulation and guidance alongside it", and so forth.
We are trying to allow schools to develop the model which works for them. That is the approach which we think will work best. We want to take an approach which enables children and young people to be consulted and involved in ways which work best for schools. I reiterate that this is the beginning and not the end of that process.
The amendment does not help us in the approach we want to take. Therefore, I have the responsibility to raise these issues. We believe that our amendment is more effective. We want to minimise the likelihood of difficulties to schools and to increase the likelihood of schools taking effective action on their own initiative. I reiterate that we have a strong belief that participation can and should take many different
1468
forms if it is to fit the particular circumstances in which schools find themselves and is to be effective. Every noble Lord shares the desire to ensure that this is not lip-service but genuine participation by young people and children.
Therefore, on the basis that we believe Amendment No. 125 carries some serious risks of schools facing legal difficulties and also of less effective action by schools, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to respond to the Minister said. First, I thank very much those who have spoken in favour of my amendment. I had very strong and powerful support. I am extremely grateful for that. I thank the Minister for what she has said, but it was an extremely timid and uncourageous response. I am rather ashamed of the Department for Education and Skills for being so very timid. I hope that she will convey the message to her ministerial colleagues that I think they really are extremely timid and weak. They do not have the courage of their convictions. That is very bad.
I should dearly like to divide the House, but with so few people in the Chamber and it being after half past ten at night, it would be a fruitless exercise. But I feel very strongly about the matter and am extremely disappointed. In the circumstances, I shall not press my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Schedule 17 [Amendments of Part 5 of Education Act 1997]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 126:
Page 178, line 27, at end insert—
"(2B) In the case of maintained nursery schools or of funded nursery schools which are designated as Montessori schools, and where the principal or at least two senior teachers are holders of recognised qualifications from Montessori awarding bodies, the authority, in carrying out its functions under this section, shall do nothing that will require or advise schools or teachers to depart from principles and teaching methods that are appropriate to Montessori education and shall not insist on anything that is inappropriate to Montessori education."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 126, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127 and 128. I make no apology for returning to the subject. I shall not repeat the points I made in Committee, except to remind noble Lords that the Montessori system is an international system of education established, tried and tested for generations and freely chosen in this country by many thousands of parents for their children.
This is not a fringe activity to be tolerated; it is a significant part of nursery education in the United Kingdom. It deserves proper recognition and status. Indeed, The QCA and the department—which frequently chop and change their ever expanding guidelines for nursery schools—might usefully learn from the consistency and success of Montessori bodies.

1469
The three amendments have simple objectives which, frankly, I do not think any reasonable government would, or indeed should, resist if they really meant what they said, that they valued Montessori education.
Amendment No. 126 asks that the judgment of qualified Montessori schools and teachers should not be overridden by public authorities so far as concerns the principles and teaching methods of Montessori education.
Amendment No. 127 asks that Montessori qualifications—which I remind your Lordships are earned over two years and many hours of practical experience—should be in all respects adequate for all educational purposes in running, managing and teaching in a Montessori school.
Many teachers and managers now fear they are facing the nonsense of being asked to requalify in a different—and lower level—qualification that is inappropriate to Montessori teaching.
Do the Government not realise that if we ask would-be Montessori teachers to go through too many qualification hoops we may end up by strangling the Montessori system? If that happens, no Minister in the Government can say they were not warned of that risk.
Amendment No. 128, which is new, provides that the QCA, in issuing directions to Montessori awarding bodies, should do nothing to require them to depart from teaching and accrediting principles appropriate to Montessori schools and should not require them to use any accreditation standards that are inappropriate to Montessori schools. That is a reasonable amendment that the Government should accept.
I have read carefully the words of the Minister in Committee. I have also had further representations from Montessori practitioners who have convinced me that the arguments I put in Committee were justified.
Whatever the Minister may say, or whatever may be said by officials, there is a deep sense of unease in the Montessori world that they are not respected or valued as they might be.
When I speak to these schools, I find a profound sense of despair settling on professionals as they witness the prospect of yet more regulation, more interference, more hours spent ploughing through paperwork and, in this case, all too often for purposes entirely unconnected with Montessori education.
The Minister said in Committee:
"What is at issue is whether all 15 Montessori bodies should separately have qualifications accredited by the QCA as part of the national framework".—[Official Report, 28/5/02; col. 1300.]
With respect, that is not the case. For the department's information, there are nine Montessori awarding bodies, not 15. Although Montessori bodies have hoped for that in the past, they now accept that it is not possible. They accept that a proliferation of qualifications is undesirable. They are not holding discussions with the QCA on that basis.
Contrary to what the Minister appeared to believe, they accept that it would not be financially viable to set up a Montessori awarding body. The question is how
1470
the system can be organised so as not to damage the integrity of Montessori education but to incorporate its ideals and avoid placing an unnecessary and damaging burden of inappropriate regulation and re-qualification on Montessori trainers, schools and teachers.
The Minister said in Committee that Montessori qualification was not level 4. That statement has caused great dismay to the Montessori community. It takes issue with the idea that just because a qualification has not been submitted to the QCA, for accreditation, it cannot be regarded as level 4. Level 4 qualifications in early years are a recent introduction. Previously, there was only level 3 qualification, the equivalent to national vocational qualification level 3. The Montessori teaching diploma has always been at a higher level than NVQ level 3 and holding it has exempted students from the first year of a variety of courses, including the B.Ed with qualified teaching status. Surely the Minister is not saying that, in the department's view, it does not have that status. That needs to be made clear beyond doubt.
Perhaps I may suggest a way forward. The Montessori community continues its work of establishing common minimum standards for Montessori training in the United Kingdom. It is also piloting a kite-marking programme for Montessori training. All that is lacking is to ensure that Montessori diploma holders have their qualifications recognised by Ofsted. It believes that the most appropriate route would be to link the Montessori diploma with the Council for Awards in Children's Care and Education certificate of professional development, a qualification in the national framework, the certificate giving license to practise. The certificate in itself may have its limitations but, combined with the practical and theoretical training, including extensive practice-based training, that constitutes the Montessori diploma, that should more than meet the level 3 criteria of the national standards.
Unlike all of the other bolt-on options, that would not require a Montessori student to backtrack at a lower level over material already covered simply to gain a so-called recognised qualification. I understand that the Montessori bodies would like to adopt that approach from September and that all that they are waiting for is some official blessing from Ofsted and the department. Can the Minister today give that indication and urge Ofsted and the QCA to support that proposal, instead of insisting on tying Montessori education within the straitjacket of an inappropriate and inflexible national framework?
I hope that in his response the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will accept at least some of the amendments. That would send a powerful signal that he meant what he said to those thousands of dedicated trainers and teachers. If he cannot, I hope that he will undertake to consider the points that I have just made and be prepared to return at Third Reading with a statement as to whether the option that I have sketched out would be acceptable.

1471
Finally, perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask two other questions. First, will the Minister give a firm assurance that no qualified Montessori teacher, school manager or proprietor will have to re-qualify under the provisions and that, in view of what I have told the House about the high standard of Montessori qualifications, past qualifications will be fully accepted? Great fear and anger is abroad on that point.
Secondly, if the Minister cares about Montessori, will he instruct his officials to ensure that information and contact details about services provided by the Montessori community are included in government publications? For example, Wanting to Work in Early Years Education, Childcare and Playwork, which was funded by the department, failed to include Montessori. What is more, the good practice guide for early years education, Childcare Quality Improvement and Assurance Practices, includes details of six quality assurance schemes, one of which is still only being piloted, but not the one set up by Montessori Education UK, which has been running for six years. I understand that representations have been made about the matter, with no result as yet. Will the Minister give instructions that Montessori should, in future, be included as another example?
Against that background, is it any wonder that the Montessori world feels troubled and undervalued? I hope that the Minister can give us better reassurance in response to the amendments and will undertake to follow it up in practice. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I declare an interest as the stepfather of a young lady who is training to be a Montessori teacher. We all have much to gain from going down the route proposed by my noble friend. Montessori education is widely appreciated, respected and used by parents. As we are extending the general coverage of regulation to that sector of education, the Department for Education and Skills should give it proper respect.
On the other hand, I have always been perplexed and, to some extent, annoyed by the fragmentation of the Montessori world. It is difficult to know exactly what one is getting in a Montessori school. We have never really known about the qualifications for teaching. We have known what the philosophy is, but we have not known what recognised training has been done. Much will be gained from the department's putting pressure on the Montessori world to bring things into a recognised framework. If that is done alongside giving full respect to Montessori principles, it could work well. In other similar professions, that sort of pressure has worked well to bring things together under common regulation. In this case, it would give parents of the pupils concerned confidence in and knowledge of what their children get at a Montessori school.
Some of the points made by my noble friend have great validity. Those who have taught in and managed Montessori schools for some time should not have to
1472
go back and do the equivalent of a PGCE to prove that they can do what they have done for years. There must be some form of migration, through which people who have achieved Montessori qualifications can gain qualifications that will enable them to teach in other nursery schools, without having to begin again with the basics. A spirit of co-operation and respect is needed, and I hope that the Minister will assure that that is what we will get.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I am pleased to follow him. Before dealing with the amendments, I must make it as clear as I can that nothing that the Government are doing or would do—in the Bill or elsewhere—harms or threatens Montessori education in any way. The Government value the contribution of Montessori education and have no wish to see it damaged or altered.
I shall start with Amendment No. 126. The Bill ensures that providers of early years education, such as Montessori schools, will retain the flexibility to plan learning experiences that are appropriate to the particular needs of the children, families and communities with whom they work. As my noble friend said in Committee, the introduction of a foundation stage has been welcomed almost universally in the sector.
The curriculum for the foundation stage is not prescriptive in its principles and teaching methods and is already provided appropriately in a range of early education settings, including Montessori. Nothing in the Bill changes or threatens that. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that neither the department nor the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority wish to make the foundation stage curriculum inoperable for any of the practitioners who deliver it.
I turn to Amendment No. 127, and the recognition of Montessori qualifications. I want to be clear that there is no prospect of the Government imposing inappropriate qualifications on Montessori. I understand that since Committee stage Montessori Education UK has written to QCA and to Ofsted proposing a way forward that involves the awarding body responsible for other childcare qualifications, the Council for Awards in Children's Care and Education—CACHE. QCA is seeking clarification with Montessori, CACHE and Ofsted.
We are not yet certain that this will prove to be the solution, but it is increasingly clear that accreditation to the national framework will be possible within the scope of the current arrangements in a way that will not in any way compromise Montessori. Therefore we continue to believe that it would not be appropriate to make an exception of any awarding body in primary legislation and that QCA should be allowed to use its technical and professional expertise even-handedly in this as in other cases.
Although I understand that Amendment No. 128 is also designed to ensure that the special characteristics of Montessori education are respected, I do not believe

1473
the amendment is necessary. It primarily addresses the power to direct. The power is designed to safeguard the effective delivery of qualifications and the interests of learners expecting to take qualifications, where there has been a failure or there is a serious risk of failure by the awarding body and where the withdrawal of accreditation would not be viable.
The power can be exercised only if an awarding body is failing to comply, or is at risk of not complying, with a condition of accreditation which it had agreed to accept. Furthermore, the power to direct, which should be used only as a last resort, is designed to restore compliance with those accreditation conditions. Accreditation is a voluntary process and, while, as I said earlier, there have been discussions between Montessori and QCA about the issue, so far, no Montessori organisation has submitted any qualifications for accreditation.
Therefore the amendment is seeking to tie QCA's hands in the eventuality that Montessori does so. However, should Montessori submit its qualifications and they meet the conditions necessary for accreditation, then the scope of the power to direct will simply ensure that Montessori continues to meet them.
I do not believe that Montessori provision needs to be, nor indeed should be, treated as a unique case. Nor do I believe that the regulatory authorities should have their hands tied in such a way for provision of which they have a reasonable understanding, but have not yet had an opportunity to scrutinise closely. Our primary concern must be to protect the interests of learners and to protect credibility in both the educational and qualifications systems. I am confident that, should QCA be given the opportunity, it will work closely with Montessori to ensure that sound qualifications that best serve the needs of learners are the result. I am confident that a clear and satisfactory solution will he found. Noble Lords will understand that I do not believe we should necessarily negotiate it on the Floor of the House.
I am keeping a watchful eye on the matter and I will of course be in touch with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. But I hope on the basis of the reassurance I have put on the record and the understanding that we are waiting for the discussions to move forward, and recognising the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am totally puzzled by the response. The noble Baroness has not responded in detail to my suggested way forward. I said that all that was lacking was to ensure that Montessori diploma holders have their qualifications recognised by Ofsted. Is the noble Baroness saying that that is open for submission to Ofsted for recognition? As I said, the Montessori community is continuing its work of establishing common minimum standards for Montessori training in the United Kingdom.
The Montessori establishment, not the DfES, is responsible for Montessori education. If the Montessori establishment is prepared to submit its
1474
diploma holders for recognition by Ofsted, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness would tell me whether that is acceptable. It believes that the most appropriate route would be to link the Montessori diploma with the CACHE certificate of professional development. The noble Baroness referred to the CACHE certificate, which is a qualification on the national framework.
I do not welcome discussions with myself about the matter; I believe they should be taking place with Montessori. The Montessori community is most anxious to retain the integrity of Montessori education. For the people who work within that educational system, satisfying their client group—those who choose Montessori education—that ought to continue and nothing the DfES does should stand in the way of that.
The Minister began by saying that nothing the DfES intends to do will harm or damage Montessori education in any way. I cannot take that statement at face value because I am not sure that there is not a way of applying the national framework so as to have a harmful effect on Montessori. The Minister also said that there is no prospect of imposing any other qualification on Montessori education. We need to be convinced of that, too.
I shall have further discussions with the organisation, but the Minister said that no organisation has submitted any qualification whatever for accreditation. However, I want to conclude by repeating the questions I asked earlier. Would it be possible for Ofsted to recognise the value of Montessori diploma-holders and the value that has within the national framework? Is there any chance whatever that the Government have moved forward on that positive suggestion?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I tried to deal with the noble Baroness's points. I presume that Montessori UK is the particular Montessori organisation to which the noble Baroness is referring. There are nine different Montessori organisations and the generic name "Montessori" covers all nine. The particular proposal to which I referred relates to Montessori UK. We have written to the QCA and to Ofsted and they have proposed a way forward. We have great hope that within that proposal there may be steps we can take, but conversations are continuing and I would not like to reach any conclusion on the Floor of the House. That would be inappropriate.
If the noble Baroness is referring to a different Montessori organisation, perhaps she can give me more details. I would then be happy to respond.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall speak to those in the Montessori community between now and the next stage of the Bill. There was a slightly warmer reception to the amendments today. There was a distinct chill in the air when similar amendments were tabled in Committee. I do detect a slight aversion to Montessori within the department—not on the part of the

1475
Minister. I believe that within the department there is a frisson of some sort towards the organisation and, frankly, that is a barrier that we need to break down.
I believe that this is a most valuable part of nursery provision across the country. It should be recognised as such and we should do what we can to ensure that it remains so. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 128A:
After Clause 193, insert the following new clause—
"TRANSPORT FOR PERSONS OVER THE ACE OF 14
(1) A local education authority shall make such arrangements for the provision of transport or otherwise as may be necessary to secure the attendance of persons over the age of 14 receiving education or training—

(a) at schools,

(b) at any institution maintained or assisted by the authority which provides further education or higher education (or both),

(c) at any institution within the further education sector,

(d) pursuant to an order made under section 82 of this Act, at any establishment, or

(e) at any establishment (not falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (d)) which is supported by the Learning and Skills Council for England or the National Council for Education and Training in Wales.

(2) In considering what arrangements it may be necessary to make for the purpose specified in subsection (1), the local education authority shall have regard (amongst other things) to—

(a) the needs of those for whom it would not he reasonably practical to attend a particular establishment to receive education or training if no arrangements were made.

(b) the need to secure that persons in their area have reasonable opportunities to choose between different establishments at which education or training is provided,

(c) the distance from the homes or persons in their area of establishments such as are mentioned in subsection (1) at which education and training suitable to their needs is provided,

(d) the costs of transport to the establishments in question and of any alternative means of facilitating the attendance of persons receiving education or training there,

(e) the age of the person and the nature of the route, or alternative routes, which he could reasonably be expected to take,

(f) to any wish of him, or if the person is under the age of 18 his parents, to be provided with education or training at an establishment in which the religious education provided is that of the religion or denomination to which he or his parent adheres, and

(g) any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

(3) Before determining what arrangements it will make under subsection (1), a local authority shall consult—

(a) any other local education authority that they consider it appropriate to consult,

(b) the governing bodies of schools maintained by the authority and of any institutions in the further education sector providing education or training for the people in its area,

1476

(c) the Learning and Skills Council for England (in the case of local education authorities in England) or the National Council for Education and Training in Wales (in the case of a local education authority in Wales), and

(d) any other person specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.

(4) Any transport provided in pursuance of arrangements under subsection (1) shall be provided free of charge.
(5) A local education authority may pay the whole or any part, as they think fit, of the reasonable travelling expenses of any person receiving education or training at any institution mentioned in subsection (1) for whose transport no arrangements are made under that subsection.
(6) Arrangements made by a local education authority under subsection (1) shall—

(a) make provision for persons receiving full-time education or training at any institution within the further education sector which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for pupils of the same age at schools maintained by the local education authority, and

(b) make provision for persons receiving full-time education at institutions mentioned in subsection (1)(d) which is no less favourable than the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for persons of the same age with learning difficulties (within the meaning of section 13 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) (persons with learning difficulties)) at schools maintained by a local education authority, or where there are no such arrangements the provision made in pursuance of the arrangements for such persons for whom the authority secures the provision of education at any other institution.

(7) Regulations may require a local education authority to publish, at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed, such information as may be prescribed in respect to the authority's policy and arrangements relating to the making of provision under this section."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment, which we discussed in Committee, relates to the transport of those over compulsory school age. It is a longstanding issue, particularly with colleges of further education, partly because conditional obligations are already placed on LEAs. Clause 193 and Schedule 19 make it somewhat clearer that there will continue to be obligations on LEAs but they remain conditional.
It is not explicit that LEAs must be responsible for the provision; it is assumed that colleges will continue to provide via their own access funds. In addition, the provision focuses only on 16 to 19 year-olds and there are problems because those older than 19 need help with transport costs. In addition, with the new 14 to 19 provision, there will also be the issue of the transport of those under 16 who need to get to the colleges and to work-based places.
In Committee, the Minister responded at some length. We raised the matter at half past midnight and we have done a little better this time—but not much! It was suggested that the amendment was totally inappropriate. The Association of Colleges was not happy with that response. It has asked me to bring it back. It said that the amendment was designed, first, to impose on the LEA an absolute duty to arrange transport for students rather than the conditional duty of Section 509 even if that section is enhanced as envisaged in Schedule 19; secondly, to extend to all

1477
adult students the obligations on LEAs which Schedule 19 seeks to create for the 16 to 19 year-olds; thirdly, to strengthen the requirement for equality of treatment regardless of institution attended; and, fourthly, to add a new duty in respect of transport for the 14 to 16 year-olds undergoing vocational or work-based training of the type envisaged under the clauses of the Bill.
To date, the Government have given no public explanation of how they believe that the new requirements set out in Schedule 19 will strengthen the obligations on LEAs in respect of transport for 16 to 19 year-olds or under what circumstances they might be willing to use their powers of direction, which have never been given under Section 509 or its predecessors despite a virtual withdrawal from the field of 16 to 19 transport by some LEAs.
The Government have not given any public explanation of why they believe it appropriate to draw a distinction between 16 to 19 year-olds and adults in the obligations they believe reasonable to lay on LEAs or about their thinking on the way in which policies for assistance with transport might assist adult access to continuing education. Equally, they have been silent on the question of how 14 to 16 year-olds will access vocational or work-based learning. Is the duty to provide on the LEA, the learning provider, the parent or no one?
There are, I think, real problems here. We are anxious to encourage participation on the part of 16 to 19 year-olds. Transport costs can be very considerable for those young people. They can be a major disincentive to participation. While there remains obscurity as to who bears the burden, if the buck can be passed it will be passed between LEAs and colleges and from colleges to parents. That is not satisfactory. A clearer delineation of responsibility needs to be given. I beg to move.
Baroness Match: My Lords, first, unless I have missed it, there is no reference to an upper age limit. I assume it to be post-14 education. In speaking to the amendment, the noble Baroness referred to 14 to 19 year-olds.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, there is a problem with some of the young adults, in particular those up to 25.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, secondly, as far as I know—unless the law has changed or is about to change—from 14 to 16 statutory school age transport arrangements are in place which meet the distance from school requirements. I assume that that is subsumed in this discussion.
Another big issue arises here. The Government go on ad nauseam about inclusiveness. A large number of post-16, non-statutory aged children, in rural areas cannot get to their local tertiary college or further education college to undertake foundation courses, or whatever they might want to do. It is not that they cannot afford the bus fare; for many there is no bus. In large tranches of the country, there is no public
1478
transport in villages to take people where they want to go and to bring them home. We know from the No. 10 Policy Unit that millions of pounds are expended almost on a weekly basis on scheme after scheme. If there is to be a policy of inclusiveness, this is a practical policy which would allow those with such an aspiration to continue their education post-16 in some form of tertiary provision. That would apply whether the education was provided in a school sixth form, a tertiary college, a college of further education or, as I have mentioned already, a foundation course in a college of higher education.
There is an issue here that needs to be considered if a large number of young people are not to be prevented from taking advantage of what is really very basic and fundamental post-16 education.
11 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness has brought this amendment back. This has never been a subject which the education department, in any of its previous incarnations, has wanted to address because the potential costs involved in reforming the school transport system are so large. This amendment illustrates quite graphically why they are large. However, the distortions that over the years have developed in the education system as a result of not facing up to this are now reaching the point where they must be dealt with. To have the matter spelt out so clearly and extensively in the amendment is immensely helpful.
I hope that the noble Baroness will press the amendment to a Division. The Government have sent their troops home and at least we would achieve an adjournment of the House at 11 o'clock. That would be a nominal victory. I have wandered around the House and, unless noble Lords are hiding away in a bar or in someone's private room, they must have left. They are not to be found in any of the public rooms. I encourage the noble Baroness to say that debate until 11 o'clock is enough. An extra hour put on the business tomorrow would not be a great problem for the Chief Whip. I am sure that he would be able to fit in the remaining amendments then.
I return to the amendment. It raises the whole question of how we should deal with children living in a relatively widely dispersed society, such as the countryside. However, when considering a suitable FE college for 16 year-olds, it could be anywhere. The cost of attending school for 16 to 19 year-olds living in the country can reach as much as £1,000 per year. That is the case if, as my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out, they can even get to a college. That cost really should be taken into account, if for no other reason than that it should be considered when planning the pattern of provision of education for this age group.
It is seductive to seek to gather all provision into big centres because the unit costs are cheaper, but if transport matters are taken into account, then the total costs and the possible reduction in opportunity might outweigh those reduced unit costs. That consideration should be a part of the decision-making

1479
process and public authorities must look with a clear eye at the transport costs they cast on to pupils and their parents.
I am also delighted to note that the amendment faces up to the need to provide for some of the costs of pupils being able to choose which educational establishments they attend. If it is decided to provide a bus service to one particular FE college—that would follow the pattern of provision made for schools—then young people will be deprived of a great deal of opportunity. FE colleges do not all provide the same range of courses. Young people living in the middle of Hampshire might want to attend college at Eastleigh, Andover or Basingstoke. Some courses might only be available even further afield. It is not a question of finding everything at the local FE provider.
Many questions have to be asked and some radical thinking will be required. That would go a long way towards improving the provision of transport for pupils of all ages, in that potentially it might improve the position for parents who, for one reason or another, do not have access to free school transport. That may be either because they live too close to the school or because they have chosen a school other than that designated by the local education authority.
For that reason, I am saddened to see subsection (4) of the amendment which states that,
"Any transport provided … shall be provided free of charge".
That misses the point. At present many children have to pay large sums of money. It would be better and more reasonable to put in place an arrangement whereby children could pay rather less, but at least contribute something. In that way everyone would be better off than they are at the moment.
Beyond that, I support the amendment. If we do not agree it tonight, I hope that we shall return to the subject frequently and that, over the years, we shall see some movement on it.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested that we adjourn at 11 o'clock, but he spoke until five minutes past 11, so that is the end of that proposition. I can go some considerable time past 11. Lest he think that we have no intention of sustaining our commitment to the Bill this evening, I reassure him that I can call up demons from the deep, which will come at any hour of the morning.
Let us ensure that we concentrate on the amendment. Of course I share entirely the sentiments expressed on all sides of the House that transport for students in further education is an extremely important matter. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that transport cannot be the be-all and end-all for the obvious reason, as she rightly says, that
1480
there is no point in offering transport support to students when there are no buses or trains to catch and when they cannot avail themselves of such transport.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be perfect if transport were laid on. I am saying that public transport is often not available even if students could afford the fares.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that merely reinforces my next point that the amendment does not draw a distinction as to which students are to be supported. The mind boggles at the concept of every student at a further education college being provided with subsidised transport. The figures would be astronomically high, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested. It would mean that every other support that one wanted to provide in further education would have to give way to the one priority of transport. Although transport is important, it is not the only factor that deters students from participating in further education.
A few years ago I knew a student who cycled 12 miles to a Lincolnshire college. There was little in the way of public transport for him to use, so he would have been much better supported in other ways. He came from a poor family with limited access to resources, so buying the materials required for his course was his main problem. He did not have transport problems; he was prepared to get on his bike, starting at 7.30 in the morning and cycling home at night.
We cannot pretend that transport support would be the panacea for all issues regarding further education. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that transport is an important feature, which is why we are making constructive proposals, but the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, hinted at the point that it is not clear whether the amendment would take the place of existing provision for students under the age of 16.
There is a statutory entitlement for such students to be provided with transport. I assure the House that we recognise the obligations of ensuring that such provision also obtains for post-14 students on the new courses who are not attending school but who go to a place of work or training and which may meet the same requirements of being more than three miles from their home. We shall ensure that they get the same support as if they were attending school.
We want to ensure that additional help is given to students in the 16 to 19 group. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will recognise that the amendment has an unlimited dimension, which makes it impossible to quantify and I shudder to think of the resources that it would require. We intend to develop additional opportunities for support for students in further education in the 16 to 19 group.
Clause 193 and Schedule 19 are designed to ensure that the needs of students of sixth-form age in further education are met effectively. They require LEAs, colleges and others to work together on developing local policies and delivery. Both have learner support

1481
funding to help with this. Clause 193 and Schedule 19 were developed to get LEAs and colleges to work together in developing more effective arrangements where their interests overlap. That is where the independent research recommends that we concentrate our efforts. The research has also shown that a key problem for students has been the lack of information about transport support and services available in their area, and we intend to improve the quality of information provided.
In addition, there will be a duty on the LEA to ensure that the provision or support as set out in the statement is actually provided. Most importantly, the schedule will help to ensure that no student is prevented from following further education because he or she cannot access or afford transport. Students have an element of choice in the courses that they follow and the institution that they attend—a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in terms of whether they might necessarily go to the nearest college when the appropriate course might be at a more distant institution. Students are supported, where necessary, in travelling to courses beyond their local area. LEAs take account of the costs involved and any alternatives, such as residential provision or other modes of transport where these would be more effective.
The overall effects of these requirements would be considerably to strengthen the obligation on LEAs in respect of transport for 16 to 19 year-olds. If a further education transport policy was completely ineffectual, the Secretary of State could use her powers of direction.
Most transport support for students over 19 is provided by learning and skills council funded colleges and by other institutions, rather than by LEAs. So we have to address ourselves more widely than issues relating to LEAs.
We are currently reviewing arrangements for funding adult learners. The review will include transport as part of the range of support available for adults in a variety of learning contexts. We shall consider whether and what changes are necessary to transport arrangements for adults when this work is completed. We should not wish to change arrangements in a piecemeal fashion.
I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, an assurance that we are mindful of the needs of older students. She is right to refer to them in her amendment. However, she will recognise that the way in which the amendment is drafted lays an unconfined obligation on the Government of staggering proportions in terms of public cost.
I hope that my response will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. The amendment, depending on how it is intended to operate, would either create financial commitments and confusion of responsibilities for students of 19 and over, or a duplication of requirements and confusion for students between 15 and 19, and it is not compatible with the work that is currently in progress for reviewing student support for older students.
1482
I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall continue to monitor the effects of arrangements for students of all ages. It is not that we are not very much seized of the fact that transport is an important dimension on restricting access to further education and of the fact that it needs to be tackled. But this amendment goes further than we are able to accept. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise the objectives that we have in common, and the fact that the Government are following a strategy which will improve the position, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I must say that it was quite tempting to press the amendment and to see whether we were in fact keeping a House. However, I think that many of us would like to see the hack of the Bill rather than to pursue it again tomorrow.
I thank the Minister for his remarks, which clarify the position. One or two questions remain to he pursued a little further. For example, he spoke about LEAs and colleges working together to provide a more effective transport system for 16 to 19 year-olds. There are problems, particularly in rural areas, where no transport is available. I very much hope that if the yellow bus school transport gets off the ground and develops further, we shall see it being used across different forms of educational provision; it might be the most suitable.
Also, while there is clearly an obligation for 14 to 16 year-olds who are going to work-based learning, they could have problems accessing that work-based learning. Some thought may have to be given to that.
We shall look carefully at what the Minister has said. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 129:
After Clause 195, insert the following new clause—
"DRUGS AND ALCOHOL POLICIES
(1) The governors of every maintained school shall determine the drugs and alcohol policy for that school.
(2) A school's drugs and alcohol policy shall provide that where a head teacher takes disciplinary action against a pupil under the terms of the school's drugs and alcohol policy, the parent of the pupil concerned may appeal to that school's governing body.
(3) No appeal shall be made under subsection (2) save on procedural grounds.
(4) On such an appeal, the governing body may—

(a) confirm the head teacher's action,

(b) in the event of a procedural error on the part of the head teacher, invite the disciplinary case to be heard again, or

(c) direct the head teacher to take such other action as they consider appropriate in the circumstances.

(5) The head teacher shall comply with any directions of the governing body given under subsection (4)(b) or (c).
(6) The governing body shall notify the appellant and the head teacher in writing of their decision on such an appeal."

1483
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment returns to drugs policy. It is designed to support those schools that are battling against the dreaded scourge of drug and alcohol abuse. The Government should do everything possible to endorse and support the incredibly difficult work of head teachers who are battling with this issue.
There is a great deal of anxiety, pain and anguish ahead of the point at which someone is excluded from school. I am not talking about frivolous exclusions. Where that happens, the merits of the decision should be supported. If there have been procedural breaches on the way and the decision has to be considered null and void on procedural grounds, rather than the case simply being thrown out and a serious drug and/or alcohol abuser returning to school, undermining the authority of the head, there should be an opportunity to reconsider the case.
Whichever Minister responded in Committee—I do not remember which—asked why we should make an exception for drug and alcohol abuse. What about violence? I am prepared to table an amendment to include violence. We have an excess of streetwise young people who are making life hell for some schools, particularly for teachers and head teachers. It is our duty to do as much as we can to support those schools that are really battling and trying to address the problem. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that drug and alcohol problems in schools are very important. I do not intend to repeat everything that I said in Committee, particularly in view of the lateness of the hour. I assure the noble Baroness that we are as concerned as she is to address problems of drug and alcohol misuse. That is why we have made it crystal clear that they have no place in our schools and we have spelt out a number of new measures to tackle the problem, including supporting a policy of zero tolerance for those caught supplying drugs within the school gates.
However, we do not believe that the amendment would help achieve our aims. We know from Ofsted that schools are already complying with current guidance to have in place drug education and drug-related incident policies agreed by governors and developed in consultation with staff, parents, pupils and police. These policies should include a clear message that the school does not tolerate the possession or use of unauthorised drugs and that such incidents will be dealt with promptly and firmly. I remain convinced that existing exclusion procedures are adequate to the task of dealing with disciplinary action taken in respect of drug and alcohol incidents.
We should continue to have truly independent appeals panels. When the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was a Minister, she defended the principle of an independent appeal for parents. I support her in that view. That is one reason why I am unable to support the amendment. What appeals panels do is of
1484
fundamental importance, not least because the first thing that they consider is whether a pupil is guilty of the offence with which he/she is charged. Because the amendment would allow appeals only on procedural grounds, it would deny the opportunity for an appeal on the fundamental ground that the pupil was not guilty of what he was charged with. That cannot be right.
Appeals panels must be free to make their own decision in the light of all the facts of the case, taking on board government guidance. The draft revised guidance on exclusions makes it clear that we would not expect an independent appeals panel to reinstate a child excluded for the supply of an illegal drug or the severe examples of misuse of an illegal drug.
Furthermore, by using the words "disciplinary action" and making no reference to exclusions in the amendment, the noble Baroness is in danger of creating enhanced rights of appeal for particular categories of pupils in breach of a school's behaviour and discipline policies. Currently, discipline committees review only the use of exclusions within school, not other forms of disciplinary action, where there is no right of appeal. I do not think that pupils disciplined for drugs and alcohol offences should have greater rights than those disciplined for other reasons, which this amendment would create.
We have implemented a wide range of practical measures to support schools and education authorities in building pupils' social and emotional competence and improving behaviour in schools. We believe that this will have a further positive effect in reducing both drug-related incidents in school and exclusions. As noble Lords will be aware, the £66 million made available through the Budget is linked to the national strategy to tackle street crime. It also supports our long-term strategy on behaviour improvement, based on the excellent practice already in place.
In the light of all I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are examples of the reinstatement of such people in our schools, which does undermine the authority of the head. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, even after my warning, used the argument of categories against my amendment. I did say that if she would like to name the categories, I would table an amendment at the next stage to include them. Violence, which she named at the previous stage, is certainly one of them. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
11.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 129) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 3; Not-Contents, 30.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Blatch, B.

Rotherwick, L. [Teller]

Miller of Hendon, B. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Andrews, B.

Grenfell, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carter, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Chandos, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Davies of Oldham, L.

Desai, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Farnington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Golding, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon, V.

Walmsley, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.31 p.m.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 130:
Before Clause 196, insert the following new clause—
"CRIMINAL RECORD CHECKS
( ) Notwithstanding any other provision, no public authority shall make unreasonable demands of any governing body or head teacher of any school or nursery school to seek personal information from its staff or from visitors to the school, or make any unreasonable demands of any employee of a school or any visitor to a school, or the premises where the school or nursery school is situated, in the process of conducting checks for the purposes of child protection.
( ) In making such checks a public authority or school shall only request such information as is directly relevant to assessing the risk of an offence against children or which is essential for the purposes of identifying a particular individual."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, although this amendment was spoken to earlier, I was not allowed, under the rules, to respond. I wish to do so now. In her response, the Minister made much of List 99, but that list was never a problem for schools. It was a quick, swift and immediate check. The name and the relevant information were submitted and there was no delay in getting hack information about List 99. That list has now been subsumed with all of the other checks and we now have unbelievable bureaucracy, which is causing delay. The Minister touched on delay but said very little about the real problems associated with it, or about the timescale under which the particular targets that were set out in the documents would be achieved.
The Minister gave no response whatever in regard to the personal information required—bank account numbers, sort code numbers and other specific information—and she did not explain why it was essential to have that information. Only additional information appears on the form. Some say that it is
1486
voluntary and is additional only to help speed up the checks, but at least some county councils state that all sections of the form have to be answered. However, the form asks for a passport, which establishes identity.
The Minister said that bank account details were necessary to establish identity. They cannot possibly be. A passport, driving licence and birth certificate are all asked for on the form and all of them will confirm identity. Will the Minister give specific reasons why it is important to have details of one's bank account number, sort code number and one's mother's maiden name? That is interesting because the mother's maiden name is given to banks by many people in this country for security purposes. What possible use can that be to the CRB?
Again, when a person has been a governor for, say, two or three terms and he lives in the village and knows the school, and when it is known that CRB checks will be carried out on that person when he becomes a governor for, say, the third, fourth of fifth time, why is it necessary to carry out the checks again when he is reelected or reappointed? I have not received, but should like to have, satisfactory answers to those questions. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is important that, when we ask for a great deal of information from people who mostly have nothing whatever to declare, we restrict it to information which is absolutely necessary. I believe it is accepted that one goes through enough checks to establish one's identity when applying for a passport, and it should not be necessary for a great deal of intrusive and personal in formation to be included in that. One wonders what is going on when this Government wish to give all and sundry access to communications data. It seems that this is another example of the tendency to pry as closely as possible into people's lives at the slightest excuse. I believe that that should he discouraged.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall be brief. I believed that I had dealt with all these issues. We are, of course, discussing the protection of children. As I indicated, the Criminal Records Bureau is clear that the information requested on the application form is needed in order to establish the applicant's identity beyond doubt. Therefore, it is necessary. The information in question is highly sensitive. We need to be absolutely certain that it is not issued to the wrong person and that a person cannot obtain a disclosure by using another person's identity. Therefore, the information is requested for that purpose—a purpose that I consider to be important because of the issue with which we are dealing. That is my understanding and I am very happy to reiterate it.
I have made it clear and explained that the Criminal Records Bureau has genuine difficulties. I have not attempted to make any apologies for that beyond saying that the bureau is working as hard as it can to ensure that these processes are resolved satisfactorily so that it can do its job effectively. I do not have information on the exact timetables because I am not responsible for the Criminal Records Bureau. I shall

1487
be very happy to ask for that information from my colleagues and to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, with the details. But, as I indicated, we have put arrangements in place to ensure as far as possible that schools are able to continue with their work and are not adversely affected.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the answer is still deficient. The noble Baroness continues to say that it is important to prove the identity of the person for whom the application is being made. A passport will give that information, as will a driving licence and a birth certificate. May I have a straight answer as to why the sort code, bank account name, account number and mother's maiden name are required in order to prove identity?
11.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 130) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 3; Not-Contents, 30.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Blatch, B.

Rotherwick, L. [Teller]

Miller of Hendon, B. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Andrews, B.

Grenfell, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carter, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Chandos, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Davies of Oldham, L.

Desai, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Golding, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon, V.

Walmsley, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.49 p.m.
Clause 199 [Application of Part 5 of Education Act 1996 to nursery education]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 131:
Leave out Clause 199.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an important amendment. Section 410 of the 1996 Act exempts nursery schools from the provisions of Part 5 of that Act. If the noble Baroness will answer this question, not having answered my previous one, we shall hear the reason why. Part 5 of that Act comprises many pages, from which I shall read a small selection,
1488
remembering that we are discussing nursery schools, not mainstream schools, such as primary and secondary schools, or even further education.
It covers subjects such as dealing with the national curriculum, core subjects and foundation subjects, development work and experiments, procedure for making certain orders and regulations, programmes for research, general functions of local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers in relation to curriculum, agreed syllabuses of religious education, constitution of advisory councils, functions of advisory councils, advisory councils: supplementary provisions, duty to constitute new standing advisory councils, religious education: access to meetings and documents, no requirement of attendance at Sunday schools, courses leading to external qualifications, obligation to enter pupils for public examinations, sex education and the manner of provision, sex education: statement of policy, exemptions from sex education, politics and indoctrination, duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues, provision of information, complaints and enforcement, county voluntary and maintained special schools. I could go on and on.
There must be a good reason why Part 5 of that Act should be applied to nursery schools. I have already spoken in support of nursery schools, which are absolutely overwhelmed and burdened with new requirements to provide information, to respond to documents and to provide information for inspection. The whole of Part 5 is now to apply to nursery schools. It would be useful to know why. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, Clause 199 appears to have some strange implications. Collective worship would appear to become compulsory in nursery schools. They will have to make statements of sex education policy. Has that really been considered in detail? I can understand why some provisions of Part 5 now have to be applied to nursery schools, or the foundation stage of the curriculum could not work correctly. But I really do not understand why the Government want to bring those other aspects of school education into nursery schools.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, Clause 199 repeals Section 410 of the Education Act 1996, which provides that Part 5 of that Act does not apply to nursery schools or nursery classes. Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 5 deal with the national curriculum, which is repealed and re-enacted by the Bill.
In the 1996 Act, the national curriculum was for children from compulsory school age. The introduction of the foundation stage in the Bill extends the national curriculum to include children below compulsory school age, including those in nursery schools and nursery classes. Because we are repealing and re-enacting the relevant parts of Part 5 of the 1996 Act, we in any case need to repeal Section 410 of the 1996 Act. But we do not want to re-enact the blanket exclusion that it created, because we want to enable the foundation stage as part of the national curriculum to apply to those settings.

1489
As noble Lords will be aware, the foundation stage has been warmly welcomed by those working in early education settings including nursery classes and nursery schools. During the year in which I have been a Minister, I have never heard someone in a primary school or nursery setting say anything other than how much they value the foundation stage. I should again reassure noble Lords that there are no plans to change the flexible and effective approach to early learning set out in the joint DfES and QCA publication, Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage.
It is important that early learning experiences are of good quality and contribute positively to learning. The foundation stage guidance sets out the core principles for that. It explains that learning activities should be appropriate to the age and stage of development of the children in the early years setting. The guidance emphasises the crucial role of the early years practitioner in using well planned play as a key way in which children will learn with enjoyment. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with that.
The issue of collective worship is a good example of what we are discussing. Because of Section 410 of the 1996 Act, the collective worship provision in Chapter III of Part V did not apply to a nursery class at a primary school. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 does not prevent the provisions from applying. The effect of Section 70 of that Act is that children in a nursery class at a primary school must take part in the act of collective worship, although children at a maintained nursery school do not have to. That has been the law since 1998. It might appear anomalous, but children in a nursery class should not be treated differently from the rest of the school, of which they are a key part. We have not changed that position with this Bill.
I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has ignored all the other aspects of Part V of the 1996 Act. There is a mass of provisions in Part V, and all that this Bill states is that the exemption from Part V shall cease to have effect. So Part V has an effect on nursery schools. I read out a selected list of the things that I believe do not apply to nursery schools. It would be useful to know what elements of Part V will now apply.
The Minister referred to the foundation stage. I am not against the foundation stage. With a little drafting experience, one could find a way of putting in the Bill a provision for producing a foundation stage for children of nursery school age without taking the whole of Part V and applying it to nursery education.
How much of this is compulsory? Nursery school children are not of compulsory school age. Are we lowering the age of compulsory schooling to include nursery school children? Is it now the case that children who attend nursery school must enjoy—or endure, depending on the parents and the children—
1490
compulsory provision? It would be helpful to know what is compulsory and how much of Part V will apply to nursery education.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I want again to offer my reassurances that we do not intend to change the way in which nursery education is provided, either by not re-enacting Section 410 or through the terms of Clause 152 of this Bill. I know that many noble Lords are concerned about the potential that children will be pushed into an over-formal approach to learning when they are too young, particularly if they are in a primary school environment.
Clause 152 is simply about definitions, not about the institutions in which children learn. Nor does it change the curriculum in respect of which the guidance on the foundation stage has been so well received. Sex education, of course, applies to secondary schools and not to the provision that we are describing here. Nursery education has always been a subset of the definition of primary education. We have tried to make the distinctive nature of that stage much clearer, particularly, for example, the fact that it is normally provided part-time. Noble Lords will be aware that the existing definitions refer to full-time education for pupils below the age of ten and a half.
The Bill introduces a more distinct definition of nursery education that recognises the practice in nursery schools of offering children either a morning or an afternoon session and the fact that the nursery phase of primary education is intended for children between the age of two and compulsory school age. We seek to develop legislation to reflect practice. We also intend to introduce greater clarity and distinctiveness to legislation that bears on that important phase of children's education and development.
We are concerned with the foundation stage and with making sure that we have enacted in legislation what we are doing and what we consider to be important for the children. We are not attempting to provide an over-formal curriculum or bringing in extraneous matters. We are concerned with the issues that I have raised. If I have been unable to clarify things for the noble Baroness, I am, as she is aware, always willing to write to her and make sure that I lay things out in a manner that will make it easier for her to understand. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Midnight
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I would like to take up the noble Baroness's offer to write to me. She has not addressed the compulsory nature of the provisions. My understanding is that Section 4(10) of Part 5 of the 1996 Act applies to all mainstream education but that nursery education is exempt. The Bill regards that exemption as ceasing to have effect. Therefore, Part 5 applies to nursery education. If the only effect of Section 4(10) was to allow for the introduction of a foundation stage for nursery education, I cannot see why there could not have been a clause in the Bill to

1491
provide a foundation course for nursery education and to link it with some of the provisions in Clauses 74, 75 and 76.
This seems a strange way to do it. Many aspects of Part 5 of the 1996 Act bear no relationship to nursery education. It does not even contain a foundation curriculum. That would have to be inserted into Part 5 to have the effect of which the noble Baroness speaks. The provision is unsatisfactory and I hope that a letter will clear the air for me and clarify the points on which I have concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 132:
After Clause 200, insert the following new clause—
"NUISANCE OR DISTURBANCE OFF EDUCATIONAL PREMISES
Where a pupil or pupils of a foundation or voluntary aided school, who are clearly identifiable as being pupils of that school, are guilty of committing an offence, or cause nuisance or disturbance in a public place or behave in a manner offensive to a reasonable member of the public, the head teacher of the school shall have full authority to apply the disciplinary code of the school to the pupil or pupils, even if the offence, nuisance or disturbance is committed outside school premises or outside school hours."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment addresses an important issue for maintained schools. It allows the head teacher to take disciplinary action against any pupil or pupils who have committed an offence, or caused a nuisance in a public place, if the child can be identified as being of a particular school.
I know I went to school a million years ago, but it was commonplace that if you brought your school into disrepute outside the school by behaving badly, when you arrived the next morning the school would take disciplinary action against you. Not only would disciplinary action be taken at home but the school also would take a dim view.
We are constantly wringing our hands in this Chamber about what we are going to do about disaffected youth and increasing incidents of poor behaviour in the classroom. The amendment gives us the opportunity of another shot in the armoury for schools to deal with such problems. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, a head teacher of any maintained school, including foundation or voluntary aided schools may already—as the noble Baroness referred to from her own experience as a young person—take disciplinary action against a pupil for behaviour that occurs outside school premises if there is a clear link between the misconduct in question and the promotion of good behaviour and discipline on the part of the school's pupils.
This will be a matter of judgment for the head teacher, who will take into account the likely impact of the misconduct on the life of the school. The same
1492
discretion also applies where the incident takes place on the school's premises outside school hours. To that extent the amendment is unnecessary.
The revised draft guidance on school exclusions makes it clear that where a school-related incident is also subject to a police investigation which may result in criminal prosecution proceedings, the head teacher may exclude the pupil in question. In those circumstances, before excluding, the head teacher must take into account a number of factors: first, the seriousness of the allegation made against the pupil by another pupil or member of staff at the school; secondly, whether the allegation may result in criminal proceedings being brought; and finally whether, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings, the pupil's presence in school is likely to have an adverse effect on the complainant and other potential witnesses and on the promotion of good order and discipline generally.
It is important that there are checks on the head teacher's discretion as it would be entirely inappropriate for the head teacher to take such action unless he or she was satisfied of the seriousness of the impact of the alleged offence on the school.
Regardless of whether criminal proceedings result, in all cases where a pupil's action was entirely unconnected with the school, we consider it to be both undesirable and unreasonable to expect the head teacher to take disciplinary action.
Generally speaking, at times when a school does not have charge of its pupils outside school hours and off the school premises, it will not have a general duty either to its pupils or anyone else to police pupils' activities. That is rightly principally the duty of the children's parents and, where criminal offences are concerned, the police.
I would be cautious about raising expectations that a school should continue to have general disciplinary responsibility for a pupil when he is not within the school's control other than in the limited circumstances identified by the Court of Appeal in the Bradford Smart case; for example, if it were reasonable for a teacher to intervene if he saw one pupil attacking another near the school gates. It will also clearly extend further afield if the pupils are on a school trip, educational, recreational or sporting.
However, there should be no opportunity for parents in particular to rely on a school to take action to avoid their own responsibility for their child's discipline. Furthermore, where there are already laws and law enforcers in existence to deal with anti-social behaviour in public, it does not seem necessary also to make pupils, already subject to those laws, the responsibility of the school in the circumstances where the school would not otherwise be involved. If a school were to be expected to take action in such circumstances, it would also be a burden and impractical for it to investigate a complaint of misbehaviour, irrespective of where or when it was alleged to have occurred.

1493
Perhaps I may repeat the point with which I began. The head teacher of any maintained school may already take disciplinary action against a pupil for behaviour that occurs outside the school premises if there is a clear link between the misconduct in question and the promotion of good behaviour and discipline on the part of a school's pupils.
For the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find it difficult to understand how one establishes a clear link. Let me give two examples. The first is of a child in school uniform away from the school's buildings being very rude to an old person: not sufficiently rude as to require a policeman to take criminal charges against a child. Would the fact that the child was recognisable as a child of that school be a link with the school? The second example is of a child out of uniform but identifiable as belonging to a particular school behaving in a similar way and causing a nuisance or disturbance, but which fell short of being a criminal offence but was nevertheless regarded as a real nuisance. I am not sure what the Minister means by establishing a link.
The Minister referred to parents and I have to agree with her on one point. She said that parents have a responsibility, but, sadly, many parents either collude with their children or have no interest in their children's behaviour. Their children are out at all hours and are committing offences and causing nuisance. The parents turn a blind eye to all of that. Again, if the school is being bought into disrepute, and if the school takes that seriously, is it not understandable that the school would want to consider excluding such a child or at least consider the situation the following day in school? The complainant might be the old lady who was being harassed by a child, so should not the school take that seriously and lake action?
The noble Baroness was speaking about the serious end of behaviour, but I am talking about the community nuisance, disturbance, offensive behaviour which falls short of criminal behaviour. If it is criminal behaviour, there is another remedy, but if it is not, the school and the parents should be allowed to act. The Minister seems to believe that a link should be established, but I do not know what a link is. It would be helpful to know whether in the examples I have given a link would be established and in what way.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I mean the noble Baroness no disrespect by not responding. It is in part through my understanding of the procedures of the House on Report.
I sought to indicate that the head teacher can indeed do the things for which the noble Baroness asks. It is for the head teacher to consider the likely impact on the life of the school. If the head teacher believes that the attitude and behaviour of a pupil, perhaps on his way home from school wearing the school uniform, was relevant to that consideration he or she could take disciplinary action.
1494
Schools are not acting in loco parentis in that context. On a Saturday or Sunday the school is closed and the teachers are nowhere near it. The child is wearing jeans and a T-shirt and is operating well within the jurisdiction of the parent but not of the school. I do not believe that it is the job of our schools to be entirely responsible for the behaviour of the children. But where the head teacher believes there to be a link—it is a matter oldiscretion—the head teacher can act.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for that. There is considerable discretion for the school. The link is a matter for the head teacher to decide and that head teacher would be supported. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 20 [Nuisance or disturbance on educational premises]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 133:
Page 189, line 8, at end insert—
"(ac) any nursery school"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, under Schedule 20 schools have a protection against a person who without authority causes or permits nuisance or disturbance to the annoyance of persons who lawfully use the premises. I see no reason why nursery schools should not be included.
Section 547 of the Education Act 1996 is amended by Schedule 20 of the Bill. Section 547 relates to nuisance or disturbance on educational premises caused by any person who is present without authority. Such persons would be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine. But this protection does not appear to be enjoyed by nursery schools.
I have taken the trouble to rewrite Section 547 with all the amendments set out in Schedule 20. Where all other schools are named, it makes eminent sense to include nursery schools. I note that there is a reference to grant-maintained schools although they do not exist. That does not appear to have been amended. I hope that the Minister will agree that if other schools are protected from this kind of unruly, unattractive and in some cases threatening behaviour, a nursery school is as deserving of protection as a primary school, secondary school, or any other school. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in this part of the Bill, we are extending the existing provisions in Section 547 of the Education Act 1996 regarding nuisance or disturbance on educational premises. Maintained nursery schools are already covered by the existing provisions and independent schools providing nursery education will he included under Schedule 20. We are extending these provisions to independent schools and to all institutions in the further education sector in direct response to their requests to do so.

1495
We have not been pressed to extend the provisions to the private nursery sector. It is not our intention to extend the offence to a wider range of early years day care provision in the private sector. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment to extend the provision to all nursery schools is necessary.
However, I understand the point about extending the provision to private nursery schools. I should be willing to take the matter forward for further consideration. There are some major issues to be resolved. There would need to be a clear definition of a private nursery school on which to base an amendment so that the police and courts were able to distinguish between those private establishments providing nursery education and, for example, those simply providing day care facilities. No such definition exists. We do not think it reasonable to extend the offence to day care provision mainly because it includes a wide range of provision—much wider than private nursery schools offering education. We shall want to consult with the police, who will be affected by any changes, and, most importantly, the private nursery sector.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If she is looking for me to have those discussions with the private nursery sector, I am more than happy to do so.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is odd that although a number of schools are listed, nursery schools are not mentioned. For example, voluntary-aided, foundation and special schools are listed. I shall not read out the whole of new Section 547 as amended by Schedule 20, but certainly reference is made to independent schools and so forth.
A mention of nursery schools would be extremely helpful here. The nursery school sector thinks that it has been left out of these provisions. It would be helpful to know whether nursery schools have been subsumed. In new subsection (2A) there is a reference to,
"provided by a local education authority under section 508".
I do not have that section to hand. Would nursery schools be encompassed within that section of the Act?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Baroness to clarify that point. I have checked it, but at this hour I simply cannot recall the specific reference. Nursery schools are already covered by the existing provisions, but I shall write to the noble Baroness to explain precisely where.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness that if the nursery school sector is unclear about the position, then we need to rectify that. I can confirm that it is covered under the provisions of the Bill, as we would wish it to be.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be helpful to receive confirmation that the sector is covered. I
1496
should like to respond to those who have contacted me with a proper reference, quoting the chapter and verse of the position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 136:
Before Clause 204, insert the following new clause—
"SAFEGUARDING PROVISION FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
Nothing shall be done under this Act to the disadvantage of any provision in respect of special educational needs under this or any other enactment."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not move this amendment. Although the Government have brought forward welcome amendments. I still believe that there is a lacuna in the Bill with regard to the protection of children with special educational needs. I am discussing the matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who in turn is in discussions with the department. We seek rather more watertight protection for children with special educational needs. As I have said, I shall not move the amendment today and I shall return to the matter at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
Clause 206 [General interpretation]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 137:
Page 126, line 2, after "Part" insert "section (Duties of LEAs and governing bodies in relation to welfare of children)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 138:
Page 126, line 2, after "Part" insert "section (Consultation with pupils)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 210 [Commencement]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 139:
Page 127, line 23, after "126" insert "and Schedule 11"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 139 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 140 and 141. Amendment No. 139 is entirely technical.
Schedule 11 was omitted from the commencement provision of the Bill. Without this amendment, the procedure for commencing the Bill would be in some doubt. The amendment simply corrects that omission.
Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 are also technical, consequential amendments. They correct cross-references which due to repeals in the Bill would become meaningless on its commencement. Under Amendment No. 140, Schedule 11 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 is to be repealed. So, regulations under paragraph 6 of that schedule are to be replaced by regulations under Clause 18 of the

1497
Bill. In Amendment No. 141, Section 44 of the 1998 Act is to be repealed and replaced, with amendments, by Clause 33 of the Bill.
The amendments ensure that references in existing legislation to provisions which will be repealed by this Bill are substituted by references to their replacement provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendments Nos. 140 and 141:
Page 206, line 26, at end insert—
"100A In section 50 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (effect of financial delegation), in subsection (5) for the words from "under paragraph 6" onwards there is substituted
1498
"under section 18 of the Education Act 2002 (or, in the case of temporary governors of a new school, regulations under section 33(5) of that Act).""
Page 207, line 2, at end insert—
104A In section 72 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (further provisions relating to new schools), in subsection (3)(a) for "section 44" there is substituted "section 33 of the Education Act 2002"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 22 [Repeals]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 142:
Page 216, line 46, column 2, leave out "Section 86(6)" and insert—
"Section 86(3)(b) and (6).
Section 91."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past midnight.

  House of Lords: Membership
  House of Lords: Membership
  Northern Ireland: Electoral Fraud
  Northern Ireland: Electoral Fraud
  Northern Ireland Paramilitary Organisations: Ceasefire Status
  Northern Ireland Paramilitary Organisations: Ceasefire Status
  Killyleagh Police Station
  Killyleagh Police Station
  Royal Ulster Constabulary and Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Royal Ulster Constabulary and Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Northern Ireland: Prevention of Terrorism Legislation Report
  Northern Ireland: Prevention of Terrorism Legislation Report
  Asylum Seekers: Special Grant Report
  Asylum Seekers: Special Grant Report
  Proscribed Terrorist Organisations
  Proscribed Terrorist Organisations
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
  Cabinet Office Departmental Report 2001–02
  Cabinet Office Departmental Report 2001–02
  Territorial Army: Wales
  Territorial Army: Wales
  Services Cadet Units: Wales
  Services Cadet Units: Wales
  Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy: Annual Report
  Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy: Annual Report
  Least Developed Countries: Exports
  Least Developed Countries: Exports
  Countryside Conservation
  Countryside Conservation
  Hedgerow Regulations 1997
  Hedgerow Regulations 1997
  National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund
  National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund
  Sheep National Envelope: England
  Sheep National Envelope: England
  Pension Funds: Stock Market Values
  Pension Funds: Stock Market Values