Sitting of 27 June 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time, and committed.

    LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 4 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Abandoned Vehicles
    Bob Russell: What additional measures she plans to take to prevent vehicles being abandoned.[63000]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We are determined that keepers of vehicles should take full responsibility for them. An accurate and complete vehicle register is crucial. We are legislating through the Finance Bill to improve the register's accuracy, and we are talking to the motoring organisations and the motor trade about implementing reform of the vehicle licensing system.
    Joint action by all enforcement agencies in Operation Cubit has led to nearly 7,500 more vehicles being on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency register. Finally, we are extending DVLA's powers to wheel clamp and remove unlicensed vehicles after 24 hours.
    Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for the measures that are being taken and the new measures that have been proposed to tackle an antisocial menace. I invite the Minister and his Department to examine the best practice being carried out by Colchester borough council. The number of abandoned vehicles is increasing, but because of the expertise of Geoff Kirby, the street care officer, and work in the DVLA and other agencies, the number of vehicles destroyed has been almost halved. Coupled with the Evening Gazette's "clear the wrecks"
    938
    campaign, the battle is being won. May I suggest that other local authorities around the country look at that best practice?
    Mr. Meacher: I am happy to do that. Operation Cubit operated in Kent, but there has also been a successful pilot in Newham, and I understand that three other local authorities—Wandsworth, Croydon and Southend—are following. We want to learn from good practice. If the hon. Gentleman will send me a statement or get the police and fire authorities and the local authority in his area to provide a statement, I will ensure that it is fully taken into account.
    Joan Ruddock: Does my right hon. Friend understand the tremendous frustration in the London borough of Lewisham, my local authority, where, despite a pilot project in co-operation with DVLA, there is an enormous problem of abandoned vehicles, and particularly of fictitious drivers and no records at the DVLA? Will he and his colleagues look at the very best practice, which I understand is in Holland, where the owner of the vehicle and the new buyer together have to sign the registration document?
    Mr. Meacher: I am happy also to agree to that. We have been considering a system of dual registration, both by the last owner and by the buyer. There is a great deal to be said for such a system. I am conscious of the number of unlicensed vehicles that are often abandoned. As I said, we have reduced the period that unlicensed vehicles removed by local authorities must be stored before they are destroyed. The proposals that my hon. Friend makes with reference to the licensing system are good ones, and the Government will make a further statement on the subject soon.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister accept that his proposals announced today are long overdue, and that the situation is getting worse in most of our constituencies? It is essential that the owners of cars are traced and prosecuted, and that cars are removed quickly. Is it possible to ensure that more facilities are available for people who have a car that has reached the end of its life to have it decommissioned and destroyed effectively and cheaply? If that were the case, there would be less dumping.
    Mr. Meacher: I agree with both points. The problem has arisen as a result of a collapse in the value of scrap metal, in conjunction with the deficiencies of the vehicle register. We are not responsible for the first; we are trying to deal with the second. I indicated that in the relatively small area where Operation Cubit was put in place and in the relatively short time scale in which it operated, 7,450 motorists were induced to relicense their vehicles, producing £1.3 million of additional revenue. In order to get the licence, motorists had to produce MOT and insurance certificates. It is a major effort to ensure that all motorists meet their responsibilities. I had a long and useful meeting with the authorities responsible for Operation Cubit, and commissioned a report from them as to the basis on which the success of that experiment could be extended across the country. I expect to receive that any day.

    939
    On the question of motorists having opportunities to send or take their cars to an appropriate place, under the end of life vehicles directive, which becomes fully operational for manufacturers and importers in 2007, appropriate facilities are already being put in place. We announced on 21 April that the last owner will be responsible up to 2007 for ensuring that the vehicle is taken to a proper place for disposal.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Regrettably, many vehicles that are deemed abandoned were originally stolen. I urge the Minister to take up with his Home Office colleagues the need to ensure that the police communicate expeditiously with owners, as cars that languish stolen and abandoned are often vandalised, which is the real problem in a very large number of local authority areas. The police must also be sympathetic to people; when they say that they want the vehicle for forensic information, they should not present the poor owner—the victim of the crime—with a bill for its recovery, as they currently do.
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right. Many unlicensed, uninsured vehicles without MOTs are owned by the local criminal fraternity. I understand that cars change hands in the local pub for £40 or less. We are making changes to the vehicle registration system to ensure that the last owner will be responsible, but if he wishes to avoid responsibility, the new owner is required to notify as well. That dual registration system is a way of protecting the last owner. The police whom I met as part of the meeting on Operation Cubit were extremely enthusiastic about that arrangement and were keen for it to be extended. I take his point about undue liabilities being placed unfairly on the last owner; we are alert to that issue.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: We support the principle of the end of life vehicles directive, which comes into force in some four days' time, but we have to question the way in which it is being implemented. Why will the Government not say how much it will cost owners to dispose of their redundant vehicles? Will the Government compensate local authorities for the inevitable increase in dumped cars and tyres? Will they give extra support to the fire and police authorities for the £5,000 to £10,000 cost of dealing with a burnt-out vehicle? Does the Minister understand that if he fails to learn the lessons of recent history, he will be doomed to repeat the environmental mistakes of not ensuring that we have the ability to deal with problems before they occur£and the car calamity will follow the fridge fiasco?
    Mr. Meacher: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman likes to make the comparison with fridges at every single opportunity, but he is way off the mark. As he well knows, the point about fridges is that, because we were informed extremely late, after two and a quarter years' waiting and nine separate approaches to the Commission, we had only seven months in which to implement the regulation and did not have the proper technology.
    On cars, many dismantling and scrap yard facilities already meet the increased treatment standards required by article 6 and annexe 1 of the directive. We do not anticipate any problem. We have the technology, the numbers and the standards—it should not be a problem. With regard to help
    940
    for local authorities, all I can say to him is that we are aware of the situation and are considering it in the context of the current spending round.

    Packaging
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If she will make a statement on the impact of EU directive 94/62 on the packaging and packaging waste industries.[63002]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): A number of industries have obligations to recover and recycle certain tonnages of packaging waste under the producer responsibility obligations. Obligated businesses have together increased the UK's recovery performance from some 30 per cent. in 1997 to 48 per cent. in 2001.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response, but the industry and local government are concerned about the impact of the directive on business through the increase in targets and the way in which the targets are operated. Those in local government are particularly worried about the impact on their collection and recycling systems and reclaiming of landfill. Under a recent declaration, we could be flooded with waste tyres from Europe. Will my right hon. Friend meet representatives of the industry and take note of the anxieties that are being expressed by those in local government? Will he also ensure that we do not allow waste tyres from Europe to be dumped in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Meacher: My officials and I have had repeated meetings with industry representatives about targets. I have to say that the recovering and recycling performance of UK industry is low compared with the rest of the EU. We inherited one of the lowest recycling and recovery rates in the EU. Recovery has substantially increased from 30 per cent. in 1997 to 48 per cent. in 2001, and recycling has increased from 27 per cent. in 1997 to 42 per cent. in 2001. The European requirement is that there should be a steady increase in the level of recovery and recycling, and other states manage to do that. We must ensure that we have sufficient time to put in place the necessary infrastructure to enable our industry to achieve what are intended to be stretching targets.
    On tyres, there are two target dates of 2003 and 2006. I have discussed the targets with industry representatives, and we believe that we can meet them perfectly well. I am happy to receive further representations from the industry. I take note of my hon. Friend's point about not receiving waste tyres from Europe, and I am happy to talk further about how we can prevent that.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As the Minister considers the complications of the issue, will he point out to those in the industry that they could achieve a great deal by reducing the amount of packaging that they put on their goods—they seem to have made no movement whatsoever towards doing so? Do companies have any incentive to do that, or does it mean that they have to meet higher targets on recycling?
    Mr. Meacher: No, there are strong incentives for companies to reduce packaging. The regulations provide

    941
    an incentive to reduce the amount of packaging by placing a tonnage recovery and recycling obligation on business, so the less packaging a company handles, the lower are its costs. Where a business is re-using a certain tonnage of packaging, that tonnage is excluded from the obligation. That is a powerful internal incentive to reduce packaging.

    Recycling
    Gregory Barker: What progress the Government's packaging recovery note scheme has made in encouraging the growth of new recycling initiatives. [63003]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The UK's packaging recovery system, including the packaging waste recovery note and the packaging waste export recovery note, has succeeded in increasing the UK's packaging waste recovery level from some 30 per cent. in 1997 to 48 per cent. in 2001.
    Gregory Barker: I welcome that increase, but the Minister would admit that we still lag way behind our European partners in recycling rates. Does he agree that that disappointing performance is not the fault of Wastepack, and can he give examples of further initiatives that have been taken since the new Secretary of State was appointed last year?
    Mr. Meacher: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman refers to relatively poor performance, given that I have said three times in the past 10 minutes that there has been an improvement of some 60 or 70 per cent. since 1997. Performance was extremely poor before 1997, and the hon. Gentleman's Government were responsible for that through their arrangements with industry. We have made a dramatic improvement, although it is not enough and I entirely accept that we must go considerably further. I agree that our performance is not outstanding compared with that of other EU member states, but it represents a major improvement and we are on a steady and rapid upward curve.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to Wastepack. We did not achieve our recovery obligation in 2001£02 because Wastepack, one of the 19 registered compliance companies, failed to meet its obligation by a large margin of 235,000 tonnes. It is based in Scotland, and is therefore a matter for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I understand that the Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Development is considering whether to withdraw approval from the scheme. However, the UK achieved its recycling objective and its material-specific targets. Despite the Wastepack episode, UK industry did well last year.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: What progress has been made in extending the packaging waste regulations to wood recycling? The introduction of packaging recovery notes—PRNs—would encourage recycling schemes for timber, thus reducing the amount of new timber that we must use in this country. As far as I know, the regulations do not extend to wood products.
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The scheme has been primarily aimed at paper and board
    942
    and has not concentrated on wood as a form of packaging. Discussions have taken place about that in Europe, and I agree with my hon. Friend that we need clearer targets and a clearer commitment to reduced wood packaging.

    Foot and Mouth
    Mr. Peter Luff: If she will visit Throckmorton to discuss with local residents the management and consequences of the foot and mouth disease burial site there. [63005]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): That is not possible at the moment. My officers are working closely with the local community to develop site restoration and management plans; I anticipate an early, satisfactory conclusion to their efforts.
    Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman is a compassionate, humane and diligent Minister. I therefore urge him to reflect again on the implications for local residents of the Department's actions at Throckmorton. There is growing anxiety that the cells in which 130,000 animal carcases have been buried were not properly constructed. Mysterious illnesses, such as throat infections, are striking people who live near the burial site. Their homes have become unsaleable through a combination of those circumstances and the Home Office's decision to go ahead with an asylum accommodation centre in the area.
    The Department has established a precedent by buying two houses from local residents. The Government are renting them out on the open market, and effectively they thus cost them nothing. Will the Minister consider extending that precedent to other local residents who are in pressing personal need of making a move and selling their houses, which are currently unsaleable on the market?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case on behalf of his constituents, and we recognise that it was unpleasant for anybody who lived near any sites where animals were being disposed of at the height of the national foot and mouth emergency. However, the site is now closed and being grassed over. It is being properly run and monitored, and we have no evidence of pollution there. At the hon. Gentleman's request, our head of the foot and mouth claims unit has visited every family to listen to their anxieties.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have no legal obligation to purchase houses, and we examine the cases on their merits. We shall consider his representation carefully.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: As my hon. Friend knows, the village of Great Orton in my constituency contained the largest burial site in England. I want to ensure that there are no more such burial sites anywhere—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the question is closed and relates to the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). However, there is a connection with the constituency of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer)
    Sir Michael Spicer: For the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) mentioned, does not the Minister have a duty to ensure that the existence of the burial site at Throckmorton is fully taken into account by the forthcoming public inquiry into the asylum centre?
    Mr. Morley: All the relevant issues will be taken into account in the public inquiry, and I am sure that if there is any relevance in relation to the use of the site, that will also be considered. We recognise that there is a duty on the Department in relation to the proper management of all the sites, including Great Orton, which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) mentioned, and I believe that they are being monitored and run in a proper and responsible manner. We also have a duty to minimise the cost to the public purse, and we have to look at those issues as well.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Do Opposition Front Benchers wish to come in? The same rules apply. No, they do not.

    Special Extinguishment Orders
    Mr. David Chaytor: When she will issue a consultation paper on special extinguishment orders. [63006]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I have now published proposals on how we will enable local authorities to close or divert alleyways on housing estates, where this is necessary to cut crime. I have also published proposals on the closure or diversion of footpaths on school premises to promote pupil and teacher safety.
    Mr. Chaytor: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and say how much the consultation paper will be welcomed by officers in the Bury division of the Greater Manchester police, who are keen to move to these special extinguishment orders? Does he agree, however, that it has taken rather a long time to get to this position? Will he assure the House that, when the consultation period concludes on 20 September, he will ensure that his Department analyses the response to the consultation as quickly as possible, so that police forces and highways authorities across the country can introduce the special extinguishment orders, in particular, to advance their work in crime prevention?
    Alun Michael: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Yes, this has taken a long time. That is partly because the requirements of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 are complex, precisely because there is a need to balance the closure of rights of way with the protection of them. The designation process is being used to ensure that there is no inappropriate use of this facility. I will certainly take a personal interest in ensuring that the results are analysed as soon as the consultation period is over, and that the facility becomes available to police and local authorities as quickly as possible. We have accelerated the process, although I agree with my hon. Friend that this has taken longer than I would have liked.

    Electrical Goods
    Mr. John Randall: If she will make a statement regarding her Department's strategy for recycling electrical goods. [63007]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Government are committed to increasing the reuse and recycling of all types of waste, including electrical goods. We welcome the EU waste electrical and electronic equipment directive—the WEEE directive—which may be adopted towards the end of this year, as its objectives are in line with our national strategies on waste.
    Mr. Randall: Has the Minister made any estimate of the costs to local authorities of implementing the directive?
    Mr. Meacher: The additional costs, over and above current practice, are estimated at between £190 million and £390 million. I hasten to add that the higher figure is entirely dependent on the adoption of the most expensive form of implementing the directive, which would come about if one of the requirements set down by the European Parliament in its vote on this issue were to be adopted—namely, the banning of the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment in the household waste stream. That has yet to be discussed, and there will be conciliation on this matter. The directive is still in draft; it will probably not be decided before the end of the year, and it remains to be seen whether that option will be adopted. It might be better to regard the additional costs as of the order of £200 million, and that will, of course, be taken into account in the current spending round.
    Mr. Colin Breed: The Minister will be familiar with the refrigerator situation. This week, we have learned that television sets might also be caught under the toxic waste provisions of the landfill directive that will come into force shortly. The recycling of television sets might seem rather strange, but, bearing in mind the change from analogue to digital, is any work being done to find out whether, rather than disposing of lots of television sets, some of them could be recycled as part of the digital switch-over?
    Mr. Meacher: I presume that the hon. Gentleman meant recycling television sets, not recycling programmes, which goes on already.
    The aim of the directive is not just to achieve a more environmentally sustainable form of disposal. The objective is to secure the recycling and reuse of component parts. That is what the directive is designed to do, and I believe that it will have a considerable effect.
    As the hon. Gentleman was good enough to make the refrigerator comparison, let me again make it absolutely clear that the circumstances involving fridges were unique. We were given only seven months to implement an arrangement for which we did not have the technology. It consisted of a regulation that came into force in exactly the same form everywhere in the Community. Member states have greater flexibility in transposing WEEE because it is a directive. The current position is very different from that involving fridges, and I do not believe

    945
    that those problems will occur again in the case of the WEEE directive or those relating to the end of life of vehicles, hazardous waste or landfill.
    Mr. David Lidington: I wish the industry and the general public could share the Minister's optimism, but his record to date does not encourage such an expectation.
    Will the Minister confirm that from next month European law will require every one of the 2 million television sets that are disposed of annually in this country to be treated as hazardous waste? That will require their collection and disposal by specially licensed operators. Is the Minister confident that the new arrangements for licensing and disposal will be ready on time—or was the spokesman for Dixons right when he said earlier this week that televisions could start mounting up like fridges?
    Mr. Meacher: I should be very surprised if a representative of Dixons, which is a very responsible company, had made such a loose and idle comment. That is certainly not the case.
    Before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question may I, with grace and enthusiasm, welcome him to his new position? I am sure he will do very well as Opposition spokesman, and I am sure he will maintain that post for a very long time.
    As I have said, the WEEE directive is still in draft. We do not know the final details, and probably will not know them until the autumn. The hon. Gentleman, however, also referred to the hazardous waste directive. There has been a delay in the determination of exactly what the waste acceptance criteria are, but the Commission recently completed that determination—rather late, but not as late as previously—and the criteria will of course be adhered to.
    I believe that the criteria are manageable, and that there will be no special difficulties. The WEEE directive will not come into operation until 2004, so we have nearly two years, and I am sure we can manage the criteria satisfactorily.
    Mr. Lidington: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his gracious words of welcome, but I feel that the phrase he used earlier—"loose and idle"—in connection with the statement by the Dixons spokesman could serve as a summary of the Select Committee's verdict on his policy on refrigerators, which can be found in its recent report.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) asked about the costs of the WEEE directive, which, as the Minister says, is due to come into force in about two years and will affect everything from freezers to electronic greetings cards. It will be complicated and expensive to administer. The industry and local authorities are asking the Government to make clear whether Ministers expect the costs of administration and recycling to be borne primarily by manufacturers, retailers or local authorities. The Minister has two years in which to give people time to plan. Will he now state clearly on whom he wishes the burden of those additional costs to fall?
    946
    We are currently hearing statements from the industry like that of the director of development at Biffa Waste Services, who said—again, earlier this week
    "If you thought the fridges were bad, you wait until all these other things come through. We haven't got a strategy, we haven't got a plan, there's no consultation with industry and no communication with the public. Instead we are standing around in the corner of a field with our hands in our pockets."
    Is that not an accurate description by an industry spokesman of the lackadaisical and complacent approach that the Minister and his colleagues are taking?
    Mr. Meacher: I did see that alleged quotation from Peter Jones of Biffa Waste Services, and I was extremely surprised by it because I have always regarded him as a thoughtful representative of the industry. It was an extremely loose and rather silly statement, and when I see him I shall make that clear.
    The truth is that the directive requires member states to set up a system for the separate collection of waste electronic and electrical equipment, with a target for private households of 4 kg on average per inhabitant per year. We have two years to implement that, but as I have already made clear, changes could be made in the common position as it was left by the European Environment Council. In particular, the European Parliament has proposed that there should be mandatory individual producer responsibility, or collective producer responsibility if the former is disproportionately costly. That is one unknown. Secondly, it is proposing a higher collection target of 6 kg per head of the population and, thirdly, the banning of the disposal of waste electronic and electrical equipment in the household waste stream. That would certainly be very costly.
    It is impossible to calculate the final costs until the exact form of the directive has been decided. It is certainly not true that there has been no consultation with the industry. I cannot understand how any responsible industrial representative should say that. I have had discussions with the industry about this matter and my officials have had many more. I expect to have still more in future. We are prepared to look at the matter and to consider industry's requirements. Indeed, we want to do all that we can to assist industry, but comments such as that from Peter Jones are not helpful and not accurate.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that when Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister, she was the one who laid the basis for all these tinpot directives that he is having to deal with now, backed not only by the Tories who were in the House at the time, but by those tinpot fanatical Liberals? This lousy, rotten Common Market has a lot to answer for. There are a few moments when I have the desire to rush across there and tell them to get stuffed. Then I get back to reality and say, "Thank God I voted against it all."
    Mr. Meacher: The only point where I can agree with my hon. Friend is that I also voted against in 1974. I have changed my mind, and quite strongly, particularly with regard to the environmental acquis.
    Whatever one feels about the details of some of these directives, and I agree that they are contentious and we contend many of them, the thrust of the range of recycling and recovery directives has enormously improved the environment in this country. There is no question about

    947
    that. The state of our water, air and contamination levels have significantly improved. That is largely due to Europe. That does not mean that everything it does is right—I certainly do not think that either—and we need to be much more active, and industry needs to be involved at a much earlier stage in producing the changes that we want. Change should not just be imposed by Brussels.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. David Drew: If she will make a statement on progress towards the reform of the CAP. [63008]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): We expect the European Commission to publish its proposals for reform of the CAP on 10 July, and expect a preliminary discussion at the Agriculture Council on 15 and 16 July.
    Mr. Drew: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Everyone now supports reform of the CAP, which is failing taxpayers and consumers. It is an important reason why we are delaying the entry of the new entrants to the EU. The environment is not doing well, while the CAP does not seem even to be supporting farmers' incomes. If we cannot have radical reform, is there not a case for abolishing the CAP, certainly as it is at the moment.
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend conditions his question by saying, "certainly as it is at the moment," but the point is that we want radical reform of the CAP. We are urging the Commission to publish radical proposals, and we are pushing for—for example—a shift in support under pillar one from production subsidies to environmental and rural development measures. Such changes have proved their value through the England rural development programme. We have made it clear that that direction—which is supported by the Curry commission report, and by other countries that want reform—is the right one to take. Let us hope that all other European countries support us in that.
    Mr. David Curry: As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Commission is publishing its proposals for the mid-term review on 10 July. At roughly the same time, the Government should know how much money they will have available in the fundamental spending review, and whether they can implement the Curry report's central environmental proposals. In the Government's view, should they implement the Curry report as soon as the money is available, or should they wait until the framework has been established as part of the negotiations for the mid-term review, so that the European framework—which appears to be quite similar to the Curry report—can be put in place and a coherence between the policies established?
    Alun Michael: The Curry commission report provides a framework for reforming agriculture in this country, and we are looking to the Commission to introduce proposals on the direction of CAP reform. What would help is a significant increase in the UK's share of pillar two funding. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, such funding has historically been low—a fact for which the Conservative party is responsible. However. the most
    948
    important thing is to examine the statement, and let us hope that it is as radical as this country and some of our reform partners want it to be.
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: My right hon. Friend may be aware that, this week, the report of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the future of farming was published. On CAP reform, it points out that Agenda 2000 kept in place too many subsidies that are detrimental to animal welfare, that pillar one payments should have animal welfare conditions attached, and that pillar two payments should reward producers who maintain higher animal welfare standards—many of whom are, of course, in the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend support those proposals as part of the negotiations?
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is aware of the Government's enthusiasm for improving animal welfare standards across Europe, and he is right to point to the importance of doing so. That is one way of achieving a level playing field, and the decoupling of direct livestock payments from production will assist in that regard, and in terms of addressing the environmental impact of farming.
    Mr. Roger Williams: During last week's mass lobby on fair trade, much emphasis was placed on reform of the CAP to allow third-world farmers to get a fair price for their products in world markets. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for International Development to ensure that such reform achieves fair prices for third-world farmers?
    Alun Michael: We want to improve not only the working of the CAP, but of the world trade round. That was made clear in Doha, where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took a leading role in pushing for such change. The danger of building unfairness into the system is clear to us, and we want to see it improved.
    Mr. Wayne David: Will the Minister confirm that discussions on the mid-term review of CAP reform will, under the Danish presidency of the European Union, be conducted in parallel with discussions on EU enlargement?
    Alun Michael: Both of those issues are being pursued in parallel, so the answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes.
    Mr. David Lidington: I encourage the Minister to use the mid-term CAP renegotiations to put forward positive British proposals on issues that are of benefit to our own agricultural sector. For example, as he knows, British consumers and farmers alike find it immensely frustrating that we are unwilling, or unable, to ban the import of meat and meat products from countries where foot and mouth and other such diseases are endemic. The Government's argument has always been that such a ban would not be permissible under European law. Will the Minister therefore make it an objective of British policy in the negotiations to make whatever changes are needed to those European trade laws so that,

    949
    in future, we are able to ban the import of meat and meat products from all countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic?
    Alun Michael: We certainly want to have a level standard for imports. However, we do not want to introduce controls that would be impractical or inoperable in terms of market movements. The hon. Gentleman is, however, right to suggest that we should do all we can to achieve a level playing field and consistent standards with our European partners. We will also do all we can to push for radical proposals to reform the CAP to ensure that our farmers are assisted. That is why we want to see an increase in the UK's share of pillar two funding and to see the other changes for which we have argued.

    Horticulture
    Mr. Michael Jack: What plans she has to help improve the commercial performance of the UK horticultural industry. [63009]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The UK horticultural industry is rightly proud that it does not depend on EU subsidies and has a good record of innovation and customer focus. The Department funds a substantial programme of strategic research and development in the horticultural sector and there are various opportunities within the England rural development programme for assistance to horticultural enterprises. We have recently consulted on a new round of the agricultural development scheme. The Food Chain Centre, which has been established in response to the policy commission report on sustainable food and farming, is preparing a benchmarking study on fresh fruit and vegetables.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful for the Minister's positive view of the horticulture industry, especially as it is a fragrant day for the House with a visit by the National Farmers Union flower and plant committee. The committee's members and the rest of the horticulture industry would be interested to learn what the Department can do to help those parts of the industry that sometimes need the help of specialist chemicals that are available to our European competitors, but are not available here because of the costs imposed by the Pesticides Safety Directorate when approving the use of those treatments in the UK. Could he consider the issue again to see what may be done to ensure that our industry can compete on an equal basis?
    Mr. Morley: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, which can be a serious problem in relation to specialist products for which the manufacturers think that the market in the UK is too small to go through the necessary procedures. The issue has been considered by the EU in relation to the permissions given for the use of various products, including pesticides and veterinary treatments, to try to minimise the bureaucracy and expense. I am informed that overall, however, most of the chemical treatments that our industry needs are generally available.
    Mr. David Heath: I recently visited a chrysanthemum grower in my constituency who
    950
    seeks to invest, not to increase the quantity of production but to improve the seasonality of his crop to meet the demands of the supermarkets. He has applied for England rural development programme support and been told that he cannot have it because it would be classed as state aid under EU rules. Can that be right, and will the Minister look into it?
    Mr. Morley: I shall be glad to look into the details if the hon. Gentleman will provide them. The success of such applications depends on the detail. The ornamental section is very successful in this country, especially in the south-west, and I know several schemes that have been grant aided, such as packing houses and support for distribution and marketing.

    Bali Summit
    Sue Doughty: If she will make a statement on the negotiations at Bali.[63010]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Progress was made on the importance of sanitation in eradicating poverty and meeting the millennium development goal on safe drinking water. Broad agreement was also reached on key issues such as the urgent need to restore fish stocks and address illegal fishing. The meeting also recognised the need for a strong focus on Africa. However, other difficult issues remain outstanding.
    Sue Doughty: I am concerned that the Secretary of State, yet again, has failed to come to the House to make a statement. On 16 May, she said that she was willing to consider making a statement to the House if she felt that there was something of substance to say on her return from Bali. Does that mean that the grave concerns here about agricultural subsidies are not sufficiently important to bring the Secretary of State to the House? Does it mean that, with only two months to go, everything is on course, apart from a few minor glitches? Does it mean that we have more or less thrown in the towel? Does it mean—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I count about four questions there. The hon. Lady is allowed only one. We will try the Minister and see what he can do.
    Mr. Meacher: I understand the hon. Lady's frustration, but I can tell her that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed Mr. Speaker and, as a courtesy, the spokesman for the Opposition that she would be attending the EU's Agriculture Council. My right hon. Friend said that she would make a statement if there was a range of issues of sufficient clarity and substance to justify one. Regrettably, and for reasons that are well understood, that is not the case.
    Of course the Government are wholly committed to a successful outturn at Johannesburg. The UK is playing a lead part in the EU to secure that, and the EU is at the driving edge of trying to achieve agreement before Johannesburg. We certainly do not lack concern about this matter. The opposite is true: we are hugely concerned that

    951
    Johannesburg should be a success, and that Rio plus 10 makes a real advance for the world environment and for sustainable development.
    David Taylor: In carrying forward the outcomes from Bali to Johannesburg, will my right hon. Friend make greater efforts still to involve and consult the UK food and drink sector? It has a great deal to offer in obtaining and achieving the sustainable targets that Johannesburg has set itself. Will my right hon. Friend say whether plans to involve that very important sector of industry are in place?
    Mr. Meacher: I am sure that we are seeking to do that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear from the outset that he wanted a partnership involving UK business, especially in regard to water and sanitation, financial services, tourism, energy and forestry. However, we are pleased to respond to representations from any sector of industry that feels that it can make a contribution to Johannesburg. We shall certainly receive favourably any correspondence from my hon. Friend or industry representatives.

    Fisheries
    Mr. Alex Salmond: What recent discussions she has had with EU partners concerning the fishing industry. [63011]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the EU Council of Fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg on 11 June, together with Ross Finnie, Minister for Environment and Rural Development in the Scottish Executive, and Mrs. Brid Rodgers, the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development.
    Items under discussion included the Commission's proposals for reform of the common fisheries policy, measures to protect deep-sea species, and the cod and hake recovery plan.
    Mr. Salmond: The Minister and I attended a splendid lunch a couple of weeks ago with Commissioner Fischler, who was extremely reassuring about the concept of relative stability. However, the Fishing News has reported that Commissioner Fischler was extremely reassuring to a committee of the Spanish Parliament on the question of equality of access.
    Does the Minister share my concern that between the draft and the final version of the Commission's proposals on CFP reform there seems to have been a significant weakening of the principle of relative stability? Does he accept that, without relative stability, there can be no acceptable fisheries policy?
    Mr. Morley: I certainly accept the latter point: relative stability is an integral and important part of any CFP, including the reformed one that we want. I am confident that we can achieve that. I was reassured by what Commissioner Fischler said about relative stability, and do not detect the weakening that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) perceives between the first draft and the final draft. I am convinced that the vast
    952
    majority of member states regard relative stability as being in the best interests of all our countries, based on the historical track record of all EU members.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: On behalf of everyone involved in the Lowestoft fish fair, which took place last Saturday, may I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for coming to Lowestoft to open it and for spending so much time meeting and talking to people? That was greatly appreciated.
    On the reform of the common fisheries policy, fishermen in Lowestoft, while accepting the need to reduce fishing effort, are concerned that if that translates into a days at sea regime, our trawlermen, who travel a long distance to the Norwegian sector to catch their plaice, may be unfairly disadvantaged. Will my hon. Friend take that into account in forthcoming negotiations?
    Mr. Morley: I will take that into account. May I say how much I enjoyed opening the Lowestoft fish fair? It was good to see how much support it had from the local community. It was also very nice to visit CEFAS, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. It is celebrating its 100th anniversary in Lowestoft, which is a great tribute and advantage to the area.
    On a days at sea regime, the beam trawlers—there is a significant fleet based at Lowestoft—already work within an effort-controlled regime. What they have done needs to be taken into account in relation to future calculations on effort control. It is an important industry for my hon. Friend's area and we will be consulting closely with the beam trawler sector and, indeed, all sectors of the industry, on any proposals for future effort control.
    David Burnside: The Minister will be aware from the Prime Minister's answer to my question on his statement about the Seville summit earlier this week that the right hon. Gentleman either forgot or did not bother to raise the subject of fisheries at a senior level at the summit. Did the Minister's Department make representation at that summit meeting for fisheries policy to be discussed, including the very serious allegations about the Spanish presidency's misuse of its position on fisheries policy? That has been widely reported in such papers as The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph but not in this House.
    Mr. Morley: Any member state is free to make representations to the President of the Commission. It does not necessarily mean that that will influence change, and I do not believe that the representations on the proposals for the CFP were changed. Indeed, an examination of the draft proposals, which were widely available before the final proposals, demonstrates that there has been no significant change in relation to the Commission's proposals.
    We think that the Commission is generally going in the right direction. There are, of course, issues of detail that we will want to discuss, but we think it quite right that there is a new approach towards fisheries management in the European Union—given the mistakes that have been made in the past—that is based on putting sound science and conservation management at the heart of a sustainable fisheries management regime.

    Refrigerators
    Barbara Follett: What help her Department is giving county councils with the task of the disposal of used refrigerators. [63012]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): In December 2001, we announced a payment of £6 million to go to local authorities to cover their costs up until March 2002 for the disposal of refrigerators. We realise that local authorities are in need of further funding, and intend to make an announcement as soon as possible.
    Barbara Follett: With Hertfordshire county council currently disposing of 3,000 fridges a month—and, despite its best efforts, it cannot do that for less than £32 a fridge—and with Government assistance unlikely to amount to more than £15 a fridge, will my right hon. Friend please look carefully at ways of helping councils meet this shortfall?
    Mr. Meacher: Two mobile plants have been operating in this country for two or three months and three fixed plants will be in operation by the end of next month, which will be able to reprocess 1.2 million fridges. Given the state of the current technology and the level of plant that has been installed, my understanding is that a competitive cost for reprocessing is about £20per unit but that as the technology improves and further plant is put in place, that may reduce to about £15 per unit. However, I am happy to look at any evidence that my hon. Friend can produce that suggests a basis for significantly different figures.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the Minister's comments on
    954
    recompense for county councils, but is he really satisfied that they will have any confidence in the Government following the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which estimated that the cost for this year alone would be more than £40 million? Some people reckon that the cost will probably be in excess of £100 million. The Minister has probably lost confidence in his own civil servants whom he blamed over the EU directive. If he blames his civil servants, will any of them resign or does he intend to sack them?
    Mr. Meacher: Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman is wrong in almost everything that he said. First, the cost has been estimated at about £40 million this year. The Government will be making a statement on that. I certainly do not accept the suggested figure, which is nowhere near £100 million.
    Secondly, I did not blame my civil servants; they did exactly what they should have done, which was constantly to raise at formal meetings—nine times over two and a quarter years—the need for an answer to the question as to whether CFC should be removed from insulation foam. They were right to do that. The only comment that I made was that I should have been informed about the matter at the time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I was informed in July 2001. I should have been informed much earlier and had that been so, I should have approached the Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, at a much earlier stage.
    I have not lost confidence in my civil servants, nor have I lost confidence in their ability to get on top of the problem. Indeed, by the autumn—probably October—we shall be beginning to reprocess more than the increase in the pile of refrigerators. The pile will disappear some time in the middle or latter part of next year.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week, please?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): It will be a delight.
MONDAY 1 JULY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill. Followed by Second Reading of the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 2 JULY—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Crisis in Funded Pensions" on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 3 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 4 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY 5 JULY—Debate on modernising Britain's gambling laws on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 8 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Bill. Followed by Opposition Day [17th Allotted day, 1st part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 9 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Police Reform Bill [Lords]. The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 10 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Police Reform Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 11 JULY—Debate on intelligence agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JULY—There will be a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will wish to know that on Monday 8 July 2002, there will be a debate relating to sustainable development and aid for poverty diseases in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that on Tuesday 9 July 2002, there will be a debate relating to genetically modified food and feed in European Standing Committee C.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 10 July 2002, there will be a debate relating to working conditions for temporary workers in European Standing Committee C.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Monday 8 July 2002:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: 7727/2/02: World summit on sustainable development; 6863/02: Aid for "poverty diseases". Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-xxix and HC 152-xxxi (2001–02).
956
Tuesday 9 July 2002:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: 11576/01 and 11496/01: Genetically modified food and feed. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xii (2001–02).
Wednesday 10 July 2002:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 7430/02: Working conditions for Temporary workers. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xxviii (2001–02).]
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for letting us have that business.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us more about the comprehensive spending review? Rumours are circulating that it will be announced on 9 July, but it would be helpful to all concerned, given the importance both of the review and of people being prepared for it, if he were to give us some indication of the date, even if only to say that the rumours are not true. It would be helpful if we could have a more precise date.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that on Monday evening the House passed, with a large Government majority—sadly, that is not unusual—a motion on the authorisation of human and veterinary medicines. I wonder how many Government Back Benchers were aware of what they were supporting on that occasion. Perhaps the House will want to return to this fairly soon, because I wonder how many of them realise that they were supporting the Government's position of broad agreement to the proposed amendments to the directive and the overall aims of the review. Let us remember that the measure affects medicines, herbs and other things about which I am sure Government Back Benchers have received a large number of letters. They then went on to support the draft directive on medicinal products for human use.
The point that I am making, and why I think the House may want to return to the issue, is that I wonder what the Leader of the House will tell his Back Benchers when they rumble the fact that they were dragooned through the Lobbies on Monday night to support those measures. What on earth will they tell their constituents, who are quite rightly writing to them, as they are to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends, to object to the intrusiveness of those measures and the effects that they will have on people's long-standing habits and use of legitimate herbs? So I hope that the Leader of the House can give his own Back Benchers some reassurance on that matter and perhaps give the House an opportunity to return to the issue, as I suspect some of them are already regretting the decision.
The other thing that we have got to return to is this: following the European Union summit, just about a week ago, the Minister for Europe was widely quoted as having said that the Government had got "exactly what it wanted" from that EU Council meeting, but the Prime Minister said:
"we did not get everything that we wanted." —[Official Report, 24 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 624.]
Which of them was right?
Mr. Cook: It would be imprudent and unwise of me to tell the House anything about the comprehensive spending

957
review until the Chancellor has done so, but the right hon. Gentleman is, of course, fishing for when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will do so. I am very happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that will happen in July, and I hope that that gives him the guidance that he is looking for, but no Government can commit themselves to a specific date for the comprehensive spending review statement until that review is completed. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware from his own time in government that such matters are subject to extensive discussion between Departments, but I would anticipate that it will happen some time comfortably before the House rises for the summer recess.
It always fills me with great cheer when the Government have a large majority, such as on Monday. I would reject the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there are any grounds for sadness in the Government's ever having a large majority in any vote in the House. My hon. Friends are well aware that they will be perfectly well briefed by the Department of Health to ensure that they rebut any allegations on what they have done.
Mr. Forth: Spin.
Mr. Cook: No, that is not spin; it is a matter of substance. The substance is that we must ensure that we have rigorous and agreed methods in place to ensure that those who take medicines—herbal or otherwise—are fully protected and that we ensure that they are rigorously assessed; and the Department of Health will be very happy to assist Opposition Members, as well as those on the Government Benches, in ensuring that they can respond to their constituents.
On the European summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is, of course, absolutely clear in what he said in the statement on Monday, and I refer the right hon. Gentleman to that. Of course it is always the case that those who go to a summit seek to ensure that they get the best possible deal for their country, and we secured the best possible deal. The best possible deal is not necessarily the deal that we would have written had we been in a room by ourselves without people from 14 other nations. It is in the nature of the European Union that we have to reach agreement with what the other 14 nations will sign up to as well. I am bound to say that our process of engagement, providing leadership and setting the EU agenda, has given Britain a much better deal than it ever got in the days when Britain sat at the bottom of the table, heckling everyone else and never getting stuck in to reach agreement.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House find an early opportunity for a further debate on parliamentary privilege, so that we can revisit the recommendations on that subject of the Joint Select Committee, on which I was privileged to serve? I salute and very much welcome his statement about the RMT union in his own personal respect, but I also welcome the statement that the Deputy Prime Minister released overnight on resigning from the RMT, in which he said:
"It is unacceptable that my trade union, the RMT, should dictate how a Member of Parliament should vote."
Does the Leader of the House accept that it is not just unacceptable, but a possible contempt of the House for any union or outside organisation to seek to influence the way in which those in this free Parliament vote and speak?
958
He may not recall the particular incident, but perhaps I can draw to his attention to the fact that, in the summer of 1974, when my union sought to influence my vote and my voice in the House, the Speaker took a very dim view and the union had to come to the House to apologise, in effect, for seeking to influence the way in which Parliament operates. Does the Leader of the House accept that this is a very serious issue? He has taken a very robust attitude to it. Can the House as a whole have an opportunity of showing that it does, too?
On a separate matter, may I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that, in a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday this week, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) found to his dismay that in answer to his concerns about the Tanzanian air traffic control system, the Minister replying, as he was the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, had no knowledge whatever of the issue. The Minister responsible for export control was apparently visiting a factory somewhere else—he was in the House before and afterwards, but did not attend that debate. Can the Leader of the House at least make sure that Ministers who answer debates in Westminster Hall know what they are talking about?
Mr. Cook: First, on the question that the hon. Gentleman raises about the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, I am always happy to revisit areas of privilege, because it is of great importance to the House.
On the issue of the RMT, I am happy to repeat what I said to the House yesterday. I have a long and valued relationship with the RMT, which has been useful to both of us over many years, as a source of dialogue and information—
Mr. Forth: And money.
Mr. Cook: I can certainly say to the right hon. Gentleman that elections have to be fought in my constituency, as, I suspect, they do in his constituency, too. Everything that I have received has been openly declared and registered, as the House is well aware. Although I will welcome support in fighting those elections from anybody who broadly supports Labour's values and wishes to work for a Labour victory, I am not to be bought for any particular agenda. On that basis, I decline to sign up to an oath of loyalty. I know that every other RMT MP in the House has also similarly declined.
It is not for me to pronounce on any issue of contempt; the House has well established and well worn channels in which it can establish whether contempt has occurred. First, there must be an offence. No offence has occurred in this case, as all those involved have made it clear that we are not going to sign up to an oath of loyalty to anybody outside the House. It must be a cardinal principle of membership of the House that we come here as free representatives of our constituents with, of course, a political mandate as a party. We are here to exercise our best judgment on behalf of our constituents in line with the mandate that we receive. We are not here to act on behalf of any other specific vested interest or agency.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the question of the debate in Westminster Hall. I will look into it. I can surmise that, as the Minister for Employment Relations,

959
Industry and the Regions was replying to the debate, the Government concluded, perhaps without sufficient information, that the Member concerned wished to raise employment issues, and that the appropriate Minister was therefore present. The issues of the Tanzanian deal are well trodden and well understood, and have been vigorously debated in the House previously. I shall make sure, however, that the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is investigated, and I shall make sure that I write to him about it.
John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will have seen early-day motion 1504 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones).
[That this House notes that there is currently no provision for Early Day Motions with a high number of signatories to be debated; further notes that provision for Early Day Motions with the support of more than half the House to be debated automatically would make Early Day Motions a more effective mechanism for ensuring the concerns of the House are addressed; and calls on the Government to consider introducing such a provision.]
The early-day motion calls for a change of rules in the House whereby, if an early-day motion received the support of more than half the Members of the House, a debate would automatically follow. That would be a useful change, as issues arise frequently on which one can only secure an Adjournment debate, if one is lucky, in Westminster Hall or in the Chamber in the evening. An early-day motion on issues such as Post Office job losses would probably attract the support of at least half the Members of the House, and the suggested mechanism would thereby secure a debate on the Floor of House—and, of course, there could be a vote on the Adjournment.
Mr. Cook: I of course follow the early-day motion pages with close care and always find them rewarding. I was particularly struck by the early-day motion last week congratulating the No. 10 football team on having thrashed the Parliamentary Press Gallery football team 5:2. I am very grateful to the early-day motion pages for drawing my attention to that, since I have found difficulty in locating a description of this resounding victory for No. 10 over the Press Gallery in any of the press that I read.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) makes a broad point, of which I am well aware, that there is a feeling that there should be more opportunities for private Members to nominate the issues for debate in the House. The Modernisation Committee is considering that challenge, although I would not want to suggest that we will necessarily go down the route to which he points.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made what is generally regarded as a very significant speech on the euro, do the Government not consider it appropriate to have an early debate on their policy on the euro and on the proposed timetable?
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to hear the hon. Gentleman congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on a
960
very significant speech. I look forward to more support from the hon. Gentleman for my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman knows the Government's policy on the euro as well as I do, because he raises the issue even more often than I do.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The policy has changed.
Mr. Cook: No, the Government's position has not changed. Our position is that, if the five economic tests are met, we will put to the British people a recommendation that Britain should join the euro. Any timetable entirely depends on when we are satisfied that those five tests are met.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the case of Christopher Walker, a British citizen who is the brother of Anna Walker, a resident of Cambridge and one of my constituents? Christopher disappeared from his home in Stockholm almost three months ago, and nothing has been heard of him since. The family are naturally very keen to get as much publicity for the case as possible, in case anyone has seen Christopher. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could give me advice about the best way of publicising this matter in the House.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has taken an opportunity to raise the case in the House. I hope to raise the matter and give it a higher profile in the media so that anyone who may be aware of the whereabouts of Christopher Walker can contact the authorities or his family. The whole House will fully sympathise with the suffering and the pain that must be experienced by any family whose relative has disappeared without trace or without contact. I hope that this case will find a satisfactory solution.
I also suggest to my hon. Friend that, if she has not already done so, she might wish to discuss the case with the Foreign Office. I am sure that it will be happy to help in Sweden, where we have an excellent ambassador who was one of my former private secretaries.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is the Leader of the House aware that his many admirers on both sides of the House felt for him a little yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time, because he was not able to answer as straightforwardly and honestly as he always does from the Dispatch Box during business questions? Will he find time next week to put that right by suggesting to the Prime Minister that, when the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box next Wednesday at Question Time, he apologise for misleading the House by saying that share prices were higher in 1997 than they were on the day the Prime Minister responded to a question about them? That was factually incorrect. It would help occasionally for the Prime Minister to say sorry. He would gain more respect by doing so.
Mr. Cook: I am very sorry that I disappointed my admirers on the Opposition Benches, but I am rather alarmed to hear that I have them. I hope to put that right over the coming weeks.
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have checked the facts about the movements in the stock market. What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the House last Wednesday was factually absolutely

961
arithmetically correct. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman queries the matter, let me share with him what the market capitalisation was on 1 May 1997. [Interruption.] The first of May happens to be a very important date in the life of this Government; it was our birth. On 1 May 1997, the market capitalisation on the stock market was £762 billion. That rose to a peak of £1.553 trillion in December 1999 and, as at 19 June, the figure stood at £1.121 trillion. That is £400 billion down on the peak, but it is still substantially—£350 billion—more than it was on 1 May 1997. [Interruption.] I am not making that up, but merely reading the facts and the figures for which Conservative Members asked. I hope that we shall hear no more about the Prime Minister misleading Parliament.
Mark Tami: Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of House aware that, every week, four to eight apparently fit and healthy young people die of undiagnosed heart problems in the United Kingdom? The charity CRY—Cardiac Risk in the Young—is a self-supporting group that campaigns to increase awareness of this important issue. Will he allow for an early debate on the subject, and will he support the efforts of Doreen Harley of Connah's Quay, who lost her daughter Lisa to sudden death syndrome, and those of the Chronicle newspaper to raise funds to provide screening for hundreds of young people in north Wales?
Mr. Cook: I am aware of the organisation CRY, with which I have had contact in my constituency. I congratulate those parents who have discovered that they have offspring with heart failure on their work both to publicise the risks to young children with undiagnosed heart problems and to raise funds to take that cause further. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The more children in such a position who are aware of it, the better able they will be to adjust to life and to ensure that they are not exposed to unnecessary risk.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Leader of the House accept that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the farming community about the proposals that are under active consideration in Brussels on the reform of the common agricultural policy? There is a mid-term review in the course of next year and a longer-term review as part of the enlargement process through to 2006. Commissioner Fischler will produce in the next few days proposals that are advertised, if we are to believe reports in the Financial Times earlier this week, as fundamental reforms of the current structural packages of support. Will the Government take the opportunity before the summer recess to organise a debate in Government time to clarify that uncertainty?
Mr. Cook: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are following the issue closely and will of course pay the greatest of heed and care to proposals to change the CAP. I have not the slightest doubt that the matter will be thoroughly ventilated in the Chamber.
I would, however, enter one general observation without necessarily committing myself or the Government to what Commissioner Fischler may propose. Although we are all committed to reform of the CAP in the abstract, we mostly reject proposals for reform when they are made. We have to complete that bridge. Most hon.
962
Members understand that we cannot continue through the 21st century with a system that is basically one of protectionism, which the growing freedom in world trade is bound to challenge and change. The sooner we ensure that it is changed on a basis that suits the farmers of Europe and Britain, the better it will be for us.
Mr. Paul Truswell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting concern in the House and beyond caused by the delays in obtaining police checks from the Criminal Records Bureau? If so, it will come as no surprise to learn that Leeds social services have not received one single return from the bureau since 1 April. As a result, 60 posts remain unfilled while they await the results of checks. That is 60 caring posts of which my constituents and those of other Leeds Members are deprived. In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement to the House on what has gone wrong and what can be done to put it right?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an important issue: we must ensure that those who apply for jobs with children are properly checked so that anyone who may have a record is identified before securing a post. I am not aware of the delays to which he refers, but if he writes to me I will be happy to ensure that the Home Office provides him with a full response and that we take what action we can to keep that important part of our system of protecting our children intact and expeditious.
Bob Spink: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate so that we can discuss the importance of a new cardiac centre to the people of Essex? That would allow us to show why the facility should be provided at Basildon hospital, where it would greatly benefit those of my constituents who suffer from heart problems. We would also be able to consider ending the rather futile consultation process so that we get on with the job of providing the centre, which is much needed in Essex.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who has a great influence on my life, is solidly in support of his proposal. However, I know enough from long experience not to get involved in the particular siting of a unit. We are fully committed to ensuring that we expand the provision for those who are in need of cardiac surgery, and I am delighted that we have the hon. Gentleman's support on that. Perhaps in return for my offering to look kindly on what he said about the need for a unit in his constituency, he will look kindly on the need to vote for the comprehensive spending review which will provide the money.
Joan Ruddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deteriorating security situation in northern Afghanistan, and the fact that female foreign aid workers are having to be withdrawn because of repeated violent attacks, including the gang rape of a French female aid worker? Given that 60 Afghan and international relief organisations have now called for an extension of ISAF beyond Kabul, will my right hon. Friend discuss this very urgent matter with his Cabinet colleagues and consider how it might be debated in the House?
Mr. Cook: The House will be aware that the British Government themselves suggested that ISAF should be

963
more widely deployed than it currently is, and that we were not necessarily satisfied with the outcome that it has been largely confined to Kabul. In order to ensure that we provided that wider coverage we needed the support of others, because it is not a task that Britain alone can, or should, attempt to undertake.
Our current strategy is to do all that we can to build up the police and military authority of the Interim Government rapidly, so that they themselves can provide better policing in the provinces within Afghanistan. In the meantime, I would join my hon. Friend, as will all Members of the House, in deploring the attacks on aid workers, which are not only distressing and horrific for the aid workers concerned, but have the result of denying the poor and the destitute of the region the assistance of aid agencies.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers at the Department of Health whether they will adopt my Back-Bencher's Bill, the Vaccination of Children (Parental Choice) Bill, as a Government measure? That would have the effect of allowing parents the right to choose the single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines as opposed to the combined triple vaccine. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be very concerned by research produced this morning by the Autism Research Unit in Sunderland—by Paul Shattock, the director there—which seems to provide fresh evidence that there may be a link between MMR and autism. It follows in the footsteps of other research that has been produced by Professor Andrew Wakefield and Dr. John O'Leary. If we are to protect the nation's children, is it not time the Government worked on the precautionary principle and allowed parents the right to choose between the single and triple vaccines?
Mr. Cook: I heard a very interesting dialogue this morning on the "Today" programme, which I always find a help to my digestion of breakfast, between Mr. Paul Shattock and the representative of the Medical Research Council. I hope that Paul Shattock will now respond to the invitation of the Medical Research Council to submit his research to peer group review and ensure that it is put through the same examination as other research in this area.
The fact is, though, that, as the hon. Lady will be aware, the overwhelming bulk of the medical literature on the subject, and the overwhelming tendency of the investigations that the Medical Research Council has validated, is that there is no link between autism and MMR; indeed, I heard the representative of the MRC say this morning that there is a positive case that there is no such link. It is therefore unlikely that the Department will sponsor a Bill that is contrary to the policy of that Department—a policy which is drawn up in the interests of parents and children to ensure that we provide the best possible protection for the children of the nation.
Kevin Brennan: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on ways to engage young people in politics, and particularly in the work of the House? Is he aware that when the singer-songwriter Billy Bragg recently appeared before the Select Committee on Public Administration, of which I am a member, he
964
accused the Committee, and Members of Parliament generally, of giving off a be-suited image that is male, pale and stale? In our rather informal proceedings here, would it not therefore be a good idea if we were to institute dress-down Thursdays in the House; and would not that have the additional merit of allowing the shadow Leader of the House to engage more freely in his penchant for colourful retro-clothing?
Mr. Cook: I have always wondered what the clothes were that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wears; I am very grateful that they have now been satisfactorily labelled. This is not a matter for the Government to impose on the House, nor are there any obligatory dress standards on Members.[Interruption.] I am happy to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I have no intention of bringing in any guidelines or statutes on the ties and shirts that he wears. It is open to Members to come to the Chamber in whatever attire they choose. provided it is seemly and decent and consistent with the Chamber. It is a matter for individual Members.
I shall be watching with the greatest interest to see what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) wears next Thursday.
Pete Wishart: Today, many schools in Scotland break for the summer holiday. Meanwhile, the House will sit for a further four weeks. I know that the recess is timed to coincide with the English school holiday. That means that English Members get an extended opportunity to spend time with their families; Scottish Members do not. We also have to make sure that we get our complicated child care arrangements put in place for the school holidays; English Members do not have to consider that. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that fair and right? I know that he is looking at the summer recess for next year. Will he accommodate all parts of the United Kingdom in that review?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I recall one occasion when the House went into recess the week before the Scottish schools went back. At that time, I had two children of school age. The happy consequence was that I was in London all through August, when it turned out that my opposite numbers in the Department of Health for the Conservative Government were absent, and it was a rather useful month for me. That is inadequate compensation for being able to go on holiday with our children.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Modernisation Committee is examining my memorandum, which suggested that we should rise earlier in July and come back for a period in September, before going off on a conference recess. I hope that we will be in a position to put those proposals to the House some time in the overspill, and that they will take effect next year. That will go some way to easing the problem that the hon. Gentleman identifies.
Mr. John Lyons: My right hon. Friend knows that the Daily Record in Scotland and the Evening Times reported yesterday on the re-emergence of a pyramid selling scam called "Women Empowering Women". That has surfaced in various parts of the UK,

965
most recently in the Isle of Wight. The problem is that none of it is unlawful or illegal. Will my right hon. Friend consider legislative action against such schemes?
Mr. Cook: Pyramid selling can be a great menace, and unfortunately too many people—not just in Britain, but elsewhere—have been defrauded by it. Anybody who fraudulently or by misrepresentation obtains money from another is open to a legal charge and to legal remedy, although my hon. Friend draws attention to the question whether there is a need for a specific crime relating to pyramid selling. I shall happily draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or a debate next week on school admissions? Is he aware of the case of Ecclesbourne school in my constituency, which tried to achieve a more co-ordinated approach to its catchment area? It was supported by Derbyshire county council and Derby city council, the two authorities involved, but the recommendation was overturned by somebody called the adjudication officer, who did not visit the site, but decided that no change could be made. That is a new office and the decision is nonsense. It causes great uncertainty, particularly to parents in Kirk Langley, West Underwood and Muggington, who now fear that they will not be able to get their children into the local comprehensive school. We need a statement and we need to know the Government's position on the matter.
Mr. Cook: I hear the hon. Gentleman's support for Derbyshire council, which I hold in high estimation. I will be happy to consider with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills the points that he makes. My own prejudice has always been that such matters and local issues are best determined locally, wherever possible. We obviously have to make sure that national standards are applied and that national guidelines are followed, but I understand the frustration of the hon. Gentleman's constituents if a decision is imposed by people outside their locality.
Andrew Mackinlay: May I ask the Leader of the House when he will consider, along with the Modernisation Committee, the more even distribution of parliamentary sittings? For many months of the year, we cannot table written questions and have them answered. I should have thought that there was overwhelming support in the House for a swift resolution, which would allow that important tool for Back Benchers to be available throughout the year, instead of long periods when the Executive can be let off the hook and not subjected to the probing and scrutiny that are so essential to us.
Mr. Cook: I believe that the proposal that we should return in September will address part of the problem of the long recess in which questions cannot be tabled. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Procedure Committee yesterday published its report on questions and Question Time, which contains many interesting ideas that I am sure will repay careful study, and touches on the ability to table written questions during periods when the House
966
may not be sitting. I hope that we can return to that matter when we debate the proposals of the Modernisation Committee in the spillover.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Leader of the House has always correctly registered his RMT interest, which so sadly ended yesterday, but is he surprised to learn that the Deputy Prime Minister has never registered exactly the same interest? Does he know that the Deputy Prime Minister's flat, which he is keeping on, is a benefit-in-kind of approximately £12,000 a year? Is he aware that the rent has not been reviewed in 10 years? Does he think that that huge benefit-in-kind is compatible with paragraph 122 of the ministerial code of conduct?
Mr. Cook: As I recall, that specific issue was examined by the Standards and Privileges Committee, which found that there was no obligation on the Deputy Prime Minister to register it. Nor is he required to register an arrangement that is not a personal sponsorship, but a constituency agreement with his union. As for myself, I have sadly to conclude that my entry in next year's register might be just slightly shorter.
Mr. Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend will remember that, this time last year, we were still in the middle of the foot and mouth outbreak. Following that period, the Prime Minister set up a number of inquiries. The Follett inquiry, which is chaired by Professor Brian Follett and deals with the scientific problems, and the Anderson inquiry, which deals with the lessons learned, are due to report in July. As the argument for those independent inquiries and against a public inquiry was that they would report and be debated quickly, can we have an assurance that the Government will find time to debate the reports before the summer recess?
Mr. Cook: I am sure that the House will want to examine the reports, hear about them and express its views. As Leader of the House, I fully understand that the House will want to ensure that these matters are adequately considered by it. Of course, neither I nor the Government can give an assurance on the date of the reports' publication, as that is in the hands of those who are carrying out the investigations, who will properly want to ensure that the reports are published at the time of their choosing rather than ours. None the less, we have made clear to them the great importance that we attach to their being published while the House is still sitting.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware of the dips in the Royal College of Nursing and, in particular, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting in terms of registering nurses. Does he share my concern about people who have come out of business to be retrained, but then discover that there is no employment for them because they are not registered? A greater concern is that, when we recruit people from overseas, should not we ensure that they are registered before they are brought here, instead of allowing them to be left in the lurch to be employed by others in lower paid jobs than those that they are qualified to perform? I understand the problems, but surely we should be doing something to ensure that nurses are not victimised in that way in future.
Mr. Cook: The decision about when foreign nationals who wish to come here and practise nursing should do so

967
is essentially a matter for them. It is not for us to tell them not to come until a particular stage has been completed. None the less, we have had exchanges on this matter before in business questions, and I am aware of the delay in registration following the transfer, in which some teething problems occurred. We are working hard to ensure that that period of delay is cut to a minimum, so that those who wish to register can do so expeditiously and without the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Bill Rammell: May I urge the Leader of the House to organise an early debate on the draft Local Government Bill? While the Bill contains much that is to be applauded, I am very concerned about the proposal to pool local authority housing capital receipts. In Harlow and throughout much of the south-east, there is an acute shortage of homes for rent and a significant backlog of housing repairs. I would view any proposal to take away the capital receipts on which we are relying to meet the Government's decent homes standard as a very backward step, and I urge an early debate on the issue.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is obviously very important to his constituency and others in the south-east. We have published the Bill in draft form precisely so that voices can be raised and concerns and views expressed about what is proposed. I am keen to ensure that the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions has the opportunity to carry through its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, in which it will address a number of such issues of concern. The more Bills we publish in draft, the better we will be able fully to examine them before the House is faced with debate on an official Bill. I advise him to ensure that his voice is heard by the Department and the Select Committee as these matters are considered.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the Leader of the House aware that in the past few weeks Swanley town council in my constituency has had to spend around £16,000 to move on three encampments of so-called travellers and to clear up after them? It is a difficult problem, but could we have an early debate in which the Government can put forward proposals that might make it easier to move on illegal encampments and to reimburse the costs that unfairly fall on very small town and parish councils?
Mr. Cook: Many hon. Members, myself included, are familiar with the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and we have made efforts to deal with it in the past. He will know that it is a difficult and complex issue that is not readily amenable to a simple legal solution, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which now covers local government, is examining it to see whether we can take further steps that would be helpful.
Mr. David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the world summit on sustainable development that will open in Johannesburg in August is a conference of enormous importance, not least for its potential to bring the United States Government back into the frameworks of international agreement on
968
environment and development policies? Notwithstanding his earlier announcement that there will he a general debate on sustainable development in European Standing Committee C next week, will he provide Government time in the near future for a debate on the Johannesburg summit on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Cook: I entirely share my hon. Friend's commitment to the importance of the summit. It is important that we review where we stand 10 years after Rio and that we understand that, if we want to ensure that we preserve the climate and environment of the globe, we must have international decisions that secure that. I particularly welcome the summit's focus on tackling the environmental hazards experienced by the poorest people on the earth. A very simple environmental right will be access to clean water, which could remove the scandal that 2 million children die each year from drinking contaminated water. If we can get progress on that, the summit will have been well worth while. I will consider at what stage it might be appropriate for the House to hear about those matters and to what extent we can provide for that, given that we must balance it with the other commitments of business in the House.
Dr. Vincent Cable: The Leader of the House will recall the very prominent role that he played in relation to the Scott report on the Iraq supergun. Will he suggest the best way of initiating a comparable investigative inquiry into the equally scandalous Tanzania air traffic control deal, and commend it to his colleagues?
Mr. Cook: I fully rebut any parallel between those two events. The Scott inquiry flowed from two things—first, the totally secretive basis on which the rules on exports to Iraq were changed without any report to the House or comment in public and, secondly, the subsequent attempt to prosecute and convict business men who had acted fully in connivance with the Government, who denied their own role. There is no parallel with the Tanzanian air traffic control case. Whatever hon. Members may think of that decision, it is in the public domain, it was fully aired in exchanges in this House and in Westminster Hall, and nobody has made any attempt to bring false prosecutions.
Mr. Mark Francois: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate before the summer recess on new regulations, which come into force next week, governing access to local authority planning registers by those who wish to undertake searches as part of a house purchase? The regulations threaten the livelihoods of several successful private companies that offer a service to clients wishing to search such registers, because they will impede the ability of those companies to carry out searches. The regulations threaten the viability of a number of successful small businesses and threaten to slow up the whole process of carrying out searches on behalf of those who wish to purchase houses. That is an important issue, so can the Government provide time for a debate before the recess?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I can promise a debate in the Chamber before the recess because we have a crowded schedule. The hon. Gentleman raised some important points and goes some way towards reinforcing the case

969
for a sifting committee to identify secondary legislation that requires debate. In the meantime, I shall draw his comments to the attention of the relevant Department.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Leader of the House use his best endeavours to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be one of the Ministers responding to Tuesday's all-day Opposition day debate on the crisis in the funded pensions industry? The Chancellor could then explain precisely when he realised that his devious scam of raiding pension funds to the tune of £5 billion a year would come home to roost during his Chancellorship, not many years hence, as he obviously intended.
Mr. Cook: Decisions about who takes part in Opposition day debates are matters for the Government collectively, and we shall give due weight to the hon. Gentleman's representation. He asks about the precise point at which somebody changed their mind. Last Thursday, he mentioned opinion polls that showed that the Conservatives were on the way up. When precisely did he change his view on opinion polls? Was it possibly on Monday, when he read the latest poll, which put the Conservatives two points down and 10 points behind?
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Leader of the House agree that employees throughout the United Kingdom should be treated equally and have equal rights? Will he read early-day motion 1498, which draws attention to a loophole in the law?
[That this House deplores the behaviour of Argos, who are ruthlessly exploiting a loophole in the law, whereby shop workers in Scotland are not given the protection which is enjoyed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, and sacking staff who between them have given years of loyal service to the company if they will not accept compulsory Sunday working, thus discriminating in particular against those who have family commitments or religious objections, and in general against employees in Scotland.]
970
Argos is exploiting that loophole, and employees who, for personal or religious reasons, do not wish to work compulsorily on a Sunday are being sacked. Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to plug the loophole?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) raised that matter in business questions last week on behalf of his constituents who work for Argos.
We are not considering a loophole, but the fact that the legislation in Scotland pre-dates that in England. The legislation in England includes specific safeguards for religious and other principled objections to working on a Sunday. There has not been a problem in Scotland so far. As I said last week, I deeply regret that the company is not following the practice of other Scottish companies, which have worked on Sunday for many years, but managed to do so amicably, with the voluntary agreement of their staff. I hope that, even at such a late stage, the company will consider coming into line with normal practice.
Richard Younger-Ross: In a debate on social care in January, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), said that there would be an inquiry into why health authorities in the south-west were diverting money from services for the elderly to child care. I raised the matter with the Leader of the House, who promised to write to the Health Minister to ascertain whether there would be a statement and whether I would receive a response. I have written to the Health Minister, but I have not received a response. Does it take the Government six months to make an inquiry? How long does it take a Minister to reply to a letter from a Member of Parliament?
Mr. Cook: I am punctilious in drawing the attention of the parliamentary Clerk of the appropriate Department to matters that are raised in business questions. I shall ensure that we pursue the matter and try to get a reply for the hon. Gentleman.

Network Rail
1.18
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on progress in putting the ownership and operation of the rail network on a sound and sustainable footing, and, as part of that, steps to get Railtrack out of administration.
I shall keep the House informed over the next few weeks, but in the light of the conclusion of the sale and purchase agreement this morning between Railtrack Group and Network Rail, I thought it right to come to the House to set out the Government's strategy, progress so far and the next steps.
As the House knows, the High Court put Railtrack into administration last October. As the presiding judge said, the making of the railway administration order was
"not only appropriate, but absolutely essential".
The Government's objective is to ensure that Britain's rail network is owned and managed by an effective and competent body and thus secure a sustainable long-term future for the rail network. To achieve that, the next step is to remove Railtrack from administration as soon as possible and place the network under new ownership and strengthened management, which is committed to improving service and safety. That is in everyone's interest: that of the industry, the work force and the travelling public alike.
On the 25 March this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) told the House of the bid made by Network Rail to acquire Railtrack from its parent company, Railtrack Group plc. Although other bids would have been considered, none was received. Network Rail is a public interest company limited by guarantee, and will be run for the benefit of the whole railway, concentrating on its core priorities of operating, maintaining and renewing the rail network. There will be no shareholders, and any operating surplus will be used for the benefit of the railway system.
The company will operate on a sound commercial basis with a board and management whose performance targets will be aligned to the Strategic Rail Authority's long-term plan, as well as to the obligations to its customers under its network licence. Its directors will be accountable not to shareholders but to the company's members, who will be drawn not only from the rail industry, but will include members representing the public interest and the Strategic Rail Authority. In this way, the directors of Network Rail will be answerable to people whose primary interest is in the long-term future of the railway.
Railtrack Group and Network Rail have now concluded a sale and purchase agreement to acquire Railtrack plc. I would like to set out in some detail the terms of that agreement. In line with its original offer, Network Rail will pay £500 million—of which £300 million will be provided by the Government—as well as taking over Railtrack's debt, which now stands at £7.1 billion. This includes loans from the European investment bank and the German bank, KfW, totalling just over £1 billion, which Network Rail plans to assume.
In parallel, London and Continental Railways is acquiring from Railtrack its interest in the first phase of the channel tunnel rail link for £295 million. At a cost of
972
£80 million, Network Rail will acquire the right to operate, manage and maintain the channel tunnel rail link and the concession to manage St. Pancras station. I can tell the House that Network Rail has already secured up to £9 billion of bridge financing from commercial banks to fund its acquisition costs and to refinance Railtrack's existing debt, as well as to fund the immediate operation of the railway.
Network Rail will also put in place additional commercial financing of up to £7 billion for its medium-term requirements. This is necessary to cover operational expenditure as well as to cover substantial cost overruns inherited from Railtrack, which will have to be met. Network Rail will also need—as would any owner and operator—access to back-stop contingency funding. For this reason, the SRA will provide additional standby credit facilities; this contingency funding of last resort has been set at £4 billion. Further details of this funding and of the short-to-medium-term standby credit facilities offered to Network Rail by the Strategic Rail Authority are set out in the two minutes that I am laying before the House in the normal way. The House will also wish to know that the Rail Regulator has today issued a statement setting out his approach to a request for an early regulatory review.
These are large sums by any standards, but they are necessary, given the size of the task facing Network Rail, and they would be needed by any successor to Railtrack. There is no escaping the fact that Britain's railways need very large-scale investment—investment that we believe is essential. It is because of the need for long-term sustained investment that the Government are, through the 10-year plan, increasing the average annual investment in the railways—on top of continued support for running costs—to £4.6 billion. That is more than three times the annual average in the 10 years prior to 1997.
The public are entitled to expect that this investment will be spent efficiently and effectively. That has clearly not been the case in the past. The new company, Network Rail, faces a legacy of poor management, and of very substantial cost overruns which will have to be met. For example, when it began, Railtrack estimated that the cost of the west coast main line project would amount to about £2 billion. It is now clear that the actual cost of the work will be considerably more than that. What is now needed is a competent owner and operator, which is why Network Rail's acquisition of the railway network is so essential to the future of the railways.
This agreement is a major step towards removing Railtrack from administration and putting the rail network back on a sound footing. The next stage in the process will involve Railtrack Group plc putting this offer to its shareholders at a special meeting, which is expected to be held next month. It is for the company to decide how much it can offer its shareholders.
The European Commission is also considering whether any aspect of the support being provided needs to be cleared as state aid. However, if the shareholders of Railtrack Group approve the bid at the special meeting and the appropriate clearance is obtained from the Commission, I expect to ask the High Court for an order releasing Railtrack plc from administration thereafter.
It is obvious that Railtrack could not have carried on as it was. Even the company recognised that last summer. What is more, the division and lack of common purpose

973
that characterised the railway system during the last few years was damaging and destructive to the interests of both the industry and the travelling public.
All the evidence shows that working together is crucial to the long-term success of the railway network. Over the past few months, despite the uncertainties of administration, the new management of Railtrack has enjoyed closer working relationships with the Strategic Rail Authority as well as the Rail Regulator and the train operators—which is essential if the network is to work effectively and efficiently to everyone's benefit.
The establishment of a public-interest company in which the Strategic Railway Authority is represented will continue to foster this climate of better co-operation to the benefit of all concerned in terms of achieving the objectives set. The railways are critically important to the economic and social fabric of the country. There is now an urgent need to give the rail system stability, and I believe that this agreement is the right and best way of building a modern and efficient network.
Mrs. Theresa May: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for giving me an advance copy. As this is my first opportunity to do so in the House, let me also welcome him to his new post.
I refer hon. Members to the declaration that I made on 14 January, which can be found in column 33 of Hansard.
Like the Secretary of State, I hope that today's announcement will bring an end to the damaging last few months of uncertainty on the railway, and that the new body will indeed succeed in bringing much-needed stability to the railway network—much needed because the Government's decision to put Railtrack into administration caused considerable and, in our view, unnecessary upheaval on the railways.
I am sure that the Secretary of State has seen this morning's press release from Railtrack Group. Page 8 says:
"On Friday 5 October, neither Railtrack Group nor Railtrack plc was insolvent".
The right hon. Gentleman may recall his predecessor's claim that the reason for the decision to put Railtrack into administration was that it was insolvent. Indeed, on 7 November last year the Prime Minister told us
"the fact of the matter is that the company was not solvent"— [Official Report. 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 233.]
Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to admit that his predecessor and the Prime Minister were wrong to make such claims?
The Government have belatedly decided to compensate the Railtrack shareholders whom his predecessor so deliberately wronged. Notwithstanding the caricature that the Government tried to create, the people who were really wronged were not fat cats but thousands of employees and vulnerable pensioners whose savings were put at risk.
When the Government put Railtrack into administration, the former Secretary of State said:
"I decided that I could not give Railtrack a blank cheque."
At the time, Railtrack was looking at a possible financing requirement of £1.7 billion. Now we see the Government guaranteeing funding of up to £21 billion—£21 billion of taxpayers' money. They said that they would not give a blank cheque, but that is exactly what they are doing.
974
The Government also said, through the former Secretary of State:
"we should not be seen as acting as guarantor of individual companies".— [Official Report. 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 955.]
Yet now they are acting as guarantor to an individual company. Nine months after pulling the plug on the company, after increased misery for passengers and the spending of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, the Government have done what they said they would not do.
It is reported that administration has cost £1 million a day. Has this not been a very expensive way for the Government to do away with a company for reasons of ideology?
It is reported that the Government's guarantee for Network Rail's financing will be on the books of the Strategic Rail Authority, but not those of the Treasury—it sounds rather like WorldCom accounting to me. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Office for National Statistics has determined that that guarantee and any further such sum can remain off balance sheet for the Government? We all know that the only reason why the guarantee is necessary is that the City has lost confidence in the Government because of the way in which they handled Railtrack.
In his statement, the Secretary of State outlined the structure of Network Rail but did not say who would own the company. The travelling public and the taxpayer have a right to know that, so that they can properly hold it to account. Will the Secretary of State answer the question of who will own the company, and will he confirm that the company's members will be Government appointees—Government sitting on the board and Government guaranteeing the funding? What comfort can he give that he will not need to give a further blank cheque to the company?
The Prime Minister promised that the railways would be "basically fixed". The only thing that seems fixed about this deal is the Government accounting. As I said earlier, Conservative Members hope that Network Rail can be made a success. We have concerns about matters such as the financing, the structure of the company and the cost to the taxpayer, but what people are worried about is whether their train will be on time tomorrow morning. The fact is that this Government have not treated transport as a serious priority. Five years and three Secretaries of State later, the Government have been forced to sit up and take notice.
We wish the new company well. The Secretary of State has promised
"a major step towards … putting the rail network back on a sound footing",
but it will take more than a Government promise to sort out the mess that his predecessor created.
Mr. Darling: First, it would be churlish not to thank the hon. Lady for her good wishes on my appointment. I fear we part company on just about everything else she said.
I had not intended to spend too much time going over what has happened in the past but as the hon. Lady raised it, it is important to remind the House of the situation that the Government faced last autumn. It is not as if Railtrack was a healthy, flourishing, thriving company. Let us be

975
clear about this. Railtrack came to the Government about a year ago. Essentially, it asked for three things in order to carry on. One was that the Government should meet uncapped additional financial support. It also wanted us to underwrite the value of its shares, and a suspension of the regulatory regime for up to four years. No Government, of whatever political colour, could meet that sort of uncapped liability—[HON. MEMBERS: "They would."] I must correct my hon. Friends. No Government would. It is no wonder that the Opposition lack credibility. Let us once and for all be clear about the facts: we were faced with a situation where a company which we had given the benefit of the doubt for some time—perhaps too long—was completely unable to carry on trading.
The sole test that the judge had to face under the Railways Act 1993 was whether Railtrack could pay its debts. The Government's position was that it could no longer do so. That is why they asked the High Court to award the order. It is also worth reminding ourselves that sitting in that court was counsel representing Railtrack. Had he taken issue with anything said, counsel would have got to his feet and said so. Instead, he said absolutely nothing.
I turn to the other matters that the hon. Lady raised. She asked about the membership of Network Rail, a company limited by guarantee. Its membership will consist of about 100 or 120 members. On the assumption that the agreements will go through, a small nominating committee, completely independent of the Government, will invite applications to be members of Network Rail. It will include the train operating companies and people with an interest in the industry. Critically, the majority of its members will come from outside the industry—from passenger groups, and from the Welsh and Scottish devolved Assembly and Parliament—to ensure that a wide range of people are included, and it will be independent of the Government. That is a far better way to ensure that the money invested in the railways is spent on the railway system itself. I repeat that it is not the Government who will run the company; it will be independent.
Incidentally, I am glad that the hon. Lady now welcomes the fact that Railtrack is out of administration. When asked in February this year whether she still thought it right to invent Railtrack, she said that she did. She has changed her mind, which is very encouraging indeed.
The hon. Lady also asked an important question about support arrangements and the finance available to Network Rail. As I have said, no matter who took over from Railtrack, it would be necessary to find substantial funds to take over the debt and meet existing commitments, and to meet the substantial cost overruns that Railtrack face, and which the successor body will have to pick up.
There is another matter about which the hon. Lady has been spectacularly wrong in the past few months, which is probably why she did not mention it much today. She has always maintained that Network Rail would be unable to raise private funds, but it has already raised £9 billion, and at extremely competitive rates. It is of course absolutely right that, initially, the Government should stand behind the Strategic Rail Authority, which is providing credit facilities for Network Rail. Such initial support will fall away as the bridging loans are
976
securitised, and ultimately, through the SRA, the Government will simply stand behind the £4 billion long-stop contingency funding that will be made available. However, on any view—be it a totally private or a totally public company—the Government, through the SRA, would need to help get the company out of administration.
I welcome the hon. Lady's concession that this Government are ending a period of uncertainty. I should point out, however, that above all we are ending a period of extremely damaging uncertainty, division and argument, which so characterised a botched privatisation that should never have taken place. More importantly, I also welcome the comments of those outside this House who are involved in the industry, who said today that this is a good chance to begin rebuilding the railway system, and to establish a properly operating system that is valued by public and private customers alike. I believe that this is a major step forward, which should therefore be welcomed by everyone in this House.
Mr. Don Foster: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notification of his statement, and I welcome him to his new and very challenging post. I also congratulate him on beginning on a high with this welcome announcement of the start of the process of Railtrack plc's being taken out of administration. As he sought to dwell on historical matters, I hope that he will acknowledge a strange irony. It is almost a year to the day since his predecessor said that my proposal to turn Railtrack into a not-for-profit company would
"introduce paralysis into the system".—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 137.]
His predecessor carried out a welcome U-turn, and notwithstanding our belief that the handling of the issue led to some confusion, unnecessary cost and loss of confidence among private investors, we welcome it.
However, there is one U-turn that we do not welcome. The Secretary of State's predecessor told the House categorically that no additional money would come from the Government to compensate shareholders. Since May 1996, shareholders have received some £700 million in dividends and they bought Railtrack in the first place at a knock-down price because it was undervalued by some £6 billion. I therefore see no justification for further compensation to shareholders, especially in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor's assurance that it would not be forthcoming.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that Network Rail does not really know what it is getting with the deal? On several occasions before administration, Railtrack failed to produce a full asset register. The asset register that the administrators were expected to produce by April has not been forthcoming, and today's statement by Network Rail specifically states that it will take the company a further 18 months to produce a full asset register and
"robust and realistic forecasts of the level of expenditure necessary to meet its output obligations."
In view of those uncertainties, can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the deal includes those properties managed by Spacia? Will they now become part of Network Rail and can he tell us at what point Government underwriting for the company will end?
The statement is welcome, but I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that ending the conflict between passenger safety and shareholder profit has been

977
very necessary. We look forward to seeing whether the change of ownership will bring about an improvement in performance.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks and I look forward to working with him. He raises two substantive questions. First, he asked about the compensation for shareholders. My view on that is straightforward. The sooner that Railtrack is out of administration and the business handed over to Network Rail, the better for everyone concerned. The Government will receive a cost advantage for that, and that is why the payment to shareholders is justified. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that the payment is available now provided that the shareholders of Railtrack accept it quickly at the extraordinary general meeting. It will not be available indefinitely and no one should be under any illusions about that.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about Railtrack's assets. He is right to highlight one of the problems that faced Railtrack in that it did not seem to have a grasp of its asset base or its cost base. One of the problems confronting Railtrack was the upgrade of the west coast main line and one reason why costs overran substantially was that contracts were let before the scale of the work required became apparent. That is not efficient in business terms, but it is beginning to change.
My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), deserves credit for the fact that in the past few months the industry has worked together more closely than in the past. Railtrack, under John Armitt, its new chief executive, who is an engineer, has undergone a sea change in its attitude to what needs to be done, and that is very encouraging.
I should have dealt with a point raised by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), and the hon. Gentleman also asked me about transparency. Network Rail's accounts will be accounted for under the Strategic Rail Authority. The big difference with what happened with Railtrack is that we will be able to see exactly what money went in, where it was spent and what is owned. In other words, under the new system we will have complete transparency, which was not always the case with Railtrack. That is becoming increasingly obvious as more and more information comes to light.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a most welcome and long overdue statement? Railtrack has not served the community well. Ever since it was pushed into the private sector at the time of the fragmentation of the railway industry it has faced enormous problems. With its poor management and poor targets to hit, it was not capable of providing the level of care that the railway system desperately needed. Will the Secretary of State undertake to look closely at the amount of money that the new company will need? It is clear that considerable shortfalls exist.
I am sure that all hon. Members strongly support the tribute that my right hon. Friend has paid to John Armitt, but will he also undertake to discuss with the new company the need to look closely at how it works with contractors? The travelling public are sick of constant excuses. The infrastructure is very old and needs considerable maintenance, but it is not being enhanced
978
and improved at the speed or in the manner that is required. Will my right hon. Friend please look carefully at the system of contractorisation?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises two good points. First, in connection with the amount of money that the railway system needs, the Strategic Rail Authority has been speaking to Railtrack and its chief executive, John Armitt. It has been looking at a number of measures to determine what money is required and what investment is necessary, with a view to bringing benefits for rail passengers as quickly as possible.
In the past, too much attention may have been placed on what might be in 10 or 20 years' time, and not enough on what the position will be in the next five years or so. I am determined to ensure that we achieve year-by-year improvements in the service, and that the public see those changes as quickly as possible. One of the most urgent examples of where improvements are needed is the west coast main line, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich knows a great deal.
My hon. Friend also raised the substantial matter of the use of contractors. That is of concern because one of the problems with Railtrack was that, when it was set up, it almost set out to be a virtual company. It did not do very much itself but used third parties to discharge its obligations and deliver its objectives—hence the growth in the use of the contractors.
I believe that, under any system—public or private—there will be third-party contractors. I have discussed the matter with John Armitt, and it is clear that, in the past, not enough attention was paid to ensuring that contractors did what they were supposed to do. There were many checks on the process—the tick-box approach—but not enough attention was paid to whether, and how satisfactorily, the work was done.
I have made it clear to John Armitt that, in future, the public will expect money to be invested properly, and that we will get what we pay for. I know that Richard Bowker, the head of the SRA, is also concerned about that. As far as safety is concerned, everyone must ensure that there is end-to-end accountability, regardless of who people work for and who they are answerable to. That is crucial, and we must see that the necessary mechanisms are properly in place.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. The points that she made are extremely sound, and I attach great importance to them.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I begin by declaring my interest in Railtrack. I welcome the Secretary of State to his post, and wish him every success where his predecessors have failed.
I wish to speak about the independent Rail Regulator. I do not want to go over the whole sorry saga, but many questions were raised about the advice that the Rail Regulator gave the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), which that right hon. Gentleman indicated he would overrule. Does the present Secretary of State agree that if the new company announced today is to succeed, there should still be a prominent role for an independent rail regulator?
Will the Secretary of State explain why he proposes to downgrade the role of the independent Rail Regulator, and to institute a regulatory board? What will be that board's

979
status? How important will be the advice that it gives to the Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the board will compromise the very independence that I presume the Government hold dear?
Mr. Darling: No, I do not. The Government have made it clear several times now that, as and when legislative opportunities arise, we will establish regulatory boards to back up regulators. That is becoming common practice, and the help that it gives to regulators has been welcomed by them. The week before last, I made an announcement emphasising the importance that we attach to independent economic regulators. Before I made that announcement, I discussed the matter with the regulator. He is happy with the proposals, and in fact has an informal board already. There is therefore no difficulty in that respect.
The regulator has welcomed today's announcement. Strikingly, however, bodies such the Association of Train Operating Companies and Network Rail have welcomed the work of the economic regulator. Tom Winsor has done a very good job over the past few years and I am quite sure that he will continue to do so. However, I think that most people will welcome a regulatory board to help and give greater depth to his deliberations. That approach is not unique to the rail industry—the Government are doing it in relation to all other regulators as well. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Lady's points have any substance and believe that most people outside this place would accept that.
Mr. George Howarth: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on these proposals, not least because there will be appropriate and clear lines of communication.
Now that my right hon. Friend has the opportunity to turn his attention in a different direction, will he agree to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), myself and others to discuss the excellent proposals Merseytravel has for a tram scheme in Liverpool?
Mr. Darling: For the avoidance of doubt, we will not be transferring Merseytram to Network Rail. I am aware of the Merseytram proposal, and I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I will be more than happy to meet one or both of my colleagues to discuss it at a convenient time.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Secretary of State—to whom I also bid welcome—say who will set the financial performance criteria for Network Rail? To whom will it be answerable for the achievement of those performance criteria? Who will audit its accounts and, specifically, when can we expect a detailed statement of precisely what constitutes the upgrade of the west coast main line?
Mr. Darling: On the right hon. Gentleman's latter point, the Strategic Rail Authority is discussing with Railtrack, the train operating companies and, assuming that everything goes ahead, soon Network Rail how best to deliver an improvement to the west coast main line. That is likely to take a few months yet. I am not promising an oral statement but I will make sure that the House is kept informed in some way or another, because many
980
right hon. and hon. Members have a direct interest in what happens on the west coast main line and we all want to see it improved.
The appointment of auditors is a matter for Network Rail. The company is limited by guarantee; its directors are answerable to its membership, and they will set the performance targets. Network Rail is also responsible for delivering the objectives set by the Strategic Rail Authority. One of the changes that we have made since coming to power is to bring more cohesion into the railway system. What was lacking in the past was a strategic direction to ensure systematic increases in investment that resulted in more people using the trains for travel as well as increasing freight. That is what the Strategic Rail Authority is there to do. However, Network Rail is an independent company, limited by guarantee. The directors are answerable to its members for its performance as well as its stewardship of the company, which is what the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about.
Glenda Jackson: May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position and also welcome his statement? With regard to investment in our new railways, who will have the lead voice in deciding the prioritisation and plan for work? Will it be Network Rail or the Strategic Rail Authority? Who will have responsibility for those railway lands still in existence which may not at first sight be necessary for railway expansion or modernisation but which could be further down the line?
Mr. Darling: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome, and apologise to the last few speakers who also congratulated me—I appreciated their remarks. It is nice to make hay while the sun shines; I do not suppose that it will always be this way.
It is for the Strategic Rail Authority to set out the key objectives, and for Network Rail to deliver them. Network Rail is responsible for delivering on the contracts that it enters into, whether they relate to the west coast main line or the suburban rail network, but the SRA lays down the strategy. There is now a clear sense of direction. The SRA will discuss with Network Rail. the train operating companies and others what the priorities should be, something that was missing in the past.
On any lands that Network Rail has acquired that are surplus to requirements and not needed, it is for the company, not the Government, to reach a view on whether to dispose of them. I will certainly look at any particular point that my hon. Friend may wish to bring to my attention.
Mr. Nick Gibb: Although he referred to it, the Secretary of State failed to answer one of the key questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May): how will the contingent liability represented by the £4 billion lending of last resort by the SRA be accounted for in the national accounts? To that end, what is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the risk of its being drawn upon?
Mr. Darling: I thought that I had dealt with that point. The SRA is providing facilities, first, to enable Network Rail to raise money to acquire Railtrack plc, to meet its

981
immediate operating costs and to take over its debts, which are about £7 billion. Network Rail has raised £9 billion commercially; it is also taking over the European investment bank loan and the other loan to which I referred. The company has already raised that money from the private sector and it intends to securitise it. The process will start later this year and, contrary to the comments of some Opposition Members, there is much interest in it in the markets. That contingent liability will therefore fall away.
Secondly, the regulator has indicated that he will hold consultations on an early review. My expectation is that, in due course, the second tranche of funding—the £7 billion—will also fall away, until it, too, is taken over by purely private sources. The remaining backstop finance is £4 billion and that will remain a contingent liability. I very much hope that it will not be called down, because I hope that by that time Network Rail will be operating on a sound basis.
I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster): the SRA will account for the moneys going to Network Rail, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead spotted—not difficult, as it was all over the newspapers. The process will be open, transparent and above board.
My statement may have been over long. I went into a great deal of detail because I was anxious that the House should understand everything, but finally—for the sake of completeness—I have laid two minutes before the House, which set out in full detail, chapter and verse, with all the supporting correspondence, exactly what the contingent liabilities are; how they will he covered; and where they are accounted for: so if the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) cares to spend the rest of the afternoon in the Library with a wet cloth over his head, he is welcome to do so.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be great enthusiasm on the west coast main line for the new rail company and that no tears will be shed for the demise of Railtrack? I have two questions. First, is my right hon. Friend convinced that money will be available to provide us with a fast, modern, reliable rail service on the west coast main line? This week, we have once again experienced tremendous disruption.
Secondly, Railtrack was negotiating with Virgin to buy up to 10 new railsets. As Railtrack failed to deliver the second phase of upgrading—PUG II—will Network Rail have to pick up that debt, too?
Mr. Darling: Perhaps I may repeat what I said earlier about the west coast main line and the upgrades: now that Railtrack's books have been opened by the administrator, it has become apparent that some of the assumptions that had been made do not hold good. During the past few months, the SRA has been talking to the train operators—other companies are involved as well as Virgin—and to Railtrack to decide how best the west coast main line can be upgraded to bring year-on-year improvements systematically. As my hon. Friend knows, urgent attention to many points on that line could bring substantial benefits, whereas other places could be dealt with at a later stage. That work is still under way. I am hopeful that it will be concluded in the autumn, as I have been told. At that time, I shall ensure that, in one way or another, my hon. Friend and the rest of the House are kept informed so that they know what is happening.
982
We are spending about £4.6 billion a year on average, which is three times as much as was spent during the 10 years prior to 1997. I am determined that, as that money goes in, we should try to ensure that people see improvements year on year. It may take a long time to reach the ultimate conclusion, but we need to make sure that each year brings changes that will make a difference, especially for passengers on the west coast main line. It is perhaps an indictment of successive Governments that the last substantial, large-scale investment in that line was in the 1960s when many of us were still at school.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. May I make a plea for concise questions and answers, as a lot of hon. Members still hope to catch my eye?
Pete Wishart: I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Will the Secretary of State further describe the new board of Network Rail? For example, what will be the proportion of rail user groups vis-à-vis rail operators? May I further press him to describe how the nations and regions of the United Kingdom will be represented in the new structure?
Mr. Darling: As I said earlier, it is absolutely essential that representation should be drawn from throughout the United Kingdom because, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the integrity of the United Kingdom is very important, not least in the railway system. I repeat that the company will have 100 to 120 members, and they will be widely drawn from different interests, as well as from different parts of the country. The board will be a very much smaller, more businesslike organisation. It will be focused on delivering the business, and it will not be a representative body of all the various constituent parts. The board will be a businesslike, commercially focused organisation; the membership will be more widely drawn.
Helen Jackson: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. Does he recognise that his predecessor's action last autumn was so warmly welcomed by the majority of the travelling public simply because they believed that the Government were prepared to put investment in passengers, trains, stations, track and signalling before the endless investment back into a failed company and its shareholders? That drove the public support, but may I ask for an assurance that the additional funds used to bring Railtrack out of administration quickly are not at the expense of any investment proposals at present on the stocks in the network? Furthermore, may I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that the north of England and the north of this country, as distinct from the suburban areas around London and simply the west coast main line, get the proper infrastructure in the future? We in the north have our expectations, as well as the rest of the country.
Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend will know, I have a passing interest in the northern part of the country. I am responsible for the rail track right up to the most northerly point of the Scottish mainland, as well as that around Sheffield, so I have some sympathy with what she says. Clearly, it is for the SRA to produce proposals to ensure

983
that the money is well spent to benefit as many people as possible, but the travelling public are important, no matter where they are.
My hon. Friend asks about funding. Two things are necessary in relation to the railways. First, there has to be adequate funding. Through the 10-year plan, the Government have allocated very substantial sums on an unprecedented time scale. Spending is never normally allocated so far ahead. Secondly, it is necessary to have a competent operator. That was not the case with Railtrack. I believe that Network Rail has a far better structure.
In relation to my hon. Friend's last point, the Government, through the SRA, are providing credit facilities to enable Network Rail to raise commercial funding precisely because we believe that it is very advantageous to get private and public money into the system; it needs both. I want to ensure that as much public money as possible goes into improving the network, and the sooner we get the rescue of the railway system completed and Network Rail operating satisfactorily, the better things will be for everyone concerned.
Chris Grayling: Will the Secretary of State tell us whether Network Rail be accounted for as a subsidiary of the SRA? Will any of its debt appear as public borrowing? Will any of the finances raised from the private sector not he covered by facilities or guarantees from the SRA?
Mr. Darling: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman joins the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) in the Library this afternoon with his wet cloth. He will see that it is all set out. The position is that the SRA will account for the business of Network Rail so that everyone concerned can see what money is going in and where it is going. The Office for National Statistics is another body, which is independent of Government, that simply classifies these things as economic statistics. The point made by Opposition Members therefore has no substance. The key point is that, unlike under Railtrack, people can now see where the money is going. I commend the minutes to the hon. Gentleman. He will find all the information that he wants in them, in some detail.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I heard my right hon. Friend refer to the board a couple of times. He said that it would be cast in a broad fashion. Will he ensure that none of the invitations goes out to the usual chattering classes? Will he take close guard to ensure that there are no Tories among the 120 people, or the smaller group? They caused the trouble in the first place. If there are any Tories in that group, they will leak to their friends in the press before you can say "Jack Robinson". The last thing that we should do is force them to have a loyalty oath. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), we do not believe in them.
Mr. Darling: I strongly believe that the membership of the company should be composed of people who have the railways at heart, first and foremost. I take slight issue with my hon. Friend, however, in that I know that there are still many decent people who are Conservatives, who are appalled by the attitude of the current Tory party
984
leadership towards these matters, and who believe that we are right about the future of the railway system, and that the Tory party is wrong.
Bob Spink: Will the Secretary of State make investment available to Network Rail to enable it to deliver on the London, Tilbury and Southend line the objectives that the Strategic Rail Authority has set, particularly the 50 per cent. increase in passenger numbers over the next few years, bearing it in mind that that line is already running over capacity? That will mean that Network Rail will have to put down new track and a new station, perhaps—I hope—on Canvey Island. I believe that 3,000 of my constituents on Canvey Island use that line each day, and 5,000 people in my constituency as a whole do so. They have been very long-suffering, and they deserve a break—they deserve new infrastructure.
Mr. Darling: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are enjoying the fruits of the economic success in this country. I shall say two things to him. First, we have made substantial sums available to invest, and the Strategic Rail Authority has the job of identifying where that money is best spent. I have no doubt that it will consider many commuter lines running into London.
Secondly, when the hon. Gentleman is travelling on one of those trains, he might like to say to his constituents that a lot of money is being invested through the 10-year plan, and that, if the Tories were re-elected, that would be cut, as they oppose every penny of that additional investment.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: There can be no doubt in anybody's mind that Railtrack was an abject Tory failure; it is as simple as that. I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement today, and I wish him well in his new post. May I press him further on contracting out? I accept that there will be a need to contract out to third parties. What worries me, and, I think, other rail users, is contracting out to fourth, fifth and sixth parties, as there seems to be no mechanism for checking them. What we do not want is people working on rail maintenance who do not have a clue about what they are doing.
Mr. Darling: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I am extremely concerned that there may not be the necessary supervision of contractors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) says, it is not only subcontractors who are involved but sub-subcontractors. Many contractors work extremely well and efficiently, are very well supervised, and the job is well done. There is concern, however—in Railtrack, too, to give it credit, as well as elsewhere in the industry—that, in some cases, there is not enough end-to-end accountability, not just to make sure that a process was followed or that someone ticked the right boxes to say that they did certain things, but to make sure that whatever should have been done was actually done.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I met John Armitt a couple of weeks ago to express my concern about that issue. He is well seized of

985
the problem and very concerned about it. Before Railtrack comes out of administration, it and then Network Rail will pay a great deal of attention to this issue. It is important that we are satisfied that we are getting what we are supposed to be getting and—critically in terms of safety—we must be sure that the work that is supposed to be done is actually done. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North makes a good point, and I thank him for his kind remarks.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State aware that confidence in my local line is now picking up after the tragic Potters Bar crash?
However, there is a real problem with parking at King's Lynn station. My constituents find it very difficult to find parking places there after 8 am. The car park needs extending and, although the land is owned by Railtrack and the SRA, no one seems able to make a decision. Will the Secretary of State look at that issue urgently, because we need to encourage local rail users?
When does the Secretary of State expect the Health and Safety Executive report on the Potters Bar tragedy? If it finds that there was not malicious interference, but negligence on the part of the subcontracting firm, Jarvis, will he order a full public inquiry so that we can consider in detail the whole issue of subcontracting?
Mr. Darling: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, it would not be wise of me to pre-judge the HSE report's conclusions. Everyone believes that it is in the best interests of all concerned to have the report as quickly as possible, and the HSE may publish further interim reports to keep people informed. Once I have the conclusions, I will consider them and come to a view.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about King's Lynn station, I am intrigued by the fact that Conservatives Members, having argued for years that the railways should be privatised and taken away from Government, are the first to ask detailed questions about the parking arrangements at their local stations. The SRA is charged with that responsibility, and I will pass on his concerns to it. However, as he has now raised the issue and because the chances are that I will be in King's Lynn at some point, I shall find out what the position is. If there is anything further that I can add, I will let him know.
Ian Lucas: Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that responsibility for station maintenance and development will, in fact, rest with Network Rail, so that it will be the organisation to be approached if there are difficulties at local stations?
Mr. Darling: I shall be brief. That is absolutely right.
Kali Mountford: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his announcement. Its key elements are the move from shareholder interest to public interest and the programme of investment, and it is important to bring those two elements together. Given the many demands that have been made of him today and the high public expectations that will result from the announcement, is it not crucial that a programme of work
986
is developed so that public confidence can quickly accrue to the new company? People's expectations will include better disabled access to platforms and improvements to railway lines. May I put in a bid for cross-Pennine routes while I am at it? Public confidence in the new network will be built if the SRA can announce soon how it will meet people's reasonable expectations.
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Money and a competent operator are necessary. I hope that we now have both.
On my hon. Friend's more general point, we set up the SRA to ensure that we have a considered approach to these matters. It is now under extremely good management and I have not the slightest doubt that it will work with others to make sure that we get a decent railway. That will take time—let us be clear about that. There is a huge backlog of underinvestment over many years, but I hope that we shall see an improvement year on year. The SRA and others are very much seized of that point.
Mr. Andrew Miller: In welcoming my right hon. Friend to his post, may I remind him of his words about the new company spending money efficiently and effectively, something on which I am sure we would all agree? On subcontractors, does the nature of the change give us an opportunity to renegotiate contracts with some of the subcontractors to bring about the changes that he described to my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes)?
Mr. Darling: I am sure that Network Rail will want to look at that, but I am not in a position to talk about individual contracts. However, I am sure that not only Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority and the train operating companies but, for obvious reasons, some of the subcontractors will want to ensure that the system works. The present situation is not entirely satisfactory.
Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many Labour Members think that Railtrack was merely laundering public money into private hands while giving the illusion of trying to run a railway. His statement about its demise is welcome.
My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that it is essential to deal with repairs and maintenance and the scrutiny of the quality of work carried out. Will he also ensure that the accreditation of the workers who do the work that is essential to the rail service is checked and that training is provided to ensure that they are competent? Given that forewarned is forearmed, can we learn lessons from that specific issue for the management and running of the public-private partnership for London Underground, because some of the contractors are involved in both services?
Mr. Darling: As I said, it is not the employment of contractors in itself that is the problem because that has always been a feature of the railway system. What is at issue is whether proper controls are in place to ensure that contractors and subcontractors are trained and competent to do the work and, critically, to ensure that the work is done. I do not take the view that just because someone is not directly employed by the main owner-operator,

987
whether that is public or private, there is something wrong with them. After all, most of the population work for companies in precisely that position. What is important, though, is to ensure that there is end-to-end accountability and that clear controls are not only in place but enforced.
Rob Marris: As a frequent user of the west coast main line, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. The west coast main line, which serves my constituency, has improved in the past six months, but much more needs to be done.
Does my right hon. Friend share my lack of surprise that Railtrack continues to deny that it was insolvent, given that trading while insolvent is a criminal offence for which directors can be held personally liable? Will he say a little more about the membership of the board and of Network Rail, the company limited by guarantee, especially in relation to trade union representatives because it is important that they are fully involved in the interests of modern industrial relations?
Mr. Darling: In relation to membership, I said that there will be between 100 and 120 members, who will be nominated by a special committee set up for that purpose. Membership will be open to anyone who has the interests of Network Rail and the railways at heart. Of course it will be open to unions, although bearing in mind what I have read over the past few days, one or two of them may not want to be involved. If they do, however, I am sure that the invitation is there.
My hon. Friend is right about the west coast main line, which is improving all the time. New Virgin trains will shortly start to appear and people will see a difference in the quality of rolling stock, which Virgin cross-country trains are also using. I want to ensure that the changes announced today and the work of the Strategic Rail Authority and others mean that we get a better railway system year on year. I am confident that that will happen. The investment is available and the right structures are now also in place.
Mr. Tom Harris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement this morning and express the hope that it will bring forward the day when we at last have a direct rail link between Glasgow city centre and Glasgow airport. Does he agree that the good wishes expressed by the Conservative party for Network Rail will ring hollow in the ears of the British public given that the only time that it expressed any interest in the rail network was when it hoped to make a fast buck by selling it off?
Mr. Darling: The Conservative party is very much on its own in still believing in its heart of hearts that Railtrack could have carried on. That is the view of the shadow Chancellor and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). They still think that Railtrack was a flourishing and going concern, whereas the High Court held that it was not. They have always had a rather grudging attitude to railways and public service in general.
988
I suspect that, as we move on over the next two or three years, the big issue will be this: we have put in place substantial long-term investment. On the basis of the Conservatives' current economic policies, they would cut it; they are against every penny of that increased investment. Without investment, all the changes to structures in the world will make no difference. It is investment—sustained investment—that will make the difference. As the hon. Member for Maidenhead has been wrong on just about everything that she has ever said about Railtrack, this is a golden opportunity to move on, as her former leader used to say, and start looking at the Conservatives' policy in relation to investment in the railways.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I very much welcome the clear message from my right hon. Friend to the shareholders that the current offer will not be on the table indefinitely. Given that, unfortunately, it appears from press reports that there are still some shareholders who are minded to reject the deal, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be totally unacceptable if this revival of the rail network were to be sabotaged by anyone trying to extract an even higher settlement than the current one, which is very generous in all the circumstances? If any inordinate delay were to be caused by such tactics, would he consider legislating to bring about the establishment of Network Rail as soon as possible?
Mr. Darling: As I said, the £300 million is not there indefinitely. It is there provided we get Railtrack out of administration quickly. An extraordinary general meeting is to be fixed for, I believe, July, and I very much hope that a majority of shareholders will vote to go ahead with the sale and purchase agreement.
I am pleased that the board of Railtrack Group is recommending that the offer be accepted; a large number of shareholders have already said that it is the right thing to do. I hope that all the shareholders will reflect on not only the benefits of the offer but the fact that the alternatives, which do not include the £300 million, would mean a long period of litigation with lots of expenses. Surely it would be far better to put all this behind us and ensure that we get Network Rail set up.
Above all, let us remember that the principal people whom we are here to serve are our constituents as a whole—shareholders and non-shareholders alike—who want the railway network to be operated by a competent body, backed by the necessary investment. That is the best way to get the railways going again. I very much hope that all the shareholders of Railtrack Group will reflect on that and vote in the way that I think is appropriate.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that Mr. Speaker has, on a number of occasions, admonished Ministers and reminded them of the importance of making announcements first to the House and only then to the media. On Radio 4 at 12 noon today, the headlines and the attached story were that the Transport Secretary was going to make the announcement that we have just heard,

989
and I believe that you will find, if you look into it, that the detail in that news story was too great to count as just a general airing of fact that a statement was going to be made. Will you please investigate this matter? Particularly bearing in mind the record of the previous Transport Secretary in spinning the news, it would be a shame if his successor were to go down the same path so early on.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said but I think that on this particular occasion, intelligent press speculation would not have been too difficult.

ESTIMATES DAY
3RD ALLOTTED DAY
ESTIMATES DAY
  ESTIMATES, 2002–03

    London Underground
    [Relevant documents: Second Report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2001–02, on London Underground, HC 387-I, Seventh Report from the Committee, Session 2001–02, on London Underground—The Public-Private Partnership: Follow-up, HC 680, and the Government response thereto, Cm 5486; and Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Office of the Rail Regulator and Ordnance Survey: Annual Report, 2002, Cm 5405.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I must announce that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That further resources, not exceeding £32,972,185,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a further sum, not exceeding £31,415,020,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2003 for expenditure by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.—[Mr. McAvoy.]
    2.23 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion,
    That resources be reduced by £1,000 in respect of Request for Resources 2 (Promoting modern, integrated and safe transport and providing customer-focused regulation) relating to grants to London Underground.
    The amendment would, at least officially, take away from the underground some of the moneys that are to be offered to it.
    One hazard of being a country that has produced large numbers of engineers is that sometimes we are so used to our traditional backgrounds that we forget that it is important to understand why, if a country is to remain not only economically successful but capable of contributing to a very high standard of living of its people, it must continue to employ the best skills of its people. The British have been very good at engineering over many centuries, and particularly since Victorian times, when they were in the vanguard not only of creating fantastically good transport systems but developing them in such a way that those skills were spread throughout the civilised world. It therefore is rather sad that in recent years, and certainly under previous Governments, there has been a lack of consistent investment in good transport systems. Those systems, many of which we had ourselves initiated, were allowed to run down, and one classic example has been the London underground.
    London as a capital city not only provides a most vibrant and exciting place to live but attracts some of the best brains in the world, and it is the centre of financial, political and cultural events that mean that its people require a high standard of infrastructure. Unfortunately, London Underground no longer provides that very high level of care. This is not a criticism of people who operate what is an old system; it is simply an acknowledgment

    991
    that successive Governments did not provide the cash that was essential not just to maintain but to modernise and enhance the system, and although at least one modern line has been built, that was still not enough to provide the level that is essential.
    Therefore, the incoming Government decided that they were going to look at a new way of financing the underground, and the Select Committee chose to look very closely, over a number of reports, at how that was going to be done, what its purpose was and what it was going to produce. On one occasion, the Leader of the House did reprimand me when I suggested that we had still not discussed that sufficiently on the Floor of the House, by saying that he was convinced that we had had a number of debates that had covered every aspect of the public-private partnership, but the truth is that there has not been a substantive vote, and although today might not be either the occasion or the manner that is necessary to decide such an important subject, it is perhaps instructive, on a day when we have just been discussing the debacle of Railtrack, to tell the Government that we are not convinced, as a Select Committee, that the public-private partnership is the way forward, will provide what we want or indeed is what the general public want.
    As a Committee, we looked at the history of the public-private partnership. We took evidence not only from Ministers but from those working in the industry—from those dealing with the financing and the structure, the maintenance and enhancement of the system—and we discovered that some aspects of the deal were exceedingly disquieting.
    As a Committee, we were worried that most of the arrangements for the bids had been Treasury led, to the point where Treasury officials appeared to be taking precedence over the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in the negotiating, and providing individuals who were themselves directly dealing with the applicants for the bids, and yet we were not able to persuade Treasury Ministers to appear before us to discuss the implications. We said very clearly that we thought that that decision undermined the work of Select Committees, simply because the House of Commons does have a responsibility not just to ask awkward questions but to obtain answers.
    Helen Jackson rose—
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend. I am delighted to see her.
    Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree, particularly as we are discussing the matter on an estimates day, and because the thrust of the Government's decision on London Underground was based on financial estimates and so-called value for money, that on criteria that varied according to advice from the Treasury, it was difficult, if not impossible, to get a balanced view from the entire Government without being able to take full evidence from the Treasury and Treasury Ministers?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: That was precisely the point that concerned the Committee. Under normal circumstances—I have been in the House longer than I sometimes care to
    992
    admit in public—one would have expected a major scheme of funding for the London Underground to be not only carried forward, but controlled at every point by the Department that was directly responsible—the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Of course, the Treasury must have an important guiding role in deciding public expenditure. Nobody disputes that.
    However, the normal procedures that all Governments follow have always meant that the Department with the controlling interest went to the Treasury, discussed the figures at various points in the spending review, asked for the amounts of money that it needed, and negotiated on the basis of information about the sum that the scheme demanded. When the Department received a reply, it undertook the negotiations with the people concerned. That is the traditional way of proceeding, and I have not heard it argued that it did not work.
    What concerned the Select Committee was that the more evidence we took, the more it became clear that the Treasury had somehow reversed its role, and was negotiating directly on a transport scheme that would determine the future of transport in our capital city and had been going on for over four years. Successive Governments have not found the money to keep such schemes going and to improve them, but we are discussing a scheme that is so complicated, and which creates and even replicates so many of the difficulties that we saw in Railtrack, that we felt that we were almost in danger of doing the same thing again.
    We wanted the Treasury to come before us and explain why it did not take that view. We produced not just one report, but reports that stated time and again that we did not think that that was the answer, and we gave our reasons.
    Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Lady make it clear that on this issue, as on so many issues that the Committee discusses, and following on from the intervention from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), those views were strongly held right across the Committee, regardless of members' party political persuasion and perspective on the Government?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: That was not a party political view. The Select Committee was so worried by the evidence that it took that it wanted to have a series of questions answered, and it felt that it had the right to ask the Executive to demonstrate exactly where it was going.
    Why do a Government choose to move outside Government funding for major infrastructure schemes, if they are a Government committed to improving the transport system? They do so because they have reviewed their finances and concluded that they have so many demands in any given period of time that they must prioritise, which may mean that the money that is needed for infrastructure systems is not to be found within existing Government funding. Fine.
    The Government must then consider how they intend to involve the private sector and develop the partnership and what benefits there will be. Experience teaches us that if Government enter into a deal that may raise money from the private sector, but which does not move the risk from the taxpayer to the private company, they are not providing the benefits or the long-term undertaking guarantees that they should provide.

    993
    So we asked whether the Government could convince us that there was a transfer of risk from the Government to the private company. That was not at all clear. What was clear was that because of the complicated nature of the scheme and the very involved system that was proposed, not only would we almost inevitably get into complicated disputes with the individual companies and with contracts, but there would be enormous problems for the staff involved. That would mean constant references to an arbiter, and the need to extend the powers of the arbiter to look at all the implications and come to a just and sensible conclusion.
    We considered the fact that already the shortage of funds available to London Underground was constraining capacity. The sheer length of time that the creation of the particular form of financing was taking was immediately impacting on the work of London Underground. We began to argue, as we had in an earlier report, that there should be an independent assessment, and the Government agreed, sensibly, that that was a good idea. The response that we got from the people concerned was that, unfortunately, many of the elements in the public-private partnership deal are subjective.
    Four years, and we are told at the end of that time that many of the judgments needed to work out whether the scheme represents value for money are subjective! I find that very worrying indeed. We can all bring to the table our prejudices in terms of negotiations and objectives, but if a Government are entering into massive commitments, it is essential that they should do so on the basis of clear facts, clear responsibilities, a clear transfer of risk and a clear indication of the cost to the taxpayer over a number of years. After all, the bid will have implications for public transport for over 30 years. That is an extremely long time.
    The previous Secretary of State accepted that it would not be possible to provide definitive answers on value for money; well, why not? How are we to proceed, if we are not convinced that we are committing the taxpayers' money to a deal that is in their interest? We were sure that we wanted the National Audit Office to give its view of the particular and subjective aspects of the deal. The NAO's response was sensible; it said that it could not make a political judgment.
    The public, however, do make political judgments. They look at a scheme and say, "Is this going to be what we want? Are we going to get a modern, comfortable railway and are we going to continue to pay for it not just through fares, but through the considerable subsidies that the scheme will receive?"
    Those are the considerations that should concern us. The kind of financing that was being discussed was decided, it seemed to us, not on the basis of what was essential to modernise the railway, but on the basis of what we could afford. In a sense, the matter was decided the wrong way round. The decision was taken on the method of funding, then the Government looked at what they would get under that particular arrangement.
    Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that, contrary to a normal private finance initiative, in which money is lent to be spent up front, the nature of the scheme was that £1 billion would be spent every year and the Treasury would supply that on a yearly basis? The picture that my hon. Friend has painted in that
    994
    respect is not a reflection of the deal. With reference to risk transfer, does she accept that the penalties in the contracts, which would mean the elimination of suppliers or penalties out of their profit, under pressure from the bank, which is the third player in the relationship, would ensure risk transfer and ensure project management such as we see in large projects in the private sector, which we have not seen from London Underground in the public sector?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The answer is no, I do not take that view. if I did so, I would not have been a party to the report that sets out in considerable detail why I think that it is wrong. I am sorry if I am not making myself clear; perhaps I should speak in simpler Anglo-Saxon terms.
    We were promised an initial saving of £4.5 million in the deal, but the Committee found that the present arrangements were flawed. Let me explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) one of the reasons why. A large amount of London Underground's work is funded from the fare box. The amount that it takes from its fare box moneys towards its operating costs is higher than that which is taken in similar systems elsewhere. In 1998, London received 129 per cent. of its operating costs from the fare box, but New York received only 77 per cent. and Paris 63 per cent. When we consider the scheme, we must work out whether it will be heavily dependent on the amount that is receives from the fare box. If it will be, we should be aware that the amount that is available from the fare box is declining. Have the Government considered the implications? Who will find the difference? Will London ratepayers be faced with a considerable commitment of which they are not currently aware? If not, will the Government have to give much more substantial subsidies than we thought?
    We must understand that the original Government estimates, which said in October 2001 that 45 per cent. of the deal would be financed from Government subsidy, 30 per cent. from the fare box and 25 per cent. from private finance, may no longer be valid. The figures may have changed so radically that the House should know about it. I am worried by the current proportions in relation to the various groups involved, as I am not at all sure whether the bidders are already laying down conditions that might mean that the figures that the House has been discussing are no longer accurate. Is it true that the people who are already involved in the deal are laying down a number of specifications and saying that they will require a certain number of millions of pounds in a single input of finance immediately when the terms are signed? If that is the case, why have we not been told?
    Richard Ottaway: The hon. Lady will he aware of the Mayor of London's letter to a number of hon. Members, dated 12 June, in which he notified us that he had identified a large funding gap and was starting legal action against the Government and insisting that the PPP did not go ahead until an explanation was forthcoming. Would she consider it appropriate for her Committee to call in the Mayor of London and the Minister and try to resolve the matter?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: My Committee may no longer be there. We have already taken evidence from Transport for London, but it may have been overtaken by changes in

    995
    the existing arrangements. That is what concerns me, and I hope that the Minister will give some clear indications about that.
    There are other difficulties. London Underground will have to monitor the arrangements, and the Committee asked whether it had sufficient staff and money to do so. It will need to employ more people, not fewer. We have seen on overground rail that, unless maintenance and operation are very closely monitored and there is very skilled supervision of engineering, we will run into serious problems in operating railways. If that is so in relation to Railtrack, may not also it be true in relation to London Underground? If so, will London Underground have enough money and staff to carry out the very high level of monitoring that is required?
    The Committee was also very concerned about the sort of deal that says that companies will be able to press for better terms after seven and a half years. We took evidence and asked questions about that. We asked what would happen if the companies said at the end of seven and a half years that they did not think that they could continue and wanted substantially to increase the amounts paid by tax and ratepayers. I am afraid that we did not get a very detailed answer, so I ask the Minister again to address that point. In effect, London Underground can be held to ransom by the companies, which will be in an extremely powerful position. Who will decide what is a fair deal when we get to that point? Why is there no public interest exclusion? Why will it not be possible for the Government of the day to demand that change should come about because of the public interest? That seems something that should be automatically written into the contract, and yet, somehow or other, it is not there.
    Surely, we have learned by now in dealing with private companies that the overriding interest of the tax and rate payer on matters such as safety must mean that the Government should have the right to intervene and say that they cannot continue with the contracts in their present form because of the implications for the travelling public. If not, there will be considerable difficulties. Major upgrades and enhancements that are not properly spelt out will be another source of difficulty. Why will they not be the responsibility of Transport for London? Why will it not be possible for them to be planned and take a direct form?
    There is no 15-year public sector comparator and I am afraid that some of the figures that have been quoted have no basis in any of the published reports. The dominance of the highly constrained financial analysis as the basis for the decision-making process is ill-founded and mistaken. The Committee said:
    "The level of cost overruns"—
    we have also been discussing this issue in relation to Railtrack—
    "to which the Infrastructure companies will be exposed before they can seek an extraordinary review is paltry compared to the size of the investment programme."
    Again, I emphasise that risk transfer was one of the key reasons given to us for undertaking the deals, but we think that it is seriously undermined and could mitigate the desire to go ahead with this particular public-private interest.
    996
    We pointed out that, even at this juncture, the Government should have an alternative. I feel great sympathy for a new Secretary of State who enters a Department and is faced with a number of deals that appear half done, but we have spent more than four years arguing about how we can best come up with such a partnership deal, it is still not completed, and yet the Government are still saying "Unfortunately, there is no alternative, and even if we think that it is flawed and cannot provide the House with accurate financial information, we must nevertheless go ahead because there is no alternative."
    Governments always have alternatives. They have a number of them, as we have seen in relation to something as basic as Railtrack. They have a responsibility to exercise their political judgment. Who in the 21st century would imagine that a capital city of the size and importance of that of the United Kingdom should be reliant on an underground system that is more than 100 years old, but unable to conclude a deal to improve, change and modernise it even after four and a half years' discussion? Who would believe that a Government who are so strongly committed to transport and who care about people's quality of life could still be suggesting that we should wander forward with a deal—I say this without wishing to be unkind—that is unproven, has vast numbers of holes in its responsibilities and does not indicate that it will deliver the goods? After all, all that Governments should have the right to determine is the need to deliver the goods. We come here to decide how our public money should be spent—that is why we are elected. The link between elected Members and the prioritising of Government schemes is the fact that it is our taxpayers' money that we are spending, and we have a special responsibility to ensure that it is spent responsibly, sensibly and, above all, with a clear end in mind that will produce a good transport system.
    The Committee was not convinced. We asked to see Ministers who should have answered our questions. We published reports that we thought spelled out to the House: "Beware—this is a bad scheme, which can still be dropped and should be abandoned." Frankly, we did not get the answers that we wanted, and we have had to use a particular device to ensure that the matter is debated on the Floor of the House today. They are a grown-up Government—they should demonstrate that they understand that it is better to tell people, "We have a made mistake, and on the whole we think we ought to start again."
    2.51 pm
    Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is very experienced in these matters. We are happy to add our names to her amendment; I hope that that will not do her—or rather our—cause too much harm.
    It would be churlish of me not to welcome the opportunity for the debate. I presume that this two or three-hour debate is the second and final phase of the wide consultation on the Government's part-privatisation plans for London Underground that was promised by the former Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I hope that the debate will focus on the public-private partnership rather than on the personalities involved, including the Mayor of London, Bob Kiley,

    997
    former Secretaries of State and the present Secretary of State. I deplore the way in which yesterday's debate, which was supposed to be about transport in London, was hijacked by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). He made some very serious allegations during that debate, which he has declined to repeat outside the House. Yesterday's debate was all about getting Kiley and nothing to do with getting London moving.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible to hijack one's own debate?
    Tom Brake: Many hon. Members thought that a debate entitled "Transport in London" would be about transport in London, but that was not the case.
    The Government have always stated that their approach to the modernisation of the underground would be based on three principles. I quote:
    "First, there must be no privatisation; secondly, safety must not he compromised; and thirdly, the contracts must offer value for money."—[Official Report, 7 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 1126.]
    In our view, PPP falls foul of at least two of those three principles. First, does PPP constitute privatisation? I do not want to spend valuable time debating semantics. Chambers dictionary defines "privatisation" as to
    "transfer from ownership by the state into private ownership".
    The Government say that PPP does not represent privatisation, but Liberal Democrat Members and many others consider that handing over responsibility for the maintenance of the underground to two private consortia, Tube Lines and Metronet, for 30 years represents at least part-privatisation. However, the debate about whether it is privatisation or part-privatisation is not nearly as important as the debate about whether PPP compromises safety or represents value for money. I shall focus on those two points.
    Is PPP compromising safety? There is no doubt that PPP will make managing safety issues more complex owing to the fragmentation that it introduces to the industry—the very sort of fragmentation that has caused so many problems on the rail network. A network broken up into two parts will have more interfaces and there will be more opportunities for safety standards to diverge. Of course, more complex does not necessarily mean less safe, but it does mean that a greater effort will have to be put into safety standards to achieve the same level of safety than would be the case if there was not that fragmentation.
    Of still greater concern is Transport for London's assessment that PPP hands over to the infracos' financiers—not to the infracos—decision-making powers over safety matters. On 19 June, Bob Kiley wrote about that to Mr. Stephen Williams of the Health and Safety Executive. So far, he has not received a substantive response. In his letter, he said that
    "the JNP"—
    that is, Tube Line—
    "finance documents we reviewed include unusual terms which will materially affect LUL's actual ability to control and/or work in partnership with the privately owned infracos."
    He goes on to say that
    "the JNP finance documents detail mechanisms that convey to infraco lenders a panoply of powers to control or direct infraco activities. A sixty-two page 'Control Matrix"'—
    998
    identifies—
    "well over a hundred decisions Tube Lines and infraco JNP must take if the lenders so direct. These rights potentially include how works are performed, the scheduling of works, the choice of subcontractors and the settlement of disputes."
    He also observes that
    "the Metronet finance documents, which may contain similar lender rights, have not been disclosed"—
    or had not been disclosed at that point. He went to say that there had been very little in the way of a substantive reply from the HSE to the many issues that had been raised in previous correspondence, and that he wanted a full response to each of those issues. He expressed surprise that the HSE had
    "concluded that it was neither 'necessary or appropriate' for a face-to-face meeting to take place between its and TfL's counsel."
    He and I find it difficult to understand why that is the case, given the level of experience that TfL's counsel will have built up in considering and reviewing the contracts. If TfL's reading of those documents is correct, this is a very serious matter.
    Will the Minister confirm whether TfL is correct in its assessment of the documents and, if it is, what guarantees he can give the House that the financiers of the infracos will always make safety their priority? If he can provide none, PPP should be put out of its misery now.
    Ms Diane Abbott: One of the issues that Bob Kiley has raised is the use of subcontractors. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most problematic aspects of Railtrack was the increased use of subcontractors, because much of the labour they used was not permanent or skilled? We do not want that to be replicated on London's underground.
    Tom Brake: I agree. The management of subcontractors is a key priority. One of the concerns about the fragmentation of the network is that it will be possible for Tube Lines and Metronet to operate to different standards, thereby making it even more difficult to control the work that is done.
    Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the banks play no role in this, and that they are just leeches taking the money without providing added value. Does he agree that the banks' role is to provide a discipline to the private supplier who offers the service to the public? Does he agree that, without the banks, we are less likely to meet our targets, and with them, if the targets are not met, those private suppliers will be removed and replaced or their profits will be penalised, which will ensure that projects are delivered on time?
    Tom Brake: I agree with part of the hon. Gentleman's point. Clearly, the banks have a role in relation to infracos. However, they should not have a role in making decisions that could have an impact on safety.
    The final key question is whether PPP represents value for money. We will know the definitive answer when the National Audit Office conducts its investigation. Unfortunately, that will happen only after the financial close, when it is too late to do anything about it for the next 30 years. The NAO's remit must be changed. What is the point of finding in the next couple of months that

    999
    the Government have squandered billions of taxpayers' money on the scheme when it is too late to make any changes?
    I wrote to the Comptroller and Auditor General on 9 May to ask him to consider several specific points. They were:
    "whether the rates of return the private consortia have been granted are reasonable…whether there are sufficient controls over the charges that the private consortia are able to levy…whether genuine risk transfer has been achieved at reasonable cost, and…whether the NAO's recommendations in their December 2000 report have been followed."
    In his response on 17 June, he confirmed that the NAO was
    "continuing to monitor the PPP",
    and that it would
    "produce a report as soon as is reasonably practical in the months following financial close."
    Clearly, that is welcome.
    The NAO will have much to consider and investigate—for example, the obscene sums of money that will be dished out to Tube Lines for its PPP set-up costs, which include £36 million of so-called success fees to be given to Tube Lines' parent companies, Amey, Jarvis and Bechtel, and the more than £100 million that the Government have spent on their consultants.
    Metronet has refused to comment on the precise indecency of its golden hello, and stated that
    "it would not be appropriate to comment".
    That is bad news for Londoners. Will that be Metronet's response to any query for the next 30 years? So much for accountability.
    It is not surprising that Metronet refuses to answer legitimate questions about the amount of taxpayers' money it will receive for its efforts. However, I did not expect the same response from the Secretary of State. I wrote to him on 20 June and asked, among other questions:
    "Can you provide a detailed breakdown of the payments to be made to the two consortia?"
    I also asked:
    "Has the Government made an assessment of the validity of the consortia's claims for consultancy fees?"
    I commend the Secretary of State on the promptness of his response. He replied to me on 24 June, four days later, and I welcome that.
    I do not however welcome the content of the Secretary of State's reply, which confirmed that
    "London Underground will be verifying all development costs before any such costs can be recovered from bidders."
    That is commendable, but he has not been able or willing to state the size of Metronet's bounty. We are left to speculate about the Government's generosity and Metronet's greed.
    When the NAO makes its value-for-money assessment, as well as the nine-figure sums, it will have to take into account the fact that the start-up costs for a bond issue would be approximately £40 million, compared with between £440 million, according to The Guardian, and £570 million, according to the Evening Standard, for the Government's plan. It will also have to take account of TfL's estimate that a bond issue would have cost
    1000
    £1.7 billion less over seven and a half years. That can easily be verified, because its borrowing arrangements would be cheaper than the PPP arrangements that the Government chose. For those reasons and many others, it is highly unlikely that PPP can or will represent value for money.
    Five years ago, Labour promised miracles for the tube. The Deputy Prime Minister stated:
    "When the Greater London authority is established, the underground will, with the rest of London Transport, transfer to it."
    Several years after the establishment of the Greater London Authority, we still await the transfer of London Underground to it. He also said that
    "we will return it to the people of London."—[Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1541.]
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will remember that Ken Livingstone commissioned the Industrial Society to review the PPP arrangements in late 2000. He may know that part of its document suggested that preparing a long-term alternative, such as bonds, to the PPP would take at least two years. Given the distance that we have travelled on the PPP journey, do the Liberal Democrats seriously advocate throwing all the work to one side and allowing two more years of misery before we can get started on the investment programme?
    Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman's intervention has the useful purpose of pointing out that the Government's plan, which has taken four and a half years so far, has not been signed. A bond issue could have been resolved in a couple of years at much less cost.
    Chris Grayling: The Select Committee on Transport took evidence from Mr. Kiley, who said that he had the finance lined up and that he was prepared to start work, not planning, in six months.
    Tom Brake: I hope that Labour Members listened carefully to that helpful intervention.
    Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Tom Brake: I should like to conclude, but I shall give way again.
    Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman should accept that the bond issue is a red herring. Bonds take a large amount of money up front for investment. We are putting in money year after year; the Treasury will stump up the money every year. The only difference is the added value of private sector. Why does not the hon. Gentleman admit that the bond issue is a red herring?
    Tom Brake: I do not believe that. It is important to point out how much more the Government have spent on their proposals and how much more the bond issue could have delivered for Londoners.
    Ms Abbott: If the Government had taken a timely decision to allow the democratically elected Mayor of London and his transport commissioner to go ahead with the bond issue proposal, there would be improvements on the underground now. Far from being a red herring,

    1001
    the bond issue was the way in which the New York subway got massive investment. It is important to note, as much for the benefit of my colleagues as anyone else, that a mayoral election was fought and won on the simple subject of the partial privatisation of the underground. The people of London said then as they say now that they utterly oppose partial privatisation of their underground.
    Tom Brake: The hon. Lady is right. The mayoral elections were a referendum on the proposals for London Underground. She is right to point out that if the Government had handed over control of the tube to London's government and Londoners, the system would be up and running now, whether we accept the two years that the Industrial Society suggested for introducing the bond issue or Bob Kiley's six months. However, we still await the Government's response.
    Four and a half years on, the PPP contracts have not been signed; the tube is not in the hands of Londoners, and uncertainty surrounds who will be able to make decisions about safety. Evidence mounts to show that, for Tube Lines and Metronet, PPP is a game of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", in which they have the answers to all the questions that Chris Tarrant will ask. Public-private partnership is unworkable, unwanted and we should put it out of its misery now.
    I urge all the amendment's sponsors and all hon. Members to join us in delivering a vote of no confidence in the Government's handling of the tube PPP.
    3.9 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for calling me to take part in this debate. I thank, in passing, the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for triggering the debate, because I can start by agreeing with her on one thing. When we started down the route of a public-private partnership—I was at the Treasury at the time—it was precisely because we had to decide what our priorities were. Those were times of extreme financial stringency, because—among other reasons—we had to take certain measures to stick to the Tory spending plans to get the economy back into a stable condition to lay the basis for what we are now able to do. My hon. Friend will agree that it would have been unthinkable for us to vote billions to the tube and the then tube management while denying the billions that urgently needed to be spent on health and education.
    Richard Ottaway rose—
    Mr. Robinson: I am willing to give way, but I cannot see what possible point the hon. Gentleman can have. It was the Tories who got us into the mess by proposing to privatise the tube, trying to make an issue of it in the 1997 general election, and neglecting to invest in the system for 18 years. However, I shall be most interested to hear what the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) has to say.
    Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman said that he had stuck to the Conservative spending plans. If only the Government had really done that, there would be a lot more money in the underground today. In the last 10 years
    1002
    of the Conservative Government, we put £7 billion into the underground. Labour has come nowhere near that in the last five years.
    Mr. Robinson: I was quite right; I should not have given way. I regret doing so and I do not intend to do so again.
    We had to find a way forward, and we clearly had to go for a public-private partnership—there was no other way. Also, quite apart from the financial situation, there were other very good reasons for going for such a partnership for the tube, which I shall come to in a moment. We could skin a cat in so many ways, and when it came to public-private partnerships—which were quite innovative—there were many different options available. No. 10 had its view; the advisers to No. 10 had their view; the then Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions had its view; I had a view; the Treasury had a view; and the Deputy Prime Minister had very strong views. We had to find a way that we could all see would carry this forward.
    With the Deputy Prime Minister's agreement—we worked together closely on this, and I pay tribute to the real work that he put in to get this going—I convened a group of four business men with experience of both the public and private sectors to make a recommendation to us. Essentially, that recommendation is what we have today: a split at a point that can logically be defended and can, from a business point of view, be implemented at least as easily as the proposal to leave it to the present London Underground management to continue on their own.
    As of today, the situation, as I understand it, is that the contracts are signed, subject to only two prior conditions: sign-off by the Health and Safety Executive. and obtaining clearance in Brussels. There is £3 billion of private finance lined up to back the scheme. So what stands in its way? Unfortunately, we have two fairly difficult road blocks still to overcome. One is the continued opposition of the Select Committee. While I pay tribute to all its work, and I recognise that, in part, its job is to make the Government's life difficult, this sort of opposition cannot be carried on to the point at which it makes it impossible for us to modernise the tube. I shall return to that in a moment.
    Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend made the interesting point that different people in government had many different views about the PPP, and some of us would argue that it has ended up as a bit of a dog's dinner. He also said that the present plan was determined by four business men. Will he put on record who the four business men were, so that we can analyse their knowledge of the situation to see whether they had a vested interest in it?
    Mr. Robinson: I shall be very happy to do that. I shall make sure that my hon. Friend will be satisfied on that point, and I am sure that he will be. I am anxious to reassure him, but I want to push on, if I may. There was a lot of other input into the matter—it was not just the four in the working group—and there had already been a lot of thinking that pretty much tended in the same direction.
    The other road block involves the opposition from the Mayor and Mr. Kiley, which is now bordering on the irresponsible. I have no personal attack to make on

    1003
    Mr. Kiley; I do not know the gentleman. I think that I have met him on only one occasion, and I have certainly not had any extended conversation with him on these matters. I would, however, say to the House that he has been out of the business for 11 years, he has six Americans working in his office, and I think that a statement was recently made in the House—which I cannot verify—that another British manager had been dispensed with.
    When Mr. Kiley made his first presentation to the London Underground board, he spoke for 55 minutes, and I am told that he spent precisely 90 seconds on what would be his plan for the underground. Whatever else one might say about the gentleman, he is not a team player; everything always has to be on his terms, or he will not go along with it.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not have any mandate to defend Mr. Kiley, but I want to address this particular point. If my hon. Friend would like to look carefully at the evidence that we took, in not one but two Select Committee reports, he will find that Mr. Kiley not only spelled out what he wanted to do—and why and how he wanted to do it—but gave clear evidence to us that he knew what he was talking about. Frankly, that was quite refreshing.
    Mr. Robinson: Well, Mr. Kiley certainly talks a good fight, but if we ask, in modern parlance, whether he can "walk the walk", I do not think that we will ever know, because I hope that he is not going to be given the opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to the minutes of the Select Committee evidence; I have read them all.
    Tom Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Robinson: I want to make a little progress.
    What Mr. Kiley is saying, if we boil it down, is that Ken and Kiley together can do the job, but they cannot do it on their own. No whizz kid could do that. They are going to be dependent on London Underground management—as it was then, and as it is now—to do the job with them and for them. They are saying, "Because it is us, we'll get it done." But where is the evidence for that?
    I pay tribute to London Underground management. Given that they have been so constrained financially, and given the difficulties and pressures under which they have worked, they do a good job in running the system—particularly the public-facing operations. I regret to say, however, that they do not have experience of spending on and controlling major projects, and their track record on that is one of fiascos. They have never had the opportunity to do that in a sustained way, because of the way the finances were run—principally by the Conservatives—and, whenever they have been confronted with such a project, it has proved a failure.
    We have only to look at two examples to see that what I am saying is correct. Let us take the construction of the docklands light railway. That was in such a mess by the end that the management had to call in the private sector
    1004
    to finish it off. More recently, the Jubilee line extension was running into the sand. What did the management do? They had to bring in Bechtel to complete the job.
    Tom Brake rose—
    Mr. Robinson: I will give way in a moment.
    Lord Levene intervened in both cases. If you have to bring Lord Levene in to intervene, you are in a pretty bad state. The idea, therefore, that all we have to do is give the money to Ken and Kiley Inc. and they will magically transform the ability of London Underground management to invest in, control and successfully bring to a conclusion the major projects that need to be implemented, is just wishful thinking.
    Ms Karen Buck rose—
    Tom Brake rose—
    Mr. Robinson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend first, and then to the hon. Gentleman.
    Ms Buck: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case against the former management of London Underground. Why, if we had no confidence in them to manage those projects, do we have confidence in the very same people to manage the contract procurement for the PPP?
    Mr. Robinson: They were not managing the contracts well. On a point of general relevance, it was London Underground management who were managing the projects, splitting them up into many separate contracts, making a mess of it and not finishing it—they were failing to do the job. The point is that they had to bring in Bechtel to finish the job. It is no good trying to blame Bechtel, just because it happened to have one part of the contract but could not finish it all. It was brought in to finish the job because London Underground could not. That is London Underground's track record.
    When it came to the failure to complete the Jubilee line extension, and the need to bring in Bechtel, one of the greatest protagonists of leaving it to the tube—prior to Mr. Kiley—Mr. Dennis Tunnicliffe, finally agreed. We all felt, "Let's go for this split whereby we can have infrastructure companies that are specialists in those areas doing that particular work, and London Underground can run the tube operations and the trains as London Underground, which it does well."
    Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I urge him to continue his speech afterwards, as he is revealing some very interesting facts. I hope that before he sits down he will give us the names of the four business men who decided how the PPP should be structured, for instance. He has revealed another interesting fact, however: he has said that Bob Kiley will not have an opportunity to run the tube. Is he saying that there will be a veto on Bob Kiley keeping his post after the handover?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not want to deal with interventions from Members who have nothing much to say about the real issues.

    1005
    I shall return to certain other aspects of the Mayor's position shortly, but first let me say a few words for the benefit of members of the Transport Sub-Committee, many of whom are my hon. Friends. All the Labour Members are my hon. Friends, of course, as are many from the Opposition. I believe that they are sincere in their opposition, and I think they have made some good points. Indeed, I consider that the Committee may have improved some matters. I part company with the Committee on its continuing insistence on esoteric, pseudo-scientific calculations as the be all and end all of its assessment of the PPP.
    When it comes to value for money, social cost benefit analyses and so forth, I can speak on the basis of some experience given my time in the Treasury. The whole thing is rather like a grand prize fight. In one corner we have the public-private partnership and its accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers, seconded by KPMG; in the other corner we have Transport for London. I cannot remember which accountants it went for, but I think it was Deloitte and Touche. It is seconded by a host of academics. The Government have appointed Ernst & Young as the referee who will try to find a way through the middle.
    All those people and organisations will have been commissioned at enormous cost, and each will of course come up with broadly the view that those doing the commissioning wanted to hear. Anyone with any experience of business, contracts or courts, from whatever walk of life, will know that if a consultant, an economist, an accountant or a lawyer is paid and given a brief, he will give the answer that whoever has paid him wants to hear. That is all that has been going on here.
    It is funny that Transport for London's advisers, seconded in the ring by the Select Committee, say that the PPP would be a disaster. It is equally funny that those commissioned by the PPP say that it represents value for money—that it will save £2 billion, £4 billion or whatever. Not surprisingly, the chap in the middle, the umpire, will say "It is a subjective judgment, but it is based on an objective assessment." I do not quite know how the circle can be squared.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: Exactly the same criticisms could be made of Ernst & Young, which was employed by the Government to justify the PPP. My hon. Friend describes Ernst & Young as an umpire, but in fact it is there to advocate a course on the basis of only half the available information. As more facts emerge, Ernst and Young's analysis becomes increasingly dubious.
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend should have listened to what I was saying. I said that there were two sides, the PPP and its lot doing their stuff and Transport for London and its lot doing theirs. The Government then appointed Ernst and Young and gave it pretty independent terms of reference, and it came down somewhat in favour of both sides.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Robinson: In a minute. I have already given way an awful lot, and I need no encouragement from Liberal Democrats.
    1006
    Issues such as this cannot easily be resolved in a matter of nice calculations. I do not really believe that this is what makes Londoners anxious. If we organise the partnership properly and devolve responsibility for delivery of infrastructure improvements to the private sector, we are more likely to obtain value for money than if we choose a route that has proved disastrous in the past.
    What is of real concern to Londoners? They fear that by making a division and handing responsibility for the infrastructure to the private sector in the hope that it will produce the goods, we will create another Railtrack. Indeed, many have assiduously fomented precisely that impression, perhaps because they believe in it or perhaps because they are irresponsible. Let me say as objectively as I can, however, why I think that we are not doing that.
    To understand why we are not doing that, people must first understand what went wrong with Railtrack and why. Railtrack was part of a botched, rushed privatisation, which meant that it was quoted on the stock exchange and subject to the disciplines not of the need for investment and services, but of the need to produce profits to justify a high share price enabling high dividends to be paid. There was clearly an inherent tension in the situation, to which Gerald Corbett drew attention after his resignation. Having tried to balance investment and safety needs with the pressure for profits, Railtrack was driven in the wrong direction by the three-monthly reporting systems of the City and the requirement to show ever-increasing profits, at the cost of safety and investment in services and infrastructure.
    That is not what is happening with the infrastructure companies, which have not been privatised. First of all they must provide a service. Their only remuneration relates to the service, and to the number of passengers they carry. If they do not meet the required service level—that will improve with time—they are penalised. If they do, they are rewarded. There has been talk of sanctions, which is already a big sanction. Those companies are rewarded only if they succeed—that is, if they carry passengers at least as well as is being done at present. Improvements should be built in, and the most important—which can only result from modernisation and investment—is a 20 per cent. increase in capacity, and in the number of passengers carried, over the next five or six years. If they do not achieve that, they will not be rewarded. It is as simple as that.
    Opposition Members shake their heads because they do not want to hear the facts. The sanction is this: if the companies do not provide the service, they will not be paid. If they do not improve the service, they will not be paid. If they do not increase capacity, they will not be paid. They can do all those things only by investing, which is why they have £3 billion lined up for the purpose in the City.
    Given a proper account, we can allay the public's fears. I am sure that, if we are given a chance to press ahead with the programme, benefits will result.
    Mr. Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Comptroller and Auditor General, who said that under the PPP the private sector would not have any operational responsibilities on the network but would mainly be responsible for the work that goes on overnight while the

    1007
    system is shut down, and that operations, including those of drivers and station staff, and responsibility for safety, would remain in the public sector?
    Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I was about to come to those points, particularly safety, but let me clarify where the split in regard to operations takes place. Drivers will be provided by the public sector, which will also set the timetable and service levels. Safety levels are set by the Health and Safety Executive, which has yet to sign off on the contracts, so that safeguard is already built in. They will be controlled by London Underground, which is already subject to them. The same standards will be imposed on the major infrastructure companies and monitored very closely. The safety issue will be emphasised in the new arrangements.
    As I have said, the contracts are signed subject to two qualifications. I sincerely hope that the judicial review will find in favour, that Brussels will not interfere, and that the PPP will be able to proceed. However, there is one very nasty storm cloud on the horizon. The Mayor and Mr. Kiley could seek to appeal the decision in Brussels if it is positive to the PPP. That could get us into another legal wrangle, which might, I understand, last up to 14 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the Chairman of the Select Committee, said that we had been at it for four years. We have completed it. We are now there, but there is that one last danger: a spanner could be thrown into the works at the last moment.
    I sincerely hope that the Mayor will not allow that level of irresponsibility to be reached.
    Mr. Mark Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Robinson: I will not give way any more.
    I urge the Mayor to accept the decision from Brussels and to let us get ahead with this. If there were to be a further delay of that order, all the work that we have done would be thrown in the air.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Robinson: I am not giving way.
    The private sector would walk. We know the damage that we are having to repair with Railtrack. The investment would not be there and we would really face delay. The only sufferers would be Londoners. Given the success that I am sure the PPP will enjoy, they can look forward to progressive improvements. If we can get ahead with the project now, those benefits will come over the next few years.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a short debate and many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye, so I hope that contributions will be brief.
    3.31 pm
    Richard Ottaway: I note that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) is continuing the hatchet job on Mr. Kiley that was started by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) yesterday.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on securing this debate and on the way in which she introduced it. I congratulate the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions on its work and on the two reports that it has produced, which have been very important.
    My main concern about the way in which the matter has been handled so far relates to the delay. It was in 1996 that the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said at the Labour party conference that we had to get on with it as quickly as possible. Mind you, in the same speech, he said that our air was not for sale, so we have to take his comments with a pinch of salt.
    The point was then made in the 1997 manifesto. Then in 1997 a motion was debated on the Floor of the House calling for swift action. Then in 1998 the Deputy Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box with full majesty and said, "I am not going to be rushed." That is one pledge that he has stuck to.
    Then in 1999, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) said that the Government were making steady progress. Then the 2001 manifesto said that the move was
    "the best chance in a generation"
    to help the people of London. This year, the Prime Minister said that the Government would proceed when they were ready.
    In Hong Kong, a whole airport was built in four and a half years. Land was reclaimed, roads were built, railways were put in place and tunnels were dug, all in the time that the Government have been deciding what to do about the PPP. In the interim, the Government have bumbled along, making do as far as the underground is concerned, providing a patchwork service. The tragedy is that the underground has such potential, but it has been consistently underfunded.
    In the last 10 years of the Conservative Government, in cash terms, they put in £7 billion—£700 million a year. Labour Members are keen to say, "If you took out the Jubilee line, we would match the funding." It is not true. If one takes out Jubilee line funding from both Governments, the previous Conservative Government still put in more funding than this Government have done.
    Then we had the fiasco in June last year. The then Secretary of State with responsibility for transport proudly announced that the grant had doubled from £267 million a year to £520 million a year, when £775 million had been promised and work had started on that premise.
    What about the people of London? What has been happening in the interim? Simon Jenkins wrote in the Evening Standard:
    "For millions of working Londoners, the Tube is their only experience of Third World squalor. They may not visit London's prisons, mental hospitals or sweat-shops. They may not frequent the ghettos of Hoxton or the tenements of Walworth. They live in tidy homes, work in neat offices and eat in clean restaurants. But they use the Tube. It is the nastiest thing they do."

    1009
    In the meantime, the Government have been working on the PPP. The right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill said at the Dispatch Box in 1999:
    "We have said that we will undertake that there will be a publicly accountable, publicly owned operation on the underground, that we will enter into negotiations and that we will complete those negotiations. If a mayor is elected in the course of the negotiations, we will do everything in our power to bring him or her into the consultation process."—[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 409.]
    So much for that pledge. The manifesto in 2001 repeated it. It said:
    "Our agreement with the London Mayor and the Transport Commissioner offers the best chance in a generation to upgrade the tube."
    During the general election, there was an agreement. Mr. Kiley was appointed chairman of London Transport on 4 May 2001. It is a familiar date. People will recall that the general election was called at that time. On 17 July, with the Government's majority safely in the bag. Mr. Kiley was unceremoniously sacked. In the intervening period, the election took place. I say to the Mayor and Mr. Kiley that accepting that point was probably the dumbest thing that they did. It was probably the smartest thing that the Government did. It was certainly the most cynical thing that they could have done.
    When the Greater London Authority Bill went through the House, the Conservative party warned there would be a fractious relationship between the Mayor and the Government, and indeed the Assembly. Labour's London manifesto said in 1997:
    "We believe that both the Greater London Authority and the Mayor are needed to provide a voice for London and to take the strategic city-wide decisions about the future—promoting … a top-quality transport system".
    When the Mayor is not measuring walls to see how far his neighbour fell the other day, he has not one but two pieces of litigation on which he is embarked. I hardly call that promoting London's transport system. There is litigation over the Deloitte and Touche report, and over the funding gap to which I referred in an intervention earlier. That funding gap is serious.
    In the Mayor's letter of 12 June this year, he identified a £1.4 billion shortfall between the Government grant and the authority's funding needs. When I asked the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) when he was Secretary of State how that gap would be filled, and said that the debt would otherwise be dumped on the people of London, he denied that that would happen.
    The debt is going to be dumped on the people of London—unless the Minister wants to intervene now to explain how the funding gap is going to be filled. I notice that he has gone rigid in case any movement may be interpreted one way or the other. The truth is that there is a debt, and the people of London are going to have to pay for it. The Minister shakes his head. That is just what the previous Secretary of State did, but an explanation is needed for the people of London.
    I turn specifically to the PPP. The Select Committee reports are devastating. The Government's response rejects those reports in language that they will come to regret. The Select Committee has an in-built Government majority. For it to call on the Government to abandon a major plank of their transport policy—indeed, it is at the centre of policy on the nation's capital—is high stakes indeed. Just to give the reason that there will be further
    1010
    delay is completely unacceptable, for reasons that were well explained by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) earlier.
    In one sense, the PPP is half right. It is right to involve the private sector, which has demonstrated through countless privatisations that it is more efficient, but this particular way of using it is wrong. One of the lessons that we have learned about Railtrack is that horizontal integration, separating railway from the operations of Railtrack, is a key factor in the failure of its operation. We should have vertical integration.
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that the previous Conservative Government got it completely wrong, and if so will he put on the record his denunciation of that decision?
    Richard Ottaway: The Minister is asking me to exaggerate in a way that I am not prepared to do. I am the first to admit that—for the reasons that I have just explained—things have not gone right, and I thought that that point had indeed been put on the record. I make no apologies for privatisations, 99 per cent. of which have worked. Privatisation of the airlines and the public utilities has been a tremendous success. [Interruption.] I make no apology for going ahead with the privatisation of Railtrack, but the manner in which it was done was wrong. It should have been split into the Great Western railway, the Great North Eastern Railway, and so on.
    Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend will be aware that, in restructuring the industry, the Government have chosen to pursue exactly the same model—an infrastructure provider and train operating companies—as that employed under privatisation. That is presumably a vote of confidence from the Government in the making of such a division.
    Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend makes my next point. The Government ought to be learning from Railtrack's difficulties and adopting vertical, rather than horizontal, integration. We should have an integrated management system that hires private contractors who are paid on delivery of a service. The nub of the difficulties with the PPP is that London Underground is going to pay the infracos on the basis not of what they are actually doing, but of how they are performing. To that extent, TfL's hands are completely tied. The principle is okay in theory, but the formula is unbelievably complex. It is a completely untested mathematical model, containing thousands of minute elements, to which TfL will be bound for the next 30 years. Its complexity is outrageous. For example, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you look—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am beginning to get a complex.
    Richard Ottaway: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was concentrating so hard that I had not realised that the occupant of the Chair had changed.
    The formula for abatement service points for defects and failures is: ASP to the power of AS, which equals epsilon i {ASP to the power of AS, times (1 plus UT to the power of 1)} minus ASP to the power of AS over THD. That formula applies only if ASP to the power of

    1011
    AS over THD is less than epsilon i—and so on. The system will be unbelievably complex, and will provide ample opportunities for the infracos to play the system and find loopholes. Entire careers will be made out of working a way through those formulae. The situation would be comical if it were not so serious.
    Mr. Mark Field: Is not the nub of the problem that this form of PPP—consisting of a very complicated mathematical formula that my hon. Friend described far more fluently than I possibly could—above all lacks political viability? Many of us who did not support the creation of a London government are not in favour of this form of PPP, and it is clear that many London Labour MPs—other than those who are crazed by ambition to get a Front-Bench position—the Mayor of London and TfL are not in favour of it either. How on earth can this form of PPP be supported by a Government who supposedly support devolution?
    Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The 1997 Labour manifesto makes it clear that Labour wanted the Mayor of London to run a top-quality transport system. That is a broken pledge. The entire system will be maintained by people over whom TfL will have no control or direction. If TfL identifies a problem, it will be unable to do anything about it, provided that the infracos can show that the trains are running back and forth in accordance with a mathematical formula. The system is unviable, untested and cannot be taken seriously. That is why Ernst and Young described the idea that the system would prove beneficial as a subjective view, and I agree with the Select Committee that this is not the basis on which such decisions should be taken.
    I ask the Government to think again, otherwise the people of London will be the losers. It is they who will have the ball and chain of the associated debt and problems clasped to their ankles for the next 30 years, and it is the Minister's party that will have to deal with the political consequences.
    3.45 pm
    Ms Karen Buck: If there is one person who is guaranteed to send me scurrying to the warm bosom of my own Government, it is the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). In saying that, I intend no slur on my right hon. Friend the Minister. The hon. Gentleman's description of the tube as a third-world system was completely unrecognisable. For the most part, my comments on the PPP will be rather critical of the position that we have got ourselves into, but as someone who has used the underground every day for the past 20 years, I can say that it does London no favours—and nor is it true—to describe the underground in the terms used by the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we place on the record a true reflection of the system as it is.
    Hon. Members probably agree with the Select Committee in several respects. We know that the tube desperately needs investment for maintenance and upgrade, that there has been underinvestment for most of the past two decades, and that the last thing that the underground now needs is further delay. It is critical that we start investing money as soon as possible. Even if the
    1012
    PPP delivers a significant increase in transport capacity—a moot point, and nor am I entirely convinced by the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on the scale of the increased capacity that the PPP will deliver—it will constitute only a small contribution to the additional capacity necessary to make London work. Concerned as it is with maintenance and upgrade, the PPP is not the same thing as the investment that is necessary for a first-class transport service for London in the 21st century. That is why I want to concentrate on the absolute and overriding importance of in no way allowing Transport for London's contribution to the running of the PPP—assuming that it goes ahead—to undermine other transport projects in the capital.
    The other point on which we probably all agree is that, whatever model we proceed with, the private sector—be it private finance or private companies—will have a major role to play. The Mayor of London spelled that out last week, as has Bob Kiley on several occasions. Sometimes, we descend into a crude debate on private versus public management models, but such debates completely miss the point. The question is whether the PPP before us is the right model for procuring services that will deliver improvements to our underground, and in that regard I congratulate the Select Committee on the rigorous work that it has undertaken.
    There are two areas of concern: safety and value for money. I should point out that I am not one of those who are convinced that the PPP is a major compromiser of safety on the London underground. I deplore the shroud-waving tactics that are sometimes employed in this debate. It is much too easy and glib to reduce very complex questions about resource investment, management, lines of accountability and the supervision of subcontractors to a simple formula that states that privatisation equals death, and the public sector necessarily equals top quality, guaranteed service delivery. However, the fantastic complexity of the PPP contract system does raise legitimate questions about how safety will be guaranteed and assured.
    When these issues have been discussed in the House—not least thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), whose forensic analysis of them in Westminster Hall could be usefully studied by the world's leading accountancy firms, especially at the moment—the other models of PFIs that have been used to provide transport in London have been cited to demonstrate that the private sector can deliver where the public sector cannot. The Croydon tram is one example. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) is in his place, and I acknowledge that it is a model of good practice; the Docklands light railway is another. However, those PFIs are dwarfed by the PPP contract process, and that is an important point.
    Nobody is claiming that it is impossible to put together a public-private partnership or a PFI to run transport projects. Of course that can and has been done. It is almost certainly the way forward. However, does a PPP of such epic scale and complexity offer the same scope for ensuring accountability, value for money and safety? I do not think so. The walls of the underground carry an advertising slogan for a film that claims that its plot has more twists than a bowl of fusilli, and that could also describe the contracts.

    1013
    We all hope that the Government are right. If the PPP goes ahead, as I think it will, who cannot hope and trust that the safety case will be guaranteed? I have confidence in the Health and Safety Executive and no doubt that the Government are as committed to the maintenance of safety as anybody. However, the question of blurred accountability remains within the complex contracting system. That means that those who are charged with the operation of the service—Transport for London—have to pick their way through the contracts to ensure that the travelling public are protected every day.
    Angela Watkinson: The hon. Lady is right that the Government claim that safety is the first and overriding priority and that it will never be compromised. Indeed, they have claimed that there will be a double lock on safety. However, the actual PPP contracts say very little about how safety will be improved by the London underground PPP. Instead, they provide for time-consuming, convoluted, paper-driven exercises, so it is unclear how safety will be improved.
    Ms Buck: I have absolute confidence in the Government's commitment, but the HSE and the scrutiny and step-in powers of TfL will guarantee safety. I hope that they do, but the complexity and fragmentation raise questions. My concern is political as much as anything. As I said when the statement was made in February, the proof will not be today, tomorrow and next month, but every day for the next 30 years. That is a long time to be sure that there will be no problems. If there is a problem—he it a cost overrun or an accident—it will unfortunately be irrelevant whether the fault for it can be traced to the structure of the PPP, because it will get the blame anyway.
    In the past few years—and we can argue about who is responsible—the PPP, as currently constituted, has not gained the confidence of Londoners. If we are fortunate and the lock works properly. the problem will not arise. If it does arise, we will have a major political problem.
    Mr. Gardiner: I compliment my hon. Friend on her thoughtful and well-informed remarks. She acknowledged earlier—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Could the hon. Gentleman address the Chair rather than his hon. Friend?
    Mr. Gardiner: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could my hon. Friend clarify her remarks about private sector contractors needing to be involved with London Underground in any event to achieve the improvements over the period of the contract? How would the safety concerns that she has identified—she mentioned the word "fudging" in relation to the PPP—be better delivered under the public sector model? That is critical to understanding why she favours that over the PPP.
    Ms Buck: The answer is simply that if the whole of the maintenance and upgrading of the trains and track are bundled together into a 30-year package, it is much more difficult for the public sector manager to scrutinise those projects. Under the contracts as currently set up, a subcontractor will report any problem to the private sector company. which will decide where responsibility for it lies and if it is in the contract with the subcontractor, it might be passed back to them to deal with. Bob Kiley was
    1014
    worried about a step-in power for TfL, but he also asked why it was stepping out of some responsibilities. If a contract is bundled up and then subcontracted, it is much more difficult for the public company to scrutinise what is happening. The letting of contracts between TfL—or London Underground, as it currently is—and companies to perform specific and discreet tasks, with a direct line of accountability, would have made such scrutiny much simpler and more manageable.
    In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West, I must say that the case made by the Government—which made great sense in 1998, and I was very sympathetic to it—was mostly based on value for money. Therefore, it is no good dismissing the various analyses of value for money—whether for or against—as almost irrelevant. I apologise for paraphrasing my hon. Friend's argument, but one cannot dismiss those analyses as biased because of how and why they were commissioned when the whole core of the argument for the PPP was based on value for money. The referee report by Ernst & Young does not offer us any great confidence in the value for money of the PPP. It says that the seven and a half year comparisons, which are the only ones that the public sector will have any contractual and legal power to control, are less likely to provide support for a value-for-money argument. Over 30 years, Ernst & Young are more sympathetic to that argument, but between seven and half years and 30 years there is no legal framework for enforcing value-for-money requirements.
    The value-for-money case on which the Government rest their argument is fragile. Ernst & Young itself admitted:
    "The value for money assessment is…part art and part science and involves a blend of subjective judgments and fact-based analysis."
    Alarm bells ring for me at talk of "fact-based analysis". It is like chocolate-based confectionery—not an attractive proposition. That whole description is so vague and unspecific that it is hard to have any confidence in it.
    Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that on some large projects, such as the channel tunnel rail link and the Jubilee line, the private sector has delivered on budget and to time? In the case of the Jubilee line, the private sector did so after London Underground had completely failed to do so. The issue is whether we should hand the management and maintenance to organisations that can deliver better than has been achieved in the past, in a way that is controlled through contracts with clearly specified outputs.
    Ms Buck: I do not want to get into a dispute about examples of other projects, but I am not convinced that either of the ones mentioned by my hon. Friend came in on time and on budget. I have no problem with giving the private sector a major role under contract and financial disciplines.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I do not want to dismiss the value-for-money argument, as of course it is important and one has to do one's best with it. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that what I have said is at least substantially correct.
    There were two other reasons for doing it in the way that we did. First, we needed to get the money from somewhere other than from Government. I know that my

    1015
    hon. Friend will accept that. Secondly, we had to improve on the management of projects. I think that both those objectives will be achieved.
    Ms Buck: I do not want to pursue that argument much further. However, money coming from somewhere other than Government will be repaid through the fare box and through Government grant, with a significant rate of return for the private companies. Of course we need to lever in private money, but the idea that is sometimes implied—although not by my hon. Friend—that private companies will make a philanthropic contribution to public transport is slightly inaccurate.
    I happily supported the idea of the PPP in 1998 for precisely the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West. In the absence of unlimited public money we need to bring in private money, but I remain unconvinced that this is the right way to go about it.
    I return to the point that the PPP is only a small part of the formula for improving London's transport infrastructure. However, the major enhancements likely to be needed over the next 30 years to increase tube capacity—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—are especially vulnerable to some of the value-for-money arguments about which we are concerned. When it comes to negotiating the scope for major enhancements under the PPP, Ernst & Young—the referee—said:
    "In practice, it will be difficult to resist the desire to maximise profit by the incumbent Infraco when Major Enhancements are planned. This is likely to have a negative impact on the value for money achieved although until such projects are brought forward, it is not possible to test the materiality of this issue. We have not tried to estimate what the costs of this behaviour might be, as the Major Enhancements are unknown".
    That seems to me to make us extremely vulnerable. The major enhancements are likely to be the most important matter over the next 30 years.
    How can we ensure that we can afford the whole framework of other major transport investments in London, whether it is additions to tube capacity or other transport projects such as crossrail and the east London line, if there is any risk that TfL's financial status will be compromised because PPP costs are not fully met? Other hon. Members have mentioned the matter, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to do all that he can in the Department to ensure that Londoners—as taxpayers and fare payers using the transport system and London Underground—are not in any way disadvantaged by a contract between the Government and London Underground to which Transport for London is not party.
    Transport for London will be contractually obligated to the PPP. Although the infracos within that partnership have received letters of comfort underpinning their financial security, Transport for London—which is responsible for the whole range of transport provision in the capital—will be exposed to a degree of financial risk, especially between years 3 and 7.5, for which it has not received comparable financial comfort.
    If the PPP is to go ahead, the single most important thing is that TfL is given that financial security. It suggests that that might amount to £1 billion per quarter,
    1016
    but I am sure that negotiating positions on the matter are being struck already. We must make sure that the full operating costs of any PPP contracts are guaranteed by the Government, and that TfL and Londoners are protected from the financial risk. In that way, the other transport projects so essential to ensuring that London is a moving city in the early part of the 21st century can be guaranteed, and taken forward by Transport for London.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I make another appeal for brief speeches, as many hon. Members will be disappointed otherwise.
    4.4 pm
    Chris Grayling: I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who sadly is not in her place at the moment, for the usual expert way in which she led the inquiry, and for the very fair way in which she chairs the Select Committee.
    Perhaps the most telling point made in this afternoon's debate was made in the brief intervention by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), who is not in her place either. Recently, she made a number of public accusations, one of which was that I and other Opposition Members had hijacked the Select Committee. It would take a braver person than I am to attempt to hijack the hon. Member for Crewe and. Nantwich.
    Even so, the fact that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough chose to intervene to raise doubts about the proposal reinforces the degree of unanimity in the Select Committee. We heard wide-ranging evidence during the inquiry, and we concluded that the proposal was ill thought out and wrongly focused. The PPP will not work as it is supposed to, and the tragedy is that the ultimate losers will be the passengers.
    The Committee's hopes were raised, briefly, when we took evidence from the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). He made it clear that he was willing to look again at the PPP. Sadly, two months later, he had looked at it again and had not reached a different view. That is why we are where we are today.
    I want to raise four issues this afternoon. The first has to do with congestion and capacity on the tube, which is one of the biggest problems with the PPP. Those of us who use the tube regularly know just how full it can be. Last night, I boarded a tube train and people were pressing at the doors. Our underground is bursting at the seams.
    Any project to modernise the tube must create additional capacity, yet there is abundant evidence that the PPP, and the Government's other modernisation plans, will not deliver that. The background document to the Government's 10-year plan makes that clear. It states:
    "An east-west rail link, such as CrossRail, will be the crucial element in providing crowding relief to east-west Underground lines…Our modelling suggests that, without it, most east-west lines on the Underground would be more crowded than today, despite other improvements."
    That is the Government's own statement about what will follow from the PPP.
    The Select Committee took much evidence from people involved in the process more directly than Ministers. Their views on the capacity issue were very clear. Dennis Tunnicliffe said that, assuming that the PPP was delivered

    1017
    successfully, the present system would expand its peak capacity by 15 per cent. That means that capacity will remain slightly behind growth.
    London Underground admitted that overcrowding on the network would not be reduced, as demand for travel in London overall was at saturation. The practical reality of the PPP is that people of my age travelling to work on crowded tube trains today will probably be travelling on equally crowded trains for the rest of their professional lives. The PPP scheme is not the right one to resolve the problems people face every day.
    Mr. Spellar: Has not the hon. Gentleman noticed that London's population has increased by the population of Sheffield in the past 10 years? It is estimated to increase by the population of Leeds in the next 10 years, and there are also a million more people in work in this country now. Has not the hon. Gentleman noticed those pressures on the system?
    Chris Grayling: I have, and that is why I am looking to the Government to do something about the problem. The scheme that they propose, according to their own figures and those of London Underground, will not sort out the problem of underground overcrowding. The Minister has no solution to that—although he should, as it is his job to have one.
    The second point that I want to make is that the PPP is wrong in developmental terms. The Select Committee took abundant evidence to the effect that the scheme focuses on stations in its early years, and not on tunnels or trains. We were told that PPP would deliver smarter new stations over the first seven years. That is a great idea, and means that we can have lots of new tiled walls, but Bob Kiley offered compelling evidence that we should first invest in trains and infrastructure.
    We heard no evidence to suggest that at the end of that seven-year period passengers will have noticed significant improvements to their journeys, apart from smarter stations. Nine new coaches will be delivered in the first seven years. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) was lambasting the record of the last Conservative Government but, between 1992 and 1997, they put new trains on the Central line, new trains on the Jubilee line, built the Jubilee line extension and put new trains on the Northern line. I will happily take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman if he wants to tell me how many new carriages this Government have added to London Underground. No? The answer is that there have been none—not one new carriage in the past five years.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) was right when she wrote in The Independent five years ago that the priority needed to be channelling investment towards the core of our network. The tragedy is that, five years later, that has not happened.
    Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Jubilee line has been started since 1997 and that it might have a few carriages?
    Chris Grayling: I admire the hon. Gentleman this afternoon; he is clearly after a job on the Front Bench. I offer him my best wishes, and hope that he gets one. He might remember that it was the last Conservative
    1018
    Government who started building the Jubilee line. No new infrastructure project has been started on London Underground since 1997.
    My third point in relation to the Select Committee's investigation is about the role of the Treasury. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to this in her opening remarks. A number of pieces of evidence about the Treasury's role in the project gave rise to concern. We need to bear in mind the Treasury's motivation for this project. As the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West was honest enough to say, the Treasury had difficult financial choices to make, and it chose to spend the money elsewhere. That remains true to this day. The fundamental reason for pursuing PPP is to keep the debt off the balance sheet. It is to be able to make investment without it appearing under public borrowing.
    The total amounts that the Government are talking about are deceptive. As always, they have taken everything including the kitchen sink—every maintenance budget that London Underground has had—lumped it all together and multiplied the result by 10 to create a stunning figure for the next 10 years. In reality, the amounts of money going in to the underground are comparable to—and, in many cases, slightly less than—what was being invested in the early 1990s and certainly when the Jubilee line was being built.
    One of the most disturbing things about the evidence taken by the Select Committee was the regular indication that the Treasury had intervened in the project to ensure that its phasing meant that the expensive projects took place in the later years while the cheaper projects took place in the early years. We heard evidence from a number of people that the Treasury had intervened during the process to ensure that not too much money was pushed upfront in the project. That is reflected in the fact that the focus in the early years is on smarter stations rather than on new trains or radical changes to the infrastructure. As a consequences, passengers will again have to wait for the improvements that they want.
    It is scandalous, though not untypical, that no Treasury Minister was willing to appear to discuss the project. I give credit to the Transport Ministers for their assiduous attendance at the Committee and their willingness to talk to it on request. We can have no complaints about their behaviour in that respect. In stark contrast, their counterparts at the Treasury refused and continue to refuse to participate in debates on areas such as these, even when it is palpably clear that they are pulling many of the strings from behind the scenes.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Is the fact that the Treasury intervened to make sure that the investment is backloaded, not frontloaded, evidence that public sector money will be used to invest, and that the route chosen will impose more of a burden on the taxpayer without producing value for money? The backloading proves that the taxpayer will pick up the bill.
    Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. This exercise is uncosted beyond the first seven years. If the more complicated projects are shoved into

    1019
    the second, third or fourth seven-and-a-half-year-period and not costed in the early stages, we have no idea who will pick up the bill in the end.
    Mr. Davey: We will.
    Chris Grayling: Well, it will be the taxpayer, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) says. The contracts for the private sector contractors are, as we would expect if they are looking after their interests properly, quite tightly phrased. There is no evidence that the private sector is taking on a huge risk. As the weeks have gone by, it is clear that the Government have been taking on more and more risk but pretending that the opposite is the case, in much the same way as happened over the setting up of Network Rail.
    The Government have made great play in the past few months of the work done by Ernst & Young to assess the viability of the public and private sector options and which represents the best value for money. The former Secretary of State announced in February that he had decided to go ahead with the scheme, that he had looked at the Ernst & Young report and decided that the scheme represented value for money. Not only did the Select Committee take evidence that London Underground had not even concluded the contracts at that point and had asked the Secretary of State not to make a statement, so that he compromised London Underground in the negotiations with the contractors, but the great report upon which the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North based his judgment started with the most extraordinary health check. Ernst & Young said:
    "We have not sought to verify the accuracy of the data or the information and explanations provided by management."
    In other words, Ernst & Young had simply checked that the sums added up. It is rather as if I said to the Minister, "I have six sweets in one pocket and six in the other. I think that I have 12—could you check that for me?" The Minister could get out his calculator and add six to six to make 12, but he has no idea whether I can count or whether I have three sweets in that pocket or 10. That is the problem. The consultants did not check the detailed assumptions but simply that the baseline sums added up.
    Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Chris Grayling: I will when I have finished this point.
    To compound that shortcoming, we also learned from the report that the public and private sector comparators will cost the same amount of cash. The only difference is an accounting nicety, apparently designed to reflect a social cost saving of taking the private rather than the public route. That is not used in any other PPP or private financial initiative scheme; it is a nebulous counting concept used by London Underground. We did not even have direct factual information on which to base an assessment of the Government's judgment that one route was better value than the other. It was an accounting trick.
    Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, at present, one has to be very careful of accounting niceties?
    Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman's point speaks for itself. I apologise to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for not giving way to him first.
    Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman claims that no substantive checking of the figures took place. I know that he must be aware of the National Audit Office report delivered on 15 December 2000 to his Committee, because his Committee commissioned it. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that appendix 2, which clearly sets out the methodology that the National Audit Office followed in establishing exactly what he claims has not been gone into is false, or will he accept that substantive investigations were carried out?
    Chris Grayling: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the former Secretary of State for Transport earlier this year, when he said:
    "Last autumn, I announced that I intended to take independent advice from Ernst and Young on the evaluation process that London Underground and London Regional Transport had followed, and on the robustness of their conclusions."—[Official Report. 7 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 1126.]
    I have referred to the health warning at the beginning of that report which, in my view, casts, at the very least, substantial doubt on the validity of the decision taken by the Secretary of State.
    This scheme does not deliver real solutions to the congestion problems on the London underground. It delivers station improvements ahead of new trains and track improvements. It is financially questionable and does not enjoy the support of the public in London, the vast majority of London Members of Parliament, the democratically elected Mayor of London or any political party apart from the governing party, yet the Government are still determined to press ahead. All I can say to them is that it is not too late to change their mind; in Mr. Kiley, we have an impressive witness, with a track record, who came to the Select Committee with a clear action plan that, in our judgment, offered an attractive alternative. The Committee has seen no evidence that the Government have given full consideration to that option.
    Mr. Spellar: If the hon. Gentleman finds the option so attractive, can he explain why his Committee said:
    "we have not been able to evaluate that plan in detail over the course of the inquiry"?
    Chris Grayling: We took evidence. We did not make detailed evaluation—that is not our job; it is the Government's job to carry out detailed evaluation.
    Mr. Kiley has a track record. He has delivered real improvements in other cities. He is the commissioner for transport in London, appointed by the democratically elected Mayor of London. At the very least, in the view of the Committee and in my view, we and the Government should be giving serious consideration to the options that he proposed. The Government constantly say that there is no alternative, yet we have heard strong evidence for one. It is not too late for the Government to take that alternative; I fear that the route that they are taking will not deliver the solutions for which they are hoping. I appeal to the Minister at the very least to think again.
    4.21 pm
    Harry Cohen: I remain convinced that the PPP system set up by the Treasury is not the best one and that it will not achieve the maximum

    1021
    modernisation of the tube. As I have told Parliament previously, I am not opposed to PPP in principle, but this model is especially poor. Four business men who gave the PPP its genesis in the Government and I question their credentials for operating a public service.
    I doubt whether the total amount of private money promised for the system will come through; it certainly has not yet done so for the main line railways. The timing is likely to delay important infrastructure improvements; and the money will be repaid at a high cost to the public pocket.
    We are living in the time of WorldCom and Enron, where there are no proper standards of auditing and accounting. Instead, auditors and accountants are complicit in deception.
    When I asked a parliamentary question about the cost of underground projects undertaken by the private sector, the reply was given in terms of the value to LUL. Actual spending is very different from the assumed value to an organisation, when that value has been set by the organisation. As an accountant, I call that bad accounting practice—exactly like the WorldCom case.
    The Treasury's alleged £2 billion saving from the PPP, based on that WorldCom approach and a comparator skewed against the public sector, must be deemed unreliable. Will the Minister tell us where the independent audit arrangements are for the PPP finances?
    I hope that the Health and Safety Executive will not be complicit in the project. It has yet to report on the tube safety plans, but I was told in another parliamentary answer that the contracts were likely to take effect this summer. That could mean that the Minister takes a decision with no informed parliamentary debate on the safety issues. Will the HSE report be available before the recess, and will there be a parliamentary debate before the contracts go ahead?
    A recently published report from the former Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions—its 2002 report—states that the 10-year planned investment for London—buses and tube—will be made up of £7.8 billion from the public sector and £10.4 billion from the private sector, making a total of £18.2 billion. A further £7.4 billion—described as public resource, but really a public revenue subsidy—is envisaged over the period, giving an overall total of £25.6 billion. Under the proposed system, much of the public money will not go directly into work on the tube but to company profits, dividends for shareholders and directors, and interest payments to City financiers.
    Transport for London points out that there is a serious funding gap; it amounts to £1.473 billion for 2005–06 to 2009–10, including the sum of £771 million which is LUL's assessment of its funding needs in excess of the transport grant. TfL notes that an additional £170 million is necessary as a contingency reserve, for which nothing is provided in the current Government figures, despite the recommendation in the latest White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" that local authorities should have a duty to maintain adequate reserves. TfL also maintains that there is a £532 million gap over the period in provision for risks and other costs that need to be managed.
    Under such contracts, too much risk remains with the public sector. In those circumstances—as my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North
    1022
    (Ms Buck) pointed out—there is a powerful case for Transport for London to have the equal comfort that the Government have already provided for the private infrastructure companies. That would cover risks that were outside management's control—perhaps of magnitude or low probability—which it would not be sensible to fund from the transport grant.
    The negotiations started at the behest of the Government have moved that risk from the infracos to TfL, so the Government should recognise their responsibility and provide the necessary comfort. The credit assessment agency, Standard and Poors, has already given TfL a "negative outlook" status, so the Government should rectify that with a letter of comfort and a proper funding agreement; otherwise TfL—and the tube with it—could go broke. Full-scale privatisation, which the Government say that they do not want and the public most certainly do not want, would inevitably follow.
    The DTLR admitted a shortfall of £154 million per annum but maintains that it is
    "a reasonable target for management to reduce costs and increase revenues."
    That sum is not a reasonable target; it approaches the entire operating budget of trains. PPP and PFI put more than 50 per cent. of TfL's cost base beyond its control. A high proportion of the remaining costs, such as business rates, are, in effect, fixed. The Government have pointed out that their PPP calculations were based on fares remaining constant in real terms. However, that leaves a huge rise in council taxes and huge cuts in services. The Treasury must think again.
    The Treasury insists on unrealistic assumptions of wage growth—only 1 per cent. real wage growth. Public sector pay, London living costs, rail industry pay, higher national insurance costs from the recent Budget and extra management costs to cope with the complex PPP contracts all suggest that a higher figure will be necessary. The current assumptions are a formula for a showdown with the trade unions, which will be the Government's fault. The Government have also yet to agree, and pay towards, the administration arrangements of the London Transport pension fund.
    Tube Lines, the infraco responsible for one of the three tube contracts, has submitted its draft financing documents. They show that lenders will have a panoply of powers to control or direct infraco activity in more than 100 decision areas. Bob Kiley said of that:
    "London Transport's assent to the ceding of such control to the private lending institutions would represent an extraordinary and inappropriate abdication of public responsibility."
    The documents reveal that there will be no price protection after the first seven and a half years—that is, for the remaining 22 and a half years of the contract. Furthermore, contract termination would be exorbitantly expensive: LU would be forced to be pay whatever the infraco demanded to keep it going—not the market price.
    There would be large windfall profits for the infraco's sponsors, lenders, advisers and insurers. In the case of Tube Lines alone, the amount would be more than £100 million—merely for getting the contracts, not for any aspect of its performance in improving the tube. Tube Lines' rate of return would be pushed up to 32 per cent.—not the 15 to 20 per cent. that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport told Parliament was likely. Such pay-outs

    1023
    to the infracos' buddies on all the contracts are likely to amount to about £500 million—merely for getting the contracts, not for performance.
    That is an abuse of public money. Bob Kiley said:
    "The Underground is in desperate need of investment, yet PPP has been allowed to degenerate into a simple fee-generating mechanism for investors and advisers who have so far taken no risk and will be signing contracts that shelter them from any real possibility of loss."
    As the PPP will also impose a system of fractured management of the tube, it is plain that this financial scheme imposed by the Treasury is not the best way to achieve the maximum modernisation of the London underground, or of obtaining the best value for money.
    4.30 pm
    Mr. Edward Davey: The most disturbing contribution to today's debate is that of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). He talked, for example, about the capacity improvements that will come from the PPP. He showed a misunderstanding of the contracts and a lack of knowledge of the details of those contracts, which do not provide some of the benefits that he mentioned.
    In an intervention, the hon. Gentleman said that there was no other way to find the money and implied that somehow we would magically find new money through the PPP. We all know that that is not the case. We all know that the Treasury and the GLA, through TfL, will have to provide large sums to make the PPP work, so I found his fundamental misunderstanding of key aspects of the PPP particularly worrying.
    I want to take issue with the hon. Gentleman on two of his major reasons for justifying the choice of PPP. First, he argued strongly that London Underground did not have the skills or track record to undertake such a public investment programme. If that were the case, why have the Government allowed London Underground to be the main procurers and negotiators and to provide the main legal background in negotiating those highly complicated projects?
    If the Government do not trust London Underground's management to manage programmes and projects for the next 30 years, why do they trust London Underground to negotiate those projects? London Underground has never before negotiated such detailed projects. The hon. Gentleman's views do not make sense. When the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) asked the hon. Gentleman those questions, he signally failed to answer. It is bizarre that London Underground has been given competence to procure, but not to provide.
    The second major issue in the hon. Gentleman's speech about which I want to complain is his analysis that the Government had somehow to be the umpire and that the Government commissioned Ernst & Young to provide a report that would somehow choose between the many other reports that had been published. As the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said, the Ernst & Young report failed to do that for the Government, but the hon. Gentleman should ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor why he has failed to meet Bob Kiley throughout the process.
    1024
    If the Government had wished to be an umpire, objectively judging the cases on both sides of the argument, why did the Chancellor refuse every single request for a meeting from the Commissioner of Transport for London? I find that deplorable. It came to the point where Bob Kiley's new year's resolution this year was that he would give up asking for meetings with the Chancellor. We know that the Chancellor is behind the opposition to alternatives to the PPP, so it really is a poor show that he will not even meet Bob Kiley, who has so much experience.
    The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West then talked about delays. He made a plea to TfL and GLA: he asked them not to put further steps in the way of progress. In the past few years, many people have argued that the process should be speeded up and that Londoners wanted greater investment now, but the Government have stood in the way. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the debates in Committee when we considered the Greater London Authority Act 1999, under which the GLA was established. Liberal Democrat and Conservative members of that Committee predicted that it would take as long as it has done before Ministers could sign a contract. Ministers told us that we were talking rubbish.
    I regret that we have been proved right, but that suggests that some of our other predictions about where the PPP will fail in clue course may well come to fruition. I hope that they do not. I hope that we and some of the Government's critics on their own Back Benches are proved wrong, and I do so for the sake of our wonderful city—London—and that of the travelling public. However, all the evidence that we have heard from many objective people inside and outside, and in the Transport Committee and other Committees, suggests that the PPP will fail.
    One of my major remaining concerns is that the public sector's ability to end those complicated contracts with the infracos is limited. The termination clauses are weak, and a substantial burden is likely to be placed on the public sector when those contracts have to be ended. I regret that. The Government ought to have insisted on sensible ways of ending those contracts, so that when common sense prevails it will not end up costing the taxpayer too much.
    4.35 pm
    Mr. Christopher Chope: We have had a very good debate, but it is a pity that each side has only 10 minutes for the winding-up speeches. It is also a pity that we are not debating a substantive Government motion in Government time, which is what the Select Committee requested, as we would have had a much more authentic idea of the House's view on the PPP.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on tabling the substantive motion. I am not sure that even she would wish to vote for it, but it has certainly enabled us to have a constructive debate. I do not think that people would want to vote for it because it simply refers to reducing the resources by £1,000, which would achieve nothing. People outside the House would not really understand why we would want to reduce the money for the scheme given that most hon. Members have argued for more money.
    I hope that the Minister will address the fact that the hon. Lady and her Committee have produced reports based on evidence. The powerful thing about Select

    1025
    Committees is that, when they operate effectively, they ignore the prejudice and philosophical banter, and they go for the evidence. The Select Committee has carefully considered the evidence and reached its conclusions. The Government seem intent on rejecting all that evidence without putting any counter-evidence in its place.
    The Government have insulted the people of London. They gave them the right to elect a Mayor, but when they did not vote for the right person, the Government no longer regarded the verdict of the people of London in that mayoral election as significant, and it is clear that the people of London think that this PPP provides the wrong solution.
    Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Chope: No, I will not give way at the moment because I have only a short time and almost all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have done so at greater length than I will be allowed under these arrangements.
    The present state of the London underground is unacceptable, and it has been getting worse during the past five years. We now have an underground system that is the most disrupted, overcrowded and costly network in the world. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said that we must not be too dismissive of the state of the London underground, but I refer her to the findings of the Evening Standard panel of commuters on 7 May. The panel went to Moscow, Paris, Berlin and New York and came to the conclusion that we in London had got the worst deal. On time, cost and comfort, the London underground is the worst.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) rightly chided the Government for the long delay in getting to grips with the issue. We certainly had a clear policy at the 1997 general election, but I accept that it was rejected by the people. The Government had a clear policy at that election, but they have still to implement it. My hon. Friend referred to the statement that the Deputy Prime Minister made on 20 March 1998, in which he said that he would not be rushed. However, I remind my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister also said:
    "Our proposals will take a little time to establish and deliver."—[Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1541.]
    As he anticipated that there would be a delay of about two years before the PPP was up and running, he produced a two-year interim funding arrangement. Well, it is now four and half years later and we still have not got the PPP.
    The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) said that the documents have been signed. I am not sure that they have. If they have been signed, why have they not been made available to TfL in their final form? TfL received documents on 8 May, but since then the documents have been further altered as a result of ongoing negotiations between the parties. I suspect that the Government will not make those documents available to TfL until after the challenge in the High Court later next month.
    Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Chope: Not at a moment, because of the time constraints to which I have referred.
    1026
    The issue that is most worrying for Londoners is the funding gap. That has been referred to by several hon. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South. According to the Government and London Underground, that funding shortfall is £771 million in the first seven-and-a-half-year review period. Transport for London thinks that that is £400 million to £500 million lower than it should be; it thinks that the funding gap could be well over £1.2 billion. As a result of that funding gap, Standard & Poor's, a leading credit agency, has taken a very negative approach towards Transport for London, which, in turn. could lead to it having a high financial burden. Standard & Poor's stated:
    "In order to revise the outlook on TfL to stable, Standard & Poor's would require a funding agreement between TfL and the Government to provide sufficient cash to meet agreed costs in the first review period and to establish sufficient levels of reserves to enable TfL to manage short term risks; and clarification of the circumstances in which the Government would be likely to provide additional funding. If the funding concerns are not adequately addressed and significant uncertainties remain, the rating on TfL could be lowered."
    That will add to the cost of Transport for London finding finance for all the projects that it wishes to undertake. The Commissioner of Transport for London, Bob Kiley, said:
    "The ultimate irony is that this highlights the weakness in the promise put forward by the PPP's most prominent supporters—that PPP would provide full and stable funding for rebuilding the Underground."
    That funding gap can either be met by the council tax payers of London, by the Government—through national taxpayers—or by fares. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) said that there was nothing inherent in the PPP that would require fares to increase. That, of course, is true. It is also true, however, that if there is a funding gap, and the Government refuse to meet it, the pressure is on Transport for London to raise the extra revenue from the people of London or through the fare box. We already have the prospect of the London underground being the most expensive such service anywhere in the world. Why should passengers have to pay much higher fares for a service that is still getting worse rather than improving?
    Mr. Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much additional funding the Opposition are committing to London transport, so that we can add up their overall transport budget?
    Mr. Chope: Clearly, the Minister anticipates that this process will continue until the next general election. If nothing is sorted out by then, we shall explain to the electorate exactly what we will do. We are facing up to the reality that there is a funding gap. The Government—for worse rather than for better—are in office, and they are responsible for answering the question of what will be done about that funding gap. The Minister is trying to find all sorts of excuses for not coming up with answers, and, up to now, he has blamed increased numbers of people living in London and the growth in the economy for the Government's failure to get to grips with the problems of London underground.

    1027
    London underground users have become the victims of a squeeze by the Treasury, which is determined that any capital investment in the infrastructure is off balance sheet—Enron and WorldCom-style accounting—even if it means delay, poor value for money and de facto abandonment of the principle of risk transfer. Meanwhile, we have Transport for London, and a Mayor who is openly hostile to the private sector. Between them, the Mayor and the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North have made the private sector unwilling to invest except very much on their terms. That is why we have a PPP for seven and a half years, after which it can be torn up by the private sector, leaving Londoners with an incomplete project and a substantial liability to repay the debt.
    This saga is an appalling indictment of the Government. It is a betrayal of the interests of the people of London. They deserve better. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will assure them that we will get answers quickly, and that we will see material changes for the better in the quality of London underground.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. Spellar: On 8 May, the Government responded in full to the Select Committee's two recent reports on London Underground's modernisation plans. We welcome Parliament's continued interest in this important subject. That is what it says on my brief. That interest has been pretty thin, however, on the Opposition Benches. We have had contributions from two London Conservatives and two London Liberal Democrats. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) asked for another debate, but Opposition Members are not exactly bursting for it. They, like the public in London, are getting pretty bored with this subject; they want us to get on with it and start delivering improvements for the travelling public in London.
    It is fair to say that these plans have been subjected throughout their development to an unprecedented level of scrutiny, and not just from Parliament. They have been examined and challenged at every opportunity by numerous critics, and they represent probably the most robust and rigorous public-private partnership proposal ever. Bluntly, we can either move forward with these plans or go back to methods that failed passengers in the past. Neither the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) nor the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) had a clear answer to that.
    I also know that underground staff want to focus on running a world-class train service for customers. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) rightly took the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to task for his deplorable comments about London underground. No one denies that there are improvements to be made. We should also look at the real progress that has been made by London Underground. Last year, the amount of wasted customer time due to delays was cut by nearly 7 per cent., and more than 95 per cent. of its peak hour trains ran on time. Those improvements are being maintained—and in many cases bettered—this year. Recently, the tube broke a record by running more than 5,000 rush hour trains without a single cancellation due to missing drivers.
    1028
    Instead of the talk about third-world services and all that nonsense written by journalists, we should be congratulating those staff who have successfully delivered a frequent and reliable service under the new Central line timetable. We should also congratulate the Northern line staff who have banished memories of the "misery line"—of which headline writers were so fond—by providing a service good enough to impress even the Financial Times. Across the network, customers are now giving London Underground some of its highest ever customer satisfaction scores. It is listening to its customers and finding new ways to improve its service—for example, by implementing a range of better ticketing facilities, and putting more staff on platforms to help reduce the time trains spend in stations.
    I—even if the hon. Member for Croydon, South was not—was very impressed by the commitment and dedication to passengers demonstrated by the staff who ran a continuous 42-hour service during the recent jubilee celebrations. Within an hour of the event finishing on the Monday evening, 1 million people had been dispersed safely and efficiently, most of them on the special tube service. London Underground staff can be proud of the way that they served the public during the celebrations. They deserve better than the contemptuous remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon, South about a third-world service.
    We also know, however, that London Underground's track record on the management of infrastructure projects is less good. It is almost a tale of two jubilees. Its success during the golden jubilee contrasts starkly with the Jubilee line extension project—delivered 20 months late, yet still not providing the expected level of performance. An extra £1.4 billion had to be found to complete the project. In answer to the Liberal Democrats, there is a world of difference between contracting for a service or undertaking the negotiations for the contract, and actually trying to micro-manage that contract. London Underground's performance in trying to pull together and integrate all the elements of the contract has not been good. It has a successive record of failure on price and on time in relation to trying to micro-manage that. However, projects such as that for the docklands light railway have come in to price and on time. We want to ensure that London Underground is able to do better in future.
    We believe that the PPP will ensure better results, because it has been designed to put passengers first. Unlike alternative plans, it provides answers to the questions that really matter to the passengers. Will a service be available? How quickly will that service get me to my destination? Will the service be clean, comfortable and pleasant? Another aspect is not part of the PPP, but it is important. British Transport police are doing much work to make the service safe and secure.
    The companies involved will have to meet demanding targets to satisfy passengers on those issues. They must install high-quality equipment on time, make it work and maintain it well. However, they will also have the freedom to innovate and to look for new ways to satisfy their customers. If they succeed, they will be rewarded, not excessively, as the Mayor alleges, but with an appropriate rate of return. However, that will be balanced by the considerable risks that they will take on. If they fail, they will be penalised, with no limit to the size of the penalties. Every penny of the money provided by shareholders—some £500 million—is therefore at risk.

    1029
    That is why the plans offer the right incentives. They concentrate not on administrative processes, but on getting the right results for passengers.
    I was surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for Croydon, South who said that we should monitor inputs rather than outputs. I would have thought that the essence of modern contracting was to consider the outputs one achieves and to leave inputs to the specialists who are best able to deal with them. His remarks revealed very backward thinking.
    We know that the proposed methods work. The new Northern line trains—I have mentioned the great improvements in reliability—supplied under PFI have helped underground staff to transform the old "misery line" into one of the best performing parts of the system. The trains run at about 98 or 99 per cent. reliability.
    Mr. Gardiner: Has my right hon. Friend looked at the year-on-year funding for the tube against the successive three-year funding commitments given over the past 20 years? Has he noticed that Governments have consistently failed to deliver the investment that they promised? Does he understand therefore that, for many of my constituents, the chief attraction of the PPP is that the Government are contractually committed to putting the money in year on year and cannot suddenly decide in 10 years' time that their political priorities lie elsewhere? Does he understand that the public sector route is the route of uncertain investment—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is far too long an intervention for this stage of the debate, especially if it is being read.
    Mr. Spellar: But it was valuable none the less, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and very well expressed. As my hon. Friend rightly suggests, £1 billion will be sustained year on year and that will be enormously welcomed by the travelling public.
    Mr. Chope: In the time that remains, will the Minister tell us how the Government propose to fund the £1 billion funding gap that has been identified?
    Mr. Spellar: The enthusiasm of Opposition Members for Ken Livingstone and their gullibility for everything he says are truly extraordinary. We do not agree with his figures that claim a funding gap. Every passenger transport executive and passenger transport authority in the country has schemes that they rightly want for their people. However, we do not regard it as appropriate to put up a wish-list and then claim that there is a funding gap. We shall have that argument with TfL, but I am surprised that Conservative Members have become such ready allies of Mr. Ken Livingstone on this issue.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to reply at the end of the debate, so I shall rattle through this part of my speech.
    1030
    This is by far the largest-ever commitment to public investment in the London underground. The plans will unlock £16 billion in all over the first 15 years, including £4 billion from the private sector. Vast sums from both Government and business will give London the modern metro that it deserves.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North identified the most important question that passengers will ask. Are the plans safe? Throughout the development of the plans, London Underground has put safety first. It has worked with private sector contractors for many years and it has an excellent safety record. It will retain unified management control of operations and its overall responsibility for safety across the entire network. The plans will allow it to take swift action, if necessary, to ensure the safe operation of the system.
    However, the assessment of whether the underground is capable of being operated safely is, quite rightly, a matter for independent experts, not politicians. The Health and Safety Executive's assessment of London Underground's safety case for the operation of these plans is continuing. Let me once again state clearly and categorically: if the HSE does not accept London Underground's safety case, the plans will not proceed.
    We want to modernise the London underground system and we have to work with private sector engineering firms to do so. That has always been true. There is no wholly public sector alternative. The real question, then, is how we engage the private sector.
    Even TfL does not oppose, in principle, a public-private partnership for the tube. Its consultation response makes this clear However, the Mayor says that he has a problem with his role under the PPP. In our view, under these plans, his role will be to ensure that London Underground and its contractors deliver the quality of service that passengers expect. That is exactly what he should be concentrating on. The Mayor's alternative plan suggests that he wants to return to the days when London Underground had to plan the details of what its private sector contractors did, when they did it and how they did it. That is the approach that failed passengers year on year. It led to the failures on the Jubilee line extension, the Central line upgrade, which has only now come right, and on dozens more infrastructure projects over the years. TfL says that it could do better, but we have to take that on trust. We must consider its track record.
    Abandoning the modernisation plans now would mean years of delay and decay while the Mayor decides what to do and how he would like to fund it. His decision to take further legal action to try to stop the plans is extremely disappointing, because the public are getting fed up with the long delays. They want us all to get on with the work, and I hope that that message is heard beyond this Chamber. Our intention remains that the modernisation plans should come into effect as soon as possible. That is what is best for London and best for the travelling public in London.
    4.57 pm
    Mrs. Dunwoody: With the leave of the House, may I say that this has been an important debate, not least because London deserves a really good underground system. The Select Committee raised several vital questions that have, sadly, remained largely unanswered. I believe that the House of Commons will need to return

    1031
    to this subject, but I am distressed that we have not at least considered alternatives to a scheme that the Committee found to be flawed and possibly unworkable. The House of Commons will, in due course. want to demand more answers and more action from Her Majesty's Government.
    Debate concluded, pursuant to Resolution [11 June].
    Questions deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates) and Order [20 November 2000].

Individual Learning Accounts
[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001—02, on Individual Learning Accounts, HC 561-I, and the Government response thereto, HC 987; and Department for Education and Skills and Office for Standards in Education: Annual Report, 2002, Cm 5402.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That further resources, not exceeding £12,839,695,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a further sum, not exceeding £13,409,689,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2003 for expenditure by the Department for Education and Skills.—[Angela Smith.]
4.58 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the debate on the third report of the Select Committee on Education and Skills entitled "Individual Learning Accounts". This is an important day, because it is the day on which the House approves the moneys to deliver education programmes and policies. We also have the opportunity to debate individual learning accounts, which were an innovative and exciting new project to deliver lifelong learning and training opportunities for those who had never had them and to change the culture of training and education in this country. Ironically, however, because the programme bent too far towards a lighter touch and towards not taking too bureaucratic an approach, it ran into severe difficulties. Only last October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced that the programme would be halted for the time being.
The Select Committee report was published on 1 May and it was an attempt to do what Select Committees can do best. It tried to analyse what went wrong, point out and underline the strengths of the programme and—in a creative dialogue with the Department for Education and Skills—give pointers to how it could reintroduce a new programme that would not run into the difficulties that the first one faced.
I believe that there is a renaissance of the Select Committee system and I am delighted to be part of it. I was pleased to hear part of the debate on London Underground and to participate in this important debate on individual learning accounts. However, it is a great pity that both debates have been severely truncated by the long statement arranged by Government business managers. Those of us who are interested in education do not have many opportunities to debate it, and it is deplorable that the debate in Westminster Hall on the Science and Technology Committee report on the research assessment exercise is being held on the same day.
Many hon. Members want to speak so I shall rattle through my remarks. The members of the Select Committee worked hard on the report. We knew that we would have to produce a report as soon as the Secretary of State made her comments in October. The Department for Education and Skills wants teachers to have a baseline assessment and performance review. When we formed the new Committee, we decided that what was good enough for teachers was good enough for Ministers. We introduced the same system and interviewed all six Ministers so that we could make a proper evaluation of how they intend to deliver their policies and so on.

1033
Ironically, we started with the Secretary of State, who was a few minutes late because she had been conferring with senior people in the Treasury about pulling the plug on the ILA programme. It is also ironic that by the time we completed our fast-track investigation into ILAs, on which the debate is based, two of the Ministers on whom we originally did baseline assessments and performance reviews had moved on after 11 and a half months in the Department. Indeed, the Minister who gave most of the evidence has moved back to the Treasury, in a sense from whence he came, and a new Minister has the job of responding.
I want to draw the House's attention to the amount of work that members of a Select Committee put in to ensuring that we have a thorough investigation. We take, listen to and sift through evidence, both oral and written, before producing a report. It is the role of a Select Committee not just to lambast but to scrutinise the Government. We should come up with new ideas and innovations, perhaps by thinking outside the box, that the Department might find useful.
I believe that our report is even-handed. It says that the programme went severely wrong, but it also commends it for being good and innovative. The programme allowed some interesting work to take place. It opened the door to skills and learning to people who had not had that opportunity for most of their lives and who had not accessed learning for a long time. We tried to strike a proper balance, which is what a Select Committee should do.
I want to emphasise two things. The Government did a thorough job in their recent comments on our report. They largely took it on board in a positive spirit. As Chairman of the Committee I appreciate that. However, I was also greatly disappointed, as I told the permanent secretary when he came before the Committee for his annual visit and interrogation only yesterday morning. There is such a thing in the House as a bush telegraph. We heard that an announcement on individual learning accounts mark 2 would be made very soon, before the summer recess. Unfortunately, we have now heard that that will not happen because of the ministerial changes, and that was confirmed by the permanent secretary. People who are waiting to have a crack at gaining new skills through the ILA will not get that opportunity for several months. It is almost a year since the Secretary of State came before the Committee and announced that the programme would be pulled in favour of individual learning accounts mark 2. It seemed to us as we took evidence that the approach by civil servants and Ministers was too leisurely. They said that it would take a long time to get ILAs right. I said that in a commercial organisation the lights would burn all night for many nights until a new programme was introduced.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The Chairman of the Select Committee refers to commercial organisations. Does he agree that it is not only the potential learners who suffer from the delay in introducing a new scheme, but also the many—and in particular, the small—learning providers?
Mr. Sheerman: I was about to come to that, and the hon. Gentleman is right.
In terms of being even-handed—and the report was unanimous—we went to the heart of the lessons that must be learned. The closing speeches in the last debate seem
1034
appropriate to our discussion, which also involves the relationship between a Department and a private sector partner. There are many forms of such partnerships and it is important to have the right one. The more we explored the relationship between the Department for Education and Skills and Capita in relation to individual learning accounts, the more we thought that that relationship was not right, and that there was something wrong with the contract. It seemed to us that here was a relationship with a major, well-known FTSE 100 company, with great experience in delivering services of this type. We looked beyond whatever went wrong with the wording of the contract. Sometimes we became rather irritated about commercial confidentiality; I am not sure that commercial confidentiality in these contracts was as important as was claimed. We said in our report that there should be a bit more transparency on what the deal was. Why should not the public know? It is their money. Why should we not have more knowledge?
Mr. David Chaytor: I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, because it strikes me that whereas in the past few weeks we have been able to read in the financial pages of the major newspapers full details of the accounts of Enron, and more recently WorldCom, in minute detail, we cannot find out how much the Department has paid, out of public funding, to Capita, or what penalties have been incurred as a result of the failure to deliver the skills training.
Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which needs no reply from me.
I was saying that, yes, we do criticise the Department for probably getting the relationship with Capita wrong. I thought that it was refreshing that the Department came back and said that we had been right—that in renegotiation of that contract it would hope to get, if Capita—
Jonathan Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the relationship was not right may have been the pressure on time, as reported in the special internal audit review? That review says that the time pressures contributed to the problems experienced by the programme and that the Department was under severe pressure to deliver, leading to problems in setting up the contract with Capita?
Mr. Sheerman: There is a strong element of truth in that too; I believe that there were time pressures. However, we should also take into account the fact that the commitment to set up individual learning accounts was made in the Labour party's May 1997 election manifesto. The ILA experience developed over a very long time, and it is the responsibility in one sense of the Government and the Department that, when they decided that they had to get the programme up and running, they were under great pressure of time.
To finish my criticism of Capita, it seemed to me that the contract was not right for that major company. It seemed to the Committee that if one has a private sector partner, it should take a fair share of the risk, and it should be very clear that the private sector partner is taking a fair share of that risk; that should have been in the agreement.
Capita has great experience and knowledge across the piece and has entered into many contracts with the public sector—including, I admit, with the House of Commons

1035
and the Select Committees, because it handled some of our recruitment—and with various Government Departments, including the Department for Education and Skills. The company claims grandly that its delivery goes beyond the terms of the written agreement and beyond the written word. We were therefore surprised that Capita was not able to flag up at an early stage the problems that might occur in this type of programme, devised and constructed as it was, or to give early warning when things started to go wrong.
Some people were blowing whistles. Some were pointing out that the programme would be prone to abuse; they tended to be the little people—the small companies that were the training providers. They gave a lot of evidence to our Committee to the effect that they were worried about the laxness of the structure, and very soon after about the way in which it was operating. We have tried to ensure that our criticism of Capita is fair, and I believe that we all agreed that there were severe shortcomings on Capita's part. We also criticised the Government for not getting the contract right in the first place, but we wanted to go beyond that and say that there were lessons here for all Government Departments. We do hope that this knowledge will not remain in the Department for Education and Skills silo. Everyone should read about problems that can arise in relationships with the private sector.
My colleagues on both sides of the House know that I am not the sort of person who is averse to private sector partnerships. In fact, I believe that they are a very creative way to deliver policy and I have no qualms about that; but they must be right. They must be businesslike, and the people in the various Departments must know what they are doing when they are signing up. I believe that a reading of our recommendations will do all Departments good if they are about to embark on a relationship and a contract with a private sector partner, however complex. This contract was not rocket science; it was quite simple, and if it could go so wrong, it is no wonder that it is so difficult to get right very sophisticated contracts such as that discussed in the Chamber earlier. That is what our colleagues on the Transport Committee have argued as well. Let us use the experience creatively and learn the lessons.
We have criticised the Department, but we support the general principle of the light touch. There should not be so much bureaucracy that it prevents people having access to the programme and kills excitement and innovation. We said strongly that the criticism of events surrounding individual learning accounts should not force any Government Department, especially the Department for Education and Skills, to cease being innovative and flexible and exercising a lighter touch. Departments can still do that and take the precautions suggested by the Committee.
Our message to the Department is strong and clear: do not be deterred from being innovative and trying to avoid a vast bureaucracy every time a programme is introduced, but bear in mind the fact that there are people out there eager to learn and to get the skills for this century, who want to be more productive in their employment. They are waiting for the programme to come back, and it has
1036
been a long time a-coming. There are also, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) suggested, many small providers who have been hurt by the experience.
Without being too negative, I end on a note of warning. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), who is now the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, with us. We got good value from him as a Minister in the Department for Education and Skills, in terms of his willingness to come back to the Committee time and again and to supply a great deal of information. We were very grateful for that.
I understand that the National Audit Office has almost completed its investigation. The ombudsman is also looking into the matter. We never argued that everybody who had been hurt by the cancellation of ILAs should receive compensation, but if the Government are to be true to their word, they should be honourable. They said that they would pull the plug on the programme on 7 December, but they pulled it three weeks early, on 23 November, and people were hurt by that process. We said clearly in our report that if the Government are honourable, the people hurt by that three-week change of mind, whatever the reason, should be compensated if they can prove—yes, if they can prove—that they were harmed financially by the change of date.
The Government replied that they could not give compensation across the piece. Of course they cannot. We do not expect the Government to give compensation for training that was geared up for but never delivered, but they can give compensation for a three-week period to providers who were geared up and able to supply the training, which was no longer paid for.
I shall not prolong my remarks, as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that people will read the report as an exemplar of a good Select Committee report and as reflecting the right relationship between a Department and a Select Committee. We achieved a balance between scrutinising a good programme that went wrong, and making sure that we drew the general lessons from the mistakes that occurred. That is what the House is about.
If there is to be a renaissance of interest in our debating Chamber and in what Parliament does, and if the Select Committees play their cards right and we do the job well, we can be at the heart of the regeneration of the life of Parliament. I know that all my fellow members of the Committee worked extremely hard on the report on a cross-party basis and are proud of it—and they have every right to be so. I am very proud to be their Chairman and I commend the report to the House.
5.20 pm
Paul Holmes: As a member of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, I am pleased that the importance of the report has been recognised by our debating it on the Floor of the House. The permanent secretary at the DFES said only yesterday that the report was very accurate and very good. The Government's recently published response accepts a good many, although by no means all, of its findings and recommendations.
The report is an important illustration of the key role that Select Committees can play in scrutinising the Executive, even though they do not as yet have enough independence or resources to do the job properly. It is

1037
also worth noting that the former Minister for adult skills, now the Economic Secretary, arid his departmental officials were, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, in the main refreshingly open and forthright in giving evidence to the Committee about what had gone wrong with the planning and delivery of the ILA scheme. It has to be said that that approach could be commended to other Departments, some of which are less willing to admit to their mistakes.
In principle, ILAs are an excellent scheme with wide support throughout the House and the country. Many reputable and capable training providers use them to deliver high-quality training to a very large number of learners. It is therefore all the more regrettable that the report had to be a damning account of what went wrong with their design and delivery at even the most basic levels.
First, the DFES devised a scheme that had absolutely no safeguards for the legitimacy or quality of those who were registered as training providers. It provided a cowboys' charter for the unscrupulous to rip off the taxpayer and the learner alike. All that people had to do was fill in one side of A4 with their name and address and details of the bank account to which taxpayers' money could be sent. That was it; there were no quality controls whatever and no prior registration or inspection system to ensure that a company was legitimate, or that it could deliver quality training with qualified trainers or provide quality distance learning materials. The scheme was a licence for the unscrupulous to print money.
DFES officials told us that they were trying to be innovative and to avoid bureaucracy to attract non-traditional learners and new learning providers. They certainly did that; by throwing the baby out with the bathwater, they created a scheme that soared past its 1 million user target in record time, but also exceeded its £201 million budget by 50 per cent. We will probably never know how much of that £300 million was lost to fraud and scams. The question also remains whether the main reason for the scheme's sudden closure was massive budget overrun, massive fraudulent abuse or a combination of both.
Secondly, Capita—a company that was supposedly expert in such work—failed to warn the DFES of the glaring scope for abuse in the scheme. It went on to run a scheme that was widely criticised by legitimate and experienced training providers because of its poor complaints system, a call centre that often could not cope with the volume of work and computer software systems with inadequate security built in. Capita, which was paid more than £50 million for the contract, boasts in its annual reports of its experience in handling Government and local government projects, including housing benefit schemes with complex systems designed to try to prevent fraudulent claims.
Not once, however, did Capita warn the Government that, although it could implement the scheme as the Government had devised it, there was no quality control on purported training providers, which left it wide open to abuse. Worse still, Capita went on to devise software that assumed that training providers were all genuine and which had inadequate safeguards. Mr. Simon Pilling of Capita told the Committee that
"an authorised learning provider with their authorised user ID and password could go on the system and draw out information from the system."
1038
Mr. Paddy Doyle of Capita admitted to the Committee that it was "a very open scheme".
How far the fraudulent abuse went is unclear. York Consulting was given 1,500 account holders' numbers by Capita, which said that they belonged to people who had used their accounts. When York Consulting contacted those people, however, 27 per cent. of them said that they had not used them. That shows one of two things—staggering incompetence on the part of Capita, whose records were so inaccurate, or a level of fraud that if repeated across all users would amount to up to £65 million or more lost to the fraudulent plundering of accounts.
The Committee's evidence was damning on all those issues, but the Department's own internal investigations, which were published yesterday in response to the Committee's report, make equally damning reading. The special internal audit review said:
"The target to achieve one million ILAs by March 2002, meant that the ILA Team were under severe time pressure to establish a…contract with Capita…The time pressures contributed to the problems experienced by the programme—and were further exacerbated by the fact that some other key areas of ILA development and operation did not demonstrate consistently good practice. These included:…No business model was developed to help identify strengths and weaknesses in the policy options available as the programme was developed…No decision log was set up to record and track decisions made…Although a great deal of management information appears to have been collected by Capita, it was not provided to the Department in a sufficiently helpful format to indicate possible abuse of the system…or to provide the information for Ministers to decide upon action needed…Departmental guidance to learning providers did not clearly specify the requirements and expectations of the programme."
Cap Gemini Ernst & Young was asked to carry out a security report on the Department's and Capita's operation of the scheme. It says:
"The contract made no clear mandates or stipulations regarding the assessment of the security requirement or the ongoing security management."
It continues:
"No requirement was specified with regard to the determination of the security requirement, nor were existing Government guidelines regarding Security Risk Analysis followed."
It goes on:
"No structured mechanisms and procedures were established to identify promptly trends and patterns of access and usage of the system that might have indicated misuse."
It observes:
"No procedures were established to ensure that the requirements of the Security Policy were being adhered to."
It further comments:
"No procedures or plans were established for ongoing testing of the system".
It concludes:
"No procedures were established for the archiving of relevant log files for retrospective analysis."
So the reports go on—damning list after damning list of things that were not done by the Department or by Capita.
Thirdly, the Government mishandled the closure of the scheme. When the level of fraud and abuse eventually became evident, the scheme's sudden closure led to financial loss by legitimate training companies.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the closure of the scheme, which was clearly

1039
a problem, he may be surprised to hear that in response to the Committee's recommendation—No. 30—that there should not be an automatic assumption that Capita should be the provider to take forward any new ILA scheme, the Government said:
"We are continuing to work closely with Capita"—
to wind down the scheme. I understand that, of course, but they go on to say:
"A successor scheme will be a major test for Capita".
That suggests that it has already been decided that those who failed last time will get a second chance, which the small private providers that have gone bankrupt will not get.
Paul Holmes: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the effect on small providers and about the fact that the Government are ignoring the Committee's recommendation that Capita should not go on to run the second scheme. I shall return to that later.
As a result of the sudden closure of the scheme, legitimate training providers lost jobs and money, and some went bankrupt. Some companies are pursuing claims for compensation by various means and have complained to the ombudsman. A particularly legitimate claim for payment can be made by companies and further education colleges that continued to complete and deliver courses that learners had begun before the sudden closure of the scheme last November despite the fact that the DFES would not honour the ILA payments for those legitimate bodies to provide that training. On 30 November, seven days after the plug was pulled on the scheme, the Association of Colleges surveyed its members. Of the 105 colleges that replied, 84 expected to lose more than £1.25 million between them, because they were continuing to provide training to honour commitments that they had made to students, but the DFES would not provide the money for that training. Surely we can rely on further education colleges to provide the documentation to show that they have legitimate students, who receive legitimate training, and that the Government should therefore pay.
The Government wrote to all training providers—more than 9,000—and learners, to tell them that they had until 7 December until the scheme closed. They warned learners not to panic, and emphasised the date. However, they closed the scheme, with no notice, late in the afternoon of 23 November. Critical Skills, an excellent training company in my constituency, consequently lost out. It completes its accounts at the end of each month and therefore intended to send the paperwork to the Government at the end of November. That would have left it a clear week until the announced Government deadline. It could supply documentation, which I have seen and has been sent to the Government, to show that it provided legitimate training to more than 190 trainees. Yet the Government will not pay for it.
Many small training firms throughout Britain are in the same position. However, I understand that the Derbyshire learning and skills council stepped in to support the legitimate training that not only Critical Skills but other companies in Derbyshire provided but for which the Department for Education and Skills would not honour its commitment to pay. If Derbyshire learning and skills council can do that, why cannot the Government?
1040
What happens next? There are many unanswered questions and I hope that the Minister can enlighten us about some when he replies to the debate. I shall begin with some well-worn questions. How many charges for fraud have the police made? How many convictions have been secured to date? Has anyone been charged over the famous disk of fraudulently obtained ILA numbers that led to the scheme's sudden closure on 23 November? Has any file been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service about the infamous disk?
When will the replacement scheme be introduced? Small training providers throughout the country await the start of a new scheme, but many are going under or bankrupt while they wait. How will the new scheme work? Will it be confined purely to information and communications training? Will it aim only at those below level 2?
Who will run the new scheme? That brings us back to the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). The Select Committee recommended that it should not be Capita; its record in administering the ILA scheme was appalling and thoroughly documented by the Department's inquiry and the Select Committee report. However, do the Government remain bound by their previous ILA contract to work with Capita, despite its shortcomings? I look forward to the Minister's answers.
5.32 pm
Jeff Ennis: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in an important debate on the report of the Select Committee on Education and Skills on individual learning accounts. I associate myself with the remarks of the Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes).
I am one of the 11 Select Committee members, who all fully support the objectives that ILAs set out to achieve when they were introduced. They were designed to open up the learning market and to place as few restrictions as possible on what people chose to learn.
The objectives included attracting new learners and providers and the programme was therefore designed to be simple and flexible for both categories, with the minimum of form filling. The ILAs fulfilled the objectives by attracting more than 2.5 million people to become account holders, and almost 9,000 training providers signed up to train through the scheme.
The concept of ILAs is especially important in constituencies such as mine, which has some of the greatest deprivation in the country. We have the lowest GDP per capita—62 per cent. of the European average—of any United Kingdom constituency. No wonder south Yorkshire is one of the three objective I areas in the country. We have low staying-on rates at schools, and low academic achievement. Both are a direct consequence of the heavy mining and engineering industries in constituencies such as Barnsley, East and Mexborough. We also have many adults with numeracy and literacy problems. The provision of some type of ILA scheme as part of an effective lifelong learning strategy is integral to the successful regeneration of former coal mining areas such as South Yorkshire, so it is vital that we get a successor scheme off the ground as soon as it is practicably possible to do so.

1041
The report highlights in great detail serious failings by the Department for Education and Skills in preparing and running the old ILA scheme. It also severely criticises Capita, the Department's private sector contractor, for various shortcomings in its delivery of the scheme. Time is short, so I do not intend to go into great detail about how all this happened: it is all in the report. Instead of focusing on the flaws and weaknesses of the old ILA scheme, it is more important for us to focus on what needs to he incorporated into the successor scheme, and it goes without saying that that scheme needs to be introduced as soon as it is practical to do so.
One of the key lessons to be learned is that quality assurance must be a prerequisite for the successor ILA. After taking many statements in evidence from witnesses, the Select Committee recommended that the Learning and Skills Council should take the lead on accreditation, implementing a fast-track registration process for providers with a proven track record of delivering quality training.
With hindsight, it seems a pity that the Learning and Skills Council's involvement in accreditation was not incorporated into the original ILA scheme, because there is no doubt that, as far as the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education is concerned, there was little or no evidence of abuse of ILAs when they were first piloted by the old training and enterprise councils. I accept, however, that the 47 local learning and skills councils are still bedding in—having followed on from the TECs—and the Department will still need to be vigilant to ensure that each of them performs effectively.
One difficult issue in the report that will require significant attention has already been flagged up: the so-called dead weight factor. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, the Chairman of the Select Committee, hates that expression, so I apologise to him immediately for using it. We are talking about the number of people who would have done their training irrespective of qualifying for an ILA. A figure of some 44 per cent. is widely quoted in the report.
I am not certain how accurate that figure is, however. Given that 57 per cent. of the working-age population in England are educated only to level 2, and that 24 per cent. of adults experience difficulty with either literacy or numeracy skills, that figure appears exceptionally high. This is the client group that the new ILA should specifically target, particularly as it is people such as these who are the least likely to be offered training in the work place, and the least likely to pursue learning opportunities at home or in their local community.
Given this background, I believe that the recommendation in paragraph 73 in the report is crucial, and should form the basis for the successor scheme. Because I consider it very important, I should like to read it out for the benefit of the House. It states:
"We recommend that any successor scheme to the ILA should be focused on adults whose highest level of qualification is at level 2 or below and that particular efforts should be made to promote the scheme through employers, trade unions, community groups, approved training providers, schools and colleges."
I am delighted that the Government's response to that recommendation has been to include it in the remedial measures section of their response document, which states:
"We recommend that the successes of trusted intermediaries, such as trade union learning representatives, should be taken fully into account in designing an ILA successor scheme".
1042
Indeed, the Government's response highlights the fact that ILA community group projects attracted people who had never heard of ILAs. Two thirds of the people who came to ILAs through the ILA community group route had never heard of them before. They also encouraged more participation by ethnic minority groups—14 per cent., as opposed to 5 per cent. nationally.
ILA community group projects also attracted a larger percentage of people with no qualifications—22 per cent., compared with 16 per cent. Nationally—and 73 per cent. of people said they would not have been able to fund their learning without ILAs. Only 50 per cent. said the same about other types of provision.
Evaluation of accounts opened through the union learning fund showed that 79 per cent. related to the groups least likely to participate in learning. A project in Leicester and Lincolnshire, using small firms to promote ILA take-up, was also very successful. Such initiatives are crucial. They must become more widespread if we are to target the successor ILA more successfully to appropriate client groups and non-traditional learners.
As the hon. Member for Chesterfield pointed out, the Government are still at variance with the Select Committee on the important and difficult issue of compensation for learning providers. Paragraph 127 of the Committee's report recommends
"that the Department should at least re-imburse those bona fide learning providers who can demonstrate that they have been financially disadvantaged by the accelerated date of closure".
The Department brought forward the date by two or three weeks—I know this—after taking police advice.
The Select Committee fully appreciates the reasons why the decision was taken—the police advice aspect—and knows that, in the legal sense, the Government do not have to compensate the learning providers who have been affected. I believe, however—and I think the Committee believes—that in a moral context they should reconsider the decision.
It should be recognised that the ILA scheme was successful not just in attracting new learners, but in attracting new learning providers. Many provided courses that were out of the ordinary, some of which were both innovative and imaginative. We need to ensure that the new innovative training providers are encouraged to participate in the new ILA scheme. Some have had their fingers badly burned, while some have gone out of business.
I believe that all training providers would see it as an act of good faith if the Government changed their mind. The Select Committee is talking about compensation only for bona fide providers who can prove genuine financial hardship.
The Government have made clear their firm intention to introduce a new ILA programme, possibly in the autumn. Many Select Committee members may think that that is not soon enough, as the Chairman suggested. But we must all learn the lessons of the collapse of the original scheme. It takes time to get things right, but we must get them right this time. We must build on the many strengths of the original scheme for the benefit of all potential learners in our communities. We must again make the ILA a Government flagship that is an integral part of an effective lifelong learning strategy for the country.
5.43 pm
Mr. Richard Bacon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis). I agreed with just about everything he said.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and his colleagues on a sensationally good report, produced at amazing speed. I am not a member of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, although as a member of the Public Accounts Committee I sat in on some of its hearings, which I considered to be a model for the way in which other Select Committees should do their work.
The report contains much that is worth mentioning, but I do not want to take up too much of the House's time. Let me just quote a couple of quick headlines. According to page 14,
"It should have been possible to design a scheme to encourage new providers that was not wide open to fraud or abuse by unscrupulous people posing as learning providers, but the lack of quality assurance made it almost inevitable that it would be abused."
The most extraordinary thing perhaps is that there were timely warnings. Perhaps most famously, Mr. James O'Brien of Pitman Training Group gave a warning on 20 September 2000. In criticising the lack of detail in a letter to the Secretary of State, he said:
"As a responsible training provider we were worried that this lack of detail left the scheme open to abuse, which would not be helpful to either the initiative itself, or the majority of the training sector."
The report makes it clear that it was not clear who was responsible. Paragraph 154 says:
"It is not clear who was responsible for delivering the specific outcomes of the ILA project. There does appear to have been some confusion of responsibilities."
Paragraph 169 states that the objectives were not clear:
"We are not convinced that the Government had adequately clarified the precise educational and social objectives of the ILA scheme…With a target fixed in terms of the number of accounts…it was clear that the delivery mechanism had become confused with the educational objective."
I refer briefly to the role of Capita, as other hon. Members have done. The report says on page 16:
"Surprisingly, the potential expertise of Capita in designing systems to be fraud-resistant was neither called upon, nor offered."
Later, paragraph 97 states:
"We find it hard to credit that Capita, a major player in winning contracts for work contracted out to the private sector, should not have pointed out that, without a quality threshold for providers, the ILA was a disaster waiting to happen."
Capita is a major player in a variety of aspects to do with public administration. It provides advice and services to over 120 local authorities. It collects £1 billion in council tax and business rates. It administrates the teacher superannuation scheme, which has 1.2 million teachers and 400,000 teacher pensioners. It seems that there may be a role for the National Audit Office, in addition to the report to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred, in doing a study specifically on Capita and its relationship with the public sector, both at local and central Government levels.
As a member of the PAC, I am particularly concerned about the management, or rather the lack of management, of financial resources. I say in passing that the former Minister with responsibility for adult skills, who is now Economic Secretary to the Treasury, has been helpful to
1044
me personally and I am sure to other hon. Members in keeping me informed of progress, although there has not been as much as one would have liked. One of the most shocking things that I heard was in the evidence presented on 28 November last year, which is not in the report, but which I have a transcript of from the internet. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) was probing the then Minister and not getting very far. The Chairman intervened and said:
"Minister, what you are being asked by"
the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford is
"surely there must have been an estimate of how much this would cost year on year, an estimate. He is just asking what sort of level of overshoot is there—What are the ballpark figures you are knocking around the Department on this?"
The then Minister replied:
"At the moment because of the uncertain number of individual learning account discount payments we are going to have to pay we simply cannot give you a sense, even a ballpark I regret to say, of what the possible overspends are going to be."
So there was no control of cash whatever. There was no control of information technology.
The Audit Commission report of February 1998 entitled, "Ghost in the Machine" says on the front page:
"The overall position shows little improvement…Frauds or cases of IT abuse often occur because of the absence of basic controls, with one-half of all detected frauds found by accident. Senior management still appears to lack a commitment to improving IT security and cracking down on abuse."
Why did no one in the Department for Education and Skills take notice of that?
In relation to basic project management and financial control, again, a very good report was published by the Cabinet Office in August 1994. On page 60, at paragraph 4.42, it says;
"A project plan is agreed to identify who does what and ensure different contributions are brought together effectively. It will set strict timetables, identify interim deliverables…establish clear performance measures…There will also be tight financial control throughout, with expenditure closely monitored."
That was eight years ago. Those are not new ideas; they are obvious, common-sense ideas, which many people who work hard to pay the tax that the Government sometimes waste would be able to come up with without too much difficulty. It is not surprising, therefore, that page 11 of the report reached the following conclusion:
"We regard the failure of the Department for Education and Skills to learn from mistakes made in the past by its predecessors and other Government Departments to be one of the most disturbing aspects of the ILA experience."
I conclude by referring to the hugely important role of the accounting officer. If permanent secretaries of Departments, who are accounting officers, are not happy with the steps that Ministers propose to take, specific provision is made within British Government to enable them to flag up that fact. A document published by the Treasury in 2001, entitled "The Responsibilities of an Accounting Officer", establishes that, if a course of action is being followed that a permanent secretary is unhappy with, he can require the Minister to issue a ministerial direction, if the Minister chooses to override the advice given. Paragraph 15 of the document states:
"If the Minister in charge of the department is contemplating a course of action involving a transaction which as Accounting Officer you consider would infringe the requirements of propriety or regularity…you should set out in writing your objection to the

1045
proposal, the reasons for your objection and your duty to notify the Comptroller and Auditor General…If the Minister decides nonetheless to proceed, you should seek a written instruction to take the action in question. Having received such an instruction, you must comply…but should then inform the Treasury"
and the National Audit Office. If that has been done,
"the PAC can be expected to recognise that the Accounting Officer bears no personal responsibility for the transaction."
For a project with at best confused policy objectives, and which was not properly planned or implemented, one might have thought that a very good case existed for seeking direction. I tabled a parliamentary question, asking what directions had been given since 1997. The answer was that 14 were given: one by the Department of Trade and Industry, one by the Northern Ireland Court Service, one by the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, three by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, three by the Ministry of Defence, and—to no one's surprise—five by the former Department of Social Security. However, from the Department for Education and Skills there was a deafening silence. The scheme ended up sticking a fire hose out of a window and spraying taxpayers' money over anyone who happened to walk by.
All hon. Members will agree that the saddest thing is that this was such a good and noble idea. During the 1988 Democratic national convention, Jesse Jackson said:
"I was born in the slum, but the slum was not born in me. And it wasn't born in you, and you can make it."
That should have been the message of this programme, but what kind of message is sent by its absence for nearly a year? The message is, "I was born in the slum, but I'll remain in the slum and I cannot make it because the people who should know better—the people who are paid to know better—cannot put in place basic project management, basic information technology security and basic financial controls." That is the sad saga.
I hope that the Minister will talk about when the new scheme will be introduced to help the people who need it most. I agree that it should be directed towards low achievers, in accordance with paragraph 73. We need some specifics. The Minister needs to tell us not only when the new scheme will be introduced, but how much money has been spent in total, and how much of that was fraud. He also needs to tell us about compensation for providers. People who trusted the Government and took them at their word have gone bankrupt, and have had to sell their houses. It is not enough for Ministers simply to say, "I'm sorry, but it's not our responsibility." There is evidence on the record from departmental civil servants that the attempt was made to create a market and expand the number of providers. That places a moral responsibility on the Department to help providers who got into trouble.
The Minister should also say sorry, and if he does all of the things that I asked him to do, he will earn the respect of the House. [Interruption.] He looks as if he is about to intervene. He leaned forward with great eagerness, and I shall listen to his reply with equal eagerness.
5.54 pm
Valerie Davey: As a member of the Education and Skills Committee, I am pleased to contribute to the debate and I hope that it will mark some
1046
progress. Let us remember that much was achieved by the ILA scheme. Thousands of people benefited from it and they look to continue to benefit in the future. The Committee's report and the response from the Department will, I trust, take us a step forward. I hope that the debate is also a step towards the launch of the new scheme and that the Minister will be able to tell us when that might be.
I shall comment briefly on the Government's response to our report. That response can be summarised in two words—contrition and commitment. It was clearly recognised early on that we need to strengthen the quality checks on the learning providers and to tighten security. The Committee recognised that the balancing of wider access for learners with less bureaucracy and a wide range of new training providers was always going to involve an element of risk.
It was in part the failure to evaluate the risk that was the fault and that has led us to the current problem. The Government's response states:
"We are…reviewing our risk assessment strategy to ensure that the risks of fraud are fully considered across all of the Department's activities."
That is reassuring in one way, but those words follow a long list of groups that have sought to evaluate risk and try to prevent fraud, in the Department for Education and Skills and in other Departments. Those groups include the fraud response liaison group, which is chaired by officials from the Department for Education and Skills and involves officials from many other Departments. It was set up in 1997 and has met quarterly. The Treasury-led special investigation group was set up last year. The better governance and counter fraud group is chaired by a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and it disseminates best practice on risk management, especially relating to fraud. All those groups are operating, and now we expect a departmental internal audit unit that will work closely with the development for the successor scheme, to ensure that the lessons learned from the ILA programme are addressed.
Given all those different groups, my concern is to ensure joined-up thinking not only for the Department for Education and Skills, but more widely across Government. We must ensure the learning of lessons between Departments. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) who clearly recognises the importance of that work. I trust that the Opposition have some constructive suggestions and will not only describe the faults of the past. It is their job as well as ours to ensure that lessons are learned and the outcome is positive.
The element of contrition in the response makes it clear that registration for learning providers will be strengthened. The complaints procedure will be more effective and random checks will be made on providers. Those who abuse the scheme will lose their registration. Quality assurance will be more rigorous and financial controls will be stronger. That is great and it is all necessary. However, like other hon. Members, I am disappointed that the Department still seems to have sufficient confidence in the work of Capita to continue to work with it.
From the Government's response to the Education and Skills Committee, it is clear that Capita's ILA centre allowed access by registered learning providers to information that they were not authorised to receive.

1047
We need stronger security measures. The faults in the complaints system were clear. However, despite its faults, the Government and Capita took action in response to complaints, and the response lists the events that took place.
Thirdly, on risk management, the report states that the Department should have had a clearer agreement with Capita about the risks, their significance and how they should have been managed. The faults with the Capita programme were recognised, but the Government say that they are continuing to work with Capita in winding down the ILA programme. That is understandable, as has been remarked, but in their response the Government say that they and Capita gained a great deal of experience from running ILAs. We must ensure that that good experience is used in the future.
Finally, the Government state:
"We have agreed, in principle, to work with Capita in developing arrangements for a successor scheme…subject to satisfactory progress."
The ILA scheme was about innovation, and it was designed to draw new people into further education. It was about quality for the future. The report expresses clear doubts, which I share, about whether the Government should automatically continue their work with Capita, given past experience. However, the Government appear to disagree with that assessment. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), will reassure the House that there has been greater scrutiny of Capita's work, and that alternative companies have been considered.
However, there are positive elements in the Select Committee report, which the Government have accepted and which will lead to an enhanced scheme in the future. One of those elements—the use of trusted intermediaries and the monitoring of group provision—was mentioned earlier, but I wish to revisit it.
For me, one of the most poignant moments in the exercise occurred when we met some members of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers who worked for a large company in the north of England. On a visit to Parliament to lobby hon. Members' they told us about what ILAs meant to them. The USDAW education officer said that the company employed between 800 and 900 people but that, before the ILA scheme was introduced, she had struggled to get as many as two or three into adult education classes at a local college.
The trade union officer said that the employer granted the use of company space for ILA participants. The scheme caused it to work together with the local education authority, a local college, and 300 employees entering further education for the first time. She told us about a man in his 40s with a severe sight impairment who had never expected to do anything other than cleaning in that company. The ILA scheme meant measures were taken to help him with his defective sight, with the result that he was able to take a computer course. The man had already applied for a more senior post in the company.
That is what ILAs do, and the effect has been replicated in work place centres up and down the country. The example that I have given shows what intermediaries such
1048
as the trade unions and others can achieve. I am delighted that the Government are looking to that good practice for the future.
I am delighted too that the Government have recognised that ILAs need to be taken forward with support from the learning and skills councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Mexborough—
Jeff Ennis: My constituency is Barnsley, East and Mexborough.
Valerie Davey: I apologise to my hon. Friend. However, I am afraid that I have now lost the thread of my argument.
Mr. Boris Johnson: May I intervene on the hon. Lady?
Valerie Davey: That would help me—it is very gracious of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Johnson: The hon. Lady has given examples of the ways in which the Government could show contrition over this sorry affair. Does she also feel that they might show their contrition by compensating those very many learning providers who entered into commercial arrangements on the expectation that the scheme would keep going, then found it violently terminated, found themselves out of pocket and are now facing the loss of their homes and other severe financial embarrassments as a result? Does she not believe that the Government's contrition should extend to compensation for the ILA providers which have been done down by this collapse?
Valerie Davey: The Committee has made its view quite clear. If evidence can be supplied that people suffered in the gap of three weeks before the scheme actually came to an end, the Committee agreed that the Government should give their situation further consideration, and I agree with that position.
The future role of the learning and skills councils is important. Their understanding of quality trainers and the way in which they can ensure that they are fast-tracked into any new scheme is an important element. That also applies to further education colleges and new providers who come forward, provided that their track record and past quality of work can be clearly demonstrated.
I wish the Department well in taking on the breadth of experience that it has at its disposal. I trust that there will be, in the short term, a statement on the relaunch of the scheme and that it goes ahead with all the blessings of this House and the hard work of many in the country who also want to see it succeed.
6.7 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: I am most grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am not a member of the Select Committee, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on an excellent report. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on an extremely good speech; I agreed with almost everything that he said.
I corresponded on a number of occasions with the Minister's predecessor about an ILA provider in my constituency, the Open College for Distance Learning,

1049
which was forced into receivership on 23 March this year. The company owed more than £120,000, and although much of that was owed to the Inland Revenue, a significant amount was owed to local companies—office suppliers, accountants, local newspapers which had taken the advertising, the landlord of their office premises, and so forth. Ironically, the company was—and still is—owed approximately £140,000 from ILA schemes in England and Wales, if they had been operated properly. Incidentally, I am not sure why Education and Learning Wales, which always maintained that there was no fraud in Wales, closed its scheme, but no doubt the Minister will enlighten us.
The Open College for Distance Learning had 786 students who were enrolled before the schemes were scrapped. Of those, 100 had had their ILA accounts raided by the fraudsters, and the remaining 686 never received their membership numbers before the deadline was brought forward to 23 November because Capita was too slow. In other words, a perfectly good company has been brought to its knees through no fault of its own because of a combination of fraud and incompetence. Who is taking responsibility? After this afternoon's speeches, I am no wiser. Where does the buck stop? What plans, if any, does the Minister have to resolve this case, of which his Department has knowledge, in a way that will allow the Open College for Distance Learning to be brought out of receivership and to pay off its creditors?
East Devon—particularly Exmouth, in which the company operated—is not an area with a lot of big businesses, and the company was becoming a significant local player. Formed in April 2001, it achieved a gross turnover of £782,422 in its first financial year. In April 2001, it enrolled 166 people, and that figure increased every month until October, when the scheme was shut down without warning. The founders told me that they first heard about the closure on the 5 o'clock news.
The founders of the college, Mr. Simon Hall and Mr. Andrew Demetre, ran a good company. They employed qualified, experienced tutors and kept accurate records of their students' progress and achievements. They did that not least because they expected to be audited and inspected by the ILA scheme operators.
Who is the winner from this fiasco? It is not the local creditors or, indeed, the Inland Revenue—we have already established that. It is not the 93 people made redundant by the company, many of whom are struggling to find employment six months later. It is not the taxpayer—the company received more than £500,000 of taxpayers' money. It is not the 3,000 people who lost their money.
Almost 119,000 people registered for individual learning accounts in the south-west. The great majority of those who registered at the Open College for Distance Learning were aged between 25 and 35—just too old to have been taught IT skills in depth at school.
In a written reply, the former Under-Secretary for Education and Skills, now the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, stated:
"We are developing future plans for a successor ILA-style scheme which build on the successful elements of the ILA programme."—[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 57W.]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) pointed out, that repeated promise has had a negative effect on genuine providers; people are waiting to register in the expectation that, at any moment, their training will be provided free.
1050
Companies still struggling to operate in the sector continue to lose. As we have heard this afternoon, there is still no successor, so we have ended up with the worst of all worlds.
I understand that ILAs were originally a Liberal Democrat brain-wave, but a Labour Government implemented them and must take responsibility for the fiasco. There has been an almost unique combination of incompetence and inaction in which everyone is the loser.
The Select Committee's excellent report repeated the points made at paragraph 127 again in paragraph 25 of its conclusions and recommendations. I, too, believe that the Government should be proactive in offering compensation to the companies and people who entered into arrangements in good faith. I urge the Government to address that matter. As we all know, ILA is dead, so before continuity ILA is born—before the Government embark on a new scheme—the Minister, the Government and all those responsible should give some hope to the people who have lost their livelihood and their companies. There is not much to hope for in the Government's reply to date.
6.13 pm
Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. I begin by referring to the former Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, now the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey). Perhaps, last June, when my hon. Friend received the call from Downing street summoning him to see the Prime Minister, he did not know that ILAs were reaching boiling point. I do not know whether the Prime Minister said, "Look John, we've got the ILAs, they're a good idea and they are popular, but we think they might go belly up and you'll be in the firing line". My hon. Friend has left the Chamber, so we shall probably never know.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, however. He continually came to the Committee, providing us with all the detail that we wanted. He went beyond what one might reasonably expect of a Minister and a Department in the provision of the information that we needed to complete our inquiry. Now that he is at the Treasury, I am sure that he is forging a good relationship with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis)—I am pleased to see him on the Front Bench.
I am sure that when the new ILA scheme is introduced, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will ensure that there are no overspends, as occurred in the past. However, he did a good job, and it should be recognised that it was not an easy thing to confront as a new Minister, which is to his credit.
We need a new ILA, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister about when that is likely to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) gave an excellent example in referring to the trade unions. The Select Committee on Education and Skills has been provided with example after example of people who were not learning and who had the opportunity to learn. The system opened up the market for people to be entrepreneurial and to provide a new way to learn to meet the demands of modern living.
Regrettably, the safeguards were inadequate, as we all know. That is why we are in the current position, and it is why the Select Committee needed to undertake

1051
the inquiry. I pay tribute to its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who steered us through this fast-track inquiry. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend want to intervene?
Mr. Sheerman indicated dissent.
Jonathan Shaw: There were early warnings. Not just the Department for Education and Skills, but all Departments have to take account of the reports that are written. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) referred to a plethora of reports. He made a very good speech. He has clearly done a great deal of research on the many reports that have flagged up the dangers. If reports are written for Ministers and senior civil servants but no one looks at them, we will find ourselves in a similar position again.
The warnings in the report need to be heeded not only in the Department for Education and Skills, but right across the Government. Information technology provides us with enormous opportunities to learn, but it also provides enormous opportunities for crooks. As the pace of technological change increases, we have to keep account of the likelihood of fraud. One of the Department's own civil servants, Mr. Hall from the Learning and Skills Council, told the Select Committee that he had warned the Department as early as June 2000 that the safeguards in the proposed system were inadequate.
The Government responded by saying in paragraph 10 on page 11 that they did not want an over—bureaucratic system with lots of red tape. Of course such an approach is right, but simply saying that is not good enough. The infrastructure was in place, with the Learning and Skills Council and other agencies, to give accreditation. Too often, we heard about scams involving CDs and cold calling, and the complaints system was inadequate not just for ILA holders. If someone knocks at the door and says, "This is a CD to learn to type and the Government are paying for it", the person who answers might say, "Well, I've never heard of ILAs, but that's very nice. I'll sign up. Thank you very much." Why would anyone complain if they did not know?
There was no proper complaints system for the good providers who were angry about being ripped off by cowboys, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) said, but they were infuriated when neither Capita nor the Government listened to them. That shows the quality of the complaints system.
There was also fraud, and we have heard how people could gain access to accounts. When the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) questioned Paddy Doyle, Capita's group board director, about one of his constituents whose account had clearly been opened fraudulently—she had not signed any piece of paper to say that she wanted to open an account—Mr. Doyle said:
"We know that has happened and we know that there are instances of that happening. It is how it happened and there are actually different ways that it could have happened and that is what I cannot answer. I am not disputing the fact that it is has happened."
One thing that we can certainly conclude from that is that it happened.
Inadequate safeguards were in place. That has been borne out by the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young report and by the internal audit. There are lessons not just for the
1052
Department for Education and Skills but for all Departments. As a consequence, the Government and Capita have had a tendency to blame one another. That is perhaps a manifestation of a problem—when one is in a bind, one starts to look around for people to blame. Both the Government and Capita are at fault, as has been acknowledged.
As for the future, the Government are committed to learning—not just through the individual learning account system but through a whole range of different opportunities for people who have not accessed learning before and who can now take advantage of the many different schemes available. The ILA concept is a good one, but appropriate accreditation is needed. We need to use the infrastructure that is available, and, most importantly, we need to reward those who target groups who have not traditionally accessed learning. The ILA has had some success in targeting those groups, but the majority of people who were taking advantage of individual learning accounts had accessed learning before. That needs to be a priority. In response to the report, I hope that, when we see the new scheme, adequate measures will be in place to encourage learning providers to target that group.
It has been a pleasure to take part in the inquiry. I hope that we have made an important contribution.
6.22 pm
Mr. John Baron: I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw). I concur with others in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) for his incisive, professional and objective chairmanship of the Committee that led directly to this report.
As a member of the Education and Skills Committee, I welcome this opportunity to address a particularly important aspect of the affair on which other Members have touched—the failure of the Government to compensate learning providers for the accelerated closure of the scheme and the implications thereof. As a Committee, we deliberated long and hard on this issue. We reached the following conclusion:
"We recommend that the Department should at least reimburse those bona fide learning providers who can demonstrate that they have been financially disadvantaged by the accelerated date of closure of the scheme."
We felt that it is was wrong for a Government simply to turn their back on the large number of learning providers who had invested in good faith in a Government-inspired programme but who now faced financial loss, and, in some cases, ruin, as a result of mistakes made by the Government. It is wrong for a number of reasons.
First, an agreement existed between the Government and learning providers that, in my view, introduced reciprocal obligations between its signatories. Meanwhile, it is wrong because it is unfair. The Government and Capita can move on with minimal adverse effects—the then Minister even admitted that Capita was still in the running for major new contracts. The little people in this affair, however—the learning providers and the individual learning account holders—have suffered through no fault of their own. If there is any doubt about whose fault this debacle was, it may be worth briefly highlighting the twists and turns, especially towards the end of this unfortunate affair.

1053
On 24 October, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced the suspension of the £200 million ILA programme from 7 December 2001. She said that the programme
"has exceeded the government's expectations in encouraging very large numbers of people—and has quickly expanded beyond its capacity."
However, on 23 November, another press release suddenly announced the immediate closure of ILAs two weeks earlier than planned. No notice was given. Training providers were neither consulted nor warned.
Even now we do not know whether the decision was taken because of fraud or because the scheme was so popular and over budget that the Government pulled the plug. However, as the report clearly states, the Select Committee is sure that Capita and the Department for Education and Skills were equally to blame for the fiasco.
The little people have suffered. For example, Roger Tuckett of Henley Community Online estimated that the closure of the ILA scheme would result in 2,000 to 5,000 job losses. Mr. James O'Brien of Pitman Training Group plc and the Association of Computer Trainers told the Committee that up to 5,000 people could be squeezed out from IT training centres. He stressed that the most important thing was that
"the government had set a legitimate expectation for individuals to be able to access that learning up until the 7th December and they should honour that commitment."
The National Extension College was
"dismayed at the lack of notice over the ending of the scheme".
In addition, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) has already pointed out, a survey of 84 colleges found that they expected to suffer a loss of income amounting to more than £1.2 million as a result of the early closure of the scheme. The loss of that money will be deeply felt by the colleges in question,
There are many more examples of losses being incurred by learning providers. However, despite all the evidence, the Government refuse to compensate learning providers. The Government's argument is that there was no contract between the Department and learning providers, and hence that they are not obliged to compensate the providers. They are splitting legal hairs so that they can run away from their obligations. There may have been no contract, but there certainly was an agreement between the Department and learning providers, and that agreement introduced reciprocal obligations between the signatories.
The Government should honour their obligations to individuals and to organisations, particularly as they unexpectedly accelerated the closure of the scheme. Many learning providers who entered the agreement in good faith must now wonder whether they can afford again to take the Government at their word. As the Committee report put it:
"Many of the smaller and more innovative providers may be unwilling to risk entry into a second ILA scheme without a contractual arrangement with the Department."
Mrs. Sammy Betson of Ipswich ITeC summed the problem up very well. She told the Committee that her cash now had taken a serious knock and added:
"The question of whether or not we would participate in a future scheme is whether we have a spoon long enough."
The Government's unwillingness to compensate learning providers for the early closure of the scheme in the two weeks in question is wrong for a number of
1054
reasons. It is wrong because there was an agreement that involved obligations on all the parties concerned. It is wrong because the decision is unfair. The Government and Capita can move on, but many small learning providers, who face financial loss and in some cases ruin, cannot. It is also wrong because learning providers will think twice before participating in any successor scheme. The parliamentary ombudsman is investigating several individual complaints and we await the findings with interest.
It is great shame that this good initiative has been so badly handled by the Government. What makes it worse is that they refuse to honour their obligations by compensating those learning providers who have suffered financial loss as a result of the accelerated closure of the scheme. It is a very high-handed approach, and some would suggest even an arrogant one. The Government must not underestimate the importance of trust in these matters. At present, very many learning providers, who will be essential to the success of any successor scheme, believe that they cannot trust the Government. I therefore ask the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider their position and to honour their commitment to learning providers.
6.30 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I want to focus on the Government's response to the Committee report which was published a few days ago. Other hon. Members dealt effectively with the criticisms contained in the original Committee report.
A couple of points of detail have not been raised. First, paragraph 24 of the Government's response contains an error. It is entitled "Remedial measures". It seems that there has been a transcription error because of a mistake in the title of the corresponding paragraph in the Committee report which no one spotted. The title should be "Intermediaries".
Secondly, there is an ambiguity in the Government's response. On the one hand, the response was good. It dealt point by point with the recommendations and conclusions of the original report, in contrast to some previous responses to our reports which were, to be kind, generalised. On the other, however, although the response was detailed and specific it did not deal with the full horrors of the situation.
Paragraph 5 of the response refers to the cap on the 80 per cent. discount. What is not made clear is that the cap was introduced several weeks after the launch of the original scheme. Paragraph 18 of the response—I do not recall discussing this in Committee—tells us that the cap of £200 on the 80 per cent. discount was introduced within seven weeks of the scheme's launch because the unlimited amounts of money available had been exploited and £22 million had been paid out in course fees that cost more than £200.
The total overspend on the scheme is estimated to be about £60 million on an original budget of £200 million, an overspend of just under 30 per cent. We now discover, however, that more than 30 per cent. of that overspend was incurred within seven weeks of the launch of the original scheme. That is significant new information which we did not have during the Committee's deliberations and it draws our attention to the importance of tighter budget monitoring in the Department.

1055
The permanent secretary hinted at that when he came before the Committee yesterday, although the focus was on the need to get a grip on the Department's underspend. The lesson is that financial monitoring needs to consider possible overspends as well.
In concentrating on three issues, I hope that I do not cover old ground, but instead give pointers for the future. The first is the scheme's objectives. One fundamental reason why the scheme got into difficulties was that the original objectives were not only confused but contradictory. There was a desire to open up the market and bring new providers into it, for which a generous subsidy was provided, and a desire to extend opportunities for lifelong learning to the whole population. There was also a specific objective to help people who were unable to afford further training or education.
The number of people for whom cost is a barrier to continuing their education is comparatively small—it is a minority of the population. Yet by making the scheme universal, we offered a subsidy to the public at large. A more focused objective on those who are most reluctant or least able to continue their education beyond school age is the right approach.
I shall digress briefly. I do not find the Opposition's argument about the use of the subsidy terribly convincing. They criticise the Government by saying that the Department was spraying cash around like a hosepipe out of a window, criticise them for switching off the hosepipe and then criticise them for not switching it on again to compensate for the problems caused by the switching off. It is not altogether a logical—
Mr. Bacon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Chaytor: I am afraid that I will not give way because time is pressing.
The Opposition argument is not logical or convincing. However, I do think that the nature and eligibility of the subsidy are crucial. Therefore I was very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) and the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) both referred to recommendation 73 in the Committee's report, which suggests that a future scheme should be targeted explicitly at those adults whose existing level of qualification is level 2 or below. I am pleased that they supported that, not only because I was responsible for moving the amendment to the original draft of the Committee report, which is now in the Committee report, but because I consider that that is the most effective use of public money.
I also want to speak about the mechanism. The time may have come to say that the emperor has no clothes. That is not because we adopted the scheme rather uncritically from an original idea of the Liberal Democrats—there are lessons for all of us in that—but because the original pilot scheme, run by the training and enterprise councils, concluded explicitly that there was no demand for a savings account for learning.
There had been several discussions with financial institutions to explore the issue; the heart of the original concept of the ILA was a savings account for learning, not simply a subsidy. The experience was that there was no demand for it. The public did not see the purpose of
1056
it. Perhaps the mechanism was too complex; perhaps it was an idea whose time had not yet come, but I now suspect not. Even though the pilot schemes proved the lack of demand pretty conclusively, the Department went ahead with the concept of the account, although it became simply a means for giving a discount on courses.
Therefore, although the idea of the individual learning account is attractive—I am sure that there is the germ of a good idea there—we must ask whether it would not have been, and will not be in future, simply much better and more efficient to provide fee remission to eligible designated categories of students for designated categories of courses. I flag up that suggestion and hope that the Minister might consider it in his deliberations on the future scheme.
The third point that I want to raise concerns assumptions about stimulating the market. Having learned more about the ILA saga, I do not accuse the Department of incompetence as some people have done, but I do say that it was remarkably naive in its understanding of the behaviour of the private sector in post-16 educational training operations.
Various scandals operated throughout the post-16 sector from 1993 onwards, and no doubt before to a lesser extent. They were well publicised abuses of the system, whereby huge amounts of public money—far greater than the amounts lost in the ILA affair—were expropriated by different means. After all that had happened, particularly between 1993 and 1997, it was naivety of the highest order to assume that providing a universal subsidy to bring new entrants into the market would not equally be open to abuse and exploitation and would not be effectively a blank cheque for some cowboy operators. Therefore, a rigorous accreditation system for providers must be at the heart of any new scheme.
In my concluding minute, I shall flag up other points that I would have liked to discuss at enormous length. The first concerns the assumption in the Government's response that for the new learner entering the scheme, it was like entering any other marketplace, and it was therefore his or her responsibility to make a judgment about the quality of the product on offer. That is unacceptable. The motto "caveat emptor" is not appropriate for people coming back into education. We should build into a new scheme better advice and guidance for new adult learners.
Secondly, the courses on offer, as well as the providers, should be more rigorously accredited. Thirdly, we should consider the introduction of staged payments. If the provider can collect his money simply by enroling the student, that is a blank cheque for the cowboy operator. Staged payments, which are accepted practice in public sector post-16 education, ought to be accepted practice in private sector post-16 education.
Finally, I raise the question, which emerges strikingly from the Government's response, of the number of consultants other than Capita who were employed by the Department at various stages in the development of the scheme. I have counted six who are referred to in the report. It would be interesting to know the cost of employing the consultants whose advice was sought and who were asked to evaluate various stages of the scheme. Perhaps I will table that some time as a written question.
I endorse what several of my colleagues and several Opposition Members said about the role of Capita and the assumption that Capita will carry on as before.

1057
[Interruption.] I am conscious of the time; this will be my final point. That sends a bad message to learning providers who feel that they have been cheated by the abrupt ending of the scheme. It seems that there is one rule for Capita and another rule for genuine learning providers. That is a problem which I hope that the Minister will address.
6.42 pm
Alistair Burt: This has been an excellent debate. I am sorry that there was not time to call all the members of the Education and Skills Committee who would have liked to speak.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on securing the debate and on the quality of the report. Through him, I thank all the members of the Committee, who performed such a valuable service.
As we heard, the report was hard-hitting, correctly describing an appalling fiasco of finger-in-the-wind targets, failure to heed advice, failed delivery and a walk away from the debris of lost businesses and jobs, as well as—worst of all—the hurt caused through the lost hope and aspirations of those expecting to benefit from the scheme. Despite the constructive tone of the debate, we cannot forget how dreadful the experience has been for some people. What I have just described is the kindest interpretation of the Government's activity. I will come in due course to their self-serving and ineffectual response.
I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities, although he is not new to the Department and can therefore expect us to show him slightly less mercy on the issue than would be usual. It has not escaped our notice that all those previously connected with individual learning accounts have moved on, their lips sealed, their silence the price of their promotion—the original Secretary of State and his junior Minister who set up the scheme, and the last junior Minister, now the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who I am delighted to see in his place, and who is obviously well thought of by me and others for his hard work in connection with the scheme. He found the fiasco going on under his feet and stoically lived with it, in a manner that I understand all too well. However, the proper scrutiny of Government failure cannot be diverted because of decisions made in the Government's personnel department.
I shall make three quick points. First, I make clear our support for the concept of what the Government were trying to do—the expansion of individual learning to those who need it. That is why the failure has been so acute, as a number of colleagues commented—the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), who described his area, where such work would have been particularly welcome, and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), and most movingly, my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), who spoke with passion and genuine anger, as he should, and produced a quote from Jesse Jackson of which we would all have been proud.
Secondly, we want to be positive. Of course, the report contains positive recommendations, but I shall not labour them because of time. Thirdly, this is a serious business and it is not my job to act as a ra-ra for a Government failure. I will not concentrate on the positive recommendations, although if we had more time, I would be pleased to do so. I am afraid that it is time to fix on
1058
the Government's response, as the excellence of the work of the Committee and of this debate has been ill served by a very poor response from them.
Let me explain why I feel so strongly about the response. The first page states:
"The original programme was successful and popular with both learners and learning providers. It was, therefore, with considerable regret that it had to be closed because of the serious flaws which we identified'".
Hold on a minute—the serious flaws that the Government identified were those with which the scheme had been set up in the beginning. That is what caused the problem. The Government cannot claim to be the good guys who spotted what was going wrong and acted.
The response goes on to describe what the Government have done since that time. First, we are told that they have been "managing the closure effectively". Let them explain that to all the people we have heard about, who were messed up because of the problems of dates and ending the system. They include people such as Mrs. Barbara Walsh of the Longridge teaching centre, who says:
"We are unable to plan ahead because we have been given no hint of a timescale, nor anything else which would indicate that the Government is sympathetic towards the unfortunate situation in which they have placed us. We are just hoping that a successor to the scheme will be announced soon."
Those hopes were dashed by the publication of the response yesterday. If that is managing the closure effectively, it is not very good.
Secondly, the Government say that they have been
"establishing the full extent of misuse and fraud".
They have not, because that has not been done yet either. Thirdly, we are told that they have been
"developing the outline design for a successor scheme".
As we have heard, however, the successor scheme may be up and running about a year after the closure.
That is just the Government's introduction. A series of comments suggest to the general public and the casual reader that, with hindsight, and having picked up on problems through experience of the system, the Government acted to deal with them. That is not true. The reason why the Government failed and why we are in our current position is not hindsight, but their failure to heed the advice that they were given on a variety of occasions about what they were doing. That is why public confidence in the scheme—and, alas, the Department—is at a low ebb.
Let me take a couple of examples. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, and my hon. Friends the Members for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who spoke from personal experience, all raised the issue of compensation and spoke about the damage done in the market. Let us remember that the Government created that market. In paragraph 1 of their response, the Government admit that part of the intention of the scheme was to "attract new providers". Accordingly, they set up the market, but they have not dealt with the consequences of its complete destruction.
Mr. Andrew Turner: That is an important point that I do not think independent providers understood. Where Governments make markets, they can also break them, and that is exactly what this Government have done.
Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. This afternoon, I spoke to the Association of

1059
Computer Trainers, which tells me—this is significant in relation to Roger Tuckett's estimate of some months ago that 5,000 jobs might be lost—that some 15 per cent. of IT training provider specialists have closed down. Indeed, it reckons that about 5,000 jobs have been lost as a result. Some 75 per cent. of those providers have made people redundant or made serious cuts, and 95 per cent. of them have held back on plans for future investment. That all means that those people will be very unwilling to be considered for involvement in ILA2. That is the damage that has been done by lack of confidence.
Various points were made about Capita and its failings, and questions were asked about why it should get the new contract. There is a particular reason why it might do so. If hon. Members turn to sub-appendix A of the response, which is part of the Cap Gemini summary of what happened, they will see that paragraph 2 states:
"The contract between DfES and Capita…made no clear mandates or stipulations regarding the assessment of the security requirement or the ongoing security management. This also resulted in no ILA-specific security policies or procedures."
Capita will keep the contract—unless the Minister is about to tell me that the Government are putting it out to public tender, which I doubt—because what happened was the Government's fault. They did not give clear guidelines, so they cannot blame Capita for it.
It has been suggested that the scheme was closed because of overspending. Paragraph 20 of the Government's response deals with the problems that arose in relation to the Treasury. I challenge the Minister to respond to this point. There was overspending, but the delay has already saved the Government money because the scheme has not been running. If the Minister can say that the new scheme will start with a budget that is equivalent to the old one, we will all be most impressed. He has the opportunity to do so.
Sub-appendix B of the Government's response contains this wonderful phrase about the internal audit review:
"However, it has not been possible to identify when and how some decisions on the operation of the programme were arrived at".
How convenient. We are talking about the British civil service. When a Minister sneezes, the British civil service records which nostril they go to first. To discover now that it is possible that no one knows where and how some decisions were taken is a remarkably convenient error that suits the Government well.
The final failing of the Government's response is that it gives no indication of a new scheme. People around the country have been let down. Jobs have been lost, students who were looking forward to going back into education have been disappointed, and people are in despair that there has been no suggestion of a new scheme. The Government's response has been self-serving and disingenuous and has not done credit to the decent report that was produced. That is a matter for shame. It is not, of course, possible for the Minister to resign straight away, but I suggest that the best thing that he could do, bearing in mind the inadequacy of his Department's response and the degree of difficulty and despair that is out in the country, is to make his first word to the House, "Sorry."
6.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I suspect that this may be an historic moment for the House, in that three hon. Members born in Bury have spoken in succession. Perhaps not many other hon. Members would find it so.
I begin by paying tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and his colleagues on the Select Committee on Education and Skills. I thank the members of the Committee for the fair and balanced way in which they approached their task. Undoubtedly, some differences remain between us, but we have accepted the vast majority of the Committee's findings and recommendations. I think that hon. Members will feel that the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) about the contrition and commitment of our response is far more accurate than that of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of my former ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. His decision, and that of the Secretary of State, to act decisively when the problems became clear, and his subsequent honesty and transparency, ensured the survival of the individual learning account concept. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw). I am sure that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will be remembered for his involvement in the scheme as the comprehensive spending review process reaches a conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield takes a close interest in ministerial turnover, so he will know that I have graduated from being the Minister with responsibility for young people and learning to the Minister with responsibility for adult learning and skills?or, as some people told me. the Minister for ILAs. In that context, and in view of the questions that he asked. I can reassure him that I have discussed ILAs with my predecessor. I can also reassure him and all hon. Members that my commitment, and that of the Secretary of State, to the successor scheme is as strong as ever. We intend to announce details of that new scheme, including a start date, in the autumn. The ILA programme was a bold and virtuous attempt to expand adult learning and open up opportunities to many people who had consigned learning to a dim and distant childhood memory. We should not forget that for many, it achieved its goals.
However, the Select Committee has appropriately focused on why and where the programme went wrong. The report's detailed analysis, conclusions and recommendations will greatly assist Ministers as we consider the nature of the successor scheme. In the words of the Select Committee, we must be prepared to
"learn lessons from the collapse of the first version of ILAs and to bring forward as soon as practicable a more robust version which is capable of expanding Adult Learning to the benefit of each adult learner and the nation as a whole".
Let me consider the contributions to the debate. Many hon. Members referred to Capita. It is important to emphasise that the Government have acknowledged that there are lessons to be learned from what happened to the ILA scheme. There are also important lessons for Capita. There is no done deal about the successor scheme and Capita's involvement; no decision has been made.

1061
A series of criteria must be satisfied before we make any decisions about Capita's involvement in future. They include security, customer service, management capability. data handling, negotiating the overall financial settlement and appropriate revisions to the existing contract. We will have to be satisfied that Capita is best placed to ensure that the new scheme is the success that all hon. Members support.
Many hon. Members referred to compensation. The Government have no legal responsibility to compensate learning providers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Moral responsibility."] There is a debate about moral responsibility and we have had to make a difficult judgment in difficult circumstances. Labour Members have genuinely agonised over that moral dilemma. However, I cannot take lectures from Conservative Members, who told us for 18 years to leave it to the market. Those who talked about business risk and business judgment are now shedding crocodile tears for learning providers who made business choices and took business risks. I understand the genuine anxiety for learning providers who are in difficulties, but I shall take no lectures from the party that continues to believe in laissez-faire economics.
Let me deal with the points that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) made. Several investigations are under way, and some are with the police. To date, there have been 45 arrests, which have resulted in 10 people accepting cautions. Charges are being brought against 13 individuals, 12 of whom are waiting to appear in court. One person has been convicted.
On the successor scheme, I accept the points about trusted intermediaries and that trade unions and community groups have played an important part in ILAs. We want them to play an important part in the successor scheme. Many hon. Members talked about limited entry to a successor scheme. That is one of the points that we must consider to get the matter right. I do not apologise for coming to the House and not announcing details of a successor scheme. We will do that in the autumn, after we have considered all the important issues and got the framework right.
We will learn the difficult lessons of what went wrong with the ILA programme. However, I am proud of the Government's passionate commitment to the principle of lifelong learning, whether it is for the middle-aged father who is too ashamed to tell his children that he cannot read or write, for the mum who wants to return to work after years of bringing up a family, or for the low-paid, low-skilled worker who wants the chance to learn and open up new horizons. We owe each and every one of them the chance to learn. People of all backgrounds and ages having the opportunity to pursue their potential is the hallmark of a fair and decent society. It is also an essential element of our nation's capacity to compete effectively in the global marketplace.
It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates) and Order [20 November 2000].

ESTIMATES, 2002–03
Question put:—
That resources be reduced by £1,000 in respect of Request for Resources 2 (Promoting modem, integrated and safe transport and providing customer-focused regulation) relating to grants to London Underground.—[Mrs. Dunwoody.]
The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 201.

Division No.285]

[7 pm

AYES

Barrett, John

Ottaway, Richard

Breed, Colin

Pugh, Dr John

Burnett, John

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Cable, Dr Vincent

Rendel, David

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

Sanders, Adrian

(NE Fife)

Skinner, Dennis

Chidgey, David

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

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Stunell, Andrew

Foster. Don (Bath)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Gidley, Sandra

Wareing, Robert N

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Webb, Steve

Heath, David

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Holmes, Paul

Younger-Ross, Richard

Hughes. Simon (Southwark N)

Kirkwood, Archy

Tellers for the Ayes

Moore, Michael

John Thurso and

Öpik, Lembit

Tom Brake.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Ainger, Nick

David, Wayne

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Davidson, Ian

Allen, Graham

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

Dean, Mrs Janet

(Swansea E)

Denham, Rt Hon John

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Donaldson, Jeffrey M

Atkins, Charlotte

Dowd, Jim

Austin, John

Drew, David

Bailey, Adrian

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Baird, Vera

Edwards, Huw

Barnes, Harry

Ennis, Jeff

Bayley, Hugh

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Beard, Nigel

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Beggs, Roy

Foulkes, George

Benn, Hilary

Francis, Dr Hywel

Benton, Joe

Gardiner, Barry

Betts, Clive

Gerrard, Neil

Blackman, Liz

Gibson, Dr Ian

Borrow, David

Gilroy, Linda

Bradshaw, Ben

Goggins, Paul

Brennan. Kevin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Grogan, John

Browne, Desmond

Hain, Rt Hon Peter

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Casale, Roger

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Caton, Martin

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Cawsey, Ian

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Challen, Colin

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Havard, Dai

Chaytor, David

Healey, John

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hendrick, Mark

Clelland, David

Hepburn, Stephen

Coffey, Ms Ann

Heppell, John

Colman, Tony

Hill, Keith

Connarty, Michael

Hodge, Margaret

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hoey, Kate

Cooper, Yvette

Hood, Jimmy

Cruddas, Jon

Hope, Phil

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

1063

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pickthall, Colin

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Pike, Peter

Iddon, Dr Brian

Plaskitt, James

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Pond, Chris

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Pound, Stephen

Jamieson, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jenkins, Brian

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Purchase, Ken

Joyce, Eric

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rammell, Bill

Keeble, Ms Sally

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Kelly, Ruth

Roy, Frank

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Ruddock, Joan

Khabra, Piara S

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ryan, Joan

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Salter, Martin

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Sawford, Phil

Lazarowicz, Mark

Shaw, Jonathan

Lepper, David

Sheerman, Barry

Leslie, Christopher

Shipley, Ms Debra

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Simon, Siôn

Linton. Martin

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Love, Andrew

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Lyons, John

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Soley, Clive

MacDougall, John

Spellar, Rt Hon John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

McIsaac, Shona

Stinchcombe, Paul

McKechin, Ann

Stoate, Dr Howard

McKenna, Rosemary

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sutcliffe. Gerry

McNamara, Kevin

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

McNulty, Tony

Timms, Stephen

Mactaggart, Fiona

Touhig, Don

McWalter, Tony

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Marris, Rob

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Tynan, Bill

Martlew, Eric

Vaz, Keith

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Watson, Tom

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

White, Brian

Miliband, David

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Miller, Andrew

Wicks, Malcolm

Mole, Chris

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Moran, Margaret

(Swansea W)

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Wills, Michael

Mountford, Kali

Winnick, David

Mullin, Chris

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Wood, Mike

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Worthington, Tony

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Olner, Bill

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Pearson, Ian

Tellers for the Noes:

Perham, Linda

Mr. Fraser Kemp and

Picking, Anne

Jim Fitzpatrick.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55(1) and (4) (Questions on voting of estimates, &c) and Order [20 November 2000].
Resolved,
That further resources, not exceeding £12,839,695,000, be authorised for use during the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a further sum, not exceeding £13,409,689,000. be granted to
1064
Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2003 for expenditure by the Department for Education and Skills.—[Angela Smith.]
Resolved,
That further resources, not exceeding £119,712,696,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2003, and that a further sum, not exceeding £112,473,739,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2003, as set out in HC 795, 796, 797 and 798.—[Angela Smith.]
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, John Healey and Ruth Kelly do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL
Ruth Kelly accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 2003: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 156].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions 3, 4 and 5 relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 103) (HC 948), on 2002/03 Special Grant for Gypsy Sites Refurbishment, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
  ROAD TRAFFIC
  That the draft Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 94) (HC 885), on Funding for Enforcement of Vehicle Emission Standards 2002, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved. —[Angela Smith.]
  Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That the Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Projects Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002 (No. 1223) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Angela Smith.]

Trade Union Rights
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Angela Smith.)
7.13 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the opportunity to raise this very important and timely debate in the Commons. Every year, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions publishes a weighty document detailing the record on trade union violations globally in the year. That document of nearly 250 pages examines the extent of human rights abuses and union abuses in all four corners of the globe. It is timely not only because of the advances that have been made in many areas of the world, but because of the great strides that still have to be made to allow collective free association of trade unionists better to represent the needs of workers in all four corners of the world.
Part of the purpose of this debate is to say how far we have come, but also how far we still have to go. In the context of our collective memory, it is easy to forget how far we in this country have come. In just the past 200 years, we saw the advent of the Merthyr rising, in which 20 people were killed and many were injured, and which involved the famous Dic Penderyn, to some now very much a martyr. Such collective action is within our close folk memory, yet we have made great advances since then. However, even today, some of the worst ever abuses of trade unions and of human rights are occurring in countries sufficiently close to be travelled to by jet on a short break.
Interestingly, although the average life expectancy in Sierra Leone and Bolivia is 35, as recently as some 150 years ago it was 45 and 37 in Surrey and London respectively. We have come a very long way since then in terms of how we look after our work force, and of workers' rights to associate freely, to represent each other, and to put their interests to employers and to Government. However, on the other side of the world the story is very different.
I should take this opportunity to thank the International Labour Organisation, the International Confederation of Trade Union Regulations and many other international trade union organisations for the information that they supplied.
I apologise for giving a short history lesson, but as I will show it brings us to a very pertinent point. When the ILO was founded in 1919, it was based on the simple premise that labour is not a commodity to be bought, sold and abused but an asset that must be looked after and treasured by employers and Government. Even in 1919, people talked about the right of association for all lawful purposes, the payment of a decent wage for family life, the adoption of a maximum working week, and a weekly day off of 24 hours—matters that we talk about today as we extend rights in this country. Back in 1919, they were not taken for granted and were considered important enough to raise, as were the abolition of child labour, equal pay for men and women, and so on.
We have moved on well since then. The Philadelphia declaration, made towards the end of the second world war, reiterated the principle of freedom of expression and of association. It was followed by a raft of summits and declarations, the most important of which was—as the
1066
Minister will know—the international labour conference, at which the then employment Minister expressed support for the fundamental rights declaration, which established the fundamental rights of association and to work. Some 174 member states signed up to that declaration. In doing so, they signed up to the principle of freedom of association, and to the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining—a basic right that we take for granted, but which, as we shall soon see, is denied to many. The elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour is also something that we take for granted, and there is a long way to go in terms of the effective abolition of child labour, and the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation.
The ILO has done great work on this front, but it deals with such matters in the boardrooms of corporations and of Government. In those boardrooms, it sometimes has to face intransigence and doors that are shut in its face. However, workers in plantations and textile factories in far-flung corners of the world have to face torture, murder, abduction and rape. The ILO does a fantastic job, but as the 250 pages of the annual document show, there are individual tragedies at the chalk face.
As many people are aware, Colombia has a reputation for some of the worst abuses of trade union rights worldwide. Surprisingly, the country is a signatory to the ILO conventions, but it is described by the International Centre for Trade Union Rights as
"the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade union leader or activist."
In 2001, 184 people were assassinated, and more than 3,000 people have been killed or abducted in the past 13 years. That is an appalling travesty in what we call a civilised world. Alexander Lopez, who was supposed to attend a recent public meeting in the House, could not do so because he had been detained by the police in Colombia.
Colombia has a brief and bloody history when it comes to trade union rights. On 20 March, Luis Castillo and Juan Bautista Cevallos, members of the electricity workers' union, were ambushed and assassinated by paramilitaries. Luis Castillo had recently moved his place of work because of death threats. On 22 March this year, Ernesto Martinez of the teachers' association was assassinated outside Rio Negro. On 23 March, Jose Garcia disappeared and his whereabouts are unknown. On 25 March, two members of the oil workers' union, Jose Perez and Hernando Silva, disappeared and their whereabouts are unknown. The list goes on and on.
I shall not bore the House with the statistics for the whole year, but only last week William Gomez, the president of the national union of food industry workers, suffered the horrendous experience of the attempted kidnap of his four-year-old daughter. The suffering in Colombia goes on and on, but that country is not alone.
In Brazil, the International Metalworkers Federation describes an unprovoked attack by military police at the Ford car factory. Mexico has seen assaults on labour lawyers Arturo Justiniani and Hernandez Calzada, because they accused an airline of hiring thugs in a dispute with the Mexican pilots' association. In Turkey, 12 teachers have been arrested for supporting Kurdish language teaching in educational establishments and Amnesty International is very concerned about the Turkish record of torture of people detained. In Costa

1067
Rica, workers are systematically dismissed for signs of union activity. In Guatemala, unions in textile factories doing work for multinational corporations are systematically intimidated.
In China, South Korea and Indonesia, attacks are made on work force activists with the complicity of Governments. Anybody trying to start up a union in China that is not sanctioned faces a prison sentence of up to 20 years. Amnesty International and, I am sure, the Government, are aware of the human rights abuses in prisons in China. Trade union activity is repressed in Belarus and any democratic activity in Burma results in jail. Unions are banned in much of the middle east, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which have a total ban on unions. Iraq and Syria allow only single unions, which are controlled by the ruling parties. That is an A to Z of harassment, intimidation, deaths, abductions and kidnapping that represents the complete abuse of human rights.
Over the past 10 years, the Committee of Freedom of Association of the ILO has tracked all those murders, disappearances, arrests, detentions and forced exiles, even to the extent of the declarations of states of emergency and the suspension of civil liberties that are imposed on unions. What can we do? Many people throw up their hands in despair and say that the problem is a direct result of globalisation and multinational corporations that can move easily from one place to another, and Governments that will sign away the rights of their workers in order to welcome any foreign aid investment. What can we do in the face of that situation? Well, there is much to do but it is a question of political will,
I welcome the initiatives taken by the Government, especially by the Department for International Development, and the money that has been put towards developing union activism in various countries, including many that I have already mentioned. However, during the 1980s and 1990s, the world went through a period of unfettered neoliberalism. Companies were able to go where they wanted, and do what they wanted. They faced no consequences in terms of what happened to the work force, nor in terms of what happened, implicitly or complicitly, to workers' rights. We must get away from that period, and the Government are already playing a role in achieving that. I urge them to keep on leading from the front and putting the message to our more recalcitrant partners.
The US is a signatory to the International Labour Organisation conventions, but it has not ratified conventions 87 and 98. We must put pressure on to ensure that it does so.
These are global problems, and they need global solutions. Two years ago, Anthony Giddens identified the need for Governments to collaborate with non-governmental organisations and third-sector groups worldwide, as the problem required worldwide co-operation.
International trade union representation also has a role to play. I began by referring to the Merthyr rising, but the battle has moved away from these shores and become truly transnational and international. That is how it must be fought. We must push for more ethical trading, and we must push recalcitrant Governments to change their ways.
1068
The Government are leading the way. It is a matter of political will. I urge the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), to keep on pushing hard for international agreements on the way forward. The document to which I have referred is one of despair: let us turn it into one of hope in years to come.
7.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on securing this most important debate and bringing its international theme to the House's attention. I congratulate him also, and most sincerely, on his very well researched speech. It was laced with much compassion and eloquence, and I look forward to hearing other contributions from my new and hon. Friend in the months and years to come.
I was struck by the way in which my hon. Friend reminded us of our history, as no Member of this House must ever take for granted the rights that we enjoy in a democratic society. He also spoke passionately, as a true internationalist. He reminded us that our ethics, democratic values arid rights do not end at the white cliffs of Dover, but that we need to spread them across the earth.
The Government strongly condemn international violation of the rights of trade unions, their members, and their members' families. We fully support the work of the International Labour Organisation, which is the UN specialist agency with specific responsibility for protecting and promoting workers' rights worldwide.
The ILO was founded in 1919, at an important point in our history. It is no coincidence that that happened at the end of the first world war, and the ILO's goal was to promote peace through social justice, and to recognise internationally human rights and labour rights. Its tripartite structure, which enables workers' and employers' organisations to participate equally with Governments, is unique in the UN system.
In 1948—shortly after another world war, and again I think that that is no coincidence—a convention on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise was launched. The UK was the first country to ratify the convention, and we are proud of that. The right to organise is fundamental to democracy, yet my hon. Friend reminded us that even in the 21st century trade union rights are being violated around the world. As my hon. Friend noted, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions 2001 survey reported a rise in the number of murdered or so-called disappeared trade unionists, and 223 is my statistic for that year.
Some 140 countries have now ratified the ILO convention on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise. In 1998, more than 50 years after adopting that convention, all 175 member states of the ILO signed up to a declaration of rights and fundamental principles at work. All those member states agreed to respect, promote and realise the ILO core labour standards, regardless of their level of economic development and—crucially—whether or not they had ratified the relevant ILO conventions.

1069
The ILO's core labour standards cover freedom of association, promotion of collective bargaining, abolition of forced and child labour and the elimination of discrimination in employment. The United Kingdom played a leading role in securing the 1998 declaration, and we continue to support the follow-up process to the declaration.
The Government provide substantial financial support to the ILO. Equally importantly, we also work closely with the organisation to ensure that the international framework to combat abuses of workers' rights throughout the world is in place and effective. The recent annual survey of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions shows that there can be no grounds for complacency on trade union rights' violations. Indeed, some of it makes disturbing reading.
The UK has continually supported the ILO's work in defending trade union rights. We have ratified all the ILO core conventions, including those relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining, and we encourage other countries to do so. When looking at international labour rights, however, we clearly need to keep in mind the complexity of the issues involved and not underestimate the concerted effort that is needed by the whole international community to bring about change. Such change will not happen overnight. Against that background, the ILO declaration that I referred to earlier, which was adopted only four years ago, and its follow-up system of global reports are already making an extremely valuable contribution to effecting change.
The very first global report was published in 2000 and covered freedom of association and collective bargaining. The report underscored the crucial role of those rights in today's globalising world, highlighted the fact that violations still occur and set out priorities for technical co-operation aimed at reinforcing those rights. As might he expected, many of those countries criticised by the report were also highlighted by the ILO global report.
As a result of that report, an action plan to promote rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining has been agreed and is being implemented. Quite apart from the many activities that the ILO is undertaking in this area—meetings, publications, advisory services and ongoing projects—more than 20 ILO co-operative programmes have been launched. These involve many of the countries highlighted in the survey.
The ILO, more than any other body, has kept up pressure on the Burmese Government to stop their horrendous and inhumane practices of forced labour and suppression of the trade union movement. The UK has been at the forefront of the international community's efforts to bring about national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy in Burma. It is only through the return of the rule of law and democracy in Burma that substantive progress will be made.
In the ILO, we have worked together with the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and European partners in our efforts to compel Burma to comply with its obligations to end forced labour. The European Union common position on Burma is designed to bring pressure to bear for positive change. It contains an arms embargo, a visa ban, an assets freeze, a ban on high-level visits, a ban on the sale of items that could be used for torture and a ban on non-humanitarian aid. The European Commission suspended Burma's generalised
1070
system of preferences trading privileges in 1997 in response to concerns over forced labour. In addition, we do not encourage trade, investment or tourism with Burma. All these measures remain in place.
The release from house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi on 6 May is, of course, a positive step forward. I know that all of us in this House have the highest regard for this remarkable woman who, in the most difficult circumstances, including family circumstances, has kept alight the flame of freedom in Burma. However, her release is only one of the many steps that will be required. We have called on the Burmese authorities to move ahead at an ever-faster speed to bring about substantive change in Burma.
Similarly, we remain extremely concerned about the degree of violence against all human rights defenders, including trade unionists, in Colombia. We have raised the issue with the Colombian Government and noted the concerns expressed, most recently by the TUC on a visit to Colombia in February, on the situation of trade union members in that country. We continue, bilaterally and in partnership with EU countries, to urge the Colombian Government to take effective measures to protect the lives of all human rights defenders. The Government contributed generously to the UN human rights office in Bogota, giving more than £250,000 during the past year.
Both the Burma and Colombia cases were discussed at this year's international labour conference by the ILO's committee on the application of standards—as were many other cases of trade union repression highlighted in the report to which I referred.
Rob Marris: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted that only Labour Members are present for this debate—a telling point. He has referred to the pressure rightly brought to bear by the EU in respect of trade union and human rights throughout the world. Turkey is an applicant member of the EU and the United Kingdom Government has a veto on such applications, so can the Minister assure the House that Turkey's record on trade union and human rights will be borne in mind by the Government when they make their assessment of Turkey's application for admission to the European Union?
Malcolm Wicks: Although I cannot discuss tonight individual applications from would-be members of the EU, I remind the House that the strength of the EU is that it is a collective of democratic states which take seriously the rights of all their citizens, including trade unionists.
It is important to realise that the ILO's approach is not sanction-based in the main, although I have mentioned Burma in that regard; it is based on awareness raising, promotion, peer pressure, consensus and technical co-operation. Such an approach is both transparent and highly effective. We should not forget that one of the first acts of the Labour Government was to honour the pledge to restore trade union rights at Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham—a more recent episode in our history. That was in conformity with our ILO obligations, following ILO criticism of previous UK Government policy.
We must realise that the ILO core labour standards are inter-related. Strong trade unions can help to combat discrimination in employment and end forced labour.

1071
We actively support the ILO in its work to promote other core labour standards, such as the elimination of child labour which is a great stain on the world economy. We support the efforts of developing countries to strengthen their democratic institutions—for example, through the electoral process, parliaments and civil society—so that all people have effective representation and participation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore mentioned globalisation and its implications. Although there is not enough time to discuss those important issues, I certainly acknowledge them. Most of us would agree that the answer is not to call for protectionism or the tearing down of international institutions—indeed, my hon. Friend wants them to be strengthened and the Government share that view. It is not a question of being for or against globalisation, as he knows.
1072
Perhaps the wisest words on this issue have come most recently from Kofi Annan, who said that our challenge is
"to ensure that globalisation becomes a positive force for all the
world's people, instead of leaving millions of them behind in squalor."
We need to think through the implications of that.
In summing up, I congratulate my hon. Friend again on raising a most important issue. It is difficult to think of an issue that has a more important impact on human beings in peril. I want to assure the House that the Government will continue to work actively and constructively with our partners in all international forums to promote the implementation of all ILO core labour standards and to bring an end to the violations and abuses of the rights of our fellow human beings.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Research Assessment Exercise
[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Science and Technology Committee on the Research Assessment Exercise, Session 2001–02, HC 507, and the Government's Response thereto, Fifth Special Report, Session 2001–02, HC 995]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Dr. Brian Iddon—[Interruption.] I am sorry. I call Dr. Ian Gibson.
Dr. Ian Gibson: I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have an affiliation to Ipswich town football club. You know my feelings about that club. We have worked together on issues in Ipswich. I thank you for getting my name right the second time. Perhaps the Higher Education Funding Council for England might get the research assessment exercise right next time round too.
I am delighted to see so many right hon. and hon. Members in Westminster Hall. It shows their appreciation of the British university system and the endeavours of those who work in it to provide excellence throughout the academic world. We are revered throughout the world for the way that we educate our young people. I guess that the report ultimately says that we really can do better and that we hope we can persuade the Government to take up some of the issues that will allow that to happen.
The issue of funding in universities for research at all levels in the arts, the humanities and the sciences is extremely important. There has been an amazing swing over the past 10 years to private funding of research in universities as against state funding. That has troubled many people who work in the higher education sector. The independence of those who work in the universities is vital. MORI and other polls show that the public value people who are seen to be independent. If funding comes from corporations, it makes it difficult for individuals, however excellent they are and however independent they think they are, to get their message across.
Bob Spink: Is it not true that people in this country need to continue to promote blue-sky research rather than market research? Public funding does that better than private funding.
Dr. Gibson: Of course that is true. At the same time, striking the right balance between blue-sky and functional research is difficult for any university, and certainly for Government Departments. We must try to get it right. We can never predict where blue-sky research will lead, but it must take place because amazing things can come out of it.
308WH
I return to the nitty-gritty of the Committee's second report of this Session, where we considered the REA. It has become part and parcel of university life, almost as important as car parking charges, office space and whether one has a carpet. Academics get excited by few things other than their own research but I can say from my years of experience that if car parking charges loom, if their office space has to be shared and if the RAE is looming, the adrenalin flows and the committee meeting structures develop overnight.
This RAE is clearly very important. It is taxpayers' money that goes into universities. We must ensure that those millions of pounds are monitored. Our Committee considered the way that it is done, the lessons we can learn and how we can move the system on. The results of the 2001 RAE show a dramatic increase in research ratings awarded to university departments. As research funding from the HEFCE is based on those ratings, it creates real funding problems when the money emerges to each and every university and their departments.
I shall make a quick point about the procedures for the debate. In line with the suggestion from the Liaison Committee—as hon. Members will know, the process involves the Chairs of Select Committees and two hours of penetrating debate with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—we decided that we should have a substantive motion for the debate. We said that Westminster Hall was instigated partly to allow more opportunities for debate on Select Committee reports—we welcome that—yet restricting them to Adjournment debates diminishes their impact. However, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ruled against our request.
We therefore believe that we should return to the Liaison Committee and say that debates might have a tougher flavour if they involved a substantive motion at the end. A vital part of the motion that we wanted for this debate was that we recognise that the research quality of the higher education sector has improved; we have considered the report's recommendations and the essential contribution that higher education research into science and technology make to society and the economy; and we call on the Government to fund the RAE results fully in the forthcoming spending review.
Instead of us all shaking hands, saying, "That was a good debate", and going home, such a motion would give pith to a debate and mean that we had something on paper. I hope that, through the Liaison Committee, we will toughen up some of the debates in this Chamber.
We launched our inquiry in November 2001, and the report was published in April 2002. We received 49 written memorandums from a range of organisations and individuals, and we had two evidence sessions, which involved the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Association of University Teachers, Universities UK and my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education. I welcome her to the debate.
I record with some sadness that an important debate in which many of us would have liked to participate is taking place in the main Chamber at the same time as this debate. I hope that we can ensure that the structures that organise debates consider that issue sensibly and allow hon. Members a chance to participate in both places within the House of Commons.

309WH
Some members of the Science and Technology Committee—brilliantly, I—think—visited their constituency universities and operated in a semi-Select Committee environment. For example, I went to my local university—the university of East Anglia—and operated in a Select Committee environment there. That was an experience at the coal face with people who had been through not one but several RAEs and had built up experience accordingly. That fed into our report and was extremely important.
We considered the situation in England, of course, but noted the results from, and the decisions taken in, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We received the replies from the Government and the HEFCE on 21 June, and these were published on 26 June.
I shall give a few facts about the RAE 2001. Some 2,598 submissions were received from 173 higher education institutions, and 48,000 researchers were involved. There were substantial improvements in ratings. In 1996, 31 per cent. of research-active staff worked in 573 departments rated 5 or 5*, which are the top two grades; in 2001, the figure was 55 per cent. in 1,081 departments. In 2001, 64 per cent. of the research submitted was of national or international levels of excellence—grades 4, 5 or 5*—compared with 43 per cent in 1996.
I congratulate all the individuals involved and commend the organisation within universities that achieved that very high standard. The way in which we have made such an improvement puts us second to none in all parts of the world.
We recognised, however, that gamesmanship could be involved in these things. After all, we are talking about the brightest people in Britain. I know that we in this place think that we are the brightest people in the country, but there are people outside who are equally bright, as we would acknowledge at a bad moment. They know how to play the system—do not we all?—and perhaps there was some selective entering and transferring of researchers, fiddling of the boundaries between departments and so on. Departments could increase their ratings by such mechanisms, but that was insignificant compared with the major improvement overall. We also had problems with the way in which the panels were selected to assess departments, with subject groupings and so forth, but those are minor points in comparison with today's difficulties and funding the vast improvement.
The Select Committee agreed that raising standards of research and encouraging universities through the RAE were important factors in developing research strategies. Those who say that universities are a crazy mix of people based in lovely campuses, on long holidays with permanent sabbaticals are so wrong. Universities have changed out of all recognition since some of us were students or started our careers. They know all about spreadsheets, they have examined the problems and they tackle them in a businesslike way as they try to react to Governments of whatever hue.
These positive aspects are important, but some of the detrimental effects of the RAE also emerged from our discussions. I went through it all myself and have the scars on my back to show it. I know about the friends
310WH
one no longer has because of the need to adopt this aggressive procedure. Grade 5 delivery in my department consumed my life—almost as much as Norwich City getting into the premier division. Since entering this place, I no longer have to deliver the five stars, but the lessons learned and the culture that existed in my former department have been carried on by others: the structures were set in place.
I shall outline some of the criticisms received from all quarters, and I invite right hon. and hon. Members to intervene if they would like to me to say more about them. It was argued that the RAE encouraged short-termism, distorted publication practice, discouraged interdisciplinary research, shattered staff morale and discriminated against women.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: On that point, I welcome the report's highlighting of the impact of the RAE on women and the under-representation of women in many departments. Does my hon. Friend accept that discrimination against women is deep-seated and cannot be explained solely in terms of women's greater domestic commitments? Universities also discriminate against women who do not have any children, so it is not enough to concentrate only on providing better child-care facilities or breaks for child care. The problem is more deep-seated and more fundamental action is necessary if universities are to use the full potential of their women employees.
Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She has been a champion of that issue ever since I met her in the Palace of Westminster. The RAE is certainly a symptom and reflection of a more deep-seated problem. Few women run departments, and even today the Royal Society has only a few women members. That shows clearly that we must tackle a deep-seated institutionalised imbalance. I would welcome any new initiatives—in the RAE or in higher education more generally—to deal with the problem.
We did not say it expressly in the report, but we need to examine what has gone wrong with higher education and why so many people at grassroots level are feeling so down at present. People in the higher education sector took part in yesterday's lobby. If more women gained top positions, it would help to encourage young women who do brilliantly in their first degree courses to continue into academic life. Mechanisms should be in place to make that easier. I welcome some of the Government's current initiatives to address these problems, but they were a long time coming and we are becoming impatient. Discussion of our analysis and results today should make a contribution.
Problems with the RAE have also contributed to departmental closures, as discussed in the report. Wider questions are relevant. What is the role of higher education and under what contracts do we employ people? Academics are now expected to do so much. When I first entered academic life, it was much easier for younger people starting out. I do not understand why it has become more complicated, but one is expected not only to teach but to be involved in community activities. One has to interact with regional development agencies. to undertake research and to consider knowledge transfer. There are tremendous pressures. No one ever asked me to start a spin-out company when I started

311WH
doing research, but people are now asked to think about that as part of engendering interaction between universities and industry.
The policies are now much more aggressive, which people entering university find difficult. Questions may be asked later about whether departments can do all these things within the confines of a university, and whether the Government recognise that these important issues require different funding streams. Of course, when universities are trying to get research grades as part of the research assessment exercise, they forget that the buildings around them are dripping water and that the cement blocks that were built in the 1960s are no longer stable. We concluded that there have been benefits, but there has undoubtedly been collateral damage. Careers, which have distracted universities from other functions, have been a significant element of that process.
The most important issue for some people is the funding of the RAE. They achieve a higher standard, they feel good, the corks are popping all over the campus, and they wait for the cheque to come from wherever it does these days—it may be the vice-chancellor's office, if they are lucky. The HEFCE concentrated on funding 5* star departments at the top of the gradings. We believe that there is a shortfall of about £200 million in the system as a result of the improved grades. As many hon. Members know, 4-grade and 5-grade departments have lost money. I can take hon. Members to any university in this country: they will all say that their budgets are short by £80,000, £90,000 or £100,000. This is where HEFCE makes its savings. There has been an improvement in ratings, but the expected money on the existing formula has not materialised. The new universities, of which we were so proud, have been trying to get into the research culture, but have not been able to get that sort of money. Staff morale has fallen, and the structure is looking flaky. There is a crisis in university departments, and uncertainty about how they will adjust to having improved research, but having less money to do what they want to do. If people improve, their expectations rise. They want to do better and go from a 5 to a 5*, which we should encourage.
Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a separate fund for the Science and Technology Committee to develop research facilities where they are currently weak, embryonic, or do not yet exist?
Dr. Gibson: The hon. Gentleman has read our script. We recognise the problem in our report. Some new medical schools told me that they have no money for research. Where is the equipment, the back-up or the ancillary staff to do that research? We need to define such new groupings. I am proud that the Government have set them up, but we must pump money into them. Some brave decisions need to be taken.
The HEFCE says that it is the Government's fault. The Government have broad shoulders, and I imagine that they can take that criticism, as they provide the money. The truth is that the HEFCE carried out a review after the 1996 RAE, and it is up to it whether to undertake the 2001 RAE. It took evidence from a wide range of organisations and researchers, and called them
312WH
customers. It must have known that money would be needed for improved excellence in research. If it did not know, why did it not know? There should have been modelling as part of the review to determine what the implications would be if the ratings improved to today's levels. It appears that that was not done.
There was an expectation in the academic community that grades would rise. It was known what had been done; people had been told in pre-runs of the exercise that grades were improving and it had been acknowledged quietly, on the side, that they had improved. The HEFCE then existed in an environment in which the thought was, "Right. We're on the way now, and things are going to happen."
The HEFCE could, of course, have said, "Well, what could we have done about it if it was going to improve?" I will tell hon. Members what it could have done: it could have postponed the RAE exercise until it had some indication from the Government how the money might be found for improvements.
On which side is the research directorate of the HEFCE? It seems to have a religious belief in the RAE, and has not understood the implications of the process. When they appeared before the Committee, HEFCE witnesses were arrogant and dismissive when it came to facing the damage they had done. The Department for Education and Skills should not delegate so many important decisions to a quango, as the Committee said, given the DFES's alleged underspend. More money could have been found to help the exercise and to fund the improvements. The Committee expressed disappointment at the level of involvement of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is the Cabinet Minister with responsibility for science.
A press release yesterday stated that there are plans to carry out a new review of the RAE. The research directorate is wedded to the RAE concept and cannot see its limitations, or indeed, when it has had its day. Thus it should be seriously suggested that the review is not carried out or is stopped until an independent body is set up to carry out an in-depth review of funding for research in higher education and to come up with a comprehensive plan for future funding in all the diverse areas of research activities in higher education. However, it would benefit the chief executive of the HEFCE if such an exercise were seen to be independent and would regain much of the confidence in the academic community that has been lost.
It is no wonder that the Committee said that there was a strong case for more money for higher education research in the spending review, not only to fund the RAE 2001 properly, but to address the chronic underfunding and imbalance in the dual research support system which everyone supports but is much underfunded.
I want to say more about the HEFC because, as hon. Members can tell, we are not the best of chums. It attacked the Committee's report, which is why I take the position that I do. I want to defend but I want also to explain why it was absolutely wrong in some of its assertions. It said, naming the Committee and me, that we behaved
"as if it was self-evident"
that the selective entry of staff to the RAE process was distorting the RAE results. That means that people being dropped is somehow legitimate. Surely it is self-

313WH
evident that it is necessary to know what the true research situation is in a university department. We do not judge a choir by listening to the soloist; we do not judge a pizza by trying the cheese on top. We look at the entirety. We cannot measure the quality of a university department by judging only its best researchers. That particular practice is damaging for departments and managements. If people are not performing in the research area, but that is part of the contract, there is something wrong with the contract and how it operates in universities. Every academic in a department with a contract that states that they should carry out research, teaching and administration should do so, and universities must look at their management practices if it is not being done. Academics undertake research, but whether they get support from the department is a managerial issue, which departments and universities are sometimes not prepared to take on.
The Government's response is relatively positive about the report, but vague. "We will consider your points in review," hardly turns me on. The way to deal with it might be to get them back after review and question them again, so I put down that pointer. We shall see what comes about.
The one point on which we differ concerns teaching versus research universities. It is not a new question, but it is worthy of a debate. The Government suggested that not all good teachers need to do research and that some need only to be scholars, but one cannot be on top of a subject without being involved in some cutting-edge thinking or research. Scientific knowledge cannot just be passively consumed; it must be challenged and moved on if it is to be of any value. In my opinion—and I think the Committee's opinion too—being taught by researchers is what distinguishes higher from further education. I thought that we were moving away from that when polytechnics became universities, because for me universities mean undertaking research and encouraging people to do likewise.
Teachers in schools and further education colleges are very good at their job—no one is questioning that—£but not necessarily at research. As the Committee noted, the science base demands people who have a special kind of brain and do an honours degree or MSc. We need people who can do research and question everything in a basic textbook. They must take nothing for granted and challenge everything. As someone who has taught, I have never believed a scientific statement, because I know that someone will challenge it.
One knows too, if one engages in research, that there are issues that have not yet reached textbooks. When were prions first mentioned in textbooks? People in the research community knew about them for some time, but textbooks did not carry information about them because there was not consensual approval from universities.
Dr. Starkey: Given that the Government are committed to increasing the number of university students to half the peer group, is my hon. Friend suggesting that all the extra teachers should be, or are capable of being, cutting-edge researchers?
Dr. Gibson: We over-teach our students, so I am not sure about how many new lecturers we need. I had to
314WH
give so many lectures per year, but I could have done half of them—not because I would have been ducking, as I enjoyed teaching—and then got the students to participate more interactively in the other half. Such a new style of teaching might save us from the position of having to hire new people.
It is when students do a research project—it does not have to be in a laboratory; it could be a library or literature project—that they become excited and knowledgeable and start to question the subject. If we are just going to put the 50 per cent. into rote teaching, we will not achieve the highest possible standards. We must consider new curriculums and new ways of teaching and inspiring students to use IT. Such experiments are taking place in universities, but I do not get the feeling that they are being brought together. I appreciate the problem of the extra students, but before we consider the extra teachers, we must consider the extra lecture theatres and labs in which to teach them. That is particularly important for the sciences.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument fairly closely, but does he not accept that some people may be gifted researchers but cannot teach students or communicate with them? I agree with him about the concept of students doing more research themselves, but we cannot expect excellent researchers necessarily to be good teachers.
Dr. Gibson: I accept that, and I know that many people cannot do research because they are not able to interact with equipment. They are all fingers and thumbs. However, that all goes back to how we educate those people in school and teach them in practical classes. Sadly, we have found that many people who will end up as lecturers are not getting that practical experience.
I know many lecturers who I would not have let near students, but sadly they had to do it. That problem is all about the selection process. When I was first appointed to university, I was never monitored for efficiency in teaching. I was monitored for efficiency in research, and training young lecturers and giving them opportunities in sharpening up the act. They do not have to be written off just because it seems that they cannot teach; universities have the resources to improve their teaching skills. The picture is changing. I agree that there are good teachers and bad teachers and that some are better than others, but I believe that teaching skills can be nurtured and are not genetic. People can be trained to teach more effectively and can learn by watching other teachers. The major issue is how teachers are appointed in the first place. Nowadays, when people are appointed to universities they have to give a lecture or two to students, who fill in questionnaires about how they have done. Such developments are perhaps not widespread enough but we are beginning to address the problem.
I do not accept that the HEFCE's criticism of us is valid. We took a wide range of evidence and a wide range of experience was reflected in the debates we had in local universities and so on. Some people argue that the solution to the problem is to move to the liberal arts college model for the first part of higher education, which would make sense given the increasing gap between the knowledge needed at A-level and that needed to start an honours degree. If that happened,

315WH
scholarship—which I would define as the study and synthesis of the literature in a field—would inform teaching and lab research would become less important for teachers. However, advanced teaching for honours and masters degrees must in my and the Committee's opinion have a research basis, and students must be involved in the activity. The HEFCE proposes a reduction in the volume of research if the funding deficit is not met by increased funding. Its conclusion that commitment to research is
"compromising the financial health of universities"
is a remarkable one for a body that arranges the RAE, the main driver of the importance of research and a major source for university funding.
What is the way forward? The Select Committee thinks that there is a role for the RAE but that it needs to be less dominant and part of a broader university research funding strategy. We suggested that the HEFCE's research budget could be divided into four sections. Top rank departments could be exempted from RAE funding according to their external research income. Other departments could, as before, enter the RAE as a means of selecting and funding better departments. Some departments entering the RAE could bid for development funds, and there could be a fund to support the indirect costs incurred through external project funding. Funding must relate to the different activities that universities carry out so effectively.
The Select Committee welcomes the RAE and looks forward to an analysis of it. We hope that our report will play a major part in the thinking on the subject. The British university system has excellence and, at a time when the pressures are on to get more people into the system, we will struggle without that extra funding and if the starvation principles that have operated for some time are not removed. The crisis in universities will continue if those issues are not addressed. I thank hon. Members for attending and listening to the debate. The HEFCE and the Select Committee will get it right and move things forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I point out that if the many hon. Members who wish to contribute to this important debate show an element of self-discipline, I am sure that they will all be called.
3.4 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: I shall endeavour to be disciplined.
It is important to put the subject into context. Universities in part exist to engender a powerful economy. I was taken with a note that the Save British Science Society sent me this morning. It informs me that universities contribute £35 billion each year to the UK economy. The society was also good enough to give a helpful breakdown of what that means by county. Public bodies invest £104 per head in universities and research institutes throughout the UK, and Wiltshire would receive £64 million if the same figure applied there. To my horror, however, I see that the Higher Education Funding Council for England spent nothing
316WH
on teaching or research in Wiltshire last year. That might have something to do with the fact that the county has no universities, but hon. Members will nevertheless forgive me for regretting that Wiltshire does not receive £64 million.
The society tells me that only one of Wiltshire's Members of Parliament—or 17 per cent. of the total—has a science degree, but the figure for all Members is 9.7 per cent. My office telephoned the society to ascertain who that wonderful person was, and I found to my horror that it reckoned that I was a scientist. Given that I am a medic, I think that the society was stretching the term somewhat, although one gets some idea of the way in which medics are perceived. However, it was nice to be classified as a scientist, and I am sure that my physiology and biochemistry lecturer at the university of Bristol would be delighted.
It is highly regrettable that Wiltshire has no universities, but it is important to note that it has many schools. Like all Members, I visit many schools, and I talk to teachers. The Committee is currently studying science education for 14 to 19-year-olds, and it has come across from science teachers in particular that there have been inflationary pressures on A-level grades in recent years. That is important in the context of 5 and 5* university departments which, we are told, have increased from 23 to 55 per cent. of the total over the past nine years. I hope that that huge number reflects reality, but we must admit that inflationary pressures operate and ask what influence they have had on the apparently massive uplift in the success of our universities. From the evidence that I heard, I could make no progress in determining exactly where within the spectrum reality lay. The jury is out, and we should be a little cautious about popping the champagne corks and celebrating the apparent uplift in excellence at our universities. I hope that the figures reflect reality.
In her evidence, the Minister used the citation index to back up the view that there has been an uplift in university excellence. She rightly said that the index had increased by about 18 per cent. over the past four or five years. That gives some support to the notion that universities are excelling in a way that they did not a decade ago, but again we must sound a cautionary note. All of us who have recently been involved in research know that the number of libraries and publications has burgeoned, while the number of outlets for publications, papers, monographs and books has increased beyond recognition. We must accept that part of the 18 per cent. uplift over the past four or five years may be due to the increased number of outlets for scientific work and the liberal arts.
It would be wrong to debate this subject without mentioning some of the dissenters. When taking evidence, we met quite a few people who were concerned about the RAE's effect on universities. Professor Susan Bassnett, the pro vice-chancellor of Warwick university, made a powerful point about the proportion of researchers in 5 or 5* departments:
"What that 55 per cent. Represents…is a morass of fiddling, finagling"—
I am not sure what that is, but the term is obviously used in Warwick—
"and horse trading. Nobody who works in a university in the UK in 2002 seriously believes that research is improving."

317WH
Perhaps that was a little unkind. Of all the evidence that we took, Professor Bassnett was somewhat out on a limb. However, we must take account of comments from notable academics such as she.
Going a little closer to my home, the British Medical Association is not really impressed with the RAE. It said that it encourages researchers to stick to safe research—in other words, research that it knows will produce publications. Perhaps it is saying that, in a rapidly evolving field such as medicine, we need researchers who are prepared to take risks. We can all think of examples where risk-taking by scientists in the medical field has pushed back the frontiers of science; penicillin is the example that is usually quoted.
The influential Russell group of universities is not very keen either, perhaps surprisingly, given that it benefits from the system, and says that the RAE encourages short-termism. In that respect, the report's recommendation that we should shift to a seven-year period for assessing departments is welcome, because it would give scientists longer to produce a track record of publications and research and, of course, bring scientists in line with those in the liberal arts.
We are concerned that the exercise does not examine whole departments. It seems bizarre that portions of university departments should be shunted into the cupboard. I can think of other forms of investigation in the public sector where that would be completely incomprehensible. It would be bizarre if Ofsted decided to examine only part of a school, so that schools were allowed to demonstrate only their strengths rather than being examined across the board. One might take the view that examination should focus on those that are not achieving as well as they should be.
I am interested in what I believe is a developing distinction between research universities and those that are principally involved in teaching. The Chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee raised the subject of medical schools. The Peninsula medical school in the south-west is one such example. It just happens that, by and large, medical schools have, rightly, been established in universities that have a research base of some sort, but I think that there may be a tendency to move towards teaching universities, and that may be accelerated by the need to have medical schools that provide teaching for a specific purpose. I have certainly heard criticisms that some new medical schools are merely doctor factories. That may be acceptable. In medical schools, there has always been a problem in trying to incorporate some research and basic science experience into the medical training. We may see a shift towards universities that are principally involved in teaching, and I would not be surprised if medical schools were to take the lead in that. It is difficult to see how some universities, such as Plymouth, can provide a fully functioning, research-based medical school like the one at Bristol university.
The Minister treated us to the usual argument about decades of underfunding, but when she got to the nitty-gritty, she was not prepared to tell us what she meant by that. In its evidence, Universities UK said that investment worth £10 billion was needed. The Minister prevaricated when I challenged her to say whether she
318WH
agreed with that. Given her strong words about underfunding, one might imagine that £10 billion was about right, but we could not secure that commitment.
There is the important issue of priorities, which we discussed in the Select Committee. The Minister established several priorities. She told us that strengthening research excellence was one, along with increased participation, teaching and technology transfer. We then had a debate on how she was going to prioritise the priorities—priorities should be prioritised—but she did not fully take that up. I was a little concerned by that, particularly when she told me about more priorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) pursued the matter with her. As priorities generate funding, he was concerned about how the Minister would divvy up the finite resources available to her if priorities were not well set out.
I will moan a bit to the Minister because it is all very well talking the talk—we have had lots of talk about priorities and decades of underinvestment and so on—but she baulks at the specific, which shows an element of self-indulgence. We need her to give us a commitment on what her exact priorities will be and how much money she will give to universities, given that she feels that they have suffered from decades of neglect. I sound a cautionary note to universities because we are told that the Government have prioritised primary schools during their first tranche of education initiatives. However, having visited the primary schools in west Wiltshire, I see little evidence of that. My message to the universities in my area is "Do not hold your breath."
Several hon. Member rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was not a particularly good start.
3.16 pm
Alan Howarth: I congratulate the Select Committee and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), on producing an expert, lucid and provocative report. Colleagues of the Committee have complete confidence that it will have an independent voice.
My hon. Friend made some feisty remarks about HEFCE. I hope that the working relations between the Select Committee and HEFCE will none the less remain cordial. It is exceedingly important, in the interests of the universities and of science and technology in particular, that that should be the case.
I add to my hon. Friend's tribute to United Kingdom academics and scientists. This is not the occasion to talk about the achievements of our academics working in the humanities field, but many of the issues that are addressed in the report apply equally to them. They share in the academic distinction that the research assessment exercise has revealed. I am pleased that the Select Committee, and the Government, in their response to the report, have paid vivid tribute to the remarkable achievements of academia in this country.
In a way, those achievements defy gravity. Given the Treasury brutalism of the 1990s, it is remarkable that, in 2001 and 2002, our higher education system produces world-class research, apparently on an ever-increasing scale, and educates students in ever-larger numbers. The

319WH
trouble was that the more successful the system, the more the Treasury was inclined to think that it did not need to pay what it really cost. That was unjust and foolish.
Happily, Ministers are aware that that was the case. I was pleased that, in his speech to the Royal Society, the Prime Minister said:
"The strength and creativity of our science base is a key national asset",
and, importantly, he added:
"I want to make the UK the best place in the world for this research."
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, is, to my recollection, the best Science Minister ever. I am well placed to say that, having been Science Minister myself. I readily yield the palm to him. In recent years, I was a member of a ministerial group on science, of which he was the chair. His passion, knowledge, practicality and ambition for British science impressed me greatly.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education is a formidable Whitehall warrior. The report was a shade unjust to my hon. Friend if it suggested that she does not do absolutely everything she can to secure the funding that the system needs. In fact, the Treasury is the ghost at this feast. That brings me to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, a corporeal ghost. He has already to his credit the facts that he has increased the science budget substantially—by 15 per cent. in the 1998 comprehensive spending review and by 7 per cent. in real terms annually since the 2000 spending review—and that £1.75 billion has been invested in university science infrastructure jointly with the Wellcome Trust, which should always receive tributes in this place.
My right hon. Friend also wants us to note the significance of the research and development tax credit which, he suggested in a speech to the Amicus trade union, might be worth about £500 million to companies that are innovative in research. It is interesting that he has chosen that policy route; it is an open-ended commitment on the part of the Treasury, whereas the Government, in their response to the Select Committee report, insist that the research assessment exercise cannot command a demand-led budget.
When I was Minister in the Department for Education and Science, I looked at the case for extending tax breaks to businesses to encourage them to undertake more research and development. That is an excellent thing if it is affordable. It is good for business culture. Its weakness is that it does not take account of quality. It is no substitute for proper support for the science base through the funding councils and the research councils.
We await with bated breath the outcome of the spending review, which we shall know soon. There are anxieties about what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will feel he can afford. The Government have taken an enormous punt on health, which will pre-empt the allocation of many of the resources that may be available in future. Those responsible for ensuring that there is funding for transport and the police insist that their needs are large. Unquestionably, it is crucial that we invest in education and in research and development
320WH
in the universities—that is indispensable for our economy, for our quality of life and for our intellectual culture.
Dr. Murrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Alan Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, we have so little time.
Investment is needed in many aspects of higher education: teaching and research; infrastructure—the transparency review has revealed how much that needs; the widening of participation, which gets more expensive the further we widen; the scandalous situation of academic salaries, which again is unjust and foolish; and students, whom we should like to do more to support. That just covers higher education, before we consider further education and schools. The economic prospects seem a little less assured than they did a few months ago. However difficult it might be for the Government to find the money to support our university system, it is essential that they do so.
It is extremely unfortunate that HEFCE could not fund the implications of the RAE announced last December. It is essential that it should be able to do so. It is not proper to ask the system to go through a vast procedure, to raise expectations and then to let people down. Previous assessment exercises were more or less fully funded, more or less straight away. The problem was that HEFCE had too little money. It is fair to note that the funding available to it to increase research in 2002–03 was a 5.9 per cent. increase to £940 million. However, it did not have the resources to fund the improvements that the RAE showed up, although significant improvements were predictable. Such money as it had was already tied up because of the three-year funding regime. When the RAE was published in December, the system was going to have to wait until July for announcements about what might be available for the future and until April 2003 at the earliest to receive the fruits of the public expenditure review.
There are advantages in three-year funding; it enables everybody to plan. However, there are disadvantages. It was unrealistic to expect HEFCE to keep money in its back pocket in the event that it might need to spend more as a result of the RAE. It could not withhold significant sums from an already underfunded higher education system. Nor was it realistic to expect the Department to keep money in reserve. Thus, the Department was able to find only another £30 million to help HEFCE to deal with the implications of the RAE, although the Select Committee computed that some £206 million was needed. The Treasury, however, could have found that sum from the contingency fund. It was affordable for Government as a whole and it is regrettable that they did not take action immediately.
The result was that, as Universities UK has impressed on us, all except five-star rated departments are to have their funding reduced. That is hugely demoralising. The university system is riven with discussions and rumours about department closures and redundancies of academics. The Association of University Teachers fears that up to 1,400 people may be redundant. It is immensely important to find the funding that we need in order to make good the situation as soon as we can.

321WH
Benefits have derived over the years from the RAE, including the discipline that it has brought to bear on research management and the focus on excellence. The Select Committee has also drawn attention to some possible unfortunate consequences. All will be examined in the review. However, it would be unfair to expect academics to go through a further RAE without the assurance that whatever might be implied by its findings would be funded. Only pure masochism or, perhaps, professionalism would enable them to do that. It is excellent that HEFCE has asked Sir Gareth Roberts to undertake the review of the procedure that is about to start, although it is a shame that it will begin in a somewhat blighted atmosphere.
The RAE has highlighted many issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) has drawn attention to those concerning women academics. I should like to mention the transparency review.
I trust that the Government will not await the findings of the review of the RAE before acting on the findings of the transparency review. HEFCE has told us that United Kingdom research in 1999–2000 was in deficit by £1.35 billion. That is more than the whole of the quality-related research funding that it has to distribute. Some 20 per cent. of that is due to shortfalls in payment by industry and charities, but 80 per cent., some £800 million, is a shortfall in what the Government ought to be paying.
Ten years ago, we spoke in Government about the low-price culture. In those days it was imposed by Government, because Government Departments would not pay what the research cost. I was pleased, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his address to the Royal Society, said that the response of the Government must be to encourage openness, transparency and honesty. True, he was referring to agriculture, but that should apply in all Departments. He also said that improvements in the Government's handling of science should continue. What was happening was graphically explained by Professor Sir Howard Newby at the CVCP conference in November 2000, when he said:
"Research is being supported by resources provided for teaching and other activities, by neglect of maintenance for infrastructure, by excessive staff hours".
Everybody colluded in that—the Government, universities, industry and charities. The universities colluded for far too long. Now that they have applied the methodology of the transparency and accountability review, it is for Government to honour the funding implications of their policy, through quality-related research funding, in research council grants and in the price paid for publicly funded contracts.
The Roberts report on the supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills is enormously important. It draws attention to systemic problems that must be dealt with systemically. We do not have the qualified teachers that we need in schools and fewer pupils are taking mathematics and physical sciences at A-level. Between 1991 and 1999, the number of pupils taking A-level physics decreased by 21 per cent. and the number of pupils taking mathematics decreased
322WH
by 9 per cent. At undergraduate level, between 1995 and 2000, entrants to chemistry degrees fell by 16 per cent. and entrants to physics and engineering degrees by 7 per cent.
There are problems of curricula and facilities in both schools and universities. The figures relating to postgraduates are also alarming. The number of doctorates awarded to UK-domiciled students—note, UK-domiciled—fell by 9 per cent. between 1995–96 and 1999–2000. However, there are problems of stipends and training. Equally, we face difficulties at post-doctoral level with pay and career uncertainties. There is poor recruitment of academic staff in mathematics and physical sciences, and the age profile gives rise to concern. Again, disgraceful pay lies at the heart of the difficulty.
I do not want to be too downbeat. We can be cheerful at the fact that the Government understand the problems. The Government commissioned the transparency review and the Roberts report, and they endorse the review of the RAE process that is being undertaken by HEFCE. The Government's response to the Select Committee report is far from defensive and acknowledges the issues. The biggest question is how much money they will produce to support the system, and we shall know that shortly. If they do not produce a step change in funding, I fear that the great creative endeavour of UK science could unravel, which would be a cultural and economic disaster.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. Once again, I appeal to all hon. Members to heed my request for succinct and brief speeches to enable every Member who wishes to speak to participate in this important debate.
3.32 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to follow the distinguished gentleman who has just spoken, the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), who was a Science Minister in his day. I have not been a Science Minister, although I happen to be disciplined in the queen of sciences. To declare an interest, one of my daughters is a general practitioner and another teaches science in a secondary community school. I am an office bearer on the parliamentary Scientific Committee.
Although I welcome the report, I believe that it has given us grounds to seek a wider review of research and university funding. There is no point in saying that things must be done in certain ways if the finance is not available. I speak from my experience in Northern Ireland where, during the 1990s, research funding in universities decreased by 53 per cent., whereas in the UK as a whole, it increased by 9 per cent. It is important that we achieve a better balance. Although improvements have been made in universities in Northern Ireland, research funding to the university of Ulster—which did remarkably well in a recent review—is to be cut by 4 per cent. in the year 2002–03. When we compare universities in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, we see that £24 per head is allowed for science in Northern Ireland, compared with £58 in Scotland, £44 in England and £35 in Wales.

323WH
I was fascinated to discover in the paper presented to most of us by Science that of the 18 Members of Parliament who have a scientific degree, only one is from Northern Ireland. That works out at 5.2 per cent., compared with 9.7 per cent. of all MPs who have degrees in science. However, they miss an important aspect. Universities in Northern Ireland have produced some outstanding homespun scientific industries; one need think only of Northbrook Laboratories, Galen and Randox Laboratories, all of which emerged from the work done by the research departments at Queen's university.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) mentioned gamesmanship, and people in the sector are perhaps learning the parliamentary skill of spinning. However, he is right that not everything can be put down to gamesmanship, and if the nation is to benefit from the world of knowledge, we must recognise and support the positive developments that have taken place.
Queen's university, which is in my constituency, has undergone significant restructuring in recent years. In the words of the vice-chancellor, Sir George Bain, there
"is no question that the painful change the University has gone through has strengthened Queen's."
However, the funding and the improved RAE showing that were expected as a reward for that pain have not materialised. That begs the question of what incentive our universities have to take difficult decisions and to improve their research abilities if their funding does not improve or is, indeed, cut. Funding should reflect the dramatic improvements that were made across the spectrum from 1996 to 2001. We should recognise those improvements, and not sit back and say, "If you could make improvements with that amount of funding, we're not going to give you more in the future." That is not what we should do.
I hope that we shall redress the anomalies, such as the dichotomy between research and teaching. Ultimately, a university should not be penalised for providing good teaching but not doing enough research. We should not focus only on the superb research, and forget that all research should be evaluated. Often, research that does not appear to be important at the time becomes the seed from which other knowledge springs. All research should, therefore, be evaluated and acknowledged.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his co-operation, and I hope that other hon. Members will follow his example.
3.37 pm
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I begin by declaring a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the advisory council of the Institute of Historical Research at London university, which has just been subject to the RAE process.
I have a long-standing interest in this issue as a former Open university lecturer. I was also the editor of "History Today" for 12 years, when, rather like the Chairman of the Committee, I listened long and hard to academics in the humanities and across the board complaining about the RAE. It is worth reminding hon. Members that such criticisms are not new; they were
324WH
alluded to in Lord Dearing's report and in the 1998 report of the Science and Technology Committee. Indeed, the Select Committee on Education and Employment, of which I was privileged to be a member in the previous Parliament, touched on the issues in two reports; on student admissions and retention. It is worth reminding hon. Members of what we said:
"We are concerned that the overall quality of teaching"—
this echoes what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said—
"should not suffer as the result of emphasis placed upon success in the Research Assessment Exercise…We recommend that HEFCE and individual institutions should look carefully at earmarking funds for outreach activities and pastoral care, and ensure that excellence shown in these areas, especially by young academics, should enhance rather than jeopardise career advancement and promotion."
That is important. Those in HEFCE can say until they are blue in the face that those other areas are looked at and, with respect, so can the Government. However, as other Members have pointed out, the hard fact is that interest follows the money and unless money is made available to those other areas for extending pastoral care, outreach in the community and teaching, the focus will change.
The Select Committee is to be commended on this excellent and robust report; such a report was necessary. I especially welcome the comments on the effects of the RAE on interdisciplinary study and on the distortion of scholarship. We are right to talk about the fears for blue-sky research in a system that sometimes seems to place too much emphasis on process and not enough on discovery. That point was touched on in an article by Sir Harry Kroto and Tony Stace—both distinguished professors at Sussex university—in The Times Higher Education Supplement in February 2002.
As someone who comes from the humanities field. I want to point out that there is a problem there too. The director of the Institute of Historical Research, Professor David Cannadine, made that point forcefully—I think at his inaugural lecture—when he said:
"What might in an earlier era have been one big, important, ground-breaking article is now salami-sliced into three to give quantity of output. A lengthily researched and deeply pondered book becomes instead a prematurely published survey, or an arid monograph, which almost no one reads."
If such criticism is accurate, we are entitled to ask who the Jacob Bronowskis, AJP Taylors or Simon Schamas of 2020 to 2030 will be. That is an important point.
There is a significant lack of transparency about the reward to be gained from this process. Again, in giving evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Employment in April 2000, Dr. Roger Brown of the Southampton Institute—a distinguished critic of the operation of the RAE—was asked the following question by Professor Middlehurst:
"If I am a bright young researcher and I have published the articles which get my university a 4 or 5, do I see the benefit?"
Dr. Brown replied;
"If I may say so…the evidence shows that the funds do not go to the departments that gain the high ratings in the first place."
Nor do they go to the individuals concerned.
The RAE is an extremely time-consuming process. I noted the comments made earlier about the parallels with the early days of the Office for Standards in

325WH
Education, which the Select Committee on Education and Employment also examined. We heard about box-loads of documents being brought along and so on. The Minister and the Department would do well to consider seriously the suggestions in the report for a lighter audit.
Because the matter is so important, we now face the horrendous possibility of some form of litigation. In an article in The Times Higher Education Supplement in May 2002 it was stated that:
"A number of university departments are hoping a judicial review could force the Higher Education Funding Council for England to reassess the quality of their research".
That is particularly true of those in the environmental science department. We should not take that route.
There are scams in the systems. Someone referred to Professor Susan Bassnett, who earlier this year wrote in The Guardian:
"About three years ago, there was a virtual cattle market in academics, with poaching going on behind every scene. Like several of my friends, I was offered a very high salary to go somewhere as a research professor, with the lure of no teaching or administration."
I can confirm that, from my experiences as editor of History Today and conversations that I had with several academics who were in that position and faced with that temptation.
The report mentions the collateral damage that can be caused by an over-emphasis on the RAE. I have touched on that point already. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is deeply committed to the outreach and teaching processes. However, if there is not a weighting for other activities and if we cannot find some form of structure that is not so top-heavy, inevitably the bright 30-something young lecturer or academic, faced with the dilemma of whether to devote attention to research or to other activities, is likely to put the other activities to one side.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has said; HEFCE has been both complacent and arrogant in its response to the report. There is ample evidence also that RAE, as it functions at present, inhibits collaboration. That is also true in the humanities. There are significant interdisciplinary problems in the sciences, but there are also problems in the humanities, particularly in the new universities.
The RAE, whether it wishes to or not, can also devalue teaching. There are no fiscal incentives for teaching as there are for the research, even though money may go in. The chairman of HEFCE admitted as much himself and the Minister made that point in the evidence that she gave to the Select Committee. She rightly refused to rank research above increased participation, teaching and technology transfer. That point needs to be made. We must also avoid creating an apartheid between teaching and research. The new universities must not lose out. Again, I think that HEFCE is complacent and smug, especially in view of the Association of University Teachers' statistics, which show that 75 per cent. of its funding is currently allocated to only 26 universities.
What should we do in response to all that? I have made a number of suggestions before and I will repeat a few of them today. There is scope to look at integrating
326WH
both the RAE and the teaching quality assurance into a new broader higher education excellence audit that will be lighter and less bureaucratic. We can learn lessons from the organic way in which Ofsted has developed. We need to allow researchers to submit evidence of work in progress and to gain interim credit. That will reduce some of the pressures to publish prematurely in the sciences and humanities.
We must give credit for innovative ways of communicating and disseminating research and best practice in teaching both online and in published form. That is not something that the RAE does easily at the moment. We should ring-fence funding more directly to reward those who have won it for high ratings and prevent charges that this money is not accounted for properly.
I should be appalled if the RAE fixed the current academic situation in aspic. A Government who are committed to broadening education and higher education participation and a party that was the proud founder of the Open university should not support uncritically a system that threatens to preserve a hereditary elite of departments or universities via the RAE. That is why it cannot just be left to HEFCE. That is why the Government and my hon. Friend need to take a more active part in the process.
3.48 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban: First, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and the Minister for the fact that I will not be here for the winding-up speeches due to another commitment.
The tone of the debate so far has been a little negative. We ought to recognise that what we have seen over the course of the past four or five years is an improvement in the standing of our university research institutions. As the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) remarked in his opening comments, 31 per cent. of research staff were in 5* departments in 1996. That has increased to 55 per cent. in 2001. In Hampshire, 76 per cent. of staff submitted to the research assessment exercise are in five star departments. That is a great tribute to the universities of Southampton and Portsmouth, one of which is longer established, and the work that they have done to improve the standard of research in those two institutions.
Money should follow excellence, and we have a mechanism that has examined the quality of the research produced by universities. We may cavil at the games that universities play on who is in and out of the research exercise—it is important to revisit that process for the next round of reviews—but we should reward institutions that are academically successful. We must remember that in the environment in which universities operate, the market for high quality staff is not restricted just to the United Kingdom. They also compete in the international arena for good quality academic research staff. If we are able to fund world-leading departments. the chances are that we will recruit more of those staff to the UK and, crucially, retain those whom we have nurtured and prevent them from escaping in the 21st century version of the brain drain.
Having said that, I am conscious that whenever we monitor and reward results, negative behaviour starts to emerge. The hon. Member for Blackpool,

327WH
South (Mr. Marsden) referred to the cattle market in academics, which is one aspect. A transfer market will open up and although that may not be bad, it will make us wonder what behavioural measures are being encouraged in universities to generate improvements in performance. Three points are worth considering in discussing the distortion arising from the RAE; knowledge transfer, community involvement and regional presence.
The Committee examined whether HEFCE was properly rewarding the knowledge transfer activities of universities, and there was some doubt about whether universities were getting full value from their work. It was interesting to note that many felt that the panels that visited universities were a little light of industrial representatives who could have made a valuable contribution in assessing the quality of research and knowledge transfer. HEFCE should examine that problem in conjunction with employers and industry.
One piece of evidence to the report that reinforces that concern was the evidence that more patents were submitted by departments with low ratings for research output. That demonstrates that departments are producing research that requires patents but not getting full value, and we must examine that.
On community involvement, I represent an area that is dependent on technology transfers from universities for its future prosperity. After visiting schools in my constituency, I am conscious that we are not seeing scientists in classrooms or encouraging enough pupils to follow through to A-level and degree science. They are not being pulled through the school system because they do not see role models from universities and industry. If the pressure is always on academics to publish research, whether that is in salami-sliced packets or not, they may feel that activities that are not rewarded by an explicit funding stream are not valued. That might stop them going out into schools and the wider community to promote the message that science is important to the nation's economy.
On regional presence, the Department's response to our report said that it felt that there was a good regional coverage of research facilities. That clearly does not include the county of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), which received no money from HEFCE because it has no universities. That is one area where there is not a wide coverage of research facilities, but I am concerned by the increased concentration of resources. The funding weights, which show that resources have been moved from departments rated 5,4,3a and 3b, also demonstrate that we might see a greater concentration of funding in particular universities and the risk that, over time, good quality research will not exist in certain parts of the country. That is a major concern. If students and industry are to have access to high quality research facilities, the local economy will miss out.
From talking to parents and others, I am acutely aware, as is the Minister, that more students are living at home because of the problem of financing university participation. If students are forced to draw only on their local universities for higher education and if good quality research becomes concentrated in fewer universities, those staying at home might not have access
328WH
to good quality research and the good quality teaching that comes with it. I am worried about such distortionary impacts arising from RAE.
The concentration of funding, coupled with the Government's desire to increase participation in higher education to 50 per cent., might force us—perhaps implicitly, rather than explicitly—down the United States route, where there are teaching universities and universities dealing with research and teaching. Colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee with more experience of universities than me expressed concern about a new binary divide opening up in higher education. When the comprehensive spending review is published next month, we must have a proper debate on the role and function of universities. We shall have to decide on our priorities.
3.56 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: I offer you my congratulations on your recent award, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It was important that the Science and Technology Committee exhaustively reviewed the application of the research assessment exercise in universities—at least as far as science and technology subjects were concerned. Aspects of the RAE have proved controversial, and those who were directly involved in the exercise in the past knew about the problems. I am pleased that the publication of the report has catalysed the HEFCE into promoting a report of its own. Under the chairmanship of Sir Gareth Roberts, I hope that it will examine the subject in greater depth.
We recognised that the RAE concentrated the minds of academics—in particular those who managed research in university departments—and resulted in better management of resources and facilities. Quality has improved, as the report states, but it has done so selectively, not across the board. I am especially concerned about the pressure on blue-skies research. We must promote the Harry Krotos of this world, and they must be given time to think. In universities today, too little time is available to think about research; we must lever that time back in again, otherwise we might miss out on some of the greatest inventions.
The RAE has had some beneficial effects, but we have also seen collateral damage. All of us—especially the HEFCE—must ask whether the exercise has been beneficial to university life as a whole. University life is not all about teaching and research: many aspects involve interaction with industry and the rest of the community. The RAE has certainly been a bureaucratic exercise. Sixty assessment panels assessed 200,000 publications submitted by 50,000 academics in the last RAE in 2001. Whenever we ask about the costs, it is difficult to obtain a hard figure. Is the expenditure of money and time worth while overall?
Universities contribute £35 billion to the UK economy. In some constituencies, including my own, they are major employers. Bolton Institute is one of 119 higher education institutions, albeit not yet a university even though it awards its own undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. I hope that it will be a university before too long.
Government investment in research and development in this country compares unfavourably with the rest of the world's developed countries, such as the G8. The

329WH
UK Government invest only 0.20 per cent. of gross domestic product, whereas Japan invests 0.29 per cent., Germany invests 0.34 per cent. and France invests 0.4 per cent. Those are significant differences.
My anxiety is that many university science, engineering and technology departments are closing. We cannot blame that all on the RAE, but some of the damage is collateral to it. As a result of the 2001 RAE, 55 out of 119 institutions have suffered real-terms cuts in research funding. Some are set to lose more than £1 million, others much more than that. Cranfield university is set to lose £3.1 million; other losers include the university of Greenwich; Queen Mary, university of London; and my old alma mater, the university of Hull. The Institute of Cancer Research is also set to lose money, which will be of interest to our Committee Chairman who takes a great interest in cancer research.
Only the research of departments with a 5* grading has been protected in the current RAE. All others have lost funding in real terms. The Committee estimated that the 2001 RAE required funding of £206 million, but the Government offered only £30 million. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what representations she has made in the 2002 comprehensive spending review to ensure that universities catch up in what in recent decades has been a loss-making exercise.
Cuts in research funding mean the loss of jobs, and in some cases the loss of departments. It is estimated that the RAE might cost 1,400 academic and support-staff jobs. Yesterday, we were lobbied by the Association of University Teachers, of which I remain an honorary member. I met representatives from Bolton Institute and from the university of Salford, where I taught chemistry for 31 years. Seventy jobs—30 academic-related and 40 support-staff jobs—might be affected at Salford, although some of the people involved will be redeployed in that or another university. A similar number of jobs are affected at UMIST—the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology—and 80 to 120 jobs might be affected at the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary, university of London. Those are significant numbers.
Those are examples of the damage that we are doing to our universities not only as a result of the RAE, but for other reasons. I was pleased by the Prime Minister's important speech at the Royal Society on 23 May. He said that he was committed to supporting and expanding the science base, which, after all, is our future. However, things are not so good on the ground. I am hopeful that the Government will reverse that position when the next comprehensive spending review is published.
Since the start of the RAE, 18 chemistry departments—at least, units of cost referring to chemistry—have been lost. We expect 11 more chemistry departments to suffer the same fate as a result of the current RAE. If that happens, only about one quarter of the 119 institutions that I mentioned will teach chemistry. More and more students live at home because of pressures of fees and maintenance costs, but whatever the reason, every student who has to live at home should be given the opportunity to study chemistry—or any other subject—at a local university.
330WH
In many parts of the country, we are in danger of losing whole departments, which will result in students having to incur greater costs by living away from home.
I am worried about the middle league of universities. In the RAE, there is a struggle upwards to achieve. Those that get 3a or 3b will not be funded at all, despite the recommendation of the AUT—with which I agree—that they should be. Middle-league universities wrestle with themselves about whether they can keep research going. For example, one department at Salford university is set to close. Even though its staff have worked so hard that they have managed to get into fourth position and set the university on an upwards trend, Salford has decided that its chemistry department is in the middle league and can no longer be funded.
There has to be time to think in universities or we will miss out on some of the greatest innovations and discoveries. At the moment that time does not exist because huge pressure is put on academic staff. Businesses should be subject to business pressures, but it is unfortunate that universities are too. That is not always right.
4.5 pm
Adam Price: On behalf of Plaid Cymru, I commend the Select Committee for its impressively robust and independent report.
The Committee is right to point out that the RAE process has positive effects of stimulating universities into managing research and ensuring some strategic direction in the apportioning of funds. However, as the report says, there are several problems with the RAE process, which distorts research practice in many ways. An excellent example of that is the way in which university presses rush out publications. The university of Wales press, for example, has published about a dozen books in the past month—it usually produces at most one or two a month.
As the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said, the RAE process distorts in another sense, and I shall concentrate on that in my brief remarks. Inherent in the RAE process is an explicit tendency to concentrate resources on existing centres of excellence. There is unresolved tension between the research driver and the third, regional mission in terms of technology transfer and regional presence.
The RAE process is an example of something that economists suggest should never occur: increasing returns to scale. If an institution achieves high-quality research it receives further funds, which enable it to consolidate its position of strength. It is a virtuous circle for successful institutions, whereas weaker university institutions can be locked into relative weakness.
As we have heard, that is of concern in Northern Ireland; it is also of concern to us in Wales. The report picked up two aspects of that issue, the first of which is local research. I read the Government response on that, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that local research tends to be regarded as parochial. Even Wales-level research—national research to us—in the social sciences and economics is not thought to have sufficient international stature or to be of sufficient interest to be published in refereed journals. That is of concern in terms of embedding university institutions within their

331WH
regional context. Through the 100 years of its existence, there has been a long-running critique of the university of Wales based on the extent to which it has contributed to wider debates in policy terms, particularly in social sciences. Universities have increasingly emphasised their regional mission, but we should re-examine funding for local and regional research, and whether we could ensure that by providing other funding streams or by broadening the RAE process.
On research funding, the Government have placed the role of HE institutions at the forefront of the policy agenda in regional economics, in the Dearing report and in the White Paper on competitiveness and science and innovation. There have been substantial improvements to the science base in Wales. I am glad that Cardiff now has the seventh-best performing university institution in the United Kingdom. There has also been a significant improvement—a quadrupling—in the number of departments in Wales achieving 5* plus ratings since 1996.
Nevertheless, there is concern in Wales—as there is throughout the UK—about whether that improvement can be sustained with existing funding. For instance, Wales receives only 3 per cent. of research council funding. I acknowledge that that is a slightly different issue, but I have made the point that there are territorial dimensions to research funding. The Minister will be aware from the higher education review in Wales that Higher Education Wales—the umbrella body for university institutions—has called for additional investment of £90 million through the next CSR. It, too, will be waiting with bated breath for the Chancellor's response.
That is important because of the role that such institutions play in economic development. We are all aware of the importance of knowledge capital to driving economic growth, particularly in peripheral regions and those that are economically disadvantaged. The Minister will be alive to that tension, which was amply demonstrated by the debate about the synchrotron facility, which was situated in the Rutherford Appleton laboratory rather than in Cheshire.
The interesting debate about whether there is a role for the regionalisation of science policy mirrors a debate that has been taking place in the European Commission for many years between the directorate-general for regional policy and that for innovation and competitiveness. There is tension focused on global competitiveness: there is a clear argument for concentrating on existing centres of excellence, but if we do that, there is a danger that we will lock poorly performing regions into their current economic position.
The experience following the debate in the north-west is instructive. A regional science council has been formed, and there is interest in Wales for a Welsh science council. The Government's response leaves that door open, but might it be possible to consider a parallel network of science and technology councils throughout the UK alongside the network of regional development agencies in England and the existing institutions in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? That would allow a creative interplay between regional development policy on one hand, and science and technology policy on the other.
4.12 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: The question that we should address is simple, although the answer is rather complicated. Does the outcome of the RAE contribute towards generating scientific excellence, or excellence in any other disciplines, within our university system? Especially after having participated in the Select Committee's own exercise on the RAE, I have to say that the jury is out.
The only thing that we can be certain of is that the apparent gradings of research have improved. However, gradings are just that: they are measured by artificial scales and do not necessarily mean what they seem to mean. Anyone who has been involved in research knows that every measurement process can introduce its own kind of bias.
To what is the dramatic improvement in performance due? Are researchers trying harder? Some of them may be. Or are they being measured differently? Are universities getting cleverer in some cases at manipulating the system to maximise their apparent performance, or is the improvement due in some measure—I suspect that it is—to the extra resources that the Government have put in since 1997? It is not difficult to get an accurate answer to that question. Whatever anyone thinks about the report on the RAE, it has been enthusiastically welcomed by university faculties, so we have struck some chords somewhere and we have some valid points to make.
There is no doubt that the system has been manipulated. For example, my local university, the university of Sussex, has achieved a remarkable increase, with a very high percentage of departments rated at 4 and 5, although not 5* The University took the conscious—and clearly quite unwise—decision not to ration the faculty members that it put into the RAE; it put them all in. If it had been selective, it would have come out with some 5* departments and an increase in funding from HEFCE. As it is, it faces an £800,000 cut in its HEFCE funding.
Several hon. Members have mentioned Harry Kroto, who is a member of the faculty at the university of Sussex. Let us suppose, for the sake of RAE assessments, that he was a piece of property and the university was choosing a faculty to submit. It would not submit Harry because he does not publish that often, but when he does, he gets Nobel prizes. We really have to question the value of that quite seriously.
Hon. Members mentioned blue-skies research, which is absolutely essential. What pays for blue-skies research? HEFCE funding. Because they have not manipulated the system and got stars, the university of Sussex and many other institutions that have either retained or increased their RAE ratings face cuts and cannot sustain blue-skies research as they should—or if they can do so, it is only with great difficulty. There is no doubt that departments will close. It is an inexorable process.
The RAE and its adverse consequences—I hate to keep focusing on the adverse consequences, but they exist, so let us recognise them and count them—come on top of a very long period, which includes the 18 years of Tory rule, during which universities have not had proper funding, and faculties and the other support professions working in universities have been drastically underpaid.

333WH
Universities are now reaching a point of real crisis. What is the salary of a PhD research fellow who has had to go through a long period of poverty as a student? It is £24,000. What is the starting salary of a 20-year-old police constable? The same: £24,000. We have some peculiar values, starting here. Against the background of those strange values, the RAE as it has been constituted has not made things any better. I will not put it any more strongly than that.
If we were to realise the input into our society that universities have traditionally made and the need to maintain and build on it, whether it is for the intellectual or commercial health of society or whatever, we would understand that universities have a central role to play. They have been subject to gross under-investment for far too long. There are tremendous returns for the nation from investment in universities, but subjecting them to almost Thatcherite management assessment procedures—that is what the RAE is—then giving them less money when they have improved their performance, will not produce the goods.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), among others, referred to a dichotomy between research and teaching. There should be no dichotomy. If institutions are to be worthy of the label "university" research and teaching must go hand in hand. As a student, I was fired up by lectures—indeed, by any form of contact with scientists of repute who were at the cutting edge of research. One cannot describe the difference between hearing something from the horse's mouth and hearing someone who is simply repeating the textbook, however good a scholar he might be. We put such contact at risk by encouraging a dichotomy, by underfunding universities, and by distorting funding as the RAE has done.
The Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), said that the Government's response to the report was broadly favourable. I think that the Government understood much of what we said. We had what could almost be called a stout rebuttal from the HEFCE, but that means very little given that it has said that it will set up a review. I agree with hon. Members who have suggested that any review should be carried out not by the HEFCE, but by an independent body. If they are looking for a body that could really do the job, I would suggest the Science and Technology Committee, although, this time, we would like to be paid, thank you.
There must be some way of measuring performance, but it need not be as bureaucratic as the RAE has been, or involve people in working to meet its requirements for most of five years, every five years, as the RAE has done. Incidentally, why must science faculties go through those hoops every five years, given that faculties of humanities and the arts do so only every seven years? There is no logic to that.
The RAE has resulted in scientific literature being stuffed with potboilers, because people do not wait to finish their research. They do not wait to publish the blockbuster paper, but have to publish their work in
334WH
parts, before it is finished. In its present form, the RAE is a disincentive to the best flowering of British universities' potential.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The winding-up speeches from Front Benchers will begin at 5 o'clock, and four other hon. Members have indicated their interest in speaking before then. We shall adjourn at half past 5 o'clock.
4.24 pm
Mrs. Patsy Calton: My colleagues the hon. Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) have already mentioned the importance to the north-west of regeneration through science. I will not repeat the statistics, which I imagine we all received from the Save British Science Society, because I am sure that no one in this Chamber doubts the importance of science to regenerating the economy.
A few weeks ago, I attended the Biochemical Society annual general meeting. The major part of the morning's proceedings was taken up with the research assessment exercise. It came through clearly that there has been a dramatic increase in ratings. Some anxiety was expressed that the validity of those ratings might be a bit suspect, but there seems to be considerable confidence in the ratings increase because of the international peer review aspect of the research exercise. We should celebrate British science and the value for money that it brings, because for every £1 million spent it is first in the world in terms of publications and citations.
Concern was expressed at the meeting that some research departments had not included all their researchers in the exercise. The Government should take up that issue because it results in a degree of invalidation and makes it difficult to compare like with like. As members of the Biochemical Society recognized, the RAE has had a beneficial impact on quality, but there is no doubt that there is unnecessary bureaucracy and damage done to morale. It was repeatedly said that the exercise had produced improvements in quality, but funding had not followed. Hon. Members have already referred to the lack of comparability between remuneration for research posts and that for professional posts in other spheres.
There is less emphasis on quality teaching. Until a year ago in June, I was a science teacher, and I have listened carefully to the comments that have been made about teaching universities and research universities. I would be very concerned if we moved towards a situation in which there were universities that were only teaching universities. The vibrancy that comes from being part of a university community that produces research is important for young people.
However, I take issue with some of the comments made by the Chairman of the Select Committee. Researchers do not necessarily make good teachers: teaching is a completely different activity from research. It must be backed up by the sort of understanding that does not necessarily come from a university environment where research is seen as the main focus of

335WH
activity. I am not sitting on the fence—both activities should go on in universities. My point is that the importance of good teaching is not receiving anywhere near enough emphasis.
One or two hon. Members mentioned that the decline in study of the physical sciences at A-level results from lack of contact with scientists, but as a teacher of A-level chemistry, I found all too often that the experience given to students by people engaged in active research was way over the students' heads and impossible for them to understand. In those circumstances, it was almost a waste of time. Young people need to be taught, and teaching is a different activity from reporting.
Dr. Desmond Turner: Does the hon. Lady agree that while that might be true of school sixth formers, university is different?
Mrs. Calton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the point that I was going to make. With the increased participation that we hope to achieve, there must be a recognition that some of the young people who come into our universities might require a much more careful teaching regime than some of their highly qualified predecessors did. That is not a matter of high versus low qualifications; it is because in this country we have a tendency to think that just because a person has not studied a subject—let us say chemistry, although it could be any subject—before university, he will not be capable of learning it. In fact, other countries have demonstrated that young people can pick up such subjects at university. They do so through effective teaching programmes rather than through an assumption that if they are sat and talked at for long enough by people who are stimulating enough, they will necessarily learn what they have to learn. There is far more to it than simply putting people in contact with university academics.
The Biochemical Society was concerned that the RAE would lead to the stifling of speculative research, referred to by hon. Members as blue-skies research. I have wondered once or twice what people will make of this debate in five years' time, when the blue-skies idea has moved on. The RAE just about rewards the good, but seedcorn is definitely needed for the up and coming. The clear message from the Biochemical Society was that expectations have been raised and dashed.
I am concerned that in my region the RAE has ended up as a driver in the proposed amalgamation of UMIST and the University of Manchester. There will be job losses in successful departments. I have had letters about that from constituents in the past few days. One said, among other things:
"Had the quality of UMIST's research been funded at 2001 levels, UMIST would have received a cash increase of £2 million. Instead UMIST suffered a £2 million year-on-year real term cut as a result of the new funding formula."
I ought to declare an interest: I am a graduate of UMIST. My concern is that despite the undoubted potential benefit of amalgamation in terms of bringing together those with academic and commercial backgrounds, that does not seem necessarily to be the driver.
336WH
Another letter from a constituent stated:
"Five star departments will receive an average 2.5 per cent. increase in funding, roughly equal to the current Retail Price Index but five rated departments face a 12.3 per cent. cut, and four rated departments a 29.2 per cent. cut in funding."
That is absolutely appalling. I am being signalled to wind up, and shall do so. I conclude by quoting one more letter, which states:
"You and your constituents need well trained and capable scientists and engineers to design and operate the complex infrastructures on which we all depend. It is difficult to see how the current situation is going to enable our water, sewage treatment, power, pollution and health care systems to deliver better outcomes given these cuts in funding."
4.34 pm
Mr. Mark Hendrick: I congratulate the Select Committee on its excellent report. There is much that I was going to say that I will not now say, and much that I did not intend to say that I will now say. Having said that, I do not think that I will have time to say very much.
There is definitely a need for quality research. The RAE has an important role and must be seen to be effective in that role. Clearly, excellence is required. If we consider the number of organisations involved in higher education—the HEFCE, the research councils, the Department for Education and Skills and the Office of Science and Technology in the Department of Trade and Industry—we can see that many bodies have their fingers in the pie.
People have mentioned the UK's achievements, including our position as second highest in terms of publications and citations. That is an important parameter, but it is not necessarily an indication of quality; rather, it is an indication of quantity. Previous speakers have raised important issues about the quality of publications and citations. We must ensure that research is not carried out merely for its own sake, but that it makes an important contribution to the body of knowledge, so that where possible it can be exploited commercially and in other ways.
As someone who trained as an electronics engineer in the polytechnic sector, where the quality of teaching and links with industry were excellent—although my institution did not have a research background—I know that some of the polytechnics did a great job. To turn them into universities is one thing, but to expect them to behave exactly as the old universities do is difficult and not necessarily desirable. As a postgraduate, I spent four years at university in Manchester doing several qualifications—one of which, strangely enough, was a university of Manchester certification of education—and I totally agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton). I have met many lecturers who teach and many excellent academics and researchers, but not many who can do both.
I spent six years working as a design engineer at the Daresbury laboratories for the Science and Engineering Research Council. I also worked at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, now the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, in Malvern, so I have seen

337WH
research from several angles. The Government are right to say that the system needs to be examined, and RAEs are extremely important in that context. The Select Committee report says:
"Most of the evidence we have received has suggested that the RAE has had a broadly beneficial effect on research in the UK."
Most of us would agree with those sentiments.
Although it is important to encourage and fund excellence, we should not penalise the good. The best should not be the enemy of the good, and the more science and research that goes on, the better. From my political perspective, underfunding had a Thatcherite tone until 1997. That attitude should not be allowed to continue today.
Output is important in research practice, but it is also important that research does not take place in a vacuum. I have visited the United States several times, and I have always been impressed by the way in which universities are enmeshed with Government organisations, private companies and even the defence community. A whole establishment exists around science, and research is not seen simply as the academic pursuit of good science for its own sake.
Other hon. Members have mentioned morale and careers, so I shall not go into those issues. They have also made excellent points about pay and about the participation of women—the arguments about the latter being applicable in many other spheres of working life.
In his speech to the Royal Society, the Prime Minister drew attention to national priorities, some of which are controversial, such as genetic modification and the biosciences. Excellent work is being done in nanoscience, and subjects such as light-emitting polymers, e-science, the biomedical sciences and the post-genomic world are important for the future. We should focus on the long term, not just on the short and medium terms.
When I was at Daresbury, much of the work that was being done on the synchrotron generator and the Van de Graaff generator was aimed at blue-skies research. Such research is not a passing fad—I part company with the hon. Member for Cheadle in that regard. We need blue-skies research, and it must be publicly funded. If it is not, it will not for the most part be conducted at all, because only mega-corporations have the necessary finance.
Mrs. Calton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hendrick: I will not give way, because other hon. Members want to speak. If the hon. Lady wants to raise the issue privately with me after the debate, I will be happy to chat with her. There is much to be done in blue-skies research.
Objective assessment is important in terms of rating, raising standards and improving strategies. Good research clearly contributes to the available body of knowledge and it can be commercially exploited, although it need not be. The aerospace industry is strong in my area, and it is important both because of the spin-offs to developing industries and because of the spin-in from companies that do their own research. However, although industry contributes a great deal to research, it
338WH
is important that the public sector continues to contribute in a way that benefits science, business and commerce.
4.42 pm
Mr. Mike Hall: Congratulations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your knighthood, which is well deserved. I also congratulate the Science and Technology Committee on its excellent report, which will allow me later on to raise the specific constituency issue of the future of Daresbury. The laboratory is not quite in Cheshire, but in the borough of Halton, although I will not argue about the geography.
The report does three things. It draws attention to the fact that science research is underfunded, and calls on the Government to commit at least an extra £206 million in the comprehensive spending review. It also draws attention to the fact that several bodies are responsible for funding scientific research. The HEFCE funds universities, while the Office of Science and Technology directly funds places such as Daresbury laboratory. Those bodies must work together to ensure that science research has a future.
Paragraph 55, on page 24 of the report, notes that we need to introduce a regional dimension if we are to sustain a broad-based approach to science that extends across the whole economy and is not centralised around a few centres of excellence. I take precisely the same view.
I do not have many scientific qualifications and I have no degree in science, although I have a chemical technician's certificate from Stretford technical college. My degree is in education. In passing, I should congratulate my son, who told me today that he has got his BA (Hons) in history from Lancaster university. I am delighted for him even though he did not go into science. We shall certainly be popping a cork later.
Daresbury laboratory is the home of the synchrotron radiation source, which is a second-generation light source. For those who are not familiar with what goes on there, it accelerates nuclear particles to as close as possible to the speed of light in a circular accelerator; they are then drawn off in straight lines and the resulting bright beam is used to x-ray all sorts of things—all in real time. It has given us the solution to the structure of anthrax, has been influential in the study of the HIV/ AIDS virus, and was instrumental in bringing forward the genome project, which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) mentioned. What is more, it tells us why Cadbury's chocolate tastes nice—it is because of the temperature at which it crystallises. Mr. Cadbury worked that out a long time ago, as laboratory staff were delighted to point out to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh when he visited.
The third-generation light source, the DIAMOND project, is Daresbury's brainchild. It was designed at Daresbury, planning permission was obtained there, the geology of the site is absolutely right, and the local authority was signed up for it. Then the Government in their infinite wisdom decided to site it at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory.
That decision was made at the highest levels of Government because it was a three-party project, involving the British Government, the Wellcome Trust and the French Government. We were told that the

339WH
French Government and the Wellcome Trust would not go ahead with the project if it were anywhere other than at Rutherford Appleton. However, that decision did not take proper account of the science case: notice should have been taken of where the science would best have been delivered. If the project had been undertaken at Daresbury, there would not have been a dark period and it would have been under construction now. As I understand it, there is still no planning permission at Rutherford Appleton, the geology is suspect, and there is difficulty in recruiting the scientists to take the project forward.
The third-generation light source is crucial to British science. The Prime Minister said to me that if a project could be found that would sustain the Daresbury laboratory in future, the Government would back it. He challenged people in the north-west to find one, so we set up the Daresbury and north-west science group, bringing together academics—the report says that academics should work together with scientists—in a whole community approach. Professor Weightman of Liverpool university was a leading light of the group, and he proposed the CASIM project—the centre for accelerated science, imaging and medicine.
CASIM will use a fourth-generation light source—a medium-energy technology that accelerates protons as close as possible to the speed of light, and peels them off to x-ray matter almost in real time. It is blue-skies science with an absolutely practical application. It will be essential if we are to take British science forward. The imaging part is backed by expertise already in the north-west, and the medicine part—this is the most exciting aspect of the project—is to do with breast cancer. There are a number of problems with breast cancer, one of which is determining the exact location of the tumour—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about an issue that is as important to me as it is to him, but it is not entirely relevant to the debate on the research assessment exercise. If it is, perhaps he will show me the connection.
Mr. Hall: I shall bring myself to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you look at paragraph 55 on page 24 of the RAE report, it mentions regional competence in the field and scientific excellence. We need this project in the north-west to ensure that we have a balance of scientific research across the whole of the scientific community.
The imaging will enable us to precisely locate the tumour in a woman's breast and to fire protons at it—smart bullets, which will go directly to the centre of the tumour with no collateral damage to surrounding tissue. If we can use that science in its practical application, we shall have a wonderful achievement.
My final point is that the location of the CASIM project has not yet been determined. It has passed through an excellent scientific peer review with glowing colours and the Government are now in a position to decide where to site it. We in the north-west have the expertise and the knowledge; it is our brainchild, and we have been challenged by the Prime Minister to bring the project forward. It is a leading world scientific research project and we want it at Daresbury laboratory in the north-west.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being able to name page and paragraph. He must have anticipated my reaction.
4.49 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to catch your eye, given that I was unable to be here earlier. I gave prior notice to the Chairman of the Select Committee, but I apologise to you for not being here at that time.
In the time available I shall concentrate on just two points. First, the Committee's report was motivated by the fact that the quantum of research for science and technology after the RAE would be lower than it was between 1996 and 2001. There are many reasons for that, some of which are bound up with the fact that the number of active researchers in some subjects, such as physics, was substantially lower. However, the Committee viewed the overall effect with something approaching horror. The response of the Minister who gave evidence to the Committee, bodies such the HEFCE, and the chairman of Research Councils UK, Dr. John Taylor, is best described as the Committee hearing the sounds of violins playing as those authorities fiddled while the temple of science and technology was ablaze.
It is not good enough for any of those people to say that they noticed that the quantum of research for science and technology had gone down and that it is a pity. It is not good enough to say, as the research councils did, that it is up to universities to decide how to distribute the money and that if a university wants to give it to its chemistry department that has a 3b rating, it can, but that they knew that when the results came out the university would not do so but instead start thinking about closing departments that were no longer up to speed.
It is not reasonable to have a market, because science and technology skills are essential to the economic welfare of this country in the 21st century. It is vital for the future health, wealth and prosperity of this county that our youngsters have the opportunity to develop those skills, as many hon. Members have said today. It is important for our country to be able to provide the support that people in other countries need from those skills. That aspect of the report is fundamental. We want a Government response that says that they are committed to increasing, not lowering, the quantum of research for science and technology.
The second important element of the report is the ghost of the binary divide, to which several hon. Members have already referred. When my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) was speaking about not expecting polytechnics to do as much research as universities, I noticed that the Minister nodded enthusiastically. Her nods are consistent with a willingness to accept the binary divide and split universities into those that research and those that teach. That aspiration is appalling because of its consequences for the vision of a society that is sophisticated in science and technology. I shall dwell on only one example, which concerns nursing.
The consequence of the RAE was that whereas 14 nursing departments in universities used to have long-term funding arising from their RAE ratings, only 10 will have that afterwards. That fact produced horror and alarm in the Council of Deans and Heads of UK

341WH
University Faculties for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, which wrote to various bodies outlining its problem.
It is worth examining the health of nursing research. The year 2001 saw a 20 per cent. increase—from 36 universities to 43—in submissions to the nursing panel. The same year saw a 37 per cent. increase from 455 to 623 in the number of staff submitting their projects, and a superb increase from three to 10 in the number of departments rated at 4 or above. Those figures all suggest that everything was pretty healthy in the nursing research world. However, much of the new research had taken place in the face of huge difficulties with resources. The results were achieved by working extraordinarily hard, often with little in the way of research support.
The 12 departments gaining a 3a were almost all in the old polytechnic sector. They had scrambled up, sometimes with a minimal amount of support, and accomplished nationally recognised research with international dimensions. For all that, they were offered one year before the cord was cut.
That is unacceptable for all the sciences. I have focused on nursing because it illustrates how muddled and confused is Government thinking on these matters. If someone tried to pull that off with a health report, people would think it was nuts. The problem is wholly concealed in the university system. Nurses are trained by nurse lecturers who have a first-rank research commitment, which, as many hon. Members have noted, makes their teaching much more effective. Trying to do that anywhere else would be regarded as crazy, but because a form of joined-up government is required between science policy and education and health, that misery has been foisted not just on nurses, but on environmental scientists, physiologists and others. The science funding system is under severe threat.
As a member of the external advisory board for Oxford university's Faculty of Literae Humaniores and of the National Committee for Philosophy, I should perhaps have declared a non-pecuniary interest. I would have liked to say more about those subjects, particularly history and philosophy of science and developments in mathematical logic. I shall desist—
Dr. Gibson: Oh thank God!
Mr. McWalter: Whenever I desist from such subjects, the Committee's response is always one of considerable relief.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the most important issue—that the quantum of resource for research in the sciences must not be lowered.
The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): It is not.
Mr. McWalter: Yes, it is. The Minister says that it is not, so I shall have to repeat the argument. The overall quantum of research funding has increased, but it is lower for science and technology. I thought that the figures were very clear, but they may need to be produced again. Secondly, I hope that the Minister will
342WH
disavow any attempt to introduce the binary divide, given its appalling consequences for several subjects, including nursing.
4.59 pm
Mr. David Heath: This has been an excellent debate, ably introduced by the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. It shows the value of having the opportunity to discuss Select Committee reports in Westminster Hall, albeit when equally important debates are being held in the Chamber in which many hon. Members want to be involved.
The debate has concentrated on science, which I hope does not introduce a false dichotomy with the humanities. The RAE covers both, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) pointed out. I hope that hon. Members will agree that science and technology are of great academic, social and economic importance. I hope that they will also agree on the primacy of research in the scientific framework that we must develop in this country.
We need the RAE if we are to have a system of allocating funds. If that system is to provide the dual support that we in this country currently enjoy, there must be some assessment of quality of research. We must ask whether the current system has exercised that function adequately, or whether it has introduced more distortions and failed to reward excellence. If the latter, we must also ask how it can be developed in the next few years to become better at identifying excellence. As the Select Committee says in its report, we must consider whether the RAE values excellence. It certainly recognises excellence, but does not necessarily reward it.
The RAE is largely valid and credible, but evidence has been adduced to the Committee that that is not the case in some areas. We must ask whether the process is overbearing or bureaucratic. Evidence to the Committee suggests that those on the receiving end often find that it is overbearing or bureaucratic and are concerned by that, although the HEFCE, which carried out the exercise, does not believe that to be the case. If we are going to have this monumental exercise, which involves a great deal of work by many people, we must ask whether it is seen to be fair and worth while. However fair or unfair it may seem to those on the receiving end, the lack of rewards this year raises a question mark over whether it has been worth while.
As many hon. Members have said, it would appear that the results are excellent this year. Some people asked whether that was because of a devaluing of the criteria used for judging excellence. Neither I nor the Select Committee believe that. There is undoubtedly some manipulation at the margins: in any assessment exercise, departments will try to play the game and secure an advantage. However, that does not devalue the basic validity of the exercise. We should be pleased that a growing number of research departments in this country appear to be carrying out good quality research as assessed in this country and against their international peers.
There are significant concerns about whether the current system has introduced distortions, such as to universities' priorities for maintaining and funding their departments. There is also concern about distortions in

343WH
the research material, whether there is premature publishing, short-termism in research projects, and whether adequate attention is given to blue-skies research. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) meant that the term "blue-skies" was in danger of becoming out of date rather than the importance of blue-skies research in itself.
Mrs. Calton indicated assent.
Mr. Heath: I see that I correctly interpreted her remarks. The distortion of recruitment of both researchers and academic staff is a real problem. Those departments that are seen to be excellent will recruit the best academics, and the rating will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I also worry—this point was raised in the Committee's deliberations—that there may be a growing distortion in undergraduate recruitment. Universities' prospectuses now tend to show if they have excellent RAE results, and that will attract the most able students. Again there is a self-fulfilling prophecy: those who want to teach the best students and be involved in the best research will go to the best universities, and that will denude the wider spread of able academic staff and undergraduates. There is a danger of distortion in external collaboration between disciplines and between institutions because of the perceived danger that that might affect the RAE scores.
I worry that we are rewarding research excellence at the expense of scholarship. Scholarship is rather important. My tutor was the world's greatest authority on the carotid body, but on nothing else. The carotid body, as anatomists and physiologists will know, is important, but it is not necessarily the whole of the systolic system. However, he was a scholarly man who knew how to direct his students towards those who knew about other subjects. That, and not simply the narrow band of research, should be rewarded.
The effect on teaching has already been mentioned. Until we get a premium on excellence in teaching to match the premium on excellence in research there will be a distortion in the whole university system. Dearing said that, yet it is still to be acted upon. It is perverse that the Minister has less time than anyone else to answer all the points that are made, but I hope that she has time to address the question of whether there is a developing binary divide between teaching institutions and research institutions. I wish that we were open about that. If we are to have excellent teaching institutions that do not attempt research, let us be clear that that is what we are creating. I hope that the Minister can give us that clarity today.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) mentioned the lack of a strategic framework in both regional and structural terms in this country for science departments. That concerns me. It is another unexpected consequence of the system. The main problem is that we do not have the funding to reward the RAE system. Let us not get away from that. I am concerned that the HEFCE appears to be washing its hands of the problem because it only distributes the money. The Government seem to be washing their hands of the problem because they only supply the global sum. If the response from the DFES is an extra £30 million when £206 million is needed, there is obviously a very real problem.
344WH
The right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) quoted the Government's response that the budget cannot become demand led. Perhaps it cannot, but I am not sure that I agree with the Government. The budget should be excellence led. At the moment it is not, which artificially restricts what goes on. There could be no better example of that than the medical schools. I went last week to talk to the dean of Barts and the London medical school. The school was formed in 1996 after St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London hospitals were merged. It was assessed in 1997 and did not do very well, as might be expected. Having improved its research profile, it now finds that instead of the 40 per cent. increase that it should have had it has a 30 per cent. loss amounting to £2 million.
How can we expand medical education in this country, when the London hospitals alone are losing 500 academic places this year? That is their estimate of the result of the exercise and of other things such as the allocation to medicine compared with other subjects, the reduction in the course weights for laboratory and clinical subjects, and the loss of generic research stream. That is a very real problem. My concern is that the HEFCE's response is complacency, and the Minister's response, as seen in the Government's official response, is wishy-washy, albeit helpful. I hope that she will be able to harden up that response and tell us that there is a joined-up strategy for excellence in science, and that she will deliver it.
5.10 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I begin by apologising for the absence from the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). As many hon. Members will know, there is a clash between what is happening in this Chamber and—I almost said the real Chamber—the other Chamber, where there is a debate on individual learning accounts in which my hon. Friend has to take part. He is sorry not to be present for this debate and I am delighted to be here in his place.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and his Committee on a thorough and incisive report. This is a serious subject, which has been well researched; the Committee has dealt with it seriously. It has given those of us who are not members of the Committee a good insight into the problem, and there is a problem.
Every hon. Member present probably agrees that higher education in the United Kingdom has been a world leader for a long time. We have an interest in creating and preserving the very high standards in the higher education establishments throughout the UK because of the beneficial effect that they have on the economy in terms of producing jobs, high quality graduates, good research and so on. It is a preferable area in which to invest and in which to create and preserve excellence. It is our duty as a nation to do that because the work of scientists and engineers brings benefits throughout the world, not only to the UK. We are discussing the very basis of that work and we all appreciate how crucial it is.
I am worried about the many points raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, North. To recap, it is my understanding that the Committee is drawing our

345WH
attention to serious defects such as the fact that the current system for the allocation of research funding produces distortions because people are working the system, as the hon. Gentleman said, and some of the best brains in the country are employed on that task. One would expect them to do the best for their own establishments and their own departments, but they are still working the system rather than carrying out their basic roles.
I am concerned about what I have read in the report and what hon. Members have said in the debate. I congratulate them; many experts on the subject are gathered in this Room, which is quite unusual in the House of Commons today. There are many people present who really know what they are talking about, which is why we have had such a constructive debate. I do not mean to flatter hon. Members, but it is rare to be able to say something like that.
It is worrying that the amount of time spent on this bureaucratic exercise is inevitably detracting from the work that the academics involved could, and should, otherwise be doing. As with so many of the Government's plans for the allocation of resources or bidding for funds, so much bureaucracy is involved that the system becomes top-heavy. As the hon. Member for Norwich, North said, there is also the encouragement of short-termism, which is again not necessarily a good thing in terms of research projects that last longer than a year. One-year funding is not always the right way of approaching that matter, although we all appreciate the tensions that exist between the Treasury, funding sources and the beneficiaries of funding.
I am also concerned about the discrimination against women; I am sure that the Minister will pick that up in her remarks because it is worrying. I am also concerned about the apparent bolstering of an elite at the expense of promoting new ideas. We should give a fair chance to establishments that have not yet reached the high status that some have achieved, as a result of their expertise or the length of time that they have been in the business.
Of most concern—as many hon. Members have mentioned—is the suggestion that HEFCE was complacent in its response to the Select Committee's report. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not be complacent in her response to the Select Committee and to HEFCE. The work that has gone into the report should be taken into consideration. The subject should not be considered for three hours this afternoon and then closed so that Ministers can say, "It's all right. We have debated that report and that bit of business is done." I hope that the Minister will undertake to act on the report's key recommendations and not merely say that the Government have dealt with it by discussing it. They are fond of paying lip service when that sounds good; putting their words into action is another matter.
The Government have also promised a review. As has so often happened, such a promise raises expectations that are subsequently kicked into the long grass, and then dashed. I hope that the Minister undertakes to put the report before the review body to make sure that the work done by the Select Committee is taken into consideration. I also hope that when the Minister receives the results of the review, she will act on its recommendations. If not, it will just be more
346WH
bureaucratic money down the drain; money that would be better targeted on research projects than on looking at the way in which allocations are made. Allocations could indeed be more satisfactorily achieved and I hope that the Government will try to bring that about.
The debate has been well-informed. The name of Professor Sir Harry Kroto has been mentioned several times. Not being a scientist—
Dr. Gibson: The hon. Lady is a lawyer.
Mrs. Laing: Yes, I am afraid so, although in my younger, formative years I studied physics, chemistry and mathematics. Coincidentally, I was fortunate enough to meet Professor Sir Harry Kroto this morning and to hear him deliver an inspirational lecture that made me wish I had spent more time studying physics. One of the underlying points that he made was that politicians would be better off if they had a decent scientific and logical education—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thought that there may be some assent to that suggestion. I entirely agree that the study of science trains the mind and I am glad that I had a little of such training in my early years. Sir Harry Kroto made me realise the importance not only of teaching science, but of generating information about scientific research on the internet and developing free thinking and ideas.
I am glad that all hon. Members who spoke recognised the importance of investment in science and technological research. I am sure that the Minister will say that she recognises that, too, but as with any debate, we all know that there is competition for funds. When Her Majesty's Treasury comes into play, the question is not what we want, but what we will be left with when it has torn things to bits. I therefore wish the Minister luck in her battle with the Treasury to secure the funding that is properly due to science and technology research.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education to reply.
5.20 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you got my ministerial responsibilities the right way round. This is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship since you received your recent honour, so I start by offering you many congratulations.
I also congratulate the Committee on its splendid report. I assure the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and the Committee that, as always, we take its recommendations seriously and we will have regard to the contributions made in this debate and the recommendations as we take the matter forward.
The standard of debate has been high, and as Harry Kroto has been mentioned several times, we should congratulate him; he becomes president of the Royal Society of Chemistry three weeks today. I must admit, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I had horrible science teachers. Had we had better ones, we might have got a little further.
In the few minutes I have left, I shall focus as much as possible on funding, because most hon. Members raised that issue. Is there enough? No, but it is better than it

347WH
was. I hope that the Committee agrees that we have made a start in putting in place an appropriate infrastructure. Even in the financial year that has just started—2002–03—there has been almost a 6 per cent. increase in the amount of money going into research. We managed to find another £30 million to deal with the successful outcome of the RAE. Investment from the joint infrastructure fund and the science research investment fund has been considerable and every university that I go to recognises the impact that that has had on building the infrastructure. An 18 per cent. real-terms increase is going into higher education, so let us acknowledge that.
Equally, I acknowledge that there is still underfunding. Indeed, the Government have been pretty open about that. The transparency review considered the way in which research is funded, and shows that a 36 per cent. real cost subsidy is going into research. We know that there is a large capital backlog, that not enough money is going into renewal and that although quality-related research funding has increased over the past 17 years, it has not increased at the same rate as the research council investment. An imbalance is growing in that respect.
We do not spend enough relative to other competitor countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and relative to our main competitor economies, such as America. Business does not invest enough in research and development either. Only 3 per cent. of businesses do that, so there is a long way to go, as we recognise.
Equally, with an assessment exercise based on quality, there will always be winners and losers. We must accept that fact in the dynamic world of research into which we want to move. I may be muddled and confused, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) said, but QR funding for nursing has increased by 83 per cent. in cash terms. Some may have lost, but others have gained. That is true in medical research—which the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned—and in other areas. Departments will lose and gain. That is part of the dynamism of an assessment exercise based on quality. It is a way of keeping improvement going in the system.
I also acknowledge the issues relating to engineering and science. That is why we have had the Roberts review. Again, we take seriously that issue, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth). A number of hon. Members talked about the unintended consequences and distortions of the RAE, which is one reason why we want to go ahead with the review. Positive ideas have arisen from the report and the contributions that we have heard today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) always suggests positive ideas and we will examine them as we progress with the review. Has the system been manipulated? Such questions in a sense become academic. We should focus on real improvements in the quality of research, on which we want to build.
348WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) spoke about discrimination against women. She is right that it applies not only to research, but throughout the higher education system. Only six or seven vice-chancellors are women. We are constantly trying to improve that.
I want to move on to blue-skies research. The purpose of RAE and QR funding is to give universities the freedom to engage in such research. The research council's money will focus on particular projects. The irony is that we are sometimes criticised for placing too much emphasis on blue-skies research and not enough on applied research. Today's debate touched on that viewpoint. Perhaps we have the right balance between QR and the research councils. Even blue-skies research requires assessment. There will always be a finite quantum and we will always have to choose where to invest the money.
Several hon. Members spoke about the regional nature of research. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) made a powerful case, which my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are considering. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) made a similar point. We have made a start with HEROBIC and HEIF funding and we anticipate progress in future.
Several hon. Members—including my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), for Blackpool, South, for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and for Hemel Hempstead, and the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), for Cheadle and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—spoke about the balance between teaching and research. It is an important issue, on which I want to encourage debate. Under the current system of funding, everyone goes after RAE or research money and numbers. We should be seeking new ways of encouraging universities to focus on what they do best, whether that is knowledge transfer, teaching, research or widening participation.
The system requires incentives to encourage those aims, but that does not mean a black and white solution of one or another. This afternoon's debate was, to be honest, muddled. Not all researchers are good teachers and teaching needs to be valued in itself, and properly funded. Priorities will always exist. RAE was never a mechanism to determine the quantum of funding. That is done through the spending reviews with which we are now engaged. RAE is a mechanism to determine quality.
Finally, we should all congratulate the higher education sector this afternoon. RAE has been a success; despite some suspicion at the margin, it has brought about a massive improvement in research, which is splendid. It puts UK higher education at the top of the league internationally, however one measures it.
RAE is a good thing. It may need review and reform, but it provides flexibility and plurality and allows us to fund the unfashionable and the unconventional. We should build on that. The issues raised this afternoon—about frequency, bunching at the top, measuring research output, interdisciplinary research, bureaucracy, costs, research for external clients and so forth—are all legitimate matters for further consideration.
It all depends on the Chancellor and I shall end by quoting from his Mansion house speech last night. Speaking optimistically, he said that he wanted to

349WH
improve science education and the science and technology skills base in Britain. He announced his commitment that the
"Spending Review will take forward our manifesto commitment to set up a National Centre for Excellence in teaching…Complete the re-equipment of science laboratories…Improve funding of science, technology and engineering postgraduate research…And ensure that universities can finance not just teaching and academic research but a third specialism—commercialisation of university
350WH
inventions—with funding for the Higher Education Innovation Fund and for Science Enterprise Centres: our aim to ensure that British inventions mean more British businesses and more British jobs."
I hope that hon. Members will view the report in a similarly optimistic mood.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that 16 hon. Members have spoken within three hours of an excellent debate. I congratulate all hon. Members.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT

  Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on railways in the south-east before the summer recess. [63760]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend takes an interest in all aspects of the rail system throughout the country, and will make statements to the House on rail matters as and when appropriate.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent(a) support and (b) guidance has been given by his Department to the SRA and the rail industry regarding (i) the re-opening of rail stations and (ii) the development of new lines and stations; and if he will make a statement. [64131]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's priorities for the Strategic Rail Authority are as set out in the Secretary of State's Directions and Guidance. The Strategic Rail Authority's priorities for implementation are set out in the Strategic Plan.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what changes(a) have taken place and (b) are planned with relation to the penalty regime in the railway industry; and if he will make a statement; [64146]

  (2) what (a) guidance has been given and (b) legislation is in place with regard to the penalty regime of the railways; what plans there are to change them; and if he will make a statement; [64148]

  (3) what recent (a) discussions have taken place and (b) assessment there has been of the role of the penalty regime of the railways; and if he will make a statement. [64149]

  Mr. Jamieson
  During the periodic review of Railtrack's access charges by the Rail Regulator in 2000, a thorough review of the incentive regime was carried out. The payment rates were raised to broadly double their previous levels in order to improve incentives to run trains punctually. Similarly, the SRA are incorporating increases in train operator's incentive rates as new franchises are let.

  The SRA is currently considering whether a more wide-ranging review of incentive regimes would be appropriate to reinforce the rail industry's drive to improve performance.

  Investment Projects
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the transport investment projects that his Department expects to receive final approval in the next 12 months. [63764]
  978W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State will announce his final decisions in due course.

  Ministerial Travel
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last travelled by train on Government business. [63766]

  Mr. Darling
  I last travelled by train yesterday afternoon.

  Train Protection Warning Systems (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of rail track in Scotland are fitted with train protection warning systems; and what percentage this represents of the total rail track in Scotland. [63918]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The fitment programme for the train protection and warning system (TPWS) is based on the number of sites to be fitted not miles of track. Railtrack advises that in Scotland TPWS is to be installed at approximately 1,600 sites by the end of 2003. To date TPWS has been installed at 1,109 sites, of which 955 are now operational and 154 are currently being tested.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which assets under the PPP of London Underground are defined as grey assets; and if he will make a statement; [63974]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with (a) London Transport, (b) Transport for London and (c) Ernst and Young, on grey assets under the PPP of the London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [63973]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Grey assets are defined in the PPP contracts as those assets where a full condition assessment has not been possible, either for access reasons or lack of historical data. They tend to be older heavy civil engineering assets such as retaining walls or brick arch tunnels. The Secretary of State has had no recent discussions on such assets.

  Transport 10-year Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department expects to respond to the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee on the 10-year transport plan; and if he will make a statement. [64135]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will aim to respond to the Committee's report within two months of its publication in line with the normal convention.

  Prestwick Air Traffic Control Centre
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer, on Prestwick, of 20 June 2002,Official Report, column 507W, what air traffic levels would make it financially prudent to commence further work at the new Scottish centre; and what current levels are. [64460]
  979W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The completion of the new Scottish centre depends on both air traffic levels and NATS' capital investment plan. Completion is expected to be during 2008 or 2009. NATS is currently engaged with suppliers in evaluating systems.

  Air traffic movements in Scottish air space in the first 12 weeks of the current financial year total 122,627.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contribution his Department will make towards implementing the Government's commitment in the Rural White Paper to protect the countryside for its own sake; and if he will make a statement. [64527]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport remains committed to ensuring transport fully contributes to sustaining and improving the English countryside. Since the publication of the Rural White Paper in 2000, we have, for instance:begun to introduce low noise surfaces on the existing trunk road network. By 2010, 60 per cent. of the network should have a low noise surface, substantially cutting road traffic noise in rural areas;
  ensured that the impacts on the environment and countryside of any new road proposals—whether for the trunk road network or proposed by local highway authorities—are clearly identified and appraised using our New Approach to Appraisal; and
  continued to work with local highway authorities and the Countryside Agency in order to develop local traffic management measures, which can help preserve the tranquillity of the countryside.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in his Department in 2002. [64643]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For staff below the Senior Civil Service in the Department, including the agencies, the average annual leave entitlement in 2002 is 28 days. For staff in the Senior Civil Service in the Department, including the agencies, the annual leave entitlement in 2002 is 30 days.

  Operators' Licences
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason a question about financial standing has been added to application forms for an operator's licence; and if he will make a statement. [64795]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Holders of licences to operate heavy goods vehicles or passenger service vehicles are required by law to have available sufficient financial resources to maintain their vehicles in a roadworthy condition and to run a viable business. Licence application forms contain questions about financial resources to enable the licensing authority to decide if the applicant meets the criteria for financial standing. These questions are not a new addition to the forms.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to require the use of dual controls by learner drivers for a specified period of time. [65022]
  980W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We want to improve novice driver safety—young and newly qualified drivers have a poor safety record compared to older, more experienced drivers. However, we have no evidence to suggest that the learning process is dangerous and no plans to require the compulsory use of dual controls in vehicles driven by learners. We consider that learner drivers should gain more experience before they take the driving test and earlier this year we issued a consultation paper on ways to achieve this. This included an option to introduce a mandatory requirement for a minimum amount of professional tuition.

  Research indicates that a mix of professional tuition and plenty of practice with friends or relatives is the best way to learn to drive and our initial view was that the introduction of compulsory professional tuition is not justified. Nevertheless we will be considering carefully all the views we receive on this issue before taking a final decision.

  Coastguard Helicopter (Portland)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has held with the MCA relating to the removal of the coastguard helicopter from Portland. [64384]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I met with my hon. Friend the member for Dorset South and the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on 13 June 2002 to discuss the helicopter base at Portland.

  Aircraft Movements
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the daily average number of aircraft movements was for each of the 15 busiest airports in the United Kingdom over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [65201]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The average daily number of aircraft movements at the 15 busiest airports in the United Kingdom over the last five years is reported in the table. These statistics relate to commercial movements only and exclude flights undertaken for private military and training purposes as well as business aviation.

  Average daily commercial aircraft movements

  Airport

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Heathrow

  1,180

  1,212

  1,235

  1,262

  1,255

  Gatwick

  629

  665

  676

  693

  673

  Manchester

  404

  446

  466

  489

  502

  Stansted

  231

  287

  372

  402

  419

  Birmingham

  219

  242

  271

  299

  305

  Edinburgh

  197

  208

  232

  244

  274

  Glasgow

  224

  236

  242

  248

  263

  Aberdeen

  238

  250

  227

  226

  243

  Luton

  110

  131

  151

  164

  164

  London City

  90

  103

  116

  137

  150

  Belfast International

  96

  107

  123

  118

  130

  Newcastle

  116

  118

  119

  120

  127

  East Midlands

  112

  118

  117

  119

  120

  Belfast City

  91

  95

  91

  91

  92

  South Coast Multi-Modal Study
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the costs were of the South Coast multi-modal study broken down by(a) staff and (b) other costs. [65148]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current cost of contract for the South Coast multi-modal study is £1,727,000 (excluding VAT). This figure incorporates(a) staff and (b) other costs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on the Implementation of Projects Promoting Co-operation and Commercial Relations between the European Union and the Industrialised Countries of North America, the Far East and Australasia 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. [55395]

  Ms Hewitt
  EC Council Regulation 382/2001 provides for a programme of measures and actions to complement and bring added value to the efforts undertaken by member states and other European public bodies in the Japanese market, and establishes a Committee to assist the Commission in the implementation of this programme. This Regulation also provides for co-operative activities between the EC on the one hand and North America and Australasia on the other, but the Committee has had no role in these activities. The Committee has met once in the last 12 months. A British Trade International official represents the UK. It is impossible to calculate the cost of its work to public funds without incurring disproportionate cost. The Committee is currently considering the detailed arrangements for the EU trade promotion campaign towards Japan "Gateway to Japan III". Any European Community proposal that goes to the Council of Ministers would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny procedures.

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Opening Up Public Contracts 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 982W
  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. [61701]

  Ms Hewitt
  The EC Advisory Committee on Opening Up Public Contracts is composed of up to 25 independent experts whose business and industrial experience, and whose competence regarding public procurement, are widely recognised. The Committee assists the Commission in assessing the economic, technical, legal and social aspects of public procurement. It has no decision taking powers.

  The European Commission appoints the members of the Committee after consultation with business and industry. The representatives from the UK are Dr. Sue Arrowsmith, Professor of Law at the university of Nottingham and Mr. Colin Maund, Chairman of the CBI's Public Procurement Contract Group.

  The Committee has met on three occasions over the last year. There is no cost to public funds.

  The issues discussed during the last meeting of the Committee were: electronic purchasing; the Remedies Directives; the European Parliament vote on the new legislative package; in-house contracts.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if her Department will review its unfair dismissal procedure; and if she will make a statement. [55905]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Employment Bill contains proposals for amendments to certain aspects of the unfair dismissal legislation. My Department has no plans to review the legislation.

  Arms Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of CS pellets to Malaysia where the final end-use destination was in a different country. [60696]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of CS pellets is controlled under entries ML3, ML4 and ML7 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.

  Between 2 May 1997 and 10 June 2002 three Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the rating ML4 where the consignee was in Malaysia and the end user was in a different country. During that same period there were no SIELs issued covering the ratings ML3 and ML7 where the consignee was in Malaysia and the end user was in a different country. This information should be considered in light of the answer tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer database records only permitted destinations for all Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs). Details of all SIELs and OIELs are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997,

  983W
  1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published soon.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what end-use documentation British companies are required to supply when applying for licences for small arms exports to(a) EU or NATO countries and (b) non-EU or non-NATO countries. [62017]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Applications to export small arms to Government bodies in any country would normally need to be supported by an end-user undertaking. In certain circumstances a purchase order, or a copy of the relevant pages from a contract might be accepted in lieu of an undertaking.

  Special arrangements apply to the transfer of small arms to non-Government end users in EU member states under the provisions of the EC Directive on Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Weapons "the EC Weapons Directive" (91/477/EEC). Exporters are required to obtain prior import consent from the receiving member state and complete certain transfer documentation.

  For exports of small arms to non-Government end users in non EU countries, DTI would normally require, in addition to an end-user undertaking, to see a copy of an import permit or some other form of declaration issued by the authorities of the importing state to confirm that they were content for the individual or dealer to possess the weapons in the licence application.

  In addition, at the request of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), an export licence for small arms to destinations covered by the moratorium on the Import, Export and Manufacture of Light Weapons will not be issued unless the ECOWAS Secretariat have issued confirmation that ECOWAS Governments have been consulted and are content.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy on the grant of export licences for sale of arms to India and Pakistan. [64389]

  Nigel Griffiths
  All relevant export licence applications for India and Pakistan are considered on a case-by-case basis in the context of the current situation in the region, against the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, and in the light of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter statement of 15 March 2002,Official Report, columns 1296–98W. The Consolidated Criteria include a specific reference to the preservation of regional peace, security and stability.

  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my noble Friend the Lord Sainsbury of Turville in another place on 28 May 2002, Official Report, columns 1147–1149.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61053]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI is a recognised Investor in People.
  984W
  The following table provides detail of the spend on staff training and development for the period for which the information at the level requested is readily available, together with the percentage of the total gross running costs this represents.

  Year

  Total staff training and development expenditure £ million)

  Staff training and development as a percentage of gross running costs1

  1998–99

  3.2

  1.3

  1999–2000

  4.5

  1.7

  2000–01

  4.0

  1.4

  2001–02

  4.9

  1.6

  1Excludes ACAS, Employment Tribunals Service, Insolvency Service, Radiocommunications Agency and the National Weights and Measures Laboratory.

  Meetings
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Ministers and officials had meetings with representatives of(a) the Confederation of British Industry, (b) the Engineering Employees Federation, and (c) the Engineering Marine Training Authority during the last year; who they met; and what the subjects and outcomes of their discussions were. [62210]

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

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

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [61833]

  Ms Hewitt
  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.

  Telecommunications (Lane Rentals)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has made to the Department of Transport regarding section 74A of the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 and the potential effects the powers will have on the ability of telecommunication companies to build high bandwidth networks. [62632]

  Mr. Timms
  Pilot schemes to test powers under which local authorities can charge utility companies lane rental, whenever the latter dig up highways to install or maintain their apparatus, began in Camden and Middlesbrough on 4 March 2002 and are due to continue until March 2004.
  985W
  The Department for Transport have appointed consultants to produce a balanced assessment of the impact of the lane rental pilots, both in terms of the effect of lane rental on the disruption caused by utility works and the costs which it imposes on those utilities. We await their first monitoring report which is due to be delivered in late autumn.

  The effects on the roll out of broadband and 3G mobile networks will be taken into account before any final decision on the national implementation of lane rental charging is made.

  Coal Industry
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to maintain aid to the UK coal industry. [62850]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am very pleased that we have reached agreement on a new European coal state aid regime. We fought hard to secure the flexibility to pay investment aid, and I am delighted that we have been successful. We are currently considering how the flexibility might most appropriately be used.

  Correspondence
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) for what reason she has not answered the letters of 30 November 2001 and 10 January, from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West; [65365]

  (2) for what reason she has not answered the written question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (ref 51382), of 18 April. [65364]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have today responded to the hon. Member's letter which does not appear to have been previously received by this Department.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answers of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 796W; 11 March 2002, Official Report, column 678W; and 14 February 2002, Official Report, column 518W, when she expects to reply to the letters of 30 November 2001 and 10 January 2002 from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. [51382]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have today responded to the hon. Members' letter which does not appear to have been previously received by this Department.

  World Trade
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1128W, on GATS, if she will make a statement on progress in her Department's meetings with WTO members on the drafting of a clarification of the GATS exclusion of public services. [63428]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department's contacts with other WTO members suggest that most prefer to rely on the "bottom-up" approach to scheduling commitments as the means of ensuring the exclusion of public services.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1128W, on GATS, if she will
  986W
  make a statement of progress on the WTO services negotiations as to whether Article VI of the GATS will apply to all service sectors. [63427]

  Ms Hewitt
  There has been no substantive progress on this issue, which remains under discussion among WTO members.

  Consignia
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many directors of Consignia plc have(a) resigned and (b) been replaced in the past two years. [63643]

  Mr. Timms
  Neville Bain, chairman since March 1998, left the company on 31 December 2001. He was replaced by Allan Leighton. Other recent changes are that David Mills joined the board on 15 April 2002 as chief executive of Post Office Ltd., a subsidiary of Consignia plc. Marisa Cassoni joined the board on 1 February 2001 as finance director. Allan Leighton joined the board as a non-executive director on 2 April 2001. Mike Kinski, non-executive director, left the company on 12 February 2002. The company is currently recruiting new non-executive directors. Also worth noting is that John Roberts, chief executive officer, has announced that he will retire by the end of 2002 and the process of recruiting his successor is now under way.

  Post Office
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will publish the terms of the Chairman's performance linked remuneration at the Post Office; [63341]

  (2) whether the Chairman of the Post Office will receive a bonus if the Post Office loses less than it did in the current year. [63342]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]: Allan Leighton's basic fee for part-time Chairmanship of Consignia is £20,000 per annum. The performance-related element of his remuneration package, linked to delivery of the company's strategic plan, is being finalised and will be made public.

  Post Office Network
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 66W, on the Post Office network, if she will list the funding allocated to each initiative under the sub-post office scheme. [63577]

  Mr. Timms
  The funding allocated to each initiative approved under the Sub-Post Office Start-Up Capital Subsidy Scheme as at end May 2002 was as follows:

  £

  Office

  County/Country

  Grant awarded

  Capel Le Ferne

  Kent

  20,000.00

  Holcombe

  Devon

  20,000.00

  Kirk Ireton

  Derbyshire

  8,572.32

  Buriton

  Hampshire

  16,730.15

  Risbury

  Herefordshire

  208.00

  Goadby Marwood

  Leicestershire

  1,792.75

  Struan

  Scotland

  3,897.73

  Coleby

  Lincolnshire

  3,862.00

  Henstridge

  Somerset

  10,475.16

  Deri

  Wales

  15,738.25

  987W

  £

  Office

  County/Country

  Grant awarded

  Almondbank

  Scotland

  17,750.00

  Acton Trussell

  Staffordshire

  1,051.00

  Henlow

  Bedfordshire

  9,598.83

  Bernisdale

  Scotland

  11,131.00

  Winteringham

  Lincolnshire

  6,022.20

  Lubenham

  Leicestershire

  9,847.35

  Tortington

  Kent

  11,390.75

  Laxay

  Scotland

  2,212.74

  Folkingham

  Lincolnshire

  20,000.00

  Bewcastle

  Cumbria

  865.50

  Ollaberry

  Scotland

  3,410.98

  Standon Mill

  Staffordshire

  4,689.36

  Bowden

  Scotland

  5,000.00

  North Bradley

  Wiltshire

  5,355.75

  Stranagalwilly

  Northern Ireland

  5,908.20

  Ysceifiog

  Wales

  1,160.35

  Adfa

  Wales

  8,000.00

  East Markham

  Nottinghamshire

  2,198.50

  Ightfield

  Shropshire

  4,490.00

  Tibberton

  Shropshire

  3,407.50

  Douglas Bridge

  Northern Ireland

  7,031.12

  Abergwesyn

  Wales

  453.55

  Hayton

  Yorkshire

  1,468.00

  Easton

  Colchester

  7,354.50

  Kinallen

  Northern Ireland

  13,268.15

  Brampton Bryan

  Wales

  4,652.40

  Newton-Le-Willows

  North Yorkshire

  393.63

  Great Dalby

  Leicestershire

  20,000.00

  Skelton

  Cumbria

  14,700.00

  Catworth

  Cambridgeshire

  15,223.50

  Tallington

  Lincolnshire

  313.44

  Ballyward

  Northern Ireland

  8,454.86

  Gaddesby

  Leicestershire

  12,038.38

  Rosedale Abbey

  Yorkshire

  1,522.19

  Oddington

  Gloucestershire

  7,000.00

  Ripponden

  Yorkshire

  13,838.00

  Tideswell

  Derbyshire

  20,000.00

  Skidby

  Humberside

  19,429.40

  Bradley

  Staffordshire

  5,463.75

  Surlingham

  Norfolk

  5,207.43

  Leigh On Mendip

  Avon

  280.00

  Ashill

  Norfolk

  4,069.50

  Cheddington

  Bedfordshire

  8,370.78

  Escomb

  County Durham

  1,092.00

  Palterton

  Derbyshire

  8,183.88

  Owermoigne

  Dorset

  5,200.00

  Dudleston Heath

  Shropshire

  2,450.00

  Lidlington

  Bedfordshire

  2,332.00

  Haynes

  Bedfordshire

  20,000.00

  Threapwood

  Cheshire

  12,355.00

  New Holland

  Lincolnshire

  14,878.00

  Abberley

  Worcestershire

  9,187.00

  Office for Civil Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) where invitations to prospective applicants for the Advisory Board of the Office for Civil Nuclear Security were placed; how many applications were received; and whether applicants were rejected on security grounds; [63848]

  (2) who the members of the Advisory Board for the Office for Civil Nuclear Security are; what their qualifications for the post are; and if there are restrictions in place in respect of who may be appointed to the board. [63847]

  Mr. Wilson
  The members of the OCNS Advisory Board are Joan MacNaughton, the Director General for Energy and Helen Leiser, the Director of Nuclear Industries, Michael Buckland-Smith, the Director of Civil Nuclear Security, all from the Department, Jim Furness,988W
  a Deputy Chief Inspector in the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, a representative from the Security Service, and Pat Upson, Technical Managing Director of Urenco Ltd.

  These appointments reflect a range of security policy, regulatory and industry experience. The members from the Security Service, and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive were put forward by their respective organisations, at the Department's invitation. To find a suitable candidate with experience of the nuclear industry, my Department invited the main bodies in the nuclear industry to propose candidates. The five candidates put forward were evaluated and Pat Upson was invited to become a member of the Advisory Board.

  All Advisory Board members have appropriate security clearance.

  BNFL
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 967W, if (a) BNFL and (b) other public funds were used for the clean-up of B241 at Sellafield; and what estimate BNFL has made of the final cost of remediation of the radioactive pollution. [63908]

  Mr. Wilson
  As with a number of such legacy facilities at Sellafield, the costs of carrying out the various projects at B241 are met by BNFL with appropriate contributions from relevant customers. In the case of B241 financial responsibility for the liability falls primarily to the Ministry of Defence and the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Work is continuing. It is not yet clear what the final cost of cleaning up B241 will be.

  Timeshare Regulations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to introduce a registration scheme for holiday clubs; and if she will make a statement; [64497]

  (2) what plans she has to revise the Timeshare Regulations 1997 to include floating vessels; and if she will make a statement; [64499]

  (3) what plans she has to revise the Timeshare Regulations 1997 to include timeshares of less than three years' duration; and if she will make a statement; [64496]

  (4) if she proposes to amend the Timeshare Regulations 1997 to include holiday clubs; and if she will make a statement. [64498]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Changing the Timeshare Regulations 1997 or the Timeshare Act 1992 will not help UK consumers who often buy timeshare and new products while on holiday abroad. The EU Commission is proposing next year to review the Timeshare Directive 1994 and will be considering new products and other related issues. We will therefore work closely with the Commission to ensure that our views are taken into account and are reflected in any potential amendments to the Directive.

  The Department is also seeking to tackle rogue traders operating in this area through better enforcement, more effective self-regulation within the industry and to raising consumer awareness about their rights. We are

  989W
  currently working in partnership with consumer bodies, enforcement agencies, timeshare trade associations and industry to take this forward.

  Foot and Mouth
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which(a) individuals were consulted by and (b) companies were represented on the Foot and Mouth Science Group; and if she will make a statement. [64549]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]: Individuals on the FMD Science Group, and the Group itself, consulted at various points throughout the outbreak with a number of bodies, including farmers at regional meetings, the NFU, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, British Cattle Veterinary Association, British Veterinary Association, Sheep and Pigs Veterinary Associations and representatives of the food industry. All these meetings and consultations were reported back to the full Group.

  The Group was comprised of individuals from a range of disciplines and included Government research scientists, university academics, veterinary practitioners and representatives of Government Departments and agencies. The composition of the Group evolved over time to ensure that relevant expertise was brought in, eg practising vets joined at a later stage to provide a more direct link with events on the ground.

  Trawlermen (Compensation)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to increase awareness among potential claimants of the Icelandic water trawlermen's compensation scheme; and if she will make a statement. [64451]

  Ms Hewitt
  On top of the measures already taken when the scheme was first opened, over the past months my officials have been visiting the various port areas to discuss the scheme with local trawlermen and their representatives. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms has also had a number of meetings with my hon. Friends the Members for Hull, Grimsby, Cleethorpes, Fleetwood and Aberdeen, who are highly effective ambassadors for their constituents. In addition, there have been a number of articles about the meetings and the visits, as well as the scheme in general, in the local press. I plan to issue further publicity in the relevant port areas and trade journals to announce the end of the scheme on 1 October 2002.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will extend the deadline for claims under the Icelandic water trawlermen's compensation scheme to 31 December. [64453]

  Ms Hewitt
  My predecessor announced when the scheme was set up that it would run for two years—from 2 October 2000 to 1 October 2002. I have no plans to extend the deadline.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the take-up by potential claimants under the Icelandic water trawlermen's compensation scheme; and if she will make a statement. [64452]
  990W
  Ms Hewitt
  When the scheme was set up, it was expected that some 4,000 former trawlermen would be eligible to receive a payment. To date we have received some 11,000 claims from former trawlermen or their dependents.

  Timber Imports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what volume of timber from Liberia was imported to the UK(a) in 2001 and (b) in the first five months of 2002; and if she will make a statement. [64353]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK imported 6,098 cubic metres of timber from Liberia in 2001, and 2,917 cubic metres in January to March 2002, the latest period for which data are available.

  Bhutan
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much bilateral trade there was between the UK and Bhutan over each of the last two years; and if she will make a statement. [64296]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information on UK bilateral trade with Bhutan is given in the following table:

  UK trade in goods with Bhutan 2000–01

  £ million

  UK exports

  UK imports

  Total trade

  2000

  1.2

  1.7

  2.9

  2001

  1.6

  2.3

  4.0

  Note:

  Because of rounding, there may be slight discrepancies between the totals shown and the sums of the constituent parts.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise data

  Broadband
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when she expects broadband to be introduced into service to all of England; [64275]

  (2) what percentage of geographical broadband coverage she expects to be available by 2005. [64277]

  Mr. Timms
  Our target is to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. We have not set a target for percentage coverage of the UK, though broadband via ADSL, Cable and Wireless technologies is already available to around 66 per cent. of the population. Satellite offers the potential for almost total coverage.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussion she has had with the Director General of Fair Trading about the monopoly provision of broadband. [64278]

  Mr. Timms
  Under the Telecommunications Act 1984, the Director General of Telecommunications has responsibilities to promote the interests of consumers, and to maintain and promote effective competition in relation to telecommunications.

  The Government monitors competition in the telecoms sector in close consultation with Oftel, and will keep the situation under review.
  991W
  The UK has arguably one of the most competitive broadband markets in Europe. Around 40 per cent. of the population has a choice between cable and ADSL technologies, with wireless and satellite services also available, while in the ADSL market there are around 40 resellers of BT's wholesale product. In addition Oftel have announced this week that BT will be required to offer ADSL broadband interconnection services to enable operators to connect to BT's network and therefore provide a much wider range of wholesale and retail broadband services in competition with BT.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made by(a) local authorities, (b) parish councils, (c) town councils and (d) businesses on improving the broadband technology facilities available in the United Kingdom. [62101]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: Ministers and officials continue to meet and correspond with a wide range of businesses and councils. As well as bilateral consultation with businesses and the public sector, the Government have established the Broadband Stakeholder Group, which brings together the key players in the public and private sectors. We continue to meet regularly with the Broadband Stakeholder Group to discuss our broadband strategy. The group first reported in November 2001, and the Government response can be found at www.e-envoy.gov.uk. It has produced its second report this week.

  In addition, under the £30 million UK Broadband Fund, the regional development agencies and the devolved Administrations are taking forward projects to promote the benefits of broadband.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is her latest assessment of the cost of the Scotland/England West Coast Interconnector. [64342]

  Mr. Wilson
  The possible costs are as set out in the study by PB Power, a copy of which is available on the Department of Trade and Industry's website at: www2.dti.gov.uk/energy/west—coast—interconnector—study.pdf

  Patents
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the implications for United Kingdom domestic law of the decision of the European Court of Justice in Koninklijke Philips v. Remington. [64494]

  Ms Hewitt
  In its judgment of 18 June in the Koninklijke Philips v. Remington case, the European Court of Justice concluded that the Trade Marks Directive (implemented in the UK by the Trade Marks Act 1994) could not be used to protect product characteristics or technical features.

  The European Court of Justice's decision is broadly consistent with the submissions of the Government and largely confirms existing UK practice.

  Innovation of a technical or functional nature is protectable by patents. The maximum duration of a patent is 20 years (trade mark rights can be renewed without
  992W
  limit), after which inventions pass into the public domain for anyone to use or develop. This period of 20 years, which accords with international norms, represents a balance between encouraging inventors to develop new products by preventing others from using their inventions for a limited time, and encouraging competition by publishing full details of patented inventions so that they may be widely used when rights expire.

  On the other hand, trade marks indicate the trade origin of goods. Allowing trade mark registrations to confer on proprietors an open-ended right to product characteristics or technical features would upset the balance created by the patent law.

  Consignia v. Russell Sealy
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the policy implications of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Consignia plc v. Russell Sealy. [64493]

  Mr. Timms
  Having considered the decision there appear to be no policy implications.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Genetic Engineering (Vaccinations)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the potential use of genetic engineering in plants to provide simple vaccinations for the developing world. [63916]

  Clare Short
  Research has shown that plants can be genetically engineered to produce substances with the potential to induce immune responses to several diseases of animals and people. But the prospect of plant-produced vaccines for the routine prevention of diseases of poverty is still a distant one. At present, an important challenge facing many developing countries is to strengthen their health service delivery systems to achieve and sustain high coverage with existing vaccines, which are safe and inexpensive. DFID contributes to this objective as a partner in the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) and through its support for WHO, UNICEF and national Governments.

  Bhutan
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid the UK has given to Bhutan in each of the last five years. [64295]

  Clare Short
  The table lists aid disbursement to Bhutan from 1996–97:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  20,000

  1997–98

  92,000

  1998–99

  14,000

  1999–2000

  11,000

  2000–01

  1,000

  2001–02

  1—

  1Not yet available

  Occupied Palestinian Territories
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact the division of the occupied Palestinian territories into eight separate cantons has had on the humanitarian situation in the OPT. [64320]

  Clare Short
  Reports estimate that 50 per cent. of the population are currently living in poverty (under $2 a day), and per capita income continues to decline significantly. On-going and intensified Israeli restrictions will exacerbate this situation—restricting movement of people to work and products to markets, prohibiting access to basic services such as health and education, increasing unemployment, substantially reducing the ability of the Palestinian Authority to sustain essential social services, and inhibiting the work of international organisations and aid agencies.

  Illegal Logging
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to develop a programme of action to follow on from the memorandum of understanding between the UK and Indonesia to combat illegal logging signed in April. [64352]

  Clare Short
  Since the signing of the memorandum of understanding on 18 April, DFID, in close conjunction with officials in other Government Departments, has taken a number of steps to implement the agreement.

  In May, DFID officials visited Indonesia and agreed a detailed programme of action to implement the memorandum. Indonesian officials will visit the UK in July to finalise this programme. During this visit they will meet with British Government officials, representatives of the UK Timber Trades Federation and non-governmental organisations.

  The exploitation of forest resources in Indonesia is subject to a very large number of inconsistent and often contradictory laws. Consolidated and revised legislation is not practical in the short to medium term. My Department has therefore also commissioned two consultancies (involving UK and Indonesian experts) to address two fundamental aspects of the agreement:
  the establishment of workable criteria to define legality; and
  the identification of possible systems of mandatory compliance.

  The results of this work, which is already under way, are expected by the end of August.

  Partnership Programmes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the(a) number and (b) cost of second round partnership programme agreements. [64691]

  Clare Short
  We are currently negotiating with four non-governmental organisations under our second round 994W
  of partnership programme agreements. This is with a view to concluding negotiations within the next few weeks. Financial allocations under these agreements have not yet been finalised.

  Development Policy Forum
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the content and conclusions of the Development Policy Forum in February. [64689]

  Clare Short
  The Development Policy Forum held in Belfast in February was the first in this year's series of 11 forums, which are being held in different parts of the UK. The process will conclude with the forum in Birmingham on 8 July, following which we will publish a report on the process, and on the key issues raised. This year's series of forums, which follow previous rounds in 1998 and 2000, have focused on development and trade, the role of the private sector, and sustainable development. Participants come from a wide range of backgrounds, and have participated in both plenary and workshop discussions of the issues. These are designed to deepen understanding of development, and to enable participants to share views and ideas on how to reduce global poverty. Feedback from participants on the process remains, as with previous rounds, very positive; and all participants will receive a copy of the report at the end of the process.

  Food Aid (Southern Africa)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 19 June 2002,Official Report, column 387W, when she expects food aid distribution to extend to the six countries in southern Africa identified as facing severe food shortages. [64675]

  Clare Short
  Food distribution in the six countries involves for the most part scaling up existing responses, so it is already taking place. The World Food Programme tell us that they have a total of 100,000 tonnes of food aid in the pipeline for the region, with 25,000 tonnes either already in affected countries and being distributed, or due to arrive by 1 July. There are also NGO programmes which we and others are funding which are continuing earlier food interventions.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 19 June 2002,Official Report, column 387W, what her Department's contribution to the World Food Programme's regional appeal for Southern Africa was in respect of the 2002–03 harvest year. [64674]

  Clare Short
  We have committed £18.75 million to the WFP regional appeal in advance of its publication. This is part of an overall new commitment of £45 million from DFID's budget that we made on 17 June for six countries in southern Africa. My Department has also seconded a logistics expert to the World Food Programme office in Harare and is considering further support for WFP's co-ordinating unit in South Africa.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funds her Department has made available to areas most heavily affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. [63013]

  Alun Michael
  The Government put in place a range of schemes to help those affected by the disease and the measures to control it. These included:the £80 million Business Recovery Fund, managed by the Regional Development Agencies (including £25 million reprioritised funding from RDAs' existing budgets) to help businesses adjust to changes in their markets;
  discretionary interest-free deferral of income tax, VAT and National Insurance contributions, with over £250 million deferred;
  increased central funding for local authorities to provide rate relief for businesses facing hardship (estimated at £22 million), and bringing forward mandatory rate relief for village shops, pubs and garages;
  £15 million to match charitable donations towards relief of hardship:
  £3.8 million to help local authorities reopen rights of way;
  £18 million for tourism promotion;
  £0.5 million from the Countryside Access Recovery Fund.

  The Government are continuing to work with local authorities and partnerships in the worst-affected areas to help implement their recovery strategies.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to receive the report of the Royal Society inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak. [63032]

  Mr. Morley
  The report of the Royal Society's inquiry into infectious diseases in livestock is currently expected to be published on 16 July.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress there has been in preparations for the world summit on sustainable development. [63014]

  Mr. Meacher
  Broad agreement was reached at Bali on a Programme of Action to implement sustainable development. We also had very preliminary discussions on a Political Declaration for Johannesburg. At the EU level, the European Council at Seville has just agreed the EU's final negotiating position for Johannesburg.

  Standstill Rule
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to modify the 20-day standstill rule. [63016]

  Mr. Morley
  Final decisions will not be made until we have seen the recommendations of the Royal Society and Lessons Learned Inquiries.

  Recycling
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement regarding the implementation of European recycling directives. [63018]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive came into force in 1994. It is implemented in the UK through the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 and the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 1998. The End of Life Vehicles Directive was adopted in 2000 and member states are now transposing it. The proposed Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive is expected to be adopted by the EC later this year. It may therefore come into effect in the UK in 2004.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the cost to local authorities of implementing the Government's recycling strategy. [63021]

  Mr. Meacher
  Regulatory impact assessments are developed by the Department to assess the costs and benefits of proposed measures to increase recycling. These RIAs are published in consultation documents and are available on the DEFRA website http://www.defra.gov.uk/.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress her Department has made in its attempts to persuade other European Union countries to improve the welfare conditions of animals which are transported on long journeys. [63019]

  Mr. Morley
  The need for continuing improvements in the welfare of animals during transport is now generally accepted by member states. We will continue to press the European Commission to produce its proposals for changes to the present EU rules on the protection of animals during transport.

  Flooding
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the expenditure by the Government on flood defences in 2001. [63023]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department provides grant (and supplementary credit approvals to local authorities) to the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards for flood and coastal defence capital works. The provisional outturn for 2001–02 is £91 million.

  The Government also provided some £268 million in further funding for flood and coastal defence through local authority funding mechanisms. An estimated £40 million was provided from other sources.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from the Environment Agency regarding flooding. [63026]

  Mr. Morley
  Given the Environment Agency's supervisory role for flood defence, it is recognised as a key stakeholder by this Department on flood and coastal
  997W
  defence policy and operational issues. Therefore there is an on-going dialogue between the agency and Department, but recent representations have included the agency's response to the consultation on the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to encourage the staging of agricultural shows. [63025]

  Alun Michael
  We strongly support the work of agricultural shows which are staged at national, regional and local levels by independent show societies. It is a matter for these societies to decide upon the format for their events and how they will be organised, but we support the events by taking space at a number of shows each year and by attendance of Ministers and officials at several, including the Royal Show.

  Farming
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement regarding the implementation of the proposals in the report published by the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. [63027]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government intend to produce a strategy for sustainable food and farming in England in the autumn, following a wide-ranging process of stakeholder engagement. The strategy will incorporate a definitive response to each of the Policy Commission's recommendations.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on the recycling of fridges and freezers: and if she will make a statement. [63028]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have received five representations on the recycling of fridges and freezers since 14 May 2002. The representations have mostly been from the local authorities regarding funding and from consumers on how to dispose of old fridges.

  We realise local authorities are in need of further funding and intend to make an announcement as soon as possible.

  A leaflet for householders advising on how to dispose of old fridges, originally only on the DEFRA website, has now been published in hard copy as well, and widely distributed. Guidance on the disposal of commercial refrigeration equipment has been placed on the website and recently published in hard copy.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent progress has been made in implementing new recycling plants for refrigerators and freezers. [63033]

  Mr. Meacher
  Investors are in the process of providing a network of new recycling facilities in the United Kingdom. Two mobile plant are up and running and three further static plant will be operational by the end of July.
  998W
  This should be sufficient to reprocess 1.2 million fridges a year. Further plant are scheduled to come online by the end of the year.

  Milk Industry (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the prospects for the milk industry in Lancashire. [63029]

  Mr. Morley
  In Lancashire, in common with the rest of the country, the farmgate price of milk has fallen over the last few months. The most recent official figures show that for milk delivered in April the average farmgate price of milk in the UK had fallen to 16.10 pence per litre and it is likely that the average figure for May will be even lower. As a result, some dairy farmers will be receiving less for their milk than it costs to produce it. A situation that is clearly unsustainable. However, these low prices have largely been caused by factors that are temporary in nature, most notably, oversupply of raw milk in the UK and the weakness of EU and world markets for dairy products.

  For the longer term, it is likely that the next round of WTO agriculture negotiations will further restrict the use of export subsidies and increase the exposure of EU markets to world markets. In addition, enlargement of the EU is likely to lead to pressure on the Community budget, if the CAP is not reformed.

  In order to produce a sustainable dairy industry that can compete successfully on the growing world market for dairy products, the industry must be given the opportunity to trade free of artificial constraints imposed by the WTO, as well as by the EU dairy regime. The EU price support system is focused on butter and skimmed milk powder, both in clear surplus, hampering the development of genuine markets, while milk quotas are bureaucratic, constrain production by the most efficient farmers and represent a significant financial burden to most farmers.

  The Government therefore favour the orderly phasing out of milk quotas in combination with a reduction in EU support prices to world prices, and direct but digressive aid to help farmers adjust to the new regime. During the forthcoming review of the milk quota system, due to start in June, the UK will be pressing to achieve confirmation that quotas will not continue after they lapse on 31 March 2008. These changes are intended to provider longer-term direction within the framework of the dairy regime, which farmers need in order to plan their businesses effectively.

  Biodiversity
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the recent UN report on the threat to 1,000 species of mammals and on international efforts to support biodiversity. [63034]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information from the World Conservation Union (IUCN) on the conservation status of species is reported in UNEP's Global Environment Outlook (GEO 3) published recently. The IUCN analysis from the year 2000 estimated that about 24 per cent. (1,130) of mammals and 12 per cent. (1,183) of birds are considered to be globally threatened. Since IUCN's previous assessment in 1996 the number of critically
  999W
  endangered species has increased from 169 to 180 mammals and from 168 to 182 birds. These figures are a stark warning of the need for action to conserve biodiversity and to protect species and an indication of the size of the challenge. It needs international co-operation to address problems on this scale. We are working within existing international agreements to this end and will be looking to the World Summit on Sustainable Development for a renewed level of commitment.

  Many mammal species in danger of over-exploitation through trade are listed on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This regulates trade in animals and plants, and products derived from them, to ensure it is carried out in a sustainable way to safeguard the long-term survival of species. Trade in the most endangered species is banned while that in species which may become endangered is carefully regulated and monitored through a system of import and export permits. There are approximately 30,000 species listed on CITES, around 5,000 of which are mammals.

  The UK is taking action at home and abroad to conserve biodiversity. The Darwin initiative launched at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 is a fund to assist countries that are rich in biodiversity but poor in resources to conserve their biological diversity. The fifth report on the Darwin Initiative was published on 17 July and copies placed in the Library of the House. So far it has provided £27 million to over 270 projects with links to some 80 developing countries. Through the UK's contributions the Global Environment Facility (GEF) we are helping developing countries and countries with economies in transition to meet their obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. We are aiming for a significant replenishment of the GEF as soon as possible. And DFID are supporting sustainable forest management programmes in a number of developing countries.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on applying for agrimonetary compensation for farmers; and if she will make a statement on the rationale behind her Department's decision not to apply for much funding. [63035]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government has received representations from the industry and from hon. Members. While we acknowledge the difficulties the agricultural sector is facing and we are working with them on the recommendations of the Policy Commission on Farming and Food, we decided not to pay any further tranches of this subsidy given the many competing demands on the Exchequer at present. More than 80 per cent. of the cost would in effect have to be met by the British taxpayer.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the complexity of procedures for coastal protection. [63036]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for deciding which flood and coastal defence projects to promote and their timing rests with operating authorities. This Department provides 1000W
  grants for flood and coastal defence capital works and associated studies, which meet essential technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. This Department has also provided the operating authorities with guidance on scheme appraisal.

  In the case of coast protection there are specific requirements in the Coast Protection Act 1949 which require a proposed scheme to be advertised. Anyone can object to a proposed scheme and, if the objection is not withdrawn, the Secretary of State must determine it.

  The procedures are kept under review and suggestions for change are considered carefully.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on recent moves towards reform of the common fisheries policy. [63037]

  Mr. Morley
  The Commission published its first set of proposals for reform of the common fisheries policy on 28 May 2002. Our preliminary assessment is that the aims of the proposals are broadly in line with the UK view developed in the light of our consultation with stakeholders last year about the Commission's Green Paper on the subject. We shall in coming weeks be assessing, again in consultation with all interested parties in the UK, all the possible implications of the Commission's proposals.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the European Commission proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy. [63020]

  Mr. Morley
  Our preliminary assessment is that the aims of the proposals are broadly in line with the UK view developed in the light of our consultation with stakeholders last year about the Commission's Green Paper on the subject. We shall in coming weeks be assessing, again in consultation with all interested parties in the UK, all the possible implications of the Commission's proposals.

  Bali Conference
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Bali prepcomm meeting. [63039]

  Mr. Meacher
  Progress was made on the importance of sanitation in eradicating poverty and meeting the millennium development goal on safe drinking water. Broad agreement was also reached on key issues such as the urgent need to restore fish stocks and address illegal fishing, and on the important role non-governmental actors can play in achieving sustainable development. The meeting also recognised the need for a strong focus on Africa.

  Other difficult issues remain outstanding, such as how the summit can address trade and finance issues to complement the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Development Agenda. There are also specific targets on sanitation, biodiversity loss and energy which have yet to be agreed. We are continuing to ensure a successful

  1001W
  outcome for Johannesburg, including concrete actions and coherent work programmes on energy, water and sustainable patterns of consumption and production.

  Nitrate-vulnerable Zones
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the introduction of nitrate-vulnerable zones. [63030]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer you to the statement I am making today which outlines the action we are pursuing to tackle the problem of diffuse pollution of water by agriculture, including the designation of new nitrate vulnerable zones.

  Water Pollution
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action is being taken to address diffuse pollution of water by agriculture; how the Government intend to implement the nitrates directive in England; and if she will make a statement. [165668]

  Margaret Beckett
  One year after the creation of DEFRA, it gives me enormous pleasure that what were different Departments are now working well together to develop an integrated approach to the problems of pollution, and especially diffuse pollution from agriculture.

  The increased intensification of farm production and the great steps made to reduce point source pollution from factories and sewage works mean that, as the Policy Commission on Food and Farming noted, agriculture is now clearly one of the major contributors to the pollution of water. It is also a significant polluter of air.

  Over time we will need to take further steps to reduce pollution from agriculture, but in a cost-effective way. We therefore need to involve farmers very closely in continuing work to achieve a cleaner and healthier environment. Many farmers are committed to protecting and enhancing the environment, but much more needs to be done to raise standards across all farms to the standards of the best, and to tackle the specific problem of diffuse pollution.

  Over the next few years we will be implementing the EU directives we have signed up to in order to improve water quality. As part of this work, later this year we will be holding a more detailed consultation with all sectors to follow up our first general consultation on implementing the water framework directive.

  Over 70 per cent. of nitrates and over 40 per cent. of phosphates in English waters originate from agricultural land. Up to a half of England's bathing waters are affected by short-term contamination by agricultural pollution, mainly by microbes from livestock manure being washed off farm land after rain. Excessive loads of fine silt are generated by soil erosion from intensively farmed land. Pesticides are contaminating drinking water sources, requiring expensive additional treatment at water works to remove pesticides before water can be supplied to consumers.

  No one farmer is responsible for this, but cumulatively diffuse pollution from farms is having a substantial impact on the quality of English waters. That is why we have begun a strategic review of diffuse water pollution from
  1002W
  agriculture, to identify cost-effective policy measures to prevent and control this pollution and to improve the sustainability of agriculture. We are co-ordinating this review with work announced in the Budget to review the particular role that economic instruments could play in tackling such pollution.

  As part of the open approach to policy development that we are seeking to adopt in the new Department. I am publishing today a discussion document, "The Government's Strategic Review of Diffuse Water Pollution From Agriculture in England", so that we can start a debate with farmers and other stakeholders about the problems that we face and how we can best solve them. This marks the beginning of a process for working with stakeholders to develop a package of policy measures to reduce pollution.

  Part of what we need to achieve is improved control of the application of manures and fertilisers to land. Through the review we are considering the full range of policy mechanisms that could play a part in the future in encouraging and assisting farmers to improve their management of manure and nutrients. But we also have to implement some measures now, to comply with the European Court of Justice judgment that we have failed to meet our obligations under the 1991 Nitrates Directive to tackle agricultural nitrate pollution of waters.

  We published proposals for implementing the directive in December 2001. We have carefully considered the responses to the consultation, and I am today publishing an analysis of these responses. We have decided to apply the minimum regulation consistent with our obligations under the directive, to avoid closing off other options for tackling the wider problem of diffuse pollution that might be identified through the current review.

  We will designate new nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZs) covering 47 per cent. of the land area of England, which will take the total designated area in England to 55 per cent. These are areas draining into rivers, ground water and other waters which are affected by nitrate pollution. In consequence, farmers using manufactured nitrogen fertilisers or organic manures will be required to follow an action programme to reduce pollution.

  This action will help to prevent and reverse damaging impacts of eutrophication, and improve the quality of drinking water sources. Better control of manure spreading will also cut microbiological inputs to water, helping to maintain and further increase the quality of bathing waters and shellfish waters.

  The overall extent of the new designations will be less than was originally estimated in the consultation document, as a result of work to define and quantify the NVZ areas more accurately than was possible at the time the consultation document was issued. Some new areas have been added, as was anticipated in the consultation document; but more areas have been removed.

  I am today publishing a revised regulatory impact assessment, which estimates that the compliance costs incurred by farmers will amount to about £20 million per year. Costs will vary considerably from farm to farm, but I acknowledge that some farmers, particularly those who need to construct additional slurry storage facilities, will incur substantial costs. To assist those farmers who are most affected, we will extend the existing farm waste

  1003W
  grant scheme to the new NVZ areas to help finance improvements to slurry storage facilities required to implement the action programme.

  Formal designations setting down the precise boundaries of the new zones will follow as soon as possible, and it will become a legal requirement to follow the action programme from 19 December 2002. By the end of July, DEFRA will make available detailed interactive maps of the new NVZ areas. As soon as these are available, we will write to farmers to explain how to access these maps. We will also send all farmers in affected areas explanatory guidance material, together with sources of further advice on how to comply with the measures and details on the availability of grant under the farm waste grant scheme.

  We are also taking action to reduce phosphate and nitrate pollution of waters from other sources, and are announcing, separately, additional designations under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive that will require water companies to reduce phosphate or nitrate discharges from certain sewage treatment works.

  We are also committed to improving air quality. 85 per cent. of the ammonia which enters the atmosphere in the UK comes from fertilisers and manures used in agriculture. We will be publishing a booklet later this summer, which will explain the problems caused by ammonia emissions, to initiate debate on how to tackle this related problem.

  This all adds up to a substantial agenda for change. I recognise that we must secure these changes in ways which maximise the beneficial impact on the environment while minimising the regulatory burden on farmers. As we said in "Working Together", we need to explore joined-up ways of working; to develop whole farm approaches; and to identify smarter ways of regulating. For example, several of the measures I have mentioned could affect the ways farmers handle manures and fertilisers, pointing to the benefits of more integrated approaches.

  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the 2001 review of sensitive areas as required by the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994; and if she will make a statement. [65669]

  Margaret Beckett
  Based on recommendations from the Environment Agency I have reviewed the identification of Sensitive Areas in England in accordance with the criteria in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994 (which transposes the European Council Directive (91/271/EEC) concerning urban waste water treatment).

  This review has resulted in the identification of 33 more water bodies in England as Sensitive Areas. 32 are because the waters have since the last review in 1997 been found to be eutrophic, or that they may in the near future become eutrophic if protective action is not taken. Eutrophic waters are those which are, or may be, adversely (in terms of their ecology and quality) affected by discharges from sewage treatment works serving communities of more than 10,000 inhabitants.

  The remaining water body, the River Itchen in the midlands, which supplies drinking water, has been identified on the basis of elevated levels of nitrate under the terms of the regulations.
  1004W
  Identification of these areas will result in more stringent treatment being provided at 53 qualifying treatment works by water companies. This treatment involves reducing levels of phosphorus and/or nitrogen in discharges to tackle eutrophication and nitrate levels of these waters.

  These new requirements on water companies to remove these nutrients from sewage treatment work discharges will complement and add to the action required by farmers under the Nitrates Directive, and by my Department on diffuse pollution, which I also announced today.

  Lists of the new sensitive areas have today been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Maps showing the location of all current sensitive areas (eutrophic) and (nitrate) will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and at offices of the Environment Agency in due course.

  Radioactive Waste
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the results were of the consultation on managing radioactive waste supply. [63038]

  Mr. Meacher
  We received 330 replies to the consultation paper "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" published last September by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We are evaluating the outcome, and we shall shortly publish a summary of responses as well as announcing what we plan to do next.

  Farmers (Bureaucracy)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the length and complexity of the forms that her Department requires farmers to complete. [63017]

  Mr. Morley
  Many of the forms farmers are required to complete relate to CAP support schemes. These forms are reviewed each year for need and content. No overall assessment of the Department's forms aimed at farmers has been made since the creation of DEFRA. The Department is currently considering its overall approach to reviewing forms.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) average and (b) recommended turnaround time has been over the last 12 months for making affordable empty homes available for new tenants. [61177]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The average time taken by local authorities in England to re-let their housing stock is one of the best value performance indicators for housing (BVPI 68) for 2001–02. The Audit Commission expects to publish information on authorities' performance against this indicator in 2001–02 in January 2003. The latest available information is in respect of lettings during 2000–01, as reported to the Audit Commission, and can be found in their publication "Local Authority Performance Indicators 2001/2002 Council Services Compendium for England, Volumes 1 and 2". Because of variations in the way local

  1005W
  authorities maintain lettings records and compile these estimates, average figures and any comparisons between authorities should be treated with caution.

  BVPI68 is a "top quartile" performance indicator. The Government expect local authorities to set targets for these BVPIs which are consistent with reaching the performance standard set by the top quartile of authorities over five years (i.e. by 31 March 2005). For 2001–02 the top quartile performance standards were:

  Days

  London boroughs

  42

  Metropolitan boroughs

  29

  Unitaries

  28

  District councils

  25

  Corresponding information in respect of re-lettings by registered social landlords (RSLs) is collected by the Housing Corporation and a summary of the most recent data, for 2000–01, was published in "Housing Associations in 2001: Performance Indicators" (Source Research 56). The Housing Corporation's regulatory code does not set recommended turnaround time for RSLs to make affordable empty homes available to new tenants.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what correspondence he has received from the European Academy of Sport with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64049]

  (2) what correspondence he has received from Service Civil International with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63991]

  (3) what correspondence he has received from the European Federation of Youth Service Organisations with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63987]
  1006W
  (4) what correspondence he has received from Youth of European Nationalities with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64038]

  (5) what correspondence he has received from the European Writers' Congress with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64074]

  (6) what correspondence he has received from A Seed Europe with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64004]

  (7) what correspondence he has received from the European Union of Music Competition for Youth with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64029]

  (8) what correspondence he has received from the Coordination Committee for International Voluntary Service with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64021]

  (9) what correspondence he has received from the European Humanities University, Minsk-Belaruss with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64057]
  1007W
  (10) what correspondence he has received from the Association of the International Cultural Youth Exchange with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64003]

  (11) what correspondence he has received from the Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA) with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64046]

  (12) what correspondence he has received from Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64066]

  (13) what correspondence he has received from the European Playwork Association with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64000]

  (14) what correspondence he has received from the European Alliance of YMCAs with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63988]

  (15) what correspondence he has received from the European University Institute (research) with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64085]
  1008W
  (16) what correspondence he has received from Youth Action for Peace with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63993]

  (17) what correspondence he has received from the International Association of Civil Engineering Students with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64039]

  (18) what correspondence he has received from the Invisible College, Chisinau-Moldavia with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64059]

  (19) what correspondence he has received from the World Federation of Democratic Youth with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64010]

  (20) what correspondence he has received from the European Movement with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64064]

  (21) what correspondence he has received from the Food First Information Act Network with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64052]
  1009W
  (22) what correspondence he has received from the European Institute for Asian Studies with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63981]

  (23) what correspondence he has received from the Foundation of Journalists with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64047]

  (24) what correspondence he has received from the Information Point Europe with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64051]

  (25) what correspondence he has received from Youth for European Educational Exchanges with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63990]

  (26) what correspondence he has received from the European Confederation of Junior Enterprises with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64002]

  (27) what correspondence he has received from the Belgrade Open School with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64056]
  1010W
  (28) what correspondence he has received from Notre Europe with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64076]

  (29) what correspondence he has received from the Centre for HR at the University of Pretoria with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64081]

  (30) what correspondence he has received from Contact-2013 with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64007]

  (31) what correspondence he has received from the International Forum of Decision Makers on Youth with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64027]

  (32) what correspondence he has received from the Forum for European Alternatives with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64070]

  (33) what correspondence he has received from the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64032]
  1011W
  (34) what correspondence he has received from European Youth Forest Action with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64020]

  (35) what correspondence he has received from the Hellenic University Association of European Studies with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64061]

  (36) what correspondence he has received from the International Council of Jewish Women with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64053]

  (37) what correspondence he has received from the European Law Students' Association with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64015]

  (38) what correspondence he has received from the Democrat Youth Community of Europe with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64019]

  (39) what correspondence he has received from Ciemen (Mercator) with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64078]
  1012W
  (40) what correspondence he has received from the International Union of Socialist Youth with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63986]

  (41) what correspondence he has received from the Alliance of European Voluntary Service Organisations with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64024]

  (42) what correspondence he has received from the European Policy Centre (EPC) with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64044]

  (43) what correspondence he has received from the International Federation of Liberal and Radical Youth with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63997]

  (44) what correspondence he has received from the European Confederation of Youth Club Organisations with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64017]

  (45) what correspondence he has received from Yourope-The European Festival Organisation with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities

  1013W
  with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64025]

  (46) what correspondence he has received from EFAH/FEAP with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64071]

  (47) what correspondence he has received from the Experiment in Europe Association with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64014]

  (48) what correspondence he has received from Stichting World Student Christian Federation Europe with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64034]

  (49) what correspondence he has received from the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63984]

  (50) what correspondence he has received from the European University Institute (archives) with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64084]

  (51) what correspondence he has received from the University of Sarajevo with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what
  1014W
  assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64079]

  (52) what correspondence he has received from the Academy of European Law with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64083]

  (53) what correspondence he has received from the International Association of Agricultural Students with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64006]

  (54) what correspondence he has received from Euromet with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64042]

  (55) what correspondence he has received from the European Bureau for lesser used Languages with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64088]

  (56) what correspondence he has received from the European Citizens' Action Service (ECAS) with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64065]

  (57) what correspondence he has received from the European Union Federation of Youth Hostel Associations with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its

  1015W
  publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63999]

  (58) what correspondence he has received from the Organizing Bureau of European School Student Unions with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63995]

  (59) what correspondence he has received from Europe 99 with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64054]

  (60) what correspondence he has received from the European Good Templar Youth Federation with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64016]

  (61) what correspondence he has received from International Young Naturefriends with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64012]

  (62) what correspondence he has received from the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64045]

  (63) what correspondence he has received from the Erasmus Student Network International with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his
  1016W
  policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64037]

  (64) what correspondence he has received from the European Union Net Art with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64073]

  (65) what correspondence he has received from Syndesmos-The World Fellowship of Orthodox Youth with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64011]

  (66) what correspondence he has received from CIREM. Barcelona with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64062]

  (67) what correspondence he has received from the European Institute of Public Administration with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64082]

  (68) what correspondence he has received from Youth of the European People's Party with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64008]

  (69) what correspondence he has received from the European Institute for Outdoor Adventure Education with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body;

  1017W
  what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64028]

  (70) what correspondence he has received from Youth for Development and Co-operation with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe: when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64009]

  (71) what correspondence he has received from the European Federation for Intercultural Learning with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64001]

  (72) what correspondence he has received from the European Policies Research Centre at the University of Strathclyde with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64055]

  (73) what correspondence he has received from the Informal European Theatre Meeting with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64075]

  (74) what correspondence he has received from ETUC Youth with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and undiversities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64018]

  (75) what correspondence he has received from the World Federalist Movement with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met
  1018W
  representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64080]

  (76) what correspondence he has received from the Federal Trust with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64068]

  (77) what correspondence he has received from World Organisation of the Scout Movement European with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63989]

  (78) what correspondence he has received from St. Stephen's University, Södöllö-Hungary with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64063]

  (79) what correspondence he has received from the Church and Society Commission with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64067]

  (80) what correspondence he has received from the European Youth Card Association with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63998]

  (81) what correspondence he has received from the International Pharmaceutical Students' Federation with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of

  1019W
  Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64026]

  (82) what correspondence he has received from the European Council of Artists with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64072]

  (83) what correspondence he has received from United for Intercultural Action with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63985]

  (84) what correspondence he has received from European Democrat Students with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64023]

  (85) what correspondence he has received from the Ecumenical Youth Council in Europe with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64043]

  (86) what correspondence he has received from the College Europe, with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64086]

  (87) what correspondence he has received from the Fritz Brauer Institute with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards
  1020W
  continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64048]

  (88) what correspondence he has received from the European Rotaract Information Centre with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64036]

  (89) what correspondence he has received from the University College of Wales (Mercator) with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64077]

  (90) what correspondence he has received from the Jean Monnet Foundation with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64069]

  (91) what correspondence he has received from the Peace Child Charitable Trust with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64031]

  (92) what correspondence he has received from European Students of Industrial Engineering with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64035]

  (93) what correspondence he has received from ECRE with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it

  1021W
  by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement: [63982]

  (94) what correspondence he has received from the Pax Christi International Youth Forum with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63994]

  (95) what correspondence he has received from the International Federation of Catholic Parochial Youth with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe: when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64040]

  (96) what correspondence he has received from the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64060]

  (97) what correspondence he has received from the International Sonnenberg Association with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64013]

  (98) what correspondence he has received from the European Committee for Young Farmers' and 4 Clubs with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64005]

  (99) what correspondence he has received from the Association of Voluntary Service Organisations with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of
  1022W
  Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64033]

  (100) what correspondence he has received from Youth and Environment Europe with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64041]

  (101) what correspondence he has received from the Fryske Academy (Mercator) with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64087]

  (102) what correspondence he has received from the European Social Action Network with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64030]

  (103) what correspondence he has received from the International Delphic Council with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64050]

  (104) what correspondence he has received from Youth for Exchange and Understanding with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63992]

  (105) what correspondence he has received from the Jean Monnet Association with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the

  1023W
  target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63979]

  (106) what correspondence he has received from the International Sport and Culture Association with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body: what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63996]

  (107) what correspondence he has received from Stichting AIESEC International with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body: what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63983]

  (108) what correspondence he has received from IREL with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [63980]

  (109) what correspondence he has received from the International Falcon Movement-Socialist Educational with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64022]

  (110) what correspondence he has received from the European Institute of Cyprus with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe; when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audiences of its publications have been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64058]

  (111) what correspondence he has received from the Auschwitz Foundation with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe, when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audience of its publications has been; what
  1024W
  assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities, with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64983]

  (112) what correspondence he has received from the Union of European Federalists with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe, when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audience of its publications has been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities, with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64984]

  (113) what correspondence he has received from the Strasbourg Centre of European Studies with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe, when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audience of its publications has been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities, with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64985]

  (114) what correspondence he has received from the Institute for the Study of A Spinelli with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe, when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audience of its publications has been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities, with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement; [64986]

  (115) what correspondence he has received from the International Press Centre in Brussels with particular reference to the Convention on the Future of Europe when he last met representatives from that body; what his policy is towards continuing funding of it by the European Union; what the target audience of its publications has been; what assessment he has made of the compatibility of their use in schools and universities, with the requirements in the Education Act 1996 for balance in the provision of information; and if he will make a statement. [64982]

  Peter Hain
  The hon. Member asks about a huge range of organisations. The Convention on the future of Europe encourages the widest possible discussion at all levels, and we welcome the engagement of as many NGOs as possible to bring balance to this debate. It was exactly this requirement for balance across the political spectrum which the 1996 Education Act stipulated.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the cost of answering the parliamentary questions tabled by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 19 June concerning correspondence received by his Department;
  1025W
  and if he will make a statement on ways in which hon. Members may make inquiries of his Department and the cost of each method. [64279]

  Mr. Straw
  Although the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) tabled over 120 parliamentary questions on correspondence we had received from various NGOs concerning the Convention on the Future of Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) answered all his questions with a single answer.

  In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on 11 April 2002, Official Report,column 582W, the then Financial Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Paul Boateng) announced that the average estimated cost of answering a written parliamentary question was £129. No equivalent exercise is done for the cost of responding to MPs' letters.

  Turkey (Human Rights)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made recently of the human rights situation in Turkey, with particular reference to the use of torture. [64318]

  Peter Hain
  On 19–20 June, a senior official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office led a UK delegation at the first formal UK/Turkey Human Rights Dialogue, in Ankara. The dialogue was frank and constructive. There was detailed discussion of the steps Turkey has recently taken to improve the human rights situation, and of what remains to be done, including to eradicate torture. As expressed at the recent European Council in Seville, we welcome the changes Turkey has made, but implementation remains key. The European Commission will publish a further assessment of the situation in October.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department will make to Turkish Government officials during their meetings in June about(a)the continuing use of torture by Turkish authorities and (b)the implementation of the European Court of Justice ruling on Leyle Zana and her fellow imprisoned members of Parliament. [64319]

  Peter Hain
  On 19–20 June, a senior official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office led a UK delegation at the first formal UK/Turkey Human Rights Dialogue, in Ankara. There was a frank and constructive discussion on the human rights situation in Turkey, the measures recently taken to improve it and what remains to be done, including to eradicate torture. We welcomed the changes in policy concerning incommunicado detention and the fact that some cases have been brought against those suspected of torture. We also discussed the recent judgment on the case of Leyla Zana. We look to the Government of Turkey to abide by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in this case, as in others.

  Bhutan
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent discussions 1026W
  he has had with colleagues in the European Union concerning religious freedom in Bhutan; and if he will make a statement; [64301]

  pursuant to his answer of 30 April 2002, Official Report,column 655W, what recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the Royal Government of Bhutan concerning the persecution of Christians in Bhutan; [64299]

  what steps the UK Government are taking to encourage Bhutan to provide constitutional guarantees for religious liberty in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards; [64298]

  what steps the UK Government are taking to encourage Bhutan to ratify (a)the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (b)the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights and (c) the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; [64300]

  what plans (a)Her Majesty's Government and (b) the European Union have to encourage the Royal Government of Bhutan to draw on the expertise of the international community, particularly with regard to (i) shared legal expertise and (ii) good practice on constitutional drafting. [64297]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received occasional NGO reports suggesting mistreatment of Christians in Bhutan. Although we have made no recent representations, we have in the past expressed our concern to the Royal Government of Bhutan that the right to choose, declare, and practice one's religion should be respected. We understand the position of the Royal Government of Bhutan is that there is freedom of individual religious practice in Bhutan. We have had no reason to discuss the issue with our European Union colleagues.

  During a visit to Thimphu in May 2001, the Deputy High Commissioner in New Delhi raised with the Royal Government of Bhutan the desirability of an early Bhutanese accession to the UN Convention Against Torture. We understand that the Royal Government of Bhutan need to pass additional legislation before they can ratify this and several other human rights conventions.

  The form and content of the Bhutanese constitution is a matter for the Government and people of Bhutan. The Commission established by HM the King in 2001 has been tasked with drafting a constitution that reflects international norms and democratic practices. The Commission has yet to produce its first report. HMG would be glad to respond to any request from Bhutan to share legal expertise and good practice on constitutional drafting.

  Royal Visits
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each official visit made by each member of the Royal Family, excluding Her Majesty the Queen, in each of the past 10 years, indicating the country, date and duration of visit. [64567]
  1027W
  Mr. Straw
  The list of official visits by each member of the Royal Family in each of the past 10 years with the exception of Her Majesty The Queen, indicating the country visited, and the dates, has been deposited in the Library of the House of Commons.

  From 1998 details of such visits are available in the Annual Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Royal Travel by Air and Rail, issued by The Keeper of the Privy Purse.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Indonesia since 1 January 2001 regarding the activities of Laskar Jihad; and if he will make a statement. [64585]

  Mr. Straw
  The British Government has consistently made clear its view that long-term solutions to regional conflicts in Indonesia can be achieved only through negotiation and consultation, and that extremists who break the law should be dealt with firmly to allow space for reconciliation efforts to take root.

  Ministers and senior officials have regularly raised the issue of extremism and, specifically, Laskar Jihad with the Indonesian Authorities.

  British Council
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent activities the British Council has undertaken in other European countries on combating racism and intolerance. [64678]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Council has been involved in a number of initiatives, helping bring together local authorities, NGOs and others in the UK and in Italy, Sweden, France, Denmark, Germany and Belgium for exchanges on tolerance and diversity. These have included seminars and conferences covering issues such as local government practice, citizenship education, and managing cultural diversity in schools.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of work undertaken by the British Council in(a)promoting human rights, (b)leadership training, (c) strengthening civil society and (d)providing support for non-governmental sectors in Africa in preparation for the implementation of the New Partnership for Africa's Development. [64676]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Council plays a distinctive public diplomacy role in Africa which complements the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. The council builds people to people partnerships to support change from within—an approach consistent with the thinking behind the New Partnership for Africa's Development initiative.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the expansion of British Council activities in Russia in the past two years. [64681]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Council opens its 14th centre in Russia this week in Rostov-on-Don. The extension of the Council's regional network in Russia in 1028W
  recent years has played an important role in helping extend UK reach and influence there. Additionally, 200–300 people per day are already visiting the Council's web portal, launched in March; the portal provides access to 70,000 British sites and is targeted at the younger generation.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent work the British Council has done to meet the demand from young people in China for contact with the United Kingdom. [64679]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Council has been very active and successful in promoting educational links with China. The number of Chinese students in higher and further education, and in schools in this country in 2001 was 50,000, an increase of 30 per cent. The FCO Chevening scholarship scheme, adminstered by the British Council, brought 177 postgraduates to the UK in the academic year 2000–01, an increase of 29 students on the previous year. Under a DfES funded programme managed by the Council, school links increased from 20 to 80.

  Together with the BBC World Service and China's Open University, the Council launched its "in2english" project which reaches 250,000 teachers and students of English in China. 58,000 candidates sat English languages tests in some 20 cities in 2001, an increase of 100 per cent. on the previous year. 30 schools in the UK now teach Chinese.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the findings are of the British Council's Connecting Futures research into attitudes towards the United Kingdom in the Arab and Muslim worlds; and if he will make a statement. [64682]

  Mr. MacShane
  Overall the results of the Connecting Futures research confirm a favourable attitude towards the UK among young people in the Arab and Muslim world, with 63 per cent. of those polled placing the UK high on their list of favourite nations. A high regard for British education and admiration for the consistently strong British economic performance were the two positive messages cited most often by respondents. Full details of the research findings are available via the internet at www.britishcouncil.org/connectingfutures.

  The research will be valuable in informing FCO and British Council efforts to further improve and build mutually beneficial relationships between these countries and the UK.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress the British Council has made in promoting United Kingdom science abroad; and if it will increase its levels of funding for the promotion of excellence of UK science internationally. [64677]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Council's recent work in this area has included the initiation of new UK collaboration with India in digital technology, biotechnology, the environment and medical research. Partnerships with broadcasting organisations have also enabled the Council to reach significantly wider audiences in promoting UK science in Hungary, Japan and Malaysia.
  1029W
  The British Council is committed to increasing its share of Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant-in-aid funding to science from £5.4 million in 2001–02 to £8 million in 2003–04. This funding will be used to project UK science as innovative and internationally competitive, and to promote understanding in science in society, raising awareness of scientific themes of importance to the UK abroad.

WALES

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in his Department in 2002. [64650]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 1 February 2002,Official Report,column 574W.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61058]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 26 April 2002,Official Report,column 501W.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Wales Office departmental reports were sold in(a)2000, (b)2001 and (c)2002. [63104]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The numbers of Wales Office departmental reports sold in each of those years is:

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in his Department in(a)1997–98 and (b)2001–02. [60949]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The level of ministerial salaries are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body.

  My Department came into existence on 1 July 1999. From June 2001 it has had one Cabinet Minister at an annual salary of £68,157 and one Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, at an annual salary of £26,835.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Report
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he will publish the Cabinet Office departmental report 2001–02. [65476]

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Cabinet Office departmental report for 2002 will be published. [63579]
  1030W
  Mr. Alexander
  Copies of the Cabinet Office departmental report 2001–02 were yesterday laid before Parliament, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Temporary Land Use
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government have to change controls for temporary use of land under Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. [65613]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 24 January 2002 a consultation paper was issued on possible options for change to the current temporary use provisions. The paper put forward six options for change as well as inviting proposals for alternative options. A preferred option was not given. The closing date for responses was 24 April 2002.

  We have had a significant response to the consultation paper and those views will be given due weight when considering any possible changes. Any changes that are made will only be after further consideration and decisions will not be taken lightly. However, the Government have no intention of disturbing urban and rural communities' traditional social and sporting activities through changes in this area.

  Affordable Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which regional plans include estimates of the need for affordable housing in their region; and what the estimate is in each case. [63905]

  Mr. McNulty
  Regional planning guidance in the south-east, south-west, east midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber all have indicators for monitoring the provision of affordable housing. All regions have policies on affordable housing in regional planning guidance.

  The indicators for monitoring affordable housing are 18,000–19,000 affordable homes per annum in the south-east region outside London, 6,000–10,000 per annum in the south-west, 3,400 dwellings per annum in the east midlands and 4,000 per annum in Yorkshire and the Humber.

  Groundwork
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) of 23 May 2002,Official Report,column 509W, on Groundwork, if he will indicate what the time scale is for reaching a decision on a Lancashire-wide Groundwork Trust. [64386]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are currently awaiting further information from Groundwork UK in respect of the relationship and implications of the proposed pilot for a Lancashire-wide Groundwork Trust and the strategic functions currently carried out by existing Groundwork Trusts in the county, and on the arrangements for monitoring and evaluating the pilot. We plan to reach a decision before the summer recess.

  Council Tax
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the percentage change in the council tax in county, district and unitary authorities in each of the past three years. [63022]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Decisions on council tax levels are for local authorities to take, after consulting their local electorate and taxpayers.

  The table shows the percentage changes over the past three years in the average Band D (2 adults) council taxes set by shire county councils, shire district councils and unitary authorities.

  Percentage increase in average Band D (2 adults) council tax

  Class of authority

  2000–01 over 1999–2000

  2001–02 over 2000–01

  2002–03 over 2001–02

  Shire county councils

  6.7

  6.3

  9.3

  Shire district councils

  5.4

  6.3

  8.6

  Unitary authorities

  5.7

  6.1

  8.2

  High Hedges
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his Department has issued a leaflet on guidelines to local authorities on dealing with high hedges complaints. [64530]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to issue a leaflet on guidelines to local authorities on dealing with high hedge complaints. Until there is a change in the law, local authorities have no powers to intervene in these matters.

  We are preparing a leaflet for members of the public, advising them how they might approach their neighbours to try to agree a solution to their hedge problems. The leaflet will include information on a range of factors that people might consider in settling on the right hedge height for their particular circumstances. It will cover such matters as what heights will ensure privacy; those at which a hedge can be safely maintained; and those likely to block light to neighbouring properties.

  We expect to publish the leaflet later in the summer and will provide copies to all Members of Parliament.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress is being made to introduce legislation on controlling high hedges. [64529]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government supported the high hedges Bill introduced last session by the hon. Member for Solihull (John M. Taylor MP). Unfortunately, it fell due to lack of time before the election. Although it has not been possible to bring forward a high hedges Bill in the current session, we remain committed to legislation allowing local authorities to deal with complaints about high hedges as soon as parliamentary time can be found.

  Fire-fighters
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on recent representations he has received about fire-fighters' pay. [64268]
  1032W
  Mr. Raynsford
  We greatly appreciate the valuable contribution to public protection made by the fire service, and by the other emergency services. Our emergency services are rightly held in high regard for their professionalism and dedication.

  The Government have no statutory role in determining fire-fighters' pay. Representatives from local government, representing the employers, and from the Fire Brigades Union, representing employees, are responsible for negotiating fire-fighters' 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 28 May. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on the progress of these negotiations.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to extend economic support to disadvantaged and deprived areas through the neighbourhood renewal fund beyond its allocation until 2003–04. [63961]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are considering the future of the neighbourhood renewal fund in the context of spending review 2002, on which decisions will be announced in July.

  Housing (Older People)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the Choice and Quality in Housing for Older People strategy guidance that has been developed with the Department of Health. [64516]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are producing two documents relating to older people's housing and related support. These will both be published late summer.

  The first document, "Quality and Choice for Older People's Housing: A Strategic Framework. The Story So Far", is the follow-up report on the actions for Government set out in the original strategic framework document published by the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Department of Health in January 2001.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, with the Department of Health and the Housing Corporation has also co-commissioned work on guidance for local authorities and their partner organisations in preparing older people's strategies.

  Housing (Key Workers)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many station houses have been provided for key workers in London in each year since 1997. [64371]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government no longer allocate specific funding to local authorities for housing improvement grants. Each housing authority must decide how much it will allocate towards this purpose from the total capital funding provided to it by the Government each year.
  1033W
  Total capital resources made available for housing purposes for all authorities in England for 2002–03 is £2.5 billion. For Gloucestershire the figure for 2002–03 is £16.6 million, an increase of 85 per cent. on 1997–98.

  Homelessness (Castle Point)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the national allocation to tackle homelessness, announced in the March 2002 report, "More Than a Roof', has been allocated to Castle Point borough council. [64264]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are investing £125 million this financial year to tackle homelessness. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave,Official Report,(64265), which states that the Homelessness Directorate has not received an application for funding from Castle Point borough council towards implementing their homelessness strategy.

  £8 million per annum has been provided to local authorities (through the local government finance settlement, with effect from 2001–02) to implement the Homelessness Act. A further £10 million will be allocated in 2002–03 to assist local authorities to deliver the priority need order. It has not yet been decided what proportion of this money will go to individual local authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Local Government Association are currently considering how the money will be shared.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if Castle Point borough council has submitted an action plan to show how it will reduce numbers and length of stay for homeless families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. [64266]

  Mr. McNulty
  Based on 2001 statistics, Castle Point was not identified as one of the highest users of bed-and-breakfast hotels (B&B). The authority was not, therefore, required to submit a B&B reduction action plan in the first round of applications for funding to reduce numbers of families with children in B&B. However, the latest data from Castle Point indicates that is has 20 homeless households in B&B, of which 16 are families with children. We will be contacting the authority shortly to discuss their proposals to meet the commitment that, by March 2004, no homeless family with children is in B&B except in an emergency and even then for no more than six weeks.

  Castle Point, like all authorities has been sent a 10-point check list of good practice, outlining the key `building blocks' which we expect every authority to have in place to deliver reductions in B&B hotel use. In addition, the changes to housing benefit subsidies provide an incentive for authorities to lease private sector homes as a better quality alternative to B&B hotels.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the Homeless Directorate in his Department has received a bid for funding to help local homeless people, from Castle Point borough council. [64265]
  1034W
  Mr. McNulty
  On 14 March 2002, local authorities were invited to submit proposals to the new Homelessness Directorate in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for funding for local homelessness strategies. These are being considered at the moment. Castle Point borough council have not submitted any proposals for funding.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the additional money per year provided to local authorities in the revenue support grant to help them meet their new statutory obligations under the Homelessness Act 2002 has been allocated to Castle Point borough council. [64263]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government added £6.5/8/8 million to the general grant for 2001–02 to 2003–04 to meet local authorities' new statutory obligations under the Homelessness Act 2002. General grant is distributed to councils through standard spending assessments (SSA) which take account of various broad social and economic factors such as population. It is not possible to estimate how much of an authority's SSA relates to additional provision for particular responsibilities. It is, of course, for local authorities to decide how to allocate their general grant. Local authorities' responsibilities under the Homelessness Act 2002 are within the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA Block.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost of local government in the north-west was in the last financial year. [64541]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities within the north-west region have reported revenue expenditure 2001–02 budget figures totalling £8.3 billion. Revenue expenditure is expenditure funded by council tax, general Government grants, specific Government grants inside aggregate external finance and use of reserves.

  The 2001–02 forecast figure for total capital expenditure in the north-west region is £1.5 billion.

  Regional Policy
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many central Government Departments are not represented at a regional level within the network of Government offices; and what plans there are to increase the remit and responsibilities of regional staff. [63101]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government offices support the work of nine Departments: the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Department for Culture, Media and Sport; Department for Education and Skills; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Department for Transport; Department for Work and Pensions; Department of Health; Department of Trade and Industry; and Home Office.

  The Government will continue to look for further opportunities to integrate more closely other regional activities and networks within Government office structures.

DEFENCE

  Forces Health (Afghanistan)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been taken to prevent further outbreaks of illness among British forces in Afghanistan. [64489]

  Dr. Moonie
  An infection control specialist and infection outbreak investigation team were deployed during the outbreak. Their recommendations have lead to a tightening up of existing sanitary and hygiene measures.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the field hospital at Bagram has re-opened following its closure as a result of illness. [64490]

  Dr. Moonie
  34 field hospital at Bagram never closed although for a time it did not accept trauma patients, a measure that was lifted on 19 May 2002.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on hygiene standards of sanitary facilities used by British troops in Afghanistan. [64488]

  Dr. Moonie
  Afghanistan is a challenging environment which does place some limits on the sanitary facilities that can be provided. For example, there is not an unlimited supply of water. However, basic sanitary facilities are in place. Troops have access to showering facilities and the medical advice is that the deep trench latrines that are in place do not compromise hygiene standards, if well maintained.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the condition of the Royal Marines in Afghanistan who were struck down by illness during May. [64487]

  Dr. Moonie
  All British troops in Afghanistan who were suffering from winter vomiting disease during May have now recovered.

  Seville European Council
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Prime Minister's statement of 24 June on the Seville European Council, if he will make a statement on the relationship between ESDP and NATO; and if it is the policy of the Government for NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe to play the central role in military planning to meet crises and contingencies for NATO and ESDP operations. [64810]

  Mr. Hoon
  The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) complements and reinforces NATO. The Government are continuing to work within both the EU and NATO to conclude agreement on the arrangements to enable the EU to have assured access to NATO's planning capacities. These arrangements, which cover the role of D/SACEUR, are crucial to the success of ESDP.

  EU Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the extension of the EU Rapid Reaction Force's mandate to the fight against terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [64811]
  1036W
  Mr. Hoon
  There is no standing European Rapid Reaction Force. The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) seeks to enable the European Union to deal with the full range of conflict prevention and crisis management missions defined in the Amsterdam treaty, the "Petersberg Tasks". The European Council at Seville agreed a declaration concerning the contribution of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, including ESDP, in the fight against terrorism. This can already include the use of military forces if appropriate.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place to test the blood and saliva of British nuclear test veterans for evidence of irradiation. [50688]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 394W, to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir).

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are(a)in place and (b)under discussion in his Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE Directive. [60741]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 12 June 2002,Official Report,column 1266W, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Wilson).

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff were employed by his Department on(a)2 May 1997 and (b)31 May 2002. [60896]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 13 June 2002,Official Report,column 1402W, by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, (Mr. Alexander).

  Strategic Sealift Capability
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made toward finalising the arrangements for the UK's future military strategic sealift capability. [65664]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am pleased to announce that negotiations with AWSR Shipping Ltd. have been concluded and a PFI contract that will run until 2024 has been signed. The full service will be available from 2003. AWSR will provide, operate, maintain and manage six roll-on roll-off vessels and supply crews for the whole of the period of their contract. 180 new jobs for British seafarers will be created. After a phase in period, crews will be sponsored reserves. Based on a projected usage, the service is worth some £950 million, of which some £800 million is likely to be spent in the United Kingdom.

  All six ships will not be needed all the time for Ministry of Defence work. When not engaged on MOD tasks they will be available for commercial trade.
  1037W
  The service will play a central role in fulfilling our strategic defence review commitment to enhance the armed forces' equipment lift requirements and allow the movement of the joint rapid reaction forces quickly to overseas theatres as required.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the review of the licensing and regulation of the National Lottery. [65667]

  Tessa Jowell
  I am today publishing a consultation document, setting out a number of possible changes to the future licensing and regulation of the lottery.

  The document addresses the licensing arrangements which should apply when Camelot's second licence expires in January 2009. Our principal aim is to consider in good time therefore whether, and if so what, changes to the law governing the operation of the lottery are needed to ensure effective competition at that point, in the interests of maximising the income for good causes which it raises. The document takes account of the views of reports by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and by the National Audit Office into the award of the second licence.

  The document also invites views on the issue of whether the lottery should continue to be regulated by the National Lottery Commission, or brought within the remit of the Gambling Commission which we propose to establish, as described in "A safe bet for success".

  We shall shortly be publishing a further document which sets out our thinking on the arrangements for the distribution of lottery income, with a view to ensuring that the money for good causes is spent to best effect.

  In this way, looking at both the income and distribution sides of the lottery, we aim to underpin its long-term success and appeal, so that the public can have confidence in supporting it.

  I am arranging for copies of the consultation document to be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The consultation document is also available on the DCMS website at www.culture.gov.uk; and copies may be obtained, free of charge, from the Department. I shall be glad to consider comments on it.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security Force Collusion Investigation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available the terms of reference according to which Mr. Justice Peter Cory will conduct his investigation into allegations of security force collusion. [65614]

  Dr. John Reid
  At the Weston Park talks last summer, the British and Irish Governments undertook to appoint a judge of international standing to conduct an investigation into allegations of collusion by the security forces in six 1038W
  particular cases. The two Governments announced the appointment of Mr. Justice Peter Cory, a former member of the Supreme Court of Canada, on 29 May 2002. I have placed a copy of the judge's terms of reference, which are set out in his letter of appointment, in the Library.

  Police Service Annual Report
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he hopes to make available the annual report for 2001–02 of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [65615]

  Dr. John Reid
  Copies of the Chief Constable's annual report for 2001–02 will be placed in the Library tomorrow. It is a general report on the carrying out of the PSNI of their functions during 2001–02 financial year which is submitted to the Northern Ireland Policing Board and also to me for laying before Parliament in accordance with Section 58 (4) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.

  Police Reserve
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will make a decision about the future of the Police Full-Time Reserve in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [64215]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government remain committed to the objective of phasing out the Full-Time Reserve in line with the Patten report and the Implementation Plan.

  The Policing Board has asked the PSNI in the context of the service's overall human resources strategy, to prepare detailed proposals, including the Full-Time Reserve, to be considered by the board. I look forward to hearing the board's views, in conjunction with the chief constable's assessment, before final decisions are made.

  I understand the effect of uncertainty on officers and their families. I hope that it will be possible to reach conclusions on this issue shortly. In the meantime, the contracts of Full-Time Reserve officers will continue to be renewed.

  Forensic Science
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has made a decision on the future of forensic science in Northern Ireland. [55340]

  Dr. John Reid
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 2002, c. 199W]: I have agreed that the executive agency status of Forensic Science Northern Ireland should be continued until 31 March 2006. In addition, I have agreed with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that Forensic Science will become a Trading Fund from 1 April 2004. My decisions follow the completion of Stage 1 of a quinquennial review which examined the past performance of Forensic Science and the alternative organisational arrangements available for the delivery of forensic services in Northern Ireland. Generally the agency was found to have performed well and I commend its staff for their dedication through a difficult period. Stage 2 of the review will now be carried out to look at ways of improving the delivery of services by the agency. Copies of the Stage 1 report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available in due course on the NIO and Forensic Science websites.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Funding (Luton, South)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what moneys have been provided(a) directly and (b) via agencies for which the Department has responsibility to the Luton, South constituency since 1997. [58586]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Departmental budgets are allocated on a national and regional basis and not by constituency.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which Ministers and officials had meetings with representatives of(a) the Confederation of British Industry, (b) the Engineering Employees Federation, and (c) the Engineering Marine Training Authority during the last year; who they met; and what the subjects and outcomes of their discussions were. [62204]

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

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

  Children (Deafness)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of children with deafness in full-time education in each in the last three years. [61417]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Information on numbers of children with specific types of special need is not available centrally.

  The Department is considering introducing a requirement for schools and local education authorities to provide this information from 2004.

  School Rolls
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total roll number was of the(a) January 2001 Year 10 and (b) January 2002 Year 11. [62660]

  Mr. Miliband
  The requested information is not collected by year group. The nearest equivalent data collected by pupil age is shown in the table.

  Maintained secondary schools': number of full-time pupils by age

  England

  Position at January of each year

  Aged2

  Number of pupils

  2001

  14

  559,422

  20023

  15

  547,654

  1Including middle-deemed

  2At 31 August of previous year

  3Provisional

  Source:

  Annual School Census

  Specialist Teaching
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provision is available to teachers to assist them to deliver a wider range of specialisms and cross-curricular activities, particularly in vocational subjects. [62458]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: From September 2002 all those training to teach 11 to 14-year-olds will he trained in the Key Stage 3 Strategy emphasising the importance of cross curricular work. Those training to teach 14 to 18-year-olds will train to teach whatever national qualifications are relevant to their subject, including vocational qualifications, key skills and work related learning. An extensive programme of staff training and free support materials for schools and colleges is being funded by my Department to coincide with the introduction of new vocational GCSEs in September 2002. This is in addition to existing professional development opportunities which teachers can use to address any training needs on specialist or cross curricular activities.

  Teacher Workload
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps her Department has taken(a) to reduce the number of new initiatives and (b) to improve the rigour of assessment of those initiatives following the publication of the School Teacher's Review Body report on teacher workload. [63167]

  Mr. Miliband
  We are consulting on the School Teachers' Review Body report on teacher workload. One of the recommendations concerns the management of initiatives and reporting requirements. We are discussing the best ways forward on this and other aspects of the report with the school workforce remodelling working party, which includes teacher and head teacher representatives. Following the current consultation exercise, we expect to make formal proposals in the autumn.

  Our strategic document "Education and Skills: Delivering Results A Strategy to 2002" describes how we will be working to improve delivery of our targets. We have worked with Cabinet Office to improve how we assess the impact of our policies on delivery partners, including the workload implications. This includes greater involvement of and consultation with schools about the best method of implementing new policies.

  The Government are committed to helping teachers raise standards in schools. Departmental initiatives are designed to spread good practice, tackle poor practice and sponsor innovate practice. Sometimes this involves streamlining departmental programmes—for example the national supplementative of the standards fund.

  Schools (Voluntary Support)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has on the number of hours of voluntary support provided in schools and early years settings. [63886]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: The Government do not collect this information.

  Staff Recruitment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she collates on the number of new staff recruited each year by schools, colleges and early years settings. [63885]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: The Department collects information from teacher pension records on teachers in service in the maintained schools sector in England at 31 March each year. From this information, numbers of new teachers can be compiled. The most recent data available are for 31 March 2000.

  The Department does not collect numbers of new staff recruited to further education colleges and early years settings, or numbers of new staff recruited to non-teaching posts in schools.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what estimates she has made of the number of criminal records checks which need be carried out each year by school, colleges and early years settings; [63884]

  (2) if she will estimate the annual cost of criminal records checks to schools, colleges and early years settings. [63887]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: There are no estimates of numbers or costs available in respect of schools and colleges. My Department does not collect the kind of information about the number of staff and volunteers in these areas that would enable estimates to be made, and therefore the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ofsted arranges checks for those working in early years settings, such as childminders and day care staff, and it expects to request over 350,000 checks this year. We have set aside a sum of money to ensure that individuals in early years settings will not have to meet the CRB fee during the current financial year.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of pupils gained(a) five GCSEs at grade A-C and (b) two A-Levels in each local education authority in each year since 1999–2000, ranked by order of the most recent year. [63888]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to ensure all schools in England and Wales have sufficient teachers for the beginning of the new academic year. [64524]

  Mr. Miliband
  Schools are the employers and have primary responsibility for recruitment. Since 1997 the Government have introduced a series of measures to increase the number of teachers available to schools. They include measures to stimulate recruitment to initial teacher training, such as Training Salaries and "Golden Hellos"; a major boost to the Graduate Teacher 1042W
  programme for experienced entrants; a funded strategy for teachers' continuing professional development; extra pay flexibilities to allow schools to reward staff with scarce skills; extra support on behaviour management in the classroom; and funding for local Recruitment Strategy Managers within local education authorities. There were 9,400 more teachers in our schools in January 2002 than in January 2001—the biggest year-on-year rise for 20 years. There were also 26,700 more support staff in schools, and a 5 per cent. increase in the numbers of people starting initial teacher training courses.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have failed the(a) numeracy and (b) literacy skills tests prior to entering teaching in each year since tests were introduced. [64558]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]: The 1999–2000 teacher training cohort was the first to take a paper-based numeracy skills test. Following the first opportunities to take the test, 852 individuals had still to pass. Individuals had unlimited opportunities to pass the test throughout their induction period.

  The 2000–01 teacher training cohort took the computerised literacy and numeracy tests. As at 5 September 2001, 355 had still to pass either the numeracy or literacy skills tests. These individuals could enter teaching as unqualified teachers for up to five years and continue to have unlimited opportunities to pass the tests.

  The majority who fail the tests decide to re-sit. Figures are not available for this year as students are still taking the tests.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to ensure that children in England and Wales are taught by teachers with the relevant subject qualifications. [64557]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]: It is for schools, as employers, to employ the best available qualified people to teach their pupils and to deploy them appropriately. Preparations are in hand for a Secondary Schools Curriculum and Staffing Survey which will collect information on teachers' subject qualifications.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in England are being taught at(a) KS3 and (b) KS4 by teachers who do not have a qualification relevant to the subject being taught. [64556]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]: The percentage of lessons taught by full-time teachers at November 1996 that were taught by a teacher with no post A-level qualification in that subject were as follows, by subject:

  Percentages of periods

  Subject

  KS3

  KS4

  Mathematics

  11

  8

  English

  14

  8

  Biology1

  17

  9

  Chemistry1

  6

  1

  Physics1

  7

  3

  General Science1

  5

  4

  Other Sciences

  79

  63

  French

  11

  9

  German

  20

  15

  Spanish

  28

  27

  1043W

  Percentages of periods

  Subject

  KS3

  KS4

  Other Modern Languages

  76

  49

  Design and Technology2

  35

  27

  Information Technology2

  65

  56

  Combined Technology2

  34

  31

  Home Economics

  20

  16

  Business Studies

  25

  33

  Classics

  25

  12

  History

  17

  6

  Religious Education

  24

  20

  Geography

  15

  8

  Other Social Studies

  58

  44

  Combined Arts/Humanities/Social Studies

  84

  78

  Music

  4

  1

  Drama

  36

  26

  Art

  7

  5

  Physical Education

  5

  6

  Careers Education

  92

  88

  Personal and Social Education

  96

  95

  General Studies

  13

  99

  Total3,4

  20

  16

  1Teachers qualified in general science are treated as qualified to teach biology, chemistry, or physics. Teachers qualified in biology, chemistry or physics are treated as qualified to teach general science.

  2Teachers qualified in other technology are treated as qualified to teach design and technology or information technology. Teachers qualified in design and technology or information technology are treated as qualified to teach combined technology.

  3Teachers are counted once against each subject which they are teaching.

  4'Other' not included in total percentages.

  Note:

  This is the most recent available information.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many individual students who failed(a) numeracy and (b) literacy skills tests for entering into teaching have not re-applied to take the tests. [64555]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]: 79 individuals in the 2000–01 cohort who failed (a) numeracy or (b) literacy skills tests for entry into teaching have not re-applied to take the test(s).

  The majority of those who fail decide to re-sit the tests. Figures are not available for this year as students are still taking the tests.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list average salary for(a) primary teachers, (b) secondary teachers, (c) graduates in all other sectors and (d) all employees in each year since 1974. [64373]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]: Average salaries for full-time teachers, for others in employment with a degree or above and for all full-time employees is shown in the following table.

  Full-time teachers1

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Employees with a degree or better2

  All employees3

  1974

  2,120

  2,390

  4—

  2,170

  1975

  3,220

  3,550

  4—

  2,820

  1976

  3,790

  4,110

  4—

  3,350

  1977

  4,180

  4,460

  4—

  3,660

  1978

  4,410

  4,680

  4—

  4,120

  1979

  4,900

  5,180

  4—

  4,670

  1980

  5,920

  6,220

  4—

  5,750

  1981

  7,430

  7,790

  4—

  6,510

  1982

  8,090

  8,460

  4—

  7,120

  1044W

  Full-time teachers1

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Employees with a degree or better2

  All employees3

  19833

  8,670

  9,050

  4—

  7,730

  19833

  7,690

  1984

  9,160

  9,580

  4—

  8,310

  1985

  9,660

  10,160

  4—

  8,920

  1986

  10,490

  11,120

  4—

  9,630

  1987

  11,970

  12,740

  4—

  10,370

  1988

  12,920

  13,780

  4—

  11,390

  1989

  13,850

  14,830

  4—

  12,500

  1990

  14.500

  16,020

  4—

  13,720

  1991

  16,490

  17,720

  4—

  14,850

  1992

  18,450

  19,950

  4—

  15,880

  1993

  19,970

  21,470

  4—

  16,520

  1994

  20,280

  21,630

  23,570

  16,980

  1995

  20,860

  22,200

  23,880

  17,540

  1996

  21,370

  22,730

  26,280

  18,340

  1997

  22,080

  23,480

  26,910

  19,170

  1998

  22,700

  24,130

  27,320

  20,050

  1999

  523,570

  525,060

  28,890

  20,860

  2000

  524,390

  525,930

  30,090

  521,880

  2001

  626,143

  627,917

  30,660

  23,170

  1Average salary of full-time teachers in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector of England and Wales at 31 March of each year 1974 to 2001. Figures cover all grades and include any allowances paid. Figures up to 1993 include sixth form colleges. The 2001 salary figures include those threshold pay increases that were made before March 2001. However, they do not include threshold pay increases relating to people who passed the threshold in September 2000 and had not received their payment by March 2001. This money was backdated after March 2001 and therefore the average salary for March 2001 will be understated. The estimated average salary in March 2001 for primary and secondary schools combined, including all threshold pay increases, is £27,800. Source: DfES Database of Teacher Records.

  2Average salary of those in full-time employment in the UK with a degree or better qualification, in the spring of years shown. Excludes teachers with such qualifications. Source: Labour Force Survey (as the New Earnings Survey does not include qualifications data). Gross weekly and hourly earnings data are known to be underestimated in the LFS. Earnings data is based on information from about two-fifths of all respondents. Respondents with hourly pay greater than £100 are excluded.

  3Average salary of those in full-time employment in GB whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence, at April of each year. Figures from 1974 to first row for 1983 are compiled on the basis of men aged 21+ and women aged 18+. Figures for second 1983 row and onwards are compiled on the basis of employees on adult rates. Figures for 1997 and 1998 include late receipts. Source: New Earnings Survey.

  4Not available.

  5Revised.

  6Provisional.

  Pupil Participation
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received on including in Ofsted's framework of school assessments measures that are being taken by schools to encourage and improve pupil participation in the school's decision-making process. [63654]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]: No recent representations have been received about including an assessment of measures to encourage and improve pupil participation in Ofsted's framework.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many days elapsed between the
  1045W
  departures of chief executives and the arrivals of successors for each non-departmental body funded by her Department and its predecessor Departments since 1979. [59711]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The information requested for NDPBs currently funded by my Department are as listed. Information on NDPBs previously funded by my Department but which no longer exist, could be provided only at disproportionate cost:

  Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI): David Sherlock, the first and current chief inspector, was appointed on 1 April 2001.

  British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA)—formerly National Council for Educational Technology (NCET): Noel Thompson was appointed as the first chief executive of NCET on 1 April 1990, he left the post on 28 February 1992. Between 1 March and 2 August 1992 the post was held by an interim chief executive, Graham Walters. Between 3 August 1992 and 31 January 1997 the post was held by Margaret Bell. Between 1 February and 2 September 1997 the post was held by another interim chief executive, Michael Littlewood. Between 3 September and 31 December 1997 Owen Lynch held the post on secondment. On 1 January 1998 Owen Lynch was appointed as the first chief executive of BECTA, a post he currently holds.

  Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE): Professor Graeme Davies was appointed as the first chief executive in 1992, he left on 30 September 1995. Between 1 October 1995 and 30 September 2001 the post was held by Brian Fender. Sir Howard Newby, the current chief executive, was appointed on 1 October 2001.

  Investors in People UK (IIP UK): Mary Chapman, the first chief executive, left the post in May 1998. Ruth Spellman, the current chief executive, was appointed on 1 October 1998.

  Learning and Skills Council (LSC): John Harwood, the first and current chief inspector, was appointed on 1 October 2000.

  National College for School Leadership (NCSL): Heather Du Quesnay, the first and current director, was appointed on 1 September 2000.

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA): Dr. Nick Tate was appointed as the first chief executive in 1997, he left the QCA on 31 August 2000. Between 1 September 2000 and 31 December 2001 the post was held by Professor David Hargreaves. The post is currently filled temporarily by Beverley Evans, Ken Boston will take up post on 16 September 2002.

  Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA): Christopher Duff, the current chief inspector, was appointed on 22 April 2002.

  Student Loans Company (SLC): Ron Harrison was appointed as the first chief executive on 10 January 1990, he left the post on 10 March 1995. Between 11 March and 31 December 1995 the post was vacant. Colin Ward, the current chief executive, was appointed to the post on 1 January 1996.
  1046W
  Teacher Training Agency (TTA): Anthea Millett was appointed as the first chief executive on 1 January 1995, she left on the post on 31 December 1999. Ralph Tabberer, the current chief executive, was appointed on 7 February 2000.

  Children Leaving Care
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial assistance is offered to children who leave care at the age of 16 years to remain in full or part-time education. [62657]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which commenced on 1 October 2001, places a duty on local authorities to help care leavers with education and training, as appropriate in light of the individual young person's needs to the end of their agreed programme. Local authority support may be extended until a care leave's 24th birthday and can continue for longer if this is necessary to complete an agreed programme of education and training.

TREASURY

  Overpayments (Crown Immunity)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards Crown immunity in cases where taxpayers sue for the refund of overpayments made to the Inland Revenue. [64379]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My understanding is that the Inland Revenue does not have a legal right to claim Crown immunity where taxpayers claim refund of an overpayment of tax.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the consultation on the landfill tax credit scheme. [64378]

  John Healey
  The consultation on the future of the landfill tax scheme closed on 17 June. A summary of responses will be produced shortly.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the priority given by HM Customs and Excise to the prevention of illegal meat imports into the UK. [64876]

  John Healey
  Import controls to detect illegal import of meat and meat products are the responsibility of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and local or port health officers. HM Customs and Excise does not therefore specifically target its checks against the risk of illegal import of meat and meat products.

  Customs does however support the controls to prevent illegal import of meat and meat products by:
  Dealing with meat and meat products found in the course of checks made in relation to the wide range of controls for which Customs does have lead responsibility;

  1047W
  Participating in joint exercises organised by DEFRA or local or port health officers;
  Supporting DEFRA and local and port health officers with information to assist in detection of illegal imports; and
  Contributing to the DEFRA led illegal imports programme, for example by assisting in developing risk assessment.

  Network Rail
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place the accounting advice given by the Office for National Statistics concerning Network Rail in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [65059]

  Mr. Boateng
  Yes, the letter from the Office for National statistics of 20 June 2002 giving accounting advice concerning Network Rail will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the treatment of Network Rail debt on potential UK obligations under EMU convergence programmes and the stability and growth pact. [64880]

  Mr. Boateng
  Network Rail will be classified to the private sector in national accounts. It would pose no threat to UK obligations under EU treaties that concern excessive government deficits.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what submissions his Department has made to the ONS about the treatment of Network Rail debt in the national accounts; and if he will set out the reasoning behind those submissions. [64881]

  Mr. Boateng
  Over the months since October 2001 Treasury has kept ONS informed about the developing proposals for the constitution and financing of Network Rail in order to give ONS the opportunity to ask questions affecting the sector classification.

  Year started contributing

  Retire at end year

  Years of contribution

  Lump sum built up (£)

  Lump sum in 2000 earnings terms (£)

  Annuity rate in last year of contribution

  Pension at retirement (nominal terms, £ weekly)

  Pension at retirement (2000 earnings terms, £ weekly)

  1956

  1986

  31

  17,681

  38.694

  14.1

  48

  105

  1957

  1987

  31

  21,066

  42,786

  14.0

  57

  115

  1958

  1988

  31

  23,845

  44,503

  13.7

  63

  117

  1959

  1989

  31

  25,578

  43,792

  14.0

  69

  118

  1960

  1990

  31

  27,866

  43,460

  15.2

  82

  127

  1961

  1991

  31

  34,243

  49,608

  14.6

  96

  139

  1962

  1992

  31

  41,169

  56,297

  13.2

  105

  143

  1963

  1993

  31

  53,666

  71,268

  11.7

  121

  161

  1964

  1994

  31

  47,497

  60,865

  11.6

  106

  135

  1965

  1995

  31

  57,034

  70,893

  11.3

  124

  154

  1966

  1996

  31

  60,718

  72,850

  11.0

  129

  154

  1967

  1997

  31

  71,040

  81,762

  10.4

  141

  163

  1968

  1998

  31

  85,598

  93,743

  9.4

  155

  169

  1969

  1999

  31

  80,168

  83,738

  8.9

  138

  144

  1970

  2000

  31

  85,438

  85,438

  9.1

  149

  149

  1971

  2001

  31

  83,936

  80,348

  8.9

  143

  137

  The figures are based on hypothetical modelling of the return from contributing to a pension fund using the following assumptions:
  A person contributes to a personal pension for 31 years.
  The earnings of each individual go up in line with average earnings.
  1048W
  On 14 June 2002 Treasury wrote to ONS asking for a formal decision on the sector classification of Network Rail in national accounts. ONS replied on 20 June saying that, subject to NR's members confirming the board of directors, and further checking of the legal documents, NR would be classified to the private sector in national accounts. The reasoning behind the submissions was to obtain ONS' s view on the sector classification of Network Rail, and to make sure that ONS received in good time all the information it needed to make that decision and raise any queries.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Department for Transport about the treatment of Network Rail debt in the national accounts. [64872]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury officials have advised the Department for Transport that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) would classify Network Rail (NR) to the private sector in national accounts once its board of directors had been confirmed by a meeting of NR's members.

  "Modernising Annuities"
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the figures underlying the graph on page 19 of "Modernising Annuities" published by the Inland Revenue in February; what the date is in each year for which the figures are valid; and what the source is of the date used for earnings, annuity rates and value of maturing personal pension funds. [61084]

  Mr. McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information in the table sets out the figures underlying the graph on page 19 of "Modernising Annuities" published by the Inland Revenue and the Department of Work and Pensions in February.

  Each individual contributes 10 per cent. of their earnings into a personal pension.
  For the first 21 years, the fund is invested in equities, providing a return in line with the FT30 price index (dividends are ignored to allow for the effect of charges).

  1049W
  Over the last 10 years of contributions, the fund is switched into gilts at a rate of 10 per cent. of the fund each year.
  The return on gilts is in line with the Barclays capital total return index.
  A further annual charge of 1 per cent. of the fund under management is paid out of the fund each year.
  Upon retirement on 31 December of the given year, an annuity is purchased at the prevailing rate of that year.

  Date and sources of information:
  Historical annuity rates provided by Annuity Direct; and the rates refer to level annuity for a male aged 65, single life, guaranteed 5 years.
  The annuity rates were calculated by taking the average of monthly rates for each year. The annuity rates for 2001 refer to the average of monthly rates from January to October only.

  Earnings:
  The average earnings series from 1963 to December 2001 is taken from National Statistics publication, 'The Abstract of Statistics for Social Security Benefits and Contributions and Indices of Prices and Earnings, 2001 Edition'.
  Two indices have been put together to form a monthly average earnings series, starting from 1963. The Index of Average Earnings from 1963 to 1975 covered employees in all industries and services, except postal services, banking and medical services. The Average Earnings Index (whole economy) from 1976 to present covered all employees.
  Prior to 1963 the earnings series was constructed by back calculating using the annual growth in average earnings of full time male manual employees.
  Figures for 2001 refer to the average of monthly rates from January to October only.

  £ million

  GTMS

  Project Management and Technical Advice

  0.802

  Berwin Leighton

  Legal Advice

  1.345

  Dresdner Kleinwort Benson

  Financial Advice

  0.660

  DEGW

  Change Management Advice

  0.16

  Cecil Denny Highton

  Advice on Accommodation requirements

  0.101

  CB Hillier Parker

  Specialist property-related Advice

  0.013

  Roger Preston and Partners

  Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Advice

  0.043

  Willis Corroon

  Insurance Advice

  0.006

  PriceWaterHouseCoopers

  Accountancy Advice

  0.033

  3.223

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions Customs and Excise have seized pirated(a) video cassettes, (b) compact discs and (c) DVDs at UK ports of entry in each of the last five years; and what quantities were seized on each occasion. [59661]

  John Healey
  Customs do not maintain separate totals of seizures in the categories requested. Details of all seizures of such goods are provided to the European Commission who now compile annual statistics and publish them on their website at: http://europa.eu.int/commitaxation—customs/customs/counterfeit—piracy/statistics/uk—en.pdf.
  1050W
  The FT 30:
  Figures taken from: Economic Trends Annual Supplement, Office for National Statistics.
  Figures for 2001 refer to the average of monthly rates from January to September only.

  Gilt Rates:
  Barclays capital total return index
  Figures for 2001 refer to estimates after the end of October 2001.

  Treasury Building PFI
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total professional fees were for the Treasury Building PFI deal, broken down by(a) payer and (b) payee. [57829]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: Further to my right hon. Friend the former Chief Secretary's reply to the hon. Member on 5 February 2002, Official Report, column 840W, the total professional fees paid by Exchequer Partnership and HMT to date are as follows:

  (i) Professional fees paid by EP to date total £22.08 million. £6.968 million of these fees were accounted for in the earlier reply. Of the remaining £15.112 million, the major payees were Foster and Partners (architects) £5.68 million, Waterman Partnership (structural engineers) £1.63 million, Jaros Baum and Bolles (mechanical and electrical engineers) £1.57 million, Hanscomb (quantity surveyors) £1.48 million and Stanhope plc (property developers) £1.47 million.

  (ii) Professional fees payable by HMT to date total £3.223 million and were payable to the firms listed in the table. Of this sum, £2.637 million was accounted for in the earlier answer.

  These statistics show video cassettes, compact discs and DVDs as a single category. For the year 2000 there were 556 seizures totalling 38,138 items seized. This includes both pirated items (i.e. those breaching copyright) and counterfeit items (those with false trade marks). Figures for earlier years are not available.

  ECOFIN Council
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held on 20 June; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [64363]
  1051W
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the ECOFIN meeting on 20 June.

  ECOFIN agreed the Commission's recommendations for the broad economic policy guidelines for 2002 to 2003. The UK supports the guidelines which emphasise the importance of further structural reform in Europe. Following discussion at the Seville European Council the guidelines were adopted by ECOFIN on June 21.

  ECOFIN discussed arrangements for launching the Euro-Mediterranean Facility in the European Investment bank. It was decided that the facility would be launched in the autumn on the basis of the commission's funding plan but that the European Investment bank, the commission and the council would take forward discussions on the allocation of funds for the facility.

  The council agreed two reports to go to the European Council at Seville. The first was a progress report on energy taxation, and the second an updated report on the tax package, following the launch of negotiations with the Swiss on the tax on savings.

  Commissioner Bolkestein gave a short oral report to the council on the work of the financial action task force in combating terrorist financing and ECOFIN noted that this work was progressing satisfactorily.

  ECOFIN was also updated by the chair of the Economic and Financial Committee on on-going work to improve corporate governance in the EU.

  The council also reached political agreement on a directive on taxation of biofuels.

  No votes were taken at the meeting.

  Earnings Statistics
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the(a) weekly median earnings and (b) distribution of earnings for those earning (i) under the point below which 10 per cent. of earners fall and (ii) the point above which 10 per cent. of earners exceed, are in (A) Scotland and (B) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland, broken down by (1) all manual, (2) all non-manual and (3) all workers; [63696]

  (2) what proportion of full-time workers in (a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain have hourly earnings (i) including and (ii) excluding overtime below (A) £7.97, (B) £7.32, (C) £5.38 and (D) £4.10 broken down by categories (1) male manual, (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers, (7) all manual, (8) all non-manual and (9) all workers. [63697]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Annabelle Ewing, dated 27 June 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on the distribution of weekly earnings and average hourly earnings for workers in Great Britain, Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland. (63696 & 63697)
  1052W
  I am placing in the House of Commons Library, tables showing average weekly earnings, both including and excluding overtime, (Table 1) and the proportion of people earning below the different thresholds you listed, both including overtime (Table 2) and excluding overtime (Table 3).
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy and I have provided the available data for Scotland, the unitary authorities in Scotland and Great Britain only for those areas where the samples are large enough. These are based on the 2001 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) his Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59456]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: HM Treasury and its executive agency, the Debt Management Office, do not apply age restrictions on applications for employment, with the exception that we cannot consider applicants above our maximum retirement age of 60.

  NATS
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 130W, on NATS, what arrangements have been put in place to succeed the Troika insurance scheme. [64705]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's Troika insurance scheme for aviation third party terrorism risks was due to come to an end on 30 June. Provision of insurance under Troika has now been extended for a further 60 days, and will now come to an end at 23:59 on 29 August. Discussions are continuing in Europe on possible insurance arrangements to succeed individual government insurance schemes for aviation, and on developments in the commercial aviation insurance market.

  Capital Returns
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has collated on the pre-tax rate of return on capital employed for the UK(a) banking, (b) pharmaceutical and (c) telecommunications industry in each year since 1990. [64962]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Peter Lilley:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what information has been collected on the pre-tax rate of return on capital employed for the UK (a) banking. (b) pharmaceutical and (c) telecommunications industry in each year since 1990. I am replying in his absence. (64962)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publish data on the rates of return for Private Non-Financial Companies in the "Profitability of UK Companies" Press Notice (which is available to download free from the www.statistics.gov.uk website). The most detailed breakdown available in this release covers total Manufacturing and total Service Sector rates of return. No further disaggregation into Pharmaceutical or Telecommunications Industries is available. The ONS does not have any information on the rates of return for Financial Companies (including Banks).

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in his Department in 2002. [64651]

  Ruth Kelly
  The annual leave entitlement for staff below the senior civil service is:25 days on entry and 30 days after seven years service.

  The annual leave entitlement for members of the senior civil service is currently set by the Cabinet Office at 30 days.

  Information about average leave entitlement can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Insurance Cover
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are in place to assess and monitor information compiled by the insurance industry as a basis for determining contracts of cover. [64935]

  Ruth Kelly
  Determining whether to offer cover, and terms and prices of contracts, are for the commercial judgment of insurers. Except for certain specified circumstances, insurers are free to gather and use whatever obtainable information they believe is relevant. It is in insurers' interests to only use relevant and accurate information. Government does not assess or monitor the compilation of such information.

  Flooding
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations his Department has received on the accuracy of information compiled by the insurance industry relating to flood risks; and what action he plans to take. [64936]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury regularly receives representations on a wide variety of issues. The Environment Agency is working hard to improve the availability of accurate flood risk information; this includes liaison with the Association of British Insurers.

  Nauru
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what counter measures the United Kingdom Government have taken in respect of the Financial Action Task Force recommendations concerning Nauru; and if he will make a statement. [65106]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK has implemented all the FATF counter measures against Nauru, through guidance issued by the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group.

  UK financial institutions conduct enhanced scrutiny of business dealings with financial institutions from all countries on the FATF's Non Co-operative Countries and Territories list. In the case of Nauru, UK financial institutions would treat business dealings with even greater caution and would be more likely to make a Suspicious Transaction Report to the National Criminal Intelligence Service.

  Ministerial Visits
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many EU applicant countries he has visited since 1 May 1999. [65402]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer visited Malta on 20 September 2000 to attend the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Chairman of the IMF. [65401]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly meets Horst Köhler, the Managing Director of the IMF, including at the international meetings of the IMF, World bank and G7 Finance Ministers' Meetings.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would have been the impact on(a) tax revenues, (b) pension funds and (c) gross domestic product if all those who have taken early retirement had instead worked until their statutory retirement age for the period 1982 to 2002. [65018]

  Ruth Kelly
  Between 1984 and 2000 activity rates of individuals aged 50 and over have remained broadly constant at just under 70 per cent., with the male activity rate falling slightly while the female rate has risen. Currently, only 39 per cent. of men are still in employment at age 64, 47 per cent. of women at age 59.

  With increasing life expectancy, pensions will have to last longer requiring more pension saving by individuals themselves and through occupational arrangements. The Government have policies in place to enable and encourage people to work longer and save more for retirement. The new deal 50 plus was introduced nationally in April 2000, and has helped over 60,000 older people find work. The Government are also, through the Age Positive campaign, challenging ageist employment practices; and is committed to legislating against age discrimination in employment and training by 2006.

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent by her Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52721]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date my Department has incurred no expenditure in leadership skills for Ministers. Officials in my Department have access to a wide range of training and development opportunities including leadership skills. Leadership is often one element of a wider personal development programme. Information on the amount attributed to development of leadership skills from such programmes could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Data Protection
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to propose legislation on the application of the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to unstructured personal information in manual form, so that the rights of access granted to data subjects are the same in Scotland as they are in England; and if she will make a statement. [59207]

  Mrs. Liddell
  While the subject matter of the Data Protection Act 1998 is reserved, the amendments made by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to extend the scope of the Data Protection Act to cover unstructured personal data held by UK public authorities (as defined in the Freedom of Information Act) do not apply to such data held by Scottish public authorities. However, the Scottish Executive has indicated that it intends to provide the same rights of access to personal information held by Scottish public authorities as those contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as regards personal information held by UK public authorities.

  Certified Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59773]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has no refurbishment projects in progress or planned within the next six months.

  Scottish Older People's Consultative Forum
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many seats the Scottish Older People Advisory Group has on the Scottish Older People's Consultative Forum. [64845]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scottish Older People's Consultative Forum is chaired by the Scottish Executive and considers devolved matters. Therefore, any questions about its composition are for the Scottish Parliament.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General how much has been spent by her Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52722]

  The Advocate-General
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons were entitled to receive each benefit and tax credit at the most recent date 1056W
  for which information is available; and how many had (a) become entitled and (b) ceased to be entitled, in the preceding 12 months. [35217]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]: We aim to ensure that people are in an informed position to make choices on whether to claim benefit and we are the first Government to encourage the active pursuit of take-up initiatives as a means of tackling pensioner poverty. On 30 May 2000 we launched the minimum income guarantee (MIG) take-up campaign and this resulted in a further 127,371 successful MIG claims.

  The available information on benefit take-up is published in the Income-Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up in 1999–2000, a copy of which is available in the Library. Tax credits are the responsibility of the Inland Revenue.

  Information on the number of people receiving social security benefits is available in the Library in the following publications:
  Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance—Disability, Care and Mobility Benefits Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2001;
  Income Support—Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2001; Jobseeker's Allowance; Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2001.
  Incapacity Benefit/Severe Disablement Allowance—Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance Quarterly Summary Statistics November 2001;
  Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit—Housing Benefit & Council Tax Benefit Quarterly Summary Statistics for November 2001; and
  Retirement Pension—Retirement Pension Summary of Statistics, September 2001.

  The available information on the number of people who have stopped and started receiving social security benefits has been placed in the Library. In addition, this table gives the number of people receiving bereavement benefits, child benefit, guardians allowance, industrial injuries disablement benefit, invalid care allowance, maternity allowance and reduced earnings allowance.

  Benefits
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the planned phases for the transfer of benefit payments to automated credit transfer. [60843]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Customers will be moved from order books and girocheques to payment into a bank or building society account on a benefit by benefit basis. This will start in 2003 and we plan to finish two years later. We plan to start to contact the first customers in late 2002. Even after the move to payments directly into accounts, customers will still be able to continue to collect their benefits in cash from the Post Office if they wish.

  Carers
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment has been made of the additional cost to a person of caring for a disabled person; and what element of this is provided for in the state pension; [62371]
  1057W
  (2) what representations he has received regarding the rule that invalid care allowance cannot be paid to people of pensionable age; and what plans he has to review this rule. [62372]

  Maria Eagle
  No estimates of the additional cost to a person of caring for a disabled person are available and the state pension does not contain an element in respect of caring responsibility, but carers entitlement to state pension is protected through contribution credits and the home responsibilities protection scheme. In addition, from April this year some 2 million carers are able to build up entitlement to an additional pension through the state second pension.

  As part of the substantial package of measures to help carers announced in autumn 2000, the Government have responded positively to representations made by older carers and their organisations by abolishing the age 65 upper age limit for claims to invalid care allowance. This change comes into effect on 28 October 2002. It will enable older carers with little of no retirement pension to receive the allowance, while those with low incomes will benefit by gaining access to the carer premium paid with income-related benefits, and follows the substantial increases to the carer premium and to the earnings limit for entitlement to invalid care allowance made in April 2001. Overall these measures, together with the continued payment of invalid care allowance for up to eight weeks after the death of the severely disabled person being cared for, will provide over £500 million in extra support for carers over three years.

  Age 60–64

  Age 65–69

  Age 70–74

  Age 75–79

  Age 80+

  Single males

  Median income (£)

  n/a

  138

  141

  136

  132

  Number

  n/a

  230,000

  260,000

  240,000

  290,000

  Single females

  Median income (£)

  132

  127

  127

  116

  109

  Number

  380,000

  470,000

  630,000

  670,000

  1.000,000

  Couples

  Median income (£)

  n/a

  296

  258

  236

  211

  Number

  n/a

  980,000

  760,000

  510,000

  410,000

  Notes:

  1. The definition of income used here is gross income, that is income gross of the following items: income tax payments, national insurance contributions, contributions to occupational and personal pension schemes, local taxes, maintenance, child support payments and parental contributions to students living away from home.

  2. "Median income" represents the income of the person or family exactly in the middle of the range of ranked incomes of the age group. For each age group there is a wide range of incomes.

  3. The data are from the Family Resources Survey 2000–01 and are rounded to the nearest £1 or 10,000.

  4. Estimates are for pensioner units. Pensioner units are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over state pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over state pension age.

  5. Pensioner units are allocated to age categories according to the age of the head. The head of a couple is defined as the man.

  6. Estimates have not been split by gender for couples as the extent of income sharing within pensioner units is not known.

  7. Means tested benefits refer to minimum income guarantee, working families' tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit and social fund grants.

  8. These results are based on survey respondents' identification of different elements of benefit income, and are therefore subject to misreporting.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if it is his policy to regard money purchase pension schemes as broadly comparable with final salary pension schemes; and if he will make a statement. [63169]

  Mr. McCartney
  Both defined benefit and defined contribution pensions have their advantages and disadvantages. However, the Government's principal

  In-work Benefits (Administration)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) costs associated with moving in-work benefit administration from his Department to the Inland Revenue and (b) other costs his Department incurred in each year since 1999–2000 with regard to the working families tax credit. [62604]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The project costs to this Department associated with replacing family credit with working families tax credit in 1999 are estimated at £1.5 million for 1998–99 and 1.6 million for 1999–2000.

  No figures are available for the on-going costs—information provided to customers about working families tax credit is part of the package of information given to them about the benefits of moving into work.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 378W, on pensions, if he will update his estimates based on the Family Resources Survey 2000–01 of (a) median pensioner incomes, excluding means-tested benefits, by (i) age, (ii) sex and (iii) marital status, and (b) the size of each group. [62693]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information required is in the table.

  concern is to ensure that as much money goes into the pension pot as possible, and is not spent on the cost of selling or running the pension fund.

  Over a whole working life, if contributions to a defined benefit scheme were the same as those to a defined contribution scheme we would expect the pension benefits to be broadly comparable.

  New Deal
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Portsmouth, South constituency found permanent employment as a result of the New Deal for(a) long term unemployed 25 plus, (b) lone parents, (c) disabled people and (d) 50 plus in each of the years since they were introduced; and if he will make a statement. [63370]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information on the New Deal for Disabled People is not available at constituency level. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Programme

  New Deal 25 plus1

  New Deal 50 plus2

  New Deal for Lone Parents3

  Total number of people entering sustained employment', in Portsmouth, South

  1998–99

  30

  4—

  20

  1999–2000

  20

  4—

  100

  2000–01

  10

  50

  120

  2001–02

  60

  70

  140

  1In April 2001 New Deal 25 Plus was extended and enhanced, to provide a flexible, more individually-tailored service to help more people get jobs and remain in them.

  2Figures for sustained employment are not given for the New Deal 50 plus and the New Deal for Lone Parents. The figures given are therefore the total number of jobs gained.

  3Sustained employment is defined as employment lasting more than 13 weeks.

  4Figures are not available as the New Deal 50 plus was only introduced nationally from April 2000.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much funding has been given for investigating benefit fraud in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [63681]

  Malcolm Wicks
  For details of the Department's spending, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 618W.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will review the rules on awarding backdated benefits to men widowed before the introduction of the 2001 changes to bereavement benefits. [63691]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: We have no plans to do so. There is continuing litigation and the matter will be kept under review.

  We reformed benefits in widowhood by introducing bereavement benefits from 9 April 2001. Before then there was no statutory basis to make payments of widow's benefits to men. The Government have said already that in making those reforms their obligation was to future widowers and widows. The reforms in 2001 met this obligation and went further. The new widowed parents allowance was available to existing widowers from its introduction in April 2001.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on compliance by small and medium enterprises with stakeholder pension notification arrangements. [64290]

  Mr. McCartney
  Firms with five or more employees are required to designate a stakeholder pension scheme for their staff, unless exempted from doing so because they provide an occupational scheme for their work force or allow their staff access to a personal pension scheme to which the employer makes a contribution of at least 3 per cent. of the employee's basic pay. Part of this designation process involves consulting relevant employees prior to selection of a scheme and then notifying them of the name and address of their designated stakeholder pension scheme. They must also allow representatives of the designated scheme reasonable access to their employees in order to supply them with information about the scheme. The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra), which has responsibility for regulating compliance with all aspects of the designation process, has received no specific reports of firms failing to notify employees of their stakeholder arrangements. However it is a matter that they sometimes come across on following up a report alleging non-designation. Reports to Opra tend to be of a general nature rather than alleging a specific breach of one part of the designation requirement. To date Opra has received 361 reports alleging lack of workplace access to a stakeholder pension scheme, of which 327 have been resolved.

  Figures on designations of stakeholder pension schemes are not broken down by size of company. However the majority of employers required to designate a stakeholder pension scheme for their work forces are small to medium enterprises. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has reported that around 322,000 of those 350,000 employers estimated as required to do so had designated a stakeholder pension scheme for their staff by the end of March 2002. This represents a compliance rate of around 90 per cent.

  Overseas Residents (Benefits)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list in chronological order each reciprocal bilateral agreement involving the UK for the vertical payment of social security benefits, indicating restrictions on their payment in full to beneficiaries resident abroad. [64291]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The main purpose of such reciprocal agreements is to protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from having to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time and ensure that such workers' rights to certain benefits are maintained. They vary to some extent from country to country depending on the nature and scope of the other country's social security scheme. Generally, they cover contributory benefits in respect of the following contingencies: sickness, invalidity, unemployment, retirement, bereavement and industrial injuries. Workers who have contributed to both countries schemes during their working lives can usually
  1061W
  receive an old age pension from each country which reflects the proportionate amount of their insurance in, or contributions to, each country's scheme.

  The reciprocal bilateral social security agreements involving the UK are as follows:
  The National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Italy) Order 1953/884
  The National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Luxembourg) Order 1955/420
  The National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Netherlands) Order 1955/874
  The National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (France) Order 1958/597
  The Family Allowance, National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Belgium) Order 1958/771
  The Family Allowance, National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Yugoslavia) Order 1958/1263
  The Family Allowance, National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Denmark) Order 1960/211
  The National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Republic of Ireland) Order 1960/707
  The National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Turkey) Order 1961/584
  The Family Allowance, National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Germany) Order 1961/1202
  The National Insurance (Republic of Ireland) Order 1966/707
  The Family Allowance, National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Switzerland) Order 1969/384
  The Social Security (Bermuda) Order 1969/1686
  The National Insurance (Republic of Ireland) Order 1971/1742
  The Family Allowance, National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Gibraltar) Order 1974/555
  The Family Allowance, National Insurance and Industrial Injuries (Spain) Order 1975/415
  The Social Security (Isle of Man) Order 1977/2150
  The Social Security (Portugal) Order 1979/921
  The Social Security (Austria) Order 1981/605
  The Social Security (Mauritius) Order 1981/1524
  The Social Security (Cyprus) Order 1983/1698
  The Social Security (New Zealand) Order 1983/1894
  The Social Security (Finland) Order 1984/125
  The Social Security (Israel) Order 1984/354
  The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984/1817
  The Social Security (Iceland) Order 1985/1202 (as amended by SI 1982/3211)
  The Social Security (Sweden) Order 1988/590 (as amended by SI 1982/3213)
  The Social Security (Philippines) Order 1989/2002
  The Social Security (Norway) Order 1991/767 (as amended by SI 1982/3212)
  The Social Security (Barbados) Order 1992/812
  The Social Security (Jersey and Guernsey) Order 1994/2802
  The Social Security (Canada) Order 1995/2699
  The Social Security (Malta) Order 1996/1927 (replaced 1956/1987 and 1958/727)
  The Social Security (Jamaica) Order 1997/871 (replaced 1972/1587)
  The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997/1778 (supplementary to SI 1984/1817 above).
  1062W

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if it is possible for jobseeker's allowance claimants to have their records removed from the Department computer system. [64870]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Procedures are already in place to ensure that customer records are routinely deleted from the jobseeker's allowance computer system where they have been inactive for four years. There are important business reasons for retaining customer information for this period, for example, because these records may be needed to support Inland Revenue tax rebates.

  Any information recorded by the Department must be factually correct. If a person believes that we have recorded inaccurate information about them, they should in the first instance approach the Department to request its amendment or removal.

  Pensioner Poverty (Stroud)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have been lifted out of poverty in the Stroud constituency since 1997. [65009]

  Mr. McCartney
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex concepts, affecting many aspects of people's lives; including their living standards, health, housing and quality of environment. The third annual report, "Opportunity for All—Making Progress" (CM 5260), sets out the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and presents the latest information on the indicators used to monitor progress against this strategy. A copy is available in the Library.

  The minimum income guarantee (MIG) was introduced in April 1999 to provide money for the poorest pensioners as quickly as possible. 2,600 pensioners are receiving the MIG in the Stroud constituency.

  To ensure that all pensioners share in rising prosperity, the basic state pension has risen by £3 a week for single pensioners and £4.80 for couples on top of above-inflation increases last year. This is in addition to the introduction of winter fuel payments, currently £200 per household, made to 22,100 pensioners in the Stroud constituency and free TV licences for the over-75s.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistical Enquiry, February 2002.

  City and County of Swansea Council
  Clive Efford
  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 city and county of Swansea council. [65665]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) report on the city and county of Swansea council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  This follow-up inspection report shows that the council has progressed from being a poorly performing authority in 1999 to one that was now performing to a satisfactory level in most areas.
  1063W
  The first inspection found that Swansea had struggled to administer housing benefit and council tax benefit effectively and that a backlog of work had built up. However, the follow-up inspection found that the council had taken steps to address the recommendations in BFI's first report, which had reduced the level of outstanding work.

  BFI's first report stated that the council's counter fraud performance was suffering due to a lack of management control. Inspectors found that this had improved at the time of the follow-up inspection and Swansea was committed to the personal and collective development of the investigation team.

  Swansea administered some £59.1 million in housing benefits in 2000–01.

  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.

  Cardiff County Council
  Clive Efford
  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 Cardiff county council. [65666]

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

  The report finds that, generally, the council performed well in administering benefits but needed to improve counter fraud work.

  Inspectors found a marked difference in performance between the city hall and area office teams. Performance was poorer, and sickness levels higher, at the city hall which was dealing with a backlog of 4,500 documents.

  The report notes good performance in a number of areas including the verification of claims, a good working relationship with the Benefits Agency, excellent complaints procedures and good internal audit practices.

  Areas of poor performance included decision notices that did not comply fully with legislation, fraud investigations which were curtailed too early meaning that Cardiff was unable to prosecute fraudsters, and the lack of a counter fraud publicity policy and risk analysis of fraud.

  There was mixed performance in dealing with overpayments of benefit with the classification of overpayments being poor. Inspectors note that the council had begun to improve in this area.
  1064W
  The council had a service improvement plan in place prior to the inspection. This comprehensive plan addresses many of the points that the report identifies. Elected members and staff are jointly driving through the objectives of the plan.

  Cardiff administered some £80 million in housing benefits in 1999–2000.

  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.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many special advisers were employed by himself and his predecessor(a) between I May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was in each of those years. [41261]

  Mr. McCartney
  Two special advisers were employed by the Department of Social Security and subsequently by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in each year from 1997 to 20 January 2002. From 21 January 2002, in recognition that DWP now has a Minister who attends Cabinet, it employed three special advisers.

  Details of costs for special advisers with individual Departments are not given in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Independent Remuneration Panel
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the work of the independent remuneration panel. [61950]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local authorities are required to establish and maintain an independent remuneration panel. The purpose of this panel is to make recommendations to the authority about the allowances to be paid to elected members. Authorities are under a duty to have regard to the recommendation of their independent remuneration panel when establishing their scheme and levels of allowances.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimate is of the cost of means-tested benefits for(a) men over 65 and (b) women over 60 for 2002–03. [61259]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. The costs of means tested benefits, that is the minimum income guarantee, housing benefit and council tax benefit, to people aged 60 and over for 2002–03 are estimated to be £10.415 million.

  Source:

  Departmental Report 2002.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appellate Authority
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what reasons have been given for adjournments in hearings dealt with by the IAA since January 2001; and how many adjournments have been granted under each reason. [63460]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The reasons for adjournments are wide ranging, therefore, I have listed the top 10 reasons for adjournments since 1 June 2001–31 May 2002.

  In adjudicator hearings these are:

  Reason given

  Number of adjournments granted

  Lack of court time

  1,821

  For further evidence to be supplied by representative

  1,367

  Representative need to supply medical report

  1,173

  Home Office reconsidering their decision

  1,140

  Other reasons for representatives needing more time

  1,060

  Document needs to be authenticated or translated

  993

  Appellant sick

  768

  Home Office documents missing

  671

  New Home Office issue raised

  630

  Representative sick

  622

  In tribunal hearings they are:

  Reason given

  Number of adjournments granted

  For further evidence to be supplied by representative

  100

  Other reasons for representatives needing more time

  55

  New Home Office issue raised

  40

  Home Office reconsidering their decision

  27

  Other reason for representative's non attendance

  25

  Representative sick

  22

  Representative need to supply medical report

  14

  Needs a combined hearing

  12

  Representatives instructed late

  11

  Document needs to be authenticated or translated

  11

  Figures prior to June 2001 are not available.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Leggatt Report
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the Government's response to the Leggatt report on tribunal justice. [64535]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are considering its response to the Leggatt review and will announce its conclusions later in the year.

  The Government's response will take into account the public consultation exercise completed in December 2001, which generated over 350 responses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed by his Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60897]

  Beverley Hughes
  In respect of(a) 2 May 1997, I refer the hon. Member to reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 13 June 2002, Official Report, column 1158W.

  In respect of (b) 31 May 2002, while published figures for I April 2002 have not yet been centrally compiled, estimates are available from the Home Office Personnel Information Manpower Management System (PIMMS) and the personnel systems of the Home Office Agencies, and I have provided them in the table.

  Full-time equivalents

  Home Office area1

  1 April 2002

  Home Office main2

  13,573

  Forensic Science Service

  2,448

  (United Kingdom Passport Agency)

  2,807

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  43,420

  Grand total

  64,251

  1The Fire Service College moved to the Department of the Enviroment in the machinery of Government changes 8 June 2001.

  2The number includes 4,511 extra staff recruited since 31 March 2002 to deal with immigration and asylum work within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  Street Crime
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the street crime initiative courts in London; how they are proposed to operate and for what purpose; what role is envisaged for the Witness Service in relation to them; and if he will make a statement. [60540]

  Hilary Benn
  There are 19 specially designated street crime courts in London. Of these nine are Crown courts and 10 are magistrates courts.

  The Crown courts are: Blackfriars, Croydon, Harrow, Inner London (designated Youth Crown court for Inner London), Isleworth, Kingston, Middlesex Guildhall, Snaresbrook, and Wood Green.

  The 10 magistrates courts designated as special street crime courts are: Acton, Balham, Brent, Camberwell Green, Croydon, Harringay, Stratford, Thames, Waltham Forrest, and West London

  As well as fast tracking street crime cases the designated courts are designed to ensure that victims and witnesses have separate facilities, such as secure waiting areas, to avoid the risk of intimidation from alleged offenders. The Witness Service, provided by victim support also provides support to witnesses before, during and after they give evidence, to lessen the number of cases failing to proceed.
  1067W
  The specialist street crime courts are part of a package of measures across the Court Justice Service and other Government departments, designed to tackle street crime by dealing swiftly and effectively with the perpetrators of these offences.

  Extradition Laws
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to improve the UK's extradition laws. [65175]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  At present it takes too long to extradite someone from the United Kingdom. Not only is this against the interests of justice and the victims of crime but it is the British taxpayer that foots the bill: paying for the fugitive to be detained and often funding their legal battle.

  The previous Home Secretary launched a review of extradition law and the Home Office published proposals for consultation in March last year. Since then the attacks on 11 September have added impetus to European Union (EU) plans for an EU-wide arrest warrant.

  The Government has already announced that we intend to legislate to bring this into effect. This will dramatically speed up the extradition process between EU states, but not at the expense of fugitive's rights.

  It should also make it possible in some circumstances to return people to the United Kingdom who, under the old system, would not have been extradited.

  We also plan to streamline procedures for non-EU countries too.

  I am today publishing a consultation paper containing a draft Extradition Bill which outlines our proposals and invites all of those with an interest to comment.

  An Extradition Bill will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decisions have been made by his Department in the last year under authority from the royal prerogative. [63132]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]:Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the royal prerogative are exercised, nor would it be practicable to do so.

  Prisoners (Educational Standards)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the standards of literacy and numeracy among prisoners; and what information he collects on these subjects. [60829]

  Hilary Benn
  The majority of prisoners have serious basic skills needs which must be addressed if we are to help them re-settle effectively into the community on release. In 2001–02 prisoners achieved over 24,000 basic skills qualifications. Almost 16,000 were at level 2—an increase of 30 per cent. over the previous year. The basic skills target for 2002–03 is 28,800 at all levels.
  1068W
  We collect monthly information on the number of basic skills qualifications gained at establishment level. The Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit (PLSU), based in the Department for Education and Skills, supports establishments which are falling short of expectations.

  We have ensured that prisons are part of national developments in basic skills, and have been piloting new national curriculum materials and tests in seven prisons. Additional capital resources over this year and next from the Capital Modernisation Fund will help us to deliver improvements in basic skills by supporting initial assessment, the integration of basic and key skills into prison workshops and the transformation of Libraries into learning resource centres.

  From April 2002, education and training in prisons—including basic skills provision—has been inspected against the criteria set out in the Common Inspection Framework, which covers all post-16 learning. With the support of the PLSU, the majority of prisons have established quality improvement groups to secure better planning and delivery of all their learning provision and to respond to the findings of inspection reports. We expect the remaining prisons to do so shortly.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [60891]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home 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.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the procedures for information appearing on his Department's website. [54520]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I apologise for the delay in replying.

  The Home Department's website is not only used to communicate policy, but it is pivotal as a tool for consultation as well. Content is developed in co-operation with policy owners, who are responsible for its currency and accuracy. Information on the site is updated or removed whenever required, ensuring that the contents are as reliable as possible. This immediacy allows our content to reflect the activities of the Department across all its responsibilities in England and Wales for the criminal law, crime reduction, policing, prisons and probation as well as for immigration and asylum policy across the United Kingdom. Other areas of the site reflect the Department's lead on active communities, race equality and family policy.

  National Security
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reasons of national security compel the Home Office to retain sections of PRO file PRO/30/60/13/2 dating from 1887 to 1896 closed under section 3.4 of the Public Records Act 1958. [61284]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office retained those sections of PRO file PRO/30/60/13/2 that were considered sensitive as defined under schedule 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The continuing sensitivity relates to honouring commitments to keep certain matters secret and so retain the confidence of those who do or would co-operate with the authorities on intelligence and security matters as well as protecting the identities of family members and descendants who might in some circumstances be placed at risk. I will continue to keep this under review.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the time taken by the Criminal Records Bureau to process applications from local authorities for information; and if he will make a statement. [61516]

  Hilary Benn
  A number of representations have been received directly or indirectly. Measures are being taken to address the initial operating difficulties, which have resulted in delays in responding to applications for disclosure. We are determined that the Criminal Records Bureau will be in a position, as soon as possible, to meet the high standards of service that it has set itself.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to(a)reduce delays in conducting Criminal Records Bureau checks and (b)maintain security of such checks when outsourced to other countries. [61346]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 17 June 20021:The information is as follows.

  (a)The Criminal Records Bureau has introduced a number of measures as part of a performance improvement plan in order to reduce delays in conducting Criminal Record Bureau checks. These measures include:
  Rapid recruitment and training of additional staff
  Additional resources to deal with the older applications. Extensions to working hours to increase output.
  Revised procedures to deal with errors/omissions. These remove such applications from mainstream processes thereby increasing the efficiency of processing both correctly completed applications and the exceptions.
  Significant increase in call centre staffing levels to cope with demand.
  Return of incomplete or incorrectly completed application forms to the registered body for correction.

  The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has also introduced the following short-term contingency measures:
  The CRB will carry out and issue the results of a List 99 check, for all teachers, in advance of a full disclosure check.
  The CRB has introduced a contingency plan to deliver a very limited number of manual criminal record checks.
  Outsourcing most of the backlog of applications to the data entry facility of Hays Plc in Chennai (Madras, India).
  Letters have been issued to Lead Countersignatories about the situation.
  1070W
  (b)The concept of processing data overseas is not a new one and has been carried out successfully for a number of years. The security of criminal records checking should in no way be jeopardised by the outsourcing of the data capture process. The company carrying out the work in this case, Hays Plc has undertaken work for other public bodies.

  A number of proposed sites were researched, both in the United Kingdom and abroad. The site in Chennai was chosen for many reasons, including:
  Hays have extensive experience in this sector and have been employing staff in this line of work for over 12 years.
  Hays staff are already engaged in processing data for several overseas clients whose data are not dissimilar to that of the CRB.
  A comprehensive security audit has been carried out on the staff, premises and processes involved.

  Hays Plc in India offer the greatest capacity and flexibility to meet the CRB's needs.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a)date, (b)location and (c)purpose was of visits by Ministers in his Department to Wales since 1997; and when he next intends to visit Wales. [62079]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]:Information in respect of United Kingdom travel is not held centrally and a full answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I have visited Wales (North and South) on official business three times this year already including a keynote address at the Justices' Clerks Society Annual Conference in Cardiff. I plan to visit South Wales later this year to speak at a Crime and Drug Related conference.

  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.

  Community Policing
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report,column 589, what steps he has taken to familiarise himself with the situation in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement. [61755]

  Mr. Denham
  Day to day arrangements for the policing of Nottingham is an operational matter for the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire (Stephen Green QPM) has told me of the proposed changes to the policing of the Nottingham (C) Division planned by the Divisional Commander (Chief Superintendent Johnson). I understand that the changes to beat policing have yet to be finalised and implemented, but they do have the support of the Chief Constable and Nottingham city council.

  Nottinghamshire force was reorganised on 1 April this year with a view to improving policing in the county. This resulted in a change in the structure of Nottingham Division. In addition, Chief Superintendent Johnson (the new Divisional Commander) decided that he needed to increase the number of beat managers in Nottingham. The proposed changes are designed to deliver this.
  1071W
  I am told the Divisional Commander also plans to address the different policing needs of Nottingham and recognise the heavy work load that Nottingham beat managers have through the changes he wishes to make.

  Increasing the number of beat managers will not reduce officers out on the streets as beat managers also patrol their beat. It is intended that there should be teams of two to three shift working beat managers assigned to a beat over seven days. This should give better coverage than the present arrangements under which beat managers work Monday to Friday; give officers improved ownership of the beat, and more responsibility in policing the area. This should help the team to build better relationships with local communities.

  The Government are committed to increasing the resources available to the police service. You may like to know therefore that in addition to a good police funding settlement in Spending Review 2000, we have, through the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF), allocated 157 CFF recruits to Nottinghamshire Constabulary over the three years to March 2003. On 31 January 2002 the force had 2,313 police officers which is 38 more than it had on 31 March 2001.

  Prisons
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions fire services have attended each category B prison in the last 12 months for which information is available. [62377]

  Hilary Benn
  In the period June 2001 to May 2002, there were a total of 58 occasions on which the fire services attended category B prisons. These have been broken down by prison as follows:

  Prison

  Number of times visited

  Albany

  0

  Blundeston

  3

  Dovegate

  0

  Garth

  7

  Grendon

  1

  Gartree

  1

  Lowdham Grange

  0

  Maidstone

  3

  Parkhurst

  8

  Kingston

  0

  Rye Hill

  2

  Swaleside

  33

  Probation boards' allocations before transfers

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Base position from 2001–million)

  Increase (£n)

  Initial allocation 2002–03 (£ million)

  Percentage increase

  Avon and Somerset

  12.893

  0.387

  13.280

  3.0

  Bedfordshire

  4.917

  0.148

  5.065

  3.0

  Cambridgeshire

  5.309

  0.224

  5.533

  4.2

  Cheshire

  8.826

  0.431

  9.257

  4.9

  Cumbria

  4.932

  0.148

  5.080

  3.0

  Derbyshire

  8.234

  0.321

  8.555

  3.9

  Devon and Cornwall

  12.516

  0.375

  12.891

  3.0

  Dorset

  5.237

  0.157

  5.394

  3.0

  Durham

  6.092

  0.899

  6.991

  14.8

  Essex

  12.513

  0.375

  12.888

  3.0

  Gloucestershire

  4.650

  0.140

  4.790

  3.0

  Hampshire

  14.029

  0.872

  14.901

  6.2

  Hertfordshire

  6.994

  0.210

  7.204

  3.0

  Humberside

  8.976

  0.869

  9.845

  9.7

  Non-UK Minors
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many girls aged(a)under 16 and (b)aged 16 and 17 years were arrested for prostitution in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001; how many of these were not UK nationals; and what nationalities were those who were not UK nationals. [62217]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is not collected centrally.

  National Probation Service
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding he has made available to the National Probation Service for 2002–03; what criteria the NPS has used to fund the 42 probation areas; and what the areas' budgets are for(a)2001–02 and (b)2002–03. [62052]

  Hilary Benn
  The provisional funding for the National Probation Service for 2002–03 is £666.7 million. This is used to meet

  (a) central costs of the National Directorate (including Estates and Information Technology costs for the local areas)

  (b) the cost of training Probation Officers

  (c) the operating costs of local boards, allocated to local boards and

  (d) the cost of Hostels, which is also allocated to local boards.

  The target funding to the 42 probation areas for operational costs (c above) is calculated, (a)85 per cent. on the basis of a formula which assesses relative need, and (b)15 per cent. on the basis of workload. Since some local boards were historically funded significantly above the implied formula funding level, a minimum increase of 3 per cent. has been applied as a transitional measure.

  The areas' budgets for operating costs (excluding short-term adjustments and before transfer of £20 million for Drug Testing and Treatment Orders to Department of Health) for 2001–02 and 2002–03 total £515 million and £537 million (provisional) respectively and are shown in the following table. Budgets for Hostels are £39.7 million and £40.6 million for 2001–02 and 2002–03 respectively.
  1073W

  Probation boards' allocations before transfers

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Base position from 2001–02 (£ million)

  Increase (£ million)

  Initial allocation 2002–03 (£ million)

  Percentage increase

  Kent

  13.802

  0.414

  14.216

  3.0

  Lancashire

  14.831

  0.445

  15.276

  3.0

  Leicestershire

  8.241

  0.341

  8.582

  4.1

  Lincolnshire

  5.390

  0.184

  5.574

  3.4

  Norfolk

  6.347

  0.330

  6.677

  5.2

  Northamptonshire

  4.856

  0.471

  5.327

  9.7

  North Yorkshire

  5.590

  0.527

  6.117

  9.4

  Nottinghamshire

  10.801

  0.474

  11.275

  4.4

  Staffordshire

  8.809

  0.350

  9.159

  4.0

  Suffolk

  5.085

  0.153

  5.238

  3.0

  Surrey

  6.692

  0.201

  6.893

  3.0

  Sussex

  10.485

  0.315

  10.800

  3.0

  Teeside

  7.618

  0.325

  7.943

  4.3

  Thames Valley

  16.000

  0.480

  16.480

  3.0

  Warwickshire

  4.031

  0.121

  4.152

  3.0

  West Mercia

  8.865

  0.346

  9.211

  3.9

  Wiltshire

  4.747

  0.187

  4.934

  3.9

  Greater Manchester

  30.685

  0.921

  31.606

  3.0

  Merseyside

  18.508

  0.555

  19.063

  3.0

  Northumbria

  16.838

  0.572

  17.410

  3.4

  South Yorkshire

  14.990

  0.661

  15.651

  4.4

  West Midlands

  31.149

  1360

  32.509

  4.4

  West Yorkshire

  23.916

  0.928

  24.844

  3.9

  Greater London

  90.072

  2.702

  92.774

  3.0

  Dyfed-Powys

  4.491

  0.478

  4.969

  10.6

  Gwent

  5.613

  1.208

  6.821

  21.5

  North Wales

  5.970

  0.908

  6.878

  15.2

  South Wales

  14.486

  0.461

  14.947

  3.2

  Total

  515.026

  16.603

  537.000

  4.3

HEALTH

  Health Screening
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on developing health screening for all people over the age of 60 years. [53685]

  Jacqui Smith
  General practitioners (GPs) are required, under their existing terms of service, to offer an annual health check to their patients who are over 75. The Department will consider with the GP professional bodies

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  First attendances

  35,705

  36.730

  36,224

  37,526

  37,111

  Follow up attendances

  3,950

  4,810

  5,094

  4,447

  4,624

  Total Accident and Emergency attendances

  39.655

  41,540

  41,318

  41,973

  41,735

  West Park Development, Epsom
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will withdraw the plan to construct a new roundabout on Christchurch Road in Epsom as part of the proposed West Park development. [55638]

  Ms Blears
  The proposed roundabout is intended to provide access to the West Park site in conjunction with the existing access from Horton Lane.
  1074W
  the best way of assessing the health of older people proactively in primary care, in the light of the single assessment process that is to be implemented shortly.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency admissions there were at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital in each year since March 1997. [56184]

  Ms Blears
  The data requested is shown in the table

  Two vehicular access points into the site represents good practice in terms of road design and safety, urban design, public transport, emergency access and egress as well as an advantageous traffic management plan to both the retained health care uses and the proposed new development.

  Homeless People
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of(a)rough sleepers and
  1075W
  (b)people living in temporary accommodation are registered with a general practitioner. [56567]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected centrally. However, the Government are committed to ensure that all children in temporary accommodation receive regular health checks from health professionals, and to increase access to general practitioners and health care for all homeless people. The absence of a permanent address should not be a bar to registering with a general practitioner.

  Vaccines
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in each of the last five years have received the pneumococcal vaccine. [56921]

  Ms Blears
  The number of people who have received pneumococcal vaccine can be estimated by the number of prescription items dispensed in the community for pneumococcal vaccine. The amount of pneumococcal vaccine dispensed in England for the last five years is given in the table.

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community for pneumococcal vaccine, 1997 to 2001

  England

  Prescription items (thousands)

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  Number of vaccines (thousands)

  1997

  646.0

  6,422.6

  646.2

  1998

  445.4

  4,428.5

  445.7

  1999

  550.5

  5,415.0

  551.8

  2000

  539.1

  5,244.3

  540.3

  2001

  468.1

  4,682.9

  468.4

  Radio Systems (Emergency Services)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the interoperability of the new ambulance radio system with those of other emergency services; and if he will make a statement. [56682]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is our intention to undertake a national procurement exercise for a new national digital radio network for ambulance services starting in July 2002. Increased interoperability and resilience has been built into the user requirement specification for the new network based on the expert advice of the professional heads of the ambulance, police and fire services.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Government's National Cancer Director to discuss cancer treatment in the NHS; and how often such meetings take place. [59285]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met Professor Mike Richards, National Cancer Director on 18 June. They also usually meet informally at least once a month to discuss cancer services. Other Ministers also regularly meet Professor Richards.

  Mental Health
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to create the world class mental health service envisaged in the Wanless report; and if he will make a statement. [59859]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement outlined substantial additional resources to ensure a modern health service. There is no doubt that increase in national health service expenditure over the next decade will see substantial increases in spending on mental health. The Department is studying the Wanless report with great interest and it will be an important source of analysis and information in the allocation of resources to the service.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many of the new graduate primary care mental health worker posts have been(a)created and (b)filled in (i) England and (ii) North Yorkshire; [60508]

  (2) how many of the new primary care trusts have employed graduate primary care mental health workers to assist GPs (a)in England and (b)North Yorkshire; [60505]

  (3) how many of the new primary care trusts have employed gateway workers to provide a round-the-clock co-ordinating service to specialised care in (a)England and (b)North Yorkshire; [60506]

  (4) how many of the mental health gateway worker posts have so far been (a)created and (b)filled in (i) England and (ii) North Yorkshire. [60509]

  Jacqui Smith
  The new graduate primary care mental health workers and mental health gateway workers announced in the NHS Plan will be employed to help general practitioners manage and treat common mental health problems in the financial year 2003–04. Further information to support their recruitment, and to monitor their establishment, will be available in due course. A special session on new primary care workers and `Gateway' workers was held at 23 November 2001 conference 'Fast-forwarding Primary Care Mental Health' (www.doh.gov/fastforward).

  Pilot projects for new graduate primary care workers have recently started in Northumbria and Birmingham. A mental health primary care team, established in Scarborough in 1998, with the aim of strengthening primary care mental health provision, also achieved NHS Beacon status in April 1999. The service provides one model of how gateway staff might work in other parts in the country.

  This year, £2.5 million has been made available to establish new training programmes to support new primary care workers when they are employed. This initiative is being led by South Trent Work Force Development Confederation.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent of under-investment in core mental health services (i) in London and (ii) nationally over the past 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [62911]

  Jacqui Smith
  Health authorities and now primary care trusts as commissioners of local services are required to spend money based on their assessment of need.
  1077W
  The Department has recently received the details of a mental health finance mapping exercise that was completed by mental health national service framework local implementation teams at the end of October 2001.

  The NHS Plan announced substantial additional investment in mental health services. In 2002–03 an additional £93.5 million revenue and £70 million capital, and in 2003–04 an additional £312 million revenue and £17 million capital will be made available.

  The finance mapping exercise will provide an opportunity to track this investment through to local service provision.

  Myeloma
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the most common form of treatment is for myeloma patients. [62719]

  Ms Blears
  Chemotherapy, usually combined with steroids, is the main treatment for myeloma.

  UK Biobank
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of company access to anonymised genetic and lifestyle data from UK Biobank. [62277]

  Ms Blears
  Details of how companies may gain access to anonymised genetic and lifestyle data held by the UK Biobank have not yet been finalised. A monitoring body, independent of the UK Biobank funders, will be established to protect the interests of Biobank participants and the general public. This monitoring body will be responsible for finalising, and overseeing the implementation of, policies on access to anonymised samples and data by all users, whether in the commercial or academic sectors, taking into account the results of consultations with the public and other stakeholders. An open meeting with industry representatives is being planned for later this year to discuss possible access arrangements. All projects, whether funded from the public or private sector, will need to have ethical approval and will be reviewed by the scientific management committee.

  Chiropody and Podiatry Services
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Warrington, North of 24 May,Official Report,column 691W, what the terms of reference were of the review of chiropody services, "Feet First II"; and if he will list the members of the task force assembled during the research of the review of chiropody services, "Feet First [60723]

  Jacqui Smith
  The following aims were agreed for the review of "Feet First":

  To review whether the recommendations made in "Feet First" were still relevant or needed updating in the light of national health service developments in the late 1990s; and
  1078W
  To examine levels of service currently being provided and the role of podiatry in the prevention of social exclusion by considering:
  evidence of reductions in service;
  shortcomings not related to funding; and
  outcome measures that are likely, within available resources, to be feasible and acceptable to the NHS.

  The following were members of the working party for the review of "Feet First":

  Chairman

  Dr. A. Muir Gray, Director of the Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford University

  Members
  Avril Imison, Head of Policy—Therapy Services NHS Executive Marie Lancett, Chiropody Adviser—NHS Executive
  Paul Riley, Policy Manager NHS Executive
  Christine Farrell, NHS Executive
  Anne Stephens, Head of Podiatry Services—Camden and Islington CHS NHS Trust
  John Rom, Chief Executive—Northampton Community Healthcare NHS Trust
  Pamela Sabine, Chairman—Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, Thameside Community Health NHS Trust
  Peter Graham, Chiropody Services Manager—Merton and Sutton Community NHS Trust
  Jackie Haynes, Chief Executive—Buckinghamshire Health Authority.

  Weight Management
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make the database of weight management services developed by the Department available at local practitioner level. [61476]

  Ms Blears
  The database of weight management services was completed in 1997 and made available at each national health service regional office for local dissemination on request. There are no plans to make it available at local practitioner level.

  Sexual Health and HIV
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the action plan outlining implementation of the sexual health and HIV strategy will be published; and if he will make a statement. [61076]

  Ms Blears
  The sexual health and HIV strategy implementation action plan was published on the Department's website on 24 June. This sets out in detail how we will work both through the national health service and in partnership with other Government Departments and the voluntary sector to modernise services and tackle sexual ill-health and inequalities.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department gives for screening for TB in England. [61083]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has published recommendations in two documents. One in June 1996, "Recommendations for the prevention and control of tuberculosis at local level" and again in September 1998 in the document entitled "UK guidance on the prevention
  1079W
  and control of transmission of HIV-related tuberculosis and drug-resistant, including multiple drug-resistant, tuberculosis".

  Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the use of photodynamic therapy for macular disease; and if he will make a statement. [61513]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since January 2002, the Department has received eight letters from members of the public, 88 letters from Members of Parliament on behalf of constituents, and 16 parliamentary questions about the availability of photodynamic therapy as a treatment for age-related macular degeneration.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence are currently carrying out an appraisal of photodynamic therapy. NICE published their final appraisal determination on the use of photodynamic therapy as a treatment for age-related macular degeneration on 12 June. The appraisal process has not yet been completed and NICE have not made any recommendations on photodynamic therapy. NICE are seeking the views of consultees during the appeal process and will consider carefully any points that are made. NICE's recommendations may change as a result of the appeal process. The earliest guidance could be available is at the end of July or early August.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in the UK suffer from age-related macular degeneration; what assessment he has made of the treatment available to them; and if he will make a statement; [62564]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the prescribing of photodynamic therapy for sufferers of wet age-related macular degeneration. [62565]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]:A study sponsored by the macular disease society in 2001 estimated that there were 182,000 people with age related macular degeneration with a best eye visual acuity below that judged appropriate for certification as blind or partially sighted. Around 10 to 15 per cent. of those will have the 'wet' type of the condition, for which photodynamic therapy is intended as a treatment. However it is not possible to say in how many cases the treatment would be effective.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) are currently carrying out an appraisal of photodynamic therapy. NICE published their final appraisal determination on the use of photodynamic therapy as a treatment for age related macular degeneration on 12 June. The appraisal process has not yet been completed and NICE have not made any recommendations on photodynamic therapy. NICE are seeking the views of consultees during the appeal process and will consider carefully any points that are made. NICE's recommendations may change as a result of the appeal process. The earliest guidance could be available at the end of July or early August.

  In August 1999 the Department issued Health Service Circular 1999/176 which asks the NHS bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from NICE is not
  1080W
  available at the time the technology first became available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all the available evidence.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [61391]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to Her Majesty's Treasury on 17 June 2002,Official Report,column 137W.

  Winter Vomiting Disease
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional support the NHS is providing to Whipps Cross University Hospital Trust to deal with the outbreak of winter vomiting disease (SRSV) and its aftermath; and if he will make a statement. [62013]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following a meeting at the North East London health authority (HA) on the 27 May about the outbreak of winter vomiting disease at Whipps Cross University Hospital national health service trust, all trusts in the local health economy made available any spare capacity they had should it have been necessary. Although unused, the Homerton and Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS trusts offered help as did Bans and the London and Newham trusts, both of which took patients from Whipps Cross. As such the local health economy was able to minimise the disruption of services for patients.

  The public health team from the local primary care trusts (PCTs) has attended daily incident management team meetings, to control the outbreak. Rapid communication channels are in place between general practitioners and other healthcare professionals in the PCTs.

  The public health team at the PCTs also liaised with the communicable disease surveillance centre and the regional epidemiologist to advise the incident team on outbreak management based on lessons learnt elsewhere across the country.

  The directorates of health and social care London region, communicable diseases surveillance centre and the North East London health authority are working extremely closely together to monitor and contain the spread of this virus. No patients and staff at the trust are seriously ill and all are expecting to make a full recovery.

  Pain Control
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a)guidelines he has issued to health professionals relating to and (b)arrangements are in place for effective pain control for people sent home from hospital in their dying weeks; and if he will make a statement. [62327]

  Ms Blears
  Health Service Circular 1998/115 (June 1998) enclosed copies of guidance produced by the national council for hospice and specialist palliative care
  1081W
  services including 'Guidelines for Managing Cancer Pain in Adults' and 'Changing Gear—Guidelines for Managing the Last Days of Life in Adults'. The circular and booklets were sent to national health service trust chief executives, nurse executive directors and medical directors. A supportive and palliative care strategy is being developed under the NHS Cancer Plan to ensure best treatment and care from when cancer is first suspected and throughout the illness through to death and bereavement.

  E-Medicine
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop an infrastructure for secure electronic health data communications. [62356]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan set the context for the major modernisation of the national health service in England. It clearly sets out a vision of a health service designed around the patient, and which enables integrated care to be delivered by a range of organisations. The commitments of the NHS Plan to new ways of working can only be achieved through the well-planned implementation of an information technology (IT) and systems infrastructure.

  In line with the. NHS Plan, and in response to feedback from the NHS and the supplier community, we are introducing a far more robust approach to standardisation. An infrastructure based on universal internet technology, government-wide standards and those developed specifically to meet the needs of the NHS will give all staff the means to access the right information in the right places at the right time.

  Subject to approval of funding and spending plans from April 2002 to April 2003 we will work on developing the NHS' IT management structure, capacity and capability. We will also define the data, and data interchange standards we will require in the future. We will build the essential

  Name

  Mrs. Ruth Popple

  Chair, Carlisle and District Primary Care Trust

  Mr. Graham Ogden

  Chief Executive, Carlisle and District Primary Care Trust

  Mr. Allan Buckley

  Vice Chair, Eden Valley Primary Care Trust

  Mr. Peter Kohn

  Chief Executive, Eden Valley Primary Care Trust

  Mr. Doug Scott

  Director of Planning, Eden Valley Primary Care Trust

  Mr. Patrick Everingham (chair)

  Chair, West Cumbria Primary Care Trust

  Ms Veronica Marsden

  Chief Executive, West Cumbria Primary Care Trust

  Cllr Barbara Cannon

  Chair, North Cumbria Acute Hospitals Trust

  Mr. Nick Wood

  Chief Executive, North Cumbria Acute Hospitals Trust

  Mr. Eric Urquhart

  Chair, North Cumbria Mental Health and Learning Disabilities Trust

  Mr. Brian Clayton

  Chair, Cumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mr. Alan Donkersley

  Chief Executive, Cumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mr. John Cain

  Environmental Health Officer, Allerdale Borough Council

  Cllr C. McCarron-Holmes

  Executive Member, Allerdale Borough Council

  Cllr Ray Bloxham (Vice Chair)

  Portfolio Holder Health, Carlisle City Council

  Mr. Laurie Brewis

  Head of Housing Provision, Carlisle City Council

  Mr. John Stanforth

  General Manager, Copeland Borough Council

  Cllr Brian Dixon

  Executive Member, Copeland Borough Council

  Mr. Louis Victory

  Chief Executive, Cumbria County Council

  Cllr John Mallinson

  Executive Member, Cumbria County Council

  Mr. Mike Siegal

  Director of Social Services, Cumbria County Council

  Mr. Ruth Atkinson

  Policy and Strategy Manager, Eden District Council

  Cllr Bryan Metz

  Executive Member, Eden District Council

  Mrs. Jessica Riddle

  Chair, Carlisle Council for Voluntary Service

  Mrs. Pat Black

  Chair, Eden Council for Voluntary Service

  Mrs. Kay Pitchford

  Chair, West Cumbria Council for Voluntary Service

  Mrs. Elaine Steven

  Chair, East Cumbria Community Health Council

  Mrs. Jennifer Drouet

  Chair, West Cumbria Community Health Council

  Mr. Tony Potter

  North Cumbria Health Action Zone

  Note:

  A nomination for a director of public health for the North Cumbria Primary Care Trusts has not yet been confirmed.
  1082W
  system specifications to deliver the national health record service. We will also develop the infrastructure, including broadband capacity, needed to lay the basis for key applications.

  Subject to approval of funding and spending plans, between April 2003 and April 2005 we plan to put in place
  Broadband access (more than I 28kbs) to every clinician and support staff in the NHS
  increased bandwidth to minimum—2Mbps between trusts and across NHS Net Gateways
  Access and authentication available for all NHS staff
  National NHS directory service
  Domain to domain encryption.

  Subject to approval of business cases, formal open procurement exercises are planned for NHS networking services (to replace the existing framework contracts that expire in 2003–04), and for NHS public key infrastructure services.

  North Cumbria Health Action Zone
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been paid by the North Cumbria Health Action Zone to the Countryside Alliance in the last two years. [62360]

  Jacqui Smith
  Over the past two years, £100,000 has been allocated to the Countryside Alliance by the North Cumbria Health Action Zone in respect of the food development project.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the Chair is of the board of the North Cumbria Health Action Zone; and if he will list its membership. [62358]

  Jacqui Smith
  The chair of the North Cumbria Partnership for Health Board is Mr. Patrick Everingham.

  The complete membership of the board is listed.
  1083W
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is the landlord of the North Cumbria Health Action Zone headquarters; and what the annual rental cost is. [62359]

  Jacqui Smith
  The landlord for the North Cumbria Health Action Zone headquarters is the North West Development Agency. The annual rent for 2001–02 was £16,217.52.

  Chair's salary

  Chief executive's salary

  Total spend

  Final approved expenditure limit

  Capitation position

  Distance from target1

  2001–02

  Bracknell Forest PCT2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newbury and Community PCT

  12,970

  69,305

  63,414

  63,433

  64,710

  (2.0)

  Reading PCT

  12,589

  75,000

  149,398

  149,565

  153,334

  (2.5)

  Slough PCT

  12,967

  71,792

  90,337

  91,094

  93,066

  (2.2)

  Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead PCT2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wokingham PCT

  12.967

  65,300

  84,862

  85,585

  83,891

  2.0

  Total

  51,493

  281,397

  388,011

  389,677

  395,001

  2002–033

  Bracknell Forest PCT

  16,017

  65,000

  —

  —

  66,752

  5.6

  Newbury and Community PCT

  16,017

  77,700

  —

  —

  69,508

  (1.5)

  Reading PCT

  18,154

  75,000

  —

  —

  152,261

  (2.4)

  Slough PCT

  16,017

  74,377

  —

  —

  93,394

  (2.9)

  Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead PCT

  18,154

  80,000

  —

  —

  118,277

  1.6

  Wokingham PCT

  18,184

  67,500

  —

  —

  90,012

  2.0

  Total

  102,543

  439,577

  —

  —

  590,204

  —

  1Figures in brackets equal under target.

  2Bracknell Forest and Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead PCTs came into existence on 1 April 2002 (all other PCTs on 1 April 2001)

  3Final approved expenditure limit for 2002–03 is not currently available.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the availability of digital hearing aids in the NHS. [63063]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are committed to extending the benefits of digital hearing aids, provided as part of a modernised service. We have invested over £30 million in the modernising hearing aids services project over the past three years. This will bring the number of sites providing a modernised service to 50 by the end of this financial year, with at least 15 more sites having the equipment and training to enable them to start fitting digital aids from April 2003.

  Audiology departments were informed, on 11 June 2002, that James Strachan, chief executive at Royal National Institute for the Deaf and the national health service purchasing and supply agency (PASA), working with the Department, have now negotiated an excellent deal on the price of digital hearing aids. All NHS audiology departments are free to purchase from these contracts, whether they are currently part of the project or not, provided they have the necessary infrastructure in place and relevant experience of fitting digital hearing aids.

  Medication (HIV Patients)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued on the availability of
  1084W

  Primary Care Trusts (Berkshire)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the salary of the chair and the chief executive and the total spending and capitation fee of each of the Berkshire primary care trusts; and if he will list the distance from target of the annual spend in each primary care trust area in(a)2000–01, (b)2001–02 and (c)2002–03. [63112]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table for the years 2001–02 and 2002–03. The primary care trusts were not in existence in 2000–0]

  tuberculosis medication for HIV patients; and if there are any circumstances in which an HIV patient would be expected to pay for tuberculosis medication. [63465]

  Ms Blears
  Guidance on the treatment of patients with HIV-related tuberculosis was published in the report "The Prevention and Control of Tuberculosis in the United Kingdom: UK Guidance on the Prevention and Control of Transmission of 1. HIV-related Tuberculosis 2. Drug-resistant, Including Multiple Drug-resistant, Tuberculosis", by the interdepartmental working group on tuberculosis.

  If the medication is supplied to a patient and administered at a hospital it is free of charge. If the medication is supplied otherwise than for administration at a hospital normal prescription charging arrangements apply. No charge will be payable if the patient qualifies for free prescriptions on any grounds, such as low income.

  NHS Dentistry (Yeovil)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to improve access to NHS dentistry in Yeovil constituency; and if he will make a statement. [63371]

  Mr. Lammy
  Arrangements are now in place to ensure that everyone who requires national health service dentistry will be directed to available services simply by phoning NHS Direct. Over the last 18 months we allocated over £210S)00 to extend and improve existing
  1085W
  NHS dental facilities in Somerset. In February 2001 the capacity of these services was further increased when a dental access centre was opened in Yeovil.

  We are aware of the need for further improvements and during 2001 the chief dental officer led a working group to look at options for change to modernise NHS dentistry. This group has completed its deliberations. The proposals in 'Options for Change' need practical testing and demonstration sites will be set up, working with the NHS Modernisation Agency. We will begin the process of identifying the demonstration sites over the coming months.

  MS Patients
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the necessary structures and systems will be operating in Essex, to assess MS patients' eligibility for disease modifying therapies for MS. [63146]

  Ms Blears
  The five acute trusts in Essex have assessed the arrangements necessary to implement the scheme to assess multiple sclerosis (MS) patients' eligibility for disease modifying therapies for MS.

  All trusts highlighted a need for additional specialist nurse support. Applications have been made to the MS Society for access to their specialist nurse fast-track scheme and these applications are currently being processed. Once approved, recruitment will commence as soon as possible. Identification of potentially eligible new patients has taken place and this information has been passed to primary care trusts.

  Once the infrastructure is in place within the centres, these patients will be reviewed and if they meet the required Association of British Neurologists criteria, will commence treatment.

  Care Homes and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases each responsible local authority would be expected to deal with under the formula for transferring funding for residents of care homes and nursing homes on preserved rights from the Department of Work and Pensions to local authorities; [63157]

  Children looked after in London boroughs, by ethnic origin, as at 31 March 2001

  Percentage

  Ethnic origin

  London boroughs

  All children

  White

  Mixed origin

  Black or Black British

  Other ethnic groups

  London

  100

  52

  10

  25

  12

  Inner London

  Camden

  100

  50

  18

  25

  8

  Greenwich

  100

  66

  7

  15

  12

  Hackney

  100

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  100

  39

  4

  37

  21

  Islington

  100

  39

  21

  22

  18

  Kensington and Chelsea

  100

  31

  30

  32

  7

  Lambeth

  100

  37

  10

  47

  7

  Lewisham

  100

  46

  5

  35

  14

  South wark

  100

  50

  13

  32

  5

  1086W
  (2) what unit of funding was used in arriving at the formula for the transferred responsibility for residents of care homes and nursing homes with preserved rights to local authorities. [63153]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national budget for the preserved rights grant was determined principally on the basis of the expected number in mid 2002–03 of residents formerly entitled to preserved rights. The allocation for individual local authorities was calculated in proportion to the distribution of residents with preserved rights as at December 2000. The caseloads of people under 65 and over 65 were considered separately. The data for December 2000 were provided by the Department for Work and Pensions. These data were adjusted by information provided by councils on the numbers of preserved rights residents supported outside their area. These adjusted data are available on the Department of Health's website at http:/www.doh.gov.uk/scg/incom-sup.htm.

  (3) what attempts were made to assess the capacity of the private sector to meet the assessed care needs of individual residents in care homes and nursing homes with reserved rights before arriving at the funding formula for transfer of undertaking to local authorities. [63154]

  Jacqui Smith
  Until March this year, responsibility for the regulation and inspection of independent sector residential care homes and nursing homes lay respectively with local councils and the national health service. Part of this function included checking that homes were able to meet the needs of their residents. On 1 April 2002, this responsibility passed to the National Care Standards Commission, for care homes in England. Until the abolition of preserved rights to higher levels of income support there was no requirement on councils to assess the care needs of residents with preserved rights unless the council was topping up their care home fees.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the number of children in the care of London boroughs in(a)1999, (b)2000 and (c)2001 were from (i) black and (ii) ethnic minority backgrounds. [64105]

  Jacqui Smith
  The available information for children looked after in London boroughs at 31 March 2001 is shown in the table. Information for earlier years is not available, as 2001 was the first year information was collected on the ethnic origin of children looked after by local councils in England.
  1087W

  Children looked after in London boroughs, by ethnic origin, as at 31 March 2001

  Percentage

  Ethnic origin

  London boroughs

  All children

  White

  Mixed origin

  Black or Black British

  Other ethnic groups

  Tower Hamlets

  100

  45

  16

  15

  24

  Wandsworth

  100

  49

  4

  40

  6

  Westminster

  100

  44

  19

  27

  11

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  100

  73

  6

  5

  16

  Barnet

  100

  69

  12

  14

  5

  Bexley

  100

  87

  —

  8

  —

  Brent

  100

  34

  13

  46

  6

  Bromley

  100

  81

  10

  —

  —

  Croydon

  100

  71

  11

  14

  4

  Ealing

  100

  50

  18

  19

  13

  Enfield

  100

  63

  —

  —

  19

  Haringey

  100

  38

  15

  43

  3

  Harrow

  100

  55

  10

  16

  19

  Havering

  100

  79

  —

  —

  13

  Hillingdon

  100

  50

  8

  27

  14

  Hounslow

  100

  68

  15

  11

  6

  Kingston upon Thames

  100

  84

  —

  10

  —

  Merton

  100

  75

  —

  20

  —

  Newham

  100

  36

  4

  32

  27

  Redbridge

  100

  71

  12

  14

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  100

  77

  —

  —

  13

  Sutton

  100

  84

  —

  9

  —

  Waltham Forest

  100

  49

  20

  29

  2

  1Indicates not availabelle

  Notes:

  1. Figures for children looked after in this table exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements.

  2. Small percentages, particularly where the number is less than five, together with all data for the City of London, have been suppressed for reasons of confidentiality. All suppressed data in the table are indicated by the symbol "—".

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were in the care of(a)London boroughs and (b)local authorities in England and Wales in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [64106]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested for London and local councils in England is shown in the table. Information on the number of children looked after by local councils in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Children looked after at 31 March 1999 to 2001, England and London

  Number

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England

  55,500

  58,100

  58,900

  London

  9,590

  10,400

  10,970

  Notes:

  1. Figures for children looked after in this table exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements.

  2. Figures for London have been rounded to the nearest 100. All figures include estimates for missing data.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of children between the ages of 16 and 18 years living(a)in a residential care home and (b)with foster parents were not in education, employment or training for the last five years for which figures are available. [63113]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]:The information requested is not collected centrally. A new departmental statistical return (0C3) will collect data from social services departments in England concerning
  1088W
  the educational or employment status of care leavers on their 19th birthday. The return requires councils to report whether each care leaver, who was looked after on 1 April in their 17th year, is in education, training, employment, or is sick or unemployed. This data will be published for the first time in autumn 2002.

  Occupational Health (NHS Staff)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of occupational health provision for NHS staff. [63832]

  Mr. Lammy
  Data collected by the Department in 1999 show that all national health service staff in the hospital sector have access to occupational health services. In 60 per cent. of NHS trusts these services are provided in house, while the other 40 per cent. buy in services from neighbouring NHS organisations. The NHS Plan announced a further £21 million of funding for the extension of occupational health services to general practitioners and their staff.

  In order to address this the Department has issued service delivery standards for occupational health as part of the improving working lives standard. The effective management of occupational health and safety services in the NHS was issued in November 2001, and is available in the Library. The Department is currently working with occupational health providers on further standards related to pre-appointment checks.

  More than half of NHS occupational health units that also provide services to small and medium sized enterprises through NHS Plus. In these trusts the chief

  1089W
  executive has signed a declaration that services to staff are already of an adequate standard and will not be affected by implementing NHS Plus. A percentage of income generated through NHS Plus is reinvested in improving occupational health services to NHS staff.

  Colchester Primary Care Trust
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects that the Colchester Primary Care Trust will achieve fair weighted capitation; and if he will make a statement. [64222]

  Mr. Lammy
  We will announce allocations to primary care trusts for the three years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 in the autumn. Our aim is to move primary care trusts towards their fair shares determined by the weighted capitation formula as quickly as practicable.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of Dr. Seward of Milford on Sea of 12 May. [63830]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has no record of receiving this correspondence. The Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit is seeking a copy of this correspondence.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, of 2 May requesting a meeting to discuss the MRI scanner facilities at the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust. [58610]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 May 2002]:A reply was sent on 25 June 2002.

  Respite Care
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many respite care places were available in each year since 1997(a)in Wiltshire and (b)in England. [63829]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of respite care places is not available centrally.

  Dlayed Discharges
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharges there are in the Portsmouth, South constituency that are waiting to leave; and if he will make a statement. [64478]

  Ms Blears
  Information on delayed discharges is collected at health authority rather than constituency level. All available information has been placed in the Library. Figures for Quarter 4 of 2001–02 show that the former Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority area had 97 delayed discharges.

  The Government recognise that delayed discharges are a problem across the south-east. Health and local authorities are working together to take action to improve the situation. In October 2001 the Government announced an extra £300 million in the "Cash for Change" initiative to tackle bed blocking in 2001–02 and 2002–03. Last year Hampshire received over £2 million, this year over £5 million.
  1090W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharges there were in(a)North Yorkshire and (b)England in the last three months. [63082]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave her on 26 June 2002,Official Report,column 976W.

  Non-executive Directors
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for non-executive directors of PCTs. [64339]

  Mr. Lammy
  The national health service appointments commission is responsible for non-executive appointments to the boards of primary care trusts (PCTs). PCT boards are themselves now responsible, within certain limits, for determining their complement of non-executive members. As a result, the chief executive of the appointments commission wrote to all PCT chairs on 14 June to establish the planned size of their board for 2002 and the number of new non-executives they would like the commission to recruit to fill the vacancies. Responses have been requested by 30 July.

  Parkinson's Disease
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) what funding the Government are making available to provide specialist nurses to treat Parkinson's disease in(a)England and (b)Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement; [64448]

  (2) how many specialist nurses to treat Parkinson's disease there are in (a)England and (b)Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [64447]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not hold information centrally on the skills profile of nurses at either a local or national level. We understand from the Parkinson's Disease Society however, that there are currently 134 of these nurses in post.

  Funding is allocated to health authorities so that they can take decisions about the staff and services they need to provide to meet the health needs of their local populations. Funds are not earmarked centrally to support the funding of particular staff groups.

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost per person of care for is(a)residential care and (b)nursing care broken down by local authority. [64388]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows the average cost per person per week of residential and nursing care for 2000–01 broken down by local authority in England as reported by councils to the Department. Information on unit costs by client group is available on the key indicators graphical system, a copy of which is available in the Library.
  1091W

  Unit cost of residential and nursing care, 2000–01

  £ per week

  Residential care

  Nursing

  care

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —

  Barnet

  587

  420

  Barnsley

  259

  232

  Bath and North East Somerset

  412

  350

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  Bexley

  420

  489

  Birmingham

  418

  378

  Blackburn with Darwen

  291

  357

  Blackpool

  328

  366

  Bolton

  373

  352

  Bournemouth

  336

  363

  Bracknell Forest

  648

  491

  Bradford

  —

  —

  Brent

  —

  —

  Brighton and Hove

  482

  362

  Bristol

  413

  410

  Bromley

  438

  459

  Buckinghamshire

  456

  462

  Bury

  317

  348

  Calderdale

  338

  333

  Cambridgeshire

  325

  366

  Camden

  487

  497

  Cheshire

  323

  365

  City of London

  561

  566

  Cornwall

  285

  363

  Coventry

  —

  —

  Croydon

  410

  448

  Cumbria

  332

  393

  Darlington

  328

  348

  Derby

  326

  387

  Derbyshire

  338

  344

  Devon

  373

  445

  Doncaster

  372

  350

  Dorset

  358

  351

  Dudley

  473

  297

  Durham

  335

  342

  Ealing

  516

  509

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  260

  430

  East Sussex

  673

  245

  Enfield

  526

  517

  Essex

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  404

  390

  Gloucestershire

  403

  472

  Greenwich

  480

  415

  Hackney

  479

  391

  Halton

  349

  407

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  560

  499

  Hampshire

  400

  408

  Haringey

  —

  —

  Harrow

  522

  489

  Hartlepool

  381

  378

  Havering

  475

  450

  Herefordshire

  477

  417

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  529

  654

  Hounslow

  581

  476

  Isle of Wight

  292

  352

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  Islington

  586

  468

  Kensington and Chelsea

  583

  565

  Kent

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Hull

  341

  336

  Kingston upon Thames

  546

  442

  Kirklees

  337

  299

  Knowsley

  351

  373

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  315

  379

  Leeds

  421

  391

  Leicester

  342

  332

  Leicestershire

  329

  371

  Lewisham

  514

  405

  Lincolnshire

  331

  247

  Liverpool

  383

  310

  Luton

  446

  373

  Manchester

  343

  372

  Medway Towns

  376

  361

  1092W

  Unit cost of residential and nursing care, 2000–01

  £Per Week

  Residential care

  Nursing care

  Merton

  423

  335

  Middlesbrough

  349

  347

  Milton Keynes

  374

  354

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  307

  342

  Newham

  499

  416

  Norfolk

  397

  449

  North East Lincolnshire

  320

  230

  North Lincolnshire

  306

  426

  North Somerset

  318

  450

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  340

  370

  Northamptonshire

  393

  350

  Northumberland

  351

  351

  Nottingham

  323

  339

  Nottinghamshire

  314

  376

  Oldham

  325

  425

  Oxfordshire

  499

  432

  Peterborough

  395

  419

  Plymouth

  445

  413

  Poole

  393

  392

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  Reading

  560

  465

  Redbridge

  485

  462

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  591

  463

  Rochdale

  318

  378

  Rotherham

  339

  344

  Rutland

  363

  345

  Salford

  372

  352

  Sandwell

  386

  359

  Sefton

  395

  363

  Sheffield

  300

  377

  Shropshire

  350

  364

  Slough

  479

  467

  Solihull

  440

  355

  Somerset

  —

  —

  South Gloucestershire

  385

  341

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  Southampton

  322

  470

  Southend

  426

  372

  Southwark

  611

  427

  St. Helens

  408

  335

  Staffordshire

  333

  344

  Stockport

  387

  522

  Stockton-on-Tees

  360

  374

  Stoke-on-Trent

  360

  359

  Suffolk

  398

  379

  Sunderland

  360

  375

  Surrey

  395

  366

  Sutton

  462

  443

  Swindon

  420

  396

  Tameside

  285

  368

  Telford and Wrekin

  309

  333

  Thurrock

  406

  424

  Torbay

  308

  390

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  Trafford

  360

  374

  Wakefield

  393

  383

  Walsall

  388

  374

  Waltham Forest

  449

  433

  Wandsworth

  492

  527

  Warrington

  426

  351

  Warwickshire

  420

  306

  West Berkshire

  565

  397

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  Westminster

  706

  465

  Wigan

  333

  367

  Wiltshire

  425

  416

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  565

  423

  Wirral

  455

  311

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  485

  361

  Worcestershire

  373

  407

  York

  351

  353

  England

  389

  377

  Care Homes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on fee levels for(a)care homes for older people and (b)care homes operating in other sectors of care; [64999]

  (2) what investigations his Department is carrying out into the models of pricing care, with specific reference to reducing levels of paperwork; [65031]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the recent report of Laing and Buisson on care home costs. [65014]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government welcome the contribution made by the Joseph Rowntree report to the discussion about the appropriate level of care home fees. We support any publication that aids councils in setting fair and realistic fee levels. The Government are putting record levels of investment into the system. We increased resources to social services by 20 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03, this represents a national real terms increase of 3 per cent. per annum. There is evidence that this extra investment is making a difference. In a recent report by Laing and Buisson, the authors of the Joseph Rowntree report, it is stated that councils have raised care home fees by an average of 3 per cent. in the last year.

  The social services performance assessment framework indicators published in October 2001 contain information on local council's unit costs for nursing and residential care for different client groups.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to the answer of 22 May 2002,Official Report,column 424W, on care homes, how many of the letters from (a)hon. Members and (b)the public were about increases in care home fees related to the introduction of free nursing care; and if he will list the other subjects which (i) hon. Members and (ii) members of the public wrote concerning the introduction of NHS-funded care; [60793]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 22 May 2002, Official Report,column 424W, on free nursing care, how many letters have been received from hon. Members regarding the failure of care homes to pass on the NHS free nursing care contribution, broken down by party. [60794]

  Jacqui Smith
  (holding answer 12 June 20021:Since October last year, the Department has received in excess of 10,000 letters from hon. Members and in excess of 24,000 letters from members of the public. Of the letters received, 232 and 150 from hon. Members and members of the public respectively covered issues relating to free nursing care, including fee levels, the process of assessment, banding levels for registered nursing care contribution, policy justification, the mechanisms of payment and the costs of equipment. The letters from hon. Members are broken down by party as follows:

  Labour: 118

  Conservative: 95

  Liberal Democrats: 19.

  Long-term Care Beds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report,
  1094W
  column 167W, on long-term care beds, what resources and local priorities will prevent primary care trusts and NHS trusts from providing continence services. [63866]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]:Primary care trusts and national health service trusts provide continence services as part of their general community based services.

  It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care trusts and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  As a result of the Budget, the NHS in England will receive an annual average real terms growth in resources of 7.4 per cent. for the five years from 2003–04 to 2007–08. This means that over the same five year period there will be an increase of £34 billion in NHS funding for England. This is the highest sustained growth in funding in the history of the NHS.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report,column 167W, on long-term care beds, if he will set out the factors he considers other than number of beds in his determination of planning expenditure on long-term care. [63868]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]:Chapter 2 and Research Volume 1 of the Report of the Royal Commission on long-term care set out the factors which affect the demand for and cost of long-term care.

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards the introduction of intermediate care. [65015]

  Jacqui Smith
  Intermediate care has made rapid progress over the last two years—there is very good progress towards the targets set in the NHS Plan and there are many examples of good practice around the country. However, it is still a relatively new service and there is more work to be done to ensure that it becomes firmly established and meets its full potential.

  The Department's recent review of intermediate care—Intermediate Care: Moving Forward—is available on the website and a copy has been placed in the Library. The full results of the Department's survey of intermediate care provision conducted last summer are also in the Library.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when digital hearing aids will be available in West Sussex. [64667]

  Jacqui Smith
  An announcement about which national health service trusts will join the modernising hearing aid services project and will be providing digital hearing aids by the end of March 2003, was made in my reply to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 10 April 2002,Official Report,column 465–66W.
  1095W
  In addition to the second wave sites, we intend to provide at least a further 15 sites with the training and equipment they need to start fitting digital hearing aids from April 2003. I understand that Surrey and Sussex Healthcare has already expressed an interest in being one of those sites.

  Neonatal Care
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the report of the National Review of Neonatal Care by Dr. R. MacFaul and others; and if he will make a statement. [64683]

  Jacqui Smith
  The report follows a very important review of provision for neonatal services. The report is under active consideration at present. I expect to determine the next steps in this process shortly.

  Chelmsford PCT
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what accumulated deficit has been identified by the Chelmsford PCT from 1 April. [55737]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]:It is not possible to provide information on liabilities inherited by Chelmsford Primary Care Trust as it was newly established on 1 April 2002. The information will be published in the final accounts at the end of the financial year.

  Worthing and Southlands Hospital Trust
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many matrons have been recruited to the Worthing and Southlands Hospital Trust since his Department's announcement on the issue. [59571]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]:Available information was published in a report, "Modern Matrons in the NHS: a progress report", on 15 April 2002, showing that there are 1,895 nurses in modern matron posts across the national health service in England. Data broken down by individual trust are not available centrally.

  Fostering
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been placed in foster families broken down by(a)region and (b)health authority in each of the last five years. [61354]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]:The data available are shown in the table. The table shows the number of looked-after children who started one or more periods of foster care during the year.

  Number of looked after children who started one or more periods of foster care during the years ending 31 March 1997 to 2001

  England

  Number

  Year endinig 31 March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England

  32,900

  33,300

  2,400

  32,700

  29,800

  North East

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  1,800

  Shire counties

  Durham

  300

  270

  300

  305

  160

  Northumberland

  210

  230

  215

  220

  175

  1096W

  Number of looked after children who started one or more periods of foster care during the years ending 31 March 1997 to 2001

  England

  Number

  Year ending 31 March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Unitary authorities

  Darlington

  55

  55

  85

  60

  95

  Hartlepool

  70

  75

  105

  100

  120

  Middlesbrough

  100

  120

  100

  110

  140

  Redcar and Cleveland

  135

  115

  145

  115

  115

  Stockton on Tees

  115

  130

  130

  115

  90

  Metropolitan districts

  Gateshead

  110

  155

  145

  90

  145

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  265

  280

  310

  335

  285

  North Tyneside

  255

  190

  175

  195

  210

  South Tyneside

  100

  95

  125

  85

  —

  Sunderland

  250

  255

  180

  230

  155

  North West

  3,900

  4,000

  3,900

  3,800

  3,300

  Shire counties

  Cheshire

  330

  370

  405

  375

  275

  Cumbria

  270

  295

  350

  325

  300

  Lancashire

  815

  800

  675

  585

  605

  Unitary authorities

  Blackburn and Darwen

  150

  105

  80

  95

  120

  Blackpool

  185

  190

  190

  180

  205

  Halton

  115

  130

  155

  160

  125

  Warrington

  110

  135

  100

  90

  45

  Metropolitan districts

  Bolton

  160

  190

  155

  190

  155

  Bury

  110

  75

  90

  90

  75

  Manchester

  780

  775

  775

  745

  585

  Oldham

  110

  135

  165

  130

  110

  Rochdale

  105

  150

  145

  125

  55

  Salford

  200

  180

  160

  210

  180

  Stockport

  110

  130

  115

  110

  100

  Tameside

  150

  140

  120

  120

  150

  Trafford

  70

  90

  85

  100

  90

  Wigan

  165

  155

  170

  210

  145

  Merseyside

  900

  1,000

  1,100

  1,100

  900

  Metropolitan districts

  Knowsley

  145

  125

  120

  145

  190

  Liverpool

  445

  450

  530

  550

  450

  Sefton

  80

  105

  105

  110

  80

  St. Helens

  65

  80

  90

  70

  80

  Wirral

  205

  230

  205

  175

  145

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,700

  3,800

  3,500

  3,400

  3.100

  Shire counties

  North Yorkshire

  305

  275

  210

  200

  215

  Unitary authorities

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  110

  120

  110

  145

  85

  Kingston upon Hull

  395

  420

  325

  285

  270

  North East Lines

  170

  155

  120

  140

  150

  North Lincolnshire

  115

  100

  125

  75

  50

  York

  100

  80

  75

  95

  105

  Metropolitan districts

  Barnsley

  135

  150

  150

  120

  115

  Bradford

  470

  425

  405

  370

  320

  Calderdale

  120

  145

  150

  95

  95

  Doncaster

  230

  165

  235

  220

  175

  Kirklees

  155

  170

  140

  180

  140

  Leeds

  600

  675

  625

  645

  585

  Rotherham

  185

  205

  210

  170

  195

  Sheffield

  335

  430

  400

  400

  440

  Wakefield

  320

  315

  265

  245

  125

  East Midlands

  2,400

  2,700

  2,600

  2,500

  2,400

  Shire counties

  Derbyshire

  315

  290

  315

  385

  365

  Leicestershire

  165

  175

  240

  275

  220

  Lincolnshire

  365

  305

  290

  275

  275

  Northamptonshire

  410

  450

  415

  400

  310

  Nottinghamshire

  330

  385

  385

  410

  415

  1097W

  Number of looked after children who started one or more periods of foster care during the years ending 31 March 1997 to 2001

  England

  Number

  Year ending 31 March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Unitary authorities

  Derby

  235

  205

  165

  160

  155

  Leicester

  240

  410

  425

  345

  405

  Nottingham

  355

  425

  385

  280

  285

  West Midlands

  3,700

  3,900

  3,600

  3,700

  3,200

  Shire counties

  Shropshire

  140

  90

  90

  135

  110

  Staffordshire

  290

  260

  260

  280

  255

  Warwickshire

  330

  395

  310

  330

  245

  Worcestershire

  300

  285

  320

  385

  295

  Unitary authorities

  Herefordshire

  130

  120

  130

  75

  80

  Stoke-on-Trent

  105

  180

  155

  165

  195

  Telford and Wrekin

  130

  70

  90

  75

  100

  Metropolitan districts

  Birmingham

  930

  1,085

  865

  880

  820

  Coventry

  205

  195

  165

  220

  145

  Dudley

  170

  150

  195

  235

  140

  Sandwell

  335

  375

  370

  295

  225

  Solihull

  165

  150

  130

  130

  105

  Walsall

  235

  295

  300

  305

  290

  Wolverhampton

  240

  200

  190

  175

  175

  South West

  3,800

  3,500

  3,200

  3,300

  2,900

  Shire counties

  Cornwall

  590

  580

  545

  485

  375

  Devon

  470

  405

  410

  450

  385

  Dorset

  285

  280

  200

  160

  140

  Gloucestershire

  280

  280

  290

  310

  280

  Somerset

  345

  300

  285

  285

  305

  Wiltshire

  280

  285

  245

  230

  165

  Unitary authorities

  Bath and North East Somerset

  85

  85

  65

  100

  65

  Bournemouth

  160

  175

  145

  145

  150

  Bristol

  345

  320

  275

  260

  270

  North Somerset

  150

  160

  135

  135

  135

  Plymouth

  300

  185

  140

  250

  225

  Poole

  100

  125

  90

  125

  100

  South Gloucestershire

  90

  70

  95

  85

  85

  Swindon

  195

  155

  130

  155

  160

  Torbay

  115

  120

  135

  105

  90

  Eastern

  3,400

  3,300

  3,100

  3,400

  2,900

  Shire counties

  Bedfordshire

  225

  195

  180

  180

  190

  Cambridgeshire

  325

  385

  345

  285

  185

  Essex

  795

  665

  670

  860

  695

  Hertfordshire

  445

  450

  425

  370

  340

  Norfolk

  480

  435

  520

  490

  450

  Suffolk

  400

  415

  370

  380

  360

  Unitary authorities

  Luton

  180

  150

  180

  210

  200

  Peterborough

  215

  290

  180

  285

  185

  Southend

  190

  215

  175

  185

  165

  Thurrock

  110

  90

  80

  150

  120

  London

  5,000

  5,100

  5.300

  5,400

  5,300

  Inner London

  Camden

  155

  185

  230

  220

  190

  Greenwich

  135

  140

  225

  275

  240

  Hackney

  285

  280

  260

  220

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  135

  175

  155

  200

  270

  Islington

  140

  135

  160

  185

  120

  Kensington and Chelsea

  75

  105

  95

  70

  100

  Lambeth

  295

  260

  280

  245

  265

  Lewisham

  250

  300

  220

  270

  205

  Southwark

  335

  345

  270

  265

  260

  Tower Hamlets

  245

  100

  120

  125

  115

  Wandsworth

  205

  195

  190

  185

  240

  Westminster

  135

  145

  145

  140

  140

  1098W

  Number of looked after children who started one or more periods
  of foster care during the years ending 31 March 1997 to 2001

  England

  Number

  Year ending 31 March

  1997

  1998

  /999

  2000

  2001

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  65

  95

  115

  135

  155

  Barnet

  95

  120

  170

  150

  200

  Bexley

  120

  140

  165

  150

  140

  Brent

  220

  220

  215

  215

  245

  Bromley

  115

  155

  130

  110

  70

  Croydon

  235

  135

  165

  170

  175

  Ealing

  125

  130

  195

  215

  215

  Enfield

  85

  100

  120

  90

  125

  Haringey

  175

  165

  210

  205

  255

  Harrow

  75

  95

  100

  140

  95

  Havering

  85

  75

  105

  125

  80

  Hillingdon

  150

  110

  140

  230

  250

  Hounslow

  155

  160

  115

  150

  150

  Kingston upon Thames

  60

  60

  65

  40

  65

  Merton

  120

  145

  150

  150

  85

  Newham

  255

  340

  385

  320

  305

  Redbridge

  185

  190

  140

  110

  70

  Richmond upon Thames

  80

  50

  80

  80

  55

  Sutton

  95

  60

  90

  85

  80

  Waltham Forest

  155

  190

  110

  155

  130

  South East

  4,200

  4,100

  4,100

  4,200

  4,200

  Shire counties

  Buckinghamshire

  135

  115

  130

  165

  130

  East Sussex

  365

  250

  300

  280

  300

  Hampshire

  410

  435

  460

  505

  465

  Kent

  875

  995

  1,090

  1,060

  1,105

  Oxfordshire

  245

  180

  245

  200

  225

  Surrey

  255

  210

  265

  255

  280

  West Sussex

  455

  500

  370

  545

  440

  Unitary authorities

  Bracknell Forest

  40

  40

  30

  35

  35

  Brighton and Hove

  355

  340

  265

  220

  200

  Isle of Wight

  140

  155

  135

  155

  90

  Medway Towns

  155

  170

  165

  135

  150

  Milton Keynes

  125

  175

  150

  '

  '

  West Berkshire

  70

  40

  50

  55

  65

  Portsmouth

  115

  125

  105

  95

  150

  Reading

  95

  75

  30

  30

  45

  Slough

  65

  30

  55

  55

  35

  Southampton

  180

  195

  190

  235

  240

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  50

  35

  20

  35

  45

  Wokingham

  25

  30

  40

  40

  45

  Not available.

  Notes:

  1. The table excludes children looked after under a series of short term placements.

  2. All local council figures have been rounded to the nearest five.

  3. Data for three local councils, Rutland, City of London and Isles of Scilly, have been suppressed for reasons of confidentiality. All regional and England figures include estimates for missing data and have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  Cycle of Abuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has conducted to examine the link between abused children and their potential to become abusive adults. [62717]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]:Between 1992 and 1996, the Department's policy research programme (PRP) funded a study by Professor David Skuse at the Institute of Child Health with the title: "The transition from sexually abused to abuser: a preliminary enquiry", at a total cost of £346,000.

  Subsequently, from 1996 to 2000, the Department provided funding for Professor Skuse to undertake a study entitled "A prospective study of the onset of sexually

  1099W
  abusive behaviour in boys who were sexually abused in early childhood: validation of risk index". This study cost £566,000.

  Two further studies of relevance were each funded by one of the Department's regional offices: "A survey of the psychological effects of child abuse and the resulting medical/other agency intervention of general health and personal benefits as adults (pilot study)" by Michelle Robson, from the Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust, which was funded from December 1999 to April 2000, and a study on "Emotional and behavioural problems in children of women who experienced maltreatment in childhood", by Professor J. W. Hill, at the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital NHS Trust, funded from February 1999 to June 2000.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make more funds available to ring fence funds to prevent sudden deaths in epilepsy. [62987]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]:Local health and social care organisations are responsible for planning and providing services for people with epilepsy. The recently announced budget settlements for the national health service (representing an annual average increase of 7.6 per cent. above inflation over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08) and personal social services (PSS) (representing an annual average increase of 6.0 per cent. above inflation over the three years 2003–04 to 2005–06), will provide the investment needed to support services which best meet patients' and users' needs.

  The Department has recently welcomed the publication of the Government funded national sentinel audit of epilepsy-related death. The audit looked at investigations into epilepsy deaths, care provided prior to death and contact with bereaved families. The Department has given a commitment to consider the recommendations of the audit and develop an action plan by September 2002 to try to improve epilepsy services and reduce the number of preventable deaths from epilepsy.

  The Department is also undertaking a range of initiatives to improve services for the care and management of people with epilepsy. For example, we have:
  Provided funding to the Joint Epilepsy Council (JEC) to develop a "National Statement of Good Practice for the Treatment and Care of People who have Epilepsy", which was published in May 2002. The statement makes a series of recommendations for good

  Treatment modality

  Average baseline waiting time (weeks)

  Maximum acceptable length of wait (weeks)

  1999–2000

  2002–03

  2003–04

  In-patient detoxification

  6.1

  4

  2

  Community prescribing—specialist

  10.2

  6

  3

  Community prescribing—GPs

  5

  4

  2

  Structured counselling

  4

  4

  2

  Structured day care programme

  3.3

  4

  3

  Residential rehabilitation

  5.4

  4

  3

  1100W
  quality epilepsy services. It is intended to facilitate commissioning and will be of use to NHS purchasers, providers and service users.
  Asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to develop a clinical guideline (due in summer 2004) for the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy to help address widespread variations in clinical practice and contribute to the improvement of services. This will be supported by a technology appraisal (due autumn 2003) of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new anti-epileptic drugs in children and adults, to help promote appropriate uptake and equitable access.
  Announced that the national service framework (NSF) for long term conditions is expected to develop standards of care for specific neurological conditions, including epilepsy. The NSF is expected to be published in 2004. Implementation is expected to start from 2005.
  Developed the expert patients programme, which aims to provide training in self-management skills for people with long term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase will include people with epilepsy.
  Provided funding to the national society for epilepsy for its living well project. The project aims to promote independent living by providing locally based short-term courses for people with epilepsy to develop self-help and self-management techniques.

  Care Records
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, under standard 16 of the National Care Standards, it is compulsory for receivers of care to complete daily records which can be accessed by other people; and what mechanisms are in place to accommodate those who, on grounds of privacy, refuse to do so. [63629]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]:Standard 16 of the domiciliary care national minimum standards (consultation version) states that it is not compulsory for the service user to keep records. The requirement is for the service provider to keep records.

  Drug Addicts
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting time is for drug addicts for residential rehabilitation; and what he expects the waiting time to be in two years. [63335]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]:Estimated figures for waiting times for residential rehabilitation from referral to initial consultation are shown in the table. Figures for other treatment modalities are provided as a comparison. These figures were compiled to assist the national treatment agency in setting targets for reducing overall waiting times and are the latest currently available. Figures for 2000–01 are currently being collated and will be available shortly.

  The targets for treatment services are shown in the table. This information relates to the local authority area, not for each individual agency.
  1101W
  The information that is available to the Government is the longest wait for different modalities of treatment in each drug action teams area. DAT reported these figures in December 2001 as part of the routine planning process for treatment at local level. The national treatment agency will publish more comprehensive data later this year.

  Care Home Patients
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents aged over 65 were in(a)local

  Table 1: Registered care places for older people1, as at 31 March (rounded numbers)

  Total

  Local authority staffed homes

  Independent dual residential care homes1

  Independent nursing care homes2

  Independent dual residential care homes3

  19955

  407,680

  62,440

  176,560

  155,210

  13,460

  19965

  412,450

  60,160

  176,950

  158,750

  16,600

  19975

  415,060

  54,680

  183,390

  153,440

  23,540

  1998

  428,230

  52,730

  186,730

  159,620

  29,140

  1999

  418,040

  49,110

  185,270

  152,940

  30,710

  2000

  412,450

  45,210

  183,250

  149,020

  34,970

  2001

  401,980

  41,830

  182,470

  141,920

  35,770

  1Includes places for older mentally infirm people.

  2Includes residential care beds in small homes (less than four places).

  3Excludes registered nursing beds in private hospitals and clinics.

  4Registered residential care places only.

  5Information on nursing beds relates to registered beds during the period I October (of the previous year) to 31 March each year.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns

  Table 2: Registered care places for older people as a percentage of population aged over 65, as at 31 March

  Percentage

  Total

  Local authority staffed homes

  Independent dual residential care homes1

  Independent nursing care homes2

  Independent dual residential care homes3

  19954

  5.3

  0.8

  2.3

  2.0

  0.2

  1996

  5.3

  0.8

  2.3

  2.0

  0.2

  1997

  5.3

  0.7

  2.4

  2.0

  0.3

  1998

  5.5

  0.7

  2.4

  2.1

  0.4

  1999

  5.4

  0.6

  2.4

  2.0

  0.4

  2000

  5.3

  0.6

  2.3

  1.9

  0.4

  2001

  5.1

  0.5

  2.3

  1.8

  0.5

  1Includes residential care beds in small homes (less than four places).

  2Excludes registered nursing beds in private hospitals and clinics.

  3Registered residential care places only.

  4Information on nursing beds relates to registered beds during the period 1 October (of the previous year) to 31 March each year.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns
  1102W
  authority, (b)independent residential, (c)independent nursing and (d)independent dual registered homes (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of the population aged over 65 in each of the last 10 years. [64288]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 June 2002]: Information on the number of residents in care homes is not readily available. The available information is provided in Tables 1 and 2.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop Of St Albans): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Transport Policy: Division of Responsibilities
Lord Tebbitasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for transport policy in his own constituency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 sets out the division of transport responsibilities. The reserved functions for which the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible include transport safety and regulation, such as for the railways and aviation, some aspects of road traffic regulation, such as vehicle standards, and transport security.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, which might have been broadly and more shortly expressed as, "No, not in most cases". Is not this the West Lothian question incarnate? The English and Welsh electorate have policies imposed on them by Scots members of the Cabinet—to whom they have given no authorization—which do not apply to Scotland.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I try to be more helpful than just saying, "Not in most cases". I thought it would be useful to set out the responsibilities that the right honourable Member for Edinburgh Central holds. There have been Scottish Secretaries of State for Transport before. Sir Malcolm Rifkind was Secretary of State for Transport from 1990 to 1992, at a time when a considerable number of transport responsibilities were held by the then Scottish Office.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the West Lothian question is an acceptable constitutional anomaly, that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has found a somewhat halfhearted example, that the West Lothian question is a balancing measure for historical offences against Scotland and that it will be partially resolved by devolution in England? Finally, will the Minister confirm that today's United Kingdom is Scotland's finest achievement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure which two of those questions I am supposed to answer. I understand that if there are more than two, I have a choice. It is interesting that since the passage
1500
of the Scotland Act 1998, there has been very little reference to the West Lothian question. The arrangements seem to have bedded down particularly well. We have maintained the position that there are not two classes of Member of Parliament. Everybody is to be congratulated on that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have a supplementary West Lothian question. What is the proportion of Scots to other nationalities in the Cabinet of the United Kingdom and what is the proportion of Scots to other members of the population of the United Kingdom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware that Scots is a nationality. It does not say so on anybody's passport.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that those of us who take an interest in transport issues will regard ourselves as fortunate to have such a talented and imaginative Secretary of State as Alastair Darling, as the Statement on Railtrack later this afternoon will show?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, when the noble Lord uses the comparison between Alastair Darling and Malcolm Rifkind, he is clearly losing the argument. Devolution has entirely changed the process between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Parliament. Is not the real reason why Mr Darling has been given the job that his parliamentary seat is about to be done away with under the redrawing of the boundaries? This is all about seeking to ingratiate himself in England so that he can get a seat in England.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Alastair Darling has been a first class member of the Government since 1997. He does not need to ingratiate himself with anybody.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, is there any case for restricting the Prime Minister's choice of Secretary of State for Transport in the way in which the Question implies?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, none whatsoever.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is it not abundantly clear in this mêlée of talk that the Cabinet could certainly do with an infusion of sensible Welsh blood?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal has answered that sotto voce. He agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, are there any proposals to compensate Members of the other place who may lose their seats as a result of doing away with a number of the seats in Scotland?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not just getting away from the original Question; we are two steps away from it. I do not know the answer.

Parliamentary Estate: Medical Emergency Cover
3.6 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked the Chairman of Committees:
Whether the medical emergency cover within the Parliamentary Estate is adequate.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, the House authorities keep the provision of medical cover constantly under review. Recent initiatives include the installation of automatic external defibrillators adjacent to this Chamber. Regrettably, in one case in December last year there was an unacceptable delay before an ambulance was called. However, I assure noble Lords that steps have been taken to ensure that such delays do not occur in future.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Chairman of Committees for that Answer. Is he really satisfied that emergency procedures inside and outside the House have been improved since the unacceptable delay that my noble friend Lady Blatch had to endure, in great pain, waiting for an ambulance? Is he concerned that parliamentarians and staff—there are up to 5,000 people working in the parliamentary estate at any one time—appear to have only basic emergency cover after 5 p.m. when the nurse knocks off?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the emergency cover is precisely the same after 5 p.m. as it is before 5 p.m. The provision of the nurse is not for emergency cover. The point of emergency cover is to recover the patient, to resuscitate the patient and to get him or her to hospital as quickly as possible. In the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that did not happen. However, I emphasise that the delay was not with the ambulance service; it was internal. The telephone operator took a long time to pass the message through to St Thomas' Hospital, because they were checking on various things at great length. That is partly because there have been a number of spurious phone calls to the 3333 emergency number, so those concerned were making sure that this was a serious case. Instructions have now been given that when emergencies on 3333 originate from here, the first thing to do is make sure that an ambulance is on its way.
I can give the noble Lord a few more details about that case. The call to the central ambulance control was not logged until 7.56 p.m., although the original call here was made at 7.30 p.m. After that, the ambulance arrived at 8.11 p.m. and was with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, at 8.14 p.m. The ambulance service is in no way to blame for the delay that occurred on that occasion and we have taken steps to ensure that such a delay does not occur again.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, on a good many occasions over the past two years, I have been
1502
called upon to offer medical advice within this House—the last occasion being this morning. Sometimes I have been asked to do so in curious locations, including, once, in the ladies' toilet. Is it not reasonable to have nursing cover in the evenings after 5 p.m.? After all, so far as I am concerned—I am sure that ultimately this may apply to many other medical Peers—if the General Medical Council's regulations on revalidation are soon to be introduced, it is possible that I shall be precluded from giving such advice on the ground of age.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if I may say so, they must be precluding people at a very early age. We anticipate that in the near future nursing care will be able to continue until 10 p.m. However, I emphasise that nursing care is not strictly part of the emergency service; it is for normal day-to-day, simple medical assistance.
Lord Roper: My Lords, all parts of the House will be relieved that a review of the procedures in the telephone exchange has taken place so that unacceptable delays of the kind that occurred previously will not be repeated. However, I should be grateful for an assurance that continuous training is being given in the use of the defibrillators which have been provided and that access to oxygen is now readily available, as I understand that problems have occurred in that respect in the past.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is true that early last year there was difficulty in accessing the oxygen supply. That has now been dealt with. But one must be clear that the administration of oxygen is not a simple, straightforward matter. Regular training is now given in the use of the medical equipment here. As I said, the defibrillators are outside the Chamber. Regrettably, there was an occasion when Lord Shore of Stepney collapsed in the Chamber, and the Doorkeepers administered the defibrillators to very good effect. Sadly, of course, Lord Shore died later in hospital. But we are convinced that that equipment is working well.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, we are all conscious of the fact that the Parliamentary Estate is not covered by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. Given the large number of people who are in this building at almost any given time, why cannot the estate have cover by analogy with such outside legislation?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am not sure that I know the answer to that. However, as I said, it is our belief that we are extremely well covered in relation to emergencies. Perhaps I may take the opportunity of welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, back to his place after his serious operation.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees agree that, instead of the nurse being employed until 10 o'clock, it would be far better if the House rose at 7 o'clock, thus dealing with the problem the other way round?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that the nurse would be pleased to have an early evening. However, I do not believe that that is a matter for this debate; it is a matter for the report of the Leader of the House on the workings of the House.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain his remark about oxygen being difficult to administer? All dentists are obliged to make oxygen available in their surgeries. Even the most untrained person is expected to be able to use it. I am able to quote instances when lives have been saved through oxygen being available to people who have suffered heart attacks. Can the noble Lord explain why he considers oxygen to be difficult to use? In addition, is he willing to have oxygen available in the same location as the defibrillators, if that is not already the case? In that way, both would be available at the same source and people would know exactly where to go for them.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, oxygen is available. I am saying only that I believe that it can be a little dangerous when handled by the untrained, or so I am informed. The noble Baroness looks at me sceptically, but what is new? That is my understanding, although I may be wrong. I have no medical training, but people other than the Doorkeepers are usually available. The Doorkeepers are now properly trained and oxygen is available. I simply suggest that ordinary Members of the House should not rush to the oxygen bottle and try to administer it because they might do more harm than good.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees aware that the nurses' hours were cut by changing their finishing time from 6 p.m. to 5 p.m.? What was the reason for that? Is he aware that some people must be monitored for certain conditions and that, if the nursing service were available, that would prevent emergencies arising?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not know why that change was made. However, I understand that a system is to be introduced whereby the nurses overlap and that someone will be on duty until 10 o'clock in the evening. I am not sure when that arrangement will begin, but that is my understanding.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, further to the observations and questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I know for a fact that the Chairman of Committees is aware that from time to time I have to use oxygen and that it is readily available. It is provided by the health workers in the Houses of Parliament. But is he aware that the bottle to which I have access needs to be replaced and that the occupational health workers are being very obstructive in replacing it?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend said "obstructive" or "constructive".
Noble Lords: Obstructive.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I was not aware of that. If that is the case, I shall look into the matter and ensure that the obstruction is removed.

Vauxhall Cross
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Trumpingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What their reaction is to traffic conditions at Vauxhall Cross and the junction of Vauxhall Bridge and Millbank.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a matter for the Mayor and Transport for London.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot possibly thank the Minister for that reply. Does he realise the spin-off effect on other bridges caused by the chaos at Vauxhall Cross? Can he explain to me why huge pavements have been built at the corners of Vauxhall Bridge north side? Are they there to accommodate vast crowds applauding Ken Livingstone as he queues in his car for the lights to turn green?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know. To be honest, I believe that time for Starred Questions in this House is scarce and valuable. Perhaps I may suggest most humbly to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whom I admire and respect, that as far as possible we should restrict our Questions to matters for which Ministers have responsibility. David Jamieson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Transport, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in response to an earlier undertaking by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. Clearly we try to be as helpful as we can on these matters. There is nothing out of order in asking a Question for which Ministers have no responsibility. However, does the House not agree that it would be better if, as far as possible, we concentrated on matters for which Ministers have responsibility?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question was in order because it was accepted and that he has a responsibility to answer Questions from the Front Bench as best he can? Indeed, the problem at Vauxhall Cross is caused by the Mayor changing the timing of the lights. Will he condemn those changes and answer the Question that he

1505
avoided answering last week? Perhaps I may suggest that the reason he should answer it is that significant road safety considerations are now at issue. The Government have a road safety programme, and, unfortunately, at Vauxhall Cross motorists are jumping the lights because they do not change in time. Serious accidents will occur and the Government should address that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that the Question was in order. However, in so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is right to say that there is a ministerial responsibility for road safety.
There are two elements to what has happened at Vauxhall Cross. The first is the rejigging of the road pattern, and I understand that safety elements are involved in that. The other is a cycle and pedestrian scheme, which is very directly connected with road safety because it follows a fatality which occurred a few years ago. That cycle and pedestrian scheme was completed on 16th June. However, the noble Viscount is right to say that there are safety elements to the work at Vauxhall Cross.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the Mayor had discharged his traffic responsibilities with even a modicum of diligence there would be no need for my noble friend the ask the Question? Where else can she ask it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the responsibilities of the Mayor are to his electorate and to the Greater London Assembly. Members of the Greater London Assembly have full opportunity to question the Mayor and to disagree with him about any of these matters. The same is true of any local authority in this country. On the whole, we do not answer Questions about matters which are the responsibility of individual local authorities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a parliamentary dimension to this issue for anyone who lives on the south side of the river, such as my noble friend Lady Trumpington and me? It was reported on the radio two or three times last month alone that the estimated delay in crossing Vauxhall Bridge was over one hour. That feeds across to other bridges. From time to time south London is isolated from north London and also from the centre of government as a result of those policies. That must be of interest to the Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am keenly aware of the extent of ministerial responsibility for transport in London. That is why I sought to answer the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. However, questions of congestion in Greater London
1506
are strictly a matter for the Mayor and for Transport for London. I do not believe there is anything useful I can add.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there might be merit in considering whether the practice in the House of Commons, whereby Questions for which there is no ministerial responsibility are not accepted, could be adopted at this end of the building?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a matter for the House to decide rather than for an individual Minister. However, I am sure that my friends who are responsible for such matters in the House have heard that question.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, having once had the dubious responsibility of being Secretary of State for Transport, I clearly recall being asked many times about traffic jams and traffic problems in the capital. I recall being advised that perhaps the best answer was that while such matters were the responsibility of local authorities, it is the duty of the Government, and the proper course to take, to state that they would draw to the attention of the local authority—there was not a mayor in those days—most closely and vigorously the strong concerns of Members of the other place. That would apply now just as much to Members of this House. Is it not the duty of the Government to draw those strong concerns to the attention of the Mayor of London so that he can get a better act together?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a helpful and sensible suggestion. I shall certainly draw to the attention of the Mayor and to Transport for London the concerns which have been expressed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the Minister that my noble friend's Question is analogous to one I asked some days ago about the traffic congestion at the eastern end of Westminster Bridge. In this part of London we have some of the worst traffic congestion and heaviest traffic of anywhere in the United Kingdom. Surely, the Minister for Transport has a responsibility to persuade the local authorities to solve the problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have great difficulty with the concept that the responsibility of the Minister for Transport is to persuade the local authority of his own views on matters which have been devolved to the Mayor and to Transport for London. There is a read back to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, of which we should be well aware. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, thought that the Minister for Transport was not capable of dealing with matters which are devolved to Scotland; and I believe that is true. I shall draw to the attention of the Mayor and Transport for London the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

Egg Production and Welfare of Hens
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domerasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to ensure that their aim to improve the welfare of laying hens in the United Kingdom does not result in egg production moving overseas to countries with lower welfare standards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the directive on the welfare of laying hens applies to all member states of the European Union and we directly transposed it into English legislation only last Friday. Any further proposals on the welfare of laying hens will be subject to public consultation. As regards the application to third countries, the EU has been successful in getting animal welfare firmly written into the Doha development agenda. The labelling of eggs has a vital role to play, and improved labelling from 2004 will help consumers to decide.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am pleased that the Government are going out to consultation on this issue. Liberal Democrats fully support improving the welfare of laying hens. However, the Government may decide that regulations in Britain should be imposed in such a way to bring about the end of cages altogether for hens. Surely, the Government have a greater responsibility to promote the excellence of British food so that British people buy a far greater proportion of eggs of free-range hens. At present, I believe, that proportion is only 80 per cent. Can the Government take steps to ensure that public procurement bodies, which buy eggs for school meals, hospital meals, and so forth, take account of animal welfare issues in their specifications?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government—in particular, this part of the Government—spend a considerable time promoting the excellence of British food, including the produce of the British poultry industry. I agree that we should continue to do so and try to persuade British consumers of that excellence. However, at the end of the day we operate a free market and there is consumer choice. The labelling regulations will help in this matter.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I am totally baffled by the Question and the argument put forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, seems to advocate that any time there is an effort to improve animal welfare, it has to be stopped because someone overseas might take away trade. Surely, that cannot be the position of the Liberal Democrats?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot answer for the Liberal Democrats. The position of the Government is that so far as possible such regulations should be
1508
conducted on a European basis. However, there may be areas in which we believe the British regulations need to be slightly different. In general, we shall not be gold-plating within Europe. Beyond Europe, this becomes a trade issue, which is why I referred in my Answer to the Doha round.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, does the Minister accept that bringing forward the timing of the abolition of the inhumane method of egg production, which the battery cage represents, will be much appreciated by a number of welfare organisations and many individuals such as myself?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, for those noble Lords who were not present on Friday, I can confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, gave an effective speech to that end. I indicated then that we were in the process of transposing the regulations and that there would be more consultation on whether to bring forward any further the abolition of cages and how to deal with enriched cages.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, we on these Benches believe strongly in the promotion of animal welfare, as I am sure does the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Our farmers have led the field on that issue, as perhaps the Minister would acknowledge. Can I press further on the consultation period? At present, DEE RA has commissioned scientific research into the cases for enriched cages or non-enriched cages. I understand that such consultations are going ahead before we have the scientific evidence, which is of concern. Surely, that is the wrong way round. We should wait for the research to be completed before going out to consultation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the issue of what is public opinion and what is the view of the industry is one aspect; the research is another. We have indicated that we are seeking the views of the public and the industry. There will be the normal I2-week period of consultation. The research may well eventually inform the final decision.
Earl Peel: My Lords, is the Minister telling the House that the Government are prepared to take action against the importation of eggs produced by hens abroad which are not kept to the same welfare standards as hens in this country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I indicated in my original Answer that animal welfare in this area as a whole is an issue that the EU put on the table in the discussions in the Doha round. I also indicated that in order that consumers can better distinguish between the methods of egg production—wherever they are produced—we have introduced labelling regulations which will come into effect from 2004, so that consumers can decide.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no point in introducing these regulations if we simply export cruelty to other countries?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, British consumers and the British public expect certain minimum standards of production within the UK. However, it is also right that if one simply transfers consumer demand to the import of foreign goods where the welfare standards are not so good, one is in part defeating the object. That is why we want to move largely on a European basis and why we believe that animal welfare should feature in the trade negotiations.

Railtrack
3.31 p.m.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"I would like to make a Statement on the progress being made to put the ownership and operation of the rail network on a sound and sustainable footing; and as part of that the steps being taken to get Railtrack out of administration.
"I will keep the House informed over the next few weeks, but in the light of the conclusion of the sale and purchase agreement this morning between Railtrack Group and Network Rail, I thought it right to come to the House to set out the Government's strategy, the progress made so far and the next steps.
"As the House knows, the High Court put Railtrack into administration last October. As the presiding judge said then, the making of the railway administration order was,
'not only appropriate, but absolutely essential'.
"The Government's objective is to ensure that Britain's rail network is owned and managed by an effective and competent body and so secure a sustainable long-term future for the rail network.
"To achieve that, the next step is to remove Railtrack from administration as soon as possible and have the network under new ownership and strengthened management, who are committed to improving service and safety. That is in everyone's interests: the industry's, that of the workforce and the travelling public alike.
"On 25th March this year, my right honourable friend, the Member for North Tyneside, told the House of the bid made by Network Rail to acquire Railtrack from its parent company, Railtrack Group plc.
"While other bids would have been considered, none was received. Network Rail is a public interest company limited by guarantee and will be run for the benefit of the whole railway, concentrating on its core priorities of operating, maintaining and renewing the rail network. There will be no shareholders and any operating surplus will be used for the benefit of the railway system.
1510
"The company will operate on a sound commercial basis with a board and management whose performance targets will be aligned to the Strategic Rail Authority's long-term plan as well as the obligations under its network licence to its customers.
"Instead of shareholders, its directors will be accountable to the company's members who will not only be drawn from the rail industry, but will also include members representing the public interest and the Strategic Rail Authority. In this way, the directors of Network Rail will be answerable to people whose primary interest is in the long-term future of the railway.
"Railtrack Group and Network Rail have concluded a sale and purchase agreement to acquire Railtrack plc. I would like to set out in some detail the terms of this agreement.
"In line with its original offer, Network Rail will pay £500 million—pof which £a300 million will be provided by the Government—as well as taking over Railtrack's debt, which now stands at £7·1 billion. This includes loans from the European Investment Bank and the German bank, KfW, totalling just over £1 billion, which Network Rail plans to assume.
"In parallel, London and Continental Railways is acquiring from Railtrack its interest in the first phase of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link for £295 million. At a cost of £80 million, Network Rail will acquire the right to operate, manage and maintain the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the concession to manage St Pancras station.
"I can tell the House that Network Rail has already secured up to £9 billion of bridge financing from commercial banks to fund its acquisition costs and to refinance Railtrack's existing debt, as well as to fund the immediate operation of the railway.
"Network Rail will also put in place additional commercial financing of up to £7 billion for its medium term requirements. This is necessary to cover operational expenditure as well as to cover substantial cost overruns which were inherited from Railtrack and which will have to be met.
"Network Rail will also need to have—as would any owner and operator—access to back-stop contingency funding. For this reason, the Strategic Rail Authority will provide an additional standby credit facility. This contingency funding of last resort has been set at £4 billion.
"Further details of this funding and of the short to medium term standby credit facilities offered to Network Rail by the Strategic Rail Authority are set out in the two minutes that I am laying before the House in the normal way.
"The House will also wish to know that the rail regulator has today issued a statement setting out his approach to a request for an early regulatory review.

1511
"These are large sums by any standards. But they are necessary, given the size of the task facing Network Rail, and they would be needed by any successor to Railtrack. There is no escaping the fact that Britain's railways need very large-scale investment—investment we believe is essential.
"It is because of the need for long-term sustained investment that the Government are, through the 10-year plan, increasing the average annual investment in the railways—on top of continued support for running costs—to £4·6 billion. That is more than three times the annual average in the 10 years prior to 1997.
"The public are entitled to expect that this investment will be spent efficiently and effectively. That has clearly not been the case in the past.
"The new company, Network Rail, faces a legacy of poor management and of very substantial cost overruns, which will have to be met. For example, when it began, Railtrack estimated that the cost of the West Coast Main Line project would amount to about £2 billion. It is now clear that the actual costs of the work will he considerably more than that.
"So what is now needed is a competent owner and operator. That is why Network Rail's acquisition of the railway network is so essential to the future of the industry.
"This agreement is a major step towards removing Railtrack from administration and putting the rail network back on a sound footing.
"The next stage in the process will involve Railtrack Group plc putting this offer to its shareholders at a special meeting which is expected to be held next month. It is for the company to decide how much it can offer its shareholders.
"The European Commission is also considering whether any aspect of the support being provided needs to be cleared as state aid.
"However, if the shareholders of Railtrack Group approve the bid at the special meeting and the appropriate clearance is obtained from the European Commission, I would expect to ask the High Court for an order releasing Railtrack plc from administration thereafter.
"It is obvious that Railtrack could not have carried on as it was. Even the company recognised that last summer. And what is more, the division and lack of common purpose that characterised the railway system in the past few years were damaging and destructive to the interests of both the industry and the travelling public.
"All the evidence shows that working together is crucial to the long-term success of the railway network. I can tell the House that over the past few months, despite the uncertainties of administration, the new management of Railtrack has enjoyed closer working relationships with the Strategic Rail Authority, as well as the rail regulator and the train operators—something which is essential if the network is to work effectively and efficiently to everyone's benefit.
1512
"The establishment of a public interest company in which the Strategic Rail Authority is represented will continue to foster this climate of better cooperation to the benefit of all concerned in terms of achieving the objectives set.
"The railways are of critical importance to the economic and social fabric of this country. There is now an urgent need to give the rail system stability. I believe that this agreement is the right and best way of building a modern and efficient network.
"I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.40 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Does that mean that he is now responsible for transport matters in this House and will be answering Questions for that department?
The one bit of vaguely good news is that the Government have made a U-turn and are now paying £300 million to the Railtrack shareholders. I should remind the Government that almost 90 per cent of Railtrack employees are also shareholders in the company. Will the Government now admit— I do not suppose that they will—that Railtrack was not insolvent, it was the Government who made it insolvent? Indeed, I believe that the Government misled the High Court. They made Railtrack insolvent by withdrawing funding.
To turn to Network Rail, it is a public interest company. Can the Minister define that? It will not have any shareholders, so who will own it? Perhaps he can give us an example of other similar companies in the government portfolio with which we can compare it. Or is it something of totally new invention? I understand that its accounts will appear in the accounts of the Strategic Rail Authority. Does that make it a subsidiary of the SRA? Will it have independent auditors? Who will be responsible for the audit?
The Government say that they will stand behind the £14 billion of debt funding by a letter of comfort from the Secretary of State. The minute states:
"the Secretary of State would intervene in a timely manner to ensure that adequate funds would be made available to the S RA, or any successor body".
How will the Treasury account for those letters of comfort? Will that be on the Treasury books?
The public interest company will be accountable to its members. I understand that it will have 120 members. How will they be selected? I understand that that will be done by a special committee. Who will appoint the special committee? Will there be more than one person? Will it be the Secretary of State? How many directors will the company have? Presumably, it will not have all of those members on its board. How will the new entity be accountable to Parliament?
As I understand it, Network Rail will be responsible for track maintenance and special purpose vehicles will be set up for improvements to the rail system.

1513
Those vehicles will then sell the track to the SRA after they have improved it. Who will decide the price? How will that be decided? We want to ensure that we do not return to the bad old days of the cost-plus system.
Can the Minister tell us about the time frame? When do the Government expect to hear from the European Commission? Is that a matter of weeks or of months?
This has been a sorry tale. The Government had five years in which to solve the problems of Railtrack. I do not deny that it had problems; I do not deny that we did not get it 100 per cent right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Oh!
Viscount Astor: But we did not get it that wrong. After all, since privatization—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would do well to listen to this—rail travel, the number of passengers using the network, rose by 30 per cent. In spite of the terrible disasters, rail travel is now safer and the train operating companies have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in new rolling stock.
As I said, this has been a sorry saga. Sadly, as always, the victims have been the travelling public.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank the Minister for coming to the House to repeat the Statement. I place on record the support of those of us on these Benches for the start of a process that will move Railtrack out of administration and will place the railway infrastructure on a more sound and sustainable footing for the future.
Of course we believe that the public interest company is exactly the right way forward. Indeed, it would be extraordinary if we were to say anything else, because it was my honourable friend in another place who first suggested the idea of a public interest company as far back as last February. Almost a year ago to the day, the then Secretary of State commented that our proposals would introduce paralysis to the system. So I should be interested to hear what, apart from my honourable friend's oratory, persuaded the Government that a public interest company was the way forward.
We on these Benches have always taken the view that the interest of the travelling public must come first—that and recognising the importance of an efficiently functioning railway network for the economy of the whole country, but especially for London and the South East.
Railtrack shareholders who originally bought shares obtained them at bargain-basement prices estimated as undervalued by about £6 billion. Between May 1996 and entering receivership, shareholders received about £700 million in dividends. So we agreed with the Secretary of State when he said last October:
"new Government money will not be given to compensate shareholders".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/01; col. 961.]
1514
Why has that changed? Also, what will happen if at their extraordinary general meeting the shareholders decide not to accept the offer?
When the Government put Railtrack into administration, they said that they were not prepared to underwrite the company indefinitely or to offer a blank cheque. But we have heard today that they will underwrite it to the tune of £4 billion, but use a sleight of hand that filters the money through the Strategic Rail Authority. I join the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in asking how that will be publicly scrutinised, especially by Parliament.
Privatisation occurred against a backdrop of an industry in decline. The industry was never set up to manage the kind of growth in passenger numbers already referred to. It is an often untold success story that 30 per cent more people than previously are using the railways. The new, improved SRA has been a major step forward and it is clear that the players in the industry are willing and able to work together now in a way that they have not been previously. That was clearly demonstrated in the way that the industry responded to the terrible events at Potters Bar.
But there are some difficult decisions to be made. Managing the balance of access to the track to grow the market and to maintain and enhance the network will need a clarity of purpose and a willingness to work together that we have not yet seen. Network Rail will be a key player in providing that. There is no merit in simply rebranding. The lessons of Consignia must loom large in our thinking. Clearly, removal of the profit element will remove one major difficulty that bedevilled Railtrack, but it is not the only one. How can the Government be so sure that Network Rail will not suffer the same management problems as Railtrack? How will the relationship between its operational board and its rainbow coalition of members brought together from the industry work in practice?
Finally, how does Network Rail know exactly what it is taking on? There is still no asset register, despite the work under way while Railtrack has been in administration, and Network Rail has said that it will take it another 18 months to provide such a register. Against that background, how can Network Rail be sure how much money it will need to invest?
It has been a difficult time for the industry, the passengers and the people who work for and own shares in Railtrack. Administration has been costly, costing about £1 million a day. It has led to a decrease in consumer and investor confidence. Let us hope that today's announcement marks a new chapter in the future of the railways.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, yes, I have ministerial responsibility for answering Questions in the House on transport matters. I shall be ably assisted in that by my estimable and noble friend Lord McIntosh.
The noble Viscount suggested that Railtrack was not in an extremely difficult position. He said that it was not insolvent. When Railtrack came to the

1515
Government, it asked for what was virtually a blank cheque, for the suspension of the regulatory regime for several years and for the Government to support its share price during that period. I am sad to say that it became increasingly clear that the company was not in proper control either of its asset base or of its costs. That was why the Government took the action that they did and created the not-for-dividend public interest company about which the noble Viscount inquired.
The noble Viscount asked whether there were models for the public interest company. It is certainly the first rail network operator to be based on the model of a public interest company limited by guarantee, but such structures have been tried and tested at corporate level. I shall venture the example of BUPA, the successful private healthcare insurance company. It is, perhaps, the best known company limited by guarantee in the UK. There is also the more recently established Glas Cymru water company, which recently announced impressive preliminary results for the past financial year. In creating the company, we will, as the noble Baroness said, see money that might have gone to shareholders—as, understandably, hundreds of millions of pounds have done—reinvested in the railway.
The company will be limited by guarantee. The noble Viscount asked about auditing. The company will be consolidated into the accounts of the SRA. The auditors for Railtrack will continue to audit the new company, until the opportunity arises for the board to make decisions about any changes, as any company would do. The letter of comfort from the Secretary of State would not be a guarantee, as the noble Viscount will be aware. A Secretary of State could not fetter his discretion on such matters, but I am pleased to report that the evidence from the financial markets suggests that the company has been able to put in place financial arrangements that will assure the £9 billion that I mentioned.
As I said, there will be between 100 and 120 members of the company. The membership will be appointed by an independent appointments committee set up by the board inherited from the present structure of Network Rail. That board will include an appointee from the Strategic Rail Authority and will run the company along the expected lines. There will be representatives not just of those active in the industry—the train operating companies, the freight operating companies and many other interests—but of the public in the regions of the United Kingdom and other interest groups.
The noble Viscount inquired about the special purpose vehicle. Discussions are going on between the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail. We believe that understandings will be put in place on how the larger projects will be taken forward.
The SRA's accounts, into which Network Rail's accounts will be consolidated, will be laid before Parliament. They will show transparently how Network Rail is accounted for through the SRA. That is one of the advantages of the new structure. Network
1516
Rail is a private company, but it will follow the SR.A's strategic plan, which is itself subject to parliamentary scrutiny. With regard to the European Commission's time-frame, we hope that decisions can be made in the near future—in the next month or two. We go forward confidently with that.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for the general welcome that she gave to the plans announced today. That welcome was, I think, amplified in notices that have been issued by the Office of the Rail Regulator, the Railway Forum and, as one would anticipate, the Strategic Rail Authority. I am delighted that there has been such a positive reaction. It is a great credit to those working in the industry that there has not been the kind of paralysis that one might have feared, had events developed in another fashion. We have done our best, with the help of the industry, to manage through the crisis.
The noble Baroness asked about compensation. I must make it clear that the moneys being offered to Railtrack are designed to encourage early exit, because of the benefits that the public would gain from an early decision. That is why the Government have put in our moneys alongside those of Network Rail. It is not compensation for shareholders; it is a recognition that the earlier the exit can be, the more financial advantage there will be to the public and the public purse. I anticipate confidently that the shareholders will look to the board for guidance. The guidance from the board will be that the offer is in the best interests of the shareholders.
I do not accept that the underwriting of the company represents any kind of sleight of hand. The £4 billion that we are seeing the SRA put in place will, in fact, be a form of quasi equity. Because the company will be a not-for-dividend company of the public interest model, it is important that it should have the resilience to be able to borrow. The £4 billion will be long stop money.
The noble Baroness asked why we thought that Network Rail would not have the same management problems. For one thing, the membership is representative of all railway interests. It has been made clear by the train operating companies—in many ways, the most important of those interests—and others that they want a company with well founded experience of engineering practice. So the emphasis will be on building a company that is capable of maintaining, operating and renewing such a vast network. It must also be a company whose management's interests are closely aligned with the targets set on the public's behalf by the SRA. Its management will, transparently, be under scrutiny inside a company that includes 120 or so representatives of the public interest.
The noble Baroness is right to point to the continuing problems with the company. The asset register is not complete. That is one of the saddest aspects of the whole affair since privatisation, which clearly was rather ill founded inasmuch as a price was put on assets that were never properly quantified.

1517
Despite the recent efforts of the SRA and of Railtrack itself, we are still short of all the information that we need. That is why we have put in the financial support for the company in such strong measure.
4 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Lord made the point that there is an implied guarantee here, as there must be at the end of the day by any government. However, I cannot help wondering why he is so optimistic about this one. Every financial restructuring of British Rail and similar railways around the world has always been under-estimated. As he rightly said, no government can place responsibilities upon their successor. All have finished up with the same conclusion—massive debts—and the only way of dealing with it by different governments has always been by cutting the investment programme. It is not like BUPA and I wonder why the noble Lord is so optimistic.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I listen with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, given his long experience in industry, government and in particular the transport field. I accept the cautions that he states. Indeed, there were these recurring crises during the period when the railways were nationalised.
However, I do not accept that that is an inevitable cycle. I believe that with the structures we have put in place we probably have the enlightened self-interests around the board table of a kind which may not have been in place previously. I believe, too, based on the profound experience of decades of running a nationalised industry, but now, too, from the rather sad experience of the past six years of a privatised Railtrack, that there are lessons to be learned. If there is a criticism that I will readily accept, it is that we continued to be supportive of Railtrack perhaps beyond the point that it was cautious so to do. But we felt that we had to do everything in our power to make the system work and to give the management our support. Clearly, we came to this conclusion with some reluctance and sadness. However, having done so we decided to try to analyse and invest in full measure.
In terms of analysis, the noble Lord may concede that there is probably more of that now than in the past. The quality of it may be debated but we have analysed the problems very thoroughly. We have tried to create the framework for investment. We have now put in place short-term funding of around £10 billion. There will be about £7 billion for the so-called legacy problems inherited from Railtrack. As I said earlier, there will be the long-term support of the quasi-equity £4 billion which will persist over perhaps 50 years. Much of that is contingent liability. I would not expect much of it to be called. There will be a cap on the borrowings. But I believe that we now have a better sense of the scope of the problem and the moneys and policies in place to deal with it.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the principal reason that this is
1518
such an important and welcome Statement is because it is a very valuable step towards undoing the damage of the fragmentation of the railway caused since privatisation? Like the noble Lord, I wish that the step had been taken earlier, but the fact that it has been taken is extremely welcome today.
I endorse the point made by the noble Baroness about the way in which the industry is at last getting its act together. It demonstrated that after the Potters Bar accident. The welcome for the Statement from the rail regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Railway Forum, passenger interest and others shows that there is broad support for the way in which the Government are now tackling this matter.
I ask specifically about the future of Mr John Armitt who addressed the all-party railways group earlier this week and impressed all the members of that group. Under his stewardship the number of delays attributed to Railtrack has now fallen from 50 per cent to 25 per cent and the record of signals passed at danger is now at its lowest level ever. I very much hope that Mr Armitt will be part of the future of the railway. I hope that my noble friend can give me some comfort on that.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I think that we would all agree, including noble Lords on the other side of the House, that there were defects in the way in which the railway industry was privatised. The conspicuous fragmentation of the industry would be one of the areas that we would hope the new structures would address. That would be true in the area of contracting and subcontracting to which Lord Cullen has drawn particular attention and on which I am sure the new management will begin to take action to remedy.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I was heartened by the way the industry pulled together after the tragic events at Potters Bar. I think, too, that the leadership shown by John Armitt in the short time he has been there will surely commend him to the new company if he is minded to stay with it. John Armitt comes with an engineering background of the kind I emphasised is so desirable and in need of strengthening inside Network Rail.
Like the noble Lord, I look at all the problems and sigh for all the difficulties and tragedies we have had in recent years. However, although bearing in mind the noble Lord's cautions, we now go ahead with cautious optimism.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister amplify his reference to the European Union? In particular, will he give an assurance that no European taxpayer outside this country will be required to help to contribute towards the losses incurred entirely in this country?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we have money in Railtrack at present from the European Investment Bank. But we have notified the European Commission on 31st May of the proposed package of financial support for Network Rail. We are simply

1519
now seeking confirmation that that package is compatible with the Treaty of Rome. We have every confidence that it is.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, since this is not a company answerable to its shareholders, can the Minister be a little more explicit about the role and composition of the members to whom, presumably, the hoard is accountable? Can he say how the interests between the rail users and the operating rail companies are to he reflected in the membership? What guidelines are being given to this independent group which is to choose the members so that we can judge the extent to which normal corporate governance requirements are being satisfied'? Will it be decided that there will be independent auditing within the new company? Will there be, for example, remuneration committees which will have the job of reporting on those kinds of issues as well? It seems a somewhat circuitous process with the board nominating the members nominating the governing hoard. We need to know a good deal more about the rules which will he applied.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, to restate, I understand that there will be between 100 and 120 members. There will be a board of the company which will transfer from Network Rail as presently constituted but will in time be populated by people who are nominated by the members. The Strategic Rail Authority will be guaranteed membership on that board and may well have special powers inside the articles of association. No doubt the details of the relationship still have to be worked out.
The sale and purchase agreement has only just been signed so it is still early days. The thinking is that train operating companies, freight operating companies or contracting companies—a range of private sector interests in the railway industry—will be represented. We would also look to other outside bodies: in particular to the Scottish Parliament, to the Welsh Assembly, the regional interests in England and the passenger interests. I am not able to give the noble Lord a quick run through of what the articles of association might say, but I believe that the structure will be more accountable, more representative and more transparent.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many noble Lords strongly support this method of drawing a line under the present position for two reasons? First, the solution is robust; and, secondly, it is important that we return to a credible medium-term investment strategy for the industry.
Perhaps I may pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Does my noble friend agree that essentially the European Investment Bank is a facilitator, a financial intermediary, for private sector investment in the international bond market, and that Britain, far from receiving a subsidy, does not receive its normal proportionate share of such international money? I believe that it is right to say that we receive less as a proportion of the EIB's investments, and have done over many years, than France, Germany, Italy or
1520
even Spain. A big challenge is spelt out in paragraph 20 of the Statement on the 10-year plan: £4.6 billion a year, which is £46 billion. Does my noble friend confirm that that is a challenge that has been taken up by the Government. The Statement says:
"the Government will, through the 10 Year Plan, increase the average annual investment".
But that must be in co-operation with fund managers—in other words the City of London. Do the Government intend to avoid the position in which the City of London sits on the sidelines with power without responsibility? Do they also recognise that, if we are in this together, there must be understanding of the way in which the medium-term plan, with the £46 billion, is put forward so that it is recognised by the international and national financial community as a viable, credible, medium-term plan?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I defer to my noble friend Lord Lea in his knowledge of matters European. I have listened with great interest to the points that he makes about the European Investment Bank. On the general finances, I believe that the most encouraging aspect of this development is the positive response that we have received from the financial markets. I also believe that the 10-year plan remains a positive framework inside which investors can make their judgments. The willingness of the financial community to come forward to support Network Rail in the first tranche of money that has been raised, must give us encouragement for the future. We still have quite a way to go. We await the extraordinary general meeting at which, I trust, the shareholders will want to approve the sale and purchase agreement and the deals that have been put before them.
As the noble Viscount suggested earlier. @@there is still some way to go before we can see how to take forward the special purpose vehicle. That discussion will have to take place between the SRA and Network Rail management. When I previously had responsibility for transport, there appeared to be a great enthusiasm in the City of London to work alongside us on the large levels of investment that we have assumed under the 10-year plan. I hope that, once the markets have had an opportunity to digest what is on offer and in prospect today, they will continue to take a positive approach.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, all noble Lords wish Network Rail well in undertaking the refurbishment of the infrastructure of the 1JK's railways. A number of issues have yet to be answered. The Minister drew attention to the fact that the fragmentation of the railways would be reduced by the introduction of the Network Rail structure. How is that so? One network operator, Railtrack, is being replaced by another network operator, Network Rail. Surely, by itself that announcement will not produce any reduction in fragmentation of the railways. Network Rail may well pursue different policies in the future in conjunction with the SRA. The fact that there is a new network operator makes no difference to the number of

1521
companies. Indeed, we have heard that major projects will be undertaken by the use of special purpose vehicles, which means more corporate entities and not fewer—so more fragmentation not less.
On corporate governance, I thought that the Minister said that the board would have a role in appointing a committee that, in turn, would appoint the members who, in turn, would exercise corporate governance over the board. That appears to be a rather circular structure. At a time when corporate governance is increasingly under the spotlight, particularly in the United States, surely great emphasis should be placed on reassuring investors, or those bodies that are to provide finance to Network Rail through debt, that proper corporate governance procedures are in place.
Thirdly, on whether or not Network Rail is a public company, I did not understand the Minister's argument about BUPA. Unlike BUPA, this body is the Government's own creation. It will undertake the Government's transport policy through the SRA and indeed it is underwritten by the Government. Why does that not make it a public company? The noble Lord drew comfort from the fact that the £4 billion underwritten by the SRA is quasi equity. Equity means ownership, so that implies that the SRA owns this company or at least a proportion of it. The SRA is a vehicle of the Government, so it must be a government company.
Perhaps the Minister will say why the Government are being so coy about public ownership of this body. If it were a public company, the Government would have fully nationalised Railtrack, and I understand that that word holds some powerful connotations for the Government. Had they nationalised it, they would have been able to borrow on the gilt market, the cheapest possible form of borrowing, to refurbish our rail infrastructure. I should be grateful if the Minister could give the cost difference between the Government borrowing the money straight on the gilt market in the conventional way and the new body borrowing money commercially. If he cannot answer that now, perhaps he could provide me with that information at a later date.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, on fragmentation, the particular area of concern highlighted by Lord Cullen was that of the contractors and subcontractors. Across the industry I believe that it is now understood that there can be a degree of consolidation in the contracting regimes. Indeed, Railtrack had embarked on that course some time ago. I anticipate consolidation there. It is also possible that, following some previous declarations, the franchising process pursued by the Strategic Rail Authority would lead to a kind of consolidation and less fragmentation in train operation. I believe that the fragmentation can be reduced, but more importantly we need strong management and strong co-operation across the industry of the kind that has emerged in recent months.
1522
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked about the board committee. The company will be accountable to its members, but of course it will be accountable also to the independent regulator. It will have a network licence requiring it to be operated as though it were a stand-alone limited company. The board will eventually be elected by its members, although as I said, the Strategic Rail Authority will have membership of the board and retain special rights. The appointments committee will be independent and make its judgments independently when appointing the 100 to 120 members of the company. But it is difficult for me to describe in detail to your Lordships the articles of association of this nascent company.
The question of government borrowing is of such profound complexity that I am not sure that I can offer the noble Viscount a quick and ready answer. I shall see if I can come back with something to address his concerns.

Industrial and Provident Societies Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Employment Bill
4.22 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Employment Bill, has consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 32, line 20, at end insert—
"() Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision authorising an employment tribunal to have regard to a person's ability to pay when considering the making of an award against him under such regulations."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn tabled an amendment on Report restoring tribunals' discretion to consider a party's ability to pay when making a costs award, which had, in effect, been removed by the decision in the Kovacs case. We agreed in principle with my noble friend and gave an undertaking to table a government amendment to enable the regulations to provide that a tribunal has the discretion to take into account a party's ability to pay.
The amendments we have tabled provide that tribunal regulations may include provision authorising a tribunal to take into account ability to pay when considering making a costs award in the employment tribunal or the Employment Appeal Tribunal, or an award in respect of preparation time. The detail will of course be set out in the regulations,

1523
on which there will be full consultation. We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn for drawing the matter to our attention. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, who unfortunately cannot be here today—he has a hospital appointment—I thank the Minister for introducing the amendment. As he rightly said, the issue was originally raised by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn and we were given an assurance that the Government would table amendments to meet the points we made. It is deeply gratifying that that has been done, and I would like to place on the record my thanks to the Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 33, line 2, at end insert—
"() Regulations under subsection ( I ) may include provision authorising an employment tribunal to have regard to a person's ability to pay when considering the making of an order against him under such regulations."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 33, line 8, at end insert—
"()Payments of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) do not include any sums in respect of—
() time spent in the normal course of the execution of their duties by a party's directors, executives, managers or employees or by a person under a contract for services with a party, or
() advice given to, or work done for, a party by a legal adviser, whether employed by him or not."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is tabled in the names of my noble friends Lord Wedderburn of Charlton and Lord McCarthy. I have already explained that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has a hospital appointment. My noble friend Lord McCarthy regrets that he is unable to be present as he is presiding at an arbitration case.
I return to the matter of preparation payments as provided for in Clause 22(2). The Minister may say that it has been thoroughly debated in previous stages, and I agree, but I remain disappointed that the Government have not addressed the main concerns of myself and my noble friends.
The amendment was drafted by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. To put it simply, we believe that the possibility of facing heavy expenses if the case is lost intimidates a number of would-be employment tribunal claimants, including those who may have a well-founded case. Evidence exists—to which we referred earlier—provided by NACAB, among others, that solicitors acting for employers already attempt to intimidate claimants by threatening that there will be large, probably unaffordable costs, should the claim fail.
1524
If an employer is able to claim preparation expenses, which could be high, that could act as another obstacle to a would-be claimant. The Law Society has pointed out that the position of the parties is hardly equal. The claimant may prepare his case in the evenings on his kitchen table. It may be an onerous task, as the Minister has said, but not one likely to involve the kind of expenses an employer could claim. He could claim for the time of his senior directors, the members of his personnel department, administrative and specialist staff, and overtime pay.
It is to be noted that Judge John Prophet, president of the employment tribunals, has on a number of occasions voiced concern about this provision in the Bill. It will be recalled that on Report I followed his recommendation and tabled an amendment based on applying the Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975. The Government did not find that acceptable. Indeed, when the Minister was asked if the Government intended Clause 22(2) to apply to directors, managers and employees dealing with the matter in the normal course of their duties, his response was that where companies are represented and incur costs, they can claim such expenses under costs.
Judge Prophet has pointed out in correspondence I have recently seen that that is misleading since costs can be awarded only where there is legal representation. The question remains as to whether companies will be able to claim preparation time for directors, managers and employees who are attending to cases as part of their normal paid duties or who are provided with paid advice by outside advisers or consultants.
The amendment strives for some equality between the parties. Obviously, the employer could make a much greater claim than the claimant for preparation time and expenses if the Bill remains unamended. My noble friends and I have been concerned about the issue, which is why we are raising it this final time at Third Reading, particularly as the president of the employment tribunals still shares our view. I hope for a favourable response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to points made by noble friend Lady Turner and other noble Lords in Grand Committee, we tabled on Report an amendment to provide that a tribunal may not make an award for both costs and preparation time. That is a significant amendment that meets the key concern about the effects of the new provision for preparation time.
This amendment seeks to go yet further. Its first part seeks to exclude an award of preparation time in respect of work on the tribunal case which is within the normal duties of an employer or its employees and contractors. The amendment's effect would be to exclude employers almost entirely from preparation time awards. I understand that it is aimed at companies that employ staff to deal with personnel matters, but it could be argued that it would be within the normal duties of the manager of a small newsagent, for example, who pays the wages and hires and fires

1525
staff to deal with tribunal applications. However, our disagreement with the amendment is more fundamental than the way it is worded.
Employers have to accept that in running a business they may at some point become involved in a tribunal complaint, and even if that complaint is not upheld by the tribunal they must bear the costs of defending the case, because to have a system of loser pays the winner's costs could have a serious detrimental effect on applicants in particular. That is part and parcel of running a business or company. But why should employers be expected, as a matter of course, to bear the costs and disruption of defending complaints which have been brought or conducted vexatiously or which had no reasonable hope of ever succeeding?
Preparation time awards will be awarded only in very limited circumstances—hopeless, vexatious, unreasonable cases. Those cases are exceptional and we do not accept that defending them should be considered part of the normal execution of duties.
The second part of the amendment proposes that preparation time payments should not include work done by legal advisers, including in-house legal advisers. Although we are aware that the power in new Section 13A(1) could conceivably cover time spent on a case by anyone, including outside lawyers, Sections 13 and 13A are clearly drafted on the basis that preparation time awards and costs awards will cover different matters; in particular, there is a prohibition on a tribunal making both kinds of awards to a party, as I have already pointed out.
We consider that the appropriate place for the detail on how preparation time awards are to be assessed is in the regulations. When we draw up and consult on the regulations, we will consider how best to give full effect to the prohibition on receiving both a costs award and a preparation time award. We intend that assessment of preparation time awards will be by reference to matters which are not recoverable in costs awards.
I understand that these amendments are motivated by concern that applicants may be deterred from bringing cases or may suffer disproportionately as a result of preparation time. Given what I have said about the exceptional nature of preparation time awards, I do not believe that they will. We know that tribunals use their costs powers with great care, but my noble friend Lady Turner and other noble Lords have raised concerns about the impact of Clause 22 and we have acted on them.
We brought forward on Report an amendment to provide that a party may claim costs or preparation time, but not both. We have just restored in Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 the tribunal's discretion to take into account a party's ability to pay when determining whether to award costs or to set the level of costs, and we have included preparation time.
We have said that we will set out in regulations guidelines on how preparation time should be calculated to ensure that awards are reasonable and proportionate to the case. We shall consult very carefully with the tribunal judiciary to establish what
1526
guidelines they will find helpful and not over-prescriptive. In addition, tribunals will have the discretion to determine what is reasonable in each case. We have said that we will include consideration of a cap on preparation time or fixed amounts for elements of the award.
In addition, we have given an undertaking to address intimidation by representatives through better guidance on how the costs regime operates, to make it clear that the circumstances under which costs can be awarded are very limited.
I think that we have demonstrated our willingness to address the points of concern raised my noble friends Lady Turner, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy about the impact of costs and preparation time on applicants. The integrity and efficiency of the tribunal system relies upon a costs regime which is both fair and effective. I believe that that will be achieved through the Bill and the supporting regulations. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for that response. It is quite true that the Government have moved on the whole issue of preparation time since we first raised it. The reason why we have been so keen to advance the case for it once again at Third Reading is that we have striven to achieve what we perceive as a measure of equality between the parties. We felt that preparation time would be more likely to involve the employer in being able to claim a large payment rather than the employee.
However, I am gratified to learn that regulations are to be drafted which seem to take on board many of the points that have been made in the course of our debates. Furthermore, the employment tribunals will then have that guidance on which to base their decisions. In the circumstances, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Employment Appeal Tribunal]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 33, line 14, at end insert—
"() Rules under subsection (1) may include provision authorising the Appeal Tribunal to have regard to a person's ability to pay when considering the making of an award against him under such rules."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I discussed Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Pre-hearing reviews]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 35, line 10, at end insert—
"(1) Section 9 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (c. 17) (pre-hearing reviews) is amended as follows."

1527
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
On Report, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn proposed an amendment which would have had the effect of restricting striking out at a pre-hearing review to the circumstances set out in rules 4, 7 and 15 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001. I undertook to see whether we could table an amendment to Clause 28 at Third Reading which would encapsulate the spirit of my noble friend's amendment.
I believe that the amendment will do so by providing that a tribunal may not strike out at a pre-hearing review on a ground which does not apply outside such a review. The grounds for striking out proceedings under the 2001 regulations are contained in rules 4,7 and 15, and include failure to comply with an order or direction imposed by the tribunal or when the originating application or notice of appearance—or anything in it—is scandalous, misconceived or vexatious. The amendment does not specifically mention the rules, not least because future revisions may lead to renumbering.
As I said on Report, we have no intention of widening the grounds in the regulations on which tribunals may currently strike claims out, although we may consult on whether to amend rule 4 of the procedure rules to take into account the new powers that the presidents will have to issue practice directions, so that tribunals could strike out cases for serious failure to comply with them. The only change resulting from this clause will be that it may be possible to strike out at the pre-hearing review stage. This amendment will ensure that the grounds for striking out may not be wider than those applicable at other stages. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for moving the amendment. As he has rightly pointed out, this issue was raised sharply by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn during previous stages of the Bill. We were concerned about the provisions in the Bill, which seemed to confer wide powers to strike out. This has now been dealt with by the amendment before the House. The Government are to be applauded for taking note of what has been said previously on this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 35, line 11, leave out "section 9(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (c.17)" and insert "subsection (1)"
Page 35, line 15, at end insert—
"() Alter subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(2A) Regulations under subsection (1)(b), so far as relating to striking out, may not provide for striking out on a ground which does not apply outside a pre-hearing review."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 37 [Use of alternative documents to give particulars]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 41, line 32, leave out "of" and insert "on which"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 to 14. These are minor but necessary technical amendments to Clause 37 which will allow employers to use a letter of engagement or a contract of employment to satisfy the requirement to provide employees with a written statement of employment particulars.
A written statement must give a dale by reference to which it operates. Logically, any alternative document fulfilling the function of a written statement must also give such a date. The current text of Clause 37 refers to,
"the date of the document".
However, there may be uncertainty about the date of any particular contract of employment. Taken together, Amendments Nos. 8 to 13 therefore clarify the position by making the relevant date the one on which the document was given to the employee. With that made clear, new Section 7B(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 performs no useful function. Amendment No. 14 therefore removes it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 9 to 14:
Page 41, line 33, after "document" insert "is given to the employee"
Page 41, line 34, leave out "of" and insert "on which"
Page 41, line 35, after "applies" insert "is given to the employee"
Page 41, line 37, leave out first "of" and insert "on which"
Page 41, line 38, after "applies" insert "is given to the employee"
Page 42, leave out lines 7 and 8.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 15:
Before Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
"POWER TO CONFER RIGHTS ON INDIVIDUALS: AMENDMENT
In section 23(5) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (c. 26) (power to confer rights on individuals), the words "or otherwise" are omitted."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I regret having to table this amendment a third time. I say that not by way of an apology but to explain that I was compelled to do so by the Government's obdurate refusal to accept the deletion of two words from the Employment Relations Act 1999.
The amendment's positioning has changed. Originally it related to Schedule 7, which deals with minor and consequential amendments. The Minister is always polite across the Dispatch Box but when dealing with this amendment the noble Lord was patronising towards me. He said once that the amendment started with a bang and ended with a

1529
whimper. On another occasion, he gave numerous examples involving someone named Doreen. I would not mind except that, unusually for me, I doubted myself and wondered whether I had got it wrong. I sought the opinion of the eminent and learned noble Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Brightman. They told me that this was not a minor matter and that the amendment was important but needed to be somewhere else—so I changed its position.
This wholly harmless amendment would delete what I originally believed to be tautology but the Government's obstinacy, coupled with the Minister's specious and meaningless arguments, convinces me that there is something more to it and that we must get rid of those unnecessary words.
Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 gives the Secretary of State the power to confer certain rights on individuals. Subsection (5) states:
"An order under this section may make provision in such way as the Secretary of State thinks lit, whether by amending Acts or instruments or otherwise".
I will return to the words
"in such way as the Secretary of State thinks fit"
but "or otherwise" must be removed.
On 4th December 2001, I asked the Minister what those words meant. He frankly admitted that he did not know. He subsequently wrote to me:
"The use of 'or otherwise' was intended to ensure that an order under section 23 could also apply to rights to individuals by means of a free-standing provision rather than by an amendment".
The words
"rather than by an amendment"
mean that the Government admit that "or otherwise" is in addition to an Act or a statutory instrument. What is a "free-standing provision"? My advisers and I scoured the text books but were unable to find any reference to a constitutional device named a freestanding provision. It is abundantly clear that the Government are trying to introduce a new device that will enable them to circumvent Parliament by use of a Ministerial decree.
My advisers and I looked for a similar provision elsewhere but could find none. Some time ago, I asked the Library: it was unable to find anything similar. Only today I received a letter from the senior Library clerk:
"We have searched the Lexis database of the statutes but have not found any further examples of the phraseology used in section 23(5) of the Employment Relations Act 1999".
In previous debates, I have repeatedly asked the Minister to explain "a free-standing provision" but all he wrote was that,
"this was simply a way to give the Secretary of State the flexibility to extend rights … in a way that seemed best from a drafting point of view".
He repeated the flexibility argument in all the debates but did not explain how the "or otherwise" powers would be exercised—despite my suggesting fanciful ways, such as press advertisements or handing out leaflets in Whitehall.
1530
On Report, the Minister admitted that the wording
"enables an order made under Section 23 to extend rights to individuals by means of a free-standing provision"—
again that meaningless phrase—
"in an instrument … rather than by an amendment to existing primary or secondary legislation".
What kind of instrument? I know only of statutory instruments. That comment confirms my suspicions about a ministerial decree. Fortunately, we have not yet reached the stage of allowing ourselves to be governed that way. The Minister also said on Report:
"It is merely a question of how an order under Section 23 is drafted".
Not so. The Minister admitted that "or otherwise" is an addition to the power to make a statutory instrument. The plain meaning of the words also make that absolutely clear. The Minister said that the words,
"do not mean that the Secretary of State can … extend rights without making an order".
If that is so, what is the "or otherwise" process? The Minister claimed also that,
"an affirmative order is required, as is stated in the legislation".".—[Official Report, 18/6/2002; cols. 702–703.]
On the contrary. Section 23(5) provides for rights to be altered in three ways—a new Act of Parliament; an instrument, which I readily agree requires parliamentary sanction; "or otherwise", for which there is no qualification or precedent.
As to the Minister's claim that the Secretary of State cannot extend rights without making an order, I remind your Lordships that Section 23(5) of the 1999 Act commences:
"An order under this section may make provision in such a way as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
I ask the Minister to convince me and your Lordships—so far, he has dismally failed—by explaining how that power would be exercised, if not by a new Act or instrument.
The Minister insists on treating the issue as trivial. In Committee he called it a "whimper." On Report, he condescendingly said that he would make a final attempt to explain the point to me. The Minister has totally missed the point. At the risk of continuing to bore the noble Lord, I tell him that the power to alter people's rights is not in issue but how those alterations should be made.
An Act of Parliament would be unobjectionable, as would a statutory instrument but "or otherwise"—importing as it does anything that the Secretary of State thinks fit—is not acceptable. It is a dangerous precedent that, despite the Minister's protestations, introduces the possibility of the Government bypassing Parliament. That provision should be removed. To quote the Minister, it is really quite simple. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on rigidly adhering to the principle that she enunciated. This is not a small and technical matter, as

1531
the Minister said; it is an important issue that gives rise to the question why on earth the words "or otherwise" were used. They must serve some purpose.
What does the phrase "free-standing" mean? I have heard of free range and of free-standing in relation to the law on fixtures and fittings but what does it mean here? The Minister has never indicated. Perhaps it means free-standing in the sense that the Minister or Government can operate by decree—for example, by placing a notice in The Times saying that as from the first of the month the following will be affected by the Act. There is nothing to stop that being done.
The Minister said that the affirmative resolution procedure would apply to anything done under "or otherwise". But, if one looks at the Act, that opinion is very difficult to sustain because Clause 50 on page 58 deals solely with orders and regulations.
Clause 50(2) provides that,
"Any power of the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument",
and it goes on to state that the affirmative procedure must be adhered to. But that is in regard to orders or regulations. We are not concerned with that, otherwise there would be no need to put the offending words in.
There is a very heavy onus on a government that have expressly taken power to make alterations in the only ways provided for—that is, by amending an Act of Parliament or by secondary legislation—to justify the addition of "or otherwise". I suggest that this is either a draftsman's aberration or, alternatively, that the Government want to ensure that they have every conceivable power to do what they wish. In the debate on Report, the Minister said in terms, "This does not give us any greater power". One then asks "Well, why have it? What are the words designed to do? To what are they directed?".
This raises an important matter. I rely on the views of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, whose wisdom on drafting knows no equal in this House or perhaps anywhere else. He said that this amendment is important and should be put appropriately in the Bill and not in Schedule 7. I hope that the Minister understands that this is not a small technical matter on which to patronise the noble Baroness. It raises an important, fundamental matter. It is for the Minister to justify what, on the face of it, looks like unlimited power.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, in supporting the amendment I intend to take a practical approach to the problem. I imagine myself as a judge faced with a case involving Section 23(5) of the 1999 Act. I read Section 25 and I learn that the Secretary of State has power to make an order granting specified rights to specified individuals in certain circumstances. I am told by the Section that the order may be made,
"in such a way as the Secretary of State thinks fit, whether by amending Acts or instruments or otherwise".
1532
So the Secretary of State has three options: he may use an amending Act; he may use a statutory instrument; or he may make the order "otherwise"—that is, in some other unspecified way. I shall assume in my imaginary case that the Secretary of State decides not to make the order by primary or secondary legislation but by an advertisement in The Times. My job as the judge in the imaginary case before me will he to decide whether an advertisement in The Times is enough.
A decision on that point will immediately confront me with the task of deciding what "or otherwise" means. I cannot avoid that responsibility. I must decide what "or otherwise" means. As a judge, I must try to reach a sensible decision, a sensible conclusion. The only sensible conclusion that I can think of is that "or otherwise" means "or some other reasonable means". I decide the case before me on that basis, hoping that I shall not be rapped over the knuckles by an appellate court.
The question now arises whether your Lordships are satisfied with an enactment which is so drafted that it is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide what is a reasonable vehicle to use in order to change the law. In my view, such an enactment imposes a quite unacceptable burden on the judiciary and a quite unacceptable inroad into the democratic procedures of this country and should be rejected by your Lordships.
How is the judiciary to decide what are reasonable methods of changing the law other than the standard methods which are known to all of us? Flow is an employer to know whether the Secretary of State has made a valid order under the words "or otherwise"? How is the individual, who has purportedly had rights conferred on him by the Secretary of State, to know whether it is, after all, just an illusion because the Secretary of State has decided to use a device under Section 23 which some court decides is unreasonable?
Is this a precedent which those of your Lordships who today sit on the Government Benches would like to see in the hands of the Opposition if they one day sit on those Benches and form another government? To put the matter shortly, the words "or otherwise" are two words too far.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the noble Baroness indicated, we have debated this amendment on earlier occasions. I plead guilty to the fact that I did not think that this was a major issue. I apologise if I took it in a frivolous way. I have now looked at the matter in depth because clearly it is a matter of great concern to the noble Baroness.
Let me try to explain the nature of the situation. Looking again at the points she has made, I hope that I have identified the reasons for her belief that the term gives new and objectionable powers to the Secretary of State to by-pass Parliament. I can see how subsection (5) of Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act could be read in a way to suggest that it confers novel powers.
However, it is still my view that it does no such thing. Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 empowers the Secretary of State to extend the

1533
coverage of statutory employment protection rights by order, and not by any other means, to individuals not currently covered by them. Subsection (1) lists the legislation containing the rights in relation to which the power can be exercised. Subsection (5) permits the Secretary of State to make an affirmative order that extends any of the rights conferred by this legislation either by amending Acts and/or instruments or otherwise.
It is stated in Section 23(2) and again at the beginning of subsection (5) itself, that if the Secretary of State wishes to exercise the powers in this section to extend employment rights she can only do so by making an order. Section 23(2) states that,
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision which has the effect of conferring any such right on individuals who are of a specified description".
I believe that the noble Baroness must be reading "or otherwise" as if those words overrode this requirement, so enabling the powers in the section to be used without parliamentary scrutiny. If that were the position, it would clearly be objectionable in the way the noble Baroness has indicated, but I hope that she will see that that is not the case. The phrase,
"whether by amending Acts or instruments or otherwise"
in Section 23 sets out how the Secretary of State may make an order. It is not a list of the types of legislation she may use. It means in layman's terms, and terms which I can understand, whether by amending Acts or amending instruments, or by a new order that does neither of these things. It does not mean whether by amending Acts or by making instruments or by some other means.
The noble Baroness may say that it is ambiguous but, taken with the rest of Section 23, it clearly has the meaning which I have given it. Furthermore, any order under Section 23 must be affirmative. Section 42 of the 1999 Act states that,
"no order or regulations shall be made under sections 3,17,19 or 23 unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament".
As I sought to explain in our earlier debates on this amendment, its meaning is simply that, when making an order under the section, the Secretary of State can include provisions in it that extend employment rights, but do not amend any Act or instrument in order to do so. That is all that is meant by using the words "freestanding" although I accept that my use of that expression seems to have been confusing rather than enlightening.
Perhaps I may also explain that this is not the only use of the words "or otherwise" in legislation. I give two other uses of those words in other legislation. The first is Section 116 of the Finance Act 1991. That relates to regulations which provide that a charge to stamp duty does not arise or is reduced in certain circumstances. Section 116 provides that,
"regulations may make any provision in such way as the Treasury thinks fit (whether by amending enactments or otherwise)".
1534
Section 111 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 relates to changing the reference in legislation to rates or rateable value of property. Section 111 states that where there is a reference to rates or rateable value, regulations may provide that that reference shall instead by such as is prescribed
"in such a way as the Secretary of State thinks fit, whether by amending enactments or otherwise".
So this is not a unique use of the phrase "or otherwise".
Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Brightman, have made very strong statements that they believe that this is not appropriate. Therefore, we have to take account of that very strong advice. We have to decide whether to do something which the noble and learned Lords, with all their experience, believe to be wrong in the circumstances and to balance that against the ability to have an instrument which stands on its own and, in those circumstances, gives slightly greater freedom to the Secretary of State.
In view of the very strong pleas by both noble and learned Lords that they do not believe the Government's measure is appropriate, on balance we are prepared to accept the amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that the Minister has been extremely ungracious. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Brightman, are highly respected Members of this House. But it is my noble friend Lady Miller who brought this matter before the House and the two noble and learned Lords. It is highly and extremely ungracious of the Minister not to accept the work of my noble friend, which deserves some credit at this stage of Bill.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the House will know, I have the very greatest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. She brought this point to the House and that was a very important thing. However, the point I was seeking to make, and which I stand by very clearly, is that we still believe that this is a perfectly proper situation, but given the very great experience of the two noble and learned Lords, we are prepared to accept the amendment. That is an appropriate way to make our decision although of course I accept that it was the noble Baroness who brought this matter to the House.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the gracious way in which he accepted my amendment. I also thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Brightman, both of whom played such a large part in persuading the Minister to accept my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Work-focused interviews fir partners]:
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 56, line 19, at end insert—
"() The purpose of the interview shall be to advise the partner of available opportunities for employment or training (or both).
() Reduction of benefit under this section shall not be applied should the partner deem the employment or training on offer to be unsuitable in the light of his training, background and general circumstances."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the issue of work-focused interviews for the partners of claimants has been discussed both in Committee and at Report. I was not convinced by the arguments of the Front Bench on both occasions against the amendments that we put forward. We were advised by my noble friend Lady Hollis of' Heigham, the Minister for Work and Pensions, who dealt with this issue for the Government at Report stage—I am glad to welcome her to the Front Bench again today—that the purpose of the provision in the Bill is entirely benign. The intention is to ensure that the partners of claimants are fully advised as to employment and training opportunities available. There will be no compulsion on them to accept the opportunities held out to them. The sanction of loss of benefit only applies to their failure to attend for interviews. She asked herself whether such interviews should he made compulsory. She answered that herself by saying that if they were voluntary people do not turn up. When people thought that interviews were compulsory and a condition of benefit, they then turned up.
I believe that there may be another reason why people do not turn up. They believe that going down "the Social", which is how some of them describe it, may involve them in accepting jobs that they do not want or feel are unsuitable for them. I made it clear on both occasions when I spoke on this clause that I do not like it at all. The noble Baroness did not persuade me that it was a good provision to appear in an Employment Bill. I share the view of the noble Lords who spoke and said that the clause is really more appropriate for a social security Bill because it is a social security matter rather than an employment one.
In response to my query as to why a claimant should lose benefit because her partner—the claimant is often likely to be a woman—will not go down to the office for interview, my noble friend said that the benefit being paid was a family benefit although the Bill does make specific reference to the benefit continuing to be payable to the claimant. But if it is a family benefit I do not believe that it makes much difference to my case. A family benefit, and a reduction to it, is normally likely to impact more on the woman in a couple than on the man. Why should she suffer simply because he will not attend for interview?
Not all couples live in harmony. Many women stay with unsatisfactory partners for numerous reasons, as we all know. Out of sheer wilfulness, he may refuse to go for an interview. My amendment seeks to deal with one of the reasons why a partner may not be willing to go for interview. In her response at Report stage, the noble Baroness said that the sanction of benefit
1536
reduction only applies if partners do not respond to the requirement to go for interview. In other words, if employment is offered and refused, there will he no sanction. The sanction is lifted the moment the partner enters the office.
My noble friend says that the intention is entirely benign. I am sure that, so far as she is concerned, that is absolutely right, and certainly while she and her colleagues are in office I am sure that we can expect the legislation to be applied in a compassionate and benign way. But there is nothing on the face of the Bill to say so, and future governments may interpret legislation entirely differently. There is a case therefore for writing this important provision on to the face of the Bill. I hope that the Government will be prepared to look with more favour on the proposed wording. I beg to move.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, this clause—originally Clause 49, now Clause 48—caused considerable aggravation and concern to Members on all sides of the House. I do not think that we ought to let pass the concerns expressed both on the Minister's side and from these Benches as to the effect of the provision.
I strongly support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. If the Government are prepared to say that the question of sanction is removed as soon the individual to whom the provision applies has actually turned up for an interview, then a large number of the concerns expressed on all sides will be removed.
We all accept, as the Minister says, that such interviews are often very beneficial for those who take part in them. All the evidence produced by the Minister in Committee and on Report demonstrates that they are beneficial in getting back into the workplace people who might not otherwise find that possible. However, the concern on all sides relates to the next stage; namely, that if it turns out that the job is not appropriate and is not wanted by the individual, that person then loses benefit.
If the Minister indicates that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is right when she says that the potential loss of benefit should stop at the moment when the individual turns up for the work-related interview, many of our concerns will be removed. I should be grateful for that undertaking.
5.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, on reading the amendment I was genuinely baffled. My noble friend has long-standing experience in social security. When I joined the House and we were in opposition, she guided me through many of the traps of social security legislation. Indeed, we were busy setting traps for the then government to fall into—and occasionally we succeeded.
I am baffled because the amendment is narrower and less generous than what the Government intend and the second part of it seeks to avert that which cannot happen and is therefore redundant. I take it

1537
that my noble friend seeks assurances from me rather than a full slogging-out of the issues behind work-focused interviews.
The amendment seeks, first, to narrow the scope of the interview to a meeting about available employment and training opportunities; secondly, it seeks to avert a reduction in benefit where the partner deems the employment or training on offer to be unsuitable in the light of his or her training, background and general circumstances.
To take the first part of the amendment, the work-focused interview is designed to find out about the individual—his or her level of skills and experience—and to explore the broad range of information and support available to help them look for work should they wish to do so. The interview will also include advice about possible benefits, about best-buy packages, which our research shows are very important to lone parents trying to calculate whether they should or should not go into work. It possibly covers childcare issues and support services for a carer who would like to go into work for a short period but does not know what the resources are, and that applies to their partners as well. That is what the interview is for. It is not simply to discuss suitable jobs or training opportunities.
My noble friend's amendment would turn the interview into something much narrower and much more akin to the fortnightly intervention meeting—the sign-on interview— attended by those claiming JSA. My reading of the interview is more generous and more comprehensive than that. My noble friend is turning the interview into the very thing that she has criticised on previous occasions.
The second part of the amendment seeks to protect the benefit of the claimant and his or her partner from a reduction should the partner deem the available employment or the training on offer to be unsuitable. But as my noble friend recognises, no one will be required to accept available employment or training as a result of the interview. Regardless of whether or not it is available, all the partner has to do is to take part in the interview. If he or she does this, no question of a reduction in benefit arises. I am happy to give the assurances sought by the Liberal Democrat Benches that at the point someone comes in to be interviewed any question of sanction is then dropped. That will follow three efforts, including, if necessary, a home visit, but certainly personal contact to make sure that people understand the situation.
The push of my noble friend's amendment seems to be that a partner should be required to look for and consider suitable work or training and that, if it is available, it should be taken up; and that the only grounds on which the sanction should not apply is if the work or training is unsuitable. In that sense, the amendment goes far further that the Government think appropriate or sensible and is well beyond the scope of this provision. My noble friend seeks in the second part of the amendment to avert that which cannot happen.
1538
I am profoundly surprised by my noble friend's amendment. If I were seeking to do what she seeks, she would surely deplore it. In the first part of the amendment, she is narrowing the supportive, wide-ranging interview effectively into a JSA sign-on, and in the second part she is assuming that people will be required to work when they will not. The first part is less generous; the second part is simply not relevant. I hope that with that response again on the record in Hansard my noble friend feels that she has the commitment that she was seeking and will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. In view of what she said, my hope is that when regulations are written in respect of the Bill, as I am sure they will be, or guidance is given, this will be made absolutely clear to the officials who are charged with responsibility for applying the Bill's provisions.
My noble friend is right. I was seeking confirmation of what she has just said; namely, that there will not be pressure on people to accept work or training, or indeed any other recommendations, and that the sanction will be applied only if they fail to show up for interview; and that the possibility of a sanction will disappear as soon as the partner goes through the door of the benefit office. In the light of that, I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend uses the phrase, "goes through the door of the benefit office". It is clear that we expect the person to engage in the interview in a sensible way, not just go through the door, come out again and say, "I've signed in". But with that qualification, so that there is no misunderstanding, my noble friend is right.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in view of that response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Statutory dispute resolution procedures]:
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasenmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 64, line 29, at end insert—
"() In the case of bullying, the appeal may be instituted by either the employee, the manager or the employer."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. I have re-submitted these amendments because of the helpful way in which my noble friend the Minister responded to them on Report. He recognised the importance of the issue of bullying at work, about which many people are worried. As I said on Report, that was evident in the large number of people—more than 90—who attended a meeting in June at the House.
I know that the Government believe that there are problems with the definition of bullying at work but I recall that many years ago, when we first discussed racial and sexual issues involving harassment and

1539
discrimination, it was said then that the definition of those phrases would be the difficulty. I believe that the difficulty could be overcome.
I do not wish to go into the arguments that I put forward at previous stages of the Bill. I do not see the point of reiterating the remarks that I made on Report and at Second Reading, when I detailed what happened to those who are bullied. I pointed out the detrimental effect it has on them and often on their families and friends. That has been well documented, as have the effects of a culture and ethos of bullying at a workplace.
On Report, the Minister signalled that between Report and today more thought would be given to the issue of bullying. I look forward to hearing any new thinking on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I support my noble friend, who spoke to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. We tabled the amendments to follow up the debate on Report on llth June at cols. 173 to 178. The position was clarified when the Minister stated that:
"Employees can raise allegations of bullying under grievance procedures",
and that,
"employers can use their disciplinary procedures against employees who are accused of bullying".—[Official Report, 11/6/ 02; col. 176.]
For many of us, that clarification was a step forward. The question that now arises and which it would be very timely for the Minister to shed further light on, is how the matter will be made clear when the regulations are enacted. We are now at the stage of the Bill when our minds turn to the small print.
How the House will be kept up to date on the enactment of the regulations is one thing but there is a wider audience on this issue. Everyone in the employment relationship will have a wider interest, including employers and trade unions, in how they will be familiarised with the implications of this Bill. The relationship between this legislation, these codes and other procedures is a good illustration of it and one which the Minister may wish to comment on. We have made quite a step forward if the Minister confirms that our understanding of this is correct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these are the same amendments that we saw on Report on the treatment of cases which involve bullying. They seek to allow the employer or manager to initiate an appeal against a step two decision under the standard statutory procedures for both dismissal and discipline and grievances in cases involving bullying. The current procedures only permit an employee to request an appeal.
I said on Report that I would meet my noble friends Lady Gibson and Lord Lea to discuss those concerns. We had that meeting this morning which I thought was very helpful and productive. We all agreed that bullying represents a major source of workplace stress and, in its extreme forms, can threaten the health of individuals. The solution I propose involves that point.
1540
Most organisations are aware of this issue to some degree but a significant number have no policies to deal with it. These organisations need greater help and support. I am pleased to announce that as part of the Government's ongoing strategy to address workplace bullying, we intend to set up an advisory group to the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Trade and Industry to advise on the establishment of a new management standard for anti-bullying policies in the workplace. It will be one of a range of management standards which the Health and Safety Executive will draw up.
We plan to invite well-known experts in the field to act as members of the advisory group. Once the management standard is set and adopted, it will be applied by the HSE when advising organisations about good practice in dealing with bullying. They have a highly respected team of officers in the field who are well placed to deal with this issue.
We believe that this is a sounder basis for progress than invoking statutory procedures for bullying. We see real difficulties in that approach. There is the problem of assigning a precise definition to bullying, which my noble friend Lady Gibson acknowledged. It is unclear what the term "manager" might mean. That term is not used anywhere else in the statutory procedures. It is intrinsically difficult to assign a right to appeal to third parties; voluntary procedures do not provide for this in general and we have based the statutory procedures on existing practices.
We recognise that managers or others accused of bullying might want to have their voice heard. I believe that the statutory procedures allow for this. Managers are also employees. They would be entitled to use the statutory procedures in exactly the same way as their junior colleagues. Aggrieved managers could raise a separate grievance with their employee about the way they have been treated by their employer's consideration of another employee's complaint about bullying.
That approach makes more sense and avoids introducing unusual steps into the procedures. I make it clear that the Government understand the point which my noble friend Lady Gibson made very effectively on Report. There is a growing awareness of bullying as a workplace issue. There is already excellent guidance and information on bullying, which is published by the HSE and ACAS. The existing ACAS code on disciplinary and grievance procedures discusses the special circumstances which may apply in cases of bullying.
My noble friends Lady Gibson and Lord Lea asked how we can increase awareness of these codes and potential remedies. They put forward a valid analogy going back to when the issues of racial and sexual harassment were first raised around 20 years ago. We shall be doing more to raise awareness of good practice and entitlements.
The DTI in close collaboration with ACAS, the Small Business Service and others, intends to launch a major initiative to publicise the Bill, giving full

1541
advance notice and guidance to interested parties before the various provisions, especially the statutory procedures, come into effect.
ACAS will need to revise its code and guidance to reflect changes brought about in the Bill with the introduction of statutory minimum procedures. The HSE would need to publicise the existence of the proposed management standard when adopted.
I hope I have assured my noble friends that awareness of the Bill and its implications for bullying will be effectively made public and advertised. I hope that on the basis of what I have said, the amendment will be withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that answer, which I am pleased with. Although I would have liked the word "bullying" in the Bill or the regulations, I am happy to know about the future work of the Health and Safety Commission and I look forward to it. I am aware of the good practice and the work of the officers in the field from my former time as a commissioner in the Health and Safety Commission. They are experts in that area. I am happy that they are to be involved.
I place on record my sincere thanks to my noble friend the Minister for his understanding approach to the amendments. It is good to debate when an employer and I mostly agree. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Tribunal jurisdictions to which section 32 applies]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 68, leave out lines 31 to 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment tidies up the wording in Schedule 4, which lists the jurisdictions to which the admissibility regime will apply. It removes two jurisdictions from the list—the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order and the corresponding order for Scotland. These two orders ensure that tribunals can consider certain breach of contract cases in which the employment relationship has already ended. In other words, former employees can bring claims of breach of contract to tribunals. Current employees must use the courts to resolve contractual disputes with their employer.
Our stated policy is that the admissibility regime will not apply to former employees except when constructive dismissal is claimed, so there is no need to include these jurisdictions in Schedule 4 because they apply to ex-employees only. The amendment therefore removes unnecessary wording from the schedule.
I am about to commend the amendment to the House, but as it is the last amendment on Third Reading and we have applied the excellent tradition of not making speeches on the Motion that the Bill do
1542
now pass, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and myself I express my appreciation to all Members of the House who have taken part in proceedings on the Bill. I thank the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches, but also those on the Government Back Benches who subjected us to intensive interrogation. We had 10 very difficult sessions in Grand Committee. I shall not conceal from my noble friend Lady Turner that she and her friends caused us a great deal of grief.
Changes have been made to the Bill. My noble friends clearly felt passionately about the issues that they were raising. I hope that my noble friend Lady Turner agrees that the Government's attitude has not been set in stone, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, described it at the outset. We have made changes that my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Lea and other friends with trade union experience have welcomed. We even made a recent change that was inspired by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. All of that has meant that the consideration of the Bill has been proper, in parliamentary terms.
I also pay tribute to the Bill team from the employment relations division of the Department of Trade and Industry. They have worked long and hard to great effect to ensure that the arguments for the Bill were put as well as feeble Ministers could put them and that the importance of debate in your Lordships' House was recognised. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Interception of Communications: Code of Practice) Order 2002
5.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order has been made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which I shall refer to from now on as RIPA. Section 71(1) of RIPA requires the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice relating to the exercise and performance of powers and duties under RIPA. This code of practice relates particularly to the interception of communications, as set out in Part I, Chapter I of the Act, and not to access to communications data, which is covered separately in Part I, Chapter II of RIPA.

1543
The interception of communications code of practice relates to the exercise and performance of the powers and duties set out in Chapter I of Part I of RIPA in respect of the interception of communications. The code supports the Act by providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the lawful interception of communications in the United Kingdom. The code was welcomed in another place as providing helpful guidelines and more clarity about the interception provisions in the Act. I hope that it will receive similar support in your Lordships' House.
Section 72 of RIPA provides that any person exercising such powers or duties shall have regard to the provisions in such codes of practice. Section 71(3) requires all draft codes of practice issued under RIPA to be published and requires the Secretary of State to consider any representations made to him about the draft. Public consultation on the interception of communications code of practice lasted from 25th September 2000 to 17th November 2000. The results of the consultation have been made available on the Home Office website.
I shall say a few words about the policy background. The provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 relating to the interception of communications replace those in the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to take account of two issues: first, the movement and development of new technologies, and secondly, Human Rights Act obligations. Importantly, they also provide for the first time for a statutory code of practice to be approved by Parliament.
The interception code of practice sets out how the provisions contained in Chapter I of Part I of RIPA regulate the interception of communications. It remains the case that the Secretary of State is required to issue a warrant authorising interception only for the purposes set out in the Act. Secondly, warrants may be applied for only by the security and intelligence services, the police, Customs and Excise or the Chief of Defence Intelligence.
The code sets out the procedures to be followed by agencies when applying for an interception warrant from the Secretary of State, as well as giving guidance to agencies and others on giving effect to warrants and the disclosure, copying and retention of material obtained through warranted interception. The code also sets out how, under RIPA, interception can lawfully take place without a warrant in specific circumstances, such as when there are reasonable grounds to believe that all parties have consented to an interception. Importantly, it provides guidance on the necessity and proportionality considerations that must be taken into account to ensure consistency with ECHR and Human Rights Act obligations. The code has the support of the law enforcement and intelligence and security services and, importantly, of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, who provides independent oversight of the process. I commend the order to the House.
1544
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th May be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords. I can be very brief. As always, I thank the Minister for his careful explanation, during the course of which he referred to the welcome given in another place. He carefully quoted the words of my honourable friend Dominic Grieve. I confirm that, in the spirit of joined-up opposition, I agree with my honourable friend. We welcome the making of the order.
It may be appropriate for me to make clear that the order is vastly different from the two RIP orders that were most recently withdrawn by Mr Blunkett, the Home Secretary. I had laid Motions against those orders in your Lordships' House. I recognise that this order is benign. I was grateful that the Government thought again on the other two and took a proper course of action.
Lord McNally: My Lords, perhaps I may also exercise joined-up opposition. In another place my colleague, Richard Allan, the Member for Sheffield Hallam, supported this order. I believe that Mr Allan must be among those best qualified to speak on high technology matters. He is a real computer and Internet "geek"—I am sure that he would not mind that description. I probably occupy the opposite end of the scale of understanding.
However, I have certain battle honours in this matter. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in his place. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I spent many happy hours going through the rather Orwellian-sounding RIP Bill to get it on to the statute book.
Perhaps I may also take a moment to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to her new role in taking on the Home Office brief. I left the Home Office brief for the joys of broadcasting and she moved in the opposite direction. I can only tell her that, from my own experience of four years with the Home Office brief, she has many interesting hours on that Bench ahead of her if I know Home Office legislation.
As to RIPA and the passage of the order tonight, I believe that the noble Baroness has put her finger on a matter of which the Government must now be well aware. During the passage of the Bill, concerns were expressed on all sides of the House about civil liberties and the constraints that needed to be put on the authorities in their use of powers.
I commend the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in making clear that her side of the House would pray against the recent orders, as shall we. The Government must think very hard before they try to extend their powers under RIPA. We are going to test Ministers very hard on necessity and proportionality. Those were included in the Bill with great thought and they will be applied, particularly in this House, with great vigilance. I believe that it is a liberal—with a small "I"—but important principle

1545
that limits should be placed on the powers of the state; that is, limits on what the authorities are entitled to know about an individual.
I also accept that, as the Minister mentioned in introducing the order, the world has changed dramatically since 1985. RIPA is required both in terms of new technologies and, indeed, globalisation. Not only has the economy globalised; so have crime and terrorism. It is a matter of getting that balance right.
In terms of ministerial responsibility, the concern for proportionality in relation to the necessity of and respect for civil liberties does not fly out of the window with ministerial office. Ministers do not change sides when they take office. We hope that Ministers look at these matters with an eye to defending those principles. When Parliament gives the security services and other agencies of state the powers to intercept and to bug, it is very important that the political masters apply strong and stringent tests in defence of civil liberties. I hope that recent events have demonstrated that certainly on these Benches an acute examination will be made of any attempts to extend the powers, together with an examination of the justification for them.
As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will confirm, the Bill had a thorough going over in this House. The protections which appear in the Act, and which are reflected in this code of practice, were inserted for a very important reason—a reason relating to civil liberties and human rights, to which we all adhere.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank both Opposition Benches for the way in which they have responded to the code. I also take on board with some anticipation the Gypsy's warning that they both offered in terms of the order that is not before us tonight. As noble Lords know, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has signalled that we shall reflect and consult and then come back to the House. On that occasion I am sure that noble Lords will, indeed, give an acute examination of what we place before them.
I believe that the Act itself has been a good process. Thus far, it has been implemented in a thoughtful way because it seeks to do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, signalled. It recognises the reality of the threats to our society in terms of criminality and terrorism and yet, at the same time, it seeks to tread the very difficult tightrope of not being other than robust in protecting society while not abandoning the values that underpin why we believe that that society is worth protecting. I believe that the Act and this order do that neatly.
The Act has a code which, for the first time, sets out in extremely clear English language, which I found pleasurable to read, the principles on which public bodies must act and the principles against which they will be called to account.
1546
As the House knows, the Act also set up two mechanisms to ensure that it was not viewed simply as a piece of paper. The first related to a tribunal's investigatory powers to deal with complaints by individuals when they felt that they had been wrongly or inappropriately investigated. The second concerned the independence of the interception of the Communications Commissioner, who clearly has substantial powers to investigate what government are doing under the powers of the Act.
I believe that that threefold structure is a good one. We look forward to its implementation and, it is hoped, to the effective use of the powers to intercept criminals and terrorists in a way that respects the values to which we adhere.
Lord McNally: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, during the passage of the Bill one area caused concern. It was that economic well-being would be seen as a catch-all. I believe that the code removes that fear, but I wonder whether the Minister will comment on that.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, economic well-being is not an all-encompassing power. Clearly one could argue that economic well-being encompassed almost anything that happened in society. But economic wellbeing had to be related in some way to the issues contained in the Act—that is, the security of the state or criminality. I believe that Members in another place discussed BMW and what was happening in the West Midlands. Clearly, simply the fact that a company might change its ownership in no way touched on the security of the state, even if people had views about whether or not that was desirable. It had to be relevant to security or criminality.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, as noble Lords know, the next Business is an important Unstarred Question on the Ministry of Defence Skill Force pilot schemes. I shall end my oratory at that point because my noble friend Lord Bach has arrived, with perfect timing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, rises to his feet, perhaps the House will permit my making a brief intervention. I am delighted that the House has not had to be adjourned. I apologise if I have caused difficulty. I was fortunate today to be invited to the Royal Jubilee Portsmouth Armed Forces ceremony from which I have just returned. I hope that that has not caused noble Lords any inconvenience. I am amazed at how expeditious the House has been today.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as prior notice had been given that the sitting would be suspended until 6.30 p.m. to await the return of the Minister —that is not a criticism of the fact that the sitting would be suspended —my noble friend Lady Seccombe is not in her place and would not want to miss the opening speeches. I shall ask one of my

1547
colleagues behind me to go immediately to the Whips Office and ensure that she comes forthwith to hear the speeches.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 6 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.52 to 6 p.m.]

Skill Force Pilot Schemes
6 p.m.
Lord Freemanrose to ask Her Majesty's Government how successful the Ministry of Defence's Skill Force pilot schemes have been in addressing the problems of school truancy and exclusion.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Minister returned, he kindly said that he hoped that the House had not been inconvenienced. There has been absolutely no inconvenience. One knows what pressures Ministers are under. I am very pleased that it is this Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bach—who will be replying because of his position in the Ministry of Defence and also, I suspect, because of his interest. So we are very grateful.
Indeed, there is some advantage to your Lordships. Because this is last business we are allowed a little extra time—12 minutes—on what I believe to be an important subject. I also thank other noble Lords for taking an interest in what may seem to some arcane subject but which actually is extremely important and presages important further changes in the future.
I declare an interest as the president of the council of Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations in the United Kingdom. For the benefit of your Lordships, the Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations, which many of your Lordships will remember as the TAVRs—the Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserves—fulfils an important role. The council is the overarching body which looks after the 13 independent associations covering the different regions of the United Kingdom.
For the purposes of the debate, I put on record that there are 125,000 cadets in the United Kingdom. Later, I shall have something to say about their role, and their complementary role, to the skill force initiative. But I am speaking in a personal capacity. I do not in any way intend to speak for my colleagues up and down the country who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves in the reserve forces and cadets associations. However, I believe that I capture the spirit of support of many of them, both those who staff the individual associations and those who sit on the governing bodies.
I say at the outset that I very much welcome the initiative of the Ministry of Defence in launching the Skill Force initiative. I congratulate the Government on the initiative. I hope very much that it will continue and grow. Therefore, I hope that there will be very much a multi-partisan approach to the issue today.
1548
It may help your Lordships if I briefly try and describe what Skill Force is. Clearly, the Minister will give more information, but for those who read a debate sometimes it is helpful at the outset to see the context of the debate rather than going directly to the Minister's speech and then reading backwards.
Skill Force is staffed by former warrant officers and officers from the Armed Forces. They provide skills training to—typically—14 to 16 year-olds. At the moment, the total is about 1,200. That is 1,200 set in the context of 125,000 in our cadet organisations. Those youngsters perhaps have been playing truant from school and/or have been disruptive in the classroom and therefore have been excluded.
Skill Force takes those youngsters for one day a week, perhaps two half days, out of school—they must go back to school for the other four days—and provides them with some non-military training, skills we would describe as "essential skills" such as how one works in a team; how one relates to and communicates with people—courteously and politely and directly; how one tackles everyday problems; how one organises one's day; how one relates to one's parents; and how one relates to one's teachers. These are basic skills which will lead in some cases to, for example, the Duke of Edinburgh's bronze award or other qualifications.
The purpose, I understand, is that when youngsters reach 16 they stay on at school for further education in the sixth form, enter some form of training scheme or go into employment. They do not become a social walking disaster and end up either on probation or in prison or, as adults, replicating their past behaviour.
I understand that the early results have been encouraging. For those who have participated in the scheme so far, attendances at school are up—in other words, truancy rates are falling—and fewer have been excluded by teachers for disruptive behaviour.
All that is good news. I want to make the point forcefully that this scheme is non-military. The youngsters are not in uniform; they are not handling weapons. It is unlike the American scheme—the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps scheme—which is very much aligned with the services. It perhaps has some of the same purposes as the United Kingdom scheme, but this is non-military.
Briefly, perhaps I may sketch the background to the problem of truancy. We know that the Government have set a target to reduce truancy by one-third during the year 2002–03. Extra money has been provided for schools to tackle poor behaviour. The figures do not seem to have changed very much—even in the last reported year—over the last five years. But, on average, about 1 per cent—and here I am talking about pupils in maintained secondary schools—regularly have unauthorised absences from school of at least half a day a week. That is a disturbing number. These children are playing truant.
There is, I believe, a great correlation between truancy and lack of educational achievement. Frankly, truancy is related. There is a higher degree of

1549
correlation with schools in deprived areas, and, therefore, perhaps a lack of parental support in some cases.
We know that education welfare officers and local police patrol the streets to find truanting children. Police have the power to return children to school. Education welfare officers talk to parents and remind them that they have a legal duty to make sure that their child is at school.
Many of your Lordships will have seen the recent BBC report. In May, almost 12,000 children were caught playing truant in sweeps of the streets and surrounding areas close to the school in 34 education authorities in England with the worst absenteeism record—12,000 children.
Sanctions we know about and which have been discussed in recent weeks are imprisonment of parents, cuts in benefit payments and police in schools. I am not addressing those issues. I am supporting the concept of Skill Force, which is more about encouragement and trying to teach basic human skills to youngsters in this category.
The criticism made in some quarters—I believe it is a minority—that somehow this initiative is in competition with the cadet forces is misplaced. I cannot trace at the Ministry of Defence any switching of resources away from supporting cadet organisations to Skill Force. I hope that those who read this debate will be reassured on that point.
It is interesting to note that the aims of the cadet organisations are similar to those of Skill Force. The stated aims of the cadet organisations, although there are slight differences as between the Sea Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps and the Combined Cadet Force, are to help young people towards responsible adulthood, to encourage valuable personal attributes and to foster confidence, self-reliance, initiative, loyalty and a sense of service to others. If that does not encapsulate what we hope for from Skill Force, I am not sure what else we could ask. Its difference from the cadet organisations is that they use military themes, based upon the culture and ethos of the single services.
But the main aims are similar. It is interesting to note that about one-third of youngsters on Skill Force projects either have been or are in the cadets. So there is an overlap, which is significant.
On behalf of some of my colleagues who work in and support the reserve forces and cadets organisations, I hope that we shall be able to provide administrative backbone support for that initiative—perhaps by providing some of the administrative arrangements, housekeeping and financial book-keeping.
I pay tribute to the team at the Ministry of Defence associated with the initiative. In particular, Dr Moonie MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, has given it tremendous support. Colonel Cross and Mr Gary Lewitt, of the Ministry of Defence, have been extremely supportive and have pioneered much of the work.
1550
We should congratulate the Government on the extent to which they have achieved joined-up government here. The Department for Education and Skills and the Treasury seem to be playing a full role. Indeed, the Treasury is substantially funding the scheme; the money is not coming from the Ministry of Defence budget to any significant extent. We should congratulate the former warrant officers and officers involved. They provide an excellent example to the youngsters and receive a good employment. When my noble friend Lord Cranborne was a Minister, he introduced an initiative similar to this. It did not get off the ground. I tried unsuccessfully to do so myself, 15 years ago, when holding a similar position to my noble friend.
I hope that noble Lords visit the pilots. I visited the pilot in Islington. I was extremely impressed by the youngsters; they were intelligent and interested. I hope to welcome them to the Houses of Parliament to give them a tour. I am sure that it is an entirely different world from the one to which they are accustomed. The scheme deserves support and continuation.
This may be a small financial step for the Ministry of Defence, but it is a giant step for joined-up government.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, both on the initiative that he has deployed to secure this debate and on the analysis that he presented to the House. The Skill Force proposal is one of considerable value. Although I shall suggest its widening, that does not mean that I support its replacement.
As I am extremely interested in the Air Training Corps, I was grateful for the noble Lord's explanation that there is no conflict between it and Skill Force. I certainly agree that I should not want the Ministry of Defence to deploy resources away from the cadet forces, because they probably provide the best recruits that the Armed Forces receive.
However, the principle could be applied in a way that would be rather more a service of prevention of disruptive behaviour and exclusion from school. I trust that the House will have some sympathy with the arguments that I shall deploy.
I was a schoolmaster a long time ago. As a young teacher, I realised—I realise even more as the years pass—how much I was helped by older colleagues with substantial experience in the Second World War. Because of that experience, they had a broader approach, were more mature and probably had a more marked sense of humour, which their experience had developed. They were very good at the job.
I accept that teachers' position today is rather different; it is a different society. There are more broken homes and there is more marital breakdown, greater criminality, the drugs problem, and so on. There is probably a higher proportion of irresponsible parents. That is why I can see an argument for the extension of the approach commended by the noble Lord.

1551
I do not suggest that we can use the Armed Forces to replace teachers. A few months ago, I visited a primary school close to my home and went into five classrooms. There were five non-teaching assistants—good, local ladies. They were not teaching. They were tying shoelaces for the little ones; they were helping to issue equipment; they were listening to children read. They were, as it were, a cross between mothers and teachers. They are valuable in primary schools.
There may still be a place for such assistance for the younger age groups in secondary schools, but the most useful auxiliary assistance—especially for schools that are socially deprived or where the disruptive behaviour problem is especially marked—could be provided by ex-servicemen.
Many people will have seen the television programme, "Lad's Army", and think that that is what the services are like now. From my experience, it was rather accurate, but that was a long time ago. Today, we have professional rather than conscript forces. Servicemen in all three services are led rather than bullied. Those who have served, who have given their 20-odd years and are coming out with enormously valuable experience and a capacity of man-management that may be unequalled in other parts of our society, could make an extremely valuable contribution by assisting schools in their pastoral role.
Many teachers today may feel uneasy dealing with disruptive children. Many of them may not feel especially eager to encounter the more obnoxious parent. People with substantial military experience would not be quite so deterred. They would have a confidence and maturity to deal with the problem which may not be readily available in the school staff room. They could certainly deal with truancy.
We must accept that a substantial proportion of children playing truant from school are doing so with the full knowledge and approval of their parents. We must also accept that the irresponsible parent is unlikely to go to the parents' meeting or to co-operate with the school. A pastoral fulfilment of the skills of the senior non-commissioned officers of our Armed Forces could make an enormous difference.
Schools may be uneasy at first at the arrival of a sergeant major—especially where staff think that "Lad's Army" represents the service that we have today. But they would rapidly find that the children would be provided with a role model far better than others that may be held before them.
So I strongly welcome Skill Force. I trust that it will complement the cadet forces, which are most useful. But I also believe that we could extend the pilot scheme to ensure that there is involvement within the school to counter the disruptive tendency and to provide a means to prevent problems that will otherwise fuel criminality for a long time ahead.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I first thank my noble friend Lord Freeman for introducing the debate and for his lucid explanation of how Skill Force works. It has my full and unequivocal support. I also declare an
1552
interest. My daughter and son-in-law are both serving officers in the Royal Air Force. I was myself a fairly lowly member of the Royal Air Force more years ago than I care to mention. My husband served in the Royal Air Force as a test pilot. I serve at present in the Air League Council and am an Air League Council member on the National Air Cadet Council, which is a body sponsored by the Ministry of Defence.
I know that my noble friend's description highlighting the important role of cadets is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, who has a long-standing interest in cadets and an active interest in the work of the Air Cadets, as I do myself. We need no persuading of the contribution that they can make. I lose no opportunity—and the noble Lord has taken this opportunity—to say how much the work of all cadet forces has contributed to turning around the lives of young people. Many young people who are not secure at home and do not have the support of a loving and nurturing family have, by one means or another, found their way into cadet forces. Their life has been turned around, and they have made positive contributions to their community from then on. They have also become more fulfilled themselves and have acquired skills that set them up for life.
For a long time, education has been an interest of mine. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, made a point about early intervention and the contribution that could be made by former members of the Armed Forces and members of the cadet forces in our schools. When the noble Lord spoke, I was reminded of a neighbour of ours from the time when our children were very small. We were talking about the unexpended energy of young people, of which there is a great deal. It is a problem. Often, if children expend their energy at all out of school, they do so in the wrong way. I remember my neighbour saying that it would be a good idea if ex-members of the Armed Forces, particularly physical training instructors, could be used when there were early signs of disruptive behaviour in the classroom. They could work with disruptive children out of the classroom, so that they could go back into the classroom. There was a deep intake of breath from those who heard her say that, but here we are, so many years later, making the same comments. My noble friend Lord Freeman talked about something much more sophisticated, which would use the talents and expertise of the Armed Forces and the cadet forces and the disciplined, structured way in which they operate to benefit other young people.
My noble friend referred to another of my noble friends, Viscount Cranbourne, and to a similar MoD scheme that did not get off the ground. In fact, it did get off the ground. At the time, I was a Home Office Minister and my noble friend Lord Cranbourne was a Minister at the Ministry of Defence. We had some difficulty in convincing the Department for Education that it was a good scheme, but we were undaunted, and our two departments jointly funded a scheme at Applecross on the Wills estate on the west coast of Scotland. The idea was to bring together for three, four or five weeks a group of vulnerable young people who

1553
were, perhaps, living slightly on the edge and getting involved in petty crime, and a group of young leaders, including young civil servants, people from the Probation Service and—the Ministry of Defence's contribution—cadets. Those people were put together there for a month and given activities.
The weakness of such schemes is often exposed when the young people are sent back to their communities. That is when all the good work that has been done with them out of that environment is undone. However, there was a wonderful voluntary organisation called Fairbridge that supported the young people as they moved back into their community and built on the work that had been done in Applecross. The rug has been pulled out from under that project. That is the only note of dissension that I shall introduce to our debate.
The scheme is now living rather hand to mouth, looking around for ways of sustaining itself. I am pleased to say that the cadet movement found the scheme very valuable. Not only were vulnerable young people benefiting, but the young potential leaders were benefiting too. They were improving their leadership and management skills. When the young people were together, the vulnerable young people found that there were things that they could do better than the so-called leader and management group. That was a wonderful aspect of the scheme, and there were benefits all round. The scheme, which took place in a beautiful part of the country and was supported by the most amazing voluntary effort by the cadet forces, the MoD and the Home Office, had a great impact on the lives of the young people.
It is important to try to keep such schemes going. There is a tendency in government, when something is well established and working, for civil servants to look around for something more novel and leave other schemes to fend for themselves. I must plead guilty to having done that in my time in government. Some schemes provide disproportionate benefit to the community, and I would like to think that they would continue.
I warmly thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to recognise the work of former members of the Armed Forces and of the cadet forces and to put in a plea for a little help from their friends. I know that the Minister is such a friend.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like every noble Lord who has spoken, I must declare some relevant interests. I served in the Ministry of Defence with my noble friend Lord Freeman. Subsequently, I became a vice-chairman of the Army Cadet Force, and I am now, along with my noble friend Lady Blatch, a member of the Air League Council. I have had a long interest in the cadet forces and am a warm supporter of the work of the ACF, the Air Training Corps and the Sea Cadets, although the Sea Cadets are more loosely connected with the Ministry of Defence than are the other cadet forces.
1554
I agree strongly with the case put by my noble friend Lord Freeman for the initiative to which his Question refers. Retiring NCOs, in particular, are an enormously valuable resource, which we should employ to the national good. The expansion of the Army Cadet Force, for example, has often been constrained by the availability of adult instructors. It is always desirable that they should include considerable numbers of former Army NCOs. In past years, there have also been policemen. They were not necessarily retired policemen but may have had time available to bring their expertise and experience to bear on the instruction of young people. Several years ago, when I was concerned with such matters, we sought to expand the Army Cadet Force to include many more girls. Initially, that move was seriously constrained by the availability of female instructors, although, eventually, that problem was overcome.
We must make it clear that the cadet forces are not just recruiting agencies for the Armed Forces. They are much more than that. They are youth organisations that provide a focus and a range of activities for young people. Often membership of a cadet force does not lead to a career in the Armed Forces, nor is it intended to. The cadet forces are an enormously valuable resource for the purposes that my noble friend Lord Freeman described, ably supported by my noble friend Lady Blatch and the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath.
Nowadays, comparatively small numbers of cadets join the Armed Forces. Because the cadet forces are so active in urban areas, and in inner-city areas in particular, they play an enormously valuable role in the way that has been described. So, I support the Skill Force initiative. It is said that additional resources will be required if the initiative is to be expanded to the 100 or so units that are hoped for. I hope that the additional funds can be found, whether they come from the Ministry of Defence or anywhere else. It is a crucially important initiative for the young people of our country, and I support what my noble friend Lord Freeman and others said.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for initiating the debate. Unlike the other speakers, I had not heard of Skill Force before I saw it in future business. I found it difficult to work out what it was about, until I got some briefing. I am not a great expert, unlike previous speakers. My qualifications are slightly less lustrous than theirs. I served only as an officer in the TA—perhaps "served" is not the right word—having been dragooned into the CCF over 20 years ago.
The Skill Force scheme is outside the military-uniform environment. (My experience relates to the CCF. We wore shirts which seemed to be made of the coarsest fibres known to man.) That has to be a good thing. Skill Force is a progressive scheme. Its aim is to tackle one of the major problems facing the educational system today—exclusion. Exclusion is the nuclear option in the education system. For schools it is to a degree a mark of failure but it also demonstrates

1555
the limitations of the options available. It has detrimental effects on the pupils' future education and prospects.
Skill Force is not the only scheme which seeks to deal with the problem of exclusion. Young@now is an organisation which works with local pupil referral units. Its Jolt Programme supports disaffected young people by building on their latent skills and abilities outside conventional academic structures, helping to re-introduce them into mainstream education. It does excellent work.
Another organisation with which I am closely associated is in the North East. It is an art project called Kids Kabin and works with younger children. One of the problems is that exclusion often starts at an early stage. That body seeks to use art and free expression to give the children esteem.
From briefings and research I have undertaken, Skill Force seems an extremely progressive scheme. The brochure sets out optimistic, even aspirational, targets: 100 per cent to achieve the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme; 100 per cent to achieve a Level One OCR Certificate in Preparation for Employment; and 100 per cent to achieve the St John's Ambulance 3 star Young Lifesavers Award. A hopeful target is a 50 per cent reduction in school exclusion. However, from the pilot project that figure seems not to be optimistic but achievable. That has to be related to the many years' experience of the instructors who go into schools. With schools being given outside resources, the teachers view the scheme as worth while. It is good that the scarce resources of the school are not used in that area.
I foresee one problem. Funding for the scheme seems to come from the Treasury. The Treasury is not known for its never-ending supply of largesse. Therefore, I have one question. Which department will be given the responsibility in the long term for this extremely successful scheme? Perhaps the MoD should take it up in the long term. Although the project is not seen as a vehicle for recruitment, it presents the Army in an extremely good light. Those excluded, and other school children, could become valuable members of the Armed Forces. Having worked on TA recruitment, I know that the Army is seen less and less as a favourable career path. The military are not seen as the natural career option for people at present.
Skill Force is an excellent scheme. Having worked with many children through some of the activities of Kids Kabin, I believe that its real success is demonstrated in an article written by the children. They said that they were going to school so that they would not be thrown off the Skill Force project which they enjoyed. That has to be seen as a mark of success.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, as we seem to be in confessional mode, I can only declare that I was a Sea Ranger for a number of years and enjoyed that very much indeed. I am enormously proud of my elder son who this year completes 25 years in the TA.
1556
I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Freeman on highlighting the Skill Force initiative and bringing it to the attention of Members of your Lordships' House in such an explicit and interesting way. Like other noble Lords, I very much support measures that assist young people who are at risk of becoming disaffected with mainstream education. I am sure that we all agree that it is vital to re-engage with these young people so that they can reap the benefits from some type of formal education.
I understand that Skill Force is a scheme modelled on one that originated in the USA. Pilot schemes were launched in this country as the Armed Forces Youth Initiative in September 2000. It was then modified and expanded 12 months later to include 47 schools. In addition, it was renamed the Ministry of Defence Skill Force. Trained instructors who had served in the UK forces were initially allocated to the pilot schemes. I understand that the American scheme is a far more disciplined one and I presume that because of its success the Government adopted the initiative. However, I understand that today the only common factor of the two schemes that remains is that ex-servicemen are recruited to mentor in schools.
Truancy is the scourge of our age and made more disturbing by the fact that many parents do not appear to be taking a responsible approach to the widespread problem. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Freeman outlined, truancy patrols working in May found that almost 12,500 children were absent from school. Around half of those stopped were with a parent. What chance do those children have if their parents take such a cavalier attitude?
Many of the candidates for this programme have a history of truancy. As a result, they are often way behind their peers, their level of achievement is low and their self-esteem is negligible. Government statistics reveal that truancy has increased by 11 per cent over the past five years. It is now a problem of major proportions.
I believe that many of these young people have not had the advantage of discipline in their lives at home and as a consequence find it hard to conform to the rules and regulations imposed on them during their school day. They appear to find it difficult to arrive on time, to learn basic skills or to be a part of everyday school life. More alarmingly, they can be a disruptive influence and cause the rest of the class to miss out. It is, therefore, in the interest of everyone that action is taken to try to get them interested in some form of learning.
The standard of discipline within our schools is worrying and I believe made worse by the Government's decision in 1998 to reduce exclusions of disruptive pupils regardless of the circumstances. This decision undermined the authority of heads and teachers and has led to more violence. I am delighted that the Government have now reversed this disastrous policy and I hope that heads and governors will now have real power to make decisions on exclusion based on individual circumstances.

1557
Many of these disruptive pupils have probably lacked discipline all their lives. A lifestyle without boundaries known, accepted and understood can lead only to erratic behaviour where everyone suffers and the one who suffers the most is the young person out of control.
That brings me to my first question. Why was it decided to have a less structured form of the American programme if its success was based on a more formal approach?
At the same time as we are expressing our concern about one group of young people, we must not forget, as many noble Lords have confirmed, that another group has been mentioned: I refer, of course, to the cadets of all the services. As my noble friend Lord Freeman has said, 125,000 dedicated young people, week in and week out, are involved in training activities. As we have heard from noble Lords, they are decent young people who have their lives under control. They are role models for others and move on to become responsible citizens. The cadet forces have a close link to both the regular and the reserve forces and they provide a youth service much valued in the civil communities.
The Army Cadet Force is a valuable source of high calibre recruits to the regular forces and provides a military footprint within the country. It is significant to note that in the year 1999–2000, 20.2 per cent of young soldiers and apprentices to the regular Army came from the Army Cadet Force and nearly 19 per cent to the TA. It acts as a link between the Armed Forces and the civil community.
I believe that there is a case for expanding the cadets, which will have the benefit of involving young people in discipline and team work at an early age. That should develop their sense of responsibility, and reduce the rates of truancy, exclusion from school and street crime by young gangs. I believe that the Ministry of Defence should examine how the cadet forces can be enlarged and provide the appropriate resources, within its budget, to fund that valuable organisation. With other noble Lords, I applaud the achievements of those cadets.
It would be helpful if the Minister would publish, or deposit in the Library, the British Market Research Bureau's report on the results of the Skill Force pilot scheme in Norfolk and Newcastle. Funding for the Skill Force scheme is from the "Invest to Save Budget". As we have heard, it is backed by three different ministries: the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the DfES. That funding is for a set period. My second question is similar to that asked by other noble Lords: what will happen when that funding ceases? Another question that I must ask relates to the DfES guidance for those working with children. Have the instructors undergone local authority checks as to their suitability to work with children?
The debate has been interesting and informative and we have heard very positive points on the success of the scheme. Working with these young people must be
1558
demanding and exhausting and I should like to pay tribute to those instructors and their assistants who have brought a new vision to these pupils. Skill Force is giving young people the chance of a new start and it is an exciting initiative. We hope that those young lives will be transformed and, having attained positive results, that they will develop into useful and contented adult citizens. I wish the Minister well with this important work.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we owe deep thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for enabling the House to discuss the Skill Force initiative. I found his speech generous and positive in its approach. It was an outstanding opening to this short debate. I also thank all other noble Lords who have spoken on this important subject. I have a request to make of the noble Lord. When he brings some of the children who have benefited from this scheme to the House I ask that I can be privileged enough to meet them because it would be a joy to do so.
I want to consider briefly the range of contacts that the MoD has with young people. So wide are those contacts that the Ministry of Defence has signed up to implementing the core principles of "Learning to Listen", which enable the views of young people to be heard and acted upon. Each year, 200,000 to 300,000 young people have direct contact with the Armed Forces through their recruitment efforts. The activities range from climbing walls with the Royal Marines to solving problems in teams with REME. There are also opportunities for longer attachments aimed at enhancing self-esteem and confidence.
Secondly, as has been mentioned, there is the cadet movement, in which some 127,000 young people voluntarily engage in extra-curricular activities designed to promote qualities of responsibility, self-reliance, personal endurance, perseverance, self-confidence and discipline. And I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the 23,000 or so adult volunteers involved in the cadet movement who make it such a success.
Nor should we forget that the MoD is responsible for providing educational facilities to the children of service families serving abroad. That is done through an agency of the department, Service Children's Education, which looks after the needs of 15,000 young people from nursery schools to sixth forms.
Turning now to the Skill Force itself, I shall say something about its origins. As may be well known by some noble Lords, Skill Force was created by members of a local regiment in Newcastle to offer local schools access to the skills and expertise that the Army has to offer. They were concerned that many children whom they knew were becoming disaffected with school. The Army, the Newcastle education business partnership and local teachers designed the scheme for and in Newcastle, and at that time it was called "Relaunch".
The aim then was to offer a different approach from school that would re-motivate the pupils and reengage them with school. The course gave pupils the

1559
chance to drop two GCSE subjects which they were unlikely to pass, and in their place to study a range of achievable awards and qualifications. The pupils selected for Skill Force came for a variety of reasons; many due to disaffection and some because of low self-esteem. The one constant feature was that they needed something outside the national curriculum. The scheme was a resounding success locally and received much support from schools, parents and the local community.
That is how the scheme came into being. In answer to the first question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the scheme, as it has developed, was based on those early days. It was not based on the United States' scheme. It is a British product.
In 1999, the scheme in Newcastle was selected by the Ministry of Defence as one of its contributions towards the Government-wide commitment to youth inclusion. Skill Force, as it became known, was launched as a pilot in Newcastle and in Norfolk in September 2000 with three schools in each area, involving 150 pupils. That cohort of pupils is now leaving school with many having successfully completed all of the Skill Force challenges.
The selection of rural Norfolk for the second project was a deliberate attempt to establish whether or not Skill Force could flourish beyond the urban setting. The essential features of the scheme remained the same, but what is important is that each area retained a large degree of flexibility. That ability to adapt to suit local circumstances has been a key factor in making Skill Force such a success.
As I said, participants drop two GCSEs in order to take part in Skill Force, which offers a variety of awards and qualifications. The course has at its core the Award Scheme Accreditation and Development Network, bronze/silver, normally called the ASDAN award. That is a modular, vocational award teaching the practical skills needed for later life. An example would be pupils having to work out the various costs of purchasing a bicycle on a credit card, with a bank loan or on a credit agreement. That type of activity not only develops number handling skills, but also demonstrates the real life cost of credit.
The first award that most students achieve on Skill Force is the St. John's Ambulance young life-saver award. That is normally completed by Christmas of year 10 and enables pupils who have had little success in academic school life to achieve a widely recognised and respected award. The certificates are then presented in front of the whole school, boosting immeasurably the recipients' pride and confidence.
Pupils also take part in the Duke of Edinburgh's award at bronze level. This experience has also been extremely positive. The pupils often show reticence at the start about some activities, such as community service—which is hardly surprising, as they are unlikely to have taken part in anything like that before— but they quickly develop a sense of pride and ownership in the community projects. A striking example of this is in North Lanarkshire, where pupils have built bridges in local authority country parks.
1560
For many it is the first time they have had the opportunity to show the results of their work to a wider audience. And the one-week expedition, which forms part of the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme, has been very popular, giving a real sense of achievement.
As the project has developed, the curriculum has improved and grown. At present, several teams are piloting additional qualifications. Those range from the junior sports leader to the Oxford Cambridge and RSA first certificate in preparation for employment. Skill Force will always have local variations in the curriculum not only because of local circumstances but also to bring in new ideas. The ability to adapt to suit circumstances, local requirements and pupils' needs and to carry out practical and relevant work is one of the underpinning principles of the project.
The other major characteristic is that recently retired service personnel undertake the project and use their instructor skills to deliver the courses. There are many advantages, not least the respect pupils have for service personnel. After all, not many pupils would consider stepping out of line when the instructor is an ex-Royal Marine.
I should point out to the House that Skill Force personnel are not teachers, although some may use the experience to decide if they want to take up the profession, which is also important. They are selected by the LEA and are accountable to the head teachers of the schools in which they work. Their standards are extremely high: Ofsted inspectors grade them as either very good or excellent. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, checks are rightly made.
From a single project in Newcastle in 1999, Skill Force now teaches 1,200 pupils in 47 schools. The selection of areas for the new scheme is based on economic deprivation indicators and educational attainment figures. Local partners, in most cases the LEA or education business partnership, manage the new schemes. They also contribute towards the costs: partnership funding is a core principle of Skill Force. Central government funding comes from the MoD and the Treasury's Invest to Save budget after a joint bid by the MoD, Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office. Due to the popularity of the scheme, 45 out of the 47 schools have asked Skill Force to take on an additional year group of pupils next September and I am pleased to tell the House that funding has been secured.
The debate's title is about evaluation of the scheme's success. We have ensured that the project has been regularly evaluated from the outset. A rigorous, full and independent evaluation of Skill Force was carried out by the British Market. Research Bureau against its aims of reducing truancy, lowering exclusions from and improving attitudes to school, and preventing pupils leaving schools at 16 and not entering further education, employment or training. I will do my best to ensure that the evaluation is published, although I cannot give a firm guarantee.
The latest evaluation concentrating on the original Newcastle and Norfolk schools has shown good news. Reducing truancy levels is a key element in the strategy

1561
to reduce youth and street crime. Skill Force has helped to maintain attendance rates of over 90 per cent in children otherwise expected to display sharply declining attendance. Exclusion levels have also reduced dramatically. One Norfolk head teacher said,
"There are youngsters that would have been excluded by now from school if it hadn't been for Skill Force. Some of them have got very challenging behaviours but there has been a noticeable improvement, there's also been a noticeable improvement in their attendance".
The continued engagement of those young people must also have the effect of reducing juvenile crime.
The scheme has also had a positive impact on the emotional and mental health and well-being of participants. Another head teacher said,
"Some have blossomed quite positively during the course and have become much more confident, much more able, much more articulate and much more able to cope with things".
The evaluation process also seeks the views of the children, who state that they are now much better team-workers and have a greater respect for others. Ninety-seven per cent of children enjoyed Skill Force. These are pupils who on the whole have not had a positive experience of education.
One pupil stated,
"Skill Force is the main reason I get up on a Monday morning".
Nearly six out of every 10 participants felt that their grades had improved since starting Skill Force, and just under half considered that they received fewer detentions. In the evaluation study, 20 per cent of Skill Force participants claimed to take part in voluntary activities outside school, compared to only 7 per cent of non-participants. Skill Force participants also showed increased involvement in out-of-school sports and youth clubs.
The scheme has been extremely well received by teachers. All teachers interviewed were positive about the impact it had upon their pupils; including children in the school not on the scheme. Here is a stunning quote from a head teacher in Newcastle:
"I think schools should jump at it, they should take it, they should run with it, they should make input into it, they should press for its development throughout the country really, we really ought to be doing this in every town".
Over half of parents have reported more positive behaviour and attitudes which they attribute directly to Skill Force. Ninety-seven per cent are pleased with the scheme, 33 per cent consider their children more
1562
mature, 14 per cent consider them more confident and 12 per cent consider them more positive. The effects of Skill Force on the participants are obviously highly beneficial but others gain as well. The constructive removal of disruptive pupils from classes means that the remaining pupils can make faster progress. The rapid changes in personality that the Skill Force young people undergo result in a reduction in disruption in those classes which they continue to attend.
As one boy remarked, being disruptive in Skill Force was not particularly sensible, so being disruptive in class was a bit silly too. A headmistress said that last September was the quietest start to a school year she could remember. These results are exemplary and the Skill Force personnel, both on the ground and in the Ministry of Defence, are to be congratulated, as are the children themselves, on having taken part in what is always a deliberately challenging series of courses and studies.
The outcome of the evaluation of the Newcastle and Norfolk pilots was presented to interested parties in April this year. Among those present were officials from the Department for Education and Skills. I am delighted to announce in Parliament tonight that new Skill Force projects are to be set in 11 further areas; an effective doubling of Skill Force. I am sure that that announcement will be well received. The Department for Education and Skills has offered to fund the new projects. Funding will come from the behaviour improvement programme as part of the government-wide street crime initiative.
Skill Force started as a way by which army personnel set out to help disaffected youths in Newcastle. It is now delivering results in schools across England and Scotland and has earned the unanimous praise of this House. It is truly a bottom-up success story that has changed lives for the better. We all hope that it will continue to do so. Again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for bringing this important scheme to our attention this evening.

Tax Credits Bill
Returned from the Commons with an amendment disagreed to and with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof, and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendment in lieu was ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Adoption and Children Bill

    The Committee met at four of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Before I call the first amendment, I should like to inform the Committee that a photographer will be taking a small number of photographs early in our proceedings today. This is for internal purposes, for inclusion in our Annual Report.
    I think that all noble Lords are familiar with the procedure. I shall simply remind the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, we shall adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes or as near as possible to that time.
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the proceedings start, may I make one comment? At Monday's Sitting it was very difficult to hear some Members of the Committee speaking. If one has to speak standing up, these microphones are not in the right place. Would it be possible in future Sittings either to have taller microphones, or for them to be propped up on a pile of books, as the Ministers and Shadow Ministers have done? Otherwise it is extremely difficult to hear.
    Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lady's comments have been noted and we shall see what we can do.
    Clause 4 [Assessments etc. for adoption support services]:
    Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 15:
    Page 4, line 12, after "needs" insert "or needs of connected persons"
    The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 15 deals with one minor aspect of this extremely important clause, the bulk of which my noble friend Lord Howe will address in a later amendment. Amendment No. 15 simply widens the net of persons whose need for adoption services must he addressed by an assessment.
    Clause 4(1) deals with those who may request assessments. We do not know precisely who those people are. Paragraph (a) says that it covers those mentioned in Clause 3(1)—namely, children to be adopted, their parents and guardians, and,
    "(b) persons wishing to adopt a child, and
    (c) adopted persons, their parents, natural parents and former guardians"
    CWH62
    Clause 4(1)(b) says that,
    "any other person who falls within… regulations",
    can apply under subsection 7(a). However, we do not yet know who those people are. I hope that the Minister will say something about what those regulations will contain.
    The main point is that the authority must assess the needs of the person who applies for an assessment under Clause 4(1) and not the needs of any other person. An adopted child can therefore apply for a needs assessment for himself but not for, say, his siblings or blood grandparents.
    The Minister may say, as the Minister said in another place, that the assessment would in practice involve the whole family. However, the clause does not say that; it says that the applicant's needs are to he assessed. There can be no certainty that local authorities will include any connected person, let alone the full range of people that the applicant considers to be connected to his case.
    In replying to the amendment, I hope that the Minister will also say what arrangements are to be made for applications by persons who are not competent to make applications for themselves; for example, very young children or adults who have mental impairment. The wider family may well include those who are not articulate enough or competent enough to make their own application I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the processes which underpin the widest possible access to needs assessments under Clause 4. I beg to move.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I sound a note of caution on this. There is no definition of "connected persons" in the interpretation section, at Clause 139, on page 82 of the Bill. As subsections 4(1)(a) 4(7)(N show, this definition of "other persons" could well conflict with the persons described in those regulations. One has to take that on board to avoid some possible confusion. The resolution is in the form of the regulations, and here we come to the main problem. I raise it only once today. In a sense, we beat the air until we have the draft regulations; we came across that problem on clay one. The Minister said, and I understand it, that we shall not have them until after Royal Assent.
    Winston Churchill once said that the most intractable problems solve themselves in time, and we have a little time; we have the long Recess. Perhaps we could have but a draft of these regulations before we come back to Report. It is only a respectable suggestion—I hope it is respectalble but it is respectful—because, quite frankly, I find it impossible to get to grips with the substance of much of this until I see the draft of the regulations.
    Perhaps that could be taken as a hope or a prayer. I could give all kinds of examples; I will not waste time but I went through them this morning. There are many examples today on the Marshalled List of amendments to which this applies. However, the regulation under

    CWH63
    the structure of the Bill will define this matter and one does not want to table an amendment which conflicts with the regulations as defined in the Bill.
    Baroness Barker: I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and also to support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I believe that most Members of the Committee would add their support to that heart-felt plea, and not just in connection with this Bill.
    First, I declare an interest as an employee of Age Concern—I hope the one and only time I will do so on the Bill. The particular point that I want to follow is that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, concerning grandparents.
    Grandparents, it seems to me, often have a very rough time during the process of adoption. They often fall between one set of assessments or are viewed in different ways. I do not suggest that their rights ever conflict with the welfare of children, but I believe they are sometimes treated differently, and often badly, historically. That is why I want to support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in trying to seek a clear definition of "associated persons".
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): I understand that noble Lords are anxious to have a better feel of what might be covered in the regulations, because clearly the approach that the Bill takes is to set out some very broad principles in the primary legislation but then to leave much of the detail to regulations. I know that Members of the Committee would like nothing better than for me to produce draft regulations so that they can be considered.
    There are considerable difficulties in doing that. One of the points that I made on the first day of Committee was that a great deal of consultation needs to take place with the relevant organisations, but much of that will eventually appear in regulations. That work has not taken place. As Members of the Committee will know the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, pressed me on the date of implementation and expressed disappointment that we were looking to 2004 for that implementation date.
    The fact is that an awful lot of ground work needs to be done before we are in a position to produce draft regulations. However, I hope that as we go through the discussion in Committee we are able to give at least a flavour of what will be covered by those regulations together with a commitment that there will be very extensive consultation.
    I recognise that very important matters raised in this amendment, although the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, described it as a fairly minor issue. I recognise the importance of eligibility to assessment, either in terms of a requirement under Clause 4(1) or a discretion under Clause 4(2), but we want to be as clear as possible as to who will be covered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made clear, the persons listed at subsection (1) of Clause 3 will all be entitled to an assessment of their needs for adoption support
    CWH64
    services. These persons are children who may be adopted, their parents and guardians, prospective adopters and adopted people, their adoptive parents, birth parents and former guardians.
    Adoptive families will not need to wait until after an adoption order has been made to request and receive an assessment of their needs for adoption support services. They will be able to request an assessment at any time; for example, when they have been matched with a child or when a child has been placed with them.
    As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested, additional persons prescribed in the regulations made under subsection (1)(b) of Clause 4 will also have the new right to an assessment. These persons will be those listed in the regulations made under subsection (3)(a) of Clause 3 for whom local authorities must make and participate in arrangements to provide adoption support services. It is the Government's intention that they will include birth and adoptive siblings of adopted people and children who may be adopted. However, we shall consult widely on the contents of those regulations as part of the new national framework.
    As regards the technical wording of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has put his finger on it in terms of the problem with the definition or not of "connected persons", but no doubt this is a probing amendment. The issue of the needs of families is an important one. In practice, the needs of adoptive families—adopted children, their adoptive parents and any adoptive siblings—will all be assessed together. It would not be appropriate for the child's needs to be addressed in isolation, so the assessment will look at the needs of the family as a whole. Where a child is not of sufficient age and understanding to request an assessment, his parent may request the assessment on his behalf. An older child may choose to request an assessment himself or alternatively his parent may request the assessment on his behalf.
    It is also worth making the point that, in relation to an adult who lacks capacity to request an assessment of needs for adoption support services, a carer may make such a request on his behalf. We intend to issue statutory guidance—and I am tempting fate by mentioning that word—to local authorities on the assessment process. That guidance will make the position clear. It may also make clear local authorities' responsibilities in respect of the carer's needs for adoption support services.
    Subsection (2) of Clause 4 gives local authorities a power to carry out an assessment of any person who does not have the right to such an assessment. I come to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. This would then enable local authorities to assess the needs of any other person, such as a grandparent, living with the adoptive family or indeed a carer or any person affected by adoption where they consider this appropriate, in order to respond to the individual circumstances of the family. Clause 4(2) is a very important flexibility which allows local authorities to use their discretion as may be appropriate. I hope that I have made the position of the Government clear and have answered as fully as I can the points that have been raised.
    4.15 p.m.
    Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that and readily concede to my noble friend Lord Campbell that there is no definition of "connected persons". The Minister was right; this is a probing amendment and I am sure that we could devise a definition if the formulation were to find favour.
    The Minister reiterated the lack of regulations that we will have during our consideration of the Bill. We on these Benches regret that sufficient work has not taken place to date and the time-scale of implementation. It is difficult to put the matter beyond that. However, it seems that there is a lack of commitment to putting the valuable new provisions in the Bill into operation as quickly as possible.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There is no lack of commitment: there is a tremendous commitment to ensuring that what we get on the statute book is right and that the implementation programme is undertaken with as much efficiency and effectiveness as possible. There is no doubt that a lot of work needs to be done. I believe that it has to be done very carefully, with full consultation and, of course, your Lordships' House will have the ability, through the scrutiny of regulations, to come back to many of these issues in the future.
    There is evidence that since the original PIU report, and thence the White Paper, local authorities have raised their game and that many of the principles that were enunciated in the White Paper have begun to be adopted. It is not as though no progress will be made between now and 2004. Considerable progress is being made.
    Baroness Barker: How does the Minister know that? That is the problem that some of us have and we shall spend a long time debating it today.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Two signposts are an increase in the number of adopted children and an increase in the amount of money local authorities have been spending since the financial year 2000–2001. I am pleased to report that and we will turn to the question of money in a moment.
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I must return to the regulations. I am sorry that we cannot have them now, but I am glad to hear that we shall be able to scrutinise them when they are published. Will they be subject to the affirmative process? I do hope so.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lady anticipates a debate we are shortly to have. My recollection is that three sets of regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure; the others are subject to discussion if noble Lords pray against them. The point is that, whether they are subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure, there is an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny to take place. I remind Members of the Committee that we have had some
    CWH66
    extremely interesting debates on health regulations in the past few months that have been prayed against, so there will be ample opportunity for debate.
    The Earl of Listowel: The Minister referred to the assessment process guidance and we seem to be discussing the wider issue of information necessary for our deliberations at this point.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: Would the noble Earl speak up?
    The Earl of Listowel: I apologise to the noble Lord for not making myself clear. As we seem to be talking more about the wider issue of information that we need in order to make our deliberations on this Bill, will the Minister tell us about the assessment process? For me an important concern is that adoptive parents are well aware of the responsibility that they are taking on and particularly of the mental health needs of the children they adopt.
    How will it be ensured that the targets being set to increase the number of children being adopted will not lead social workers to cut corners? Can we be assured that as far as possible before the placement takes place the adoptive parents will know that these children sometimes have serious mental health problems? They should know that, even if the children are behaving in an acceptable way at that point, they seem likely, from their assessment, to behave in extreme and possibly challenging ways later. 'Will the Minister write to me on that point if he cannot answer it now?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am happy to respond, and also to write to the noble Earl. I take the point that this takes us much wider than the issue of "connected persons". Clearly, to have a vigorous adoption process, it is absolutely right that as much care and attention as possible is given to ensuring that the prospective adoptive parents understand the challenges that they are taking on. There is no question that there is a need for more children to be adopted.
    We all agree about the outcome for adopted children, compared to the issues that face many children who are looked after. We know that the outcome for such children in terms of employment, education, and crime is very poor indeed. In sorting out the processes that we have on adoption, there is every indication that this will lead overall to enhanced lives for so many of these children.
    If there were simply a motivation to increase the number of children adopted without ensuring that there were the most careful processes in place, I fully accept that that would defeat the whole object. I give the noble Earl my assurance that there is absolutely no intention of setting impossible targets that could only be met if people cut corners. The intention is to have a full, rigorous process before such adoption could take place and to ensure that the kind of support services that apply—the noble Earl raised the question of mental health and I entirely agree with him—are provided; and, as we shall debate later, that such notification is made by the local authority after an assessment to the NHS, if that is appropriate.

    CWH67
    I understand the question of frustration over timing. Nothing would please me better than to say that we could implement in 2003, but I do not believe that we can, nor that it would be sensible. We have only to look back to the implementation of the Children Act, which introduced an 18-month process after enactment of the Bill. During that process, regulations were prepared and commented upon. It is also worth reflecting on how many years it took for the Adoption Act 1976 to be implemented. We need to put that into perspective, and consider past experience with adoption and the Children Act procedures.
    Baroness Noakes: I suspect the Minister will be chided yet further during the Committee's deliberations on the non-availability of regulations and the timing.
    However, to return to my amendment, I was pleased that the Minister said that siblings would be included in regulations. I am also pleased that carers would be able to apply on behalf of those who lacked capacity. I was disappointed, as I am sure is the case with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, not to hear grandparents mentioned in the same breath. The existence of a discretionary right of a local authority to make a needs assessment on certain other persons is not the same thing as a person being able to apply, as of right, because of his relationship with the adopted child.
    For the time being, as will not surprise the Minister, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I believe that we will return to this matter on Report, though perhaps in a more targeted way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 16:
    Page 4, line 18, leave out from "services," to "services" in line 19 and insert "the local authority has the duty to provide suitable"
    The noble Earl said: We come now to an issue which, perhaps more than any other in the Bill, has united opinion across the political divide; namely, the question of what the Bill ought to say about the role of local authorities in providing adoption support services. In speaking to Amendment No. 16, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 21.
    Clause 4 contains a duty for local authorities to carry out an assessment of a person's needs for support services. The inclusion of that duty has been wholeheartedly welcomed by all commentators. This is a recognition by the Government of how vitally important it is that proper, expert support should be provided to those families who are in need of it. Advice, information, counselling, therapy, respite and financial help—any of these, if provided in a timely and professional way, can make the difference between a placement that works and one that does not; it can make the difference between an adoption that succeeds and one that breaks down; and between a birth parent who is too distressed to cope and one who is capable of making rational decisions.
    Adoptions fail because families feel unable to cope. The majority of children adopted from care have deeply difficult histories and complex emotional damage. The likelihood of an adopted child or his family needing some form of post-adoption help is very high. That help could be something quite simple or it could be something more complicated, such as multi-disciplinary therapies and various kinds of expert programmes. Whatever the case, if we are to improve upon the success rate in adoptions, there has to be help available. To make sure that it is the right kind of help, one thing is essential—early preparation.
    What does that amount to? It amounts to ensuring that an assessment for post-adoption support is carried out at an early stage in the process, the stage when it is decided that the child's best interests lie in adoption. It represents an agreed blueprint for support to which all relevant parties are fully signed up. The assessment then travels with the child into his or her adoption placement and follows on after the adoption order is made. This is a procedure that is followed by some of the best local authorities at the moment; and it works well. To look at the question of what support ought to be provided only after an order has gone through is too late, because a family can easily find itself heading into a serious crisis before help arrives.
    Having talked to the Adoption Forum, the BAAF, the Post Adoption Centre, Adoption UK, After Adoption, and Parents for Children—in fact, all the reputable organisations with day-to-day experience of adoption—I believe that it is not enough for this Bill simply to enable local authorities to provide pre and post-adoption support as and when they decide to do so. The Bill should contain a duty to provide support if the assessment indicates a need. So far, the Government have fought shy of doing this on the grounds that local authorities should have autonomy to decide what services they provide to whom. That would, perhaps, be a reasonable position if there were not so much at stake.
    Before the Minister makes any jibes about noble Lords on this side of the Committee wanting to impose micro-management from the centre, I would suggest to him that there are unique factors to consider here. If we think about the status of adopted children, they are different from that of other children by virtue of the state having intervened in their lives in a fundamental way. That intervention gives rise to a moral obligation on the part of the state to ensure that in every case the new family is given the best chance of working. Nor indeed should we be comfortable with a system that permits adoptive parents who—let us remind ourselves—are performing a unique public service for the benefit of society effectively to be abandoned to cope on their own. With looked-after children, there is no argument; local authorities must provide the necessary services. For children with special educational needs, help must be provided. Disabled children, living with their birth families, must receive support.
    It is inconsistent and wrong not to look at adoption support in the same light. We should say to ourselves that adopted children, like those others, are children in need, and that society has a clear duty towards them.
    The implementation of the moral obligation that society has to adopters implies that adopters deserve respect in the manner in which they are treated. Amendments Nos. 18 and 21 illustrate what I mean.
    It should be incumbent on a local authority to furnish adoptive parents with a written explanation if it decides not to provide support services. In those circumstances, parents should be able to insist on a review of the decision. If all that is achieved by this Bill is a policy on the part of some local authorities, merely to go through the motions of providing an adoption service, we need to reflect on what the effect of that might be. It will certainly affect the recruitment of new adopters. It will certainly mean that children who are hard to place will remain stuck in care. It will mean a higher rate of adoption breakdown, it will lead to a poorer quality of life in adoptive families.
    In framing new legislation for a new century, we should not consciously allow for the possibility of those things. The price of failure is a burden on society that could be far heavier than the cost of supporting adoptive families, as the Minister has already reminded us today. Around 20 per cent of adoptions fail. The cost of adoption pales into insignificance beside the cost of foster care, or the cost of secure accommodation, or, indeed, prison. To economise on adoption is a false economy.
    There could not be any clearer case for the Government to say, "We mean business with the Bill". If they do mean business, they need look no further than these amendments for what they should now do. I beg to move.
    4.30 p.m.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise to support Amendment No. 16 and to speak to our Amendments Nos. 17, 19, 20 and 22.
    Amendment No. 17 follows the assertion of a duty upon a local authority and has the same effect as Amendment No. 18 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to which he has already spoken, so I will not pursue it further. The local authority would have to acquire a written explanation of the decision not to supply support services.
    Amendment No. 19 continues our approach by requiring the local authority to make, implement and review a plan for the provision of support services to those assessed to be in need of them.
    Amendment No. 20 is an alternative way of achieving a similar objective. Following the amendment, subsection (5) would have the meaning that whenever a local authority has assessed a need to provide services, it should make a plan for the provision of those services and keep it under review.
    Amendment No. 22 refers to the role of regulation of local authorities. Clause 4(7)(h) covers the role of an adoption agency in seeking to ensure that services
    CWH70
    continue following the adoptive family's move to another local authority, and that assurance should include the provision of a named official to take over the role that the home authority has been undertaking.
    The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke very forcefully. I agree with him that there is an overwhelming argument in favour of the provision of post-adoption services and for insisting on the responsibility of a local authority for planning and ensuring its provisions. The absence of such services is widely regarded as a major predictor of failure in adoption by those most closely involved in the process, and we too have been in touch with the organisations which he named when he was speaking.
    It has been made clear to us that, as many of the children who are adopted have experienced trauma in early life, there may be periods during the process of being adopted, of living in a adoptive family, where problems may arise which require support. However, the people who are working adoption are disappointed because the description in the 2000 White Paper of future legislation as placing,
    "a clear duty on local social services to provide post-adoption support",
    does not appear to be fulfilled in the Bill. It is that clear duty on the face of the Bill that these amendments, and the noble Lords, are attempting to ensure.
    As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the force of this argument is increased by the fact that adoption follows state intervention in the family life of the child and his birth parents, ostensibly to improve the life of that child. We need to make sure that the objective is achieved, and the local authority is the obvious lead organisation to see that that happens.
    Turning momentarily to cost, I understand that inserting clauses or provisions into Bills which have a financial implication is always something which the promoters of a Bill, some of the government Ministers, find a little difficult to accept, and I can understand how that should be. However, if we take a more holistic look at how the balance of costs work out, without going into too much detail, which I could if I really needed to, I believe that one must be struck by the relative costs of keeping a child in prison, in care, or even in foster care, as compared to the cost to the public purse of a child who is in adoption. There the whole burden of the upkeep of the child falls upon the adoptive family—a burden which they willingly undertake.
    For comparison, let us look at the supply of very high quality services. The suggestion based on research is that the very high level services of intensive therapeutic input, or respite care, or acute health care, would be required only by a very small number, maybe five per cent, of children in care. Even that cost, which is reckoned to be around £18,000, pales into insignificance by comparison with the costs of a child in residential care, which can be £40,000 or £50,000 a year.
    These are the sorts of comparisons we have to make. As regards prison, we were told in the House that the cost of keeping a person in prison is now over £40,000

    CWH71
    a year. So, by comparison with those sorts of costs, and trying to take a holistic view, I believe that it is important on purely practical cost grounds, as well as the moral and social imperatives, to make sure that post-adoptive support is really effective.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I rise to support Amendment No. 16 and I shall be very brief. There is something curious and rather worrying about the drafting of Clause 4. Although the Minister knows perfectly well that, as a general rule, I am not in favour of placing an absolute obligation on a local authority—and I do not derogate from that as a general approach—the drafting of this clause worries me very much indeed.
    One starts with an assessment. Then, the local authority decides that a person has need for adoption support services. Now let us pause. The local authority does not have to decide that; it may or may not decide it. Moreover, what it decides is a matter for the exercise of its discretion. However, having made the decision, surely there must be a duty to implement its decision, as my noble friend has pointed out. What is the sense or moral logic in having a "double whammy" here? If one decides that something ought to be done, then one jolly well ought to get on and do it. It is as simple as that. Quite frankly, I think that the drafting of the clause is open to serious objection.
    I shall not take any more time. I support all the other amendments in this group. However, I hope that further consideration can be given to this. I think that it is a very serious matter.
    Baroness David: Has any budgeting been done for the purpose of support services? If not, will there be?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As part of our continuing spending review discussions, we shall certainly be making an assessment of the cost of implementing the Act and of the consequential need for additional resources.
    The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I rise very briefly to support this group of amendments, particularly Amendment No. 16. I apologise for not being able to hear the first part of the noble Earl's speech. However, I indicated my support for an amendment such as this on Second Reading, for all the reasons for which we are familiar. Many of these children are deeply traumatised, and those who adopt them need all the help that they can get. From a financial point of view—as the noble Baroness, Lady David, has already indicated—saving money also is an issue. The last figures that I read, from American studies, showed that every dollar spent on a child in the early years saves 14 dollars in adolescence when things start to go wrong. As we all know, this support is absolutely crucial to all the adoption agencies. This is the aspect of the Bill that they care more about than almost anything else.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: This is a very sensitive issue. I have adopted two children in the past, although
    CWH72
    they are now grown up. I appreciate the fact that, as a parent, one does not want the unwanted interference of the local authority. Adoptive parents have taken the children as their own. However, one does want help when it is needed. A balance has to be struck, as some local authorities could be in the way.
    How does the Bill relate to arrangements in Scotland? I do not know whether the Minister was in the House today, but there was a Question about the rather large number of Cabinet members from Scotland. I am a Scot, but I am living in England. It is quite possible that, when I adopted the children, I might have gone back to Scotland with them. Would the help be there regardless of whether I was living in England or Scotland? People move around, and an awful lot of Scots live in England. They cannot do without us.
    My point is a serious one about the children. There are children who have needs, but sometimes those needs do not appear until they go to school. As anyone who has anything to do with a disability will know, one has to fight for any help that one gets. Indeed, one has to prise the help out of any authority, be it a health authority or a local authority. The matter must be dealt with sensitively, however, as we do not want to put disabled children into a pocket of segregation simply because they are adopted. The fact is that we want help for all children.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask the noble Baroness to help me with this, if she would? She has raised the question of balance. I do not have the personal experience that she has, although I understand the question that she has raised. However, how is the question at all relevant to this amendment? It does not seem to me to be relevant to it. If it is, could she help?
    4.45 p.m.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: Help needs to be there for all children, not simply for children who are adopted. Adopted children may have different needs, but the help should be there for all children. It will be pointed out, especially at school, that adopted children are adopted. It is very wise for parents to tell them that they are adopted; if not, other children will tell them so. The children also have to have extra support from their parent or parents.
    The Earl of Listowel: I rise to support Amendment No. 16. Before I do so, however, may I thank the Minister for his earlier assurance? As one person put it, the special aspect of adoption is that the adoptive parents make the commitment to keep that child in mind whether the child is there in their company or not. When we consider what support to give parents who have made that commitment to these children, we should bear in mind that they have given a unique and special gift to that child—always to keep him or her in mind throughout his or her life.
    I think that it was the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who pointed out that 20 per cent of adoptions break down. Adoption is no panacea. However, I am advised by

    CWH73
    Jeanne Kannuick, a senior researcher at Coram Family, that, with post-adoption support, that rate can be reduced by 10 per cent. That would reduce the number of children falling out from these families by 300.
    My particular concern is about the increasing number of children with complex needs who are being adopted. As we know, because of the sometimes poor mental health and emotional well-being of these children, a lot of work often needs to be put into them. I cite one adopted girl, Louise, as an example. Quite shortly after her adoption, she was bullying her younger sisters. At one point, she tied a noose round one sister's neck and put the other end round the banister. She was harming herself and she was harming the other children. Another child, Kay, was adopted at four. By six, he was so violent towards his brothers that they had to have stitches. He was also swearing. He caused other problems that children sometimes cause such as stealing and lying.
    Another girl was adopted last July, at age six. By Christmas, she was threatening to burn down the house and to kill her parents. These are not atypical problems. A person who is very experienced in this area said that about five per cent of adopted children present this sort of challenging behaviour.
    It is therefore very important that the appropriate early intervention is made. That must follow on from the assessments which we have discussed, and it must he adequately resourced. I appreciate the Minister's earlier assurance, but I do not see how that early intervention will be made unless we have the reassurance that local authorities will have a duty to meet the assessed needs. I am particularly concerned that some of the needs here are so severe that they will require long-term interventions of a high quality, delivered by professionals. These are expensive and local authorities may seek cheaper, short-term measures. Listening to these families, they are saying that the real needs of these children were not addressed. There was no search to get to the roots of these children's problems and so, when they were taken to the families, the problems presented themselves. Six young girls last year were fine until their adolescence and then they presented to the service a terribly destructive behaviour.
    I support the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
    Lord Brennan: Clause 4 and the ancillary provisions probably represent one of the most important parts of the Bill. In determining how Clause 4, which provides for assessment and consequent provision of support services, should be finally drafted, I would invite the Minister to take into account four points.
    The first is whether there should be a duty on a local authority to provide services once that authority has assessed them to be necessary. Common sense tells us that the adopted child has three requirements in his or her young life; those are, the adopted family, health and education. In education, we have a statutory duty upon local authorities to provide statements of
    CWH74
    educational need for those children who require that support service. In health, we provide that care free as a statutory duty of the state and, in part, local authorities. If we consider it necessary that there should be adoption support services, and if in a particular case they are appropriate, how can it be said that there is no duty upon a local authority to provide them? It is simply inconsistent. The third element that the child needs, apart from health and education, is support to the family who are serving the community by adopting that child.
    The first question is whether there should there be a duty. I hope that we will not descend to semantic analysis of the word, because the concept is important. The local authority should pay when it is necessary.
    Secondly, I have to say—and I hope that this is a constructive analysis—Clause 4, at the moment, requires careful attention. Under Clause 4(4), which states:
    "Where, as a result of an assessment, a local authority decide that a person has needs",
    it must then decide whether to provide services. At subsections (6) and (7), regulations may be made about the assessments, plans and so on.
    On its face, the clause provides two things in those subsections. The first is whether the local authority will or will not decide, without any criteria; and, secondly, the regulations as here phrased refer simply to methodology and not to principle. The net result would appear to be that, in this country, with the multiple collection of local authorities that we have, that if the clause stays as it now is in the final form of the Bill, three results would occur, or might occur. First, there would be no consistency between local authorities as to how they make their decision. Secondly, that would produce the risk of real injustice as to the provision or not of such services between one local authority and another. Thirdly, on its face, the clause would allow any local authority to refuse to provide support services simply by reference to resources. Common sense tells us that that will be the reason used by many local authorities when faced with an extra burden on their budget. Those results should be avoided and the Bill should cater for those risks.
    The third problem I envisage, unless this clause is clarified more in our debates, is the risk of judicial review. This is not a legal point. When statements of educational need first became established, there was wholesale litigation as to how they should be applied to test for need on genuinely needy parents who wanted a just solution. The only remedy from confusion between their views and the local authority was to go to court. Heaven forbid that in a Bill like this we provide a vehicle for lawyers to spend a year or two debating whether a child should or should not have support services. What a dreadful additional burden for the family to have to suffer. That should not occur. The Bill and the regulations should guard against that necessity.
    The fourth and final point is cost. It is extremely difficult to estimate the cost of providing such support services, but the government service is well-equipped

    CWH75
    to make estimates. It has plenty of material on which to assess what might be the ultimate cost and how that might be divided between local authorities, perhaps with central government's help.
    It is almost certain, not only today but later, that the Minister will be driven to provide clear assessments about the cost to the state or local authorities, balanced against the cost if that provision is not made.
    I have risen with these suggestions in the hope that they may assist our debate, and the Minister, as we investigate Clause 4. This is not political as to party or sentiment, but it is to help human beings have a better life. I would have thought that the unity of sentiment which the Minister finds around him in this Committee will be reflected in the general public. I hope that my suggestions and others made will be taken into account to ensure that ultimately those children who are assessed as needing supporting services will receive them.
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I find myself in some difficulty because with my deepest heart, I would like to support this duty. I was particularly taken by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the clarity with which he talked about these children. However, I would like the Minister's assurance that if this duty is written into the Bill, we also have local authorities carrying out their duties to cared-for children, because Quality Protects had to be put in place to ensure that cared-for children had their needs met.
    I would like to be assured that the needs of all those families who are statemented under the education provisions where there is a duty are met. I could list numbers of families where their needs are simply not met and where families live in frustration.
    I would like to be assured that where families are at home and would like to keep their children, they are not faced with the situation of one young woman who said to me looking at her family who had been assisted with adoption, "If I had had that help, I would have been able to keep my own child at home". That duty should be there to ensure that people can keep their children, when they want to do so. I should like to be assured that the duty to meet the mental health needs of young people who are in adolescent units are properly met, so that they receive the kind of therapeutic care that was outlined earlier. I should like to see those duties, and all the others that we could list, carried through. I should like to be sure that children in need are properly identified, not just because the local authority believes they have the resources to meet that need.
    If we ring fence this duty in some way, my real concern is that we shall have one gold-plated group of children. My great desire is to ensure that this level of service is there for every child in this country who faces need. All these children should receive the health support and education that my noble colleague mentioned, within the context of a good supportive
    CWH76
    family. If I were looking at this and asking for funding, I should like to see it in the context of the whole needs of our children in this nation.
    I talked to directors of social services earlier today. Their feeling is that the amount of funding going into children's service as a percentage of the whole in their local authorities has gone down over the years. I did not have the chance to check the reality of those figures and the Minister may wish to comment on that, but they certainly feel that they have less money available to meet children's needs despite the fact that the number of children in care is increasing, which, again, eats into vast amounts of the money that would be available in other circumstances. There is a real cost involved. I should love a duty to be placed in all these circumstances. I should also like to hear from the Minister what effect the duty in this situation would have on the duty in all of the others.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Understandably, this has been a very intense debate. I do not depart from anything that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said about the importance of getting adoption support right—not, as he pointed out, after the child has been adopted, but right from the start of the process. The Bill, as presently drafted, allows not just for children who may be adopted, or adopted persons, but also for persons wishing to adopt a child.
    Equally, I fully accept that there is very little point in having a statutory assessment process if, at the end of the day, the kind of support services that we wish to see provided are not available. I draw the Committee's attention to the consultation document that was issued last week, which contains a very useful table in Chapter 7 of the range of services that can be, and, indeed, are being provided by a number of local authorities.
    The problem with this debate is that I am very reluctant to go down the path of saying that one must place an absolute duty on local authorities to provide everything that is in the assessment. In asking some very pointed questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, drew attention to the risk that one would actually put a duty to provide adoption support services at a higher level than applies to many other duties placed on local authorities. This, essentially, is the issue that the Government face.
    The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I have had the occasional exchange about who is more committed to decentralisation. Members of the Committee will know of my absolute commitment to decentralisation and sensitive performance management in health and local government. I genuinely believe that to be the right approach. I do believe in local government; it needs to have discretion to make its own decisions within a framework that ultimately ensures that the kind of support services that we all want to see are actually provided. The problem of a statutory duty, which Members of the Committee wish to see—and I readily acknowledge the force of the argument being put forward today—is that it would or could mean

    CWH77
    that adoption support services would be given priority over almost every other service provided by a local authority social services department. That in legislative terms is a problem. Of course, there is no point going down this road unless we can assure ourselves that local authorities will do the right thing.
    I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in relation to the point she made right at the beginning, that it is clearly very important that the Bill places a duty on local authorities to make and participate in arrangements to provide adoption support services. It is our intent that this new duty will tackle the inconsistency that we can see at the moment in the availability of adoption support services including financial support. In addition, the Government's National Adoption Standards state clearly that children are entitled to support services to meet their assessed needs and that adopters will have access to a range of multi-agency support services before, during and after adoption.
    Local authorities must of course act reasonably in deciding whether to provide adoption support services following an assessment. Failure to do so will be picked up through the monitoring and performance assessment that the department is engaged in and action will be taken accordingly. In addition, from April 2003 local authority adoption services will be independently inspected by the National Care Standards Commission in England and by the National Assembly for Wales. Subsection (4), however, makes clear that it is for the local authority to make a decision as to whether to provide adoption support services in each individual case and my noble friend Lord Brennan is right in saying that in doing so they may take the resources available to them into account. There is no real difference in that from the approach to the vast majority of public services, including other local authority services, or indeed the health service.
    I recognise of course that the issue of resource availability is critical to the ability of local authorities to provide the required amount of services. We would expect the substantial amount of the extra £66 million announced in the White Paper to be used by local authorities to provide their adoption support services.
    Overall, the duty to assess is a very important advance. Additional money has been made available. My noble friend Lord Brennan and other Members of the Committee made points in relation to the advantage for local authorities in investing more of their own resources in adoption support. Clearly the more they invest in those services the less likely demand will be on some of the intensive support programmes that are often required to be made available because adoption support was not available when it should have been. That, combined with National Adoption Standards and the performance management regime that we have in place, will ensure that we get adoption support services up to a high level. I would, however, be concerned if Members of the Committee insisted that we amended the Bill to make it an absolute duty for local authorities in every circumstance to have to provide all the services
    CWH78
    identified through the assessment process, for the reason that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, made clear.
    Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would require local authorities, where they decide not to provide adoption support services, following an assessment under Clause 4, to provide a written explanation of their reasons for not doing so. I very much understand that, although I do not believe it is a matter for primary legislation. Clearly it will be good practice for local authorities to provide a written explanation of their reasons for not providing adoption support services following an assessment. However, we believe that is more appropriately covered in guidance to local authorities, and, as an example, in some cases depending of the needs of a person who is being assessed, it may be more appropriate to provide an oral explanation.
    As I have previously explained, we are currently developing a new national framework for adoption support services and financial support in consultation with experts in the adoption field. The consultation document published on 21st June covered many of those points, and if following consultation we decide that it would be appropriate to provide a written explanation of their reasons, we will consider that and issue guidance to local authorities to that effect. However, I believe that if we were to do that we would then have to explore whether it should be provided in every case, or whether in certain circumstances. But we are prepared to consider that as pail of the consultation.
    Amendment No. 19 covers plans for the provision of adoption support services. The version of the Bill which we introduced in the previous Session did require local authorities in every case, where they decided to provide adoption support services, following an assessment to prepare a plan for the provision of those services, and to keep the plan under review. We gave that careful consideration and ultimately decided to make a change because we did not want to place unnecessary burdens on local authorities.
    In many cases, where a local authority goes on to provide adoption support services following an assessment, it will be appropriate for it to draw up a plan to co-ordinate the provision of those services. Where an adoptive family are being provided with a number of different services following an assessment, the detail of those services will need to be recorded in a plan to ensure that the family receive the services provided at an appropriate time. However, in some cases a plan would not be needed; for instance, where services are being provided on a one-off basis such as an individual session of counselling for an adopted adult preparing to receive information about his or her birth family. A plan would not be necessary there to co-ordinate the provision of services.
    We must be proportionate here. We must avoid placing unnecessary burdens on local authorities when we want them to focus on the critical issues that make adoption successful.

    CWH79
    Amendment No. 20 is linked to the preparation of plans. It would require local authorities to draw up a plan in prescribed circumstances where they have assessed a need to provide adoption support services. There is no indication in the amendment whether the prescribed circumstances for the preparation of a plan are to be the same as those intended by the Government, or whether they are to be different. The key feature of the amendment is that it links a requirement to produce a plan with an assessment of need for adoption support services.
    As I explained earlier, the Government's desire is that local authorities will have discretion to determine whether to provide adoption support services following an assessment of need. There may be cases where a local authority assesses a need to provide adoption support services, but does not go on to provide those services. I have already made it clear that the local authority must act reasonably in determining whether to provide services. However, just purely as a sensible administrative approach to that, where it determines not to provide adoption support services, it does not seem appropriate for it to draw up a plan for the provision of those services.
    Amendment No. 21 would enable regulations to provide for review of a local authority's decision not to provide adoption support services. I believe that that situation best rests with the local authority's complaints system. Where it decided not to provide adoption support services, following an assessment of needs, and those affected are dissatisfied, a complaint may be made to the local authority in the usual way. Adoption is a mainstream social service responsibility, and I believe that the majority of complaints about local authority adoption services should therefore fall appropriately to be dealt with through their existing complaints procedure.
    We are currently improving the local authority social services complaints procedure to speed it up, especially for children. We undertook a review of social services complaints procedures—
    Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wonder whether he would give us a word of explanation. Where he says he is placing an obligation on the local authority to act reasonably, does that mean "reasonably" in an absolute sense or "reasonably" in relation to its available resources?
    5.15 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: "Reasonably" must embrace the issue of resources. There cannot be any getting away from that. If one thinks of the National Health Service, in relation to its general duty to provide services to the people of this country, clearly the ability of statutory services to provide those resources is always going to be a factor. We cannot run away from that issue.
    The challenge for government and local authorities is to ensure that they invest sufficient resources in adoption support services. I have already indicated
    CWH80
    that much of the additional money that we have put in will go towards adoption support. We know that local authorities have increased their own resource investment in the adoption service. I hope that that will continue. The assessment that local authorities will be required to carry out is a very important advance, and as I have already said, there would be little point going down this route unless we were ultimately satisfied that local authorities were able to provide a consistent range of services that are required.
    As we will no doubt consider this again between now and the Report stage, I urge Members of the Committee to consider whether it would be right to put an absolute duty on local authorities to provide every single service in all circumstances which they may have assessed—
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. It is not really a question of "reasonableness". The question of "reasonableness" arises where the local authority decides not to provide services. I have been involved in these cases, but I have never been involved in a case where it did decide to provide them. Now, if it decided to provide them, the question of "reasonableness" simply would not arise. The decision has been made to provide them. Resources, by judicial decision, are not relevant to say, "We couldn't do it because, although we decided we didn't have the resources". It has been held by the court in more than one case that that will not wash.
    Therefore, the decision has been made which does not have to be made. However, if a local authority decides to provide the services, I cannot understand the argument why they should not be provided and why there is no duty. It does not have to make the decision, but if it is made, it has to be implemented.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: One can see quite clearly what would happen in that case. The assessment would become the rationer of services. Clearly, their assessment would inevitably be constrained. The answer that I was trying to give the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was that one cannot surely deny in the end that resources are a factor and always will be for responsible public authorities. However, we are trying to get a proper assessment process in place and a high quality range of services.
    I know that there are arguments about the current performance of local authorities and that the history and record over many years in relation to adoption services and adoption support services has not been an altogether happy one. There has been an inconsistent approach, but as I said earlier, there is evidence that since the publication of the PIU report and the White Paper local authorities have begun to get their act together. They have invested more resources; we are seeing more children adopted and I know from the reporting mechanism of the Social Services Inspectorate that SSI inspectors, too, are picking up definite indicators of improved services and performance.
    The enactment of the legislation, the adoption standards, the consultation that we are undertaking and the preparation will lead to a much enhanced

    CWH81
    service, which we shall rigorously monitor through the performance of management arrangements and through the role of the National Care Standards Commission in the regulation of these functions. That is the best way to move forward.
    The provision of a right of assessment for the categories of persons listed is a major advance. The local authorities must be given some discretion, very much hedged in by the kind of performance management assessment that we have in place. I question whether a statutory duty in relation to the provision of adoption support services would be right. Inevitably it could be seen to give priority for adoption support services over nearly every other function provided by the local authority social services department.
    I recognise that this will be the subject of continuing debate. I am happy to meet Members of the Committee between now and Report to discuss the matter further. I hope that they will recognise that the Government are seeking to be reasonable in ensuring high quality support services, also recognising that the local authority must have some discretion.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: The Minister did not answer my question about Scotland. I now want to ask him about Northern Ireland as well, since he mentioned England and Wales again.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This Bill largely relates to England and Wales, although it contains provisions particularly about recognition of adoptions in each country. I understand that in Scotland they are considering undertaking a review of their own adoption arrangements. Northern Ireland may be doing so, but they are not so far advanced in their deliberations.
    The provisions that we are talking about in relation to adoption support services would apply to adopted children living in England. If they were in Scotland, the provisions of the Scottish legislation would apply. We will continue to work closely with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations to make sure that it is as clear as possible to adoptive parents as to the different circumstances in which they find themselves.
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The Minister said that the Government would be monitoring closely the workings of the support services. If the Government then find that they are not satisfied with the way that they are working, what can they do about it?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There are a number of mechanisms that the Department of Health can use to intervene in local authorities' performance, if we are dissatisfied with the way that they perform; for example, there is the role of the Social Services Inspectorate in drawing to the attention of local authorities weaknesses in their performance. In addition, a fairly short time ago we launched performance ratings for local authority social services
    CWH82
    departments, which gave a very clear indication to the public and to counsellors in those authorities as to whether a local authority was doing well, or badly.
    We also have other direct intervention powers. At the end of the day, we can take the responsibility for services away from a local authority. In addition, its adoption service will require to be regulated in the circumstances that I described under the National Care Standards Commission. Whatever else people may say, I do not believe local authorities are in any doubt that we have the power to intervene.
    Baroness Barker: This has been an extremely helpful and useful debate. After some considerable time we heard the exact word that we needed to hear when the Minister used the word "evidence". I highlight that because I came to this subject completely afresh. I did not know what post-adoption support was; I really did not know what people meant by it. When people started to explain it to me and explained that it would make a tangible difference, my first question was: how do you know?
    We have established that the evidence, for any argument on any side, is pretty thin. That is most effectively demonstrated in the consultation document that the Government provided last week. I should like to pick up some of the points raised by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, about the difference—and distinction—between post-adoption services and services for other children.
    Members of the Committee may not have the consultation document to hand, but pages 22 and 23 set out the existing duties of local authorities and of other authorities under the Children Act. There is a range of duties that are already in place for general children's services. However, if one turns to page 27 of the document and considers what the Minister said as regards the evidence From recent social services inspections, one sees a long list of points on why many of the current adoption services do not work. It is a very strange consultation document, with very few figures in it —a fact which puzzles me. It has become evident to me that one of the reasons is that there is no tracking or monitoring mechanism for what happens when an adoption goes wrong. There is also no tracking or monitoring of what happens when they go well, and when adoption support is provided.
    We are all arguing very much in the dark here. This is why some of us have homed in on the question of assessment. The Minister talked about the distinction between assessment and assessments made in the light of resources. My noble friend Earl Russell and I immediately thought of the Gloucestershire judgment—those are the words that will ring in his ear on that particular subject.
    The Government, in this Bill, have said "We will give you the right to an assessment, and because that assessment is in no way bound to be provision-related, it will be a very pure assessment". Therefore, a person who receives an assessment for post-adoption support will have a "perfect—I repeat, "perfect" —assessment of his adoption. He will not get that from his local authority, so perhaps he could get it somewhere else.

    CWH83
    I ask the Minister this: how will local authorities make assessments for something which may never exist? Part of an assessment process has to consider whether a person will get benefit from a post-adoption service. If that post-adoption service never exists, how do you build up an assessment on it? There is something illogical in this; something incomplete. That is why some of us have chosen to focus our amendments on what happens when assessments are carried out but no provision is made.
    I believe people when they tell me—I refer Members of the Committee back to Clause 1 (4)(a) and (b) and to the fact that we are dealing with the needs of a person throughout his life—that the problems which adopted children have are not unique; other children have those same problems. But they are unique as regards the way that they happen in the case of adopted children and adoptive families. So there is a special need there.
    I also have a question. It is a question, for the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, as well as for the Minister. Does a post-adoption service have to be absolutely isolated from all other functions of a social services department? I do not believe that it does. Mental health services, family counselling and so on are services that need to exist for all families.
    We have talked about other pieces of legislation, the Education Bill and so on. We are not seeking in this Bill to put adopted children and adoptive families at some higher level of need than anybody else; we are trying to make sure that the right services exist. If they exist for adoptive families and children, then other people who have those same needs can access them. That is the point here.
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I must intervene. Of course, I fully understand the point the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is raising. Does she, however, not see the argument that I am putting forward? It would not work like that. Because you are imposing such a strong duty in relation to adoption support services—a stronger duty than in the case of almost any other provision by a local authority social services department—it would not work in the way the noble Baroness suggests. It would work the other way. That is the genuine problem here. There is no argument in principle here between all Members of the Committee. There is no point going down this route unless we can ensure that adoption support services are provided effectively to all who need them.
    Baroness Barker: I put the contrary point to the Minister. No matter which piece of legislation one is assessed under, one is going to be assessed for something one is not going to get because it is not going to exist. That is the problem.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness is far too pessimistic about what is going to be provided. I am disappointed that she is so damning of this consultative paper because I think that it is extremely interesting. It shows the range of services that can be
    CWH84
    provided. We have put extra resources into local authorities for their adoption support services. The consultation paper makes clear that already, without that extra money, local authorities are putting more resource in themselves because increasingly they recognise that they have to sort out adoption services. They know that you need good adoption support services to make the thing work. They know we are going to regulate them. They know we are going to have strong performance assessment. We are not going to end up in a position where people are not going to get decent adoption support services. Why else would we place a statutory assessment duty on the face of the Bill?
    Baroness Barker: That is the question we have all been pondering and continue to ponder. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was damning of this document. I am not, and I am delighted to see it. I cannot tell the noble Lord how delighted I am to see it now when we are able to discuss it. There is much in its description and analysis which is extremely useful, but it is deficient in two very crucial areas: evidence and funding. That is the problem that I have with it.
    I go back to the point about evidence and reiterate my question to the noble Lord about tracking. I believe that Members on all sides of the Committee are seeking to do not only that which is best but also that which is—if I dare say it—fiscally prudent. However, we are all hampered by the lack of evidence.
    I want to deal with a couple of specific points which the Minister raised. First, on Amendment No. 19, the Minister talked about the necessity not to have a plan. He said that a plan may apply only to a one-off episode. I believe that this is part of the deal—the more there is in regulations, the more individual people who are likely to be affected by legislation should have the right to see things in writing. That relates to all areas of legislation.
    Secondly, Amendment No. 21 concerns local authority complaints procedures. We will come to this in a later debate. No matter how good a local authority complaints procedure may be, the complaint is made to the same authority working with the same ethos, the same policies and, critically, the same financial situation.
    I mentioned a local authority that happens to be run by my party at the moment. What would someone in the London Borough of Lambeth do when it has to cut £9 million this year from its social services budget? What is the point of having a complaints procedure that enables someone to go back only to meet with the same set of factors that they have met with before? That is wrong.
    I refer to two further points. There is a lack of data here. Who knows what is going on? Who knows what is happening and not happening? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred in his opening statement to a long list of organisations which have differing views on just about every aspect of the Bill. But, as one, they tell us, first, that this is not happening, secondly, that it should

    CWH85
    happen, and, thirdly, that if it does happen, it will make a reality of many of the items in the Government's wish list.
    Finally, why do we want to put this measure on the face of the Bill as opposed to leaving it to regulations and local authority guidance? There is one crucial reason why we have to do that. Here I refer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. He talked about what happened when statementing and educational needs came in. In a way that I would not dare, he talked about his own legal profession. However, there was a crucial difference there. Individual people have a right, because of legislation, to argue the case for something to happen. It is not about local authorities deciding whether or not they react to government guidance; it is about individual people having a power. That is why, taken together, the amendments—-perhaps they are not correct in every detail; I accept that—should be just cause for the Government to go away and think again.
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I have not yet worked out whether one stands up when one's name is mentioned. I am still learning all these procedures. I have a few points to make. First, I am a Cross-Bencher. I am delighted to be put alongside the Minister, but what I say is from my own experience, not from any political background, and I should make that absolutely clear.
    I agree with the points that have been made. I said that I would like to see a duty in all these areas. I have great concerns that if we place a duty on one and not on the others, we will get this terrible imbalance. The noble Baroness made the point that what we really need to work towards—and I believe the Government are attempting this—is integrated services, so that all these issues can come together, and the service can benefit all the children who need them, not just one group of children.
    I also want to make the point about the way an assessment takes place. I want to see the best assessments, recommending the best services. I have been in situations when that has happened over the years, but one cannot provide that. One cannot provide it because rationing means those resources are not only not available because of costs, but because there may he some psychiatric care which one cannot obtain, or because the waiting lists are so long.
    Many of the problems are with the health service. Many of the children need special health service care, or special educational care, which simply are not there. I would not want an assessment to be a statutory duty, which one could not then make best endeavours in relation to that child. Those best endeavours might not be the top of the list, but I would not like to lose those at the top list because we desperately need research. We need research which says, "What did these children need? What did they get? What were the outcomes?" If we had that, then we would be in a better position to know, again, what is best for all children, not just this group of children.
    CWH86
    I felt I should respond. I hope that is the appropriate way to do it and I shall keep trying.
    Lord Brennan: I thank the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with all the comments. No sensible person is going to invite the Government to give a blank cheque to local authorities; that is absurd. The proposition as put raises two questions that I would invite him to consider. The proposition is: upon what basis should an assessment be carried out whether or not a provision is made—
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Can the noble Lord speak up?
    Lord Brennan: Yes. Secondly, what are the criteria to be used once the local authority determines that it is a proper case in which to make provision? Can it or not?
    I was very reassured to hear from my noble friend that he thought a local authority must act reasonably in making the first decision on whether the child should receive support services. However, my question is: against what criteria? Reasonableness has to be objective and not idiosyncratic from local authority to local authority, so where would those criteria come from?
    My second question is: in the circumstance in which a local authority would like to give provision but for various reasons it cannot justify that, what criteria will then apply? What will the performance monitoring group use as the standards against which to decide whether the local authority has acted sensibly and in the public interest?
    I am reassured by the progress we have made in terms of "reasonableness" in relation to local authority action, but I invite the Minister to consider—not today but later—whether we can go a step further and decide what the criteria are.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I was a little disturbed by what seemed to be a rather cavalier attitude on the part of the Minister, who is not normally cavalier, towards written papers. We have done our best to suggest that at various points records should be kept—a written reason for not providing services, a written plan which is kept under review, and so on. He seemed to suggest that that was demanding too much.
    I am a member of a probation board, and some of the children—unfortunately the sort of children we are talking about—may well pass from the social services direct to the probation board. When that happens, every single action that the probation service takes in respect of those children has to be recorded. That record is the record of what the service has done, and on that record it is judged. The record also provides the evidence for the national performance of the service and its success in serving the courts and so on.
    I see no reason why another service, dealing with the same or similar young people who have suffered the same or similar traumatic events in their youth, should not be under the same obligation to make a record of

    CWH87
    what it does, and when and why it does it. Such a record also provides evidence for what is happening in the service as a whole and what causes success and failure. Similarly, in the health service we spend a great deal of time asking ourselves which treatments have been successful, what their cost was and how they performed as compared with those that have not been so successful, their costs and so on.
    5.45 p.m.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the noble Baroness because without the written reasons you are love:30 or love:40 on judicial reviews. This is a very essential amendment. I will not take up time—there are other lawyers here.
    The Earl of Listowel: I heard Professor A1 Ainsley Green, who is leading the Children's Framework, make a final point that policy towards children should be evidence-based. He also made the point that more and more we are looking at the journey of the child. Both those points are relevant to what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has just said.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I suspect that we are at cross purposes. I fully recognise that the local authority needs to keep appropriate records for the reasons raised in relation to judicial review—which we hope will not be a frequent occurrence, although I noted the comments of my noble friend—or if a person seeks to use the complaints procedure. A local authority will need to keep records. My comments were specifically in relation to the actual wording of the amendment: I suggested that there might be circumstances where it would not be essential for the local authority to provide a written plan, particularly when a one-off service was being provided. However, a written plan is different from keeping a proper record of any decision taken. That is the point that I was trying to make.
    More generally, on the issue of outcome evidence and tracking through how well the new system will proceed, I recognise that important point. The department is funding research on both the cost and outcomes of adoption and I hope it will be of use to all of us in the future and to local authorities in particular. It is worth saying that the White Paper committed the Government to working on how to develop better systems of monitoring the outcome of adoptions, but to do so in a sensitive way without being intrusive in relation to the families concerned. We shall continue to work on that basis.
    Earl Howe: I had expected this to be a debate of some importance and how right I was. We have made progress today. These exchanges have been extremely useful and I thank all Members of the Committee and the right reverend Prelate for taking part.
    In conclusion, I thank the Minister for the way in which he was able to concur with the central premise of the case that I tried to lay out; namely, the critical importance of adoption services for families, of early preparation and the cost to society if services are not
    CWH88
    provided when they are needed. I know that the Minister understands the strength of the case made today. Indeed, I take some heart from the fact that he did not chide me too hard. In fact, he did not chide me at all, as he usually does, on attempting to place a duty of this kind on the face of the Bill.
    In a sense, the Minister made the case for me. If councils are to have discretion not to provide adoption services, what is the point of requiring them to provide an assessment? Why should they be legally obliged to incur the cost of assessments if they are not then going to spend money on the support services? There is a lack of logic there. The Minister said that in his view local authorities know what is in the air, what is expected of them, and what they are going to have to do. I wonder about that. All the evidence at the moment is that there are some local authorities providing very good support services, but also that there are others which simply do not and show no signs of doing so.
    I wonder whether the Government themselves went through the sort of thought processes that this Committee has gone through and then backtracked along the way. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, usefully drew our attention to what the Government said in their White Paper Adoption: A New Approach. I shall read out a bit of it again. Paragraph 6.27 says that new legislation would be introduced to,
    "place a clear duty on local social services authorities to provide post-adoption support, including financial support, planned jointly with local education authorities and the NHS, and any other relevant agencies. This support will be available from the time a placement is made, for as long as it is needed".
    The language there is quite plain. I read that as a commitment to provide post-adoption support, and to impose a clear duty to provide that support. The White Paper did not say that local authorities would be given a duty to decide whether or not to provide post-adoption support.
    Therefore, if the Government continue to resist these amendments in later stages of the Bill, they will seem to have resiled from the commitment in their own White Paper. Unless local authorities are obliged to provide adoption support to those who meet the assessment criteria, there is, as I said, a distinct risk that many of them will offer the barest of skeleton services, simply to comply with the letter of the law. I am not at all sure about the Minister's remarks about the triumph of enlightened self-interest on the part of local authorities. The reality is that when the budgetary climate is tough, local authorities will concentrate their resources on their statutory duties and cut down on the functions which they do not legally have to provide.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Does that not give substance to my argument that one needs to be cautious before pursuing an option which, in effect, would say that adoption support service provision is a higher responsibility than almost any other provision by a local authority social services department? Does the noble Earl not recognise that there is some merit in at least debating whether that is ultimately a sensible option?
    Earl Howe: Of course I recognise the merit of that. I think that we owe that point particularly to the noble

    CWH89
    Baroness, Lady Howarth, and to the Minister. Ring fencing is a problematic issue; it always has been and always will be. This is ring fencing in another sense. It is not ring fencing of a budget but ring fencing of duties, which has an impact on everything else. Of course I understand that. However, to the extent that that is so, I should have thought that it was attributable to a shortage of both trained professionals and of money.
    We come back to the money question, which was highlighted particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. No one on this side of the Committee—or at least in this corner of the Committee—would be in favour of issuing a blank cheque to local authorities. We are as much in favour of prudence as is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the ability of local authorities to provide these services will depend critically on the resources that they receive from central government. This is ultimately an element of the PSS budget. To the extent that they cannot provide the services, it is a reflection of lack of provision of money from the centre. That is perhaps a point upon which we need to reflect between now and Report. We are looking at a resources issue.
    There is no doubt that there is a gap in the centre of this clause. Local authorities are being given a duty to provide an assessment where it is requested. They are being given a duty to decide to make a decision on the basis of that assessment. There is a duty, as we heard, to exercise reasonableness in coming to that decision. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, shed some very helpful light on the question of reasonableness. We heard from the Minister that reasonableness can take account of the question of resources.
    I am fearful about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, about judicial review, if we focus on this question of reasonableness. There could be severe risks that, once a local authority has decided that services are required on the basis of an assessment properly carried out, but then fails to provide those services because of a lack of resources, then we could be in dangerous waters.
    I do not see performance management as a substitute for this duty, not least because performance management—by definition—tends to be exercised long after the identification of need, and real families and real children will have suffered in the interim. While I do not belittle performance management, which is an extremely important area, I am not persuaded that it is a substitute for this duty.
    We have spent a good deal of time on this issue and it is time to move on. I again thank all noble Lords who have taken part, and I thank the Minister for his very thoughtful words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 17 to 22 not moved.]
    Baroness Gibson of Market Rasenmoved Amendment No. 23:
    Page 5, line 17, after "notify" insert "and request the help of"
    The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 23, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 26. These are both small amendments, but they are strengthening amendments in relation to Clause 4(9). They strengthen the requirements on the health authority, the primary care trust and the LEA.
    Amendment No. 23 imposes a commitment on the three bodies in addition to those provided for in the Bill. It also further involves them by requesting their help. It is a practical amendment which asks for assistance, and I hope that it will become a practical part of the Bill.
    Amendment No. 26 commits the above-mentioned bodies—the health authorities, primary care trusts and local authorities—to action. The Bill refers to "notification". However, notification is one thing, but action is another. As written, Clause 4(9)(b) seems to say that the bodies could "note" but not actually ask for action on information received. I believe that these amendments would make it clear beyond doubt exactly what we are asking of these bodies. I beg to move.
    6 p.m.
    Lord Astor of Hever: I rise briefly to speak to Amendment No. 24. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, moved her amendment very eloquently and I agree with the spirit of what she said about the further commitment.
    In the Bill, there is a duty on the local authority to notify health authorities, PCTs or the local education authority. As the noble Baroness said, there is no duty on those bodies to provide health or education services. Even if they believe they should provide those services, they may decide not to.
    There is no point in simple notification without a duty to provide the services that a thorough assessment has declared vital to the progress of the child. There is a requirement in education that if a child is statemented, his assessed needs must be met. We feel that the same should apply to health and education under the Bill.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Our amendment in this series is very similar to the others; it is almost identical to Amendment No. 24. The purpose of the amendments is quite clear to everyone.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We debated similar amendments on Monday. Members of the Committee will recall that I agreed to look at the form of any guidance we give to local authorities, LEAs and the NHS, particularly picking up the point that was made on Monday about the need for co-ordination when the local authority providing an adoption service, the LEA and the NHS have statutory responsibilities. The clear point is making sure that there is co-ordination. On Monday, I said that I would look at the guidance to ensure that we picked up this issue of co-ordination.

    CWH91
    I recognise that these amendments raise a number of particular issues that we need to consider. If I can first say to my noble friend Lady Gibson that I want to reassure her about what I understand the word "notification" to mean. The point is that health authorities, primary care trusts and local education authorities must act reasonably in the exercise of their functions. They have statutory responsibilities and they would not be in a position to ignore or overlook such notifications from local social service authorities. They could not simply receive a notification and place it in a file. They would have to give due consideration to it. That is their responsibility as providers of statutory services.
    In addition, education and health providers will of course be aware that services needed to support an adoptive placement are likely to be less intensive than those that would be needed if the child were in the looked-after system.
    I know that in our last debate, doubt was cast upon that good old principle of enlightened self-interest. I am certain that the responsibility of the local authority to notify if it appears to it that provision of services is needed from the health authority, the LEA or primary care trust, with the guidance that we are going to issue as to how that will work, will be abundantly clear. It will be clear to the LEA and to the NHS that it is in everyone's interest that they work together to ensure that appropriate services are provided.
    Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 also address the role of health and education authorities in the provision of adoption support services. These amendments would place a duty on health bodies and local education authorities, following receipt of a notification from a local authority, to provide any relevant service.
    I have made it clear that the NHS and the LEA will need to determine whether to provide such adoption support services in accordance with their statutory provision. I have to stress again, however, as I did on Monday, that it would not be sensible to reach a position where the assessment for adoption support services provided under Clause 4 of the Bill overrode the responsibility of the NHS and the LEA to provide the statutory duties that they have to provide.
    Naturally, where a health authority, a primary care trust, or an LEA decides to provide services following such notification, it would be good practice for it to inform the local social services authority. This would give the local social services authority a clear picture of the package of adoption support services being provided to an individual and help ensure the joined-up planning and provision of public services. I have listened to that particular argument and can assure Members of the Committee that we shall issue guidance and directions to LEAs and the NHS to that effect. I also give assurance that National Adoption Standards state that councils will plan and deliver
    CWH92
    adoption services with local health and education bodies. The use of guidance and directions will help to deliver that standard.
    The Earl of Listowel: On a very specific point, the perception of adoption services tends to be that the service provided by CAMHS is not as effective often as one not provided by CAMHS—the sort of psychotherapeutic approach with the children that we are talking about here. It is a particular point, therefore, and I hope the Minister will not mind me raising it here.
    It is important that the right intervention is made; that is what I am trying to get across. Can the Minister explain, therefore, how, if the normal CAMHS approach, which tends to be a cognitive approach with a short intervention to address particular symptoms and with a short piece of behavioural treatment, is not thought to be appropriate, a different approach, which is more long term, often talk therapy that looks at the roots of a child's problem and tries to address them maybe over a number of years, might be brought in and worked?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I suppose, first, that the very fact that statutory assessment needs to take place would allow for discussion between the local authorities and the individual or parents who have asked for such an assessment to discuss the range of options on offer. That would be the first point at which to discuss it.
    If, as a result of those discussions and the assessment, the local authority considered that the NHS would be able to provide such services, the health service would receive notification under Clause 4(9)(a) and the local health service would then need to consider what further action it might take. That might in itself involve a discussion with the applicants who have received the assessment in which the range of options would be put before them.
    The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, then took the matter into a much wider debate, not for the first time, and I recognise what he said about the value of "talking therapies". I would hope that that would be a matter that the local NHS would consider. He also raised the question of the effectiveness of the adolescent mental health service. He will know that there is much to be done in improving those services, including coordinating the work between health and social services. He mentioned A1 Ainsley Green very recently, our Children's Czar, if I may put it like that. We are developing the Children's National Service Framework and we are looking at the kind of service that is provided in that context. I cannot give a simple answer to the noble Earl but I hope he will recognise that, through the assessment process, through the notification, then through the NHS making its own determination, there are opportunities to provide a full range of services. However, I do not pretend that ensuring effective services is anything but a very great challenge.
    Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his explanation of the term

    CWH93
    "notification". Perhaps I could ask something about the guidance to which he has referred. It strikes me that there should be some kind of monitoring of what is actually happening. Guidance is fine—but. Will there be a reference to monitoring in the guidance, or if not, will there be some other form of monitoring what is happening?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My noble friend is absolutely right. We come back to the previous debate about assessments and how we can make sure that this system works effectively. I can assure my noble friend that as regards our overall performance management of the new adoption service, issues in relation to co-ordination between the local statutory agencies will clearly need to be factored into that assessment process. As far as the NHS is concerned, the Department of Health has direct performance management mechanisms in place for the National Health Service. We will want to see a joined-up approach put in place.
    Lord Astor of Hever: We will read very carefully what the Minister has said. We feel that there is an argument for putting the measure on the face of the Bill as these are a priority category of people. However, as I say, we will read carefully what the Minister has said.
    Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: In the light of the Minister's reply and in view of the fact that we can look at it in Hansard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 not moved.]
    Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 27:
    Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
    "( ) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."
    The noble Earl said: We have had a good debate on the substantive points at issue in this clause and I do not want to draw out our proceedings unduly. However, Amendment No. 27 reflects the broader concern that I have about the importance of the subject matter in Clause 4—a point which has already been echoed by many noble Lords.
    How Clause 4 will actually work out in practice is, to a very great extent, dependent on regulations yet to be drafted. The criteria to be set down as to who is entitled to an assessment, in what circumstances they are entitled to it, what factors should govern a local authority's deliberations as they carry out an assessment, and so on—all these things are not yet known, yet they are of critical importance.
    I always regret the absence of draft regulations when a Bill is being debated but this is a particularly glaring example of the Committee having to fly blind, as it were. We need to see what the Government are planning to put into the regulations before we can make a balanced judgment about this part of the Bill. That is why I have tabled this amendment. As we are
    CWH94
    not aware of what the regulations will contain, it is not unreasonable for us to ask that both Houses should have an automatic right to debate them when they are laid.
    However, regardless of that—I expect the Minister to take issue with me on this point—it would be most helpful if he could go a little further than he has so far been able to do about the content of the regulations, in particular about the assessments themselves, how they are going to be done, how the plans are to be drawn up, and how these are to be reviewed. What is meant by conditional support in subsection (7)(f)? I believe that it relates to reimbursement and that there is some financial implication to it, but I am not certain.
    Our earlier debate on the issue of connected persons gave rise to a number of questions about who will be able to request an assessment on behalf of whom. The Minister has already made a number of helpful comments there, but if he could enlarge on that it would be useful. There are cross-boundary issues that need to be thought through. There is the interaction between health, education and social services. All these are pivotal to the success of the Government's plans, which of course we very much want to see working properly.
    The other implication of subsections (6) and (7) is resources. I realise that these are not strictly relevant to the content of the regulations themselves, but, as we were debating earlier, they are a vitally necessary accompaniment to them. The more that we require of local authorities in the way that they are told to carry out assessments, plans, reviews and so on, the more they are entitled to plead for the wherewithal with which to do it all.
    In particular, many local authorities will be short of the necessary skilled manpower. I understand that the vacancy rate in some social services children's departments is as high as 50 per cent in parts of London. The Minister may not be able to say anything now, but it would be helpful if at some point he could comment on how that situation is to be ameliorated. Without professional trained staff, we can legislate all we like, but we shall not improve the situation on the ground by one iota.
    I hope that the Minister will feel sympathetic to the motivation which has led me to move this amendment. If he can shed some light on the particular issues to which I referred, I should be grateful. I beg to move.
    6.15 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Recruitment and retention are clearly a matter of great importance. We have taken great interest and worked with our local government colleagues on the matter. I should be happy to give more details to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and perhaps write to him about some of the initiatives taken. Clearly these are important. Last autumn, we launched a series of initiatives at the, social services conference which I hope are beginning to bear fruit.
    Subsection (7)(f), on conditional support, could be used to enable local authorities to specify that financial support must be spent on specified items or services

    CWH95
    and can be recouped if not so spent. It might be appropriate where a one-off grant is being paid for a specific purpose, but is unlikely to be used for regular allowances.
    In terms of the parliamentary procedure to be adopted under the Bill, we have sought to follow established practice. All regulations made under the Adoption Act 1976 are subject to the negative resolution procedure except for those made under Section 3(1), which are not subject to any procedure. We therefore believe that the vast majority of regulations made under the Adoption and Children Bill should also be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
    A memorandum was sent to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee when the Bill was introduced in this House. The Committee reported that the powers are appropriately delegated and that the provisions for parliamentary scrutiny are appropriate. Given the number of times that noble Lords in this Committee have recently prayed against Department of Health regulations, I do not believe that the use of negative resolutions is inappropriate. I am sure that we shall have happy hours debating those regulations when they come before us.
    The noble Earl asked about the details and the timetable. The consultation paper that we published last week sets out some of the issues on which we are consulting. That consultation will inform the regulations and help to address some of the issues which he raised on the criteria to be adopted. The aim is to discuss the draft guidelines and regulations with stakeholder groups in October-November 2002 in the light of the consultation. We hope to publish the framework and draft regulations and guidance for public consultation towards the end of the year. We aim then to finalise regulations and issue them, with guidance, early in 2003. That is important because we need to allow sufficient time for those who have to implement the new approach from 2004. They must have time to prepare the ground for that.
    Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I did not really expect that the amendment as it stands would find favour with the Government. However, in mitigation, I think that the Minister will appreciate the weight that the Committee attaches to the clause. It is largely for that reason that I felt it an appropriate amendment.
    I realise that the Delegated Powers Committee of your Lordships' House has declared that the procedure in the Bill is appropriate. My concern is that the other place does not always have an opportunity to debate negative instruments. We in your Lordships' House have that privilege if we wish to insist upon it. Members of Parliament, for reasons that I need not explain, do not necessarily have that privilege. I am sure that when the regulations are laid we shall wish to pay close attention to them and debate them.
    CWH96
    It was helpful that the Minister was able to give a clear idea of the timetable. I thank him for that. We shall look forward to reading the consultation document that has been issued in more detail and to hearing some of the feedback from key stakeholders.
    I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 4 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
    Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
    Clause 8 [Adoption support agencies]:
    Baroness Barkermoved Amendment No. 29:
    Page 7, line 3, after third "of' insert "professional"
    The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment which I hope will find favour with the Committee. Clause 8 defines what is meant by an adoption support agency. As I have said before, those of us who come to this subject afresh have been delighted, not to say bewildered, to meet the variety of organisations that work in this field.
    The purpose of the amendment is to draw a distinction between bodies that provide regulated services under this Bill and previous adoption Bills, and the many voluntary—truly voluntary—organisations, and self-help organisations, which provide invaluable support but which perhaps in many cases are of a wholly voluntary nature with no staff nor, indeed, vast resources. Clearly, therefore, they should not come within the scope of this Bill and within what we are in no doubt will be a very heavy and demanding regulatory framework.
    As Members of the Committee would expect, coming from my professional background I very much believe in the encouragement and development of voluntary sector activities. That is important, as is the quality that such organisations bring to this sort of work. It would be a shame if, almost inadvertently, we were to inhibit that valuable work from continuing by wrongly including them in this legislation.
    At the same time, it is wholly clear within this Bill that there is a demarcation between what a voluntary organisation should do and what a voluntary adoption agency, providing regulated services, is. There should not be any confusion in that respect. That is why I have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Baroness because I agree with what she says. It is important to make sure that we are clear as to who will be covered by the regulatory process, and who will not be. I fully recognise the value of voluntary groups in this area; and, indeed, self-help groups that carry out enormously valuable work. As far as concerns the wording, subsection (1) of Clause 8 makes it clear that an adoption support agency is an undertaking. The term "undertaking" has the same meaning as Section 121 of the Care Standards Act 2000. It includes any business or profession, whether voluntary or profit making, but does not extend, for example, to a self-help group meeting in a person's own home.

    CWH97
    In line with this definition, an adoption support agency may be a voluntary or profit-making undertaking, and either an organisation or a sole practitioner. Adoption support providers that are not currently subject to any form of inspection or regulation, such as post-adoption support centres and independent counsellors providing adoption support services, will be required to register as adoption support agencies.
    Adoption support providers that are already regulated through other means, such as approved voluntary adoption agencies, NHS providers and the registrar-general, will be exempt from the requirement to register as an adoption support agency. In so doing, we are hoping to avoid unnecessary duplication of registration. The providers who are exempt from the requirement to register are listed at subsection (2)(a) to (e) of Clause 8.
    Subsection (2)(f) of Clause 8 provides a power to make regulations to add to the list of adoption support providers that are not obliged to register as adoption support agencies. We will make regulations under this provision if we believe that other adoption support providers should be exempt from the requirement to register, where these providers are regulated through other means. We will use this power to avoid duplication of registration if such duplication comes to light.
    The amendment amends the definition of an "adoption support agency" in subsection (1) of Clause 8. It provides that an adoption support agency is an undertaking which provides professional adoption support services. While, alas, the term "professional" is not defined by the noble Baroness, it is obviously intended to capture adoption support services provided by those who have an appropriate level of training and expertise.
    In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Baroness will agree that informal providers of adoption support services, such as the support groups held in people's own homes, will not be classed as adoption support agencies and will not be required to register as such. The last thing the Government would want to do would be to prevent people affected by adoption from supporting each other on an informal basis. We want to encourage this. However, the intention behind the new provisions is to ensure that adoption support services—such as counselling—are provided to a high standard by people with the necessary qualifications, training and expertise to meet adoption-related needs. I hope that that meets the point the noble Baroness has raised.
    6.30 p.m.
    Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for his response. As he will know, this amendment was not crafted by me but by somebody else. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, speaks from an independent and experiential point of view, but so do I when it comes to the voluntary sector. I want to make it clear that "voluntary" does not always mean "amateur". I wanted to draw a distinction between
    CWH98
    those organisations which provide regulated services and those which do not. I may return to that at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 8 agreed to.
    Clause 9 [General power to regulate adoption etc. agencies]:
    Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 30:
    Page 7, line 41, at end insert—
    "( ) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."
    The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 30. This is a straightforward and familiar amendment, making the regulation-making powers under Clause 9 subject to the affirmative procedure.
    Clause 9 is statutory cover for regulations made under several clauses of the Bill. Those regulation-making powers, taken together, are extremely broad in their scope and will cover many important matters which ought to be debated properly in your Lordships' House.
    Regulation-making powers are particularly important because, under Clause 9(3), the regulations may provide for penalties for contravention or failure to comply with the regulations, with the possibility of a fine up to level five—£5,000 in current money. The Secretary of State will decide in the regulations which of them attracts the possibility of a fine.
    The Government have said very little about the regulations generally under this clause and, so far as I am aware, nothing about the kind of circumstances they would see as appropriate for penalties to be applied. I hope the Minister will say a little more today about the areas where penalties are considered appropriate.
    Perhaps I may remind the Committee about the scope of the regulations that could be made under Clause 9. Clause 10 covers a whole range of issues connected with the management of the agencies. Clause 11, importantly, covers fees to be charged. Clause 12 covers the very important area of the independent review of determinations. Clause 44 is a potentially controversial clause on the suitability of adopters. Clauses 53, 55 and 64 cover various aspects of information collection and provision. All of these are extremely important areas and I know that Members of the Committee will be discussing aspects of them as we progress through the Bill.
    I will not spend a great deal of time today listing the particular questions that we would want answered. I hope the Minister will say a little more about making progress on drafting regulations under this area. I understand that the document published last week covers the areas included in Clause 4, but not the wide range of areas to which I have just referred which would come within the regulation-making power in Clause 9. I hope that the Minister will say what consultation will be undertaken, when he expects the draft to be published and so on. It may well be that, in

    CWH99
    the light of what he says we will need to revisit the regulation-making powers in some more detailed and targeted way on Report.
    At present, we are simply being asked to agree that a massive amount of detail will be left to subordinate legislation, subject only to the negative procedure. I am well aware—and I am sure the Minister will remind me—that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has given a green light to these powers. Nevertheless, it is proper for the Committee to reflect on whether these massive regulation-making powers, especially connected with the issue of penalties, ought to indicate that the stronger affirmative procedure should be used in this case. I beg to move.
    Lord Clement-Jones: As reluctant as I am to break my Trappist approach to the Bill, I thought I had better rise to speak to Amendment No. 49.
    Curiosity partly drives the amendment, which is to Clause 14. The grouping is slightly strange. The only common factor in Amendments Nos. 30 and 49 is the word "regulation". Be that as it may, it is an opportunity to talk about the considerable number of regulations under the Bill, how they can be enforced, and the mechanism for enforcing them under Clause 14.
    A major question arises as to why enforcement depends so entirely on the Minister's decision under Clause 14. A memorandum from the Department of Health submitted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which tried to explain why it is done by way of ministerial direction—this is how the regulations and the duties under the Bill will be enforced, rather than by penalties of any kind, whether they are fines, imprisonment, or other forms of sanction—stated that:
    "The powers in Clause 14 will only be used in exceptional circumstances and will need to be used on a reactive basis where speed will be important. The Department, therefore, considers that as under Section 7(d) of the 1970 Act"—
    and I confess I have not gone back to the 1970 Act,
    "it is appropriate for them to take the form of order and direction-making powers rather than for them to be set out in primary legislation or regulations. This would give the appropriate Minister maximum flexibility as to their use".
    I am used to circular arguments, but that is a classic circular argument. It is required because it is required and it is appropriate.
    The Minister could do rather better than that, and I know he normally does, in explaining these things. Why should there not be a more general power of enforcement at the behest of the general public or public authorities? We have only the enforcement of the duties under the Bill, which are considerable. We have discussed only half of them so perhaps we are putting the cart before the horse in talking about sanctions before we have gone through the full range
    CWH100
    of regulations. It seems rather curious that there is nothing that an individual, adoption agency or public authority can enforce under the Bill under Clause 14. Why should there not be sanctions that bite? There is only the declaration of default by the Minister. That is entirely within the Minister's discretion.
    These are serious duties under the Bill, serious regulations to be taken seriously particularly as they concern the welfare of children. There is an extremely good case for having sanctions which have real teeth, and that is why, in Amendment No. 49, we have suggested fines or imprisonment. That would be in addition to the direction-making power of the Minister, not as an alternative.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I turn first to Amendment No. 30. My arguments have not changed very much since we debated this matter some 10 minutes ago. We believe that in following what is the general principle in relation to legislation in the social services field, we have used the negative power in terms of regulations in general, although there are three clauses in this Bill where the affirmative power is used. However, two of those are Henry VIII clauses and one is a very wide ranging power indeed.
    As the noble Baroness has suggested, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee believes that we have that right. I can assure Members of the Committee that in all these regulations we intend to take a fully inclusive approach towards consultation which will then lead to draft regulations. We will do that in the case of all regulations and we wish to have a fully inclusive approach.
    As far as Amendment No. 49 is concerned, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, has decided to venture into our debates today—he has been much missed! Clause 14 provides default powers for the appropriate Minister which are exercisable where a local authority has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with any of its duties imposed by the Bill or by Sections 1 or 2(4) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. Amendment No. 49 seeks to insert a new subsection into Clause 14 to enable regulations to prescribe that the contravention of any provision of the adoption regulations may be a criminal offence punishable by a maximum level five fine or three months' custody.
    Regulations which will set out how adoption agencies and adoption support agencies are to exercise their function will be made under Clause 9. Clause 9(3) provides that regulations may provide that anyone who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of regulations made under Clause 9 will be guilty of an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level five, which is currently set at £5,000. A new subsection to Clause 14, to provide penalties for breaching adoption regulations is, therefore, unnecessary.
    However, Amendment No. 49 also provides for the possibility of a custodial sentence of up to three months for a breach of regulations. We do not believe

    CWH101
    that this is appropriate because again, regulations under Clause 9 will make provision for any purpose relating to the exercise by local authorities or voluntary adoption agencies of their functions in relation to adoption. They will also make provision for any purpose relating to the exercise by adoption support agencies of their functions in relation to adoption support services. Local authorities, voluntary adoption agencies and adoption support agencies will all be subject to regular inspection by the National Care Standards Commission.
    If a local authority fails to perform those functions adequately, the appropriate Minister may then use the default powers under Clause 14. Of course, that is the point which was made so eloquently in the department's memorandum, to which the noble Lord referred, and the argument there is very compelling indeed. The point is that you might need to take action very quickly, which is where the Minister's default powers would need to be made. However, that has to be looked at alongside the context of Clause 9(3) where we have further regulation-making power in that aspect.
    There are, thus, a number of ways in which action can be taken, including the regulatory power of the National Care Standards Commission itself, which will be taking over in this area from April 2003. I hope that that has been of some clarification to the noble Lord and that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Clement-Jones: I shall, if I may, interrogate the Minister a little further. I do not think he expected to get away quite as lightly as that. The reference he mentioned—Clause 9(3)—does indeed talk about "an offence" and "subject to summary conviction" and so forth without the imprisonment sanction, but that is only in respect of regulations made under Clause 9. The amendment seeks a much wider sanction in respect of all duties under the Bill and, indeed, the Minister's direction-making powers also cover the full range of duties in the Bill as well.
    Therefore, the Minister has partially answered the question as regards the regulations under Clause 9, but there are other regulations and duties under the Bill that require a similar sanction. Since there is already the sanction of a fine, if not imprisonment, does the Minister agree that Clause 9(3) sanctions should sweep up other regulations under the Bill?
    6.45 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As far as my reading is concerned, we know that Clause 9 relates to the general power to regulate adoption agencies. It is clear that what is encompassed in the clause is the exercise by local authorities or voluntary adoption agencies of their functions in relation to adoption or the exercise by adoption support agencies of their functions in relation to adoption support services. That is a very wide description of the action that can be taken under subsection (3).
    CWH102
    I am not persuaded that with the provisions of the Bill, particularly with the default provision in Clause 14, we do not have enough tools at our disposal to ensure that the Bill is properly regulated and that proceedings can be taken against people who do not act appropriately. However, I am obviously happy to consider any further comments the noble Lord has to make on this.
    Baroness Noakes: Will the noble Lord say whether Clause 9(3) applies to regulations made for the purposes of Clause 4 relating to the assessments which we were discussing earlier?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My understanding is that the work of the local authority in ensuring that adoption support services are adequate and effective is, and can be seen to be, part of its general responsibilities in relation to adoption, so I think that the answer is "yes".
    Lord Clement-Jones: The Minister may want to write afterwards, because "under this section" means subsection (3). I do not want to push the Minister into a corner, but subsection (3) deals only with the issues in Clause 9.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I shall look at this and write further, but subsection (1) makes it clear that:
    "Regulations may make provision for any purpose relating to … the exercise by local authorities or voluntary adoption agencies of their functions in relation to adoption".
    Lord Clement-Jones: I do not want to continue this ad nauseam because non-lawyers will perhaps find it extremely dull, although accountants, or, indeed, actuaries, might find it very exciting. Those would be regulations made under Clause 9. They refer specifically to regulations made "under this section" and therefore they would be Clause 9(1) regulations as opposed to Clause 4(6) regulations, for instance, which would be a separate set of regulations. I suppose that one might say that they are made under both sections. There might be some fancy footwork that could be adopted, but I suspect that it would be quite difficult to provide for the sanctions of all regulations under the Bill. In fact, I am sure that it would he very difficult to provide for all regulations under the Bill by having the sanctions set out in Clause 9(3). That is my point. It should be possible under the Bill for others—not just the Minister—to have the power of sanctions. In turn, those sanctions should be more powerful than simply the power of direction. In a sense, that is an administrative matter; it is not really a genuine sanction against someone who has failed to carry out a very important duty under these regulations.
    If one were to put that in parallel with the Care Standards Act, which we debated at some length, one would see that they are not on all fours, basically, whereas under the Care Standards Act one would find such penalties where regulations had been

    CWH103
    transgressed. There is some homework still to be done in that respect. It would be useful for that to be further explored within the department.
    Baroness Noakes: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on that point. We await some clarification from the Minister.
    Could the Minister respond to two questions that I posed? Can the noble Lord give any indication of the kind of areas where penalties are likely to be applied? Can he also say something about when the regulation-making process will begin and end?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I cannot give an exact date regarding when the regulations will be available in draft form, but I shall certainly see whether I can find out when this is likely to be.
    To give the noble Baroness some idea about this, I should explain that Clause 9(3) mirrors the position under the Care Standards Act. For example, regulations may provide that failure by a local authority, a voluntary adoption agency, or an adoption support agency to comply with regulations relating to the exercise of their functions, may be a criminal offence. There are examples in the children's homes regulations and the fostering agency regulations, where a breach of regulations by a local authority made under the Care Standards Act will be a criminal offence.
    Under the children's homes regulations of 2001, it is an offence to contravene or fail to comply with regulations that cover, for example, the requirement to compile a statement of purpose, or the requirement to appoint a manager. The offence applies equally to local authorities and to independent children's homes.
    One might also look at the Fostering Services Regulations 2002, which deal with contravention or failure to comply with a number of regulations, including those relating to producing and reviewing a statement of purpose, as well as arrangements for the protection of children and the staffing of the fostering services. Failure to comply with those regulations, or contravention of those regulations, would render a local authority liable to prosecution. I hope that that gives a flavour of what regulations might provide for. We clearly need to do more work on that before we are in a position to consult.
    Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that information. We have had an interesting discussion on this area of the Bill, but it leaves me with a degree of unease that there is so little worked out in the Government's position. We are referred to the kind of regulations that have been made under previous legislation, and somehow we deduce that this represents the Government's current intention in relation to the kinds of regulations that might be made under this Bill. Clearly there is no purpose in pursuing that in detail today. We shall reflect on what has been said when we read the report of this debate in Hansard. We may well want to return to this area, given both the wide-ranging regulation-making powers but, more
    CWH104
    importantly, the ability of Government to attach the possibility of a criminal offence to some of those regulations. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 9 agreed to.
    Clause 10 [Management etc. of agencies]:
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodmoved Amendment No. 31:
    Page 9, line 7, at end insert—
    "( ) as to keeping records."
    The noble Baroness said: This is a very simple amendment, which seeks to amend the end of Clause 10 by proposing that regulations should be made, "as to keeping records".
    There is a phrase under Clause 10(1)(f) that provides that regulations may make provision as to "the keeping of information". I am not quite sure what that means. Most people would think that a "record" is a little different from "information". It is something which is formally done in order to explain to everyone what one's work has been and how it has been carried out. In bodies that are regulated through statute, those records very often have to be kept in an approved form.
    We have tabled the amendment to find out how seriously the Government, in proposing these regulations, take the matter of keeping records. I do not need to repeat the arguments that I made at an earlier stage, because this amendment really falls in the same group. I beg to move.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As I have said, I agree that proper records need to be kept. We will certainly ensure that that happens. As far as concerns the definition of "the keeping of information", I should explain that Clause 139, which provides general interpretation, defines "information" as,
    "information recorded in any form".
    My interpretation of that is that the regulation-making power in subsection (1)(f) already enables regulations to be made, as it describes how voluntary adoption agencies and adoption support agencies must keep their records.
    The word "information" is used because of developments in information technology; for example, the term "record" may not include information sent via e-mail, whereas the term "information" does. Later on, during the passage of the Bill, I know that we will return to the debates that we had on the tobacco Bill on this fascinating issue.
    I hope that I have assured the noble Baroness that the wording does meet her requirements.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 10 agreed to.
    Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 32:
    Afer Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
    "PROVISION OF INFORMATION AFTER DEATH OF AN ADOPTED PERSON
    In relation to local authorities, voluntary adoption agencies and adoption support agencies, regulations under section 9 may provide that, where those bodies become aware of the death of an adopted person, they may give information to the natural parents of that adopted person."
    The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 32. The subject of the notification to a natural parent of an adopted child is a complex one. When a child is given up for adoption, we appreciate that the vast majority of natural parents never forget the pain and trauma of giving up that child. It is, though, in the interests of the child that the subsequent adoptive family is given primacy, in order to provide a stable, loving family in which he is able to feel that he belongs. Some adopted children do not wish to seek out their natural parents, as they find their adoptive family to be sufficient emotionally. Conversely, some natural parents will find it easier, or indeed, less painful, to put this event behind them.
    Previously, a natural parent had very limited rights to contact a child after having given him up for adoption. However, if an adoptee dies, there must be a presumption that it is right to tell a natural parent of his death. Indeed, this may help to bring some closure to the trauma that is felt by a natural parent at having given up a child.
    The amendment before the Committee seeks to balance these complex issues in a measured manner—it imposes a responsibility, not an outright duty. It allows for a natural parent to be told of the death of an adoptee in order to allow for that emotional closure of which I spoke earlier. The intention is not to add unnecessarily to the emotional burdens felt by both natural and adoptive parents.
    In the Special Standing Committee in the other place, the Minister said that the Government were prepared to re-consider the matter and would consult adoption stakeholders about an appropriate way forward. Our amendment seeks to flush the Government out on this. I beg to move.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Our National Adoption Standards say that where adoptive parents have agreed to inform the agency of the death of the adopted child, the birth parents or the next of kin should, if they wish, be informed by the adoption agency of the adopted person's death.
    I think that we all recognise that these matters need to be handled in the most sensitive way possible. While the Bill was before the Commons Standing Committee, an amendment was tabled that would have placed on the face of the Bill a duty for the adoption agency, where it became aware that the adopted person had died, to make reasonable efforts to inform the birth parents of his death. The Government considered that, rather than placing such a duty in the Bill, it would be better to place such a requirement on adoption agencies through regulations under the powers in Clause 9. This would provide the
    CWH106
    flexibility needed to prescribe, after due consultation with adoption stakeholders, the way in which adoption agencies should carry out this sensitive duty.
    We would, for example, be able to prescribe the manner in which this information is received from the adoptive family and passed to the birth family; to prescribe the type of information, such as cause of death and place of burial; and the way in which adopters' views may be considered, given that this information could identify them. Above all, Nye would want to ensure that this sensitive information is handled and passed on with care and consideration for the feelings of all concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, my colleague Mrs Jacqui Smith gave a commitment at Commons Committee stage that we would consider providing for this under Clause 9 and that we would consider and consult with adoption stakeholders.
    I cannot add much more to that at this stage. I have set out some of the issues and parameters on which we shall consult. Of course, we also have the ability in Clause 9 to make appropriate regulation-making powers.
    7.00 p.m.
    Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I am slightly disappointed as I was hoping that he would perhaps offer to table at Report an appropriate government amendment. I shall consider the matter in the meantime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 11 [Fees]:
    Baroness Barkermoved Amendment No. 33:
    Page 9, line 18, at end insert—
    "( ) Regulations under section 9 may prescribe the requirement for adoption agencies and local authorities to publish their fees."
    The noble Baroness said: We are nearing the end of a Sitting in which we have gone over and over the vexed question of regulations. I am starting to ask myself at what point regulations should take over. In the previous debate, I was struck by the fact that nothing that the Minister said contravened the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, who was trying to make a point of principle. That is what I am trying to do in Amendment No. 33: I am not in any way trying to limit the flexibility of the department or of the agencies, but to establish in the Bill a point of principle.
    The principle is that when fees and charges are levied, they should be published. As we know, fees vary not only in relation to intercountry adoption but in domestic adoption. People go into the process of adoption for a variety of reasons, but I rather think that monetary issues are not at the top oft heir agenda. Similarly, as this is such an emotional subject, and harking back to an earlier discussion, I do not believe that money is a great incentive to break any of the laws or regulations.

    CWH107
    The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, very early in the process, people know where they stand. I am absolutely sure that the Minister will come back and say that the way in which fees work is a matter for regulation, as indeed it is, but I believe that we have reached a point of principle. I beg to move.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The amendment would highlight that regulations may require that local authorities publish their fees.
    On the whole, the fees charged by adoption agencies to both adopters and prospective adopters and to other adoption agencies are already in the public domain. In respect of fees charged between adoption agencies, the level of the interagency fee is announced annually by the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies. This is agreed between voluntary adoption agencies themselves. The intercountry adoption guide issued by the Department of Health makes it clear that all adoption agencies charging fees to adopters and prospective adopters should clearly state what the fee will be prior to the start of the process. Agencies are also encouraged to provide applicants with a written statement detailing what is included in the fee. It is a clear legal requirement, both in current legislation and in Clauses 93 and 94 of the Bill, that adoption agencies may not derive a profit from this or any other work. The powers in Clause 9 are therefore sufficiently flexible to enable the appropriate minister to require adoption agencies, through regulations, to publish their fees or to make them known to prospective adopters at the start of the assessment process.
    The Government's current position is that we think the system as currently set up works well. However, we would be willing to consider whether it might be necessary to go down the regulatory route if we received evidence to the contrary.
    Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister very much for that reply. However, very strong representations have made it clear that the current system does not work well in relation to intercountry adoption, where there are such huge variations between different agencies. The problem is not so great in respect of domestic adoptions, but I wonder whether that will continue to be the case when this Bill and its many provisions hit what has already been well described as the "financially restrained world" of local authorities as we know them. The point will be amplified particularly when assessment becomes a reality.
    Although this may seem a small issue, I believe that it may be larger than we suspect. At this stage in our proceedings, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 11 agreed to.
    Clause 12 [Independent review of determinations]:
    Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 34:
    Page 9, line 25, leave out from beginning to "a" and insert "There shall be established"
    CWH108
    The noble Lord said: We come now to an extremely important part of the Bill. On Second Reading, very many noble Lords made powerful points in relation to Clause 12 and the whole issue of the independent review of determinations. Three areas were the subject of concern on all sides of the House: the strength of the duty to establish the procedure; the level of independence under the clause as it stands; and the whole issue of the breadth of the role of the independent review or independent determination, and precisely what steps that covers.
    It is in that context that I move Amendment No. 34, speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 40, 42, 43 and 44, and, I suspect, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, speak to Amendment No. 37. The words used by my noble friend Lady Barker on Clause 4 are equally apposite here. I thought she was being remarkably moderate when she said that there was something incomplete about Clause 4, but there is certainly something incomplete about Clause 12.
    Historically, children and families have found it almost impossible to have had decisions made about their lives and families reviewed in this context and, if appropriate, overturned. There has been widespread recognition of the need for change and for the institution of a proper system of review. Sir William Utting, in his 1997 report, People Like Us, was crucial in moving the opinion of those in the sector in the right direction.
    Indeed, the reasoning of the Secretary of State during Second Reading of the Bill in the other place was:
    "It is right to build in independent review throughout the system"—
    that seems to be of fundamental importance—
    "whether of the provision of information to adopted children about their birth families, or of decisions to place a child with a particular family … The issues are difficult and emotionally fraught".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/01; col. 659.]
    Those are strong words, which we very much support.
    In the recent Appeal Court judgment in S & W & Others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, said:
    "The view, widespread among family judges, is that all too often local authorities' discharge of their parental responsibilities falls short of an acceptable standard".
    The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, followed that up by suggesting a way forward through independent review. That is a very good background against which to judge whether Clause 12 stands up.
    Sir William Utting, in the same 1997 report, made the case by identifying the need for "shifts in three cultures" and that is where the issue of independence is so vital. That is the test that we need to apply to see whether this clause really will deliver the goods in terms of what he said in that report. The three cultures he was talking about were, first, the directors, trustees and councillors who for reasons of money, prestige or politics find good reason for keeping quiet. Secondly, there were the salaried managers, for whom the

    CWH109
    failures of subordinates may be represented as an indictment of their own performance and, thirdly, the staff themselves.
    Without re-treading all of that, that is what a proper review system has to face. It has to take a dispassionate look at the situation and be independent.
    The all-party parliamentary group on adoption called for comprehensive and independent appeals as a result. It is well-known that almost every adoption body in the field—judges, lawyers and so on, apart from the ones I have already quoted—have called for that sort of system.
    Under the existing clause, there is provision for prospective adopters who were turned down by adoption panels to appeal against a qualifying determination. It was Jacqui Smith in the other place who made the point that that, essentially, was an appeal to an adoption panel of a neighbouring authority. I am far from convinced, and this is one of the reasons for some of the amendments, as to whether that is satisfactory. That is not satisfactory either in terms of compliance with the Human Rights Act or indeed of common sense, when you think that there will be quite a degree of sympathy between neighbouring authorities in those circumstances.
    The issue of cost is also a matter of considerable concern. In Clause 3(a), where the power to recover the costs of the review from the adoption agency exists, that will inevitably also be a deterrent in those circumstances.
    Moving on to the whole issue raised by Amendment No. 37 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, the width of this clause is inadequate—it does not cover the whole range of determinations that it should. It does not cover the question of a child being moved on to another set of foster carers, or the question of a fosterer whose foster child is moved on for no apparent reason, or approved adopters denied a match with a child they wished to adopt, even if there is no other applicant for that child. It does not cover adoptive families who are turned down in their assessment for post-adoption support, the question of approved couples who are never matched with a child and intercountry adopters applying for home studies being put to the bottom of their local authorities' assessment list.
    Those are just examples of instances during the process which would not be covered by Clause 12 under the review system. That would be deeply unsatisfactory. That is why it is important that significant decisions should be covered by that review. The amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, are very elegant in the way they are set out and they are set out in rather more detail, but they may constitute a list in the Minister's view and we have had those debates before. The Minister may take his choice of amendments and I am sure will approve of one of them.
    Moving on to the question of duty, I do not want to have the traditional may/shall debate, which essentially is constituted by Amendment No. 34 but should be rather more robustly set out in terms of the
    CWH110
    nature of the independent review system. For that reason, we have set down that there should be established such a review and it should not be a question of whether or not regulations under Clause 9 do that in the first place. We do not consider that an optional extra but an absolutely vital component in the Bill.
    That is pretty much it, except for the issue of intercountry adoption, which is of great concern and importance because there are circumstances where review of determinations made by a central authority or home health departments in respect of intercountry adoption applications needs to be made. I will not go through all the circumstances in which that can be made, given the hour of the day, but significant determination if made by the central authority or the home health department must be transparent and should be open to independent review. Currently, central authority and home health department decisions can be challenged only through judicial review and, even where prospective adopters are in a position to finance this course, it is a slow process which does not sit easily within the intercountry adoption process nor meets the needs of children for whom delay is almost always detrimental. That, in particular, is an important element of Amendment No. 38, which deals with independent adoption. I beg to move.
    7.15 p.m.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 34 is agreed to, I would not then be able to call Amendment No. 35. Amendment No. 34 has been proposed.
    Earl Howe: These amendments are about two things; fairness and public confidence. The two are closely linked, of course. The systems that we put in place for the adoption of children have to be fair and to be seen to be fair. I say that because without transparent fairness, the system will not command confidence. Good people who would otherwise put themselves forward as potential adopters will be deterred from doing so. The four amendments in my name that are included in this group, Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 41 and 45, all rest on that premise.
    Clause 12, I say immediately, is very welcome. It is critically important that people who apply to become adopters and are then turned down, for whatever reason, should be able to appeal against that decision. The appeal mechanism needs to be as simple as possible and must of course be impartial. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something of 'what the Government have in mind for this process. However, there is a whole mass of other decisions that the local authority can take, upon which, apparently, there will be no prospect of an independent review, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones has so eloquently stated.
    What happens, for example, when approved adopters are refused a match with a child for whom there are no other potential adopters in sight? What happens to people who want a home study in order to

    CWH111
    be able to adopt from abroad, but who are constantly put to the bottom of the list? What happens to foster parents who want to adopt the child they are looking after, but who encounter an intransigent policy decision by the local authority not to allow them to do so—because there are local authorities like that? As the Bill stands, those people just have to put up with the situation—they have to lump it.
    Yes, you can complain, but who will the complaint be handled by? It will be handled by the very local authority against whom the complainant feels aggrieved. For a local authority to find itself guilty of gross misconduct or maladministration would be quite a feat. I am not saying that it could not happen, but a priori it is unlikely.
    There is also a question mark over whether the current complaints procedure is sufficiently independent and impartial to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Judicial review is expensive. It is out of reach of most people and in any case we do not want to encourage it. As an alternative you can go to the Ombudsman or to the Social Services Inspectorate, but the remit of both of these is limited and in cases that involve possible maladministration by a voluntary agency, the Ombudsman has no locus.
    We have to remember that the system is terribly daunting for children and families. They can feel intimidated by it. They can sometimes feel that they are not being listened to. Of course, I am very much against promoting a culture of complaining. People should not be encouraged to complain about every little thing that goes amiss. We should try to limit the availability of independent review to those matters that have a significant impact on the lives of children or on prospective adopters.
    I will not go through my Amendment No. 41 in minute detail. It is largely self-explanatory and I have covered parts of it already. However, if the Committee will forgive me, I will read out a case history that illustrates what I am trying to drive at. This relates to a couple who live in central London. They say this:
    "We live in a very mixed area racially speaking. Our circle of friends and acquaintances is also mixed. We adopted a 7-year-old white English boy in 1996 and, with many ups and downs, it is now a stable and happy relationship. In 1999, we applied to adopt his mixed-race older half-sister, then 13. We had grown to be very fond of her after regular contact. She had been moved several times in foster care and expressed a desire to live with us. The placement was refused on the grounds that she was of mixed race and we were not. We did our utmost to try to persuade them but nothing was achieved. We still abide by the contact order which we all value but the girl is still in foster-care (she has been in many other placements). We believe the girl, our relationship with the girl and our son's relationship with her—and inevitably our son too—have been ill-served by the LA's refusal".
    This was a case where the couple would have liked to appeal on several grounds. There were no avenues of appeal open to them and the Bill would not provide any either.
    I will speak briefly to my Amendment No. 45. On occasions there will be issues that come before the panel of a technical or legal description where it is
    CWH112
    important to have professional legal interpretation. In cases of that kind, applicants to the panel should have a right of appeal to the High Court. If the panel felt that a matter would be more appropriately dealt with by court judgment than by itself, it could, as it were, bow out of the process. Subsection (11) of the amendment ensures that children would have the right to be party to the proceedings unless that right had been expressly waived.
    Subsection (14) says that the reasonable costs and expenses of the application to the panel, or any appeal to the High Court, should be paid out of public funds. I have heard quite a lot of concern expressed that the costs of going to a panel or to appeal could impose considerable burdens on private individuals. I am the last person to wish to create cumbersome procedures and I realise that the Committee may fear that what I propose in the amendment is a little cumbersome and over-bureaucratic. However, I do not see it in that way. A proper appeal system need not be bureaucratic. Indeed, it should be seen as essential in my view.
    I come back to where I began which is to the issue of fairness. The system has to command confidence, and to do that, it has to be seen to be fair.
    Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 37. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for saying so much of what I would have said far more eloquently than I would have said it. I wish to add one point. I refer to a comment of Alun Milburn, the Secretary of State for Health, who said that he would be happy to hear views on how the independent review system can be strengthened. In the light of that, I tabled the amendment, which I believe is a strengthening one as regards Clause 12(1). It would both clarify and strengthen it. An independent review must be seen to be truly independent, otherwise it will be suspect from the beginning. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that those on the appeal panel will indeed be truly independent.
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I would like to support the principle of an independent review panel for the reasons which have been mentioned. I want to add a couple of points. First, when decisions are made about adoption placements, they are necessarily made very much in private because the relevant material is confidential. Therefore, it is always difficult for people to understand how the decisions have been made. They are not subject to any real scrutiny outside that professional milieu.
    I refer to the case history that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned. Some local authorities take a particular view of these matters. Again, I speak on behalf of social workers who have to implement decisions even if they do not particularly agree with them. It is extraordinarily difficult for families to understand what debate took place because the relevant documentation is confidential. Therefore, it is extremely important that these decisions are subject to external scrutiny and that there should be transparency. There is also a consumer issue here. The people who are consuming the services we are

    CWH113
    discussing have the same rights to independent review as any other consumer of services. I refer to the issue of human rights. We have to take that point into account as well.
    I was interested in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that local authorities might be friendly towards each other. That is not necessarily my experience. Having said that, it is inappropriate that the same people within the system should undertake a review. I would like to see independent panels. We can all hope that the national standards will iron out some of the issues we are discussing with regard to difficult cases that arise. However, that will not confer the same sort of public confidence as a transparent, independent review system would.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. In a sense, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, put his finger on the matter when he said that whilst he recognised the importance of having access to an independent review, he also thought that there should be limits. What we do not want is a system whereby those organisations covered by independent review would be subject to micro-management by such a review process.
    I well understand that the argument will concern where the balance lies. The Bill as it stands gives regulation-making power to make provision as to description of determinations which are qualifying determinations which gives future flexibility in the light of experience. I believe that is a very sensible and balanced way to go forward.
    Amendment No. 35 would require the appropriate Minister, as soon as he exercised his power under Clause 9, to make any regulations in respect of the functions of adoption agencies and adoption support agencies, to establish the independent review mechanism through regulations. Amendment No. 34 has a similar effect in requiring the appropriate Minister to set up an independent review mechanism.
    We promised in the White Paper that we would develop the independent review mechanism. We have also said that we will consult stakeholders in the adoption field on how the independent review mechanism should operate and the determinations which should be used to review. We will be starting this process towards the end of the year and there is no question that we will set up such an independent review mechanism.
    Moving to Amendment No. 36, the effect of this amendment is twofold. First it would apply the independent review procedure to any determination made by an adoption agency and here we come to the question of balance. Members of the Committee will know that our intent is that the independent review mechanism is established for two specific purposes, and I also accept that part of this whole process and reason for such review mechanism is to build up confidence in the assessment process for prospective adopters. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the importance of that.
    CWH114
    We have gone beyond the original recommendation by extending the scope of the review mechanism to provide a balance for the adoption agencies' use of discretion in the area of access to protected information held in the records they will be obliged to keep in relation to a person's adoption. I must stress that the review mechanism was never intended as a means of micro-managing the day-to-day business of adoption agencies. Also, in relation to local authority adoption services, adoption is a mainstream social service function. The majority of complaints about local authority adoption services must be best dealt with through the existing social services complaints procedure. The whole point of having a complaints procedure is that complaints are addressed to that process.
    I accept there are some Members of the Committee who think that not all local authorities have a very effective complaints procedure, and I share that view. However, the challenge is not to say that we can never, ever achieve a decent complaints procedure; the challenge is to make sure that local authorities do have a complaints procedure, which is why we have the listening-to-people consultation exercise. The answer is not to say that the independent review mechanism can go so wide that almost anything a local authority does under the adoption process is subject to the independent review.
    I really believe that would be a very extensive process of the remit that we had in mind for the independent review mechanism. I do not believe we should allow it to side-track the complaints procedures which are already in place.
    Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. I wonder whether he could comment on one point. Even if we were to see an improvement across the board of local authority complaint procedures and those procedures worked rather better than they do at the moment, does the Minister think there is a question mark over whether local authority complaints procedures comply with the ECHR in terms of their impartiality and independence?
    7.30 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clearly, ECHR considerations are always paramount. If a complaints procedure did not comply with ECHR, that system could be challenged, as could any other decision which is felt not to comply with ECHR. I am not particularly aware of the arguments on that and am certainly prepared to look at it and write to the noble Earl. I would also say to the noble Earl that in any case, what we have here is a flexibility in our approach. If it turns out that there are specific problems which are identified as we continue to monitor the system, we have the flexibility to use the regulation-making power in Clause 12(2) in order to expand on t he scope of the independent review mechanism.
    However, I would plead with Members of the Committee to allow us to proceed as we wish, to focus upon the two areas that we have identified which we believe to be the most critical and sensitive and to

    CWH115
    enhance the complaints mechanism. Then, in the light of experience, we will have the opportunity to review that. However, when you come for instance to Amendment No. 41, where the determinations are listed at paragraphs (a) to (k), you run into all the problems of a list approach and I question whether that is satisfactory. As I have said already, we are in great danger of widening the potential independent review so much that it really does detract from the normal processes of management of these organisations and the ability of people to use the complaints system.
    I also accept that in this very large group of amendments, there are a number of issues that relate to the panel and how independent it is. I want to make clear that subsection (4) of Clause 12 enables the appropriate Minister to delegate the operation of the independent review mechanism to an organisation and I would assure Members of the Committee that this will help ensure the independence of the review mechanism. Subsection (8) provides that this organisation may be a public body or a private or voluntary organisation and, under subsection (6), the appropriate Minister may make payments to the organisation running the review mechanism in connection with its operation.
    Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 would make clear that the appropriate Minister may delegate the operation of the independent review mechanism only to an organisation which is independent of the appropriate Minister. That is not necessary. We promised to review the independent review mechanism in our White Paper. I have explained, and it was stated in the White Paper, that the independent review mechanism will be operated by an independent body and we intend to use the powers in subsection (4) of Clause 12 to delegate the operation of the independent review mechanism to an independent body.
    Amendment No. 38 seeks to provide for a person in respect of whom the Minister has made a determination to be able to apply to the independent review mechanism for a review of that decision. However, that rather misses the point about the role of Ministers in the intercountry adoption process. Ministers do not make decisions concerning intercountry adoption. The Department of Health and the National Assembly for Wales act as a central authority for intercountry adoptions. That means they check that all the proper procedures and checks have been followed, query any discrepancies in information and then issue a certificate confirming that a competent agency has confirmed the prospective adopters to be eligible and suitable to adopt. Neither Ministers nor the central authorities make a determination which it would be appropriate for the independent review panel to review.
    Amendment No. 42, on the power to recover costs, would omit from Clause 12(3)(a) the words,
    "including the power to recover the costs of a review from the adoption agency by which the determination reviewed was made".
    CWH116
    On this I can say that the cost of establishing and administering the independent review mechanism will be met centrally from the extra £66 million for adoption announced in the adoption White Paper. However, adoption agencies may be required to contribute to meeting the cost of convening a review panel. This cost will be incurred instead of the costs of holding a second hearing of the agency's own panel, as usually occurs under the current legal framework. We therefore do not think that there will be an additional expense. As I said, however, we have promised to consult on the detail of how this will operate, including any charges to be imposed on adoption agencies. This will ensure that we get the detail right. It is not our intention to impose onerous obligations on adoption agencies.
    Amendment No. 45, on appeal to the High Court, is based on the assumption that the review panel will make decisions—or refuse to make decisions—on, for example, whether applicants should be approved as adopters. It seeks to provide for additional procedures to be operated by the independent review mechanism. However, this fails to recognise that the purpose of the independent review mechanism is to make recommendations to the adoption agencies, not to over-ride their decisions.
    It is our intention that an independent body or organisation, appointed by the appropriate Minister under Clause 12(4), will convene a review panel to reexamine the evidence and make a fresh recommendation to the agency. The adoption agency will then be required by regulations made under Clause 12(3)(e) to consider both its original determination and the recommendation of the review panel before making its final decision.
    The ultimate responsibility must rest with the adoption agency. The agency is responsible for the provision of the full range of adoption services and is accountable for the number and quality of adoptive placements made. We believe that it would be inappropriate to remove from the adoption agency the final decision about the suitability of prospective adopters or about the release of protected information held in agency records.
    A number of other points have been raised, but I should perhaps pause at this stage and return to the substantive point in this whole argument—the range of determinations under which the independent review panel may operate. There is a balance to be struck here; there is no question about that. I have said that we will focus on the two matters that we have identified. However, we will keep this under review. We also have the flexibility of the regulations to allow us to increase that number should it be necessary. We should also have some faith in the ability of the organisations which will operate the adoption service in future to show that they can come up with decent complaints procedures in which the public can have confidence and which can deal with many of the issues rightfully raised in the many amendments that noble Lords have tabled.
    Lord Clement-Jones: It is a great pity that we are debating this at the end of the parliamentary week. I shall be fairly brisk. The Minister gave a rather wide-ranging reply. Although it was welcome in one sense, it was a strange mixture of assurance, of assertion, and, at the very end, of "take faith". I felt that the final part was probably the least credible part of the reply.
    The noble Earl, Lord Howe, put his finger on it not when he dealt with limits but when he spoke about public confidence. The Minister can say, "Take faith in our great new system. I'm sure that it'll all be right on the night", but many of us feel that public confidence will not be achieved or restored without an independent review mechanism with the necessary breadth and independence that these amendments propose. I am quite sure that we shall want to return to this.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I apologise for intervening, because I recognise that time is getting on. I wonder if the noble Lord would accept that one needs to have some faith. In fact, I stand by the argument that it is necessary in some parts of what we are attempting to do to have strict regulation. As Members of the Committee know, we have a very effective form of performance management coming into play with the National Care Standards Commission. All that is absolutely right.
    We also have the use of the independent review mechanism in specified circumstances. However, as part of the confidence-raising approach, ought we not also to show some confidence in the organisations that will have to work with this at the local level? We must get the balance right. If we are so doubtful about their ability to run this effectively that we have to regulate everything that they do to the nth degree, we will not be showing enough confidence in their ability to do the right job. There is a balance; and I believe that we have got it right.
    7.45 p.m.
    Lord Clement-Jones: At this stage of the evening, have the word "balance" written down about three or four times—indeed, whenever the Minister mentions it. It mounts up over the period of his speech.
    We have to differ on the question of balance. I do not believe that we have achieved that balance. For my part, I have written down the word "caricature". I believe that the Minister has "caricatured" the amendments in terms of saying that it is "micro-management". It is not micro-management. We have designed the amendments so that they represent significant decisions. The approach of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is slightly different, but they are significant decisions that are being made. They affect
    CWH118
    the lives of all those different families in different, and highly significant, ways. This is not a question of micro-management. If there are other ways of characterising those decisions, whether by making them significant or by putting them in a list, then that possibility should be explored.
    I turn to the question of limits. When the Minister states that we must have limits, and then merely says that there are two sorts of decisions that are subject to this review process, that is grossly inadequate. We shall, of course, return to that issue at a later stage.
    We are talking about a change of culture. We are being told to take faith, but it is a question of culture, as Sir William Utting and many others, including high court judges of Appeal, and so on, have said in some of the extracts that I quoted earlier. That is why they believe that an independent review process is needed.
    The Minister sought to be frightfully reassuring in terms of promising flexibility under the regulations; for example, we will consult, we will look again if necessary, and so on. I should much prefer—and I am sure all those in this field would much prefer—to have some degree of consensus and agreement right from the outset about what this amounts to in terms of the scope of the independent review. If that means setting them out specifically in legislation, I believe that that would be welcome.
    The Minister also sought to reassure us in terms of subsection (4). The Minister is clearly determined to defend the wording of Clause 12, and not give away an inch. In many cases where he has given us assurances, the words added—for example, "independent"—would give the assurance on the face of the Bill. That would be welcome all round.
    It is a late hour. I do not wish to detain the Committee. It is a question of public confidence. I do not believe the Minister has got it right. The Minister assures us that ex post facto, there will be flexibility. Let us try to get it right first time, rather than tinkering at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 35 to 45 not moved.]
    Clause 12 agreed to.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at eleven minutes before eight o'clock.

  World Hunger
  World Hunger
  Race Directive
  Race Directive
  Trafficking People
  Trafficking People
  European Arrest Warrant
  European Arrest Warrant
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Dome Site
  Dome Site
  China: Visit of Mr Li Ruihuan
  China: Visit of Mr Li Ruihuan
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Azerbaijan: Displaced Persons
  Azerbaijan: Displaced Persons
  Ingushetia: Displaced Chechen People
  Ingushetia: Displaced Chechen People
  Guantanamo Bay
  Guantanamo Bay
  Afghanistan: Prisoners
  Afghanistan: Prisoners
  EU: Public Knowledge
  EU: Public Knowledge
  Ageing: Report to UN Conference
  Ageing: Report to UN Conference
  Temporary Veterinary Inspectors
  Temporary Veterinary Inspectors
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Waste Incineration
  Waste Incineration
  Urban Waste Water Treatment: Sensitive Areas
  Urban Waste Water Treatment: Sensitive Areas
  Diffuse Pollution of Water by Agriculture
  Diffuse Pollution of Water by Agriculture
  Cabinet Meetings
  Cabinet Meetings