Sitting of 11 March 2002

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

    Victims of Crime
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What plans he has to give victims of crime more information about progress in (a) detection and (b) prosecution of the cases with which they have been involved. [38873]
    The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): I am currently reviewing the standards of service outlined in the victims charter. At present, the police have a charter commitment to keep victims informed about key developments in cases. That includes information about whether a suspect is charged and the outcome of the court case. By autumn this year, the Crown Prosecution Service will have fully implemented a system to convey its own key decisions to victims. That will include information about whether charges are dropped or altered.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and express my thanks for all the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team are doing to support victims, including the doubling of funding for Victim Support and the promised victims charter of rights, to which we look forward eagerly. Nevertheless, from my experience, having taken up cases for victims of crime in Blackpool and held consultations on the subject, there are still problems with co-ordination of information between the CPS and the police. In particular, can I press him to consider the lack of continuity that is sometimes evident between investigating officers, those who make arrests and those who attend the court? It seems to me and to many people to whom I have spoken in Blackpool that that often causes problems in terms of relaying information.
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful that my hon. Friend recognises the additional support that we are currently giving to victims, including the doubling to £25 million of the grant to Victim Support and the changes that we have made in the courts to ensure that intimidated and vulnerable witnesses can give their evidence in safety, including through video links where that is appropriate. It is absolutely essential that we support victims end to
    620
    end in the criminal justice system. Victims are also witnesses; they should be given information and support during the process of detection, when they need to appear in court, throughout the court process, when they are told about the offender's sentence—if he or she is found guilty—and when they are part of the sentencing process, if that is appropriate, where issues such as reparation and restorative justice may arise. Unless we support victims and witnesses throughout the process, we will not bring enough offenders to justice in a timely way.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: If, as the Minister says, he cares about the rights and concerns of victims, will he explain why the Government have chosen to scrap a criminal justice Bill that would have furthered those rights and to replace it with a ban on foxhunting? Which is more important to him?
    Mr. Bradley: We have done absolutely nothing of the sort. We have been consulting on key elements of reform in the Halliday report on sentencing reform and the Auld report on court reform. I invited the Opposition spokesperson into the Department to be briefed on sentencing reform. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we decided at that stage to publish a White Paper in the spring with a view to introducing legislation on the criminal justice system in the autumn. Nothing has changed.
    Andrew Mackinlay: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, but can I draw a problem to his attention and ask him to intervene? Chief constables such as mine in Essex—I understand the problem to be endemic—are operating victim support in reverse in terms of people whose cars have been stolen. Is he aware that when my chief constable says that he wants the car for forensic purposes, people get not progress on prosecution, but a bill from the car recovery outfit? That is intolerable. It is now time for him to tell chief constables that this has got to stop—from this evening.
    Mr. Bradley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The situation has been going on for a long time, and I assure him that we are looking at it very urgently.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: May I congratulate the Home Secretary through the Minister on the support that he expressed for Sir John Stevens in his article in the News of the World on the need for reform of criminal justice? That position is rather different from his previous imprecations about his sending in Whitehall hit squads. May I pick the Minister up on the criminal justice reform Bill? He says that there has been consultation, but I have to tell him that, apart from indicating the contents of Auld, providing us with that report and giving us a briefing, the Government have engaged in no formal consultation whatever with the Opposition parties. As the importance of the criminal justice Bill is acknowledged in all parts of the House, when will the Government respond to the formal proposals that were put to them by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), indicating that we would co-operate on moving such a Bill through the

    621
    House as quickly as possible? No valid explanation whatever has been provided of why the Bill is not being introduced in this Session.
    Mr. Bradley: It is quite extraordinary that when we invited the official Opposition spokesperson to attend the briefing on the Halliday consultation, to which we received hundreds of responses, they had not at that point bothered to respond to the consultation document. If they want genuinely to participate and to ensure that we have cross-party support for introducing criminal justice reform, they should take the opportunity to respond to the consultation.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the success of victim support schemes around the country. That is especially true of two schemes—MU-Gwynedd and Conwy—in my constituency. In the context of providing more information to victims of crime, will he ensure that police authorities automatically refer cases involving victims of crime to local victim support schemes?
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the victim support service in her area. Through the extra money that we have made available, Victim Support has developed highly effective witness services in our courts, and every court will be covered by April this year. We must ensure that there is proper communication with all the agencies involved in a case, whether it be the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or others that become involved with the victim at that point or later in the process. Within that communication process, technology must be enhanced to ensure that information is quickly relayed to the different agencies so that they can then communicate with the victim and/or witness. That is essential for the effective completion of more cases through the court process.

    Police Officers
    Mr. George Osborne: What representations he has received from police officers about his proposed reforms to pay, pensions and conditions. [38874]
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: What discussions he has had with the Police Federation since the results of its ballot on the proposed new terms and conditions for federated ranks. [38876]
    Mr. James Clappison: What recent representations he has received about police conditions of service. [38877]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Other Ministers and I have made numerous visits to, and undertaken consultation meetings with, representatives of the police service and members of the public around the country. Discussions that have taken place since the Police Federation ballot, both through the negotiating board and directly with myself and other Ministers, have been extremely cordial and fruitful.
    In addition, I have received many letters from police officers and from the public. The public naturally place emphasis on reducing variations in service, ensuring a
    622
    reliable and reassuring policing presence, and achieving a massive reduction in street robbery, crime and antisocial behaviour. Our reforms are designed to achieve those goals.
    Mr. Osborne: The fact is that rank and file police officers rejected the Home Secretary's reform proposals by a majority of 10 to one. In my local police force in Cheshire, 86 per cent. of officers voted against them. That is hardly surprising, given that Ministers go around treating the police as heroes one moment and wreckers the next. Instead of blaming the Police Federation for the outcome of the ballot, should not he work with police officers, listen to their genuine concerns, and produce some better proposals?
    Mr. Blunkett: There is a history of Opposition parties taking advantage of the efforts of Governments of both persuasions to bring about radical reform. Previous Home Secretaries bear the scars—internally, if not externally—to verify that fact. Those who do not like what we are doing—whether the Police Federation, the leadership of the police service or Opposition parties—have an obligation to say what they would do.
    We shall seek a way forward precisely for the reasons that I spelled out a moment ago. This is not about an old-fashioned confrontation between trade unions and the Government, but about reform to bring a decent police service to the public whom we serve. The judge and jury of our success will be the men and women who face robbery on our streets and fear leaving their houses, not Opposition Members making knockabout points in the House about why we are not backing the Police Federation.
    Mr. Lansley: Does the Home Secretary understand that police officers hearing what he has said today will be sorry that he has not expressed some sense of regret for the intemperate and derogatory nature of his remarks about the police, which contributed to the ballot result? Will he now express that regret, and say that he is willing to enter the current conciliation without preconditions on key issues such as overtime and priority payments?
    Mr. Blunkett: How the Opposition have turned. What a reversal of roles. What an interesting backing of the trade unions against the people we are seeing this afternoon. Let me make my position absolutely clear. I have met representatives of the Police Federation since the ballot, and indicated to them and to the staff side that, of course, we are prepared to go into the conciliation with the intention of finding a solution, otherwise I would not have suggested going to conciliation in the first place. I also want to refute the hon. Gentleman's allegation that I have somehow used detrimental language against the police force. If he can find a single quote in my name, or an interview on radio or television, of course I will agree with him that I should withdraw. [Interruption.] Someone has just shouted out "Spanish practices". My cousin has lived in Spain for the last 35 years. I would never be able to visit her again if I had used the term "Spanish practices".
    Mr. Clappison: May I give the Home Secretary an opportunity to use some positive language? Will he give sympathetic consideration to the letter that he has received

    623
    from the chief constable of Hertfordshire about the severe difficulties that that force is experiencing in recruiting and retaining officers? Will the Home Secretary take into account the fact that the Hertfordshire force is now under strength by 290 officers, and that, in many cases, it is competing for recruits with the Metropolitan force, which offers an extra £4,000 in allowances and free travel? Will he give the otherwise excellent Hertfordshire force the help that it needs to put the officers on the streets to fight crime, which is what my constituents want?
    Mr. Blunkett: We might have some degree of agreement here, because there is a genuine problem in Hertfordshire and the other counties that find themselves just outside the ring, in terns of the substantial enhancement that all sides sought, to ensure that recruitment could be increased in the Metropolitan police force by 1,100-plus over the last 12 months. However, it is precisely to be able to target resources, and to be able to reward those at the sharp end on top of the normal pay round—which is not until September—that we have embarked on the reform agenda. I hope that all hon. Members will, therefore, back that agenda in putting money and incentive into the pay packet and the jobs of those police officers outside the Met area who do not receive the same level of additional payments.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this action is 18 years too late? It should have been taken in 1984, when all those police, acting according to Mrs. Thatcher—who was Prime Minister at the time—were sent to every coalfield to allow the scabs to get into the pits. The net result was that they did not care about their own pay then. I have a proposition to make: I have a gang of ex-miners who will sit on the national reference tribunal to settle this issue.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am almost inclined to take up my hon. Friend's generous offer. On a slightly more serious note, I live in Sheffield, half a mile away from Orgreave, and I am well aware of the situation. That is why I scratched my head when I saw a BBC film—which was shown as the introduction to "On the Record" yesterday, and produced by somebody called Grossman, I think—which tried to suggest that the police reform agenda was tantamount to using the police in the way in which they had been used at Orgreave in 1984–85. I have to say that when those in short trousers make these films, they can have no clue whatsoever about the history they are dealing with, and it would be better if they got themselves another job.
    Mr. David Miliband: May I reassure my right hon. Friend that I am not wearing short trousers? Does he agree that the key to reform lies not in books of theory, but in what is happening on the ground? He will know that in Northumbria the detection rate has risen by about one third in the past seven years, and that each and every one of the 60 extra police officers who are being assigned to south Tyneside will be community beat managers working on the street, tackling local problems. Will my right hon. Friend consider convening a seminar of chief constables from around the country so that they can learn from the Northumbria experience?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am deeply relieved by my hon. Friend's reassurance at the beginning of his question.
    624
    I will not carry out an examination in person. His force is one of the best in Britain. It is at command unit level and it is well led. I have every intention of calling together those both at chief constable and at command unit level to share experience and to spread that experience, so that the kind of improvements that my hon. Friend outlined can be the experience of everyone, everywhere in the country.
    Ross Cranston: Is it not the case that the Police Federation's figures show that almost two thirds of the officers who rejected the proposals did so on the basis of overtime, not because of the wider issues that have been raised by the Opposition? Are not the real issues the need to get more police officers on the beat, deal with the variation in performance and improve standards, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband)? The performance in my operation command unit is very good, but were it to come up to the best in the country, the constituents in Dudley, North would be extremely pleased.
    Mr. Blunkett: I entirely agree. That is what the reform agenda is about. I welcome the advertisement placed today by the Police Federation, as it indicates that the Police Federation is prepared to support and give backing to the vast majority of the reform agenda. If we can find a way forward, not simply by capitulating on the level of overtime, thereby bringing about a substantial mismanagement of resources, but by managing overtime down without putting fear and apprehension into officers who have been misled about our proposals, we will seek to do so.
    Mr. James Paice: Contrary to the Home Secretary's earlier assertions, the Opposition stand four-square behind the need for a more modern and flexible system of pay and conditions for the police service, whatever he might like to think. However, we do not stand four-square behind a hectoring and bullying style which has caused so much demoralisation and led to the spectacular defeat of the Home Secretary in the ballot. Will he confirm to us—or, indeed, deny—the reports over the weekend that he will at last accept the view of all levels of the police service, plus the Opposition, plus the majority of the other place, and drop his proposals for centralised powers of control over the police in clauses 5 and 7 of the Police Reform Bill?
    Mr. Blunkett: First, I am not seeking centralised control. I am not seeking operational control at any level, and it is a simple lie by those who have said the opposite. Secondly, I do not expect—I say this to the shadow Home Secretary—any member of his party to ask the Home Secretary to take responsibility for the level and quality of policing in this country, unless the Home Secretary has the power as well as the responsibility to do something about it. In the words of The Daily Telegraph leader a week last Saturday, I should simply eulogise or appeal to people to change. I am afraid that the electorate expects something better than that. It expects us to work with the police service, retaining its operational responsibility but ensuring that if we are to answer to Parliament and to the electorate, we have some means—some levers—to deal with the variation and improve the delivery of police services everywhere in the country.

    Youth Crime
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What plans he has to tackle youth crime in London. [38875]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): We are determined to tackle youth crime in London. We support the Metropolitan police service's safer streets campaign, which has already had an impact on street robbery, and we are working with 11 London boroughs to target those young people most at risk of offending. The new taskforce of the police, local authorities and criminal justice agencies will bring together the efforts of every part of the criminal justice system to work together to tackle youth crime.
    Mr. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one particular crime in London of which young people have generally, but not exclusively, been the victims is mobile phone crime? Can he tell the House what further action he intends to take in that regard, and can he assure the House that he has the co-operation of all the big mobile phone companies in his efforts to crack down on such crime?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of mobile phone crime, as it is probably the largest single factor in the rise in robbery rates. As he will know, for many months Ministers have been putting pressure on the industry to act on this problem. I am pleased that over the past few weeks all the mobile phone operators have announced measures to cut off mobile phones once they are stolen and to share the identifying numbers among the companies so that the phones cannot be switched from one part of the system to another. I believe that that, together with other action that we are taking, such as education campaigns in schools about where to use mobile phones and so on, will make a difference.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that, in the last nine months for which figures are available, street crime in London has risen by a shocking 39 per cent.? Will he further confirm that most of that crime has been committed by young people? Although we welcome the Metropolitan police's short-term strategy for dealing with problems on our streets, what long-term strategy have the Government got to tackle this serious matter?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman's question is a very good one. We need to ensure that we catch the young people who are offending and take measures to protect the public from them. It is also important to minimise the numbers of young people in the rising generation who are likely to become involved in offending. The work that we are doing with the Metropolitan police, 11 London boroughs and the Government regional office is designed to bring together schools, social services, the police, the probation service and other agencies to identify the young people who are at risk of getting involved in offending and to divert them into other activities.
    Ms Karen Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that good community relations are not an alternative to, but a prerequisite for, effective policing? Furthermore, does he
    626
    agree that although stop and search is an essential tool in the battle against street crime, the issue is not merely the level of stop and search, but how effective it is in terms of the number of arrests that it leads to? Will he continue to support police officers who are working with a focused and intelligence-led approach to stop and search in partnership with the local community?
    Mr. Denham: A fundamental principle of policing in this country is that it is by consent. The police must be able to take the effective measures that are needed to tackle crime, and to do so with the support of the communities that are being policed. My right hon. Friend has today set out how we will do that. We need to ensure that stop and search can be used, but as my hon. Friend said it must be intelligence-led and targeted. It must also enjoy the growing confidence and support of communities which are the victims of crime and need effective action taken against it.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not it a fact that a great deal of crime including that perpetrated by young people, has a drug-related element? Can the Minister reassure Londoners that the drug problem in the capital will be vigorously tackled? Does he share the permissive attitude of the Liberal Democrats, or does he think that that is a thoroughly retrograde step?
    Mr. Denham: I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that, unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party will not propose the legalisation of heroin. [Interruption.] A serious issue lies behind the hon. Gentleman's question. We must ensure that the efforts of the police in London are focused. [Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats do not like what they did at the weekend, which is why there is a certain amount of background noise.
    We will ensure that the efforts of the police and other agencies are focused on class A drugs, which wreak havoc, have a spin off and cause most crime. We will also step up efforts on drug treatment, so that young people who have got involved in drugs have help to break their habit and to break the criminal way of life that they have drifted into.

    Violent Crime
    Mr. Paul Goodman: What recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Police Federation on violent crime. [38878]
    Mr. John Baron: What initiatives he will introduce to combat violent crime. [38879]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): Despite the overall fall in violent crime under this Government, we remain determined to make the fight against violent crime a priority, and in particular to tackle the rise in street crime that has taken place in some of our major cities. We regularly meet the Police Federation to discuss policing matters, and will support the police in their action against violent crime. The action that we have taken includes measures

    627
    announced today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the police can make effective use of stop-and-search powers.
    Mr. Goodman: Can the Minister explain to the Police Federation how it reduces the amount of violent crime to ask those who are stopped, but not searched, for their names, addresses and self-defined ethnicity? Some who were asked those questions in pilot projects have declared themselves to be "Martian" or "Jedi knight".
    Mr. Denham: As I said earlier, it is important for the police to be able to make effective use of stop-and-search powers, but in implementing the recommendations of the Lawrence inquiry we are taking measures to ensure that that is done with the confidence of all communities. The approach has been piloted and we can pilot it further to make sure that it works effectively, but the police must be equipped with the tools that they need to do their job properly.
    Mr. Baron: Although the latest figures show that violent crime is rising—particularly in Essex, where there has been a 33 per cent. increase since 1998—the number of police constables has fallen. Will the Minister stop picking a fight with the police and learn from Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, that the best way of reducing all categories of crime is substantially to increase the number of police on the streets, and work with them rather than against them?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House for long. If he had been here longer, he would know that the cut in the number of Metropolitan police was started by the last Government—his party—in 1990, and that the cuts in other forces followed the same pattern under that Government. What makes our party and our Government different is that we have reversed the decline, and are on track for record police numbers. We will have 130,000 by next year. If any party in Parliament is meeting the need for more police officers, it is this party. The hon. Gentleman's party failed.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: A Nottingham magistrate whom I visited at home yesterday told me that recent statements by the Lord Chief Justice had left him unsure about what policy to follow in imprisoning offenders. Does the Minister agree that, while we are keen to explore alternatives to prison in the case of a range of offences, we should ask magistrates to take a firm line in the case of violent offenders who pose a danger to the public?
    Mr. Denham: I do not think it is for me to comment directly on Lord Justice Woolf and sentencing policy. If I did so, I might risk committing some terrible constitutional crime. I think the message is pretty clear, however: those who pose a real threat to the public through violent crimes such as street robbery must face severe penalties. Other sentences may be more appropriate for those who do not pose such a threat, but we hope and expect that the courts will protect the public when violent offenders are brought before them.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: During his discussion with the Police Federation, will my right
    628
    hon. Friend mention the misuse of air weapons? Each year some 1,500 people are injured, sometimes seriously, and some 10,000 animals are killed or maimed by such weapons. Although they are pretty lethal, children as young as 14 are allowed to use them unsupervised. Is it not time we seriously considered the misuse of these weapons and raised the age at which they can be used to 17, in line with the age for other gun usage?
    Mr. Denham: There is a real problem with the misuse of weapons. It is one of the symptoms of antisocial behaviour among young people that we need to tackle. A few weeks ago we received the report of the firearms consultative committee, which considered air weapons, firearm use and age limits, among other issues. We are currently examining its recommendations.
    Simon Hughes: Given recent welcome and high-profile contributions to the debate on the future of the criminal justice system by senior judges, senior police officers and Ministers, can the Minister confirm that the interests of victims and witnesses will motivate the reforms that the Government have in train? Although we have reservations about the associated bureaucracy, we support the new initiatives announced by the Home Secretary. However, if we are to deal with violent crime effectively, including through the effective use of stop and search, we must remember that it is not the court system that is failing—three out of four people brought to court are found guilty—but deterrence and detection of crime on the street. Only one in four of those who commit crime is arrested, and in London only one in eight is likely to be caught. Will he confirm that catching people and deterring crime are the priorities on which we should concentrate, rather than worrying too much about people getting off at the end of the process, given that—by and large—they do not?
    Mr. Denham: The most unproductive way to approach this issue is to debate which part of the system is to blame. The reality is that reforms are needed in the police, in sentencing and in the courts. It is wrong to argue that the entire problem lies in a particular place. In discussing the criminal justice system last week, Sir John Stevens of the Metropolitan police did not say that the police are not in need of reform; he said that they, too, are in need of it.
    It is, of course, right that we need to ensure that the police are well equipped to detect crime. The safer streets campaign of the Metropolitan police is not simply about putting more police officers on the streets, but about using people in a targeted way to produce the right evidence. The protection of witnesses and victims must run right through the system—from the way that they are treated by the police at the beginning of the process, to what happens when they go to court, including whether they feel safe and protected from those about whom they are giving evidence. Instead of debating which part of the system should be blamed, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, let us recognise that reforms are needed in each part of it.
    David Winnick: If stop and search is to be one police weapon against criminality, do the police not have a responsibility to carry out their operations in such a way that claims of discrimination will simply not

    629
    be justified? Previously, stop and search was largely discredited, and one hopes that it will be conducted differently in future.
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right, but we should recognise that, although not everything is yet perfect, in recent years the police service across England and Wales has made huge efforts and great strides—especially since the Lawrence report—in tackling the problems that have been identified, and in improving the policing of minority communities in particular. That is one reason why members of those communities are calling for police action in a way that they would not have done five or six years ago, and we should acknowledge that.
    The measures proposed today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are intended to underline and demonstrate precisely what my hon. Friend is saying, which is that every part of every community can be confident that police measures are being used properly.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I agree with what the Minister has just said, and like others on both sides of the House we support the Home Secretary's backing for stop and search—a power that the police need to fight crime on our streets. However, having listened to the Minister, I confess that I am still at a loss to understand how the new code's bureaucratic requirements will help police officers to use that power. He implied that the code will increase the level of consent to stop and search, but can he explain why receiving a report will make someone happier to be stopped by the police?
    Mr. Denham: The point is that, over time, it will be possible to establish clearly who the police are stopping in order to make inquiries and to ask them to account for themselves. That is the best way to settle arguments about whether people are being picked up because there is reason to believe that they are committing—or planning to commit—an offence, or simply because of the colour of their skin. Showing that they are being picked up for the former reason, and not the latter, is critical to maintaining public confidence in the use of those policing powers.
    Mr. Letwin: Although the Minister has an argument, an opposing one exists that is of greater force. The bureaucratic requirements do not match the realities of everyday policing—a point made abundantly clear by the police. The Home Secretary said in the police debate, on 5 December 2001 at column 347, "We will cut bureaucracy". He rightly recognised that bureaucracy imposes severe constraints on policing, but how is the new code consistent with that theme?
    Mr. Denham: The key reason why we want to cut the bureaucracy that ties police officers to police stations is to free them up to be out in the community fighting crime and using their powers where they have the chance to protect the public and reduce the level of crime. We will drive that agenda forward. The present proposals were produced in outline after careful consideration in the Lawrence inquiry. The group that has been advising my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and me on the implementation of those recommendations includes senior
    630
    members of the police service from the Association of Chief Police Officers. They have signed up to the proposals and they have worked with us on the details.
    The proposals have been tested in practice with officers on the front line and, as we pilot them further, no doubt further revisions will be needed. However, the truth is that if we want police officers to use the powers of stop and search to tackle street crime, they have to do so in a way that enjoys the public's confidence. The proposals produced today balance those two requirements.

    National Asylum Support Service
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: If he proposes to develop the regionalisation of the National Asylum Support Service. [38880]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): The internal review into the operation of dispersal recommended that the National Asylum Support Service should establish a greater regional presence. While plans are at an early stage, we are considering how NASS can have the capacity to answer more inquiries and solve problems at local levels. We are also considering outreach so that people who have been dispersed in regional clusters can be visited by NASS employees.
    Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend will know of the serious concerns about administrative inefficiencies in NASS that have led, in far too many cases, to people being left without support for weeks on end. I welcome what she has said about setting up a regional structure, but I would like her assurance that it will not be only administrative. We need local access points where asylum seekers or their representatives can contact NASS directly, with telephone numbers that—unlike at present—do not continually change. Problems that should be straightforward could then be sorted out at local level by direct contact, which does not happen at the moment.
    Angela Eagle: I agree that we need to ensure that NASS works more efficiently in the service that it gives to people once they have been dispersed, but we are not considering establishing counter services in the regions at this stage. Such innovations as the voucher inquiries line have improved service from what was an unacceptable level. The line turns inquiries round within 48 hours of the call being made, so that aspect of the national service is improving, but we do recognise the need for more outreach in the regions.
    Alistair Burt: The success of NASS depends crucially on the degree of confidence that asylum seekers have in the Home Office. Is the Minister aware that that confidence is severely under pressure because of reports that the Home Office is still unable to give details of which asylum seekers were being held at the Yarl's Wood centre on 14 February, the night of the disturbances, and that the immigration service had refused an offer from Bedfordshire police to check the backgrounds of those likely to be moved to Yarl's Wood? Can she comment on that allegation and will she publish immediately a list of those detainees and asylum seekers who were at Yarl's Wood in order to dispel local rumours that, contrary to assurances, low-risk asylum seekers were

    631
    held with those with criminal convictions, those who might be prone to violence and—possibly—those who might have terrorist connections?
    Angela Eagle: The immigration service holds the definitive list of those who were in Yarl's Wood, although it is not my intention to publish it. The difficulties in providing a definitive list of those present at the time of the incident were the result of the destruction of the records that were held there and the fact that detainees had been transferred in and out of the centre after the last roll call at 6 pm but before the disturbance. We had to reconcile the figures that the immigration service holds because of that transfer. Group 4's records were destroyed in the fire, but I assure him that we have the immigration service figures.
    It is true that there were approaches from Bedfordshire police to check the police national computer, but they wished to check for every single person. Many of those who present for asylum at the ports do not have police national computer issues. Those who present in-house would also not necessarily be checked in that way. There are data protection concerns as to why there was not a wholesale transfer of that information, but this is an issue that we are looking at.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend has seen the nasty, despicable little racist leaflet circulating in my constituency that has been promoted by a right-wing party in an attempt to raise fear within the community. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will condemn that activity. Will my hon. Friend seek to focus the discussions about the Government's proposals so that people in the community know that they have been told downright lies by that right-wing racist bunch?
    Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend that attempts to exploit racial tension of the sort to which he refers and the despicable leaflets that he has shown me are unacceptable. Clearly, the sooner we are in a position to make choices about sites for accommodation, the sooner we will be able to dispel people's worries about this.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: Given that the National Asylum Support Service currently houses over 40,000 asylum seekers, does the Minister accept that the recent fire and break-out from Yarl's Wood removal centre has severely damaged the Government's ability to manage the asylum system efficiently? How many of those who absconded are still on the run? How many persons have been charged with criminal offences arising out of this incident, and how many people whose asylum appeals are still current have been moved from Yarl's Wood into prison? Finally, when will the official inquiry into these events be available and ready for debate in the House?
    Angela Eagle: I do not accept that the events at Yarl's Wood have made it harder or impossible for us to control the asylum system. Off the top of my head, 41 people were moved back into prison following the events at Yarl's Wood. The hon. Gentleman will know that a search is ongoing in the debris of the part of Yarl's Wood that was destroyed by fire to check the forensics. The last count that I saw—again this may not be the most up-to-date figure—showed that 22 people were missing,
    632
    presumed on the run. I will check the list of the hon. Gentleman's other questions and write to him, but he has to realise that we are in the middle of an inquiry about this. There are also ongoing police inquiries. We are simply not in a position at this stage to give the hon. Gentleman detailed answers to his questions. However, I assure him that, when the answers come out of the inquiries, they will be made public.

    Police Service Reform
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What recent discussions he has had about the reform of the police service. [38882]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): We have been in discussion with key stakeholders since October 2000 and that will continue as the reform programme is taken forward. The Police Reform Bill makes provision for some of the measures in the White Paper, but the reform agenda is much wider than that. The steering group is due to meet on Thursday, and will include representatives of all the key stakeholders. Reform of police pay and conditions of service is an important part of our agenda. We are in conciliation with the main organisations on the Police Negotiating Board.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he recognise that for the reform programme to be a success it is essential for him and his colleagues to regain the confidence of community beat officers, whether urban or rurally based, and their sergeants? In that connection, will he pay particular regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) about the propensity of the Metropolitan police force to recruit from county forces because of its more attractive pay and conditions and also to the growth and proliferation within county forces of specialist police units, often with more attractive terms and conditions, which are tending to suck officers away from the beat?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman heard the answer that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave earlier. Some of the issues raised are exactly those that we wish to address in our reform agenda with regard to pay. We want to get money to people when it is appropriate, when they are doing a job at the front line in the police service and when they are doing a particularly onerous duty. People in those situations should be recognised and rewarded. We accept that there are problems, which we are addressing as part of our proposals on the table. It is unfortunate that we must go to conciliation in order to get those proposals across and to get them agreed.
    Vernon Coaker: The vast majority of hon. Members and of people in the country support my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's reform programme for the police. In connection to earlier questions, one important part of that reform programme will be to ensure that there is a proper career structure for the ordinary policeman on the beat—the beat manager, the bobby or whatever—so that they can gain promotion and obtain better pay and conditions. A constable could therefore be rewarded simply for being a good policeman on the beat, dealing with antisocial behaviour, street crime and so on,

    633
    without having to be rewarded by being promoted to a desk job or to a role other than that in which he has proved his worth.
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend has hit on an important point, which applies in other professions as it does in the police. One of the most important jobs in the police service is that of constable, and one of the most important parts of the police reform programme is to give that job due recognition.
    Norman Baker: Does the Minister recognise that, although the Police Reform Bill contains many good proposals, genuine concern exists in all quarters about the proposals to give the Home Secretary of the day more power to intervene in operational police matters? Does he recognise that that challenges the traditional tripartite structure between the Home Secretary, police authorities and chief constables. As a consequence, the axis is being moved very much in the Home Secretary's direction. Will consideration be given to changing those proposals, particularly with regard to the draconian authority that such operational proposals might give to a right-wing Tory Home Secretary in the future?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. There are no proposals in the Police Reform Bill to take over operational issues. The hon. Gentleman ought to accept that the Home Secretary and Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and, through Parliament, to the nation. On the subject of right-wing Home Secretaries, surely he would not want to return to the days when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was in office—the days of the "Not me Guy" Government. We are responsible for policy in the broadest terms, and we therefore need to have the powers that go with that accountability.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Given wider police powers and the wider police community, does my hon. Friend believe that the police will have better facilities to deal with disturbances and violent crimes such as those which took place in Burnley in June last year? In particular, will police be enabled to get to know those who are stirring up that type of trouble and to take action before problems of that type arise on the street?
    Mr. Ainsworth: During meetings up and down the country to discuss police reform, we have tried to say simply that it is the police, not the Government, who need that reform. They are stretched in every direction by the expectations placed on them by the public, who expect them to be everywhere, to meet response times, and to be able to tackle the kind of serious problems that occurred last year in my hon. Friend's constituency. The police reform package is about enabling the police to deal with all those issues as effectively as possible.

    Street Crime
    Mr. Mark Francois: If he will make a statement on the level of street crime in London. [38883]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and I agree that the increase in street
    634
    robbery that has occurred over the past year is unacceptable. Post 11 September, there was a diversion of resources in the Metropolitan police area away from police on the streets, but that has now been reversed by the safer streets programme, which I welcome very strongly and which has seen a halving of the increase in street robbery over the past five weeks. Equally, the measures that the mobile phone industry has at last agreed to take will make a difference.
    However, in the end, we all agree that we need more police on the beat and that they need to be better backed up and better supported by the community. We need to send out the message clearly that we are not prepared to put up with the violence, street robbery and thuggery that has occurred over recent months.
    Mr. Francois: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. He referred to what happened in New York, but is he aware that, according to last year's figures, a Londoner is now twice as likely to be mugged as a New Yorker? What material action is the Home Office, under his leadership, planning to take to reduce the soaring level of street crime in our capital? Clearly, what Ministers are attempting to do at the moment is not working.
    Mr. Blunkett: I mentioned mobile phones, and it is estimated that 51 per cent. of the street crime in London involves that form of robbery. We now have a programme with the industry to deal with that problem. We are also targeting advice at young people, and that campaign has been helpfully backed up by the London Evening Standard. We have 1,100-plus additional officers on the streets of London since last March, and we have a budget that is only marginally less than that for New York, but with 12,000 fewer officers. That, of course, begs the question about the use of resources and prioritisation, and that is why the Metropolitan police authority, the Commissioner and Ministers are all determined to make sure that we use those resources to get a visible police presence when it is needed and that it is backed up by the technology that the police deserve to be able to do the job of reducing the unacceptable level of street crime and robbery to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend provide us with any more details about the success of the safer streets campaign in reducing crime in some of the nine boroughs in which it was originally introduced? Does he appreciate that there will be a warm welcome in Wandsworth for the extension of the operation to other London boroughs, including Wandsworth? Can he give us any assurances about the extension of the scheme beyond 31 March, which is when it is currently due to end?
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall be having discussions this week with the commissioner about the potential for retaining the diversion of resources from traffic duties into the safer streets campaign—which I believe has contributed considerably to the reduction in street crime—about the potential for carrying forward the additional resources for anti-terrorism work that we provided just before Christmas and about the ability to continue the programme for the urgent recruitment of additional police officers in a way that has not occurred for many years.

    635
    However, as requested by the Metropolitan police, we are also committed to providing back-up community support officers combined with local street wardens so that there can be an effort that mobilises the community as a whole and not just the police service in tackling the problem of street crime.
    Mr. John Randall: I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise that one of the factors that leads to an increase in street crime is the lack of respect that sections of society, particularly young people, have for the police force. What measures is he putting forward to address that problem?
    Mr. Blunkett: We have drawn together a youth taskforce of all the agencies, including those in education, that have a role to play. I have worked with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to ensure that schools welcome the police service and work with the police not only to build respect but to develop an understanding of their common cause. We are working with black and Asian community leaders to ensure that people understand that much violent crime and street robbery is black on black and that it often involves young black people being attacked by other young black people. That is why I strongly welcome the brave stand taken by Mike Best, the editor of The Voice, who simply told the truth and has focused attention on the issue, as we have been doing today by revising the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code A on stop and search to ensure that we protect those members of the community who are most vulnerable from those who are most violent.

    Crime and Terrorism
    Mr. Philip Hammond: What assessment he has made of the role of air support to police forces in combating crime and terrorism. [38885]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Guidance on
    636
    the use of air support on good practice is provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers air operations committee, which includes the Home Office. The role is kept under constant review. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary also carries out inspections of air support units. Operational support—whether in the fight against crime or terrorism, or in other areas such as searching for missing persons—is a matter for individual police constables, but aircraft can provide a unique additional resource in such circumstances.
    Mr. Hammond: The Minister will be aware that, in response to budgetary pressures, the Metropolitan police have had to cut their flying hours by nearly a third. They have now announced that they will try to sell one of their three helicopters, leaving just two. That compares with the seven that are available to the New York police, and 10 to the Berlin, Tokyo and Los Angeles police forces. Having only two aircraft will mean that no more than one will be operational at any one time. In the face of rising crime and the constant threat from terrorism, that represents a real threat to the security of London and the safety of police officers and the public alike. What is the Minister going to do to rectify this appalling state of affairs and ensure a proper level of protection to London and Londoners?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman should tie up more closely with his hon. Friends. Last year saw a 30 per cent. increase in capital allocation—in revenue terms, a 6 per cent. increase overall. We are a Government who put money into the police service to increase police numbers, following the pause under the Conservatives. Most Conservative Members say that they do not believe in operational control, yet the hon. Gentleman says that we should tell the police exactly how they should spend their money and how many helicopters they should buy. The Conservative party cannot have its cake and eat it. Either it believes in operational independence, or it does not. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not, but some of his hon. Friends do. There is something strange going on.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to examine the circumstances surrounding the tabling of early-day motion 949 entitled, "Introduction of progressive beer duty" tabled last Wednesday by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)? I ask you to do so, Mr. Speaker, because the early-day motion printed on the Order Paper the following day contains the names, including my own, of several hon. Members who did not sign it. Inquiries at the Table Office revealed that the names were submitted-clearly without permission of some hon. Members, who are seriously concerned that a breach of procedure may have occurred.
Norman Baker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with the first point of order, and the hon. Gentleman can decide whether a further point of order is necessary. I assure the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) that I will look into this matter.
Norman Baker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) had not contacted me to inform me that he was going to raise that point of order, so it is fortunate that I am present to clear it up. Every Member whose name appears on the early-day motion had signed an earlier motion. I contacted—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Rather than the hon. Gentleman clearing up the matter now, I shall look into it further. That is the best course of action.
Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This arises from Home Office Questions, so I am sorry that the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs has just left the Chamber. May I ask that the Minister correct, when next he can, a possibly unwitting misrepresentation of our party's drugs policy? We debated drugs policy at the weekend and we decided on reform proposals. However, we absolutely did not decide to legalise any drug-international conventions preclude it-and we specifically did not recommend the legalisation of heroin, which we oppose.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Home Secretary will read what the hon. Gentleman had to say in tomorrow's Hansard.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)
3.34 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): I beg to move,
That the Orders of 8th January (Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme)) and 31st January (Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)) shall be supplemented as follows—

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)

  Consideration
  The proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

  Table

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  First allotted day

  New Clauses relating to Part 1, amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 and 4, Schedule 2, Clauses 5 to 34, Schedule 3, Clauses 35 to 58, Schedule 4, Clauses 59 to 68, Schedule 5, Clauses 69 and 70, new Schedules relating to Part 1.

  7 p.m.

  Remaining new Clauses (other than Government new Clauses 9, 10 and 11 and other new Clauses relating to forfeiture of leases).

  10 p.m.

  Second allotted day

  Amendments relating to Clauses 71 and 72, Schedule 6, Clauses 73 to 102, Schedule 7, Clauses 103 to 123, Schedule 8, Clauses 124 to 149, Schedule 9, Clauses 150 to 155, Schedule 10, Clause 156, Schedule 11, Clauses 157 to 162, Government new Clauses 9, 10 and 11 and other new Clauses relating to forfeiture of leases, amendments relating to Clauses 163 to 168, Schedule 12, Clauses 16 and 170, Schedule 13, Clauses 171 to 174, Schedule 14, Clauses 175 to 177, remaining new Schedules and remaining proceedings on consideration.

  9 p.m.

  We believe that this motion will allow appropriate time to consider each part of this important Bill. The second programme motion amended the original motion at the request of the Opposition by allowing a second day's consideration on Report. This motion has also been discussed with the Opposition-I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for his co-operation-and it simply sets some timings for the two days of consideration.
  Hon. Members will see that the lion's share of the ample time available will be devoted to considering part 2, which relates to leasehold reform, on which most interest has been focused hitherto. To achieve that, hon. Members will see that the usual order of consideration has been changed slightly to allow full consideration of part 1 before moving on to part 2, and consideration of part 2 will begin no later than 7 pm today and continue on the second allotted day, which will be Wednesday next. The usual order has also been changed to allow new clauses relating to forfeiture to be taken out of order on the second

  639
  allotted day to allow as full a discussion as possible. I hope that the House will feel that that is a satisfactory use of the allotted time.
  3.35 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I hear what the Minister has to say, and agree with most of it. The fact is that there has been a very full discussion of the Bill in the other place. It has undergone about five separate procedural stages, so many of these matters have been discussed exhaustively. However, a number of important matters were discussed at length in Committee in this House, and every member of that Committee concluded that we had had a good Committee stage on this fairly esoteric subject. Labour Back Benchers made some extremely coherent arguments, as did Opposition Members, and some of my hon. Friends made some notable speeches. As a result, we eventually managed to create a climate in which the Government were prepared to consider making a number of important amendments and, in certain respects, to break new ground. Those amendments may not go as far as we should like, as we shall no doubt find as we proceed on Report.
  Some important changes are proposed in relation to forfeiture, which we shall discuss on Wednesday. That issue has been embedded in the law of property since well before 1925—in fact, from the middle ages onwards. We may not agree with every aspect of what is proposed, but, by the same token, real progress is being made, so I am glad to be able to say that we do not want to delay matters on Report by dividing the House on the programme motion.
  In my view, two days will be sufficient to deal with these matters, but I hope that there will be vigorous debate because we are not content with all the Government's proposals. Indeed, we have tabled our own amendments, which we intend to pursue vigorously, especially on unanimity with regard to commonhold and on forfeiture. The Opposition believe that the programme motion should be agreed to without Division.
  3.39 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: It is logical to consider the Bill on two days and to have a break between them, but I hope that there will be flexibility if it looks as though we might go over a time barrier on one or two issues. The reason, ably set out by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), is that there are some contentious issues. We have a contribution to make on forfeiture and are particularly interested in marriage value. Although I do not expect that our amendments and new clauses will take an inordinate amount of time to debate, I hope that there will be time to put them to bed.
  3.40 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: Given the prevailing climate, in which statements are sprung upon us, may I urge the Minister to persuade his colleagues not to make statements before the Bill's proceedings on Wednesday?
  Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords]
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Committee, considered.

  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 17

      JUDGEMENT CREDITOR OF COMMONHOLD ASSOCIATION
      ?(1) A judgement creditor of a commonhold association may apply to the court for an order enabling him to enforce payment of all or part of his debt against a unit-holder.
      (2) In considering whether to make such an order the court shall—

      (a) not order a unit-holder to pay a greater part of the debt than the amount he would be expected to have contributed to it by payments under section 37 or 38, and

      (b) give due credit for the payments which the unit-holder has made under those sections.'.—[Mr. Cash.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.41 pm
      Mr. William Cash: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We have tabled the new clause on judgment creditors of commonhold associations because, in discussion with the Law Society, we came to the conclusion that there is inadequate provision for dealing with questions of liability for the viability of the commonhold system. The problem that arises relates particularly to the form of the commonhold association memorandum and articles of association.
      The Bill provides that there must, understandably, be a commonhold association that will own and manage the common parts of the commonhold development. It will be a private company limited by guarantee, with members consisting exclusively of all the unit-holders in the development. The issue concerns the nature of the company that is being created and the extent to which it is the appropriate structure for the commonhold association. We concluded that a private company limited by guarantee would be appropriate, but there is still the problem of what the liability would be in relation to such a commonhold association. We believe that strict limitation of liability is not appropriate for commonhold associations—indeed, it is likely to harm the viability of the entire commonhold system.
      There is a real problem here. Contractors are likely to be cautious about dealing with commonhold associations if the limited liability may make it impossible to collect sums owing. That is important, because the extent to which repair and maintenance will be properly catered for is part and parcel of the commonhold association's duties and functions. Recovery of work costs and related matters lie at the heart of the system and whether it will work. If contractors are not prepared to go along with the system because they are concerned about the strictly limited liability currently scheduled for commonhold associations, the physical state of the building in question could be brought into question. Indeed, such strict liability could even lead to physical neglect of buildings. For example, if contractors were unhappy with the liability for

      641
      costs and other responsibilities in respect of the commonhold association, long-term lift maintenance contracts might be vitiated by the fact that no one was prepared to enter into them. That would be a serious problem, and we urge the Government, even at this late hour, to consider it seriously.
      3.45 pm
      Home owners with freehold houses are not protected by limited liability, yet they expect to meet the cost of repairs. It seems appropriate that primary liability should rest with the commonhold association, which would make contracts. Secondly, if one unit-holder defaulted—if he were bankrupt, for example—it should be possible to reallocate his share of service charges among the remaining unit-holders. Thirdly, on final default by the association, it should be possible for individual unit-holders to be held accountable for their respective shares of the debt.
      Our proposals are contained in new clause 17. The Law Society supports the proposal that, in the case of final default by the association, judgment creditors should be offered the chance to obtain a court order against individual unit-holders. That would limit cases to those in which a court had adjudicated that a debt was due and allow the court flexibility to take account of the circumstances that affect each unit-holder—in other words, it may consider what they have already paid.
      Mr. Adrian Sanders: We support the new clause. In Committee, I questioned whether a limited liability company would be the correct constitution for commonhold associations. The new clause would helpfully reduce the onerous responsibilities that would be placed on people who wished to form such a company. We hope that the Government can move along those lines.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I have one brief question for the Minister on this complex issue. Does a commonhold association have the right to ask part of its membership to make a payment for a development that is contrary to the rules that the association has itself laid down? I ask simply because leasehold arrangements, such as those that exist in some parts of Southend, may contain a restriction to the effect that only single properties may be built, or a further restriction on the size of such properties. In such cases, an individual can say that he wants to add an extra part to a proposed building and to be considered to be allowed to build flats where others may not do so. Even if the freehold rules lay it down that that cannot be done, the freeholder would have the right to agree to it so long as the person paid him some money. I do not like that idea on principle.
      It would be helpful to know whether the restrictions on freehold or leasehold contract arrangements can be passed on to the commonhold associations. Will such associations have the power to insist on restrictions and to charge a fee if the restrictions are ignored? Will the Minister explain whether that would be covered by the new clause?
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): Before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall address the substance of the new clause that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) urged us to consider I assure him that we have considered it, but we are going to reject it.
      First, new clause 17 would allow someone who has a judgment against a commonhold association to proceed against an individual unit-holder to recover the debt owed—but to what end? Such a course would have serious and unwelcome consequences. The hon. Gentleman accepted that a company limited by guarantee is an appropriate form for a commonhold association, but the new clause would breach a fundamental principle of company law—that a company is a distinct legal entity separate from its members.
      Secondly, the proposal would put the unit-holder at a distinct disadvantage when compared with an enfranchised leaseholder in similar circumstances. The leaseholder would be protected by existing company law from being pursued personally by a creditor of the company owning the freehold but, in similar circumstances, the commonhold unit-holder would not have that protection. Given the concerns that have been widely expressed about the threshold of 100 per cent. consent that we have set for conversion to a commonhold—I am sure that we shall return to those arguments later—I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the new clause hardly provides an incentive for leaseholders to move to commonhold as opposed to a right-to-enfranchise company.
      Nor do I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that contractors would be cautious about dealing with such limited liability companies. I am surprised that such a worldly gentleman should take that view. Contractors deal with limited liability companies all the time—they are hungry for such business and I do not think that they would be less hungry in these circumstances.
      Notwithstanding all that, is the new clause really necessary? If a judgment creditor cannot get the commonhold association to pay him what he is due, he has the ultimate deterrent—he can threaten to put the association into receivership and eventually to wind it up, with access to the association's assets in liquidation. The unit-holders would be aware that the demise of the association risks the ultimate termination of the commonhold if a succession order is not made. That would leave them in a difficult position because if there is no association there is no commonhold, and if there is no commonhold, they risk becoming the owners of flying freeholds that are difficult to manage and unsaleable.
      Mr. Mark Field: The Minister has put what seems a salient point in legal terms but how could a contractor go through all those hoops in practice? In reality, if the straightforward option proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is not accepted, a contractor would find himself in far greater difficulty.
      Mr. Wills: I am happy to assume that the hon. Gentleman believes what he says, although I can see no reason whatever for his belief. 1 have just explained that contractors deal with limited liability companies all the

      643
      time. To breach our company law as the new clause proposes seems wholly inappropriate. There is no evidence to suggest that there would be any such caution.
      Mr. Cash: The Minister may be guilty of misleading himself about the nature of the companies concerned. There is no doubt that contractors deal all the time with limited liability companies. He may be missing the fact that we are talking about a company limited by guarantee, which is not a normal company with shareholders. Companies limited by guarantee are frequently controlled by just a couple of people. In the case of a block of flats, for example, one is dealing with a company limited by guarantee and a large number of unit-holders. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) should not be forgotten. As the Minister was speaking. I was conscious of—
      Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister was indeed speaking, and the hon. Gentleman's intervention has gone on far too long. He should let the Minister continue.
      Mr. Wills: We are going round the houses here, I am afraid. I hope that I am not guilty of misleading myself. I am not perhaps the best judge of that, but I do not think that I am. Conservative Members fail to make the distinction between a corporate entity and an individual. That is the distinction on which we are resting. Of course a company limited by guarantee is a different corporate entity—
      Mr. Cash: That is the point.
      Mr. Wills: It is a point, but not the one that is relevant here.
      There is no evidence that contractors will be any more wary about dealing with commonhold associations than they are with any other corporate entity. The point is that there is a remedy available to such contractors, and it is a pretty severe deterrent to the cornmonhold association. If people do not discharge their obligations, they could end up with unsaleable properties.
      Even if all that were not the case, and there were to he a power such as that in the new clause, who is to pay the extra costs of chasing the individual unit-holder through the courts—both the cost of the order committing the enforcement action and that of the enforcement itself?
      The new clause would bring about an iniquitous position. It would introduce an unjustifiable and unnecessary provision in what is likely to be the real world of commonhold management.
      In response to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), if something is contrary to the articles of association, there can be no obligation on the members of that association to be bound by it. However, it is of course possible for an association to change its articles and then oblige any individual member to contribute. I hope that I understood his question correctly and have been able to reassure him.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Clause l says:
      "a commonhold community statement makes provision for rights and duties of the commonhold association and unit-holders".
      How can the association ensure that an unwilling individual fulfils his duties?
      Mr. Wills: That takes us rather away from the new clause, and we covered this ground extensively on Second
      644
      Reading and in Committee. Various options are available to the association to pursue obligations that are properly incurred by individual unit-holders. I will be happy to give the hon. Gentleman further details, but I will not pursue the point at length now.
      I understand that Opposition Members are genuinely concerned to ensure that commonhold works effectively in the real world and that scenarios such as those outlined by the hon. Member for Stone do not arise, but I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance that the new clause is not necessary. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.
      4 pm
      Mr. Cash: I am afraid that I am not persuaded by the Minister's comments. He suggests that we should not impose unnecessary liabilities on individual unit-holders. On use and maintenance, the Bill sets out that the commonhold community statement must make provision that the obligation to insure, maintain and repair each unit is subscribed to. However, there must also be the flexibility to allow each of those responsibilities to be imposed on either the unit-holder or the commonhold association.
      Perhaps the Minister is familiar with my argument, but let me give him an example of the problem. The explanatory notes say that the statement could require the unit-holder to take out an insurance policy on the fabric of a flat while making the commonhold association responsible for insuring and maintaining a balcony. It could also require a unit-holder to be responsible for the decoration of the inside of window units while making the commonhold association responsible for the outside of the same units. In other words, a division of responsibility is inherent in the Government's explanation of the difference between the responsibilities of the unit-holder and the commonhold association. So the Minister's argument that the liability of the commonhold association should be inviolate is extraordinary.
      We could spend hours discussing that problem, and no doubt in due course the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords and, for all I know, the European Court of Human Rights will debate it. The bottom line is that for practical purposes we are concerned with whether buildings are likely to be better looked after under the arrangements.
      The Law Society might reasonably claim to know a little about the law as it relates to leasehold and commonhold, and the practical effects of the arrangements. Although I am a solicitor, I would not claim that I know a great deal about every aspect of the law. We all learn as we go along. However, the Law Society is a chartered body with a repository of knowledge that I am sure that the Minister is happy to accept. Irrespective of the manner in which he presents his arguments, the plain fact is that it takes a contrary view, and I agree with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) disagrees with the Minister, as I suspect do other Conservative Members. Indeed, I do not notice vast enthusiasm among Labour Members for his arguments. However, as is often the case with legislation that deals with a niche market, there are not as many hon. Members present as one might hope.
      We are dealing with a practicality. I gave the example of lift maintenance contracts, which are long term. It could be that other contractors are put off by the

      645
      arrangements because they are insufficiently flexible, in which case we are making the situation unnecessarily difficult. We therefore intend to divide the House on the new clause. As the Minister knows only too well, there was much mutual indulgence in Committee and we have not engaged in terribly bitter conflicts, although we have had our disagreements. None the less, on this occasion, I shall press the motion to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 241.

      Division No. 187]

      [4.5 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Amess, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Hoban, Mark

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Holmes, Paul

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Horam, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Baker, Norman

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Barker, Gregory

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Baron, John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Barrett, John

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

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Bercow, John

      Key, Robert

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Boswell, Tim

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brady, Graham

      Lansley, Andrew

      Brake, Tom

      Leigh, Edward

      Brazier, Julian

      Letwin, Oliver

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Liddell—Grainger, Ian

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lidington, David

      Burns, Simon

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Burt, Alistair

      Luff, Peter

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Carton, Mrs Patsy

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Cameron, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Carmichael, Alistair

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cash, William

      Malins, Humfrey

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Maples, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Chope, Christopher

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Clappison, James

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Moore, Michael

      Cran, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Norman, Archie

      Dodds, Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Doughty, Sue

      Opik, Lembit

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Page, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Paice, James

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Paterson, Owen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Prisk, Mark

      Francois, Mark

      Pugh, Dr John

      Gale, Roger

      Randall, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Rendel, David

      Gibb, Nick

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Goodman, Paul

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gray, James

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Ruffley, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hammond, Philip

      Sanders, Adrian

      Harvey, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hawkins, Nick

      Selous, Andrew

      Hayes, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Heath, David

      Simmonds, Mark

      646

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spink, Bob

      Watkinson, Angela

      Spring, Richard

      Webb, Steve

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Whittingdale, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Wiggin, Bill

      Streeter, Gary

      Wilkinson, John

      Stunell, Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Swire, Hugo

      Wilshire, David

      Syms, Robert

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesfield)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Tredinnick, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trend, Michael

      Dr. Julian Lewis and

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Mr. Desmond Swayne.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Dawson, Hilton

      Ainsworth, Bob (Co/try HE)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Allen, Graham

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald(Swansea E)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Dobbin, Jim

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Doran, Frank

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dowd, Jim

      Austin, John

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Banks, Tony

      Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

      Barron, Kevin

      Edwards, Huw

      Beard, Nigel

      Efford, Clive

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Benton, Joe

      Ennis, Jeff

      Berry, Roger

      Etherington, Bill

      Blackman, Liz

      Farrelly, Paul

      Blizzard, Bob

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brennan, Kevin

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas(Newcastle E& Wallsend)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Galloway, George

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gapes, Mike

      Browne, Desmond

      Gardiner, Barry

      Bryant, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Burden, Richard

      Goggins, Paul

      Burgon, Colin

      Grogan, John

      Burnham, Andy

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cairns, David

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Healey, John

      Casale, Roger

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Caton, Martin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hendrick, Mark

      Challen, Colin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

      Heppell, John

      Chaytor, David

      Hermon, Lady

      Clapham, Michael

      Heyes, David

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hill, Keith

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clelland, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coleman, Iain

      Hughes, Beveriey (Stretford)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Corston, Jean

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Crausby, David

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cruddas, Jon

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Uanelli)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      647

      Jones, Kevan (N Duitiam)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Joyce, Eric

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Purnell, James

      Kelly, Ruth

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rapson, Syd

      Khabra, Piara S

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Kidney, David

      Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      Lammy, David

      Ross, Ernie

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lepper, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ryan, Joan

      Levitt, Tom

      Salter, Martin

      Linton, Martin

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lloyd, Tony

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Love, Andrew

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lucas, Ian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Luke, Iain

      Sheridan, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McCafterty, Chris

      Simon, Sion

      MacDougall, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McFall, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (\slington S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Soley, Clive

      McNamara, Kevin

      Southworth, Helen

      McNulty, Tony

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McWalter, Tony

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mahmood, Knalid

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Marris, Rob

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marshall, David (SheWeston)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Taylor, David (NWLeics)

      Meale, Alan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Merron, Gillian

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Miliband, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Miller, Andrew

      Trickett, Jon

      Moffatt, Laura

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mole, Chris

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Moran, Margaret

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mudie, George

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Mullin, Chris

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Watson, Tom

      Norris, Dan

      Watts, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      White, Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

      Owen, Albert

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Wills, Michael

      Pearson, Ian

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C

      Perham, Linda

      Woolas, Phil

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Pike, Peter

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Pond, Chris

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

      Pope, Greg

      Mr. Graham Stringer.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 18

      RESTRICTION ON BUILDING
      "(1) In this Part "a partial building" means part only of a building, nless that part is divided vertically from the remainder of the lilding and is not structurally dependent on it.
      (2) No person shall erect a partial building on commonhold land.'.—[Mr. Cash.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. CashMr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 81, in schedule 2, page 92, line 5, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
      'Partial building
      (1) An application may not be made under section 2 in relation to land which consists of, or includes, a partial building.'.
      No. 82, in clause 70, page 33, line 9, at end insert—
      'Partial building Section []'.
      Mr. Cash: The new clause deals with restrictions on building. We propose that, in relation to this part of the Bill, "a partial building" means part only of a building, unless that part is divided vertically from the remainder of the building and is not structurally dependent on it. We are also proposing that no person shall erect a partial building on common land.
      To put that into more straightforward language, that means that commonhold ownership should not be available for only parts of buildings. Indeed, to allow that to happen would undermine the integrity of the new commonhold system in various ways. First, if, as the Bill proposes, a commonhold could consist only of those parts of a building above ground level—this arises under paragraph 1 of schedule 2—it would be possible for a commonhold to consist of the whole of a building, excluding its foundations. If it became necessary to rebuild, whether for voluntary redevelopment or, for example, as a result of a fire or other similar disaster, that would be impossible without foundations. Hence, the proposed rule seriously undermines the value of such commonhold units.
      Secondly, as I am sure the Minister would agree, one of the aims of introducing commonhold is to overcome a technical deficiency in the common law, which provides no satisfactory way in which a positive obligation can be enforced against successors in title of the person originally undertaking it. Because that affects, among other matters, duties to repair, insure and pay service charges, it has hitherto made freehold an unsatisfactory way to own flats. However, if the lower part only of the building consists of a commonhold and the upper floors are outside it, as the Bill permits, all the common law inconveniences remain in the relations between the commonhold and the other parts of the building. That, again, would undermine the value of the commonhold units.
      The purpose of the new clause and amendments is to ensure that if a commonhold consists of a building, all of it is included. However, it is not essential that there should be a building on a commonhold—for example, it could consist of a car park. That would be permitted, but it would be necessary to ensure that after a commonhold had been created, nothing was built partly within the commonhold and partly outside it. For that reason, we suggest that there should be a general prohibition against building in that way.

      649
      As the new clause suggests, "a partial building" would mean
      "part only of a building, unless that part is divided vertically from the remainder of the building and is not structurally dependent on it."
      It follows that, as proposed subsection (2) states:
      "No person shall erect a partial building on commonhold land."
      Mr. Wills: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining what is intended by the new clause and amendments. As so often during the Bill's progress through the House, I have some sympathy with his desire to make commonhold work. However, regardless of his good intentions, it is our view that in their current form, the new clause and amendments would give rise to some surprising and, I am sure, wholly unintended consequences, and would probably end up forbidding anything other than detached properties being built as commonholds.
      Consider, first, new clause 18, and then consider a first floor flat. It is certainly part of the building, so it passes the first test. It is divided vertically from other first floor flats, but not from the remainder of the building, from most of which it is divided horizontally. It is also obviously structurally dependent upon "it", which I take still to mean the remainder of the building, so it fits comfortably into the "partial building" category of the new clause and thus cannot be built on commonhold land. The scope for argument about the definition in relation to terraced houses and even semi-detached ones is wide. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman meant first floor flats to be caught in that way by the new clause, and we would not consider that a welcome development.
      That prohibition might seem odd enough, preventing, as it does, any development of a commonhold by new building, certainly of flats and possibly of other structurally interdependent buildings, but to cap it all, amendment No. 81 would amend schedule 2 to forbid any application for commonhold status where any existing building meets the definition. We have been criticised in this House and in the other place for our 100 per cent. rule for consents to conversion to commonhold, but that is as nothing in comparison with the proposals before us.
      Under the new clause, no development, including flats, would be able to become a commonhold, whether the application was made for an existing building which was newly re-developed, or for a development which had triumphantly achieved its 100 per cent. consent target. Amendment No. 82 would add the definition to the index of defined terms.
      Although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good intentions, I ask him to withdraw the motion, given the unintended consequences that I have graphically outlined to him.
      Mr. Cash: This matter is highly technical, and has certain engineering implications relating to foundations; support; where a building is; and whether it is in fact a building, a car park, or whatever else. We are primarily dealing with normal circumstances in which such situations may not arise. The new clause and amendments would deal with a situation that we believe could arise. The Minister takes a contrary view, but in due course we
      650
      may find that he is wrong. The likelihood could even be as high as 50:50. We do not agree with the Government's view, but this issue does not go to the heart of all matters relating to commonhold, and deals only with limited circumstances in which we believe restrictions should be imposed.
      Mr. Bill Wiggin: Before my hon. Friend makes up his mind on whether to withdraw the motion, would he help me? Perhaps because my background is not in the law, I did not understand what the Minister was talking about in relation to amendment No. 81. If commonhold property were built on top of something that was not commonhold and the building was damaged, the people in those flats would not necessarily be able to repair it as quickly as possible. Would my hon. Friend throw a little light on that particular concern?
      Mr. Cash: That is true. It is difficult to say with any certainty exactly what kind of building it would be in those circumstances. My hon. Friend may hope to nudge me further down a line than I am not disposed to take. We should deal with that situation in the context of the Bill as a whole, which we support. We have serious reservations about certain aspects, as will no doubt emerge in due course, but the bottom line is that this is not a matter on which we want to divide the House. The Minister may turn out to be right, but I think that he is more likely to be wrong, and it will be a matter of judgment. His officials and the Law Society, which wholly supports these proposals, will be watching the situation carefully. If we are right and the Minister is wrong and problems arise, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be more than happy to introduce amendments to deal with them. Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will deal with problems if they arise? If he is good enough to give me a response on that, I shall be grateful to hear what he has to say.
      Mr. Wills: Of course we will continue to monitor the situation. It is a remote possibility, but if it transpires that I am wrong about this, we will consider how we can put it right. I hope that that reassurance enables the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Cash: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      CONSENT
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Adrian Sanders: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 22, leave out "anyone who".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 23, leave out "is".
      No. 4, in page 2, line 25, leave out "is the registered proprietor" and insert—
      `not fewer than 75 per cent. of the registered proprietors'.
      No. 5, in page 2, line 27, after "(c)", insert "anyone who".

      651
      No. 6, in page 2, line 29, after "(d)", insert "anyone who".
      No. 7, in page 2, line 30, after "(e)", insert "anyone who".
      Mr. Sanders: There seems to be no compromise between those who want a majority to move to commonhold and the Government, who want 100 per cent. of people to do so.
      Only a few things in life require 100 per cent. consent, but the Government seem to think it undesirable for a block of flats to contain both commonhold and long-leasehold units. We want the Bill to help with the establishment of commonhold, and to make it as easy as possible for people to become unit-holders in a commonhold association. Although that might be complicated and less than ideal in mixed blocks, we do not think it worth opposing in view of the benefits of commonhold.
      The unanimity clause will make the Bill effective only in relation to new developments. I do not see how anything other than a spanking new development can ever gain the title commonhold as things stand.

      It has been argued that a commonhold association would need to create separate accounts for service charges. Would that really be the case? Would the association not draw up a budget for works that would form the basis of service charges for both unit-holders and long leaseholders? There should be no need for separate accounts.
      The Government fear that freeholders would be subject to compulsory buy-outs if their buildings became commonhold against their wishes. They could, by regulation, choose between being completely bought out and maintaining their flats as commonhold units and receiving compensation for the value of their freeholds.
      All the Government's objections to majority consent can be countered. It has been claimed that an individual's property title would be interfered with against his or her will, but legal precedent allows for that. Under section 36 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the county court can make an order amending all leases in a building on the basis of majority support by the leaseholders. The argument in favour of clause 3 on the basis of possible legal challenges due to interference does not hold up.
      Could the Government be concerned about precedent? As was said in Committee, precedent exists for not requiring 100 per cent. agreement. The best example is large-scale voluntary transfer, in which council house tenants can choose a new landlord. In that instance, unanimity among tenants is not required.
      There are problems with achieving unanimity. For instance, there are the disparate interests of tenants, especially in large blocks. A small minority could stand in the way of the majority's realising their desire to convert to commonhold. Some people have mortgages, or other financial reasons for withholding consent. Prior disputes between neighbours may lead to one trying to spite the other by refusing to grant consent. Some people may refuse to consider commonhold simply because it is difficult. Older residents may not consider conversion worth the trouble, or they may be too ill or frail to participate.
      Someone trying to sell a property probably would not wish to participate either. Absentee leaseholders who sub-let their property for investment purposes may not be
      652
      interested in purchasing a commonhold. An unreasonable tenant could exact payments from fellow tenants to buy his or her agreement for a commonhold scheme. Hon. Members can probably think of other situations in which tenants could show such reluctance. In achieving the unanimity that the Bill demands, tenants could prove the last piece in the jigsaw.
      Unanimity makes the concept of commonhold difficult, if not impossible, to achieve for existing tenants. We want a system in which a majority is sufficient to help establish commonhold. Although the Government want to achieve commonhold, they have yet to convince us that their mechanism is the right way to do so.
      Mr. Wiggin: Before the last election, the Government promised to introduce these new laws without hesitation, but there is serious concern on both sides of the House that the unanimity requirement will make it even harder to bring about commonhold. Although the amendment was not tabled by my party, Conservatives are nevertheless greatly concerned that we have gone through this process only to discover that the Bill could go the way of its 80 predecessors because we have made it too difficult to achieve 100 per cent. consent.
      Mr. Cash: As my hon. Friend may know, I addressed that very issue on Second Reading, and extensively in Committee. Perhaps because it had indeed been dealt with extensively, the amendment that we tabled was unfortunately not selected. Notwithstanding that, the issue goes to the heart of the Bill. If the Bill will not work because of the unanimity requirement, that is a very serious matter. I am therefore glad that my hon. Friend is addressing this issue, as shall I later on.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for that intervention. Throughout our proceedings on the Bill—my hon. Friend will doubtless express the point better than me—we have done everything that we can to co-operate. We all agree that commonhold is a positive measure that should be introduced properly and speedily, but unanimity is an unnecessary stumbling block.
      Even the vice-chairman of the Federation of Private Residents Associations said, "The one big disappointment with the Bill is the extreme difficulty it poses for converting existing long leaseholds into commonholds. The Government have said that you will have to get 100 per cent. consent from the leaseholders in the property, and in many cases of larger blocks of flats this will be practically impossible to achieve." He is absolutely right. His organisation is also anxious to ensure that the reforms do not render unmanageable existing residents' owned and managed leaseholds, thereby enabling groups to mount coups within blocks.
      The 100 per cent. rule will lead to all manner of problems, and anyone who wants residential leasehold to be abolished will be as uneasy as I am about such a commitment. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why the rule is a good idea. The Bill risks repeating the failure of its 80 predecessors during the previous century, and unless we get it right, we will be tinkering at the edges and failing to give leaseholders the means to win their own homes.
      Andrew Selous: I find it astonishing that the Government are not prepared to

      653
      accept the amendment, because their failure to do so will mean that almost no leaseholders will be able to benefit from the opportunity to achieve commonhold status. It beggars belief, and I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says to try to justify his insistence on unanimity or the 100 per cent. rule.
      The Government's position is strange for several reasons. In company law, we are well used to minority shareholders being bought out. They are treated fairly by the law and compensated, but they are not allowed to hold up a company takeover that has been agreed by the majority of shareholders. That is established custom and commercial practice in English law, so the Government have no reason to claim that they could not similarly vary rights in the property field.
      We will have cases in which the majority of leaseholders in a block—or even all, bar one—want to convert to commonhold status, but are prevented from doing so. If just one person holds out, they could effectively demand a ransom from all the others. The dissenting leaseholder could extort considerable sums of money for their agreement to allow all the other leaseholders to convert.
      Mr. Don Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation could be even worse than he describes? The landlord is included in the list of those eligible to vote, so 100 per cent. of the leaseholders could vote to convert to commonhold but that would still be prevented under the Government's proposals.
      Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, one mortgage company or secured creditor on one leasehold property in a block could put a stop to conversion. As I have said, it beggars belief that the Government are not prepared to move on this issue. The Opposition support the Bill and wish to see it work, and even at this late stage I hope that the Minister will bear in mind our views and, possibly, those of some Labour Members.
      The Government have said that it would not be right to vary the legal title of property owners. However, as I said in Committee, I fail to see how the Government can use the defence that they are unwilling to vary the rights of leaseholders in the rest of the UK when one considers what is happening in Scotland, with owners of large estates having the title to their property varied under measures passing through the Scottish Parliament.
      I did some research on the subject and discovered that other jurisdictions around the world do not require unanimity for the conversion to commonhold status. In Honolulu—a somewhat exotic location—under legislation of 1998, the law requires only that 25 owners of units in a condominium development, or at least 50 per cent., need to agree to the conversion. Other jurisdictions do not require unanimity and the onus is now on the Minister to explain why it is uniquely a problem in the UK.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Mark Field: I was not on the Committee that considered the Bill. I would like to make a brief declaration, which probably has a certain significance given the importance of this issue in my central London
      654
      constituency. I own property, a house in Belgravia, in what is typically Grosvenor property land. However, it is a freehold. It was for that reason that I decided to buy the property and not to buy anything else, even on a long Grosvenor lease. I wanted to put that on the record at the outset in discussing these complicated issues, which are of great importance to many people who live in my constituency and in the surrounding area.
      I confess that I had some strong reservations initially about the confiscatory element of some of the proposals, but it seems that the requirement for unanimity on commonhold effectively runs the risk of putting a coach and horses through the entire intention of the Bill. That seems a foolish way of moving forward. On the basis that we are to have reform legislation that is supported both by the Conservative and by the Liberal Democrat Opposition, we should at least ensure that such legislation works.
      This issue goes almost to the root of the question whether commonhold itself will be popular. Under the current Bill—I know that this has been discussed by a number of colleagues—it will be very difficult for any existing building to be converted into commonhold if a very small minority of dissident tenants object. A dissident tenant may even be in league with the freeholder in order to try to stop the process going through. In essence, if we do not throw away the unanimity rule, we will run the risk of the entire legislation beginning to fall apart.
      Mr. Wiggin: Does my hon. Friend not feel that a person might think it worth while to block the commonhold procedures to receive the money? It is in the interests of any individual faced with a commonhold procedure to say to their fellow leaseholders, "Give me the money." They can wreck, to use the trendy term, the commonhold procedures. It is almost worth their while to put up that sort of resistance. That will have such a bad effect on the whole thing. At the same time if that one person does not ask for the money, more fool him. We should not be legislating to open opportunities of blackmail within small communities or blocks of flats.
      Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend for what was a rather long intervention. I could see the Deputy Speaker's eyebrow being raised. We are all wreckers now perhaps, but I think that my hon. Friend's point is spot on.
      I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said. I hope that I will be able to join him on the fact-finding mission to Honolulu at some point to discover how these processes work in foreign jurisdictions. He made a point in relation to company law. It is already established that if 90 per cent. of shareholders agree to a takeover, the position is regularised by the remaining 10 per cent. also being subject to the offer, even if they have voted against it. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government and indeed of legislators to find a similar formula where a small minority try to oppose the proposal for a commonhold.
      I hope that the Government will rethink the provision. If we allow the unanimity rule to remain in place, realistically the great intent of the Bill will entirely fall apart, and in 10 or 15 years' time commonhold will be

      655
      remembered as a small part of a Bill that was supposed yet again to sort out property law but that succeeded only in making it more complicated.
      Gareth Thomas: I sat on the Standing Committee, and I confess that there were times during the Committee stage when I would have liked to be part of a fact-finding mission to Hawaii or Honolulu.
      The fact remains that there has been ample opportunity to test the argument on the unanimity point. I am prepared to accept that the Government have considered the position carefully in this place and another place. I have taken the opportunity to re-read the Official Report— particularly the first Sitting of the Committee, when my hon. Friend the Minister outlined the Government's position. The Government take the view not that it is impossible to draft an appropriately worded amendment or to formulate a form of words that would enable a dual scheme to exist, but that it would be contrary to the purpose behind the Bill to introduce that degree of complexity. If commonhold has one great advantage—I speak as a lawyer who has knowledge of this area of law—it is that it does away with some of the complexity inherent in the current tenure of leasehold, and that it introduces a system of tenure
      "based firmly on parity of interest, uniformity of structure, and standardisation, as far as possible, of the documentation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 January 2002; c. 18.1
      Those were the words of my hon. Friend the Minister on this issue in Committee.
      The Government are adopting a pragmatic approach. I well understand that there would be extreme difficulties in allowing long leaseholders to co-exist with commonholders, and that serious practical problems would arise that would undermine the attractiveness of that form of tenure.
      Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell the House how many existing leasehold developments will be able to convert to commonhold status under the Bill in it current form? Is not the reality of the Bill that the only new commonhold developments will be new developments? We are selling the commonhold path to existing leaseholders up and down the country, but they will not be able to take the commonhold route. How many commonhold developments does the hon. Gentleman estimate there will be?
      Gareth Thomas: I cannot answer that question—nor, realistically, do I think the hon. Gentleman expected me to. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have a stab at it. Surely the point is that such schemes have a reputation for being too unwieldy and complex and for being the scene of constant dispute, and that they will therefore be a disincentive for the take-up of commonhold. I refer to the practical difficulties that arise when there are two statutory sets of regimes and two sets of money that have to be accounted for. Indeed, when conversion takes place it will be necessary for those who consent to conversion to find the extra money to buy out the freehold interests of those who are not consenting. Again, that would add to the cost of allowing a lower threshold. The commonhold community statement, which is an essential part of the regime, would become unwieldy and unnecessarily complicated.
      Mr. Wiggin: As I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said, to achieve commonhold, other tenants or people
      656
      living in the same block of flats would be obliged to buy the flat of the person who did not consent to the commonhold. Does that not add to the cost? Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means?
      Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman did not mishear me. That is how I understand the position. Those who convert would have to find the means to buy the freehold in respect of the co-existing leaseholds. Another complication that would arise is that existing leases would have to be amended to take into account the dual regime.
      I am sure that the Government have considered the disquiet that Labour Members have voiced and weighed the pros and cons. The Bill's purpose is to introduce a simple form of tenure, so this provision must be considered in the context of the radical reforms relating to the right to manage that the Government are introducing in other parts of the Bill. In many respects, those reforms will deal with the problems that have been raised, but to cut across the Bill's purpose by introducing a large element of complexity would be entirely undesirable.
      Mr. Cash: I am fascinated and slightly appalled by what I have heard—or not heard—from Labour Members. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and other Labour Members made powerful speeches saying that the Bill could not possibly succeed with the unanimity provision in it. I cannot say that I was persuaded by what they said, because I made exactly the same points on Second Reading. Indeed, as the Minister will no doubt remember, I made similar points in Committee and perhaps so forcefully that the amendment that we tabled was not selected. I was sorry about that, because I have great sympathy for the principles that underlie these amendments. However, other matters also require elaboration.
      The unanimity rule simply will not work. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) was no doubt persuaded to speak by the Whips.
      Gareth Thomas indicated dissent.
      Mr. Cash: Perish the thought that he was so persuaded. However, does the absence of the other Members who spoke so strongly on Second Reading mean that they have suddenly changed their minds or have the Minister's gentle charms persuaded them to think again?
      Mr. Wills indicated assent.
      Mr. Cash: We must therefore conclude that Labour Members were persuaded to think again. However, I do not think that logic lay at the heart of that conversion. It probably had much more to do with the embarrassment of seeing the Government being harried and hunted like a fox on the question whether the Bill would work at all. I do not believe for a minute that it is possible for the Bill to work in relation to anything other than new developments and circumstances unless the unanimity rule is removed.

      657
      We should consider how the questions of consent that are referred to in the amendments arise. Clause 3(1) refers to consent and states:
      "An application under section 2 may not be made in respect of a freehold estate in land without the consent of anyone who—

      (a) is the registered proprietor of the freehold estate in the whole or part of the land,

      (b) is the registered proprietor of a leasehold estate in the whole or part of the land granted for a term of more than 21 years,

      (c) is the registered proprietor of a charge over the whole or part of the land,

      (d) is registered as a cautioner in respect of the whole or part of the land,

      (e) falls within any other class of person which may be prescribed."

      [Interruption.] If the Minister has something to say, perhaps he would be kind enough to say it now.
      5 pm
      Mr. Wills: In due course.
      Mr. Cash: He will in due course.
      The restrictions are confined to the consent of anyone in certain circumstances, as described in the Bill. The problem arises as to whether that might prevent the Bill from working at all. The arrangements that I believe ought to apply should be directed towards ensuring that the proposals are workable.
      Will commonhold be popular? Irrespective of my earlier comments about Labour Members, hon. Members from all parts of the House, and even many people outside, believe that the requirement of unanimity is unnecessary, counter-productive and will put a needless fetter on the use of commonhold.
      Under the Bill in its present form it will be difficult to convert any existing building into commonhold. Only if everyone with an interest in the building consents to conversion will it be permitted. Thus the consent of every single leaseholder will be necessary, as will that of every single finance house that holds a mortgage for any flat in the block, that of any single judgment creditor who has a charging order over a flat in the block and that of the freeholder. Any of those persons can exercise a veto over conversion.
      The key point remains whether the word "anyone" is appropriate in these circumstances. Whenever a veto applies, we will be up against the awkward customer. In any sort of collective activity—whether in a golf club or in relation to charging orders on repairing roads—there is always someone who may want to exercise his rights. I mentioned in Committee that there are already precedents for the exercise of similar rights. For example, a line of garages may abut on to a road and some people in the road may want to carry on with developments. Under many enactments it has been prescribed that those on that road should not be held to ransom by any one person who might try to hold out on the grounds suggested by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West—to gain through an increase in the value of a flat so that he could be bought out.
      The application of the unanimity rule will frustrate the entire object of the process. The result will be, in practice, that commonhold will be limited to new developments.
      658
      I shall be interested to hear the Minister's arguments that that will not happen. No doubt he has given it a great deal of thought.
      Mr. Wiggin: I hope so.
      Mr. Cash: We hope so, as my hon. Friend says. In fact, we are more than dubious; we are convinced that it will not be possible for the Bill to work.
      We support this important Bill in principle, but it simply will not work given the stubborn attitude of the Minister and the Government. It is very retrograde for the Minister to take such an obtuse and stubborn position. Indeed, that has been the case throughout consideration in the House of Lords and in Committee, but not, curiously enough, in respect of one or two other matters, on which the Government have moved towards our position. For example, on leasehold and forfeiture, Labour Back Benchers argued just as strongly with respect to unanimity, and the Government moved on that issue, yet we see no movement whatever on this issue. I am intrigued, as well as puzzled and appalled, about the way in which the Government are sowing the seeds of the destruction of their own Bill in this way.
      Gareth Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Government have given way and made concessions on other contentious issues. Does not that rather undermine his point that the Government's opposition on this issue is not principled and that they are stubborn?
      Mr. Cash: Our support for the Bill is principled. Indeed, that is why we took the line that we took on Second Reading and why we dealt with the Bill so responsively in Committee, but we are now on Report and I am fascinated to know why some of the more vociferous objectors on this issue from the Government Benches are not prepared to come to the Chamber, or perhaps they are not able to do so. Perhaps they are incapacitated in some way by the Whips or someone else.
      The gentle giant of the Whips Office has been most considerate throughout the consideration of the Bill and he has worked as well as possible through the usual channels. We register no personal complaint against him. What worries me is the health and well-being of Labour Back Benchers; he seems to have leant on them in a manner that suggests that he has been highly effective in his discreet fashion; otherwise Labour Members would be jumping to their feet, as they did on Second Reading, but there is no sign of them now. In fact, I think that I am right to say that at least one hon. Gentleman, who is sitting on the Labour Back Benches at the moment in unaccustomed monk-like silence, expressed himself vociferously on Second Reading, but he does not seem to feel it necessary to do so on this occasion.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: At this stage.
      Mr. Cash: I am delighted to hear those words. They are very important because they suggest that, in due course, we may perhaps have a blast of 25 pounders or better from Labour Members on other matters.
      This is a question of principle, which is why I raised the issue on Second Reading—the occasion on which the principles of a Bill are debated. If it then becomes

      659
      apparent that its entrails make a Bill unworkable, the Government effectively undermine their own legislation. The arrangements that they propose in clause 3 will prevent their Bill, which we support, from working effectively. That is not only counter-productive, but extremely foolish.
      We do not know how many people will take up the proposals, but given all the people who live in blocks of flats throughout the country, I would guess that we must talking about millions of our fellow citizens. It is so obvious. We concede the principle of the Bill and we want o work, but we find that the Government are bent on the destruction of their own proposals. Although there will always be awkward people, arrangements in law mean that a majority vote ensures a proper decision.
      The Minister referred to the nature of commonhold, ociations and how they will operate. I think that I heard a say—at any rate, it was implied in what he said t we must have regard to the balance of opinion in occisions taken by a commonhold association. That is a majority vote. According to the application of the arrangements put forward by the Government there is an assumption that not everything will have to be decided unanimously but by majority vote. The running of the properties and their repairs and maintenance will be decided by majority vote. However, when it comes to whether the Bill will work. the Government say, "Oh no, we will not allow people to decide by majority vote but will insist on unanimity." That is, I am afraid, a form of totalitarianism. By imposing a completely unnecessary rule, the Government are insisting that nobody will have the freedom to exercise the rights that they have introduced, with our support and that of the Liberal Democrats, to increase the opportunities for holding property in a better way.
      Mr. Mark Field: What does my hon. Friend consider to be the right level of approval? We have talked about majority approval. Presumably he does not accept that a vote of 51 per cent. of people should drive through a decision for the remaining 49 per cent. In the spirit of improving the legislation, does my hon. Friend have some thoughts on the matter?
      Mr. Cash: Yes, indeed. I refer my hon. Friend to amendment No. 86, which is identical to one that we moved in Committee. It would ensure that where certain conditions set out in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 were satisfied in respect of certain provisions, regulations made under clause 3(2) could, under certain circumstances, dispense with the consent of the person in question. It is not an arbitrary arrangement; it would all be dealt with by regulations, which would have to be debated. The bottom line is that we believe that the many millions of people who will be affected by the Bill deserve better and more informed argument and arrangements than are provided.
      Clause 3(1) refers to
      "the registered proprietor of the freehold estate"
      and
      "the registered proprietor of a leasehold estate in the whole or part of the land granted for a term of more than 21 years".
      We suggest that where no more than 20 per cent. of the qualifying tenants within the meaning of the 1993 Act refuse to consent, their consent could be dispensed with.
      660
      In answer, then, to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), we have in mind a refusal figure of 20 per cent. The Liberal Democrats, in amendment No. 4, propose not fewer than 75 per cent. of registered proprietors registering their consent, so we are all talking in similar terms. There is a margin between us, but no difference of principle. I do not mean to encourage too much support from the Liberal Democrats, but my family were Liberals once upon a time and founded, among other things, the Abbey National building society and the Rochdale co-operative society. I come from a background of seeking to be reasonable and co-operative, but I want the maximum number of people to be able to exercise their rights because I believe in democracy.
      5.15 pm
      What I do not believe is that everyone should be automatically able to enforce his or her rights against other people. The unanimity rule is draconian. We need flexibility, and I appeal to the Minister to think about that. I am truly surprised that the Government do not understand that some people will be awkward and that others will try to engineer situations that will prevent the Bill from working. I cannot believe that the Government do not know that that will happen.
      I shall be fascinated to hear what the Minister has to say. He has heard the arguments in the other place and in Committee, and I know that he periodically rewrites his speech to accommodate them. The Government have taken a tough line throughout the Bill's progress, but it is not sensible to be tough in suppressing the rights of millions of people to have their way and to own a better form of property.
      I know that when the Minister was at Cambridge, he wrote the whole or part of his thesis on the Primrose League. I am much associated with that myself, and I know that it had much to do with the working man, democracy and the manner in which we guarantee that the maximum number of people obtain the maximum benefit. In the past 150 years or so, an enormous amount has happened. Democracy has been established, and it is a property-owning democracy. I do not want to be too effusive about a Government Bill, but their commonhold proposals are an enormous step in the right direction. Yet they are kicking the house down on the point before us, and I find that strange.
      I shall be glad to hear what the Minister has to say. The Government have repeated, here and in the other place, that they are determined to stand by what they have already said. Consequently, commonhold will be limited in practice to new developments and only in the smallest block of flats will there be any prospect of obtaining all the consents necessary to effect conversion to commonhold.
      Why are the Government insisting so steadfastly on unanimity? They have advanced two arguments, although there may be more to come. One thing I know about the Minister is that when he is in stubborn mood, he relies on not just two arguments, but has others lined up which he will produce both this afternoon and on Wednesday.
      I have no doubt that there are more arguments to come, but so far the Government have made two. In Committee, they said that if one allowed conversion to commonhold with the agreement of fewer than 100 per cent. of the

      661
      tenants, commonhold blocks would have a mixture of commonhold units and long leases. Tenants who wanted to convert would receive commonhold units, whereas tenants who did not want to convert would be left with long leases. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West made that very point with reference to the Minister's speech on Second Reading.
      The Government say that such a result would complicate the administration of the block as two sets of accounts would need to be kept—as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. Furthermore, a mixture of commonhold units and long leases would destroy the perfect beauty—the utopia—of a block owned by lots of happy commonholders working in harmony in a commonhold association. There would be an ongoing relationship between the landlord—who would have become the commonhold association—and some tenants who would maintain their previous arrangements.
      Does the Government's argument stand up? It is true that any departure from unanimity would make commonhold less neat and tidy—there would still be tenants with long leases. I am happy to concede that. A block consisting only of commonhold unit-holders would undoubtedly be more elegant. However, it is not merely a matter of elegance but of the interests of all the people in the country. The provisions would affect a huge number of people.
      We are not in this place merely to devise an aesthetically pleasing legal construction. Over and over again, my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster, for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) have been making practical points but we want practicality and philosophy to run together. That is one of my main concerns. We are interested in ensuring that there is a property-owning democracy. We want more people to have more rights in their property.
      Furthermore, we are dealing with new Labour and the middle way—as well as the patriotism for which the Minister is primarily responsible. Surely the Minister and the new Labour cohorts want more people to have enhanced property rights. They did not get to power by arguing against such rights—far from it. They would not have cadged all those votes from us without, in effect, making a spurious claim that is undermined by the Bill's proposals. If people heard the arguments in this debate, they would say, "Oh, is that the real attitude? Every person in our block of flats will have to go down that route if we are to have that enhanced property value". Many people, including good honest Labour voters—especially new Labour voters—would realise that they were not getting what new Labour offered them. Of course, now it is a matter for the press. There is no more that we can do once we have discharged our functions at the Dispatch Box.
      I hope that people will understand that, in practice, they are not getting what new Labour offered them. These provisions are a good example. I suspect that that is why the hon. Member for Brent, North made such a strong case on Second Reading, when I think that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) made some similar points.
      662
      The whole point of the change in our approach to property over the past 50 years has been the practical advantage that people gain by owning property rather than living in state-subsidised or council housing. We are not here to devise an aesthetically pleasing legal construction. Indeed, we are surprised to find that new Labour Ministers have any interest in aesthetics. For many of us, the idea of an aesthetically pleasing legal construction is an oxymoron, like a welcome Labour stealth tax—but let us not rough it up too much this afternoon.
      We are trying with commonhold to produce something practical and popular. The Government's only practical argument against having both commonhold units and long leases in the same block concerns the difficulties with accounts.
      Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not consider our country's accounting and legal skills to be in any way inferior to those of a jurisdiction such as Honolulu, which seems perfectly able to cope with mixed tenures within blocks?
      Mr. Cash: I was most attracted by the Honolulu argument, which took me back to that wonderful film, "South Pacific". My hon. Friend is right, and there are many other places where the unanimity rule does not apply—for example, there are the strata arrangements in America, Australia and elsewhere in the western world.
      It is certainly true, as the Government say, that a commonhold association would have to make arrangements so that service charges could be collected from commonhold unit-holders in accordance with the commonhold community statement, and from long leaseholders in accordance with the terms of their leases, but it is absurd, with respect, to suggest that this presents any practical difficulties.
      Mr. Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an analogy with the situation in a council block in which some of the flats have been sold to long-standing tenants? In that case, two sets of accounts have to be dealt with in a way that the Bill seems to suggest is impossible.
      Mr. Cash: I could not agree more. The same situation arises in many different contexts. Having to have two sets of accounts is no reason to give up on the many advantages that people will gain in respect of the important principle that lies at the heart of the Bill.
      There are frequently different leases for different flats in the same block, with different service charge and rent provisions. That is an absolute fact that the Minister must acknowledge. No managing agent has the slightest difficulty in keeping accounts that distinguish between the liabilities of different flats. Why should managing agents be worried about different accounts for commonhold arrangements? I challenge the Minister to tell me now.
      Mr. Wills: In due course.
      Mr. Cash: Very well.
      The situation would be exactly the same in a block with commonholders and leaseholders: the managing agent would calculate the service charge for each flat, based on the relevant legal principles.

      663
      The Government's second argument is even more far-fetched. They say that, okay, one could allow a commonhold without a unanimity requirement but that, with all the recent reforms to leasehold, leasehold is now such an attractive option that there is no need for existing leaseholders to convert to commonhold.
      What is one to make of that argument? Commonhold is about choice, and about expanding choice. That is the gravamen of the argument that I urged on Second Reading and in Committee and that I repeat today. People with leases should have the right to choose whether to carry on with leasehold or to convert. That is the key consideration, and it affects millions of people. It is not for the Government to dictate whether people should convert or not. The Government stand condemned for wrecking their Bill and removing that choice from those people. It is incredibly obtuse of them and I do not understand their decision.
      5.30 pm
      It is true that leasehold has been improved as a result of various reforms, most notably those contained in the Housing Act 1996, which was introduced by the last Conservative Administration, although the Government do not admit to that. As a consequence of those reforms, leasehold is a much more satisfactory form of tenure. However, there remains a widespread dissatisfaction with it. It is wrong to prevent tenants in blocks from converting to commonhold when there is a widespread desire to do so just because one tenant or mortgagee does not agree. The veto should go. The amendment would achieve that purpose. The most important consideration is that we enlarge the property opportunities for the people of this country. Millions will be affected by the proposals and the Government are obtuse, wrong and arrogant in their refusal to accept that unanimity must go.
      Mr. Wills: I am glad finally to be given the chance to address the points raised. We have covered this ground over and over again. The indignation of the rhetoric used by the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) outstripped their attentiveness to the arguments. The words "appalled", "obtuse", "it beggars belief' and "astounding" were used frequently. They might disagree with us, but had they listened carefully they would understand that there is a clear logic to our decision.
      The Opposition once again made the same old arguments and they gave only a partial view of the problem. The hon. Member for Stone, in a lengthy disquisition on all sorts of things including the amendments, airily brushed away the problems with the alternative approaches and the opportunities that the alternative choices present for leaseholders. It is not adequate to make a case by dismissing the problems in such a way.
      Government amendment No. 10 will render amendment No. 6 unnecessary, and we are not prepared to accept the other amendments in the group. I hope that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) will forgive me if I pass quickly over amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. They are drafting devices aimed at getting to the meat of the group, contained in amendment No. 4. That amendment makes another attempt to introduce a consent level that is less than the 100 per cent. on which the Government still
      664
      insist for conversion from leasehold to commonhold. Despite the hon. Gentleman's heroic efforts, we looked in vain for recognition of the extremely complex tasks posed by conversion and the subsequent management arising from such a change.
      Amendment No. 4, like all the others that have aimed at reducing the hurdle, fails to take into account the practical problems that the poor souls who try to take advantage of conversion will face. We repeatedly said on Second Reading, in another place and in Committee that had we been able to find a way both to lower the hurdle and to provide for a sensible, practical and, above all, simple way of accommodating the resulting procedures, we would have done so, but it has proved impossible. We went through the arguments in considerable detail at every stage of the Bill in both Houses and, of course, in the three stages that were completed in another place before the last election. It is a matter not of being stubborn or obtuse, as the hon. Member for Stone alleges, but of considering the problem practically, in a cold-eyed way, and making a judgment on the best evidence available. There is not much to add to those discussions, but none the less
      Dr. Julian Lewis rose —
      Mr. Wills: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am glad to see that he has joined us for the latter part of these proceedings. I was about to say that, as there is such concern among Opposition Members, I shall explain the arguments again in the hope that they may finally penetrate.
      Dr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for giving way. In case he has not noticed, I was present for the earlier part of the proceedings; there was merely a slight intermission. Does he accept that the import of his remarks is an admission that the Government are accepting the fundamental point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) because they cannot get round the problem? Are they not admitting that the benefits of the Bill will apply only to people in new properties and not to those in existing leasehold properties, with hardly any exceptions?
      Mr. Wills: No, I do not accept that. The truth is that nobody in the House has any idea of exactly what will happen in future. As we have always said, the market will decide the issue. As the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware, the market, by its very nature, cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. None the less, I shall go on to reassure him about some other matters that have not fully percolated into Opposition Members' consciousness.
      Dr. Lewis: May I remind the Minister of the point that I made in Committee when another Minister was dealing with the Bill? If a freeholder does not want leases on his property to be converted to commonhold, is it not a racing certainty that he will take either personally or by proxy a single lease on one small part of the property so that he can block conversion? Is not that an absolute certainty that does not depend on the vagaries and unpredictability of the market?
      Mr. Wills: A similar point was made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) some considerable time ago, and I shall deal with it in due course.

      665
      As the hon. Member for Stone eventually got around to acknowledging, there are two good reasons for our persistence with the 100 per cent. threshold. If I may, I shall deal with the matter relatively briefly. Let us consider once again the nature of the problems that will arise if long leaseholders continue to live under the terms of their lease in a commonhold development. There will be two classes of occupant, so self-evidently there will be two management streams under two different statutory regimes. There will also be two sets of moneys to collect and two sets of accounts to produce, because the calculation of service charges for the remaining leaseholders will continue to be set by the terms of their lease, which is a legal contract.
      Existing landlord and tenant legislation provides for appeals against the determination of service charges. There would be no such appeal for a commonhold, because commonhold assessments will be set by members of the association at a general meeting. That is why the two streams of accounts and two different sets of moneys would persist. There could be an almost infinite variety of tailor-made schemes to design and operate, and they would bring with them all the potential for the drafting problems that have helped to bring leases into such disrepute and which the Bill sets out to address.
      This is a matter not of aesthetics—curiously, that is what the hon. Member for Stone appears to believe—but of practicality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) so cogently pointed out, complexity, burdensome bureaucracy and all the consequent costs should worry deeply anybody who is concerned about the future of commonhold. If anything will strangle commonhold at birth—another bit of the Opposition rhetoric that I recall from Second Reading—it is the complexity, bureaucracy and cost that would flow from accepting a hurdle of less than 100 per cent. for conversion.
      Of course, there are issues in terms of minority holdings, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Torbay and also the hon. Member for Bath, who referred to landlord blocking. However, all that discussion merely brushes aside the option now available under part 2: the right to enfranchise, which can be triggered by two thirds of leaseholders. Under the right-to-enfranchise provisions in part 2, the landlord's interest can be bought out regardless of whether those who must consent have done so. If the landlord is bought out under those provisions, in due course the right-to-enfranchise company can transform into commonhold, which would in itself stop the blocking potential of a landlord.
      Of course important issues are involved, but we must consider what is most likely, in practical terms, to ensure that the new form of tenure takes hold. As we have said many times, in the end the market will decide. I do not want to rehearse those arguments at great length. I merely remind the House that if commonhold has the virtues that we believe it has, it will take root not only in new developments and redevelopments of existing properties without leaseholders, but in the conversion of existing leaseholds.
      666
      I hope that the existence of the remedy in part 2 and all the changes that it makes possible, coupled with the fact that profound problems are associated with making the consent level less than 100 per cent., will enable the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Cash: I remain puzzled by the Minister's remarks. He told us that he would go through all the arguments and give us a full explanation, but he has done nothing of the kind. Furthermore, he says that a market will operate, but how can that happen if one puts an enormous roadblock in its way by saying that the unanimity rule will prevail? There will be no flexibility and no marketplace in such circumstances. On the one hand he suggests that he wants more freedom of action and opportunity, but on the other hand he takes it away.
      Mr. Wills: I shall try again to illuminate the matter for the hon. Gentleman. With respect, he must focus on the purpose of the Bill—that is, for commonhold to take root. It is all very well for him to say, "Let's have a threshold of less than 100 per cent. Let's not worry about all the problems that will result or the burdensome bureaucracy, complexity and cost. Let's just assume that this will not have any deleterious effect on commonhold taking root"—
      Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Wills: In a moment; I want first to deal with this point. We have gone over it again and again, and I want to have one last shot at convincing the hon. Member for Stone, after which I shall abandon all hope.
      The hon. Gentleman must consider these matters in the round; one should never focus on just one aspect. I hope that he will finally be prepared to change his mind; that he will not be stubborn and obtuse about the matter; and that he will focus on the problems that would result from the amendment. In doing so, he should bear in mind the fact that the right-to-manage and right-to-enfranchise provisions in part 2 give leaseholders—whose concerns are in the forefront of all our minds—an effective remedy against the problems that Opposition Members have described at some length in relation to the amendment—i and many times previously. Those are important advances' that will benefit leaseholders everywhere, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind.
      Mr. McWalter: Many Labour Members are worried about the matter, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's arguments. Fears have been expressed that ultimately the Bill may be a dead letter because it is extremely difficult for people to get these associations off the ground. Will my hon. Friend undertake on behalf of the Government to reconsider the matter with a view to making such modifications as are necessary in the light of experience?
      Mr. Wills: Of course I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and of other hon. Friends who are not here, as well as those of Opposition Members, because this matter is important to their constituents. We are a flexible and responsive Government who want to deliver for the people of this country. If changes need to be made, of course we shall consider making them.

      667
      Having given my hon. Friend that reassurance and, I hope, finally broken through the barriers to understanding on the part of Opposition Members, I hope that the hon. Member for Torbay will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Sanders: We have spent an extraordinarily long time on this subject in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and a great deal of time was devoted to it in the other place. As the Minister said, the purpose and principle of the Bill is to let commonhold take root. The amendment would do precisely that by removing the barriers that might prevent it from happening. We have heard some effective arguments from Opposition Members; in fact, the only unanimity has been on this side of the House.
      The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) made a good argument about the practicalities of the amendment being in place—that is, that leaseholders who voted in favour of commonhold would have to buy out the leases of those who did not. Given that the amendment calls for a 75 per cent. majority, the maximum number of leases that would need to be bought out would be to the value of 25 per cent. It is possible that those would not need to be bought out because the existing freeholder would only sell the 75 per cent. to those who wished to become commonholders. The leaseholders would not have to buy out in every event. On the other hand, if they did, the value of their commonhold association would be significant, and they would have little problem in raising the money. Of course, if they wished not to go ahead in the light of the figures, they would be at liberty not to do so. There is not, therefore, the blockage suggested by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West.
      The British Property Federation believes that achieving the 100 per cent. requirement will be impossible in practice. One would not have expected that organisation to be a great ally of a Bill allowing people to enfranchise themselves with greater ease. If, as I suspect, the federation has decided, "This isn't going to work; it will be impossible for people to become commonholders", that is a good reason for Labour Members who believe in leasehold reform to support the amendment. I duly wish to press it to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 276.

      Division No. 188]

      [5.48 pm

      ayes

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Arness, David

      Burns, Simon

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Burstow, Paul

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Burt. Alistair

      Bacon, Richard

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Baker, Norman

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Barker, Gregory

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Baron, John

      Cash, William

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Bercow, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Chope, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Clappison, James

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Brady, Graham

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Brazier, Julian

      Collins, Tim

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Cran, James

      668

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemphce)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Moore, Michael

      Doughty, Sue

      Moss, Malcolm

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Fallon, Michael

      Oaten, Mark

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Flight Howard

      Opik, Lembit

      Flook, Adrian

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ottaway, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Page, Richard

      Francois, Mark

      Paterson, Owen

      Gale, Roger

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Prisk, Mark

      Goodman, Paul

      Pugh, Dr John

      Gray, James

      Randall, John

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Rendel, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Harvey, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hayes, John

      Ruffley, David

      Heath, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hendry, Charles

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hermon, Lady

      Selous, Andrew

      Hoban, Mark

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Simmonds, Mark

      Holmes, Paul

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Horam, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Spink, Bob

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spring, Richard

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Johnson, Boris (Henley) Kennedy, Rt Hon Chartes

      Steen, Anthony Streeter, Gary Stunell, Andrew

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Swire, Hugo

      Key, Robert

      Syms, Robert

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Laws, David

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Leigh, Edward

      Trend, Michael

      Letwin, Oliver

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      Watkinson, Angela

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Webb, Steve

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Whittingdale, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Wiggin, Bill

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Wilkinson, John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Wilshire, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Malins, Humfrey

      Maples, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Tom Brake and

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Mr. Desmond Swayne.

      noes

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Blackman, Liz

      Ainger, Nick

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ainsworth, Bob (CoviryNE)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Allen, Graham

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Banks, Tony

      Brennan, Kevin

      Beard, Nigel

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Begg, Miss Anne

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Bell, Stuart

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Benton, Joe

      Browne, Desmond

      Berry, Roger

      Bryant, Chris

      669

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Havard, Dai

      Burden, Richard

      Healey, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Burnham, Andy

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Hendrick, Mark

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cairns, David

      Heppell, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Heyes, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hill, Keith

      Casale, Roger

      Hinchliffe, David

      Caton, Martin

      Hoey, Kate

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Challen, Colin

      Hope, Phil

      Chapman, Ben (WinalS)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Chaytor, David

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Hughes, Bevertey (Stretlord)

      (Norwich S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Clelland, David

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Coleman, Iain

      Jamieson, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Corston, Jean

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Kevan (N Duiham)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Joyce, Eric

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cummings, John

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kelly, Ruth

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dalyell, Tam

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kidney, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Uanelli)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Lammy, David

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Doran, Frank

      Lepper, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Levitt, Tom

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Edwards, Huw

      Linton, Martin

      Efford, Clive

      Uoyd, Tony

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Love, Andrew

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lucas, Ian

      Etherington, Bill

      Luke, Iain

      Farrelly, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fisher, Mark

      McCafferty, Chris

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      MacDougall, John

      Flint, Caroline

      McFall, John

      Flynn, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Galloway, George

      McKechin, Ann

      Gapes, Mike

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gardiner, Barry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gerrard, Neil

      McNulty, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McWalter, Tony

      Gilroy, Linda

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Goggins, Paul

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mann, John

      Grogan, John

      Marris, Rob

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hanson, David

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Meale, Alan

      670

      Merron, Gillian

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Miliband, David

      Simon, Sion

      Miiller, Andrew

      Singh, Marsha

      Moffatt, Laura

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mole, Chris

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Moran, Margaret

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Mudie, George

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Southworth, Heleni

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Norris, Dan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles) 1

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Owen, Albert

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pearson, Ian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Perham, Linda

      1 aylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Picking, Anne

      Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, David (NWLeics)

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pond, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Trickett, Jon

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Primaroto, Dawn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Purchase, Ken

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Purnell, James

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Watson, Tom

      Rapson, Syd

      Watts, David

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      White, Brian

      Robertson, John

      Whitehead, DrAlan

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      (Swansea W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rooney, Terry

      Wills, Michael

      Ross, Emie

      Winnick, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wray, James

      Salter, Martin

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mr. Graham Stringer.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Wills: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 29, leave out paragraph (d).
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 11 to 22.
      Mr. Wills: As many hon. Members are aware, the Land Registration Act 2002 has achieved Royal Assent and will he implemented ahead of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, assuming that the Bill completes its last stages successfully. For this reason, we found it necessary to take another look at those parts of the Bill which rely on the 1925 Act or will be affected by the provisions in the 2002 Act.
      The amendments in this group are rather technical and are required so that the provisions in our Bill work in tandem with the scheme created by the Land Registration

      671
      Act 2002. To avoid repeating myself ad nauseam when speaking to this group of amendments, let me explain that references to the 1925 Act are to the Land RegistrationAct 1925, and references to the 2002 Act are to the Land Registration Act 2002.
      Subsection (I)(d) of clause 3 provides that one of the consents required before land can be registered as commonhold land is that of a person who is registered as a cautioner of the whole or part of the land. I announced on the first day of the Committee stage of the Bill that we would table an amendment to remove cautioners from the list of persons who must consent to registration of land as commonhold. Amendment 10 would do that by removing subsection (1)(d) from clause 3.
      There are two reasons for doing that. First, it will honour a commitment that I made in Committee to simplify the consent requirement in the Bill, as a class of interests would be removed from the blanket protection of the consent requirement and, so far as may be necessary, would be dealt with under clause 3(1)(e). Secondly, it would give room to manoeuvre to take the provisions of the new scheme in the 2002 Act into consideration. The 2002 Act makes changes to the scheme of protection of interests on the register which makes the reference to "a cautioner" in clause 3(1)(d) no longer effective or appropriate. Under the 2002 Act it is still possible to enter cautions against first registration, and transitional arrangements mean that existing entries on the register are retained. However, it will no longer be possible to enter cautions against dealings on the register.
      Instead, under the 2002 Act, cautions against dealings are, for the most part, replaced by unilateral notices. Some types of interest that are at present protected by a caution will in future be protected by a restriction. Some interests may be able to be protected by both a notice and a restriction under the new regime—the notice to protect the priority of the interest, and the restriction to ensure that certain procedural requirements of the interest are complied with.
      The policy behind the inclusion of cautioners, as opposed to any other interest holder, in subsection (1)(d) was based not on a need for additional protection for cautioners, but rather on the fact that a caution is regarded as a hostile entry on the register, and is subject to the warning-off procedure. Including a requirement for the consent of cautioners in clause 3 effectively brought forward to the pre-application process any dispute under the warning-off procedure that might otherwise delay the registration of the land. Bringing potential disputes to the fore at an early stage was felt to contribute to streamlining, which we considered sufficiently necessary to include it in the Bill.
      We want to continue with this policy of early discovery of potential disputes. We will also need to consider whether provision for consent by holders of interests which were protected by entering a caution is necessary. Further consideration will need to be given to whether, and if so what, consent provisions are required for beneficiaries of notices and restrictions as defined in the 2002 Act who would not previously have been cautioners under the 1925 Act.
      As we want to be certain that we have given sufficient thought to the consent requirement and those interests, taking into careful consideration the implementation of the 2002 Act, it would he difficult and foolhardy to
      672
      prescribe in the Bill the holders of which interests should be required to give consent under clause 3. We are certain that further work will need to be done on the matter in conjunction with the implementation of the 2002 Act.
      Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: On consents, I am not sure whether this part of the Bill relates to the issue of Millendreath in Cornwall, a village with many holiday homes, which was part of the National Union of Mineworkers, and which has a long-standing link to the former Coventry colliery, very near my constituency. Will holiday homes be covered by the provision; and what special consents, if any, might be required?
      Mr. Wills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Other hon. Members have raised in various forums the question of whether commonhold can apply to holiday homes. I am happy to tell him that commonhold can apply to any development where there are at least two interdependent units and common parts. A development consisting entirely of holiday homes is possible, or a few holiday homes in an otherwise owner-occupied development. Commonhold as a form of tenure is flexible enough to allow for any such developments. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend's interests.
      We are certain that further work will be necessary on the matter to which I referred, in conjunction with the implementation of the 2002 Act. In order to deal with these interests, therefore, the Government would rely on the power as it stands in subsection (1)(e) of clause 3 to prescribe other classes of persons whose consent should be required.
      Clause 6(2) refers to section 82(1) of the 1925 Act, which deals with rectification. It excludes the register being rectified under section 82(1) in the specific circumstance of errors in the process leading up to the registrar registering land as commonhold land, and creates a specific procedure in respect of commonhold land for matters that are specific to commonhold.
      The 2002 Act provides for a more limited scheme of rectification in clause 65 and schedule 4 than was provided under section 82(2) of the 1925 Act. However, for the purposes of clause 6, because subsection (2) of the clause paves the way for provision on rectification in error of commonholds, the more limited nature of the new scheme is not relevant. The minor change in amendment No. 11 is necessary simply to correct the reference in subsection (2), so that it refers instead to the rectification provisions of section 65 of, and schedule 4 to, the 2002 Act.
      On amendment No. 12, in listing various courses of action that a court may take when making an order under clause 6, the Bill provides that the court may order the rectification of the register. This amendment would substitute the word "alteration" for "rectification".
      "Rectification" under the 2002 Act has a narrower meaning than was provided under the 1925 Act. We do not want unnecessarily to restrict the power of the court under clause 6(6)(b) to ordering rectification in the new, narrower sense of the word. If there is a defect in the process leading up to registration as a commonhold rather than a mistake on the register preceded by correct registration process, we want to give the court a wide power to make an order that it feels appropriate. In those

      673
      circumstances, which may have very little to do with the register, it is proper that the registrar should not be asked to consider issues not strictly involving the correctness of the register itself. It should be left to the court to consider the appropriate course of action. The amendment, by replacing the word "rectification" with "alteration", would ensure that defects in the process of application not calling for rectification in the new stricter sense of schedule 4 to the 2002 Act do not fall within the registrar's competence.
      Government amendment No. 13 is the fourth of the Government amendments to take into consideration the provisions of the 2002 Act. Clause 6(6)(g) refers to sections 83 and 84 of the 1925 Act, which are provisions in respect of indemnity. That indemnity scheme has been replaced by a scheme contained in section 103 of, and schedule 8 to, the 2002 Act. As with amendment No. 11, because clause 6(6)(g) confers a power to apply, disapply or modify for the specific commonhold context a provision of the indemnity scheme, the differences between the scheme in the 1925 Act and that in the 2002 Act are not relevant for the purposes of the Bill. This amendment would correct the reference in clause 6(6)(g) so that it refers instead to schedule 8 to the 2002 Act.
      Amendments Nos. 14 to 19 amend clause 65 of the Bill, which empowers the Lord Chancellor to make rules about registration specifically in relation to commonhold land. In making provision about how these rules are to be made, what they may cover and how they are to have effect, clause 65(2) relies on references to section 144 of the 1925 Act. Clearly, those references cannot survive the repeal of the 1925 Act by the 2002 Act. Therefore, amendments Nos. 14 to 16 would remove reference to section 144 in clause 65(2) and refer instead to the "land registration rules" within the meaning of the 2002 Act. Section 132(1) of the 2002 Act defines land registration rules as any rules to be made under the 2002 Act. That is a useful definition for our purposes, as it catches all the land registration rules in the 2002 Act. As those rules, which are equivalent to those in section 144 of the 1925 Act, are separated out over a number of sections in the 2002 Act, it would be impractical to list them clause by clause.
      Amendment No. 17 would remove clause 65(3)(b), which provides that commonhold registration rules may make provision disapplying section 64 of the 1925 Act in certain circumstances. Section 64 dealt with the production of certificates. It is not directly replaced in the 2002 Act, but paragraph 4 of schedule 10 of that Act provides a power to make provision about the production of certificates. The disapplication of general rules for certain circumstances can be done under that power without the need for specific provision to that effect in the Bill, as section 128(1) of the 2002 Act allows "different provision for different cases" to be made by land registration rules. In tabling this amendment, therefore, we seek simply to disapply clause 65(3)(b).
      Clause 65(5) requires a commonhold registration document to be accompanied by such fee as specified by order under section 145 of the 1925 Act. Section 145 is replaced by section 102 of the 2002 Act for all relevant purposes. Amendment No. 18 would replace the reference to section 145 of the 1925 Act with a reference to section 102 of the 2002 Act.
      674
      6.15 p.m
      Clause 65(6) of the Bill defines "commonhold registration document" and "general registration document", and does so for the latter by referring to a document sent to the registrar under a provision of the 1925 Act. Amendment No. 19 would correct that to a reference to a document sent to the registrar under the 2002 Act.
      On Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21, clause 67(1) defines "the register" as that kept under section 1 of the 1925 Act. That section is repealed by section 1 of the 2002 Act. Amendment 20 would correct the reference in clause 67(1) so that it refers instead to section 1 of the 2002 Act.
      Amendment No. 21 would amend clause 67(6) to remove reference to an insertion in the 1925 Act after section 126(4), which made provision for the expenses of the registrar—principally salaries of staff—to be provided out of money given by Parliament. Clause 67(6), as it stands, extends the scope of that provision so that expenses relating to commonhold registration functions can be similarly provided. Provision of the registrar's expenses out of money given by Parliament is no longer appropriate, given the Land Registry's trading fund status and the 2002 Act does not reproduce section 126 or make provision in the same way. Land Registry expenses will be met in different ways. The provision to be inserted b) subsection (6) is therefore no longer required.
      Government amendment No. 22 affects clause 69(3), which provides for any provision of the 1925 Act defining an expression to apply to the use of that expression in part 1 of the Bill unless the contrary intention appears. The reference to the 1925 Act in clause 69(3) should now be to the 2002 Act, and amendment No. 22 would do that.
      Mr. Cash: The Minister rattled through these complicated but not very interesting amendments, although there are some important exceptions. I am put in mind of the famous occasion when it was said—I believe that it is true—that a town clerk added a clause to a private Act by burying in the verbiage a provision tha "the town clerk shall hereby be divorced". When I heard the reference to the Land Registry and the state trading unit—or whatever it was described as—my ears pricker up. However, I am sure that, given the Minister' integrity, we have not landed ourselves with an enormous problem that we will live to regret; far from it. We an thoroughly gratified by the speed with which he dealt with the amendments.
      In my comments on unanimity, I rightly included—because the amendment had not been tabled—a reference to cautioners as those whose consent would be required under clause 3(1)(d). Now I see that—of course, I observed this before—cautioners will be taken out of the Bill by an amendment that was about to be tabled. We are grateful that, as a result of our powerful arguments in Committee, the references in clause 3(1)(d) have beer excluded from the Bill. As the House will know, my view is that the amendments do not go anything like far enough. The unanimity problem will prevail for all the other circumstances described in clause 3.
      We have had an extensive debate on that issue, so I have no further comments to make on the amendments. We will certainly not divide the House on them.
      Mr. Don Foster: The Liberal Democrats congratulate the Minister on a 14-minute tour de force covering a wide

      675
      range of important issues. I merely invite him to tell us which bit of his speech he considers the most important, and would tell the editors of either "Today in Parliament" or "Yesterday in Parliament" to concentrate on.
      Mr. Wills: They would disregard anything that I have said at their peril.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6

      REGISTRATION IN ERROR
      Amendments made: No. 11, in page 3, line 31, leave out from "be" to end of line 32 and insert—
      'altered by the Registrar under Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (alteration of register).'.
      No. 12, in page 3, line 41, leave out "rectification" and insert "alteration".
      No. 13, in page 4, line 8, leave out from first "of' to "(indemnity)" in line 9 and insert—
      'Schedule 8 to the Land Registration Act 2002'.—[Mr. Wills.]

    Clause 19

      LEASING: SUPPLEMENTARY
      Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 9, line 39, at end insert—
      '(6) On the grant of a lease of a commonhold unit, the landlord shall inform the tenant of the effect of section 48()—

      (a)by including an explanation in any written lease, and

      (b)in any other case by giving the tenant notice in a prescribed form.'.

      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Government amendment No. 32.
      Amendment No. 76, in clause 27, page 12, line 41, at end insert—
      '(3) On the grant of a lease of common parts, the commonhold association shall inform the tenant of the effect of section 48()—

      (a)by including an explanation in any written lease, and

      (b)in any other case by giving the tenant notice in a prescribed form.'.

      Amendment No. 80, in clause 49, page 24, line 6, at end insert—
      '(3A)(a) The landlord may terminate any lease of the whole or part of the commonhold land by giving to the tenant three months' notice in writing and on quitting the tenant shall be entitled to be paid compensation by the landlord.
      (b) The amount of the compensation shall be—

      (i)if the Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applied to the lease, the amount which would have been payable under section 37 of that Act had the court been precluded from making an order for the grant of a new tenancy on any of the grounds there specified.

      (ii)in any other case, a sum equal to one year's rent at the rate payable when the notice was served.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 23 and 24.
      Mr. Cash: The amendments are intended to deal with the serious risk that one unit-holder who grants a lease on his own unit will prejudice the value of other units. That is because redevelopment of the whole commonhold will
      676
      not be possible under the Bill if any of the units is let. In some cases, lettings may well be common. We think that it would be wrong to curb that, but there is a need—for the common good—for all the leases to be made to end at the same time to facilitate redevelopment, whether it is necessary after major accidental damage or voluntary.
      The same difficulties could arise if the commonhold association had let some of the common parts. We think, and the Law Society thinks, that the appropriate solution is for leases to end automatically if the commonhold association is wound up. Linking the effect to winding up would ensure that unit-holders could not end the leases capriciously, because the effect would be linked to a court procedure.
      The interests of tenants would clearly need protection. The amendments offer it, in three ways. First, the lease would contain a warning, or in the case of a verbal letting the landlord would give the tenant written notice. Secondly, the tenant would be entitled to three months' notice to quit. Thirdly, the tenant would be entitled to compensation, calculated according to a formula to avoid disputes.
      Mr. Wiggin: Having seen the Government get their unanimity proposal through, we may wonder whether the Bill has been completely wrecked. Now, once again, we are trying to improve what may already be damaged goods.
      Once the Government have released leaseholders from their burden and allowed them to proceed to commonhold we find ourselves talking, in an almost Orwellian fashion, about re-leasing what is currently commonhold. This is a curious part of the Bill. Amendment No. 80 at least makes it clear that a new type of lease on a commonhold will be very different from those with which we currently live. At some stage people will know that if they are to lose their leases they will be given proper notice, and will be entitled to
      "a sum equal to one year's rent at the rate payable when the notice was served."
      There is, then, some good in these worthy amendments, although following the earlier vote, I think it unlikely that we shall have commonhold in the form that the Government would—I hope—have wanted.
      Mr. Wills: Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 are intended to provide potential leaseholders, in the commonhold context, with information about the process by which a commonhold tenancy could be ended if the scheme imposed by amendment No. 80 were in force. The first requires information to be given to a leaseholder of a unit; the second requires the information to be given to the leaseholder of common parts. Amendment No. 80 would add to clause 49 a scheme allowing the landlord to terminate a commonhold lease with three months' notice, and with compensation.
      The thinking behind the amendments appears to be that if a specific ground for ending leases of commonhold land on termination of the commonhold is not provided, it may in some cases be impossible, in practical terms, to secure the requisite level of agreement to the termination resolution, because members of the commonhold association who are landlords will be unwilling or unable to consent owing to uncertainty about how they may terminate the leases of their properties.

      677
      The problem strikes us as exiguous. There will be very few cases in which the lease of a commonhold unit, taken with the landlord-and-tenant legislation, does not provide a ground for its termination; and the solution to the perceived difficulty is so inflexible that it might have the opposite effect to that intended, making such a lessor of a commonhold unit less likely to terminate the lease because of the cost to him or her of doing so.
      The devotion to practicality normally evinced by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) seems—temporarily, I hope—to have deserted him on this occasion. There is a lack of flexibility here. We do not expect many commonholds to be terminated; indeed, in other jurisdictions—such as Honolulu's, no doubt—the equivalent organisations have been found to be stable, and good financial risks. Certainly, we believe that the circumstances of any terminations will differ, and the straitjacket of amendment No. 80 is not welcome. For instance, it is hardly equitable to suggest that one year's rent is likely to compensate satisfactorily a tenant with six years of his or her lease to run, and it might be considered too much for a tenant with three months and two days to run. We believe that such matters should be for the parties to arrange on the basis of the facts in each termination, and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      Clause 20 deals with the creation of interests and charges in commonhold units. Subsection (3) provides that it is not possible to create an interest in a commonhold unit other than a lease unless the commonhold association is party to the creation of the interest or consents in writing. The policy behind the restriction on the creation of interests in units was to prevent unit-holders creating easements and profits a prendre from their units, or any other interests that might cause nuisance or annoyance to other unit-holders or otherwise cause problems for the commonhold association as a whole. The Bill therefore provides that the creation of interests in units must be approved by the commonhold association. Thus the assessment of what interests in units are likely to cause problems and should not be permitted to be created should be left to the commonhold association.
      After the Committee stage, however, it was brought to our attention by one of our consultees that we might inadvertently have excluded the possibility of a unit-holder's creating an express trust of land, for example in a will, without first gaining the consent of the commonhold association. We did not intend to require the association to consent to such day-to-day innocuous and commonplace transactions as this, and we now no longer believe that it is necessary to cast such a wide net to catch any potentially problematic interests.
      If amendment No. 32 is accepted, clause 20(3) will read
      "It shall not be possible to create an interest of a prescribed kind in a commonhold unit unless the commonhold association is a party to the interest, or consents in writing to the creation of the interest".
      Regulations will then prescribe the interests to which the clause applies. They are likely to include easements and profits a prendre but may be more specific, depending on the outcome of widespread consultations.
      678
      6.30 pm
      Amendment No. 23 amends paragraph 2 to schedule 5, which deals with consequential amendments. The intention behind paragraph 2 is that a mortgagee's power of sale under the Law of Property Act 1925 should in commonhold be subject to the restrictions in clause 21 on dispositions of part-units. The intention is that a mortgagee will not purport to sell part of a mortgaged unit without reference to the commonhold association. To achieve such an effect, it is necessary to subject section 101(1) of the 1925 Act to the entirety of clause 21, rather than to just subsections (1) and (2). Amendment No. 23 will achieve precisely that.
      Amendment No. 24 is consequential to amendments to clause 21 that were made in Committee. One result of those amendments was the splitting in two of provisions relating to interests in, and charges over, part-units previously contained in clause 21. Clause 21 now deals with interests in part-units, and clause 22 deals with charges over part-units. It is necessary to amend paragraph 8 to schedule 5 to take account of that change, and to maintain the intention that trustees' power to partition land and to distribute the proceeds among beneficiaries be subject to clauses 21 and 22.
      Mr. Cash: The Minister will be glad to know that I do not intend to divide the House on the amendments. Our discussions in Committee—through which we raised a number of matters such as profits à prendre—demonstrated that Standing Committees have their value. This is very complicated territory, involving a series of technical points that are important to the law of property. It is important that we take this opportunity to clear out some dead wood, and to make amendments after a period of reflection.
      Having said that, I am glad that the Government are making further improvements to the Bill. That shows the value of our procedures. Some other countries tend to legislate by decree, but it is not possible to get such matters right first time round—a point that is illustrated amply by the Government's approach. With some exceptions, which I need not return to at the moment, the process has been one of continuous improvement, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 20

      OTHER TRANSACTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 32, in page 10, line 4, leave out—
      'other than a term of years absolute'
      and insert "of a prescribed kind".—[Mr. Wills.]

    Schedule 3

      COMMONHOLD ASSOCIATION
      Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 96, line 25, at end insert—
      '(3) Sections 364 and 365 of that Act (annual return (company not having a share capital) and time for completion of annual return) shall not apply to a commonhold association.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 87, in clause 37, page 18, line 3, at end insert—
      '(5) Any monies payable by a unit-holder to the commonhold association under:

      (a) the commonhold community statement;

      (b) the memorandum or articles of the commonhold association; or

      (c) regulations made under subsections (1) and (2) hereof

      Shall be a charge over that unit-holder's unit ("a commonhold association charge") and enforceable as a first legal charge in priority to all other charges or encumbrances over that unit-holder's unit.
      (6) The existence or potential existence of a commonhold association charge shall not prevent any person who is restricted or prohibited whether by statute or otherwise from lending money save on the security of a first legal charge from lending money on the security of a charge which, but for the existence or potential existence of the commonhold association charge, would have been a first legal charge.'.
      No. 77, in clause 38, page 18, line 11, at end insert—
      '(ba) enabling the directors to add to their estimate any sum which a unit-holder was previously required to pay under this section but which remains unpaid despite all reasonable efforts by the directors to enforce payment,'.
      No. 78, in page 18, line 13, at end insert—
      'but permitting the directors not to allocate any part of a sum added under paragraph (ba) to the unit to which it was previously allocated but unpaid,'.
      No. 79, in page 18, line 23, at end insert—
      '(3)(a) Payment of any sum allocated to a unit under this section shall be secured on that unit in priority to all other sums secured on it;

      (b) The Registrar shall note the effect of this subsection on the register relating to each unit.'.

      Mr. Cash: Amendment No. 68 relates to some of our earlier arguments. In our experience, tenant co-operative companies—freehold companies that are closely analogous to commonhold associations, the members of which are long leaseholders—are notorious for neglecting formalities such as filing annual returns. [Interruption.] I know that the Minister has to attend to other matters, and I do not criticise him for that, but I hope that he will listen to this point, which relates to a distinction drawn in current companies legislation. I almost referred to it as the Companies Act 1948, which would have betrayed my fine knowledge of that Act. Of course, the legislation has been amended many times since.
      Tenant co-operative companies are notorious for neglecting the rules, and formalities such as filing annual returns, precisely because they are not of the same nature as other shareholder companies. They number among the most common types of companies that are struck off the Companies House register for neglecting to file. It is most undesirable that that should happen to commonhold associations. Although formalities exist to enable reinstating the registration of such companies, they take time and are costly. The need for them could quite unnecessarily undermine the commonhold system's reputation. From a practical point of view, we should beware of the fact that such companies have a strong record of non-compliance with the requirement to file returns. If a similar situation arises in respect of commonhold associations, which are companies limited by guarantee, there will be a problem.
      680
      Importantly, the Law Society considers that no reason exists to insist on associations' filing returns. In other words, there is resistance to unnecessary regulation, or a deregulation arrangement, as it were. Full information will be available internally to members. They will give it freely to prospective buyers of units, and to people with whom they wish to contract. There is no wider general interest.
      Amendment No.87, which would amend clause 37, is important. It attempts to remedy the question of enforcement, which is one of the Bill's most glaring holes. Every commonhold block needs to be kept in repair, and the only source of funds for repairs is the commonholders themselves. The efficient collection of service charges from the unit-holders will be essential to the success of commonhold. In leasehold blocks, a very efficient method—the sanction of forfeiture—exists to ensure that lessees pay their service charge. Forfeiture is a draconian remedy, and we will propose an important amendment when we discuss the relevant part of the Bill on Wednesday.
      The critical feature of forfeiture, however, is that the landlord has a remedy against not just the tenant, but the tenant's mortgagee. If the mortgagee does not pay, the lease is liable to be forfeited and the mortgagee loses the security. Accordingly, it is generally the mortgagee who can be prevailed upon to pay the service charge if the tenant becomes impecunious. Those are the practicalities, which I have already discussed with the British Property Federation and others.
      The Government do not propose any special remedy for commonhold associations against defaulting unit-holders. They propose that, if a unit-holder does not pay his service charge, the commonhold association should bring proceedings in the usual way in the county court, recover judgment and use ordinary methods of enforcement to recover the judgment debt. In particular, the Government envisage the commonhold association's obtaining just a common or garden charging order over the commonholder's unit.
      Just about everything in that idea is deficient. First, county court proceedings are slow, and anything to do with service charges is particularly slow. Secondly, the commonhold association would almost certainly be out of pocket on the legal costs associated with bringing any county court proceedings. Thirdly, the association would have a remedy against only the unit-holder, not his mortgagee, although the mortgagee benefits from repairs carried out with the service charges because the value of the security is maintained.
      Fourthly, unit-holders who do not pay are likely to be impecunious. A charging order is worthless if no equity exists in the property over which the charging order is granted. The commonhold association would rank lower in priority to the mortgagee. I address that point to the Under-Secretary in particular, because she knows what I am getting at. [Interruption.] Apparently, so does the Minister who is responsible for this part of the Bill. Excellent—now we have two Ministers who know what they are talking about.
      The effect of those deficiencies is significant. First, it will place an unfair burden on those unit-holders who pay their service charges. All the money for running a commonhold block comes from the commonholders. If one commonholder does not pay, the other

      681
      commonholders must pay—an effective and cheap way of enforcement. Secondly, one of the questions that mortgagees always ask solicitors to confirm when someone takes out a mortgage is whether satisfactory arrangements have been made for the repair and maintenance of buildings. Any solicitor who considers the matter in relation to a commonhold development would be bound to answer no. If one unit-holder refuses to pay service charges, then—for the reasons I have outlined—the commonhold association will have a job getting the money in. There is the substantial risk of a domino effect starting, when other unit-holders see the ease with which service charge obligations are avoided.
      If solicitors were unwilling to confirm to mortgage lenders that there were proper procedures in place for the proper collection of service charges, that would inevitably mean that commonhold units became unmortgageable. Without being melodramatic, it can be readily seen that the consequences of that would be disastrous for the commonhold concept.
      The amendment would meet that point in a simple way. Moneys owed to the commonhold association by a unit-holder would become a first legal charge on the unit. Critically, that charge would arise automatically without any court proceedings and, equally critically, it would take priority to any mortgage over the unit, so that the commonhold association could—as with forfeiture—in practice obtain payment from the mortgage lender.
      The proposed new subsection (6) in amendment No. 87 is simply a technical provision. There are still some bodies that are restricted in their ability to lend, so that they can lend only on the security of a first legal charge over land. The subsection makes it clear that the proposed commonhold association charge does not affect those lenders' ability to lend. In other words, a first legal charge will remain a first legal charge even when there is a commonhold association charge in priority to it.
      6.45 pm
      Amendment No. 87 is important in ensuring that commonhold works as we want it to work, so that defaulting unit-holders are properly held to account and so that other unit-holders who honour their obligations are not left paying for their defaulting neighbours' debts. I commend the amendment strongly for those reasons and I hope that, even at this late stage, we can deal with those serious and practical points.
      It is essential to the solvency of a commonhold association that every unit-holder pays his share of the association's expenses, in the form of the service charge. Because there is no landlord and tenant relationship, and therefore there can be no threat to forfeit the unit if the unit-holder's dues are not paid, there is a serious risk that there will be defaults. That problem lies at the heart of the amendments to clause 38. Payment of the service charges will not be a condition precedent to the sale of the unit, so there will be no incentive for an incoming unit-holder to ensure that his predecessor has made all the payments to date and there will be no incentive for mortgagees to insist that their mortgagor/unit-holder pays. While it is true that if the association has to take proceedings to recover the debt, it will be able to obtain a charging order secured on the unit as an enforcement
      682
      measure, that will not greatly alleviate the position because the order will rank in priority after existing charges—in other words, existing mortgages would take precedence.
      The Law Society considers—and 1 agree—that securing the service charge automatically, and with priority to other mortgages, is important for the smooth working of the commonhold system. I am trying to be constructive and positive. The provision should not be regarded as prejudicial by mortgagees: their practice in leasehold cases is to make payments when necessary and assess the amounts to the mortgage debt. Those dealing regularly in the residential market have a clear interest in ensuring the continuing viability of commonhold associations.
      Amendment No. 78 addresses the relationship of directors to the strict limitation of liabilities. The Law Society considers that strict limitation of liability is not appropriate for commonhold associations, and is likely to harm the viability of the commonhold system. I have dealt with the issue of contractors and I have already made the case on strict liability. It would not be appropriate to regard the company limited by guarantee, and the strict limitation of liability that goes with it, as appropriate models for commonhold associations. We need the flexibility that will relieve directors of the strict liability that a company limited by guarantee would require.
      On amendment No. 79, it is essential to the solvency of a commonhold association that every unit-holder pays his share of the association's expenses, in the form of the service charge. Because there is no landlord and tenant relationship, and therefore there can be no threat to forfeit the unit if the unit-holder's dues are not paid, there is a serious risk that there will be defaults, as I have said before. Payment of the service charges will not be a condition precedent to the sale of the unit, so there will be no incentive for an incoming unit-holder to ensure that his predecessor has made all the payments to date and there will be no incentive for mortgagees to insist that their mortgagor or unit-holder pays. I made those arguments in respect of a previous amendment and I conclude by repeating that those dealing regularly in the residential market have a clear interest in ensuring the continuing viability of commonhold associations.
      Mr. Wills: This is an interesting group of amendments, and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made a good job of outlining them. However, we will reject all of them. Amendment No. 68 would amend paragraph 15 of schedule 3 by adding to it an exemption for commonhold associations from the requirement to supply annual returns to Companies House.
      Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the numbers of Companies Acts and feared that he might not have been up to date with them. He may be right, because the Companies Act 1985 has been amended by the Companies Act 1989, and the sections that apply to the duty to deliver annual returns and that governing their contents are new sections 363 and 364 respectively. However, the substance of his argument remains.
      We do not accept the amendments because the information required is not onerous to provide and it is important that it should be provided. There are very few disciplines imposed on commonhold associations by outside agencies. One is the production and submission of annual returns. There is a prescribed form and the return

      683
      has to be submitted within 28 days of the appropriate due date. The contents of the report include—the list is not exhaustive—the address of the registered office, the type of company it is and its main business activities, the name and address of the company secretary, names and addresses of directors and certain other information relating to them, and where the register of members is kept if that is different from the registered office. All that information is important—if not essential—to people who may be thinking of buying in to the commonhold. It is therefore essential that it be kept up to date and readily accessible.
      For the great majority of associations, the provision of the form will be a simple and routine task year after year, but will provide important information for all those with an interest in it. For those associations that are large and complex enough for it to be a more significant task, the provision of the information becomes even more important. I hope that that explanation has persuaded the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendments Nos. 87 and 79 return to ground that has already been extensively trodden. Both would secure moneys payable to the commonhold association by the unit-holder by way of first legal charge. We are opposed to both amendments. Although they are of rather different scope and effect, both would impose on unit-holders in a commonhold strictures that do not exist for similar purposes elsewhere. Although it may be argued that that is itself a pity, we are convinced of two things. First, if commonhold is hedged around with unnecessary special requirements, it will not prove popular; the need to sell the concept and to popularise it has been a recurring theme from Opposition Members at all stages of the Bill. Secondly, ample routes to the settlement of debt are available in law at present. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the problems with the routes available. The fact is that they are available in other areas of life, and we see no reason for commonhold to be given any special provision. Indeed, for the reasons that I have just stated, we believe that that could be damaging.
      Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 are unnecessary. There will be detailed best practice guidance to directors and company secretaries of associations in due course. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will consider whether it is necessary to spell out the matters that have been raised. Until that time, I hope that he will feel able not to press those amendments.
      Mr. Cash: The Minister has said in his usual pleasant manner that under no circumstances will the Government take notice of what we are saying. I am equally obdurate in my determination to ensure that the Bill will be improved. We have made some progress and we have even more progress to come. No doubt we can all reflect happily on the fact that the Government's amendments in part reflect the deliberations in Committee and the representations that have been made, so the process continues to improve the Bill. However, in this particular case, I have every intention of dividing the House.
      The Minister knew that this was coming. I noticed that there was a certain amount of discussion between him and the Under-Secretary, who will deal with the leasehold arrangements of the Bill. Some aspects of this issue will recur when we get on to those on Wednesday this week, but we intend to divide the House. We believe that we are right. Only time will tell.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 281.

      Division No. 189]

      [6.52 pm

      ayes

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Horam, John

      Amess, David

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Bacon, Richard

      Key, Robert

      Baker, Norman

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Barker, Gregory

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Baron, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bercow, John

      Laws, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Leigh, Edward

      Boswell, Tim

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Brady, Graham

      Lidington, David

      Brake, Tom

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Uwyd, Elfyn

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Loughton, Tim

      Burns, Simon

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Burstow, Paul

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Burt, Alistair

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Malins, Humfrey

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Maples, John

      Cash, William

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Chope, Christopher

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Clappison, James

      Moore, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Norman, Archie

      Collins, Tim

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Cotter, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Cran, James

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Page, Richard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Paterson, Owen

      Dodds, Nigel

      Pickles, Eric

      Doughty, Sue

      Prisk, Mark

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

      Randall, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fallon, Michael

      Rendel, David

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Flight, Howard

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Flook, Adrian

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ruffley, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Francois, Mark

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gale, Roger

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gibb, Nick

      Selous, Andrew

      Gidley, Sandra

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Goodman, Paul

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gray, James

      Simmonds, Mark

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hammond, Philip

      Spink, Bob

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Spring, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hayes, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Heath, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Swire, Hugo

      Hoban, Mark

      Syms, Robert

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Holmes, Paul

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      685

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wilkinson, John

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Trend, Michael

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Wilshire, David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Waterson, Nigel

      Watkinson, Angela

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Webb, Steve

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Whittingdale, John

      Mr. Julian Brazier.

      noes

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ainger, Nick

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Dawson, Hilton

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Banks, Tony

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Barron, Kevin

      Dismore, Andrew

      Beard, Nigel

      Dobbin, Jim

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Doran, Frank

      Bell, Stuart

      Dowd, Jim

      Benton, Joe

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Berry, Roger

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Betts, Clive

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blackman, Liz

      Edwards, Huw

      Blizzard, Bob

      Efford, Clive

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Etherington, Bill

      Brennan, Kevin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Bryant, Chris

      Flint, Caroline

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Flynn, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burgon, Colin

      Galloway, George

      Burnham, Andy

      Gapes, Mike

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cairns, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Casale, Roger

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caton, Martin

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Grogan, John

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Havard, Dai

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clelland, David

      Heppell, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hermon, Lady

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heyes, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hill, Keith

      Coleman, Iain

      Hinchliffe, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hope, Phil

      Corston, Jean

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Crausby, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      686

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jamieson, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pollard, Kerry

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Joyce, Eric

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kemp, Fraser

      Purnell, James

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kidney, David

      Rapson, Syd

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Lammy, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ross, Ernie

      Lepper, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruddock, Joan

      Levitt, Tom

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Salter, Martin

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Linton, Martin

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lloyd, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Love, Andrew

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lucas, Ian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Luke, Iain

      Sheridan, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McCafferty, Chris

      Simon, SiÔn

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Singh, Marsha

      MacDonald, Calum

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      MacDougall, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McFall, John

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Soley, Clive

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Southworth, Helen

      McNamara, Kevin

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McNulty, Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWalter, Tony

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mann, John

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Marris, Rob

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Merron, Gillian

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Miliband, David

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Miller, Andrew

      Timms, Stephen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Trickett, Jon

      Mole, Chris

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Moran, Margaret

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mudie, George

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Mullin, Chris

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Watson, Tom

      Norris, Dan

      Watts, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      White, Brian

      O'Hara, Edward

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Owen, Albert

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      (Swansea W)

      Pearson, Ian

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Perham, Linda

      Wills, Michael

      Picking, Anne

      Winnick, David

      687

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Woolas, Phil

      Wray, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Mr. Graham Stringer.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER pursuant to Order [31 January and this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 64
      ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 30, line 5, leave out from beginning to "by" in line 7.—[Mr. Wills.]
    Clause 65

      REGISTRATION PROCEDURE
      Amendments made: No. 14, in page 30, line 22, leave out from "as" to end of line 24 and insert—
      'land registration rules within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 2002,'.
      No. 15, in page 30, line 26, leave out "rules under section 144" and insert "land registration rules".
      No. 16, in page 30, line 27, leave out "rules under section 144" and insert "land registration rules".
      No. 17, in page 30, line 33, leave out paragraph (b). No. 18, in page 31, line 9, leave out—
      '145 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (c. 21)'
      and insert—
      '102 of the Land Registration Act 2002'.
      No. 19, in page 31, line 15, leave out "1925" and insert "2002".—[Mr. Wills.]

    Clause 67

      THE REGISTER
      Amendments made: No. 20, in page 31, line 30, leave out "1925" and insert "2002".
      No. 21, in page 32, line 1, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Wills.]

    Schedule 5

      COMMONHOLD: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No 23, in page 98, line 6, leave out "(1) and (2)".
      No. 24, in page 99, line 25, leave out "section 21" and insert "sections 21 and 22".—[Mr. Wills.]

    New Clause 12

      CHARGES UNDER ESTATE MANAGEMENT SCHEMES
      `(1) This section applies where a scheme under—

      (a) Section 19 of the 1967 Act (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement under that Act),

      (b) Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the 1993 Act (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement under the 1967 Act or Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the 1993 Act), or

      (c) Section 94(6) of the 1993 Act (corresponding schemes in relation to areas occupied under leases from Crown),
      includes provision imposing on persons occupying or interested in property an obligation to make payments ("estate charges").

      (2) A variable estate charge is payable only to the extent that the amount of the charge is reasonable; and "variable estate charge" means an estate charge which is neither—

      (a) Specified in the scheme, nor

      (b) calculated in accordance with a formula specified in the scheme.

      (3) Any person on whom an obligation to pay an estate charge is imposed by the scheme may apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for an order varying the scheme in such manner as is specified in the application on the grounds that—

      (a) any estate charge specified in the scheme is unreasonable, or

      (b) any formula specified in the scheme in accordance with which any estate charge is calculated is unreasonable.

      (4) If the grounds on which the application was made are established to the satisfaction of the tribunal, it may make an order varying the scheme in such manner as is specified in the order.
      (5) The variation specified in the order may be—

      (a) the variation specified in the application, or

      (b) Such other variation as the tribunal thinks fit.

      (6) An application may be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination whether an estate charge is payable by a person and, if it is, as to—

      (a) the person by whom it is payable,

      (b) the person to whom it is payable,

      (c) the amount which is payable,

      (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and

      (e) the manner in which it is payable.

      (7) Subsection (6) applies whether or not any payment has been made.
      (8) The jurisdiction conferred on a leasehold valuation tribunal in respect of any matter by virtue of subsection (6) is in addition to any jurisdiction of a court in respect of the matter.
      (9) No application under subsection (6) may be made in respect of a matter which—

      (a) has been agreed or admitted by the person concerned,

      (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which that person is a party,

      (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or

      (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement.

      (10) But the person is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment.
      (11) An agreement (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination—

      (a) in a particular manner, or

      (b) on particular evidence, of any question which may be the subject matter of an application under subsection (6).

      (12) In this section—
      "post-dispute arbitration agreement", in relation to any matter, means an arbitration agreement made after a dispute about the matter has arisen, and
      "arbitration agreement" and "arbitral tribunal" have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (c. 23).'.—[Ms Keeble.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Enfranchised properties located within 'scheme area ' —
      `.—(1) This Chapter shall from the commencement of this Act apply to a dwelling within the meaning of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, as amended, and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, as amended, which—

      (a) has been enfranchised;

      (b) is situated within an area ("scheme area") in respect of which a scheme of management has been approved and is in force pursuant to section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 or Chapter IV of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

      (2) The right to manage provisions of this Chapter shall come into operation two months after a notice has been served by, or on behalf of not less than one half of the owners of enfranchised properties within the scheme area, and the form of notice shall be prescribed by regulations and shall be deemed to have been served from the seventh day after the notice has been sent by first class recorded delivery post addressed to the landlord or his agent at his last known address or left at such premises.
      (3) On demand, the landlord shall provide an enfranchised owner intending to join with others to serve a notice of right to manage with the names and addresses of all enfranchised owners within the scheme area.'.
      Amendment No. 25, in clause 72, page 34, line 20, at end insert—
      ', or—

      (d) they consist of individual houses and blocks of flats comprised in an estate management scheme.'.

      Government amendment No. 35.
      Ms Keeble: These new clauses and amendments deal with estate management schemes. I hope that they improve current arrangements.
      I shall deal first with new clause 4 and amendment No. 25. The Government have considerable sympathy with the suggestion that leaseholders of an estate of leasehold properties managed as a single entity should be able to exercise the right to manage en bloc rather than on a property-by-property basis. However, several difficult technical problems would need to be addressed and overcome before we could introduce such a measure with confidence. There would be difficult questions as to how best to deal with situations in which a majority of
      690
      leaseholders in the estate as a whole favoured exercise of the right to manage but in which leaseholders of one or more individual blocks were opposed. Furthermore, many leasehold estates are a mixture of flats and houses, and problems would therefore arise from differences between the existing leasehold law on flats and on houses. It is also not uncommon for estates managed as a whole to include freehold as well as leasehold properties. Clearly, much work would have to be done before a regime could be devised for such estates, and that would have to await a future legislative opportunity.
      I shall now deal with new clause 12 and Government amendment No. 35, which will go some way towards dealing with some of the issues that hon. Members have legitimately raised. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Falconer gave an undertaking that the Government would introduce an amendment on estate management schemes if possible. I am pleased to inform the House that we are now in a position to do so.
      Since estate management schemes were first permitted under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, Parliament has legislated to provide protection for tenants in respect of service charge payments. As hon. Members are aware, leaseholders who pay service charges have rights and protections against unreasonable charges. The Bill will improve and extend those rights and introduce comparable ones for administration charges made under a lease. There are not, however, any similar provisions in respect of charges made under estate management schemes. At present, therefore, anyone who enfranchises and is subject to a scheme will move from having protection against unreasonable charges under their lease to having no protection against unreasonable charges under the estate management scheme. That seems to be an anomaly.
      Leaseholders who enfranchise in an area that is subject to an estate management scheme will find that, where they are obliged to contribute to the costs of services or maintenance charges provided or incurred by the landlord, they lose the right to challenge the level of charges for such services that they would have had as tenants under section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. We have introduced the new clause to remedy this situation. It will provide that charges under estate management schemes should be payable only to the extent that they are reasonable, and the leasehold valuation tribunal will have the power to determine the extent to which such charges are reasonable. 1 am sure that hon. Members will see the merit of the new clause, which will improve the position of those involved.
      Amendment No. 35 is a technical amendment that is intended to ensure that it continues to be possible to request consent for the making of an application for the approval of an estate management scheme in connection with acquisitions under chapter I of part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. It has come to our attention that, once clause 116 comes into force, we will remove an existing right to make an application for an estate management scheme under section 69 of the 1993 Act. That is clearly not our intention. The amendment will preserve the existing right.

      691
      I commend new clause 12 and amendment No. 35 to the House and, in the light of what I have said and the assurance that I have given about the extension of rights, I invite the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) not to press new clause 4 and amendment No. 25.
      Sue Doughty: New clause 4 was tabled because we want to extend the same rights of self-management given to leaseholders in blocks of flats to enfranchised owners in estate management schemes. Under those antiquated schemes, leaseholders who buy their freehold might find themselves with fewer rights than they had before and face higher charges despite the substantial expenditure and administrative difficulty of enfranchisement.
      The annual fee payable to their previous landlord for managing the scheme can be higher than their erstwhile ground rent and landlords frequently impose onerous charges in respect of consents for alterations and supervision of work. That aspect of being forced to pay a landlord's surveyor—often at extremely high rates—to agree and supervise work evolved long before the days of conservation areas and careful planning controls by local authorities. Enfranchised owners subject to such charges and double surveillance are understandably resentful. Now that leaseholders in blocks of flats are being given a no-fault right to manage their own affairs, the anomalous position of freehold owners in the outmoded estate management schemes is even more inequitable than it was.
      I appreciate that, since the new clause was tabled, the Government have introduced a new clause that certainly goes some way to dealing with the concerns that I have expressed. However, we want to know how far the new clause will go towards dealing with the problem. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
      Mr. Cash: This group of new clauses and amendments, including the Liberal Democrat proposal, deals with an extremely important issue. However, I was slightly surprised by the fact that the Minister hardly provided the type of explanation that one would have expected in relation to new clauses—I refer in particular to new clause 12—that are not only extremely long but contain very complicated arrangements.
      7.15 pm
      New clause 12(1) says that the new clause applies to schemes under

      "(a) section 19 of the 1967 Act (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement under that Act),

      (b) Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the 1993 Act (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement under the 1967 Act or Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the 1993 Act), or

      (c) Section 94(6) of the 1993 Act (corresponding schemes in relation to areas occupied under leases from Crown)".

      Subsection (1) also includes provision for
      "imposing on persons occupying or interested in property an obligation to make payments (`estate charges')".
      I have described the three types of schemes to which the new clause will apply.
      Subsection (2) adds:
      "A variable estate charge is payable only to the extent that the amount of the charge is reasonable; and 'variable estate charge' means an estate which is neither—
      692

      (a) specified in the scheme, nor

      (b) calculated in accordance with a formula specified in the scheme."

      Given the size of the Government's majority in the House, we should not imagine that the new clause will not be enacted. Subsection (3) states:
      "Any person on whom an obligation to pay an estate charge is imposed by the scheme may apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for an order varying the scheme in such manner as is specified in the application on the grounds that—

      (a) any estate charge specified in the scheme is unreasonable, or

      (b) any formula specified in the scheme in accordance with which any estate charge is calculated is unreasonable."

      We all know that the word "unreasonable" means what a court—or tribunal in this case—regards as unreasonable. The question of whether something is unreasonable is determined by the court. That does not necessarily mean that everything will work out in the way that the Government intend, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I doubt whether the hon. Lady will be able to say what would be regarded, in given circumstances, as being unreasonable, although had she spent more time on her explanation, she might have been able to make the position clearer.
      Subsection (4) states:
      "If the grounds on which the application was made are established to the satisfaction of the tribunal, it may make an order varying the scheme in such manner as is specified in the order."
      Again, we have no idea as to the manner in which the tribunal would make such an order. The phrase
      "varying the scheme is such manner as is specified"
      invites the question: what will the tribunal actually do? The Government might know, but they have not told us and the Minister's opening remarks did not tell us what grounds on which the application was made would be likely to satisfy the tribunal. However, the tribunal will be able to vary the scheme in the manner that it determines.
      Subsection (5) states:
      "The variation specified in the order may be—

      (a) the variation specified in the application, or

      (b) Such other variation as the tribunal thinks fit."

      We know what "thinks fit" means in these circumstances, because it is a well-established principle of law that where, for example, those words—or, in analogous circumstances in the opinion of—are used, they are non-justiciable in the general context of the deliberations. An enormous power is granted to the tribunal. The variation specified in the older is immensely important to those who are assessing the variation in any given scheme.
      Subsection (6) provides:
      "An application may be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination whether an estate charge is payable by a person and, if it is, as to—

      (a) the person by whom it is payable,

      (b) the person to whom it is payable,

      (c) the amount which is payable,

      (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and

      (e) the manner in which it is payable."

      Clearly, an enormous range of matters go before the tribunal, but the Minister has provided no explanation of the implications lying behind the provision. It may be

      693
      beneficial, but we have had no explanation. The Minister disposed of all the new clauses in about five minutes at most, yet these matters are crucial to those affected.
      Subsection (7) goes on to say that the matters to which I referred—the application made to the leasehold tribunal in the respects that I outlined—
      "applies whether or not any payment has been made."
      That moves us into deeper territory because the subsection will apply irrespective of whether a payment has been made, yet, as we saw, subsection (6) makes it clear that the question arises in relation to whether an estate charge is payable. A distinction is being made between what is payable and what is paid, which leaves an enormous amount at large.
      Subsection (8) continues:
      "The jurisdiction conferred on a leasehold valuation tribunal in respect of any matter by virtue of subsection (6)",
      to which I have twice referred,
      "is in addition to any jurisdiction of a court in respect of the matter."
      Frankly, that is exceedingly wide. It is not just a question of the functions of a tribunal: it extends to a wide arena, which is almost impossible to identify.
      Subsection (9) states:
      "No application under subsection (6) may be made in respect of a matter which—

      (a) has been agreed or admitted by the person concerned,

      (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which that person is a party,

      (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or

      (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement."

      All those matters are excluded, but the impact on the scheme and the persons concerned remains serious.
      Subsection (10) continues:
      "But the person is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment."
      The fact that a person has paid up, when the gravamen of the situation depends on payment, means that the person's agreement or admission cannot be assumed to mean anything by reason only of having made a payment. The Minister should have provided a proper explanation of the proposals, but she only skipped through them.
      Under subsection (11):
      "An agreement (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination—

      (a) in a particular manner, or

      (b) on particular evidence".

      We are dealing with a range of generalities and a series of propositions here. There are some sensible provisions such as assisting people through these schemes, but we have no idea whether they are capable of working effectively or whether people will be prejudiced by these arrangements.
      694
      I acknowledge that Bills need definitions, but a degree of opaqueness is apparent in the wording of subsection (11)—particularly where it states that an agreement
      "other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement"
      is void—when in subsection (12), the definition subsection, it states that a
      —post-dispute arbitration agreement', in relation to any matter, means an arbitration agreement made after a dispute about the matter has arisen".
      It goes on to provide further definitions with which I would not disagree, according to which
      "'arbitration agreement' and 'arbitral tribunal' have the same meanings as in Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996".
      For all those reasons, it is difficult to understand how the Minister can make such a brief statement saying what the measure provides. The Government know that they will get their way because they have a majority. Nevertheless, a full and proper explanation is expected.
      Let us move on to new clause 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) provided a brief explanation of what she wanted, but accepted that the Government have produced their own version. With respect to types of dwellings affected, the new clause states:
      "This Chapter shall from the commencement of this Act apply to a dwelling within the meaning of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 as amended, and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, as amended, which—

      (a) has been enfranchised;

      (b) is situated within an area ('scheme area') in respect of which a scheme of management has been approved and is in force pursuant to section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 or Chapter IV of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993."

      It then goes on to say:
      "The right to manage provision of this Chapter shall come into operation two months after a notice has been served by, or on behalf of not less than one half of the owners of enfranchised properties within the scheme area, and the form of notice shall be prescribed by regulations and shall be deemed to have been served from the seventh day after the notice has been sent by first class recorded delivery post addressed to the landlord or his agent at his last known address or left at such premises.
      On demand, the landlord shall provide an enfranchised owner intending to join with others to serve a notice of right to manage with the names and addresses of all enfranchised owners within the scheme area."
      7.30 pm

      I do not know for sure, because I have not heard. whether the Liberal Democrats will pursue new clause 4, but, if they do not, it will not be because of any explanation from the Minister as to the manner in which the proposals in new clause 12. which is extremely extensive, have been understood by the House. No one could possibly have understood from what the Minister has said exactly what is at stake and how the proposals would operate. I am sorry to have to say this, but the Minister's explanation was rather truncated, to say the least, and the House deserves better than that.
      The Liberal Democrats also tabled amendment No. 25 to clause 72 on the qualifying rules in relation to the right to manage. Under their amendment, they propose to insert

      695
      a new provision at the end of line 20 on page 34, which relates to the premises to which chapter 1 applies. The Bill states that chapter 1
      "applies to premises if—

      (a) they consist of a self-contained building or part of a building, with or without appurtenant property,

      (b) they contain two or more flats held by qualifying tenants, and

      (c) the total number of flats held by such tenants is not less than two-thirds of the total number of flats contained in the premises."

      Under amendment No. 25, the Liberal Democrats would add:
      "or—

      (d) they consist of individual houses and blocks of flats comprised in an estate management scheme."

      I may have missed something, but I heard no clear explanation of how amendment No. 25 interacts with the provisions that I have already described.
      We then come to Government amendment No. 35, which, by any reasonable standards, is pretty convoluted, but for the benefit of the House, I should say that it would amend clause 116, which refers to qualifying leases, Clause 116 refers to the 1993 Act to which we have already referred and states:
      "In section 5(1) of the 1993 Act (which provides that a qualifying tenant is a tenant under a long lease which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term), omit 'which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term—.
      The Government then propose to add subsection (2), which states:
      "In section 69(1)(b) of the 1993 Act (estate management schemes), for the words 'by virtue of the amendments of that Chapter made by paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Housing Act 1996 (c.52)' substitute 'in circumstances in which, but for section 116(1) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the repeal by that Act of paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Housing Act 1996 (c.52), they would have been entitled to acquire it by virtue of the amendments of that Chapter made by that paragraph'."
      We all know that legislation can be convoluted, but, by no reasonable standards can we regard with equanimity the insertion of provisions of that kind into clause 116 without the Minister fully explaining exactly what the Government have in mind. No one reading their proposals—a member of the public, anyone involved in leaseholds or anyone other than a lawyer who specialises in such matters—could possibly follow all that.
      For the reasons that I have already given, it is by no means satisfactory that the Government have simply introduced those proposals without adequate explanation and at this late stage. After all, let us face it, the Bill started out many months, if not years, ago. It has been through about five stages in the other place and it has been debated on Second Reading and in Committee in this House, and we are now on Report. We are all in favour of improving the Bill. I have repeatedly said that we want it to be improved and, furthermore, that we want to be sure that it makes improved and enhanced provision for the benefit not only of commonhold but of leasehold arrangements. However, it certainly does not improve the quality of debate in the House if, in fact, no explanation or description of the proposals is given.
      I do not want to make any invidious comparisons, but certainly with regard to the issues that we discussed earlier, we heard an extensive description of the Government's arguments. Sometimes their proposals were not adequate and we had to vote against them, but that
      696
      does not alter the fact that, in matters of such importance affecting so many people, we must have a proper explanation. The best thing that the Minister could do—if she would be good enough—is to do as I have asked and, even if we have to sit here for a little time, provide a proper explanation of what these provisions involve. I have no doubt that we would then all be the wiser and the explanation would be on the record.
      We need to make another point in this context: under the current rules of statutory interpretation, which have changed considerably over the many years during which I have been involved in this sort of business, it is now far more likely that the courts will consider what the Minister has said and the nature of the debate in Parliament, and as we move further down the route of other jurisdictions which seem to impinge on our legislation, that rule will become even more readily applicable. Therefore, it is absolutely incumbent on Ministers to explain fully what they are up to.
      The reason why we are legislating is to ensure that the people of this country have the opportunity to hear a full explanation. Not everyone would expect to be able to understand every word of the Bill's drafting. It is complicated; we all know that. However, it is important that these matters be fully and adequately explained to the House and put on the record. Hansard comes out every day; some of it is extremely tedious to read, but for those who are affected by these important provisions, a proper and full explanation is required.
      I invite the Minister, if not to go back to square one, to give us a proper and full explanation of these provisions, because her introduction of new clause 12 left us not much the wiser.
      Mr. Mark Field: The Minister will be relieved to know that I will not speak at length, in view of the comprehensive comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
      I understand that there are about 3.8 million leaseholders in this country. At times, when the Bill has been making its slow and steady way towards the statute book, I have wondered whether all of them live in my constituency—I think that a fair number of them do.
      Mr. Sanders: The amendments cover people who are not leaseholders but have enfranchised. I am on the same side as the hon. Gentleman on this issue, but I emphasise that these amendments are very important and cover far more people than leaseholders alone.
      Mr. Field: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
      The high and somewhat uncertain cost of enfranchisement, which has been discussed, is very much a live issue, particularly in central London. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone reflected the concern about the enormous associated bureaucracy. If the Government are unable to tell us at this juncture how they envisage the estate management schemes working, lawyers will have a field day. I should perhaps say that I am a former member of that profession. We will see an expensive and protracted exercise in bluff and counter-bluff, based on little decisive evidence.
      I hope that the Minister will go into some detail to explain how she envisages new clause 12 and Government amendment No. 35 working. The terms of

      697
      the new clause are very extensive; the worry is that it will do little good for the many former leaseholders and those who are enfranchising and want to see the benefit of the legislation. If, as has so often been the case, it has not been thought through properly and is too complicated, this worthwhile effort to introduce another piece of legislation—we have had a number of Acts going back to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which was the trailblazer in this area—will simply create problems. Without sufficient improvement and clarification, the Bill will cause great problems. I hope that the Minister will be able to elucidate these matters.
      Simply putting into place a new layer of complicated legislation will not achieve the trailblazing goals of six or seven years ago that the Labour party made great play of, particularly before the 1997 election. The worst thing is that many millions of leaseholders will find themselves still in a problematic situation with a lot of new legislation on the statute book that achieves very little. I hope that, given the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, we will have more explanation from the Minister about how the new clause will work.
      7.45 pm
      Ms Keeble: I shall start by commenting on the points raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty); I will then deal with those of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). There are also some general points to consider as well as specific ones.
      The hon. Member for Guildford spoke about the right to manage—the right to manage is for blocks of flats, but we are dealing with whole estates. She also referred to the reasonableness of the costs of estate management schemes. We brought forward new clause 12 to deal with that issue. It will provide that the charges under estate management schemes will be payable only to the extent that they are reasonable. The leasehold valuation tribunals will have the power to determine the extent to which such charges are reasonable. I will give an explanation of the definition of "reasonableness" that I hope will keep the hon. Member for Stone happy. It is precisely to deal with some of the issues referred to by the hon. Lady that we introduced the new clause.
      The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that the new clause is very long and has been introduced at a late stage of the Bill's proceedings. Nobody could gainsay that. However, we have constantly brought forward amendments to refine the Bill. It has been a long process; before the Bill even reached this House, it was introduced twice in the other place, so there has been constant refinement. We have accepted throughout the process that it is still possible to make amendments. The hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to the fact that the Government have brought forward many amendments, even at this stage, to deal with concerns that were raised in Committee by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      As I will probably say ad nauseam, tonight and on Wednesday, many of the issues in the Bill are extremely complex. Many provisions are interrelated and have knock-on effects on various pieces of legislation. We are dealing with people's homes and must ensure that provisions are watertight; people get very sensitive if
      698
      changes are made to legislation that affects their home and there are unintended consequences. Therefore, the changes tend to be complex. We run into problems if a simple amendment has unforeseen consequences or has not been thought through properly.
      The hon. Gentleman said that new clause 12 is not clear, but I think that it is startling clear. It sets out the arrangements for ensuring that people know their rights and are able to exercise them. I understand that guidance will not be forthcoming because all the steps in the process are clearly set out in new clause 12. It refers to two Acts because two Acts have been involved in enfranchisement. That point has been raised repeatedly on both sides of the House—perhaps more often from my hon. Friends, whose constituents have enfranchised under various pieces of legislation. I argue that these arrangements—unusually, perhaps, for a complex piece of legislation—are set out as a clear process.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the use of "reasonable". I understand that that was first applied to variable charges under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Applying it to charges made under the estate management schemes merely follows the long-established precedent for service charges. The LVT will consider all circumstances in reaching a view on reasonableness, just as it does now.
      If arbitration takes place on estate management schemes, it is up to the parties to agree an arbitrator. The purpose of the new clause is to prevent binding arbitration clauses in schemes that would deny access to the LVT. The drafting follows the general approach taken in the Bill towards service and administration charges, and the hon. Gentleman will understand that we need such regimes to be as close to one another as possible.
      The hon. Member for Stone asked for information on the point contained in amendment No. 35. As I have said previously, the Bill includes several points at which an amendment in one place would have an unintended consequence elsewhere. Several later amendments would also do just that. In this case, once clause 116 came into force, we should be removing an existing right to make an application for an estate management scheme under section 69 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. That was not our intention.
      Mr. Cash: I am intrigued that new clause 12(1)(b), as drafted for the Government by parliamentary counsel, refers to "Chapter 4" while the 1993 Act contains "Chapter IV". The point may seem trivial, but can the Minister explain that? Chapter IV contains important provisions, and if amendments are being made to it in such a way, who is to say that they may not contain other similar mistakes?
      Ms Keeble: I do not have the 1993 Act in front of me, but I shall ensure that that point is checked and give the hon. Gentleman an answer shortly.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am surprised to hear the Minister say that she does not have the 1993 Act in front of her. I do not want to make a meal of the point, but it is impossible for her to give the explanation that I have asked for unless she has the 1993 Act. Indeed, the Minister has not explained the point, except by a vague reference to reasonableness. We cannot

      699
      possibly carry on trying to extract explanations from a Minister who does not have with her even the Act that she would amend.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that that verges on the matters for debate and is not a point of order for me. I can recall, however, that we have managed, with greater disability, to debate matters in the past.
      Ms Keeble: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I had to have with me every piece of legislation to which the Bill refers, the Table would be entirely covered.
      The hon. Member for Stone probably knows much better than I do the different arrangements made in different Acts for enfranchisement. I shall ensure that his point of detail is dealt with.
      Amendment No. 35 is necessary to ensure that our proposals do not have unintended consequences. We want to ensure that it continues to be possible to request consent for the making of an application for the approval of an estate management scheme. With that explanation, I urge the House to support the Government new clause and amendment, and I ask those who tabled the new clause 4 and amendment No. 25 to withdraw them.
      Mr. Cash rose —
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak again.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having relatively recently come to the Front Bench, I wonder whether I might be able to speak on new clause stand part?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House foi long enough to appreciate that we do not have stand part debates on consideration. They are a feature only of deliberations in Committee.
      Sue Doughty: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister invited me to withdraw new clause 4. Should I be given the opportunity to respond to that request?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. What the Minister said was unnecessary. We were dealing with the lead new clause in the group—new clause 12—and new clause 4 fell when that was decided.

    New Clause 13

      PREMISES INCLUDING RAILWAY TRACK
      `In section 4 of the 1993 Act (premises in the case of which right does not apply) insert at the end—
      "(5) This Chapter does not apply to premises falling within section 3(1) if the freehold of the premises includes track of an operational railway; and for the purposes of this subsection—

      (a) "track" includes any land or other property comprising the permanent way of a railway (whether or not it is also used for other purposes) and includes any bridge, tunnel, culvert, retaining wall or other structure used for the support of, or otherwise in connection with, track,

      700

      "operational" means not disused, and

      "railway" has the same meaning as in any provision of Part I of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43) for the purposes of which that term is stated to have its wider meaning.".'.—[Ms Keeble.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms Keeble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I hope that this new clause will prove luckier than the last.
      We have already had a long and detailed debate with many references to clauses and subsections. The aim of presenting new clauses is also to give hon. Members some idea of our general intent, and this new clause is intended to deal with a pressing and practical problem—what to do about railway tracks and properties.
      It has recently been brought to our attention that the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 did not adequately provide for cases in which flats are built over a railway track, such as the case in which a block has been built on top of a bridge or tunnel under which the railway runs. Nothing in existing law prevents leaseholders living in such flats from buying their freeholds. Freeholders have the right to take out 999-year leases on the commercial parts of the building when leaseholders buy their freeholds, but there is reason to doubt whether that would apply to land over which a railway runs, as that does not form part of the block itself. That could clearly lead to serious difficulties.
      The new exemption would prevent leaseholders from exercising their right to enfranchise if the freeholds that they would otherwise be entitled to buy would include land over which a railway track runs or where it would include structures used for the support of the railway. It would ensure that the right to enfranchise cannot be exercised under circumstances in which it could seriously hinder the continued operation of a railway. That is a practical amendment.
      Mr. Cash: I have no doubt that the Minister regards the new clause as extremely important. On the face of it, it seems to cover many matters of considerable interest to those affected by chapter I of the 1993 Act. The new clause states:
      "In section 4 of the 1993 Act (premises in the case of which right does not apply)."
      However, section 4 of the Act refers to premises excluded from right.
      8 pm
      Why does the new clause not describe section 4 of the Act? It is certainly not the same description as the one in my copy of the Act. For some reason the words have been changed. "Premises excluded from right" is not the same as
      "premises in the case of which right does not apply".
      That is extremely curious and no doubt the Minister will want to explain.
      That is the second point that I have had to raise as regards the drafting. My points may seem trivial but there seems no reason for the changes. At the very least, the drafting is sloppy. That is not the way to legislate. It is extraordinary that although parliamentary counsel and the

      701
      Department's solicitors must have been involved, we have ended up with no more than a semantic difference. That does not seem necessary.
      We have not even received a minimal explanation of the new clause. The new clause provides that chapter I of the Act—headed "Collective Enfranchisement in Case of Tenants of Flats"—
      "does not apply to premises falling within section 3(1)".
      That section is headed
      "Premises to which this Chapter applies",
      but those words are not included in the new clause. That is an important point. The new clause states:
      "This Chapter does not apply…if the freehold of the premises includes track of an operational railway, and for the purposes of this subsection—
      (a) 'track' includes any land or other property comprising the permanent way of a railway (whether or not it is also used for other purposes)".
      That is a new definition of "track" and it raises several questions. The sentence continues:
      "includes any bridge, tunnel, culvert, retaining wall or other structure used for the support of, or otherwise in connection with, track."
      The words
      "or otherwise in connection with, track"
      are very curious, because they refer back to the attempt to define track at the beginning of sub-paragraph (a). It seems to me that those words need to be distinguished from the definition of "track" at the beginning. At best, that is a curious way to set out such an important provision.
      Furthermore, the words
      "includes any land or other property comprising the permanent way of a railway"
      are not a self-contained definition, as
      "any land or other property"
      includes
      "any bridge, tunnel, culvert, retaining wall or other structure."
      The word "other" is used twice and I am sure that the Minister will have heard that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, where the word "other" appears it has to be taken ejusdem generis with the other words.
      There is thus a double problem. The first is that the word "track" is apparently defined as including "land or other property" and we do not know what that other property might be, because property ejusdem generis with land cannot refer to any property that is not land. The second problem involves the use of the word "track". It is used twice; it is defined in one case but not in the other.
      That raises some serious questions. For example, to introduce a substantive issue, there might be a difficulty as regards the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. That Act contained rights of pre-emption with which I am extremely familiar, because for many years I had to examine such questions. The Act also contains provisions on surplus lands.
      702
      The rights of pre-emption and the problems of surplus lands are extremely contentious. They are directly relevant to the new clause because it states that track
      "includes any land or other property comprising the permanent way of a railway (whether or not it is also used for other purposes)".
      If, according to the law, those surplus lands are part of the permanent way of a railway, so be it. However, that may not be the case. The existing legislation gives rise to serious questions.
      I was involved in the passage of the British Railways Act 1968 and we held some extremely difficult discussions with people who had acquired land and subsequently wanted to develop it to increase its value. That was an extremely contentious issue. Much of the problem turned on the question of whether the land was subject to rights of pre-emption or surplus land.
      The railwayland developments were considered important because they increased the value of the property available to British Rail, but unfortunately they gave rise to a great deal of litigation. Under the rights of pre-emption and of surplus land, it became necessary to determine who owned the land, which introduced the difficult question of the limits of deviation. The railways were provided for under enactments going back to about 1830, and the question of who owns land, including the land within the limits of variation, is directly linked to the determination of what comprises the permanent way of a railway.
      The new clause says:
      "This Chapter does not apply to premises falling within section 3(1) if the freehold of the premises includes track of an operational railway".
      That gives rise to a real problem. In the light of the 1845 provisions, it will be very hard to determine what comprises the track of an operational railway—defined as in the new clause—including
      "any bridge, tunnel, culvert, retaining wall or other structure."
      I do not pray in aid any special knowledge, other than to say that my great-great-grandfather founded the London-Brighton railway. No doubt, those involved had to pay well over the odds in the early 1830s in determining whether they would be able to acquire the land that they needed for the permanent way.
      The permanent way can in fact go much wider than the track, within the limits of deviation, to take in land that has now become very valuable because properties have been built on it. Because in those days there was no land registration and no clear way of knowing what the limits of deviation were, other than looking at the maps and plans deposited in Parliament, it was hard for conveyancers to determine what was within the land management of the railway system. Properties built along railway lines could well fall within the estate management scheme in the Bill.
      The new clause says that "operational" means "not disused". I do not know whether my hon. Friends are with me on this—
      Mr. Wiggin: Yes, 100 per cent.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Cash: I am very glad to hear it.
      Why on earth is it necessary to use a double negative to define what is operational? Would not it be simpler to say "used"? It is very strange.

      703
      The new clause says:
      "'railway' has the same meaning as in any provision of Part 1 of the Railways Act 1993…for the purposes of which that term is stated to have its wider meaning."
      Mr. Greg Knight: The definitions have been troubling me somewhat and I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help. Does he think that "operational" in new clause 13 would cover a tourist attraction that is a railway but not in the sense that it carries passengers from one city to another?
      Mr. Cash: That is another extremely important point. It so happens that the Severn Valley railway operates very near where I live in Shropshire. I have just realised that I ought to declare an interest, because I have one share in the Churnet Valley railway in my constituency, which is a railway of the kind that my right hon. Friend describes.
      The Minister has certainly not explained to us what is in the Railways Act 1993. Some of us would be extremely grateful to be enlightened about that. Further complication is added when we are told that the term is
      "stated to have its wider meaning".
      If I look at a tree, for example, under its wider meaning could it not also be a bush? We do not know what the wider meaning could convey, and that could be extremely important in dealing with an estate management scheme.
      The vagueness of the drafting does not allow us to determine exactly what "railway" means. That reminds me of Humpty Dumpty telling Alice that words mean whatever he chooses, and
      "The question is…which is to be master—that's all."
      That characterises the drafting. The definition in the new clause leaves open the question of what the wider meaning is, and that is problematic.
      I have already exposed, as a matter of logic and law, a whole series of internal contradictions and uncertainties in provisions that the Minister has declared are very important. That certainly does not help the House or those who will soon be affected by the provisions. That problem should concern us at such a late stage in our proceedings. As the Minister said, there were five opportunities to examine the Bill in the other place and we have had the chance to discuss it in Committee and on Report. Yet the explanation for the provision is vague and uncertain.
      The new clause refers to section 4 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. It is all very well to jam in at the bottom of a provision something that is so vague and uncertain, but it must be related to the relevant provisions of that Act.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have unintentionally diverted himself on to a loop line and may therefore take longer to reach his destination. He would do the House a service if he focused more directly on the new clause.
      Mr. Cash: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. However, I do not believe that I have departed from the new clause. I have explained its vagueness, contradictions and uncertainties. It is not possible to explain it in full without going into the manner in which it impinges on the 1993 Act.
      704
      The new clause is to be inserted at the end of section 4 of the 1993 Act. It says:
      "This Chapter does not apply to premises falling within section 3(1)"
      of that Act. In other words, the whole Act applies to the Bill for the purposes set out in the new clause. It is not necessarily a loop line; it is more a case of taking us through a tunnel into another Act. That is the point of the new clause. The Minister has made no attempt to explain the situation. She is looking for the first time at the 1993 Act. That is important, because without doing that it is not possible for the House or the people who need to refer to the legislation subsequently to understand the relevance.
      The provisions of section 4 are amended by proposed new subsection (5). It is a substantive provision that relates to premises including so-called railway track, and states:
      "This Chapter does not apply to premises falling within section 3(1)",
      which are
      "any premises…if they consist of a self-contained building or part of a building and the freehold of the whole of the building or of that part of the building is owned by the same person…they contain two or more flats held by qualifying tenants; and…the total number of flats held by such tenants is not less than two-thirds of the total number of flats contained in the premises."
      The chapter does not apply to premises
      "if the freehold includes track of an operational railway", which gives rise to the difficulties of the definition.
      Section 4 of the 1993 Act says that the chapter does not apply to the premises that I have just outlined if
      "any part or parts…is or are neither…occupied or intended to be occupied, for residential purposes".
      I would have thought a railway track would not be regarded as something that was occupied or intended to be occupied for residential purposes unless it was part of the railway development schemes, which give rise to complicated questions about pre-emption and surplus land if they apply under the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Section 4 goes on to say that the chapter does not apply to premises if they are
      "comprised in any common parts of the premises".
      Furthermore, it states that it does not apply to premises if
      "the internal floor area of that part or those parts (taken together) exceeds 10 per cent. of the internal floor area of the premises (taken as a whole)."
      We have had almost no explanation of the interaction between the different pieces of legislation. In the last Session, however, before programme motions came into effect, we had a fuller explanation.
      The Minister referred to different premises that could be covered by new clause 13. Section 4 goes on to say:
      "Where in the case of any such premises"—
      those excluded from the right—
      "any part of the premises (such as, for example, a garage, parking space or storage area) is used, or intended for use, in conjunction with a particular dwelling contained in the premises (and accordingly is not comprised in any common parts of the premises), it shall be taken to be occupied, or intended to be occupied, for residential purposes."
      It would be one thing if we were merely talking about an estate management scheme, but we are not: the provision relates to the railway track business—not to mention

      705
      Railtrack business, which I shall not go into. The problem is that it is difficult both for those who are involved in estate management schemes and for tenants to interpret the legislation.
      New clause 13 will not give enough assistance to remove the doubts that have been raised. There is much more to this than meets the eye, and there are serious difficulties to resolve. Although it has taken time to explain, the problem has to be properly considered and I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of what the new clause means in the context of the 1993 Act, the 1845 Act and all the other matters to which I have referred.
      Mr. Wiggin: The new clause is bizarre. It has arrived at a late stage in our proceedings and relates to part I of the 1993 Act which is entitled "Collective Enfranchisement in Case of Tenants of Flats". I cannot understand why anyone would think that people who live above an underground railway line or the tube might think that that is relevant to them. Section 4 is entitled "Premises excluded from right" and does not apply to premises falling within section 3(1). I am aware that the Minister does not have a copy, so I shall briefly go through it.
      Subsections (1)(a) and (b), (2), (3) and (4) of section 4 refer to "premises" and nothing else. To me, and perhaps to other lay people, the word "premises" implies something in which people could live, and could not refer to a railway line. That is why I find the new clause bizarre. I am afraid that I cannot dissect it in detail and with the same skill as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), but I feel that it is wholly inappropriate in respect of leasehold and commonhold reform.
      8.30 pm
      Why would the Government suddenly want to introduce a provision relating to railways in the middle of a Bill that relates to people's homes? It is extremely odd. Without wishing to fuel conspiracy theories, I could suggest that this might be another instance of the Government burying a strange amendment for use on another day. I do not see why the new clause is crucial to the Bill. The idea that tourist railways, the underground or indeed any sort of railway would be property that a commonholder would want to own is bizarre. The fact that the railways are currently in receivership makes it even less likely that anybody who wants to be included in a commonhold arrangement would consider suggesting that the underground line over which they live might be part of their property. I find that proposition extraordinarily naive.
      I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances that the new clause has snuck on to the amendment paper by accident. I hope also that she will seek to withdraw new clause 13—an unlucky number on no small scale in this instance—as it is so out of character with the rest of the Bill. It strikes me as extraordinary that we are expected to believe that people who want to enfranchise will also hope to claim a small part of the Circle line. It must be an accident or even a mistake, so I look forward to hearing that the Minister will seek to withdraw the new clause as it is wholly inappropriate, especially in light of the 1993 Act.
      706
      One can see that garages, parking spaces, storage areas and so on are proper premises. It would be possible to convert a garage or parking space—presumably a covered one—into a home of some sort, but the idea that people would live on any part of the Circle line in a tunnel strikes me as out of order and bizarre. [Interruption.] The Minister appears to be saying that there are people who live in the underground.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not take too much account of sedentary comments, of which the occupant of the Chair does not approve. While I am on my feet, I also remind him that he is now in danger of repeating himself more than once.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall leave my comments at that.
      Ms Keeble: I am told that of 244 minutes of debate this evening, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has occupied 132. He probably spent about a quarter or a third of that time on new clause 13, in a contribution that was probably the least constructive that he has made, and certainly of the debate.
      The new clause is intended to deal with very practical issues around access to railway tracks when major works are needed. As the hon. Gentleman said, the identification of ownership is a major issue in that regard. At the start of his contribution, he spoke about his experience of how difficult it can be if it is not possible to determine where ownership rests.
      The hon. Gentleman spoke at length about estate management schemes, but I advise him that the new clause does not deal with such schemes; the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) had it right—it is about enfranchisement. I also remind him that there is a need for major infrastructure works on the railways and the underground. The purpose of the new clause, as I thought I had made clear previously, is to ensure that we deal with issues of land ownership in relation to the work that is needed. It has also been made clear to us that the Railways Act 1993 did not make adequate provision for cases in which flats had been built over railway track—a point that deals with the questions about properties located on top of the Circle line. The new clause refers to blocks of flats that are built on top of a bridge or tunnel under which a railway runs.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about the definition of track. The description set out in the new clause is clear. The definition is based on that which is contained in existing railway legislation. He said that the provisions were very complex and again referred to his experience in the 1960s. Of course, legislation has been amended and introduced since then. Clearly, it would be unhelpful if the definition in the new clause was different from that used in other railway legislation.
      Mr. Cash: If the definition of track has been lifted from current legislation, why does not the provision say so? It could merely say that "track" means whatever is stated in existing legislation. That is the normal way of dealing with such matters. I do not have the legislation immediately to hand, but I would not be surprised if there

      707
      were differences between the existing definition and that which is used in the new clause. If there is no such difference, why should it be set out again?
      Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman asked a question and he has got the answer—it seems merely that he does not like it. There is a lot of clarity in the definition and I am told that it is based on the definitions in existing railway legislation. That seems the best possible approach.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about differences in numberings. I understand that the use of Roman numerals is no longer practised. He will notice that the passage that he claims to be different from the 1993 Act is not part of the substance of the new clause. We are not inserting that into legislation; it is a parenthesis and is purely descriptive. The passage in inverted commas—the new clause itself—is perfectly accurate and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
      I have said openly that the new clause was tabled at a late stage in response to questions about potential problems relating to access to track and other requirements for carrying out work on railway lines. Given the current importance of infrastructure work on both overground and underground railways, we must ensure that we do not in any way complicate or frustrate that through any lack of clarity as regards land ownership. That is the purpose of the new clause. It is extremely helpful and constructive, and I commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 69

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No. 22, in page 32, line 19, leave out from "(c. 20)," to "defining" in line 20 and insert—
      'the Companies Act 1985 or the Land Registration Act 2002'.—[Mr. Wills.]

    New Clause 14

      EXTENSION OF RIGHT TO CHALLENGE LANDLORD'S CHOICE OF INSURER
      '(1) Paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the 1985 Act (right to challenge landlord's nomination of insurer) is amended as follows.
      (2) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), after "nominated" insert "or approved".
      (3) In sub-paragraph (4), after "nominate" (in both places) insert "or approve".—[Ws Keeble.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms Keeble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 52 to 55.
      Ms Keeble: New clause 14 and the amendments are purely technical. The new clause is important in that it builds on amendments that were tabled in Committee by ensuring that their intent is properly carried through. I hope that it will assist certain groups of people.
      As hon. Members may recall from previous debates, some leases provide for insurance to be taken out with a nominated insurer. Some landlords have abused that right by insisting that their leaseholders take out insurance with a company that charges inflated premiums so that they can secure a large commission. Several hon. Members referred to the disgraceful scams that have taken place and the hardship that has been caused to many people.
      Existing leasehold law gives leaseholders the right to challenge their landlord's choice of nominated insurer. Clause 161 further provides that where the terms of a
      708
      lease on a house require the leaseholder to use a nominated insurer, it will be sufficient for them to take out insurance with any insurer authorised to carry on business in the UK, subject to certain conditions being met. However, some leases provide that insurance must be taken out with an insurer who is approved by the landlord. We are concerned that it could be argued that that is not quite the same as a requirement to take out insurance with an insurer who is nominated by the landlord. Although we do not think that such an argument would be likely to succeed, for the avoidance of doubt we thought it important to amend the relevant provisions to make it absolutely clear that they also apply to approved insurers. I am sure that that will be especially welcome to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), who led the charge on the matter in Committee and beforehand.
      Amendment No. 55 ensures that the new clause tabled in Committee on nominated insurers—now clause 161—applies to Crown land.
      I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Cash: The Minister is completely right to say that the new clause is an important provision. We had a useful debate in Committee about the implications of the matter. Several issues are raised by the manner in which certain landlords put tenants at a disadvantage by requiring that they accept their insurance company, with which they, the landlords, may themselves be involved. The Minister rightly described that as a scam. It raises questions of conflict of interest and of uberrimae fidei, which lie at the heart of insurance contracts. It also raises questions about the extent to which there is a free market and whether a monopoly may arise, albeit in relatively constrained circumstances. Some of the very large estates represent a vehicle for acquiring vast amounts of commission, which can be generated on the back of a simple requirement to nominate an insurer.
      On the face of it, the new clause makes an extremely simple amendment to paragraph 8 of the schedule to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which deals with the right to challenge the landlord's nomination of insurer. Nevertheless, it is, by any reasonable standards, a considerable step forward that will come as a considerable relief to many people who have been taken for a ride in the past. The sums involved may be important as well, but the downstream consequence of being landed with a bucket-shop insurer—or even a big insurer—simply because the landlord has the power to insist on it has always struck me as an extraordinary state of affairs. It is almost nothing to do with the landlord, in the sense that what is done in the flat in question relates to compliance with covenants of repair, and so on. It could be argued that, if the tenant or leaseholder did not properly insure, other people in the premises could be at risk.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Wiggin: I am curious as to what would happen if a tenant claimed to have insurance—or perhaps ran his own insurance business—but it turned out to be inadequate. What sort of protection would the freeholder have from a rogue tenant who claimed to have insurance but in fact could not insure himself?
      Mr. Cash: The short answer to that is that there are some very complex laws on assets under various Acts

      709
      relating to insurance companies. These laws require that any insurer must have a certain degree of viability. It is certainly true that a number of other insurers, who could fall into the category of being involved in scams, would not have that degree of proper insurance. I seem to remember an enormous insurance scandal about 25 years ago.
      Ms Keeble: Which one?
      Mr. Cash: The Minister asks which one. I do not think that it matters unduly, but the man's name began with "S".
      Peter Bottomley: It was Savundra; I think the company involved was Fire, Auto and Marine.
      Mr. Cash: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Was he a Labour supporter?
      Mr. Cash: I have no idea. What I do know is that the principles of asset backing matter a great deal to an insurance policy when the crunch comes and something goes wrong, whatever kind of insurance we are dealing with. In relation to property insurance of this kind, it is essential for the tenant to have a proper degree of interest in who the insurer is, because he will be affected if the assets are not there to back the insurance policy. He and the other tenants and leaseholders will all be affected.
      The matter should not, therefore, be left entirely to the landlord. That is why I agree that the inclusion of the words "or approved" means that there would be no way in which a tenant, under paragraph 8 of the schedule to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985—which covers the right to challenge—could leave a leaseholder swinging in the air, because he would now be able to give names to the insurer. It would not simply be a question of nomination, which I regard as offensively monopolistic and extremely dangerous from the point of view of the people living in the premises.
      There has been quite enough trouble, one way or another, in the insurance industry over the last few years, and it is the easiest thing in the world for a large estate with many leaseholders and tenants to prescribe its own insurer, and not only collect the commission but give no verifiable evidence of the assets that back that insurance company. That does not apply in all cases, but in a number of cases the provision will be extremely important. For all those reasons, I regard the new clause as good and sensible.
      The Minister referred to clause 161, which prescribes that
      "where a long lease of a house requires the tenant to insure the house with an insurer nominated by the landlord….
      The tenant is not required to effect the insurance with a nominated insurer if—
      (a) the house is insured under a policy of insurance issued by an authorised insurer";
      710
      furthermore,
      "(b) the policy covers the interests of both the landlord and the tenant",
      and
      "(c) the policy covers all the risks which the lease requires to be covered by the insurance provided by a nominated insurer";
      furthermore,
      (d) the amount of cover is not less than that which the requires to be provided by such insurance, and
      (e) the tenant satisfies subsection (3)."
      The provision is extremely useful and will be of great benefit to tenants. We support the Government's proposals.
      Mr. David Crausby: I shall be brief. I welcome clause 161, for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) set out. It is disgraceful that members of the British public should be forced by anybody to take out insurance with the landlord's insurer. The amendments strengthen the clause and give people the power to decide which insurer to have.
      The clause is a fine example of how Parliament should work. In the original proposals that went through the other place and came to this place, there was no recognition of the point. Because hon. Members in all parts of the House argued their case, the Government listened, rightly, and are acting in the interests of the British people.
      Dr. John Pugh: I shall make a brief and inexpert contribution. I cannot rival the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in his eye for detail or his rhetorical skills.
      There will be genuine rejoicing in my constituency at the inclusion of the clause, as it puts to bed an issue that has dogged Southport for many years. I am grateful to the Government for being responsive, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) for drawing the matter to the Government's attention.
      Southport was developed in the Victorian era and land was originally in the hands of feudal families. They sold off the land on 999-year leases, which is a peculiarity of the north. In the discussion of the Bill, there has been something of a London focus, and that practice is a northern peculiarity. For many years, those families collected a ground rent and expected an income for about a thousand years.
      Attached to the lease were various exotic conditions. When I first owned my house, I understood that the Weld Blundell estate had the right to appear if ever, during the course of gardening, I struck oil or found coal or gold. The estate had additional income, quite apart from ground rent. Further income was derived by charging for alterations and extensions. A fee would be charged for an alteration as simple as putting in a new window.
      As a result, the value of the ground rent in Southport fell. The cost of administration outweighed the income received by the original ground landlords. The ground rents were sold off to City firms, which had no connection whatever with the locality. The problem surfaced in Southport in the 1980s, when the then Member of Parliament, Sir Ian Percival, the Solicitor-General, got involved. There were threats from various companies that if insurance companies were not changed, dispossession would be a distinct possibility.

      711
      Southport people are thoughtful and intelligent, which is one reason why they habitually elect Liberal Democrats. They reacted positively. They got together and there were huge meetings attended by hundreds of people. Pressure was brought to bear, and as a result some of the companies that tried to profiteer backed off. Few, if any, cases went to court, and there was something of a stand-off. However, the problem was not resolved. Many people took the opportunity to buy their freehold.
      Latterly and very recently the problem has resurfaced. Residents, many of whom are elderly and still have houses under leasehold conditions, are being asked to switch insurance companies—not to fly-by-night companies, but major insurance companies that are associated with this technique. AXA is the insurance company that people in the northern part of Southport have been asked to change to, and it is a shame that AXA is associated with such a process. It is not motivating it: a Welsh finance company is doing that.
      The letters and communications, which I have seen, have an undertone of threat. Letters sound legally assured, and people are genuinely frightened that they may lose their property. The people who are frightened are none the less well insured. They may not have an opportunity to look round the insurance market to find out what would be best for them.
      Until this law is enacted, the process that is happening now could be repeated in three, six or nine years' time. It is an abuse: it has nothing to do with securing people proper insurance, but everything to do with making a fast buck.
      It is a shame AXA is involved. No company should be party to an arrangement that involves frightening elderly people. It has nothing to do with the legitimate interests of ground landlords or real insurance: it is simply profiteering. Although this legislation may be dull—it is certainly a dull evening for many of us—there will be genuine rejoicing in Southport that it is going through because it will benefit many ordinary people.
      Peter Bottomley: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I note what was said about long leases in Southport. I have a family interest in a long lease on the Isle of Wight, which is about as far south as one can get. I should declare an interest in a flat in Worthing, so I would potentially be affected, although not directly.
      The leaseholders in my constituency and elsewhere want service, assurance and a reasonable way of being protected against sharks. The suggestions that my hon. Friend made in welcoming this new clause would help to protect people against sharks, and ensure that there is a common interest in insurance being carried through properly. In my block of flats in Worthing, all bar one of the six tenants have changed during the five years that I have been the Member of Parliament. It is important that managing agents and freeholders as well as the changing leaseholders have some continuity of protection. When damage occurs, insurance matters. I welcome the Government's rational approach to this issue.
      Shona McIsaac: I welcome the new clauses on insurance and the one that was passed in Committee. In all our deliberations on the Bill, we have shown that too many sharp practices are associated with
      712
      leasehold tenure, whether it is the insurance scams that were detailed on Second Reading and in Committee or forfeiture and ground rent grazing. This new clause is welcome, as it closes down the possibility of freeholders abusing leasehold home owners. The Government have done well to introduce the new clause. It is right that leaseholders should have freedom of choice and be able to choose the insurer that best suits them and gives them best value for money. I welcome this further tightening of the law to deal with insurance scams.
      9 pm
      Ms Keeble: I welcome the support for new clause 14 from my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), and from the hon. Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley). Members have raised the issue repeatedly, and I hope that these measures will go further to ensure that people are not ripped off.
      The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned the possibility of tenants' failing to insure properly. Under clause 161, Iandlords can be satisfied that properties are insured. He also asked about insolvent or dubious insurers. Insurance must be with authorised insurers, supervised by the Financial Services Authority. I wrote to him just after the Committee stage, and he should have that on file.
      The new clause extends what we have already done. It reflects concern expressed by Members on both sides of the House about the skill of a small percentage of freeholders in finding ways of making legal loopholes work to their financial advantage. I hope that many leaseholders will benefit from this further safeguard.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 15

      CONSULTATION ABOUT SERVICE CHARGES
      'For section 20 of the 1985 Act (limitation of service charges: estimates and consultation) substitute—
      "20 Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements
      (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either—

      (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or

      (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) a leasehold valuation tribunal.

      (2) In this section "relevant contribution", in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement.
      (3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount.
      (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement—

      (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or

      (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount.

      (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount—

      (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and

      (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.

      (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount.
      (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.
      20ZA Consultation requirements: supplementary
      (1) Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.
      (2) In section 20 and this section—
      "qualifying works" means works on a building or any other premises, and
      "qualifying long term agreement" means (subject to subsection (3) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months.
      (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement—

      (a) if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or

      (b) in any circumstances so prescribed.

      (4) In section 20 and this section "the consultation requirements" means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
      (5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord—

      (a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants' association representing them,

      (b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements,

      (c) to invite tenants or the recognised tenants' association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates,

      (d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants' association in relation to proposed works or agreements and estimates, and

      (e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements.

      (6) Regulations under section 20 or this section—

      (a) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and

      (b) may make different provision for different purposes.

      (7) Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Ms Keeble.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms Keeble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 60 and 48.
      Ms Keeble: I will speak at some length about these complex proposals because that may help Members, although I know that time is marching on and that others want to speak.
      Mr. Don Foster: About marriage values.
      Ms Keeble: Indeed. Although I have been as brief as possible so far—to the dissatisfaction of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—these proposals require some explanation.
      New clause 15 would replace clause 150, and is intended to provide greater flexibility in the drafting of new regulations setting out the consultation requirements that will replace those contained in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It reflects views expressed in response to an informal discussion paper on how the new consultation arrangements might work, and views expressed in a recent meeting of a public sector leaseholders' working party.
      The revised measure incorporates three minor but important changes. It will provide the flexibility for exclusion of long-term contracts from the consultation requirements when the value of a contract is below a de minitnis figure. Clause 150 as now drafted requires landlords to consult leaseholders before entering into any contract of more than 12 months—regardless of value—when costs will be passed on to leaseholders through service charges. While long-term contracts are cheaper for the leaseholder, we would not want added consultation costs to be passed on when that was not strictly necessary.
      Concern has been expressed that the measure could mean landlords' having to consult leaseholders about a large number of contracts involving minimal costs to leaseholders. For example, when a large corporate landlord is entitled to recover a share of general administration costs from leaseholders, consultation may be required on contracts for the provision of office services and stationery. The cost of consulting leaseholders could exceed the costs that they would be asked to meet. That makes no sense.
      The new clause will enable us to exclude contracts whose value is below a prescribed amount from the consultation requirements. When we consult formally on draft regulations, we will seek views on what the amount should be and how it should be calculated.
      Clause 150 currently provides that, if the consultation requirements on long-term contracts are not met or dispensed with by a leasehold valuation tribunal, no costs to under that contract may be recovered through service charges. We envisage occasions when a landlord will not consult because the estimated costs are less than the

      715
      prescribed amount, as we have discussed. However, if the cost subsequently increases above the prescribed amount, perhaps through genuinely unforeseen external factors, it would be unfair to put at risk the whole of the costs incurred. Subsections (6) and (7) therefore provide that only the excess above the prescribed amount would be irrecoverable. That is in line with the existing approach for consulting on specific works under section 20 of the 1985 Act.
      On dispensations, as drafted, clause 150 provides that a leasehold valuation tribunal may grant dispensation from all or any of the consultation requirements in a particular case. The intention is to ensure that landlords are not penalised for technical infringements that do not disadvantage leaseholders, or in circumstances in which it is not practicable to consult fully or at all—for example, where work has to be carried out in an emergency. It is arguable that, as drafted, clause 150 allows such dispensation to be sought only after the event. The new clause therefore makes it clear that a landlord may apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for dispensation of the requirement to consult before the works are carried out.
      Amendment No. 60 is consequential to new clause 15 and deletes the existing clause 150.
      Amendment No. 48 would create a new power to exempt managers, by regulation, from the requirement to use separate accounts for separate groups of service charge payers. Again, it may be helpful if I briefly explain the rationale behind the Bill's existing provisions and our reasons for the changes. Under existing law, managers are allowed to hold service charges from unrelated blocks of flats in the same account, which can make it easy for the unscrupulous to misappropriate funds. For example, if a group of leaseholders who had a sinking fund of £20,000 asked to see proof that their money was being kept safely, they might be shown details of a bank account holding £50,000, which supposedly included £20,000 from their block. They might assume that all was well, but they would have no way of knowing whether the account should in fact hold a much larger sum.
      We know of a case in which leaseholders' funds went astray and, because they were held in the same account as funds from other leasehold blocks, it was extremely difficult for them to establish precisely what had happened to their money. It is reasonable to assume that that is only one of many cases. Using a single account for unrelated funds also makes the job of certifying accountants much harder. If they are asked to produce a certificate relating to just one block, they, too, will be unable easily to establish whether the right sum is being held at the bank.
      Many managers already use separate bank accounts as a matter of good practice, and the time has come when all should do so. However, we have received representations from some managers who claim that operating separate accounts would be unduly expensive. Such costs would, in turn, be passed on to leaseholders. We remain sceptical about such claims. Managers who already operate separate accounts say that the additional costs of doing so are relatively small. Certain banks have already designed packages to minimise the inconvenience involved, and to avoid the need to keep separate cheque books for separate accounts, for example. They also apply interest based on the total sum held at the bank, rather than on individual accounts.
      716
      None the less, we are anxious to ensure that the costs of operating separate accounts do not outweigh the benefits. After all, those costs would inevitably be passed on to leaseholders in the form of higher service charges. We have therefore decided that it is sensible to include in the Bill a power to exempt managers from the requirement to use separate bank accounts under certain circumstances. We do not intend to use that power unless we are presented with reliable and persuasive evidence that the cost of using separate accounts would outweigh the benefits in certain cases. Moreover, if we were to use that power, any exemption should be subject to the agreement of the majority of service charge payers concerned. The new power will also allow us to impose alternative requirements on managers to minimise any risk to leaseholders. We consider that to be a sensible precaution that would allow us to respond to any changes in the services provided by financial institutions, or in their charges, that might increase the costs of maintaining separate accounts to the point at which it became unduly expensive and the undue expenses were passed on to the leaseholders.
      Mr. Cash: We discussed this issue at some length in Committee and I am glad that the Minister has taken the opportunity to describe the arrangements in new clause 15. It is always refreshing to note occasions on which consideration in Committee has produced improvements in legislation—and that is especially so in relation to this Bill, following the extended discussions that took place when it was first introduced and then on its reintroduction.
      The Minister said that the new clause will replace the old clause 150 and section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. As new clause 15 states, when the new section applies
      "to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either…complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or…dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) a leasehold valuation tribunal."
      The new clause then defines a "relevant contribution". The Minister made the point that she wants to be sure that we do not end up with the costs outweighing the benefits, and that is an important point. However, that leads us to a feature of recent Government legislation. I was asked to comment on the Education Bill and I said that it was regulation, regulation and regulation rather than education, education and education. The position with this Bill is similar.
      We all understand that an important Bill cannot cover every issue, but—as I said in Committee—it is a matter of increasing concern that a tidal wave of regulation is affecting the people of this country. The public are confused, because even if they can understand the opaque and difficult provisions of a Bill—we have already discussed several examples tonight and I have tried to point out how difficult it is for people to understand, or even have ready access to, the provisions that will affect them—it is even more difficult to understand those areas that are shoved off to be the subject of regulations.
      We do not even know what the regulations will contain. In Committee, I made that point about the drafting and preparation of the standard form of community statement and the commonhold association. I do not want to go back over old ground, but it took more than a nutcracker to get the details out of the Government. I am glad that I succeeded.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Mark Field: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about an overwhelming tide of regulation. Equally, I think all of us would accept that leaseholders must be protected. Some of the Government's suggestions are entirely sensible. However, does my hon. Friend have some thoughts on the de minimis provisions, on which the Minister was unfortunately unwilling to go into any detail, and the amounts of money below which such regulations would not come into play?
      Mr. Cash: I should have thought that it was sensible to prescribe arrangements to ensure that people were excluded from the operation of the regulations except in circumstances where it was obvious that there was no alternative. Just as we cannot apply sunset clauses to everything, we cannot apply de minimis regulations to everything. What we can do is set a threshold and say, "The regulation will not apply in these cases but it will apply in others." As it happens, thresholds have already been set in a number of provisions in the Bill. They may have been applied in this case.

      I have a general concern. New section 20ZA(5) states that the regulations will
      "in particular include"—
      it does not say exclusively include—
      "provision requiring the landlord—

      (a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants' association".

      I do not know whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, live in a block of flats like the block I live in. I dare say that most hon. Members do, certainly in London. I am happy to declare an interest and a concern, as I have done several times during our proceedings. There is the idea that, after we leave the precincts of the palace of Westminster, we will go to a late-night meeting with a tenants' management association and sit there between 10 pm and I am listening to harmonious, or very unhappy, discussions.
      I have on occasion unwisely taken part in some of those activities. I am a little apprehensive, because there is always—I say it with great respect—the Al barrack-room lawyer, who is determined to continue analysing the management association, the articles of association and the memorandum in every detail. [Interruption.] I take good note of the gesture the Minister has just made to me, which I perfectly understand. I assure her that those people do what they do in the great cause of ensuring that people understand the documents properly. All I can say is that there will be many occasions when the regulations will be buried from view. They will probably be in some obscure corner of a solicitor's office and cause a great deal of difficulty.
      Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend should know that there is a lot of concern among Conservative Members about the scope of the regulations to which the Minister has referred. Has the Minister given him any undertaking as to whether she will consult with him and other political parties in the House before the regulations are formulated? If that assurance has not been given, has an assurance been given that the House itself will have the opportunity to debate the regulations? I share the concern that he expressed a few moments ago on this matter.
      Mr. Cash: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has raised that point. Vicariously, I pass it on to the Minister
      718
      from the Dispatch Box. In a nutshell, will the hon. Lady ensure that we are consulted on the regulations? The question of their being subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House is a perennial problem. There is the question whether they will ever be properly examined, even by the House itself. That is another problem, so the Government should please consult. I also ask for a clear leaflet on the whole content of this Bill to be produced for those affected by it, particularly with regard to the provisions under discussion. Then people outside the House will be able to understand what is going on, with reference being made to the regulations if necessary. Please let us have regulations in plain English. If the Minister for Europe—this is the first time that I have referred to this today—can reduce to 300 words all the treaties from the treaty of Rome to the dreadful treaty of Maastricht, right the way through to the treaty of Nice, I hope that the Minister can give a clear explanation of the provisions under discussion.
      Peter Bottomley: May I add two points to my hon. Friend's contribution? If the Minister cannot answer my questions this evening, I should be happy to receive a letter subsequently.
      First, constituents have told me that, sometimes, in leasehold agreements, if someone who is not a leaseholder but a potential purchaser asks the freeholder for an answer to a legal point, the freeholder is free to consult his own lawyers and the existing leaseholders have to pay the legal costs. I find that surprising. That may be understandable in the lease, but it is not understandable to the leaseholders. The Minister may want to consult her officials on whether, here or in another place, that point can be covered by this new clause or by another.
      Shona McIsaac: Many Members raised this issue in Committee—the leaseholder always seems to be paying the freeholder's costs in relation to many different things. Concerns were voiced in Committee, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that.
      Peter Bottomley: I am happy to do so. The point is whether anything can be done about it. To raise the issue in Committee—and to have nothing done about it—is an advance, but I want a more practical advance.
      My second point may fall within the new clause or outside it. Sometimes, managing agents and freeholders are highly reluctant to spend a small amount of money that can make a major difference to the costs to leaseholders. I shall give a brief example from the commercial field. When I was a junior Minister in the Department of Employment in the 1980s, I discovered that spending £250 on a water meter in the Department of Employment's office in Tothill street would save £100,000 a year—£100 for each employee. I then had that change made throughout the Department of Employment estate. In Worthing, which has the highest proportion of retired people in the country and a reasonable proportion of leaseholders, nearly all pensioner flats pay more for water in terms of council tax values than they would if they were on meters. Installing meters in blocks of flats is complicated—many managing agents and landlords do not want the bother—but the leaseholder would be the gainer.
      Therefore, I hope that under this new clause, or under an amended version of it, or under an amended Bill, not only water companies but managing agents and

      719
      freeholders will be subject to incentives or requirements to consult leaseholders, who will thus be told when it is likely that there will be an advantage. By installing a water meter—which is free from many water companies, or £50 from others—people may find that they can save £50 or £100 a year, which is a very high rate of return. However, leaseholders cannot always fix that by themselves.
      Ms Keeble: I shall try to deal with the issues raised and, in particular, with the points made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who referred to regulations and gave the example of the de minimis level in the contract. Of all the provisions in the Bill, the one before us should be set by regulation because of the need for consultation and because we are talking about small sums of money. What is a small sum one year might appear to be completely trifling 10, 50 or 100 years later. Arrangements for such sums should be made by regulation.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to "regulation, regulation, regulation", but it is often far preferable to use regulations for certain types of arrangements. If they are enshrined in the Bill, changes can be made only by primary legislation and the hon. Gentleman knows how rarely the occasion to do that comes along. We want an efficient means of making provision for the proper management of leasehold properties.
      Questions were also raised about the application of the de minimis level and about the levels we had in mind. Subsections (4) and (5) of the revised section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 are intended to provide the maximum flexibility in determining the prescribed amount and they will enable the amount to be based on the total cost of the contract, the total costs in any period or the costs recoverable from any service charge payer either over the length of the contract or in any other period. We wish to consult before we commit ourselves to any particular option, but it is our intention to exclude contracts only when the costs of consultation would be disproportionate to the costs of the contract. However, it is difficult to envisage what that might involve.
      The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) asked about the sums that might be involved and, to give him some idea, it might be that we exclude contracts where the annual costs paid by any leaseholder exceed £20 to £25. That might sound a small sum, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that, when there are many people in a block of flats, that might involve a substantial contract. It is important that there is proper consultation so that we get the amount right. We must strike a careful balance between costs and the requirement to consult.
      The hon. Member for Stone asked many questions about the proposed new section 20ZA of the 1985 Act. The proposed new subsection (5) states:
      "Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord",
      and paragraphs (a) to (e) list the matters, such as providing details of proposed work, to which the regulations might apply. The hon. Gentleman found the provisions to be very detailed and I do not think that he understood why people might be intensely interested in the issue. However, it is perfectly possible for people to talk at great length about who will do the work to their
      720
      properties and how much it will cost. The fact that he finds that odd might reflect the way in which we choose to spend our evenings and not reflect the way in which people who are passionately interested in their homes choose to spend theirs.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked for assurances about consultation on the regulations. I hope that I have already made clear our commitment to consult on the de minimis level, which is probably one of the most important provisions before us. He asked whether Members would have a right to discuss the regulations and, as he knows, if they are discussed under the affirmative resolution procedure, they will be debated in Standing Committee. That debate might be wide ranging and extensive. If the regulations are considered under the negative resolution procedure, the Opposition will have the opportunity to pray against them and then discuss them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stone now gestures at me.
      Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend is smiling.
      Ms Keeble: Good. I had not noticed that, but never mind.
      As the hon. Member for Stone well knows, the Conservatives frequently pray against negative resolutions and we have extensive debates on the regulations concerned. He will get plenty of opportunity to debate regulations.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Greg Knight: Will the Minister tell the House tonight which of those procedures the Government will be prepared to use? It is obviously better from our point of view if she gives an undertaking tonight that the affirmative procedure will be used.
      Ms Keeble: There is provision for a number of different regulations—some affirmative, some negative. I think that I am right in saying that the de minimus ones are negative. It will be possible to pray against them, but there will be consultation beforehand.
      Peter Bottomley: Those who listen to our debates may not know this, but am I right in saying that if the Government are defeated on a negative resolution, the measure is still carried into effect?
      Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, there will be consultation and it will be in the interests of us all to make sure that we get regulations that work.
      The hon. Member for Stone asked about plain English, and he is correct. My officials and I are very concerned about that, since the many changes proposed by the Bill will profoundly affect a lot of people and their homes. We are doing a lot to ensure that there is good information in plain English so that people know their rights.
      The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Peter Bottomley) asked about a number of points, most of which did not apply to the new clause or the amendments but which were very interesting none the less. On the question of the legal costs for purchasers being passed on, if charges are levied under the terms of the lease, the provisions of schedule 11 regarding administration charges will apply; for example, they must be reasonable and there is a right to challenge them at the leasehold

      721
      valuation tribunal. It is always the case that if rights are given to people, they have to exercise them. However, the rights are there and the point has been considered.
      I will write to the hon. Member for Worthing, West about water meters. One point that he might not have picked up on, if he has not been closely involved in the Bill, is that the Bill opens up to leaseholders a right to manage. That is very important—particularly for pensioners—because it means that they do not have to go to the trouble to enfranchise, but can acquire the right to manage in leasehold blocks of flats.
      Peter Bottomley: In my constituency, the average age in a block of flats may be about 80, and most people do not want to take on the responsibilities of management.
      Ms Keeble: I take that point, but in terms of people's ability to deal with issues that otherwise they could deal with only through enfranchisement, they will now have this other route open to them.
      That deals with all the points. The new clause and the amendments provide further improvements to the Bill and make it possible to look in more detail at some of the more detailed provisions. They ensure that we get the right balance between consultation and cost, for example, and that we help to improve the Bill for leaseholders.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      LANDLORD'S SHARE OF MARRIAGE VALUE
      'Paragraphs 4, 4A and 4B of Schedule 13 to the 1993 Act (landlord's share of marriage value) are hereby repealed.'.—[Mr. Sanders.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Sanders: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 43.
      Amendment No. 8, in clause 134, page 65, line 20, leave out clause 134.
      Amendment No. 9, in clause 135, page 65, line 24, leave out clause 135.
      Amendment No. 1, in clause 144, page 69, line 33, leave out clauses 144, 145 and 146.
      Mr. Sanders: First, I declare an interest as a freeholder of a flat occupied by a leaseholder who pays a ground rent.
      Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, marriage value was not deemed to be part of the valuation of the freehold interest; the leaseholder had only to pay the capitalised value of the ground rent, plus the reversion of the site value. In the pamphlet "An End to Feudalism", prepared
      722
      by the Minister for Local Government and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) before the 1997 election, a call is made to return to
      "the fundamentally sound logic of the 1967 Act, which does not include marriage value in the valuation process. Its subsequent appearance has tilted the balance significantly in favour of the landowner and there is a strong case for it to be deleted".
      A freeholder can sell a property to a leaseholder for full market value, as there is no difference between the price of a 99-year lease and the price of a freehold purchase. Hon. Members have only to look in an estate agent's window anywhere in central London to see that that is the case. However, after a certain length of time, the leasehold property reverts back to the freeholder, who can sell it again for its full market value. During that entire period, the property's upkeep has been paid by the leaseholder, who must then pay marriage value on top of everything. That fee is exacted to compensate the landlord for the depreciation in the asset's value over the period that it has been in the leaseholder's possession. By paying for maintenance and upkeep for so many years, the leaseholder has already shouldered the financial burden of the property's depreciation. Marriage value is therefore a bounty on top, and it requires that the leaseholder pay again.
      The Government have said that most compulsory purchase schemes are based on full open market valuation, and they do not want to depart from that principle. However, they have made a mistake regarding what constitutes the open market value of a property. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors defines that value as:
      "An opinion of the best price at which the sale of an interest in property would have been completed unconditionally for cash consideration on the date of valuation, assuming…that no account is taken of any additional bid by a prospective purchaser with a special interest."
      The leaseholder obviously has a special interest, as moving from their long-time home would pose much stress and inconvenience. If the Government believe, as they say they do, that the basis for property valuation in collective enfranchisement cases should be the full open market value, the RICS code of practice makes it clear that they should reject the inclusion of marriage value, which arises out of the special purchaser status of the parties involved.
      The reality for many people is that they have no choice between freehold and leasehold properties. Due to the circumstances in which they find themselves, they may have no choice but to opt for leasehold, even though it may not be in their best interests. The complicated and murky practice of marriage value is widely misunderstood, and there must be a clearer and easier way to compensate landlords on the transfer of property from leasehold to commonhold.
      Let us compare purchasing council housing with buying leasehold properties. For example, leaseholders have paid for mortgages and years of upkeep and improvements to their homes, yet they must still pay a premium to transfer their properties to freehold, but council housing tenants have had the upkeep on their homes paid for by the council—albeit with contributions through rent—yet they can buy their properties at a significant discount.
      Leaseholders often feel that they are maintaining someone else's property, yet they are bled once again if they try to improve their position by enfranchising and converting their property to freehold.

      723
      Often leaseholders do not even realise that they are being taken advantage of because the calculations involved in these negotiations are complex and specialised. Going to a leasehold valuation tribunal is intimidating and costly, so many people fall prey to unscrupulous landlords without having any idea of their rights.
      It is important to remember that leaseholders paid for their property when they originally bought the lease. Why should they have to pay extra to keep what should already be theirs? Additionally, the leaseholder may have paid just as much as neighbouring freeholders for the right to live in their property. Why should they have to pay again when their neighbours do not have to?
      The main problem with marriage value is that it takes unfair advantage of the fact that leaseholders have a vested interest in keeping the property in which they live and so are willing to pay whatever it takes to gain freehold rights to their property. In that relationship, freeholders have the power and can force leaseholders to pay exorbitant prices to hold on to the property in which they live. That is not a realistic market situation; it is unfair to the leaseholder, who should not be charged more than an outside investor would be asked to pay for the property.
      We have been having this debate in the Chamber for more than 100 years. Its time has come—we should rid ourselves of marriage value.
      Ms Keeble: I will be brief because I understand that a number of other hon. Members want to speak on this issue. I shall begin by speaking to Government amendment No. 43, which also relates to marriage value.
      The Bill generally provides for marriage value to be disregarded in cases where the unexpired term of a lease exceeds 80 years. Our policy aim is to prevent potentially expensive debate over sums of money which would, in any event, be very small. However, in the case of collective enfranchisement, the Bill provides that marriage value should be disregarded only if the unexpired terms of all leases of flats held by participating members of the right-to-enfranchise company exceed 80 years.
      On reflection, we do not consider that that approach meets our policy objectives. It has the potential for abuse. If a landlord owned just one flat in a block directly, there would be nothing to prevent him from granting a new, relatively short lease for that flat to an associated company which could then exercise its right to participate in a collective enfranchisement bid.
      Mr. Mark Field: That argument was made earlier in relation to unanimity and 100 per cent. consent. It is now being used to justify the provisions on marriage value.
      Ms Keeble: The argument refers to the amendment to which I am speaking; it is not about marriage value.
      The position that I have just described would enable marriage value to be claimed on the whole block, even though all the other leases may exceed the 80-year threshold. We decided, therefore, to provide that marriage value should be disregarded on any individual lease with more than 80 years left until its expiry. This is consistent with the approach taken for the individual rights of lease renewal and house enfranchisement, and would be a better way to meet our policy objectives.
      724
      More generally, marriage value is clearly one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill. It has been widely discussed and, as I mentioned in Committee, is a major issue for leasehold reform campaign groups. These groups have long campaigned for marriage value to be excluded from the purchase price altogether, and we have considered their representations carefully. However, we concluded that it would be wrong to remove marriage value from the determination of the price. Although some may not like it, we must recognise the property rights of both the freeholder and the leaseholder. That said, there are defects in the provisions that need to be corrected.
      The right to enfranchise is a right of compulsory purchase, as is the right to a longer lease on a flat. To exercise it, leaseholders do not have to demonstrate that the freeholder is at fault in any way. It is only fair, therefore, that the landlord should be paid the same price that he would have received from voluntarily selling the freehold—or a longer lease—to the leaseholder or leaseholders.
      9.45 pm
      When leaseholders buy their freehold or renew their lease, they obtain a benefit that no other purchaser would receive. When leaseholders of flats enfranchise, they can gain new 999-year leases without having to pay a penny for them. Similarly, a leaseholder who buys the freehold of a house is no longer subject at all to a lease. The value of that extra benefit is the marriage value. If existing leases still have, say, 80 or more years to run, new longer leases will be worth little more than existing ones, so any marriage value will be insignificant. If the unexpired term is relatively short, however—say 50 years—the difference will be substantial.
      It follows that in a sale between willing parties where the unexpired term of the leases was not very long, the leaseholders would be prepared to pay additional money for the extra benefit but would certainly not offer the whole amount of the marriage value. They would be well aware that they represented the freeholder's only chance of obtaining a higher price than he would gain from an ordinary purchaser.
      In practice, a sale would be agreed only if the parties agreed to split the difference: if the parties were equally willing and eager, the split would be 50:50. The freeholder would finish up with a higher price than he would have received from another purchaser, but I emphasise that the leaseholders would still finish up with an asset that was worth more than they had paid for it.
      People often ask how marriage value can be said to apply to the right to buy a longer lease. After all, there is no joining, or marriage, of the two interests. The answer is that the term does not have quite that meaning in the lease renewal context. Indeed, marriage value is something of a misnomer. Lease renewal marriage value is quite different in concept from the same term in enfranchisement. As defined in the Act, in broad summary, it is the difference between the aggregate values of the landlord's and tenant's interests as they are before the new lease is granted and as they will be after it is granted.
      The notion that, in one way or another, extra value is created by the transaction is common to both cases. For lease extension, as for enfranchisement, any amount of marriage value will be extremely small if the unexpired

      725
      term of the existing lease is still long. As with the right to enfranchise, the split of marriage value has been much argued about in individual cases, but in most cases the LVT has decided that it should be shared equally between the parties.
      Our intentions are the same for both lease renewals and enfranchisement cases. The leaseholder should be required to pay no more and no less for the compulsory acquisition of a new lease than he or she would pay in a similar transaction between the same parties if they were equally willing. That is the principle behind marriage value, and the Government believe it to be sound. That is why we cannot support new clause 1, but have offered an amendment that will improve on the current position.
      Mr. Mark Field: I broadly support new clause 1 and have received constituency representations to that effect. The Government's main argument in justifying retention of marriage value seems to be that abolition would be confiscatory. Almost all popular legislation since 1967—and perhaps even before then—is confiscatory in the sense that it compulsorily intervenes in what would otherwise be a free market for what the Parliament of the day considers to be the broader social interest.
      It has been argued that the open market value of the freehold interest is greater to the leaseholder than to anyone else and that the cost to the leaseholder should reflect that. Hon. Members on both sides have expressed concern about the logic of that argument.
      The view has also been taken that the leaseholder would gain an unjust windfall at the freeholder's expense. That concern could be overcome by a covenanting provision similar to that introduced under the right-to-buy legislation of the 1980s so that there should be further compensation if someone who bought a lease made a sale within a specified period.
      We must ensure that, as far as we can, we expedite the succession of leasehold tenure. We must clarify and simplify those procedures. I hope that is the long-term aim of the Bill. However, the retention of the half share of marriage value remains a controversial and uncertain element in the cost equation. That will continue to be a significant barrier to the proposed progress of enfranchisement.
      The abolition—or at least the watering down—of marriage value would thus contribute substantially to the achievement of the aims of the measure. It would be widely welcomed not only by the groups which have been campaigning on the subject but by a great number of lawyers and other professionals who have to deal with the practicalities.
      Shona McIsaac: I have to announce an interest on behalf of people living in the 21,000 leasehold houses in my constituency and in the neighbouring town of Grimsby.
      Those people should not be affected by marriage value—the landlord's bounty. However, as I explained to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary during Committee, because of the complexity of the rules and guidelines on marriage value people are ripped off on many occasions. People are charged far more than they legally should be
      726
      because marriage value is used to get even more money from enfranchising leaseholders to whom it should not apply.
      I point out to Liberal Democrat Members—as I did in Committee—that marriage value will not be scrapped at this stage. I have concerns about it. In Committee, I went through the mathematics of a hypothetical case to show that the landlord realises that value on day one. As the property can revert to him after 99—or 999—years the landlord obtains even more than the market value.
      During Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister gave me some assurances that marriage value would apply as little as possible. One of the measures that I asked her to consider was creating a level playing field for flats and houses. Marriage value does not apply to flats where the freeholder voluntarily sells on the leases. The tenants have the right of first refusal and marriage value does not come into play.
      That right does not exist for people who live in freehold houses—about half the leasehold houses in the country. About 1 million houses are affected. Landlords can dispose of those freeholds without informing any of the residents. That has happened in whole streets in my constituency. If we were to give the right of first refusal to people living in such houses marriage value would not apply.
      My hon. Friend assured me that she would consider that proposal. She also assured me that, due to the complexity of the law and the lack of understanding of the mathematics involved, she would devise a formula—probably through a statutory instrument—to which freeholders would have to adhere and which would show what people were paying for.
      Mr. Field: Is not one of the concerns that any mathematical formula would have to be far more complicated, because it would have to be regionalised for different parts of the United Kingdom, or even different parts of London? That confusion is one of the reasons why many people feel that we should abolish the whole concept of marriage value.
      Shona McIsaac: If we had some simplicity and clarity, people would not have such concerns. Because of the complexities, people are being grossly overcharged—ripped off. There should be an obligation on the freeholder to inform the leaseholder how the price was arrived at. At present, figures are plucked out of the air. In my constituency, the fee for enfranchising exactly the same type of property can range from £2,000 to £20,000. That unacceptably high level of charge can happen because of the complexities in the structure of marriage value.
      I hope that the Minister can assure my constituents and the House that she will do all that she can to ensure that marriage value is applied less to leasehold properties.
      Mr. David Lepper: I welcome Government amendment No. 43, which provides the necessary clarification. It is a step in the right direction. Regrettably, however, it is not a big enough step. I am one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on commonhold and leasehold reform, and I remind the Minister that in the consultation on the original Bill we expressed the hope that the Government would take the opportunity to abolish marriage value entirely.

      727
      The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has made an important point about how the leaseholder contributes to the value of the property over and over again, yet marriage value gives a bounty to the freeholder. I see no justification for marriage value in the definition of open market value set out by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The Government have missed an opportunity. I will support Government amendment No. 43, but I cannot support the Government in opposing the new clause.
      Mr. Sanders: Let me re-emphasise the point that the leaseholder has paid for the property once, when taking up the lease, and again on enfranchisement. There can be no justification for an extra sum, even if it were to be split 50:50, as the Minister suggests.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 294.

      Division No. 190]

      [9.58 pm

      AYES

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Baker, Norman

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Barrett, John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Moore, Michael

      Burstow, Paul

      Öpik, Lembit

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Pugh, Dr John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Rendel, David

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cotter, Brian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dodds, Nigel

      Selous, Andrew

      Doughty, Sue

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

      Field Mark (Cities of London)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Flook, Adrian

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Tyler, Paul

      Hancock, Mike

      Webb, Steve

      Heath, David

      Wilkinson, John

      Holmes, Paul

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Horam, John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lamb, Norman

      Tom Brake and

      Laws, David

      Bob Russell.

      noes

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ainger, Nick

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E& Wallsend)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Browne, Desmond

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bryant, Chris

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Austin, John

      Burden, Richard

      Banks, Tony

      Burgon, Colin

      Barron, Kevin

      Burnham, Andy

      Beard, Nigel

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cairns, David

      Benton, Joe

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Berry, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Betts, Clive

      Caplin, Ivor

      Blackman, Liz

      Casale, Roger

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Caton, Martin

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cawsey, Ian

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Challen, Colin

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      728

      Chaytor, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clapham, Michael

      Heppell, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hermon, Lady

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heyes, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Hill, Keith

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clelland, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hope, Phil

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Crausby, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cruddas, Jon

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Irranca—Davies, Huw

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Jamieson, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Joyce, Eric

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

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Khabra, Piara S

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Kidney, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Dismore, Andrew

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Doran, Frank

      Lammy, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Leslie, Christopher

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Levitt, Tom

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Edwards, Huw

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Efford, Clive

      Linton, Martin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lloyd, Tony

      Ennis, Jeff

      Love, Andrew

      Etherington, Bill

      Lucas, Ian

      Farrelly, Paul

      Luke, Iain

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McCafferty, Chris

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Flint, Caroline

      MacDonald, Calum

      Flynn, Paul

      McDonnell, John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      MacDougall, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McFall, John

      Foulkes, George

      McIsaac, Shona

      Galloway, George

      McKechin, Ann

      Gardiner, Barry

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gilroy, Linda

      MacShane, Denis

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Goggins, Paul

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Grogan, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mann, John

      Hanson, David

      Marris, Rob

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Havard, Dai

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Healey, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Meale, Alan

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hendrick, Mark

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      729

      Miliband, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mole, Chris

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moran, Margaret

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mudie, George

      Soley, Clive

      Mullin, Chris

      Southworth, Helen

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Norris, Dan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Hara, Edward

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stringer, Graham

      Owen, Albert

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Perham, Linda

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Picking, Anne

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pickthall Colin

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pike Peter

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Timms, Stephen

      Pollard, Kerry

      Trickett, Jon

      Pond Chris

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Prescott Rt Hon John

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Wareing, Robert N

      Purchase, Ken

      Watson, Tom

      Purnell, James

      Watts, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      White, Brian

      Rapson, Syd

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Ross, Ernie

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ruane, Chris

      Wills, Michael

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ryan, Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Salter, Martin

      Woolas, Phil

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wray, James

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Simon, SiÔn

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Singh, Marsha

      Mr. Tony McNultv.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration stood adjourned.
      Bill, as amended in the Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

      Social Security
      That the draft Tax Credits Up-rating Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      Companies
      That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 317), dated 13th February 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]
      Question agreed to.

    ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
    That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 26th March, do adjourn till Tuesday 9th April 2002.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Question agreed to.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Ordered,
    That the Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme) (England) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002, No. 221), dated 5th February 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th February, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Pearson.]

    PETITION

      Mobile Phone Mast, Kensworth
      10.13 pm
      Andrew Selous: I rise to present the petition of 370 residents of the village of Kensworth in Bedfordshire, a number of whom believe that they have experienced health problems since the siting of a mobile telephone mast in the village.
      The petitioners declare:
      That they object to the siting of a mobile telephone mast at Common road, Kensworth; and that they oppose any proposals to site such masts within residential areas in the village.
      The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to take such measures as are within his power to have the mobile telephone mast removed and to prevent the siting of any such mast within residential areas of Kensworth.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Cemeteries
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  10.15 pm
  Norman Baker: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to raise an issue of considerable importance to my constituents. I have learned over the last couple of weeks, if I did not know it before, that national issues are not always the ones that exercise local opinion. The question of cemeteries is undoubtedly the most important issue for my constituents at the moment, as my local papers—the Seaford Gazette, the Sussex Express and The Leader —can demonstrate, as they feature this issue on their front pages regularly.
  The reason for this is that safety tests have been carried out by one of the two district councils in my constituency, Lewes district council. Those tests, notably in graveyards in Seaford and Lewes, have led to huge numbers of headstones—more than 500, in fact—being knocked over by the council, which has caused considerable distress and anguish to relatives of the deceased, who have described the actions as desecration and vandalism. It is clear that, for many, this action has brought back the pain of bereavement, and my sympathy goes to all who have seen the headstones of their loved ones toppled.
  The situation has been made worse by the fact that inadequate warning was given by the council. Small notices were posted on site only about two weeks before the tests were carried out, although many people visit the cemeteries where their loved ones are buried only once a year, perhaps on the anniversary of the death of the person they cared for. Many people, even now, may still not know that the next time they visit the cemetery in Seaford or Lewes, they will find that their loved one's headstone has been knocked flat. I am sorry to say that no effort was made by the council to contact the surviving relatives before the action was taken. I am pleased that the council has at last apologised for the distress that has been caused, and that members of the council are now involved. A group has been set up under Councillor Eddie Collict, a diligent and competent councillor, to investigate the circumstances that led to these events. That action is belated, but very welcome.
  A number of issues have arisen as a consequence of this episode, and I want to address them tonight with the Minister. I hope that she will not mind if I ask some very technical questions, because they are the questions that my constituents are asking me. I entirely understand if she cannot answer them all tonight, but perhaps she will be so good as to write to me afterwards if that is the case.
  The council was concerned that the headstones were potentially unsafe. I ask the Minister to confirm that this council—every council—has a duty of care and is obliged to ensure that headstones are not unsafe, and that it was therefore acting within its rights in carrying out these tests. The point was made in a report by the then Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions that there have been three fatal accidents involving children and falling memorials in recent years, so it is understandable that the council should want to carry out the tests.
  What guidance has been issued to local authorities in respect of testing, in terms of whether they should test and of the method of testing to be employed? Lewes
  732
  district council tells me that there is no UK standard for such testing, although I understand that a draft standard—British standard 8514—is in development. The council understands that this will not be a push test—that is, one in which pressure is applied directly to a gravestone—but one involving a complicated test rig, which will measure construction standards. The council is concerned that such a test could not easily be used in situ, where there are physical constraints such as memorials placed in close proximity to one another.
  I would be grateful if the Minister clarified whether there is to be a British standard safety test, or whether there is already one of which I am unaware. Is there one coming? When will it be adopted? Will it be a push test or a rig test? If it is to be a rig test, what is her response to the council's objections to such a test? I apologise for the fact that these questions are rather technical, but they are the questions that are exercising many of the constituents who have written to me.
  The council says that it applied the only existing European standard that it could find: the German standard, technically called UVV 4.7, which applies a 50 kg push test to headstones. Does the Minister know whether that is the only standard in the European Union? Do the Government consider it appropriate? Pending the adoption of a UK standard, are councils advised by the Government to follow the German standard, or is there no advice as to which standard they should apply? The council says that the German standard has been approved by the Association of Burial Authorities.
  The method of testing was the subject of considerable controversy at a public meeting that I attended in my constituency some two weeks ago. The testing involves the use of a device called a topple tester, which applies a force of 50 kg to a headstone at the height of 1 m. Clearly, if the headstone fails, it falls over; if it does not, it is deemed safe.
  Do the Government have a view on whether that is the appropriate method to test headstones? I understand that Health and Safety Executive guidance states that it is not suitable for war memorials, crosses or angled headstones, and that it is suitable for use only with memorials that are more than 1 m high and in tablet form. Is that correct? If so, has the guidance been properly applied by the district council, so far as the Minister can tell? More to the point, how is a council expected to test other memorials for safety, if they do not fit that description?
  I understand that the National Association of Memorial Masons recommended, as recently as 11 February, a test called a hand technique test, followed by a final assessment with a topple tester set at 35 kg—in other words, considerably less pressure than the 50 kg implicit in the German model.
  I hope that I have demonstrated to the Minister that there is considerable uncertainty in the minds of my constituents and the council, and in my mind, about what exactly the guidance is, in terms of what test is applied, what implements are used, what pressure should be applied and where. That may seem rather detailed and inconsequential, but the consequence is that about 500 headstones have been toppled, with the resultant grief experienced by those who have gone to visit the graves in cemeteries in Seaford and Lewes.
  I have seen—I am grateful to staff of the House of Commons Library for their help—Health and Safety Executive local authority circular 23/18, issued in

  733
  August 2001 and entitled "Management of Unstable Memorials". It states that under the Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977, councils can take immediate action to make safe dangerous materials, but cannot do so for memorials presenting "no immediate risk" without posting clear notice and seeking the permission of owners. Can the Minister say whether that is correct?
  Is it also correct that the council needs the permission of the bishop of the relevant diocese for work in consecrated areas? That clearly was not sought in the case in question. Is it possible that in Seaford cemetery, where 431 headstones were knocked down by the council, all 431 were at immediate risk? What is the legal position if stones were laid down that were not at immediate risk? Is the council responsible for that, and has it a duty to respond sympathetically and actively to people who say that they want the headstones put back as they were, before the council's action?
  There seems to be wide variation in practice across the country. I have done a little research, and it seems that some councils are knocking down huge numbers of headstones. I referred to Lewes district council in my constituency, and 431 stones knocked down in Seaford alone. The report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, to which the Minister will doubtless refer in her reply, mentions Bristol. The report states at paragraph 107:
  "Last year eight hundred gravestones were identified as being unsafe in Bristol City Council owned cemeteries and had to be laid down. In the current year"—
  that presumably refers to last year—
  "a further two or three hundred stones will be laid down for health and safety reasons."
  More than 1,000 headstones were laid down in Bristol, whereas in Eastbourne, which is close to my constituency, tests were carried out and only three headstones were laid down. There seems to be a huge variation in performance across council areas, which suggests a need for clearer Government guidance or regulation in this area.

  I ask myself why so many headstones fail in Lewes. Perhaps Lewes is being assiduous and applying regulations carefully. The Health and Safety Executive, in the circular to which I referred, says that many authorities are not dealing with dangerous memorials, which presents a different problem. Presumably, some graveyards are not being looked into by councils, which is another problem—it is not the one in Lewes, but may be of interest to the Minister.
  I can come up with three reasons why so many headstones fail. First, unnecessarily high standards are being applied, such as the pressure applied in the topple test. Secondly, the tests were improperly carried out in this instance. Thirdly, there is possibly a problem with the method of erecting headstones, and I ask the Minister to address that in her reply. In Seaford, 22 per cent. of new headstones tested by the council failed and have been laid flat, whereas only 6 per cent. of the older headstones in the cemetery failed. It seems that new headstones are less secure than old headstones, which is perhaps a perverse conclusion because one would have thought that older headstones were more liable to fail. The HSE has also referred to the fact that newer headstones are less able to withstand pressure.
  734
  What guidance and standards have been applied to the erection of headstones? How deep must they go, and what anchorage is required? Is there any Government guidance that specifies how a headstone should be erected? If not, I suggest that there should be some. In Germany, a third of the headstones must be under ground. That was traditionally the practice in this country until the 1950s. Since then, there have been more lawn memorials with no foundations, so inevitably many of the headstones that are tested fall over.
  If the test is correct and headstones fall over, should legislation set a new depth? They must be inherently unsafe if the test is correct. If not, why are councils being encouraged to test them and knock them over?
  According to the Association of Burial Authorities, most accidents occur when people kneel down to plant flowers and use the headstone to pull themselves up again, whereupon it collapses on them. That requires pressure of 3.5 kg, which is a tenth of the German standard and much less than that applied by Lewes district council and other authorities.
  Will the Government set standards for the erection of memorials to ensure that they are safe? If they are subject to safety testing, they should stay in the ground. It is absurd that a memorial erected less than two years ago can fail a safety test. Why should people who have had a headstone erected so recently see it knocked over and be told by the council that it is their responsibility to put it back up? Someone must be at fault: either the council for the way in which it carried out the test, or the Government for the regulations, or the stonemason for the way in which it was erected. The person who bought the headstone cannot be at fault.
  What is the position regarding historically valuable headstones, which may even be listed buildings? How does a duty of care dovetail with that? Are there grants to protect and reinstate such stones?
  I would welcome some guidance on the question of costs, because frankly I do not know where to go on this matter. There are hundreds of fallen headstones in my constituency, and the council's view is that people are responsible for re-erecting them because they were unsafe. The view of my constituents is overwhelmingly that the council has a duty to bring them back to the way they were, because its tests were responsible for knocking them down. Is there some Government guidance on that? Does the council have a duty or a power to bring those headstones back to the condition they were in before it undertook its tests? This is the key question for my constituents.
  That leads me to my two objectives. The first is to return cemeteries in my constituency to their former condition as soon as possible, so that people can see the graveyards as they were—respectable places where they can pay tribute to their loved ones—rather than as the scenes of violence that they are now. The second is to ensure that the necessary regulations, legislation and guidance exist nationally, so that this does not happen again in Lewes, Seaford or anywhere else.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) for allowing me to speak, and congratulate him not only on securing a debate on an important issue but on the strength with which he put his constituents' case.

  735
  In my part of north Warwickshire there is similar concern about headstones and the disturbing of graves, although the circumstances are slightly different. The church in the village of No Man's Heath is redundant, but the cemetery has been used in recent years—indeed, in recent months. The Church of England is proposing to sell the church, which may go to a commercial buyer and may be used for a number of different purposes; but it will keep the cemetery.
  However, a number of gravestones and indeed graves abut the church. Apparently the Church of England is not prepared to give any reassurance that the graves will not be disturbed. It is possible that some gravestones will be removed, and that the contents of graves will be disinterred. That is causing great distress to relatives, some of whom may have buried their loved ones very recently.
  Could the Home Office re-examine cemetery law to establish whether relatives' concerns about people buried in cemeteries where the abutting church has become redundant can be given priority over the need to make a commercial sale for the Church of England's benefit? Obviously the Church of England must deal with its redundant churches properly and sensibly, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, we should also be aware of the feelings of those whose relatives are buried in the cemeteries.
  10.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): I too congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The subject he has raised is important and emotive for families who may think that their feelings and needs have been ignored.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) drew attention to circumstances that differ slightly from the general circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman. The current law states that any buried remains to be removed must be removed in accordance with Home Office directions. That will not be allowed unless the Home Office is satisfied that any remains will not be disturbed by building work. If he gives me the details in writing I will pursue the matter, but we have instituted a process of re-examining the law and the advice and guidance in relation to cemeteries and burial, and I shall ensure that the issues raised by both Members are taken into account.
  Although the Home Office is responsible for burial law and the law regulating cemeteries, it is not responsible for every statutory provision that may have a bearing on cemeteries. Cemetery authorities must comply with a wide range of other laws regulating their activities, including those relating to planning, environmental protection and health and safety.
  The existing legislative framework of burial laws is designed primarily to ensure that certain minimum standards are observed. For example, there are powers to inspect burial grounds and to require health and safety measures to be undertaken. Individual burial authorities are given considerable freedom as to how they manage their cemeteries on a day-to-day basis. Among other things, that means that it is a matter for each authority to determine how to discharge their various responsibilities.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes that current legislation is in need of reform. It is uneven and inconsistent, and it does not give the Government the
  736
  powers that they need to address some of the problems. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Environment Committee, which came to much the same conclusion on completion of its inquiry into cemeteries last year.
  In the Government's response to the Committee's report, we announced how we would take forward the various issues identified. First, we undertook to set up an advisory body, which would include the Health and Safety Executive, as well as representatives of the industry and others. It will consider the issue of testing that the hon. Gentleman raised. Secondly, we would undertake research into cemetery management, training and maintenance standards. Thirdly, we undertook to conduct a survey of all burial grounds; and, fourthly, to carry out public consultation on the issue of law reform.
  The advisory body has been set up. The researchers' report will be received shortly and we have now begun planning for the burial ground survey and for the consultation exercise. We aim to make substantive progress during the course of this year.
  Burial authorities must also have regard to their wider responsibilities. As the hon. Gentleman said, cemeteries can present a real safety hazard. Open graves can be dangerous. Many older cemeteries contain tombstones and memorials that have become unstable. As he also pointed out, newly erected tombstones can also—astonishingly—be unsafe. That has resulted in a small number of injuries and even deaths. Health and safety practice must be at the forefront of any cemetery manager's mind. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not disagree.
  Burial authorities must take action if there is an immediate risk of a headstone falling, but it would be equally wrong to lay down all or most of the headstones in a cemetery simply as a precautionary measure. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that in one recent case the local government ombudsman found a local council guilty of maladministration because adequate prior notice of their intentions was not given to the families concerned.
  Burial authorities must seek to get the balance right. Public safety is paramount, but the rights of memorial owners, who want to visit cemeteries to remember their relatives, cannot be ignored. I well understand the concern that the public will have if memorials appear to have been laid down as a precautionary measure or without due consideration of the other issues.
  The legislation that governs local authority cemeteries sets out detailed procedures to be observed before memorials can be levelled in normal circumstances. Those procedures include requiring notice of the authority's intention to be placed in the cemetery, in local newspapers and, where appropriate, sent to those who have exercised a right to place a tombstone or memorial on the grave. The hon. Gentleman asked whether bishops should also be notified. I do not know the answer to that question immediately, but I shall obtain it for him. I also understand the feelings of his constituents who, given the situation in Lewes, want to know who is responsible for replacing the tombstones. Again, that is not a Home Office matter but I will try to ensure that another Department provides the hon. Gentleman with the answer.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the deaths of three children. Partly as a consequence, research was carried out on behalf of the Confederation of Burial Authorities and, in the light of the findings, guidance on memorial

  737
  Management was published in 2000 by the Institute of Burial and Cremation Administration, which is the relevant professional body. That guidance recommends regular inspections of headstones and practical measures to make dangerous memorials safe. Laying down memorials is not the only option. Memorials may also be supported, cordoned off or repaired.
  Lewes council, like any council, has a duty to ensure that tombstones and memorials are safe. There is no dispute about that. Last May, the council approved a code of practice and programme of testing memorials. In doing so, it drew upon guidance recently issued by the industry. Notices of its intentions were posted in the cemeteries shortly beforehand.
  That exercise revealed that a proportion of the headstones were unsafe and presented an immediate danger. The council decided to lay them down and to contact the owners as soon as possible. Clearly, memorial owners and the general public seem not to have been prepared for that action. I am sure that there are lessons to be learned by the council and indeed by other burial authorities about providing more effective advance publicity. I understand that the council has asked the relevant sub-committee to look again at its code of practice and is considering the practicalities of notifying individual memorial owners in future.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, it is important that the inspection of memorial safety be undertaken in a competent and technically proficient manner. The institute's guidance recommends seeking advice from structural engineers or other appropriate sources. Although testing equipment is available, the Health and Safety Executive has advised, as the hon. Gentleman said, that that may not be suitable for all types of memorial. The National Association of Memorial Masons has produced its own advice and guidance, which it keeps under review.
  There is also the issue of who should undertake any survey of safety. Some will consider that memorial masons may not be sufficiently independent, but that must be a matter of judgment for the burial authority. It certainly seems sensible for the testing to be undertaken by an appropriately trained person. Training on removal and replacement of memorials is already provided by the institute.
  Nevertheless, the way in which the various representative and technical organisations have responded in addressing the problems has been positive. In addition
  738
  to guidance to their members, a cemetery safety awareness campaign was initiated to bring home to the public, particularly children, the dangers that are posed by memorial headstones.
  This is quite a difficult thing to say but we have to remember that, although we are talking about families who are grieving for someone whom they have lost, they have an important share of the responsibility for ensuring that the memorials are put up safely in the first place and indeed that they are maintained. I recognise that for older memorials the loss of contact with the owners is a real difficulty for the burial authorities.
  The hon. Gentleman asked quite a large number of technical questions. Although I could theoretically answer him because I have all the detail here in terms of weight, measures and distances, I do not think it appropriate to plough through that. However, I assure him that I will write to him on all those technical questions.
  Norman Baker: The Minister is giving a helpful reply for my constituents. Before time runs out, can she say how she can reconcile the fact that in Seaford, 421 stones have been felled, compared with just three in Eastbourne where similar tests were carried out? Why do the new gravestones seem to be failing and the old ones not?
  Beverley Hughes: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman as to why there is that disparity, but the fact that there is that variation suggests—I think that this is the real point of his question—that there is at the very least a lack of consistency in how burial authorities and local authorities are undertaking these responsibilities. That itself points to the need perhaps for more effective guidance. I will feed that and indeed all the issues that he has raised into the work that the advisory group is doing for us.
  Memorialisation of the dead is an important aspect of our society. It demonstrates respect for the people we have lost and provides comfort for the bereaved. We must not allow poor workmanship or poor site management to undermine the historic, cultural and emotional value of our local cemeteries. From what the hon. Member for Lewes and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire said, I accept that more work is needed to bring appropriate expertise to bear and to promote common standards. I certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall take up all the matters raised and feed them into the process that we have initiated.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Challenger 2 Tank
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the MOD has for improvements to the Challenger 2 tank following the training exercise in Oman; what they will be; and if he will make a statement. [38279]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for the armed forces gave on 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 733W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones).

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions(a) coalition aircraft and (b) UK aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone in Iraq have (i) detected violations of the no-fly zones, (ii) detected a direct threat to a coalition aircraft and (iii) released ordnance in (1) January and (2) February, stating for each month the tonnage of ordnance released; what has been (A) the nature of the violation detected, (B) the nature of the threat detected and (C) the category of target attacked in percentage terms; and if he will make a statement. [38414]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is:

  (i) No-fly-zone (NFZ) violations are detected in several ways, though rarely (if ever) by tactical aircraft. For reasons of operational security we do not release details of detection methods. No violations of the southern NFZ were detected in January or February.

  (ii) In January and February, coalition aircraft recorded threats on a total of 11 occasions, as follows:

  January-8

  February-3.

  10 of the recorded threats were attacks by anti-aircraft artillery. The remaining one was an attack by other weapons.

  (iii) Coalition aircraft in the southern NFZ released 9 tons of ordnance in January, and none in February.
  100 per cent. of ordnance released was in self-defence responses by coalition aircraft against military targets in the Iraqi Integrated Air Defence System.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the delays in the contract to build six type 45 destroyers; [39201]
  650W
  (2) if he will make a statement on the additional costs expected due to delays in signing a contract for the building of six type 45 destroyers. [39200]

  Dr. Moonie
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced to the House on 10 July 2001,Official Report, columns 676–85, the timing of the contract was dependent upon the completion of satisfactory negotiations between the Ministry of Defence and the prime contractor, BAE Systems Electronics, and between the prime contractor, BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft.

  While it was originally planned that by September 2001 the parties would enter into a legally binding agreement, intensive work on the programme has clarified the timescales in which the shipbuilders had to make their investment decisions to maintain the T45 programme. The commitment, as announced by the Minister for Defence Procurement on 18 February 2002, has been made in time to allow the shipbuilders to make their investment decisions and participate in the programme as planned.

  It should be emphasised that both shipbuilders have been working hard in the Type 45 programme under the prime contractor for around two years. The ship design, which is rapidly maturing, has been unaffected by the negotiations between the prime contractor and shipbuilders over the build contracts.

  There are no additional costs due to the later than anticipated contract signing and we remain fully committed to achieving our scheduled in service date for the First-of-Class of 2007.

  Army Personnel
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Lieutenant-Colonels, (b) Majors, (c) Captains, (d) Sergeant-Majors (Warrant Officer Class II), (e) Sergeants and (f) Corporals there are meant to be in the Army; and how many there are at the latest date for which figures are available. [39195]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the strengths, by rank, against the 2001 Manpower Planning Target.

  Target figure

  Strength as at 1 February 2002

  Lieutenant-Colonel

  1,481

  1,625

  Major

  4,673

  4,555

  Captain

  4,893

  4,181

  Sergeant-Major (WO II)

  4,435

  4,962

  Sergeant

  11,190

  10,212

  Corporal

  17,627

  15,922

  These figures do not include Lieutenant Colonels on the Special List (Lt Col (SL)), Warrant Officer Class I, Staff Sergeant or Lance Corporal.

  The target figures for each rank are currently undergoing routine review; this will take into account the establishment changes made by individual budget holders since the 2001 targets were set. These establishment changes have, in particular, led to a marked increase in the requirement for staff officers at the rank of Major and Lieutenant Colonel.
  651W

  Nuclear Tests (Nevada)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the joint UK/US Los Alamos National Laboratory underground sub-critical nuclear test which took place at Nevada on 14 February; and if he will give an undertaking that the information gathered from the test will not be used to design a replacement for existing Trident warheads. [40649]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 12 February 2002,Official Report columns 165–66W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). The purpose of this experiment was to help us to ensure that UK nuclear weapons remain safe and reliable. No new warhead system is being designed by the UK and the experiment was entirely consistent with our obligations under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

  Court Martial
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were sentenced to a period of imprisonment by court martial in the last year; and for what offences. [41362]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the year 2000, which is the most recent year for which complete figures are available at this time, the number of service personnel sentenced to imprisonment and military detention by courts-martial was as follows:

  Royal Navy

  Military detention—nine, consisting of:

  Three for assault

  Two for actual bodily harm

  Two for theft

  One for dishonesty

  One for possession of drugs

  Army

  Imprisonment–31 consisting of:

  15 for offences concerned with violence Nine for sexual offences

  Four for theft

  Three for drug related offences

  Military detention-–257, consisting of: 100 for crimes of violence:

  82 for absence without leave

  35 for theft

  Nine for sexual offences

  Six for drug related offences

  Five for desertion

  Four for driving under the influence

  One for criminal damage

  15 for other offences

  Royal Air Force

  Imprisonment—four, consisting of:

  Two for furnishing false information

  One for theft

  One for indecent and common assault

  Military detention–19, consisting of:

  Five for false accounting

  Five for actual bodily harm—one with battery, one with drunkenness

  652W
  Two for theft—one with obtaining by deception, one with prejudice to good order and wilful damage

  One for unlawful wounding

  One for failure to attend for duty One for drug possession

  One for battery

  One for disgraceful conduct, drunkenness and disobeying lawful command

  One for indecent assault

  One for obtaining property by deception and theft.

  Notes:

  1. The figures listed do not include suspended detentions.

  2. Five members of the Army received other forms of custodial sentences (eg Young Offenders Institution, three for crimes of violence and two for AWOL).

  Sierra Leone
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for British troop deployments in Sierra Leone after the elections in that country. [40855]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: As I explained to the House on 11 February 2002, Official Report, columns 15–16, we are maintaining our current military presence in Sierra Leone of some 360 shore-based personnel over the period of the elections in May. Thereafter, our intention is that the International Military Advisory and Training Team will continue the task of developing the capacity of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 26 February 2002 to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster),Official Report, column 1133W, on departmental expenditure limits, for what capital projects the sum of £261,594,000 transferred from the capital element to the resource element of the departmental expenditure limit had been earmarked. [41773]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]: The circumstances that give rise to transfers between the Department's capital and resource expenditure limits were described in the answer given to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 6 March 2002, Official Report, column 325W. There are typically in excess of 1,000 capital projects and sub-projects under way in the Ministry of Defence at any given moment. It is not possible to attribute the sum transferred to individual projects, the spend profiles of almost all of which will have changed since the expenditure limits were set for the current year.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces pension scheme retired in(a) 1975, (b) 1976 and (c) 1977. [33620]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: This information is not available for Army retirements and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The figures for the Royal Navy and RAF are as follows.
  653W
  Retirements

  1975–21,663

  1976–20,328

  1977–12,690.

  Retired has been taken to mean exited the armed forces.

  Aerospace Industry (Assistance)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received, since 11 September 2001, on helping the aerospace industry by advancing military orders; and if he will make a statement. [38200]

  Dr. Moonie
  We have received several representations from hon. Members and industry. The Government have a close interest in the success of the aerospace industry, with whom we maintain regular dialogue. We have examined ways in which it may be possible to bring orders forward, and we are always happy to discuss any specific proposals. At this time we have not identified any orders which could be brought forward within our available resources and industrial capacity but the UK aerospace industry already benefits from a large programme of work on Ministry of Defence projects including JSF, Eurofighter, A400M, Nimrod, and Apache.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in his Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40450]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. Where Ministry of Defence civil servants are required to travel on official business they are expected to do so in the most effective and economic way. When journeys are made by rail then the class is determined by reference to the individual's grade. There are no plans to change the current entitlements, which form part of the terms of employment and cannot unilaterally be altered.

  Tomahawk Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors were considered in awarding Raytheon the contract to remanufacture Tomahawk missiles for the armed forces; if he plans to publish the results of the tests performed; and if he will make a statement. [40614]

  Dr. Moonie
  The contract to remanufacture Tomahawk missiles is between the United States Department of Defense and Raytheon, which is the only manufacturer of this equipment. The Ministry of Defence requirement has been added to the US purchase under a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the US DoD. The performance of the remanufactured missiles will match that of the Tomahawk Block IIIC missiles already in service with the Royal Navy.

  Apache Helicopter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the new Apache 654W
  helicopters to use the combined laser designator rangefinder; what safety assessment has been conducted; and if he will make a statement. [40609]

  Dr. Moonie
  The WAH64 Apache helicopter is fitted with a combined laser rangefinder and designator supplied by Lockheed Martin. A full safety assessment is being undertaken, and will be subject to clearance by the appropriate Ministry of Defence Safety Committee.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Apache attack helicopters are in service; and how many are due to become operational. [41379]

  Mr. Ingram
  14 Apache attack helicopters have been accepted into service by the Army. A further three aircraft are engaged in trial work. The balance of 50 aircraft have yet to be delivered. We expect a maximum of 58 to he in use at any one time: 48 will be allocated to operational squadrons and 10 to the School of Army Aviation.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which operations the Apache helicopter has been used. [41381]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have not been any United Kingdom Apache attack helicopters used in operations to date.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the armaments of the Apache helicopter and on how much each helicopter is worth. [41380]

  Mr. Ingram
  The UK Apache helicopter will be armed with a combination of Hellfire Missiles, CRV7 rockets and a 30mm gun. The aircraft is being acquired through a combined development and production contract for the aircraft, support equipment and spares. As such, the contract does not specify a unit price. However, for internal resources accounting purposes, we have estimated the attribution of the contract price and this gives a value of some £27.5 million per aircraft. This estimate is based on necessarily subjective assessments and should not be regarded as an accurate replacement cost for the aircraft.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41070]

  Dr. Moonie
  The cost of hotel accommodation used by Ministry of Defence civil servants working away from home in each of the last four years is as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1998–99

  14.3

  1999–2000

  16.0

  2000–01

  16.1

  2001–02

  13.9

  These figures are based upon annual statistics covering the period May to April. The final year's total is based on actual figures for May 2001 to January 2002 and projected to give a 12-month total.
  655W

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his Department. [41024]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's policies on the payment to its civil servants of relocation expenses follow the general principles set out in the Civil Service Management Code and are detailed in the MOD Civilian Transfer Manual.

  Staff who are transferred in the public interest are entitled to a range of financial assistance to enable them to take up their new duties. Depending upon the circumstances, the individual may be entitled to support for a move of home or, where a move of home is not justified, assistance with additional commuting costs. In order to qualify for reimbursement, expenses must be reasonable, necessarily incurred and result in no overall "betterment" in the standard of housing. In order to facilitate house moves, the Department operates a contractor-run Relocation Company Scheme, which offers Guaranteed Sale Prices to vendors as well as estate agency, survey, removals and legal services.

  Snagge Report
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2002, ref. 38529, on the Snagge report, for what reason he will not publish Colonel Snagge's report "The Command Structure in the United Kingdom"; and if he will discuss this with the Open Government Task Force. [40971]

  Mr. Ingram
  The "Snagge Report" was an unsolicited piece of work by the Chief of Staff of the Division then based in York. It argued for keeping the headquarters of 2 Division in York and, as such, provided a very one-sided opinion. It did not represent a balanced Army view, and its publication would be highly misleading. For these reasons, I decided not to release it.

  The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information makes no requirement to consult before making a decision to withhold information under an exemption.

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the preferred bidder for the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft; and when he expects final contracts to be signed. [40885]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our current aim is to decide later this year whether PFI will provide the best value money procurement solution for the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft project and, if so, which consortium is our preferred bidder. Contract signature is currently scheduled for 2003. However, the precise timing will depend on a range of factors, including the satisfactory conclusion of complex contract negotiations.

  Surinder Nath Saggar
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 14W, on sovereign bases, when he will give a substantive reply concerning Surinder Nath Saggar
  656W
  of Brompton on Swale; and what plans he has to revise the (a) Race Relations Act 1976 and (b) Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to make them applicable to service personnel working on sovereign bases outside the European Union. [41140]

  Mr. Ingram
  Lieutenant Colonel Saggar has been granted leave to appeal the decision of the Employment Tribunal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. A preliminary hearing has been listed for 1 July 2002. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment further on matters relating to this case in view of the on-going proceedings.

  Sovereign Bases
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the British Medical Association concerning the application of(a) the Race Relations Act 1976 and (b) the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to service personnel serving on sovereign bases outside the European Union. [41267]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no such discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the British Medical Association.

  Explosives
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the new explosive factory in the US run by BAE Systems will meet all the UK's requirements for military explosives; [40962]

  (2) what his long-term policy is on the manufacture of explosives in the UK. [40963]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence places contracts for the supply of whole munitions. The sourcing of components for those munitions, including high explosives, is a matter for the prime contractor. The MOD aim is to achieve value for the taxpayer, as well as the security of supply of safe and reliable munitions for the armed forces. The Framework Partnering Agreement between the MOD and Royal Ordnance Defence which was signed in 1999, has been established to help ensure these aims, and world benchmark prices for munitions supplied to the MOD, are achieved.

  Shackleton Barracks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what disciplinary action has been taken against soldiers stationed at Shackleton Barracks following the manufacture, transport and display on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday of a banner; and what measures he has taken in respect of the effect on the relatives of those killed. [40854]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. No evidence has been presented which suggests that soldiers from Shackleton Barracks, Ballykelly were involved in this incident.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures were taken to ensure that the consultant advising on the installation of air conditioning during the recent refurbishment of(a) his Department's main building and (b) RAF High Wycombe was aware of the

  657W
  Government's policy on the use of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants in air-conditioning; and if he will make a statement on the measures taken by the consultant to source practical and safe alternatives to hydrofluorocarbon-based air-conditioning. [41173]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether an installer capable of installing not-in-kind air conditioning was invited to quote for the recent refurbishment contract for(a) his Department's main building and (b) RAF High Wycombe; and if he will make a statement. [41172]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is assumed that the term not-in-kind refers to an air-conditioning/refrigeration system that is not based upon a vapour compression refrigeration cycle using halocarbon refrigerants.

  No installer capable of installing not-in-kind air conditioning was invited to quote for the recent refurbishment of main building or the chiller replacement unit in the Strike Command Operations Centre at RAF High Wycombe.

  RMSE Brompton Barracks
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to make a statement on the public-private partnership for RMSE Brompton Barracks. [40847]

  Mr. Ingram
  Bids for the public-private partnership project for the Royal School of Military Engineering at Chatham and Minley (which encompass Brompton Barracks) are currently subject to rigorous examination by the project team. I envisage an announcement on the selection of the preferred bidder towards the end of this year.

  Refurbishment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) who provided or is providing the(a) windows and (b) doors for the refurbishment of the MOD building; [41352]

  (2) what organisation or company provided the certification for the doors and windows for the refurbishment of the Ministry of Defence building to show that they were produced from sustainably managed sources; and if he will place a copy of these certificates in the Library. [41351]

  Dr. Moonie
  The existing aluminium framed windows are not being replaced except for those beyond economic repair or damaged during the construction process. These will be replaced with windows of similar construction.

  The developed Ministry of Defence Main Building will be open plan in design. Existing doors taken from the building will be re-used in certain circumstances, e.g. fire doors. No contracts have yet been placed in respect of either windows or doors for the redevelopment.
  658W

  Logistics
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals to review defence logistics following the action in Afghanistan. [41422]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is our normal practice to undertake a full audit of all operations and exercises with the aim of identifying lessons to be learned, including those that are relevant to defence logistics matters. Work is in hand on the lessons to be learned from all aspects of operational deployments to Afghanistan.

  Fast Jet Pilots
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fast jet pilots have left the RAF in each of the past five years; how many of those left at the end of their commission; and how many sought premature voluntary retirement. [41610]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]The numbers of fast jet pilots who left the RAF in each of the past five years are set out in the table.

  Exits at end of commission2

  PVR

  Other reasons3

  Total

  1997–98

  56

  23

  3

  82

  1998–99

  64

  23

  7

  94

  1999–2000

  53

  23

  4

  80

  2000–01

  37

  22

  0

  59

  2001–021

  46

  21

  4

  71

  1 Figures to 31 January 2002

  2 Includes those leaving at option points

  3 Includes compulsory retirement, medical discharges and death-inservice

  A400M
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has had with the manufacturer of the A400M about the aircraft's engines; what assessment he has made of the power to size ratio of the A400M engines; what steps he has taken to promote Rolls Royce engines for the A400M; when the first A400M will come into service; and when the first A400M will come into service in the UK; [41936]

  (2) how many years it will take to bring the A400M into service; whether the retendering process for the A400M's engines will delay its introduction into service; what discussions he has had with his German counterpart about the Bundestag Finance Committee's discussions on the A400M; how many United Kingdom jobs are dependent on the A400M; and if he will make a statement. [41922]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Centrifuge (RAF Henlow)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the centrifuge at RAF Henlow begins operations; how overdue is the start of operations; and what measures he will take with regard to the contractor responsible. [42338]
  659W
  Mr. Ingram
  The contract for the human centrifuge at RAF Henlow has been terminated. Negotiations with the original contractor are presently on-going and therefore it would not be appropriate to comment at the present time.

  Headley Court
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many patients are waiting for treatment at the joint services rehabilitation centre at Headley Court. [42337]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 7 March this year, some 880 patients have been referred for treatment and are currently awaiting admission to the Defence Services Medical Rehabilitation Centre, Headley Court.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by her Department and which took place on non-Departmental premises in each of the last four years giving the title, purpose, date and cost of each. [34296]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Offices, was the joint sponsor, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, of a conference of Presidents of the Supreme Courts and Attorneys General of the member states of the European Union in financial year 2000–01. The cost to LSLO was £34,534.25. There is no record of any other qualifying event occurring over the period in question.

  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Research
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many people were working in a research capacity in the office of the(a) CPS, (b) Attorney-General and (c) Solicitor-General in each year since the inception of the CPS, as a percentage of (i) staff turnover and (ii) the number of people employed. [37777]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The Policy Directorate in CPS Headquarters, based in London and York, presently employs around 60 staff, of which 30 are qualified lawyers. This constitutes 0.05 per cent. of the number of people presently employed by the CPS. Unfortunately, figures to show the number of Policy Directorate staff in each year since the inception of the CPS cannot be disaggregated from recorded data either as a percentage of staff turnover or the number of staff employed.

  The Directorate has responsibility for development of prosecution policy, setting standards and giving guidance to CPS staff on the criminal law generally. It also contributes to the development of criminal law by liaising with other agencies on new legislative proposals and initiatives. This often involves research based work for both the legally qualified staff and for a smaller number of administrative staff.
  660W
  The office of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General also does not employ persons in a specific research capacity, but is staffed predominantly by lawyers whose role is to brief the Law Officers on a wide range of issues.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34174]

  The Solicitor-General
  The total cost to my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, of accountancy services in each of the last four year has been nil. In relation to the other Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, the details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The total cost to the Crown Prosecution Service of accountancy services, in each of the last four years has been as follows:

  £29,000 in 1997–98

  £21,000 in 1998–99

  £23,000 in 1999–2000

  £108,000 in 2000–01

  "Accountancy services" is taken to denote services provided by an external firm of accountants or their management consultancy arms if the assignment if connected with financial matters.

  The CPS also uses accountants as expert witnesses in criminal prosecutions. Expenditure over the last four years in this respect has been as follows:

  £46,000 in 1997–98

  £75,000 in 1998–99

  £52,000 in 1999–2000

  £101,000 in 2000–01

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has an in-house Finance Team which has responsibility for the expenditure, billing activity and accounting for the Treasury Solicitor's Department Agency, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, residual matters from the closure in September 1999 of the Government Property Lawyer's Agency and, since 1 April 2001, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. The team has required additional accounting resources during the last few years to deal with the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting; the associated replacement of the accounting computer system; and a substantial increase in the business of the Treasury Solicitor's Department Agency.

  The total costs of the Treasury Solicitor's Department's Finance Team for the last four years are as follows:

  £546,000 in 1997–98

  £645,000 in 1998–99

  £877,000 in 1999–2000

  £1,262,000 in 2000–01

  £726,000 in 2001–02 (up to 31 December 2001).

  These figures include direct staff, agency temporary staff and independent consultants' costs, a new computer system and other direct costs incurred by the Treasury Solicitor's Department Agency.
  661W
  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has only incurred accounting costs over the last four years by the use of specific accountancy expertise to support case investigation. There have been no administrative accountancy services other than external/internal audit by the National Audit Office and Inland Revenue respectively.

  The total costs incurred for accountancy work to support cases have been as follows:

  £1,445,472.14 in 1997–98

  £1,477,816.95 in 1998–99

  £872,523.95 in 1999–2000

  £1,207,917.93 in 2000–01

  £1,482,945.64 in 2001–02 (to date).

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, including the current year to date, the amount spent by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on (i) food and (ii) alcohol, indicating how much was spent on guests, and how much in respect of (A) Ministers and (B) staff, broken down to show how much was provided directly by her Department and how much reclaimed. [34460]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 February 2002): My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, spent the following sums in providing hospitality and meeting refreshments in 1997–98 and subsequent financial years:

  Hospitality

  £3,259.79 in 1997–98

  £3,120.70 in 1998–99

  £3,726.64 in 1999–2000

  £4,296.13 in 2000–01

  £2,693.89 in 2001–02

  Meeting Refreshments

  £931.36 in 1997–98

  £317.56 in 1998–99

  £799.59 in 1999–2000

  £1,769.85 in 2000–01

  £377.75 in 2001–02

  Due to the accounting system used by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the cost information provided could not be divided to show the amount spent on food and alcohol, and the amounts spent on guests, Ministers and staff without incurring disproportionate cost. For the same reason information cannot be provided regarding how much of the money spent by the Department was provided directly by the Department and how much was reclaimed.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  In 1997–98 and subsequent financial years the Crown Prosecution Service spent the following sums in providing hospitality:

  £7,819 in 1997–98

  £4,466 in 1998–99

  £4,084 in 1999–2000

  £10,533 in 2000–01

  £18,710 in.2001–02

  662W
  It would not be possible, without incurring disproportionate costs, to identify how much money was spent on food and drink, how much on guests, Ministers and staff, how much money was provided directly by the Department and how much was reclaimed.

  The Department's policy on the provision of hospitality requires that the number of staff at any event must not exceed the number of guests. The thrust of the policy is that CPS representation must be kept to an absolute minimum.

  Expenditure on hospitality is restricted to a maximum of £25 per head for lunch and £35 per head for dinner. These sums are to cover all food and drink.

  The increase in expenditure in the last two years is a consequence of the CPS policy to raise its profile in the community and in the media. Recent initiatives such as Direct Communication to Victims and the Equality and Diversity Action Plan on Race have been publicly launched to the press and invited members of the public and relevant organisations.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  In 1997–98 and subsequent financial years the Treasury Solicitor's Department spent the following sums in providing hospitality:

  £4,591.56 in 1997–98

  £4,702.97 in 1998–99

  £5,872.31 in 1999–2000

  £5,965.65 in 2000–01

  £4,598.78 in 2001–02

  The contract management and financial analysis systems currently in place within the Treasury Solicitor's Department mean that it is not possible to distinguish between money spent on food and alcohol and between guests and others, without incurring disproportionate cost. These systems are being upgraded as part of improvements which commenced some months ago. Most of the improvements should be in place during the course of the financial year 2002–03.

  In relation to agencies and non-departmental public bodies, the Government Property Lawyers spent the following sums in providing hospitality in 1997–98 and subsequent financial years:

  £1,438.35 in 1997–98

  £684.92 in 1998–99

  £7.62 in 1999–2000

  £0 in 2000–01

  £0 in 2001–02

  The Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has not incurred any hospitality costs since they became part of the Treasury Solicitor's Department.

  Serious Fraud Office

  In 1997–98 and subsequent financial years the Serious Fraud Office spent the following sums in providing hospitality and meeting refreshments:

  Hospitality

  £7,881.36 in 1997–98

  £6,260.46 in 1998–99

  £6,702.39 in 1999–2000

  £6,035.78 in 2000–01

  £8,555.03 in 2001–02 (to date)

  663W
  Meeting Refreshments

  £8,444.81 in 1997–98

  £8,389.30 in 1998–99

  £7,166.21 in 1999–2000

  £6,089.75 in 2001–01

  £7,025.40 in 2001–02 (to date).

  This information could not be divided to show the amount spent on food and alcohol, and the amounts spent on guests, Ministers and staff without incurring disproportionate cost. For the same reason information cannot be provided regarding how much of the money spent was provided directly by the Department and how much was reclaimed.

  The Serious Fraud Office has neither agencies nor non-departmental bodies.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list those items valued at less than £50 each which have been stolen or lost from her Department in each of the last four years. [34210]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: I am not aware of any items valued at less than £50 being stolen from or lost by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers during the years 1998–2002.

  The details of the other Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  No items valued at less than £50 have been recorded as lost or stolen by the Crown Prosecution Service in any of the last four years.

  CPS systems focus on more expensive items and it is not considered cost effective to maintain detailed records of items valued at less than £50. It is possible that such items have been stolen or lost but not reported.

  Area

  April 2001

  May 2001

  June 2001

  July 2001

  August 2001

  September 2001

  October 2001

  November 2001

  December 2001

  January 2002

  February 2002

  March 2002

  Estimated lawyer staff in post

  P01 Avon and Somerset

  44.0

  44.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  P02 Bedfordshire

  18.0

  18.0

  20.0

  20.0

  20.0

  20.0

  20.0

  20.0

  20.0

  20.0

  20.0

  20.0

  P03 Cambridgeshire

  19.0

  20.0

  21.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  PO4 Cheshire

  33.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  P06 Cleveland

  24.8

  26.8

  26.8

  28.8

  30.8

  30.8

  30.8

  30.8

  30.8

  30.8

  30.8

  30.8

  P07 Cumbria

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  23.0

  P08 Derbyshire

  29.9

  29.9

  30.9

  30.9

  30.9

  30.9

  30.9

  30.9

  30.9

  30.9

  30.9

  30.9

  P09 Devon and Cornwall

  37.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  P 10 Dorset

  16.8

  18.8

  18.8

  18.8

  18.8

  18.8

  18.8

  18.8

  18.8

  18.8

  18.8

  18.8

  P 11 Durham

  23.1

  25.1

  25.1

  25.1

  25.1

  25.1

  25.1

  25.1

  25.1

  25.1

  25.1

  25.1

  P12 Dyfed/Powys

  21.4

  21.4

  21.4

  21.4

  21.4

  21.4

  21.4

  21.4

  21.4

  21.4

  21.4

  21.4

  P13 Essex

  39.8

  39.8

  39.8

  39.8

  39.8

  39.8

  39.8

  39.8

  39.8

  39.8

  39.8

  39.8

  P14 Gloucestershire

  16.4

  15.4

  15.4

  15.4

  15.4

  16.4

  16.4

  16.4

  16.4

  16.4

  16.4

  16.4

  P15 Greater Manchester

  114.1

  118.1

  126.1

  130.7

  130.7

  130.7

  130.7

  130.7

  130.7

  130.7

  130.7

  130.7

  P16 Gwent

  23.5

  29.5

  29.5

  29.5

  29.5

  29.5

  29.5

  29.5

  29.5

  29.5

  29.5

  29.5

  P17 Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  50.0

  55.0

  55.0

  55.0

  55.0

  60.0

  60.0

  60.0

  60.0

  65.0

  65.0

  65.0

  P18 Hertfordshire

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  25.8

  25.8

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  27.4

  27.4

  27.4

  P19 Humberside

  28.6

  30.6

  30.6

  30.6

  30.6

  30.6

  30.6

  30.6

  30.6

  30.6

  30.6

  30.6

  P20 Kent

  44.7

  44.7

  46.7

  46.7

  48.7

  48.7

  50.7

  50.7

  50.7

  50.7

  50.7

  50.7

  70.4P21 Lancashire

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  P22 Leicestershire

  28.1

  28.1

  29.1

  34.1

  34.1

  34.1

  34.1

  34.1

  34.1

  34.1

  34.1

  34.1

  P23 Lincolnshire

  16.2

  18.2

  18.2

  18.2

  18.2

  18.2

  18.2

  18.2

  18.2

  18.2

  18.2

  18.2

  P24 Merseyside

  67.7

  68.3

  70.3

  70.3

  71.3

  73.3

  73.3

  73.3

  75.3

  76.3

  76.3

  76.3

  P25 Metropolitan and City

  270.0

  270.0

  270.0

  315.0

  315.0

  315.0

  315.0

  315.0

  315.0

  315.0

  315.0

  315.0

  P26 Norfolk

  26.4

  26.4

  27.4

  27.4

  27.4

  27.4

  27.4

  27.4

  27.4

  27.4

  27.4

  27.4

  P27 Northamptonshire

  19.8

  19.8

  19.8

  21.8

  21.8

  21.8

  23.8

  23.8

  23.8

  23.8

  23.8

  23.8

  P28 Northumbria

  66.9

  69.9

  71.9

  71.9

  71.9

  71.9

  71.9

  71.9

  71.9

  71.9

  71.9

  71.9

  P29 North Wales

  22.9

  22.4

  22.4

  22.4

  22.4

  22.4

  22.4

  22.4

  22.4

  22.4

  22.4

  22.4

  P30 North Yorkshire

  17.4

  17.4

  17.4

  17.4

  17.4

  17.4

  17.4

  17.4

  17.4

  17.4

  17.4

  17.4

  664W
  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  No items valued at less than £50 have been recorded as lost or stolen by the Treasury Solicitors Department in any of the last four years.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The records regarding losses and thefts of official items from February 1998 to February 2002 have been examined. Up to the end of December 1999 there were no recorded losses or thefts of official items valued at £50 or under. From January 2000 policy was changed so that no records are made of any official items lost or stolen if their value is under £50.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff, broken down by type, the CPS budget provided for in each CPS region; and how many vacancies there were per type of staff in each year since the inception of the CPS. [35942]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 February 2002]: A budget to meet basic running costs needs-excluding fixed accommodation costs-is allocated to each CPS area. Its use is not prescribed. Areas are empowered to apportion it between staffing and any other costs in accordance with their judgment of local circumstances. Thus staffing mix can vary from area to area, depending on the local judgments made in each area.

  In their business plans for the 2001–02 financial year completed in March 2001, CPS areas profiled their estimated staffing numbers on a monthly basis. The results for each of the existing staffing groups-Chief Crown Prosecutors, lawyers and administration-are set out in the tables.

  The CPS does not keep historical data on the number of vacancies within the Department. Areas decide the numbers and mix of staff against the budget available to them, rather than against an overall complement figure.
  665W

  Area

  April 2001

  May 2001

  June 2001

  July 2001

  August 2001

  September 2001

  October 2001

  November 2001

  December 2001

  January 2002

  February 2002

  March 2002

  P31 Nottinghamshire

  49.0

  49.0

  52.0

  52.

  052.0

  52.0

  52.0

  52.0

  52.0

  52.0

  52.0

  52.0

  P32 South Wales

  60.9

  66.9

  66.9

  66.9

  66.9

  66.9

  66.9

  66.9

  70.9

  70.9

  70.9

  70.9

  P33 South Yorkshire

  44.0

  49.0

  49.0

  49.0

  51.0

  51.0

  51.0

  51.0

  51.0

  51.0

  51.0

  51.0

  P34 Staffordshire

  36.0

  36.0

  36.0

  38.0

  38.0

  40.0

  40.0

  40.0

  40.0

  40.0

  40.0

  40.0

  P35 Suffolk

  18.6

  19.6

  19.6

  19.6

  19.6

  19.6

  19.6

  19.6

  19.6

  19.6

  19.6

  19.6

  P36 Surrey

  19.1

  19.1

  22.1

  22.1

  22.1

  22.1

  22.1

  22.1

  22.1

  22.1

  22.1

  22.1

  P37 Sussex

  40.0

  40.0

  42.0

  42.0

  44.0

  44.0

  44.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  P38 Thames Valley

  50.0

  51.0

  51.0

  52.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  53.0

  P39 Warwickshire

  11.0

  11.0

  11.0

  11.0

  11.0

  11.0

  11.0

  11.0

  11.0

  11.0

  11.0

  11.0

  P40 West Mercia

  31.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  P41 West Midlands

  112.3

  112.3

  122.3

  124.3

  128.3

  135.3

  140.3

  140.3

  140.3

  140.3

  140.3

  140.3

  P42 West Yorkshire

  91.0

  91.0

  101.0

  104.0

  104.0

  110.0

  110.0

  110.0

  110.0

  110.0

  110.0

  110.0

  P43 Wiltshire

  18.4

  18.4

  18.4

  18.4

  18.4

  18.4

  18.4

  18.4

  18.4

  18.4

  18.4

  18.4

  Total

  1,822

  1,870

  1,927

  1,995

  2,009

  2,033

  2,042

  2,043

  2,049

  2,056

  2,056

  2,056

  Estimated Total Administration and SCS Staff in Post

  P01 Avon and Somerset

  65.0

  65.0

  71.0

  71.0

  71.0

  71.0

  71.0

  71.0

  71.0

  71.0

  71.0

  71.0

  P02 Bedfordshire

  30.0

  33.0

  33.0

  35.0

  35.0

  35.0

  33.0

  33.0

  33.0

  33.0

  33.0

  33.0

  P03 Cambridgeshire

  30.4

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  38.0

  P04 Cheshire

  60.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  70.4

  P06 Cleveland

  48.2

  49.2

  49.2

  53.2

  59.2

  62.2

  62.2

  62.2

  62.2

  62.2

  62.2

  62.2

  P07 Cumbria

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  33.2

  P08 Derbyshire

  58.1

  58.1

  59.1

  59.1

  59.1

  59.1

  59.1

  59.1

  59.1

  59.1

  59.1

  59.1

  P09 Devon and Cornwall

  63.4

  68.4

  68.4

  68.4

  68.4

  68.4

  69.4

  69.4

  69.4

  69.4

  69.4

  69.4

  P10 Dorset

  27.6

  30.0

  30.2

  30.2

  30.2

  30.2

  30.2

  30.2

  30.2

  30.2

  30.2

  30.2

  P11 Durham

  34.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  37.8

  P12 Dyfed/Powys

  30.3

  31.3

  31.3

  34.3

  34.3

  34.3

  33.3

  33.3

  33.3

  33.3

  33.3

  33.3

  P13 Essex

  68.5

  68.5

  68.5

  68.5

  68.5

  68.5

  67.5

  67.5

  67.5

  67.5

  67.5

  67.5

  P14 Gloucestershire

  30.7

  30.7

  30.7

  30.7

  30.7

  30.7

  30.7

  30.7

  30.7

  30.7

  30.7

  30.7

  P15 Greater Manchester

  182.7

  205.7

  229.0

  229.0

  229.0

  229.0

  229.0

  229.0

  229.0

  229.0

  229.0

  229.0

  P16 Gwent

  46.4

  46.4

  48.4

  47.4

  47.4

  47.4

  47.4

  47.4

  47.4

  47.4

  47.4

  47.4

  P17 Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  108.0

  113.0

  116.0

  116.0

  121.0

  126.0

  126.0

  126.0

  136.0

  136.0

  136.0

  136.0

  P18 Hertforeshire

  42.9

  45.9

  45.9

  45.9

  45.9

  45.9

  45.9

  45.9

  46.9

  46.9

  46.9

  46.9

  P19 Humberside

  51.1

  51.1

  51.1

  51.1

  51.1

  51.1

  51.1

  51.1

  51.1

  51.1

  51.1

  51.1

  P20 Kent

  77.1

  77.1

  81.1

  81.1

  86.1

  86.1

  87.1

  87.1

  87.1

  87.1

  87.1

  87.1

  P21 Lancashire

  124.0

  124.0

  124.0

  124.0

  124.0

  124.0

  124.0

  124.0

  124.0

  124.0

  124.0

  124.0

  P22 Leicestershire

  57.7

  63.7

  66.7

  66.7

  70.7

  70.7

  70.7

  70.7

  70.7

  70.7

  70.7

  70.7

  P23 Lincolnshire

  24.3

  27.3

  27.3

  27.3

  29.3

  29.3

  29.3

  29.3

  29.3

  29.3

  29.3

  29.3

  P24 Merseyside

  126.0

  130.0

  131.0

  132.0

  136.0

  138.0

  138.0

  138.0

  138.0

  138.0

  138.0

  138.0

  P25 Metropolitan and City

  635.0

  694.0

  694.0

  759.0

  772.0

  772.0

  772.0

  772.0

  772.0

  772.0

  772.0

  772.0

  P26 Norfolk

  39.1

  43.1

  43.1

  43.1

  43.1

  43.1

  44.1

  44.1

  44.1

  44.1

  44.1

  44.1

  P27 Northamptonshire

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  33.6

  P28 Northumbria

  122.7

  128.7

  141.7

  141.7

  141.7

  141.7

  141.7

  141.7

  141.7

  141.7

  141.7

  141.7

  P29 North Wales

  40.6

  40.6

  40.6

  40.6

  40.6

  40.6

  40.6

  40.6

  40.6

  40.6

  40.6

  40.6

  P30 North Yorkshire

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  P31 Nottinghamshire

  92.6

  92.6

  92.6

  96.4

  96.4

  96.4

  96.4

  96.4

  96.4

  96.4

  96.4

  96.4

  P32 South Wales

  136.6

  142.6

  142.6

  142.6

  142.6

  142.6

  136.6

  136.6

  132.6

  132.6

  132.6

  132.6

  P33 South Yorkshire

  93.0

  93.6

  95.6

  95.6

  95.6

  95.6

  95.6

  95.6

  95.6

  95.6

  95.6

  95.6

  P34 Staffordshire

  63.0

  65.0

  68.0

  68.0

  68.0

  68.0

  68.0

  69.0

  69.0

  69.0

  69.0

  69.0

  P35 Suffolk

  35.8

  41.8

  41.8

  41.8

  41.8

  41.8

  41.8

  41.8

  41.8

  41.8

  41.8

  41.8

  P36 Surrey

  35.0

  35.0

  40.0

  42.0

  42.0

  42.0

  40.0

  40.0

  40.0

  40.0

  40.0

  40.0

  P37 Sussex

  59.6

  61.6

  61.6

  63.6

  63.6

  63.6

  65.6

  65.6

  65.6

  65.6

  65.6

  65.6

  P38 Thames Valley

  74.4

  77.4

  78.4

  77.4

  76.4

  77.6

  78.6

  78.6

  78.6

  78.6

  78.6

  78.6

  P39 Warwickshire

  19.7

  19.7

  19.7

  19.7

  19.7

  19.7

  19.7

  19.7

  19.7

  19.7

  19.7

  19.7

  P40 West Mercia

  60.2

  60.2

  60.2

  60.2

  60.2

  60.2

  60.2

  60.2

  60.2

  60.2

  60.2

  60.2

  P41 West Midlands

  202.6

  202.6

  209.5

  230.5

  240.5

  240.5

  240.5

  240.5

  240.5

  240.5

  240.5

  240.5

  P42 West Yorkshire

  169.7

  169.7

  183.7

  191.7

  191.7

  191.7

  191.7

  191.7

  191.7

  191.7

  191.7

  191.7

  P43 Wiltshire

  25.4

  25.4

  25.4

  25.4

  25.4

  25.4

  25.4

  25.4

  25.4

  24.4

  24.4

  24.4

  Total

  3,386

  3,552

  3,640

  3,750

  3,795

  3,809

  3,803

  3,804

  3,811

  3,810

  3,810

  3,810

  Estimated Total Chief Crown Prosecutors in post

  P01 Avon and Somerset

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P02 Bedfordshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P03 Cambridgeshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P04 Cheshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P06 Cleveland

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P07 Cumbria

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P08 Derbyshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P09 Devon and Cornwall

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P1O Dorset

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P 11 Durham

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P12 Dyfed/Powys

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P13 Essex

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P14 Gloucestershire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P15 Greater Manchester

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P16 Gwent

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P17 Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P18 Hertforeshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P19 Humberside

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P20 Kent

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  666W 667W

  Area

  April 2001

  May 2001

  June 2001

  July 2001

  August 2001

  September 2001

  October 2001

  November 2001

  December 2001

  January 2002

  February 2002

  March 2002

  P21 Lancashire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P22 Leicestershire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P23 Lincolnshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P24 Merseyside

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P25 Metropolitan and City

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  P26 Norfolk

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P27 Northamptonshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P28 Northumbria

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P29 North Wales

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P30 North Yorkshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P31 Nottinghamshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P32 South Wales

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P33 South Yorkshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P34 Staffordshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P35 Suffolk

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P36 Surrey

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P37 Sussex

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P38 Thames Valley

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P39 Warwickshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P40 West Mercia

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P41 West Midlands

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P42 West Yorkshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  P43 Wiltshire

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Total

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

  45.0

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Relocation Companies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which relocation companies her Department has used when relocating civil servants since May 1997; which relocation companies hold contracts with her Department for the relocation of civil servants; when the contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value of each contract is. [42365]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since May 1997 the Department has used only one company and has a contract with only one company for relocating civil servants, Cendant Relocation Services (previously known as Bradford and Bingley Relocation Services and Black Horse Relocation Services). The contract was let in November 1999. The contract was not advertised; six companies were invited to tender. The contract runs until 31 October 2002 (with provision to extend if necessary). Its value at award was £950,000 a year.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many civil servants in her Ministry have used the services of Cendant or its subsidiaries(a) to relocate in London and (b) to be housed in London since May 1997; what the name was of the company employed in each case; and what were the dates on each occasion. [42366]

  Ms Hewitt
  From April 2000 to March 2002 11 DTI civil servants have used the services of Cendant Relocation Services to relocate to and to be housed in London or within a reasonable travelling distance of London. The relocations were initiated on: 23 May 2000, 2 June 2000, 17 August 2000, 27 July 2000, 19 January 2001, 30 January 2001, 22 May 2001, 4 September 2001, 19 October 2001, 2 January 2002 and 7 March 2002.

  Prior to April 2000 DTI did not record data on relocation by location from other data on staff relocations. To provide the information requested from May 1997 to March 2000 would entail disproportionate cost.
  668W

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by her Department in each of the last four years. [38934]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  247

  1998–99

  236

  1999–2000

  246

  2000–01

  101

  For 2001–02 and subsequent years no costs will be incurred.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in her Department. [41004]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department is in the process of undertaking an audit of our pay system. In line with the commitment on all Government Departments and agencies, we will put in place by April 2003 an action plan to close any equal pay gaps that emerge.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average gap was between men's and women's pay in(a) Glasgow, Pollok constituency and (b) Glasgow in 2001. [40819]

  Alan Johnson
  Estimates for the Parliamentary Constituency of Glasgow, Pollok are not available. According to the 2001 New Earnings Survey, conducted by the Office for National Statistics, average hourly pay for full-time employees, excluding overtime, in the Glasgow City Unitary Authority, was pounds £11.27 for men and £9.06 for women, a pay gap of £2.21.
  669W
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average gap was between men's and women's pay in Finchley and Golders Green constituency in 2001. [40815]

  Alan Johnson
  Estimates for the Parliamentary Constituency of Finchley and Golders Green are not available. According to the 2001 New Earnings Survey, conducted by the Office for National Statistics, average hourly pay for full-time employees, excluding overtime, in the London Government Office Region, was £16.83 for men and £13.00 for women, a pay gap of £3.83.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [41047]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department promotes flexible working, including job sharing, in its personnel systems. Unless there are fully justifiable business requirements to prevent it, which is rare, all jobs are advertised as being available on a part-time, job share/split and full-time basis.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in her Department. [41028]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department acts as a responsible employer when requiring a member of staff to relocate. Assistance is offered if either the mobility obligation is enforced or if permanent and compulsory terms are offered and relocation is cost-effective compared with alternatives. The principle underlying the Department's policy is that reasonable additional costs necessarily incurred in relocation will be reimbursed, though this should not result in the betterment of an individual's circumstances.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41055]

  Ms Hewitt
  The cost of UK hotel accommodation, booked by staff through the departmental hotel booking agents during each of the last four financial years are:

  £

  April 1998 to March 1999

  826,662

  April 1999 to March 2000

  779,384

  April 2000 to March 2001

  928,242

  April 2001 to January 2002

  853,200

  Small Business Service
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in finding a replacement for the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service. [41460]
  670W
  Nigel Griffiths
  On 6 February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a new Chief Executive for the Small Business Service, Martin Wyn Griffith.

  Post Office
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost of the Horizon project was broken down by(a) cancellation payments and (b) others costs; and from which accounts of the Government and their agencies those costs were met. [40551]

  Mr. Alexander
  The total cost to Consignia of the Horizon project to automate the whole of the Post Office network was £1 billion. No cancellation payments have been made. £480 million of the project costs were funded from cash investments held by Consignia and previously earmarked for surrender to the Treasury. Wider background to the Horizon project is provided in the reports of the Committee of Public Accounts and of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the cancellation of the Benefit Payment Card project.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when she expects the review of the future of the Crown office at Barras Bridge, Newcastle to be completed; [40552]

  (2) how many sorting offices are located in (a)Northumberland, (b)Tyne and Wear, (c)Durham and(d)Cleveland which are open at weekends; and what proposals there are for changes in (a)the number of sorting offices and (b)weekend opening. [40553]

  Mr. Alexander
  This is a matter that falls within the day to day responsibility of Consignia and I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Trailblazing Sector
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the meetings she has had with representatives from the trailblazing sector skills council. [40246]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have had no such meetings.

  BAE, Filton
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will investigate the situation at BAE, Filton with particular reference to(a)the operation of the Rapid Response Fund and other training grants and (b)the role of the South West Regional Development Agency in their delivery. [41240]

  Alan Johnson
  There is no Rapid Response Fund awarded to BAE Systems at Filton as no large scale redundancy has taken place at this location. The RDA does not provide training grants.

  Polyurethane
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations have been made to the European Commission in respect of dumping of polyurethane film products. [41419]
  671W
  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has not received any representations about the dumping of polyurethane products. Any representations to the European Commission in respect of anti-dumping complaints are confidential until an investigation is opened.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims have been lodged by former miners for(a) Vibration White Finger and (b) respiratory diseases in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale constituency. [41930]

  Mr. Wilson
  Claims for Vibration White Finger (VWF), and respiratory disease have been registered in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale as follows:

  Number of claims in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale constituency

  VWF

  129

  Respiratory disease

  191

  These statistics are available on the Department's website at www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 615W, on miners' compensation, what progress has been made on deciding how to progress former mineworkers' claims for compensation for respiratory disease from those in (a) safety, (b) salvage, (c) mine rescue, (d) under managers and (e) Group 3 employment. [41755]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department and the claimants' solicitors representatives have recently agreed the terms on which safety officers and under managers — who were not originally incorporated within the claims handling agreement—may be compensated for respiratory disease. They have also agreed that claims from mines rescue workers and assistant area salvage reclamations managers may be referred to the Dust Reference Panel on a case by case basis, for a decision on the terms on which they may be compensated. Group 3 employment relates to claims for Vibration White Finger, not for respiratory disease.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of reports prepared by Healthcall in 2001 on former mineworkers' compensation claims for respiratory disease were(a) returned by the claim handlers and (b) returned by solicitors representing claimants, identifying errors. [41752]

  Mr. Wilson
  Medical reports are returned by IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, or the claimant's solicitor either to seek further clarification or to identify clerical errors. In 2001, Healthcall, the company contracted to undertake the delivery of the Medical Assessment Process, MAP, completed and passed 44,341 MAP reports to IRISC. Of this number, 5,011 reports (11 per cent.) were returned by IRISC and 2,701 reports (6 per cent.) were returned by solicitors. In both cases, the issues raised related mainly to clarification of points.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 615W, on miners'
  672W
  compensation, what policy has been agreed for handling claims for.compensation for respiratory disease by or on behalf of the families of former mineworkers who have received payments for pneumoconiosis previously. [41753]

  Mr. Wilson
  If a claimant has received payments through the Coal Workers Pneumoconiosis Scheme (CWPS) set up in 1974 and is claiming for simple pneumoconiosis in conjunction with COPD, the claim can be processed in accordance with the handling agreement.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 615W, on miners' compensation, what policy has been agreed for handling industrial injury compensation claims on behalf of the families of former mineworkers who died before 1983. [41754]

  Mr. Wilson
  A separate method of assessment is required for those deceased claimants who died prior to 1 January 1983 to reflect the law prior to that date. Under the previous law, a miner's claim for the years that he lost due to respiratory disease and his loss of expectation of life passed on to the estate as part of the claim under the Law Reform Act (LRA) 1934. The compensation paid to the beneficiary of that claim would be deducted from any entitlement that the beneficiary has to a dependency claim under the Fatal Accidents Act (FAA) 1976.

  It has been agreed with the claimants' solicitors that these claims will be dealt with in the following manner:

  1. Where there is a surviving widow, she will receive the higher sum of either the LRA or FAA claim;

  2. Where the miner leaves a widow who subsequently dies, her estate will receive her dependency entitlement in the period up to her death without any offset for the LRA claim;

  3. Where a miner leaves a surviving dependent other than a widow, as classified by the FAA, there will he an individual assessment of the claim in accordance with common law principles for pre-1983 deceased cases.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the projected balance of trade in natural gas is for(a) this year and (b) each of the next five years. [41987]

  Mr. Wilson
  The latest official data available are for the year 2001. Provisional data published recently on the DTI Energy Statistics website show that the UK was a net exporter of gas to the order of 107,771 Gigawatt hours, equivalent to 8.7 per cent. of gross UK production of 1,233,754 Gigawatt hours.

  Whether and to what extent there will be net exports of gas from the UK over the next five years will depend on the balance between UK supply and demand. Demand is subject to a number of factors, including weather conditions and the relative price of gas and other sources of energy, none of which is easy to forecast. Gas production from the UK continental shelf is currently projected to peak in the next few years, but it is not possible to predict precisely when UK supply will fall short of UK demand. However, on present evidence, on an annual basis the UK is likely to become a net importer of gas in or soon after 2005.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 14 February 2002,
  673W
  Official Report, column 523W, on BNFL, when she estimates that the chief executive of BNFL will send the letter promised. [40823]

  Mr. Wilson
  I understand the chief executive has now written.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date work began in her Department on the proposals relating to the liabilities of BNFL announced on 28 November; and on what date they were first considered by Ministers. [40810]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since the announcement of a possible PPP on 13 July 1999, the Department has been working closely with BNFL on all aspects of its business, including liabilities management. This work, and that carried out under the auspices of the UKAEA Quinquennial Review between April 2000 and August 2001, resulted in the proposals outlined on 28 November. Ministers were given regular reports on the work as it progressed.

  Local Loops
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of BT local loops that will have been unbundled by 31 July. [41908]

  Mr. Alexander
  The regulatory framework for local loop unbundling is now in place. It is not possible to estimate how many loops will be unbundled by 31 July as this is dependent on operators' own commercial rollout plans.

  Public Bodies
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people from Warrington, North she has appointed to non-departmental public bodies since 1997. [39449]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: Information on the town in which individuals appointed to public bodies live is not recorded centrally and it is therefore not possible to give the details requested.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to upgrade the capacity of the National Grid to enable further development of renewable energy in the Scottish Highlands; and if he will make a statement. [41587]

  Ms Hewitt
  I published on 13 February a preliminary feasibility study, undertaken for my Department by PB Power Ltd., of the concept of a subsea electricity interconnector along the western seaboard of the United Kingdom. This initial study sustains the validity of the concept while being realistic about the costs and difficulties.

  In partnership with the Scottish companies, the National Grid Company and the regulator, the Government intend to move forward to a more detailed and comprehensive study on options for the development of the transmission system within Scotland and from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom. I expect conclusions and firm recommendations
  674W
  on the way forward to be available within six months. Whatever we do will extend to the north and west of Scotland, including the islands.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to provide an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight of 9 January 2002, Ref 25387. [35523]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 13 February 2002]: I replied to the hon. Member on 13 February 2002, Official Report, column 440W.

  Export Contracts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the proportion of companies exporting goods and services which have lost export contracts owing to language difficulties in each of the last five years for which the Government hold data; and if she will list the lost contracts. [38318]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]The DTI has been closely involved with a series of studies, both on its own behalf and in collaboration with other agencies, such as the Languages National Training Organisation, with a view to measuring the impact of language skills on export companies. These studies took place in 1997, 1999 and with the LNTO in 2001 and 2002. Details of lost contracts are not held on an individual company basis, though the number of exporting companies explicitly stating they had lost business due to language barriers varies from 5 per cent. to 21.6 per cent. The results in respect of lost business for each report are as follow:

  National Languages for Export Campaign (Language Studies)

  1997 =5 per cent.

  1997 = 7 per cent.

  Sample size-500 UK companies.

  Languages National Training Organisation (Regional Language Skills Capacity Audits)

  North East 2000 = 19 per cent.

  West Midlands 2001 = 21.6 per cent.

  Yorkshire and Humberside 2001 = 20 per cent.

  Note:

  Executive Summaries of the LNTO studies are published on the LNTO website: www.languagesnto.org.uk/index.php

  Rental Cost Indices
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the rental cost indices were for each nation and region of the UK where the GB level is used as the base figure in each of the last five years. [37571]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is not clear to what the hon. Member refers. If he would like to write to me in detail I will consider the points he raises.

  LNM Holdings
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has held with LNM Holdings on the possible imposition of tariffs on overseas steel imports by the US Government. [38849]
  675W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The Department has not had any discussions with LNM Holdings regarding this issue.

  Space Satellites
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what space satellites that the UK is involved in operating and funding are used for(a) weather, (b).astronomy, (c) spying and (d) other purposes; [41330]

  List of operational satellites which the UK Government were involved in funding and/or are involved in operating in whole or in part

  Satellite

  Launch year

  Category

  Operator(s)

  Funding

  Ownership

  ECS-4

  1987

  Communications

  ESA

  Through ESA subscription

  ESA

  Meteosat-5

  1991

  Meteorological

  EUMETSAT

  Jointly funded with the other member states of EUMETSAT

  EUMETSAT

  Meteosat-6

  1993

  Meteorological

  EUMETSAT

  Jointly funded with the other member states of EUMETSAT

  EUMETSAT

  Hubble space telescope

  1990

  Astronomy

  NASA

  Through ESA subscription and NASA

  NASA

  Ulysses

  1990

  Solar system science

  ESA/NASA

  Through ESA subscription and NASA

  NASA

  ERS-1

  1991

  Earth observation/remote sensing

  ESA

  Jointly funded with ESA and its member states

  ESA

  ERS-2

  1995

  Earth observation/remote sensing

  ESA

  Jointly funded with ESA and its member states

  ESA

  SOHO

  1995

  Solar system science

  NASA

  Through ESA subscription

  ESA

  Meteosat-7

  1997

  Meteorological

  EUMETSAT

  Jointly funded with the other member states of EUMETSAT

  EUMETSAT

  Huygens

  1997

  Solar system science

  ESA

  Through ESA subscription

  ESA

  XMM-Newton

  1999

  Astronomy

  ESA

  Through ESA subscription

  ESA

  Cluster

  2000

  Solar system science

  ESA

  Through ESA subscription

  ESA

  Artemis

  2001

  Communications

  ESA Jointly funded with ESA (and its member states) and Japan

  ESA

  Envisat

  2002

  Earth observation/remote sensing

  ESA

  Jointly funded with ESA and its member states

  ESA

  List of future satellites which the UK Government have made a commitment to fund or operate in whole or in part

  Satellite

  Launch year

  Category

  Operator(s)

  Funding

  Ownership

  Integral

  2002

  Astronomy

  ESA

  Through ESA funding

  ESA

  MSG-11

  2002

  Meteorological

  EUMETSAT

  Shared funding with ESA (and its and member states) EUMETSAT

  EUMETSAT

  SMART-1

  2002

  Technology demonstrator/solar system science

  ESA

  Shared funding with ESA and its member states

  ESA

  Rosetta

  2003

  Solar system science

  ESA

  Through ESA subscription

  ESA

  EGNOS

  2003

  Navigation

  ESA

  Shared funding with ESA and its member states

  ESA

  Mars Express2

  2003

  Solar system science

  ESA

  Through ESA subscription

  ESA

  Cryosat

  2004

  Earth observation/remote

  ESA

  Shared funding with ESA and its member states sensing

  ESA

  METOP-11

  2005

  Meteorological

  EUMETSAT

  Shared funding with ESA (and its member states) and EUMETSAT

  EUMETSAT

  UK disaster monitoring satellite

  2003

  Earth observation/remote sensing

  Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. Joint operation with Algeria's Centre National Des Techniques Spatiales, Nigeria's Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, and other potential overseas collaborating partners

  Shared funding with Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd., ESYS, Algeria's Centre National Des Techniques Spatiales, Nigeria's Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, and other potential overseas collaborating partners

  Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd.

  Gemini

  2004

  Geostationary satellite communications demonstrator

  Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. Operating agreement with Nigeria's Federal Ministry of Science and Technology

  Shared funding with SSTL and Nigeria's Federal Ministry of Science and Technology

  Surrey satellite Technology Ltd.

  Top Sat

  2004

  Earth observation/remote sensing (high resolution imagery demonstrator)

  QinetiQ Ltd./Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd.

  UK Government funding

  ESA

  GOCE

  2004

  Earth observation/remote

  ESA

  Shared funding with ESA and its member states

  ESA

  SMOS

  2006

  Earth observation/remote sensing

  ESA

  Shared funding with ESA and its member states

  ESA

  676W
  (2) how many space satellites the UK (a) owns and (b) jointly runs and funds; and with whom the joint agreements are. [41329]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's civil space activities are co-ordinated through the British National Space Centre, an interdepartmental body which is situated in my Department. Details of the civil operational satellites, which the Government have contributed to, are listed in the following table.
  677W

  List of future satellites which the UK Government have tnade a commitment to fund or operate in whole or in part

  Satellite

  Launch year

  Category

  Operators)

  Funding

  Ownership

  ADM

  2006

  Earth observation/remote sensing

  ESA

  Shared funding with ESA and its member states

  ESA

  SMOS

  2005

  Earth observation/remote sensing

  ESA

  Shared funding with ESA and its memberstates

  ESA

  Herschel

  2007

  Astronomy

  ESA

  Through ESA subscription

  ESA

  Plank

  2007

  Astronomy

  ESA

  Through ESA subscription

  ESA

  1 Series of 3

  2 Including UK-led lander

  The Government also fund instruments to be flown on satellites owned by others—for example the NASA swift and stereo missions. The procurement and operation of satellites for military communications is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. In addition, licences have been granted to UK companies—for example, Inmarsat, ICO, Surrey Satellite Technology and Europe*Star—to operate particular satellites. Details of these satellites can be found on the regulatory affairs section of the British National Space Centre's website http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many wind farms there are in the UK; and how many are(a) offshore and (b) on land. [41327]

  Mr. Wilson
  My reply is based on the best available information, but this may not be wholly accurate, up-to-date or comprehensive. Excluding very small projects (below 50 Kw installed capacity), the Department is aware of 113 wind farms currently operational in the UK, only one of which is based offshore.

  Details of most of these projects were given in my reply of 26 November 2001 to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), Official Report, columns 671–74W.

  In addition, the following wind farms have been added to our records since my earlier reply:

  England

  Out Newton, Southfield Farm, Hull, Humberside

  Hedley Hope, Bishop Auckland, County Durham

  Tow Law, Crook, County Durham

  Wales

  Cemmaes B. Windfarm, Cemmaes, Machynlleth, Powys

  Scotland

  Beinn-An-Tuirc, Near Carradale, Mull of Kintyre

  Cnoc Donn Arniele, Near Carradale, Mull of Kintyre Deucheran Hill, Kintyre, Argyll

  Bu Farm, Rothiesholm, Stronsay, Orkney

  Myres Hill. South of Eaglesham, Galloway

  Sainsbury's Distribution Depot, Langlands Park, East Kilbride.

  The wind farm off the coast at Blyth, Northumberland is the only UK wind farm currently based offshore. Between now and 2004, the Government are making available up to £74 million for capital grants for the
  678W
  emerging UK offshore wind industry, in addition to the substantial support for renewable energy generally provided through the Renewables Obligation.

  Correspondence
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 518W, how many letters her Department received in November 2001; and of these how many are still awaiting a reply. [40022]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department received 1,720 letters in November 2001 of which 21 replies are still outstanding.

  Computer Ownership
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what information she has collated on figures for the ratio of computer ownership per household in(a) the USA, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Japan and (e) the UK; [33433]

  (2) if she will publish figures for the ratio of computer ownership per household. [33339]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. David Drew, dated 11 March 2002 The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions regarding information on computer ownership per household. I am replying in his absence. (33433, 33339)
  Our latest estimate for 2001 is that 49 per cent. of households in the UK had a home computer. This is an increase from 44 per cent. in 2000 when the comparable figures for other countries were: USA and Japan 51 per cent., France 27 per cent. and Germany 32 per cent.

  Engineering Industry
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response she has made to the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council document measuring the mathematics problem, with specific reference to levels of skills in basic mathematics and preparation for mathematics based degree courses. [39702]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  The Secretary of State has not been formally presented with this report. However, Ministers are currently considering the issues set out in the report.
  679W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Licence Fee
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when regulations will be laid to bring into effect the television licence fee increases due to come into force on 1 April. [42701]

  Tessa Jowell
  On 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 531W, the Government announced that, from 1 April 2002, the fee for a colour television licence would rise to £112 and the black and white licence fee to £37.50. I have today laid before the House the regulations necessary to bring these new fees into force.

  Gaming and Lotteries (Fees)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to amend the fees for gaming and lotteries. [42700]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have today laid before the House two Orders under the Gaming Act 1968 and one under each of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, and the Gaming (Bingo) Act 1985.

  The Gaming Board and the Government review gaming fees and the fees for society and local authority lotteries every year. The amended fees in the four Orders are based upon estimates by the Gaming Board of the cost of each service and demand for it during the financial year 2002–03.

  We have set the fees at these levels in order to ensure that they recoup the estimated costs of ensuring the proper regulation of the commercial gaming industry and society lotteries during the year. The four Orders will bring revised fees into effect from 1 April 2002. The following table sets out the current and the new levels of all the fees.

  £

  Fee

  Level of fee in 2001–02

  Level of fee in 2002–03

  Employee's certificate1

  145

  160

  Gaming machine supplier licence2

  New

  5,623

  5,800

  Renewal

  3,753

  3,970

  Casino licences

  Grant

  26,349

  28,915

  Renewal

  7,325

  7,950

  Transfer

  5,898

  7,665

  Consent application

  6,810

  8,000

  Consent transfer

  3,405

  5,000

  Bingo licences

  Grant

  2,940

  3,800

  Renewal

  1,357

  1,450

  Transfer

  1,030

  1,545

  Consent application

  3,260

  7,500

  Consent transfer

  2,630

  5,000

  National Bingo Game

  New

  150,168

  167,000

  Renewal

  144,576

  160,000

  Lotteries

  Gaming Board fee per lottery raising:

  £200,000 or more

  404

  435

  £50,000 to £199,999

  263

  290

  680W

  £

  Fee

  Level of fee in 2001–02

  Level of fee in 2002–03

  £20,000 to £49,999

  86

  100

  £10,000 to £19,999

  86

  100

  Less than £10,000

  82

  100

  Registration fe3

  3,840

  4,600

  Registration renewal fee

  142

  180

  Lottery manager

  5,470

  14,220

  Inspection of lottery returns

  5

  10

  Registered club fees

  Part II registration:

  New

  235

  235

  Renewal

  118

  120

  Part III registration:

  New

  115

  115

  Renewal

  69

  70

  1 Section 19, Gaming Act 1968

  2 s.27, Gaming Act 1968

  3 For society and local authority lotteries

  Gambling Controls
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of the effect of the independent review of the gambling controls in Great Britain on(a) jobs,(b) businesses and (c) Government revenue. [41497]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 345W.

PRIME MINISTER

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in his Office should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40444]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by.my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 421W.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what the cost was of hotel accommodation for his Office's staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [40943]

  The Prime Minister
  Information on the total travel and accommodation costs is included in the detailed list of Cabinet Ministers visits overseas and information on expenditure by all Ministers on travel overseas. Lists of overseas visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 during the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2001 were placed in the Library of the House and published in the Official Report on 17 June 1999, columns 196–97W; on 28 July 2000, column 969W;and on 20 July 2001, column 467W. The list for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.
  681W
  Information on the cost of other hotel accommodation is not held centrally.

  Golden Jubilee
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received for the award of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal from those who are to be excluded; and if he will make a statement. [41455]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received representations on this matter.

  The medal will be issued to members of the armed forces and Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the '999' emergency services who completed a minimum of five years' reckonable service on 6 February 2002—the 50th anniversary of the Queens Accession.

  Waste
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Performance and Innovation Unit will(a) complete and (b) publish its report on waste policy. [41827]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) on 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 337W.

  Steel Industry
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions took place on the subject of the proposed steel works in Romania between Mr. Jonathan Powell and HM Ambassador to Romania prior to the ambassador's advice to the Government to write a letter in support of Mr. Mittal's bid. [41865]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Gibraltar
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Gibraltar to gauge the opinions of the people of Gibraltar on the question of British sovereignty. [42384]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government stand by the commitment set out in the preamble to the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution that we will not enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar will pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. Any proposals emerging from the Brussels process would be implemented only in the event of an affirmative vote by the people of Gibraltar in a referendum.

  BP Signing Ceremony
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister who(a) organised and (b) proposed the signing ceremony at 10 Downing street involving BP on 18 November 1997. [41975]

  The Prime Minister
  As was stated in the Lobby briefing on 18 November 1997, I witnessed the BP signing ceremony between the Chief Executive John Browne and the Chief Executive of Omexim Bank,682W
  Vladmir Potanin and Victor Ott the Russian First Deputy Minister of Fuel and Energy at Downing street.

  Parliamentary Debates
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has spoken in the House, other than in statements or questions, and for how long, in each year since May 1997. [42137]

  The Prime Minister
  It is long-standing convention that the Prime Minister answers weekly questions in the House. Since 1997 I have spent 75 hours in the House answering questions. I have also made 42 statements.

  In addition, I have made speeches on the elections of the Speaker in 1997 and 2000, Official Report, 7May 1997 and 23 October 2000; Debates on the Address, Official Report, 14 May 1997, 24 November 1998, 17 November 1999, 6 December 2000 and 20 June 2001; the Humble Address: Hundredth Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Official Report, 11 July 2000; the Opposition Day on Parliament and the Executive, Official Report, 13 July 2000; and the Retirement of Madam Speaker, Official Report, 26 July 2000.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 291, if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions regarding the exclusion of Zimbabwe from the 2002 Commonwealth Games. [41919]

  The Prime Minister
  Arrangements for the Games, including participation, are the responsibility of the Commonwealth Games Federation. We are not aware of any discussions having taken place regarding the exclusion of Zimbabwe from the 2002 Commonwealth Games but will keep the situation under review.

  As I made clear in my statement last week, the Presidents of South Africa and Nigeria, and the Prime Minister of Australia, will be considering what action to take on Zimbabwe in the light of the findings of the Commonwealth observer team currently monitoring Zimbabwe's Presidential election. Should the Commonwealth, on the basis of these findings, decide Zimbabwe should be suspended from the organisation, Zimbabwe would become ineligible to compete in the Games.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the annual budget for communications activities, including press, public relations, marketing and internal communications, was for her Department for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [39914]

  Clare Short
  Our budget for press office costs over the last three years has been as follows.
  683W

  £000

  1999–2000

  149

  2000–01

  117

  2001–02

  1132

  1 to date

  Figures for the previous two years are not readily accessible. We do not hold separate budgets for public relations or marketing. We have an overall programme of public information work, which forms part of our effort to raise awareness and understanding of international development issues in the UK. Spending under this programme in the last five years has been as follows:

  £000

  1997£98

  407

  1998£99

  683

  1999£2000

  880

  2000£01

  1,487

  2001£02

  11,264

  1 to date

  Internal communications work is also, by its nature, spread across a wide range of activities and functions. However our core central system in this regard is our intranet. The annual budget for this, as well as for our wider knowledge sharing work, is expected to be around £150,000.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with representatives of the International Labour Organisation on child labour; and which issues were discussed. [40517]

  Clare Short
  Officials from my Department are in regular contact with the ILO as part of our Partnership Framework arrangement. Child labour is an important element of our partnership. Issues discussed recently have included our support to the ILO's International Programme for the elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) and its activities in south-east Asia, India and Bangladesh.

  Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on international educational developments since the Dakar Conference, with particular reference to the completion of national educational development programmes and progress towards universal primary education. [40892]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 334W.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which DFID-funded projects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been damaged by Israeli retaliatory attacks; what the damage incurred was; and what was the value of the damage sustained. [40624]

  Clare Short
  The conflict and closures have had a major impact on all development projects. The only direct damage to a DFID-funded project of which we are aware 684W
  from Israeli military activity has been to a community centre in Rafah, part of a water and sanitation project funded through Save the Children Fund. The final cost has not yet been confirmed. 60 houses have also been damaged in Rafah, affecting 100 potential project beneficiaries.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what success the DFIDfunded water and sanitation projects in(a) Rafah, (b) Tabalra, (c) Dura and (d) Arabia have had in improving water supplies to the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories. [40622]

  Clare Short
  The project in Rafah has led to improvements in both he quality and quantity of water. Sanitary standards have also increased as the majority of households are now connected to a new sewage network. But Rafah is a target for the Israeli military. This has disrupted project implementation.

  The establishment of a water network and communal cisterns, and the rehabilitation of springs have increased the quality and volume of water in Dura. At least 75 per cent. of households are connected to the new sewage network. Access and mobility are easier in Dura, but the Israeli port authorities have embargoed important water meters.

  Significant progress in both water and sanitation has also been made in Anabta and Jabalia, the two other towns covered by the project. We do not have any activities in Arabia or Tabalra.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the EU with a view to calling for reparations from Israel for the destruction of and damage to the European-financed development projects in Gaza and the West Bank at(a) the Gaza International Airport, (b) the Office of the Palestinian Statistical System and (c) the Voice of Palestine Radio Station in Ramallah. [40625]

  Clare Short
  The Presidency, with full UK support, has conveyed the EU's grave concern to the Israeli Government. It has been made clear that we view the damage and destruction of all EU-financed development projects in the Palestinian Territories to be out of proportion to any military, security, or political needs. Financial compensation may be sought. A provisional assessment has been made of the affected projects. It has been emphasised that this is not simply an accounting exercise to form the basis of a financial claim; such actions are counter-productive and perpetuate the cycle of violence.

  Sexual and Reproductive Health
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what account is taken of the religious and cultural values of people in developing countries before her Department funds organisations providing sexual and reproductive health assistance. [41968]

  Clare Short
  My Department recognises that sexual and reproductive health programmes must honour the principles of freedom of choice agreed at the UN conference in Cairo and will only be successful if full
  685W
  account is taken of the religious and cultural values of those the programmes are intended to help. We only work with organisations that also recognise this approach.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make it her policy that rail.journeys undertaken by staff in her Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40433]

  Clare Short
  Our policy on rail travel has been in place for many years and is derived from guidance which applied across the civil service. It has served us well but we propose to review it to define more clearly that the class of travel should be determined by business need not the grade of the traveller.

  Tanzania
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact on the development of Tanzania of the terms of the loan provided by Barclays bank to fund the purchase of the air traffic control system for Tanzania; and if she will make a statement. [41450]

  Clare Short
  The IMF and the World Bank have conducted assessments of the impact on the development of Tanzania of the air traffic control purchase. This has included examining both the terms of the loan from Barclays bank and the value for money of the proposed purchase.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether she has made an assessment of the bidding process conducted by the Tanzanian Government to select a supplier of an air traffic control system; and if she will make a statement. [41449]

  Clare Short
  DFID has not made an assessment of the bidding process conducted by the Tanzanian Government to select a supplier of an air traffic control system.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether she has had discussions with representatives of Barclays bank concerning the provision of a loan to the Tanzanian Government for the purchase of an air traffic control system from BAE; and if she will make a statement. [41451]

  Clare Short
  Neither I nor officials from my Department have had discussions with representatives of Barclays bank concerning a loan to the Government of Tanzania to buy an air traffic control system from BAE.

  India
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which projects are funded in India by her Department; and what the cost is of each project. [40522]

  Clare Short
  My Department is funding around 100 development projects in India with a total commitment of about £1.2 billion. We expect our bilateral assistance to India in the current financial year to total £170 million. Our programme of development assistance in India is aimed at the elimination of poverty principally through partnership with government at both national and state levels.
  686W
  A copy of our Country Strategy Paper for India is available in the Library of the House, further information is also available in Statistics on International Development which is also in the Library.

  Zimbabwe
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has made for supporting the reconstruction of Zimbabwe in the immediate aftermath of the presidential elections in the event of President Mugabe losing the election. [40658]

  Clare Short
  The UK is working closely with key stakeholders and the international community to ensure support of any Government committed to reform and the pursuit of sound economic policies and the reduction of poverty in Zimbabwe.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent meetings officials in her Department have had with representatives of Southern African Development Community regarding the reconstruction of Zimbabwe. [40659]

  Clare Short
  Our contacts with SADC member states over Zimbabwe have included discussions on the need for future external support for reform, sound economic policies and poverty reduction.

  Afghanistan
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to achieve an expansion of the mine action programme in Afghanistan. [40657]

  Clare Short
  We have been supporting mine clearance in Afghanistan for many years. We have allocated £3 million through the United Nations Afghanistan Emergency Trust Fund for future humanitarian mine action interventions. This will cover mine clearance operations in Afghanistan, such as training, clearance of cluster bombs and other unexploded ordnance (UXO) and mines awareness activities. In addition we have provided £150,000 for the cost of two dedicated airlifts of demining equipment for the HALO Trust to begin demining operations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for 1997–98 and each subsequent financial year the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies in respect of hotel and other similar privately provided accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) other persons; if he will list the proportion of this cost incurred in respect of(x) food and (y) alcohol in each case; and if he will list the average cost per hotel room or similar unit of accommodation provided in each case. [34375]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 559–60W.
  687W

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people are employed in his Department on a job-share contract; and what percentage of vacant positions was advertised on this basis in the last 12 months. [35360]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  44 people are currently employed on job-share contracts. 45 per cent. of positions were advertised externally as potential job-shares in 2001. Job-sharing is only one of a number of alternative and flexible working patterns in use at present. We currently have 92 part-time workers and 13 employees working compressed hours. Other arrangements include staggered hours, flexi-time, home working, school working hours, term time working and time off in lieu.

  Lord Levy
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the access of Lord Levy to departmental papers differs from that of Ministers. [39047]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Lord Levy sees papers and official documents required for his role as Prime Minister's envoy. Ministers see papers and official documents required for their role as Ministers.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of Lord Levy in his Department. [39049]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Lord Levy acts and travels as the Prime Minister's envoy as required. He reports to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the countries visited by Lord Levy in his capacity as a special envoy of the British Government. [39048]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: As the Prime Minister's envoy, Lord Levy has visited Mexico, Venezuela, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain, Tunisia, Qatar, Egypt and Morocco. He has also had discussions about the middle east peace process in France, Germany and the USA.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the overseas Governments with which Lord Levy has undertaken business on behalf of the Government. [39044]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: As the Prime Minister's envoy, Lord Levy has had discussions with the Governments of Mexico, Venezuela, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Bahrain, Tunisia, Qatar, Egypt, Morocco and the Palestinian Authority as well of course with our other close allies.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the accommodation and staff assigned to Lord Levy within his Department. [39045]
  688W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Lord Levy has an office in the FCO main building in London. He receives assistance from FCO officials as required in support of his role as the Prime Minister's envoy.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will use the forthcoming session of the UNHCR to call for Indonesia's Law on Human Rights Courts to be amended so that it is consistent with international standards; [40540]

  (2) if he will raise at the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights the issue of the human rights situation in Indonesia with particular reference to (a) extra judicial killings, (b) disappearances, (c) torture and (d) unlawful detention in Aceh and Papua. [40539]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are discussing with EU partners what, if any, action to take on Indonesia at the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Indonesia is likely to be included in the EU Omnibus Country Statement on Human Rights in any part of the world. And, as in recent years, the EU is planning to table a Chairman's Statement on the situation in East Timor.

  Meanwhile, we continue to apply pressure on the Government of Indonesia bilaterally and through the European Union for Indonesia to comply fully with its international human rights obligation.

  Our Ambassador in Jakarta last raised the issue of human rights in Indonesia when he met with Bambang Yudhoyono the Co-ordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs on 1 March.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in his Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40445]

  Mr. MacShane
  In practice, many staff already travel at standard class unless, for example, they need extra space to work during travel. Staff are encouraged to use standard class on short journeys, especially when they are made at off-peak times.

  Israel
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists(a) since 7 March 2001 and (b) during the 12 months prior to that date. [40964]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As I said to my right hon. Friend in my previous answer on the same subject on 6 December 2001, casualty figures can be unreliable. Israeli Government figures show that about 65 Israelis were killed in the twelve months before 7 March 2001, and 255 since then to 6 March. From the start of the intifada in September 2000 to the end of February 2002, 1,087 Palestinians have been killed, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
  689W
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether British-made components are in use on(a)) Israeli Apache helicopters, (b)) Merkave tanks, (c) F16 jets and (d) armoured personnel carriers; and if he will make a statement. [40796]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In answer to(a), (b) and (c), we have no evidence that equipment or components manufactured in the UK and licensed for export by this Government have been used by Israeli forces against civilians in the Occupied Territories during the recent and continued violence. We would plainly be most concerned if such evidence came to light.

  New information has, however, come to light that UK supplied equipment licensed for export under a previous Administration and a different export control regime is being used by the Israelis in the Occupied Territories. The Israelis have modified a number of Centurion tanks, exported to Israel between 1958 and 1970, into armoured personnel carriers.

  This contradicts a written assurance that the Israeli Government gave us on 29 November 2000 that
  "no UK originated equipment nor any UK originated systems/sub-systems/components are used as part of the Israel Defence Force's activities in the Territories"

  We shall be seeking an explanation from the Israeli Government. I shall inform my hon. Friend and the House of the outcome.

  We consider all export licence applications to Israel on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, taking careful account on a case by case basis of the nature of the equipment and the proposed end-use and end-user.

  Overseas Representatives (Business Promotion)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a British ambassador or high commissioner has, since the beginning of this Parliament, submitted a draft letter for the Prime Minister in support of the commercial activities of a British company other than that submitted by the British ambassador to Romania in connection with the acquisition of Sidex by Mr. Lakshmi Mittal's company. [39715]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 February 2002, Official Report, columns 610–11W.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions and guidance his Department has given to British ambassadors and high commissioners overseas as to the circumstances in which they should seek a letter from the Prime Minister in support of the commercial activities of a British company; and if he will place a copy of such instructions and guidance in the Library. [39721]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]Ministers write frequently in support of UK commercial interests in overseas markets with each case considered on its merits.
  690W

  Drug Trafficking (Central Asia)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Turkey concerning the cultivation and trafficking of poppies originating in Afghanistan; [41627]

  (2) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Pakistan concerning the measures it is taking to prevent the trafficking of poppies and heroin between Afghanistan and other countries in Central Asia; [41625]

  (3) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Kazakhstan concerning the measures it is taking to prevent the trafficking of poppies and heroin between Afghanistan and those countries in Central Asia; [41641]

  (4) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Iran concerning the measures it is taking to prevent the trafficking of poppies and heroin between Afghanistan and those countries in Central Asia; [41636]

  (5) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Kyrgyzstan concerning the measures it is taking to prevent the trafficking of poppies and heroin between Afghanistan and other countries in Central Asia; [41634]

  (6) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Kyrgyzstan concerning the cultivation and trafficking of poppies originating in Kyrgyzstan; [41635]

  (7) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Tajikistan concerning the measures it is taking to prevent the trafficking of poppies and heroin between Afghanistan and other countries in Central Asia; [41633]

  (8) what recent discussions his Department has had with the United States Government concerning the cultivation and trafficking of poppies originating in Afghanistan; [41628]

  (9) what reports his Department has received on changes in the level of cultivation and trafficking of poppies in (a) Afghanistan and (b) other Central Asian countries since the establishment of Afghanistan's interim Government; [41626]

  (10) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Afghanistan concerning the measures it is taking to prevent the trafficking of poppies and heroin between Afghanistan and other countries in Central Asia; [41631]

  (11) what recent discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts concerning the cultivation and trafficking of poppies originating in Afghanistan; [41629]

  (12) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Pakistan concerning the cultivation and trafficking of poppies originating in Pakistan; [41624]
  691W
  (13) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Uzbekistan concerning the cultivation and trafficking of poppies originating in Uzbekistan; [41640]

  (14) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Kazakhstan concerning the cultivation and trafficking of poppies originating in Kazakhstan; [41642]

  (15) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Uzbekistan concerning the measures it is taking to prevent the trafficking of poppies and heroin between Afghanistan and other countries in Central Asia; [41623]

  (16) what recent discussion his Department has had with the Government of Turkmenistan concerning the measures it is taking to prevent the trafficking of poppies and heroin between Afghanistan and other countries in Central Asia; [41639]

  (17) what recent discussion his Department has had with the Government of Iran concerning the cultivation and trafficking of poppies originating in Iran; [41637]

  (18) what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Tajikistan concerning the cultivation and trafficking of poppies originating in Tajikistan; [41632]

  (19) what recent discussions his Department has had with the interim Government of Afghanistan concerning the cultivation and trafficking of poppies originating in Afghanistan.[41630]

  Mr. Straw
  The cultivation and trafficking of opiates is of serious concern to the UK. The UK maintains a dialogue, and co-operates closely, with the EU and G8 countries as well as all countries in south-west and Central Asia. The Bonn Agreement concluded in December 2001 urged the international community to assist the Afghan Interim Authority to combat the cultivation and trafficking of illicit drugs. When I met Hamid Karzai, the Chairman of the Interim Administration, during my visit to India at the end of last month I stressed the importance of progress on tackling drugs. Mr. Karzai has already signalled his intent by announcing in January a ban on drugs production, processing and trafficking. The international community, including the UK, has expressed its determination to help the Afghan authorities to implement this ban as soon as possible.

  It was decided at the Tokyo Reconstruction conference in January that drugs should be treated as a cross-cutting issue and that drugs-related objectives should therefore be reflected in all assistance programmes. The UK pledged £200 million at Tokyo which, among other things, will be aimed at projects designed to reduce the dependence of the Afghan economy on drugs.

  In financial year 2002–03 the FCO will provide around £4.5 million for practical anti-drugs assistance in the form of training and equipment to countries in south-west and Central Asia.

  A UNDCP report published at the end of February 2002 stated that between 1,900 and 2,700 tones of opium would be produced in Afghanistan this year. Opium production in other south-west and Central Asian countries is negligible by comparison.
  692W
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Turkmenistan concerning the cultivation and trafficking of poppies originating in Turkmenistan. [41638]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).

  Death Penalty
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that there will be a resolution condemning the use of the death penalty at the forthcoming session of the Commission on Human Rights. [41284]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since the death penalty was removed from the statute book in 1998, the UK has gained a reputation as a leading advocate for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide. As in recent years, the EU will table a resolution on the death penalty at the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The UK will be contributing fully to this resolution and will be working hard to ensure that it receives maximum support in the CHR.

  World Conference Against Racism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to encourage the 2002 Commission on Human Rights to adopt a resolution calling on all Governments to implement the Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Conference against Racism. [40015]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK reaffirmed its commitment to combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in the UN General Assembly Third Committee when it co-sponsored a Resolution that endorsed the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action which was passed on 26 February. The UK will be working closely with other nations to ensure that the Resolution at the CHR promotes the follow-up agreed in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

  Torture Convention
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to encourage the adoption of the Draft Protocol to the Torture Convention at the 2002 Commission on Human Rights. [40016]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK supports the Draft Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture (OP/CAT) and believes it would make an important contribution to preventing and eradicating torture. We are continuing to work closely with EU partners and others to make the protocol a reality; the EU is in contact with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Optional Protocol Working Group to discuss next steps, including promoting the Optional Protocol at the Commission on Human Rights.

  European Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to whom the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is accountable; and when he last met(a) the president and (b) the UK director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. [40374]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is accountable to the 62 Governments and institutions that hold shares in it. The UK Government are one of these shareholders.

  The EBRD is governed by 62 governors appointed by the shareholders. The board of governors meets once a year and holds full power over the bank. Governors have delegated responsibility for most general operations of the bank to a board of 23 directors. The powers and responsibilities of the governors and directors are set out in full in the agreement establishing the EBRD (available at www.ebrd.com).

  In the case of the UK, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the UK governor and I am the UK alternate governor. My Department takes lead policy responsibility for EBRD on most issues. The UK director is a DFID official on secondment.

  I have met the President of the EBRD on a number of occasions.

  Parliamentary Debates
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the information which underlay the statement of the hon. Member for Exeter on 6 March in Westminster Hall that the Prime Minister has spent more time in the House answering questions and making statements than either of his two predecessors. [42187]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 11 March (UIN 42137).

SCOTLAND

  Electricity Act
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on the consequences for energy supply of section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989; and if she will make a statement. [41984]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of matters.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action she is taking to encourage insurance companies to reduce the delay in making payments to those with asbestos-related diseases in Scotland. [41434]

  Mrs. Liddell
  On Wednesday 6 March I chaired a meeting of parties involved in handling asbestos claims related to Chester Street Insurance Holding Ltd. Present 694W
  at the meeting were PricewaterhouseCoopers (the Chester Street administrators); the Association of British Insurers; the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and Iron Trades Management Services (claims handlers).

  At the meeting, I made it very clear that delays in dealing with agreed claims are not acceptable. All parties acknowledged that agreed claims should be paid as quickly and as efficiently as possible. The administrators, the ABI, the FSCS and ITMS made the point to me that the arrangements set up following the insolvency of Chester Street are unique. There had been complexities, particularly in relation to establishing liabilities. In some cases, solvent policyholders (i.e. the companies, or their successors, for whom the claimants had originally worked) have been traced and their liabilities have had to be established. However, this type of work has now largely been completed. As a result, it should be possible to process claims payments more quickly in the future.

  In a number of cases, those present at the meeting indicated that settlement forms had been sent out to claimants' lawyers, for the claimant to sign. Clearly, it is important for these forms to be signed and returned as soon as possible, to speed the process along.

  I am anxious to ensure that individual claimants are kept informed of the process. It was agreed that a newsletter will be produced within the next week, to be distributed to Members of Parliament with a constituency interest. We will also consider other ways of keeping individual claimants informed.

  We also discussed whether it would be possible to establish a system so that once a claim against Chester Street is agreed, the claimant would know how long it should take for the claim to be processed. The administrators, the ABI, FSCS and ITMS agreed to consider this further and report back to me.

  I will convene a further meeting in six weeks' time to discuss the claims handling process. I made it clear that, when this next meeting takes place, I want to see significant progress made in paying claims. We will invite other relevant parties to the meeting, such as claimants' solicitors. We will also have detailed statistical information available on the number of claims made; the number settled and the number still outstanding.

  The Government are determined to make sure that the arrangements put in place following the insolvency of Chester Street last year work as efficiently and as quickly as possible.

TREASURY

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the job advertisements placed by his Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39062]

  Ruth Kelly
  The details held centrally in respect of job advertisements placed by Departments and agencies of the Chancellor have been deposited in the Library of the House. In each case details for the latest 12 months available have been provided.
  695W
  Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue, including Valuation Office, delegate much of their recruitment to their various business elements. In consequence the amount of information held centrally is limited.

  Premium Bonds
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the yield rates on premium bonds in each of the last five years. [42311]

  Ruth Kelly
  The rate of interest used to calculate the size of the monthly premium bond prize fund is a variable rate that can be changed on giving three months' notice. The rates that have applied over the last five years are as follows:

  Rate per annum (percentage)

  Effective from

  4.75

  1 May 1996

  5.0

  1 November 1997

  4.5

  1 March 1999

  4.0

  1 April 1999

  3.25

  1 June 1999

  3.5

  1January 2000

  3.75

  1 March 2000

  4.0

  1 May 2000

  4.25

  1 June 2000

  4.0

  1 April 2001

  3.75

  1 August 2001

  3.5

  1 September 2001

  3.25

  1 December 2001

  2.9

  1 February 2002

  2.4

  1 March 2002

  War Insurance Cover
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend war insurance cover for the airlines until the end of June. [R] [41191]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury announced on 21 January that the Troika insurance scheme that provides war insurance for the UK aviation industry would be extended for a final time until 20 March. I have nothing further to add to that announcement.

  A minute setting out the details of the scheme and the date on which it would end was laid before Parliament on 5 February. A copy was sent to the Transport and Treasury Select Committees.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate the Valuation Office has made of the likely annual receipts from charging care homes NNDR where they provide intermediate care. [41831]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Valuation Office Agency has no information regarding the number of intermediate care homes which exist at present, or are likely to be constructed or adapted in the future. It is unable to provide information regarding individual liability since this will depend on the size and location of the property in question. Nor does it have knowledge of the council tax liability which might accrue in such cases if they were not subject to business rates.
  696W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the decision of the Valuation Office to make care homes providing intermediate care liable for NNDR. [41830]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The decision as to whether a property should be entered in the valuation list for council tax, or the rating list for business rates, is based on the definition of domestic property in section 66 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. In short, if the accommodation is wholly or mainly provided for short periods to individuals whose sole or main residence is elsewhere then it will no longer be domestic and must be treated as non-domestic and, therefore, will be liable to business rates.

  Personal Allowance
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the distribution of benefits for the personal allowance by income deciles in(a) pounds per annum and (b) percentage terms; and if he will make a statement. [41310]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The reductions in income tax labilities of taxpayers from personal allowances by income decile are in the table.

  Tax reductions from personal allowances

  Income decile of taxpayers in 2001–02

  £ billion per annum

  As a percentageof income

  Top

  5.0

  3

  Second

  3.1

  4

  Third

  2.7

  4

  Fourth

  2.8

  5

  Fifth

  2.8

  6

  Sixth

  2.9

  8

  Seventh

  2.9

  9

  Eighth

  2.9

  11

  Ninth

  2.9

  14

  Bottom

  2.5

  16

  These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for which benefits he proposes the proposed pension credit and the general employment credit to be a passport. [41595]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The benefits passported from tax credits or social security benefits are the responsibility of the Departments that administer them, and it is they who set the rules for entitlement.

  The Treasury continues to discuss with the relevant Departments the effect of the new tax credits on the populations currently entitled to various passported benefits.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41057]
  697W
  Ruth Kelly
  The table shows the total cost of all hotel accommodation, subsistence allowances and associated expenditure for HM Treasury staff making official trips away from the office. No further disaggregation is available.

  Expenditure

  £000

  1997–98

  141

  1998–99

  162

  1999–2000

  210

  2000–01

  166

  Class 3 Contributions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been raised in each of the last three years by Class 3 contributions sent in from those resident abroad, broken down by country where this amounts to more than 5 per cent. of total numbers, and for the remainder collectively. [40688]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]Reliable information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the promotional campaigns for the WFTC have been evaluated by(a) the Government and (b) independent bodies on behalf of the Government; and if he will place copies of the reviews in the Library. [40452]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All working families tax credit promotional campaigns have been evaluated by independent external agencies managed by COI Communications Research Unit on behalf of Inland Revenue Marketing and Communications.

  Qualitative research has been undertaken to develop the creative proposals for the advertising campaigns and measure the effectiveness of the proposals to convey the campaign messages to the target audiences.

  Quantitative tracking research has also been organised to evaluate the success of the campaign, by measuring the awareness levels among the target audiences and understanding of the message. The Inland Revenue also monitors the number of calls to helplines, the number of booklets ordered and the take up of WFTC.

  The tracking research reports have not been placed in the House of Commons Library, but are held by Inland Revenue Marketing and Communications team and the COI Communications Research Unit. These reports are used to develop all following campaigns.

  Quantitative tracking research has been carried out five times since the first WFTC advertising campaign in 1999. Wave 1 was 1999, wave 2 and 3 in 2000, wave 4 in 2001 and wave 5 in 2002 (currently under way).

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the landfill tax proceeds have passed to Entrust in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 for (i) the UK and (ii) Scotland separately. [41199]
  698W
  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]Entrust, the regulator of the environmental bodies landfill tax credit scheme, receives none of the proceeds from landfill tax. Figures for contributions are collected by calendar year. Contributions made by landfill site operators under the scheme to environmental bodies are:

  £

  For the UK

  For Scotland

  1999

  82,676,183

  7,488,354

  2000

  96,221,885

  7,992,538

  2001

  115,774,454

  7,808,311

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been raised by the landfill tax in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 in (i) the UK and (ii) Scotland; and how much of this landfill tax has been used for tax credits in (A) 1998–99, (B) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 for (1) the UK and (2) Scotland. [41198]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]: Figures related to landfill tax receipts and environmental tax credits for the UK can be found in the HM Customs and Excise "Landfill Tax Factsheet", which is available in the Library.

  Separate figures for Scotland are not available. This is due to the method of calculation of the tax, where each landfill operator is registered according to the location of their head office.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the expenditure of Entrust has been in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 for (i) the UK and (ii) Scotland. [41200]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]Figures for expenditure by environmental bodies under the environmental bodies landfill tax credit scheme are collected by calendar year. They are:
  (i) For the UK:

  £

  1999

  46,835,182

  2000

  82,040,006

  2001

  117,659,082

  (ii) For Scotland:

  £

  1999

  5,475,538

  2000

  9,904,464

  2001

  2,670,705

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what landfill tax proceeds have passed to Entrust in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 for (i) the UK and (ii) Scotland. [36449]

  Mr. Boateng
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 February 2002, c. 10541W]:The information relating to landfill site operators' contributions should have been presented by

  699W
  calendar year, the basis on which Entrust calculates its figures, not by financial year. The table should have read:

  (i) For the UK:

  £

  1999

  82,676,183

  2000

  96,221,885

  2001

  115,774,454

  (ii) for Scotland:

  £

  1999

  7,488,354

  2000

  7,992,538

  2001

  7,808,311

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Entrust's expenditure was in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 for (i) the UK and (ii) Scotland. [36450]

  Mr. Boateng
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 February 2002, c. 1204 W]: The information relating to landfill site operators' contributions should have been presented by calendar year, the basis on which Entrust calculates its figures, not by financial year. The table should have read:

  (i) For the UK:

  £

  1999

  46,835,182

  2000

  82,040,006

  2001

  117,659,082

  (i) For the Scotland:

  £

  1999

  5,475.538

  2000

  9,904,464

  2001

  2,670,705

  Arthur Andersen
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names of the Arthur Andersen employees seconded to the Treasury between 1997 and 2001; and what their duties were. [33042]

  Teenage conceptions: numbers by age and health region 1996–2000

  Age at conception

  Year of conception and health region
  '
  <14

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  1996

  Northern and Yorkshire

  60

  317

  887

  2,052

  2,840

  3,228

  3,569

  Trent

  58

  210

  790

  1,535

  2,051

  2,440

  2,597

  Eastern

  25

  137

  485

  1,049

  1,661

  1,998

  2,336

  London

  71

  278

  823

  1,852

  2,919

  3,563

  4,490

  South East

  57

  225

  810

  1,907

  2,685

  3,306

  3,618

  South West

  39

  160

  447

  1,061

  1,553

  1,798

  2,021

  West Midlands

  57

  225

  821

  1,694

  2,327

  2,811

  3,131

  North West

  54

  256

  921

  2,168

  2,991

  3,438

  3,867

  Wales

  30

  153

  461

  966

  1,322

  1,568

  1,604

  700W
  Ruth Kelly
  Four people were seconded to HM Treasury from Arthur Andersen during the period 1997 to 2001. Details of current secondees from all sectors outside central Government can be found on the Treasury website.

  Private Sponsorship
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the events which have been sponsored by a private organisation in(a) his Department, (b) the Office of Government Commerce, (c) the Inland Revenue and (d) Customs and Excise since May 1997 and the names of the sponsoring organisations; and if he will make a statement. [32512]

  Ruth Kelly
  Records are not maintained centrally. Information in the format required could be obtained only at disproprtionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer the question of 31 January 2002 from the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell concerning sponsorship. [38299]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have replied to the hon. Gentleman today.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham can expect an answer to his Question tabled on 28 January, ref 31887. [42310]

  Ruth Kelly
  I very much regret that the hon. Member's earlier question has not yet been answered. I hope to be in a position to reply to him very soon.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many teenage pregnancies there were in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) age and (b) region. [42329]

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

  Letter from Len Coo to Tim Loughton, dated March 2002:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many teenage pregnancies there were in each of the last five year, broken down by (a) age and (b) region. (42329)

  Figures for the latest available five years, 1996–2000, are shown in the table.
  701W

  Teenage conceptions: numbers by age and health region 1996–2000

  Age at conception

  Year of conception and health region1

  <14

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  1997

  Northern and Yorkshire

  57

  309

  907

  1,996

  2,924

  3,459

  3,595

  Trent

  34

  217

  647

  1,460

  2,134

  2,605

  2,598

  Eastern

  25

  149

  457

  1,135

  1,721

  2,138

  2,351

  London

  57

  285

  799

  1,938

  2,896

  3,796

  4,489

  South East

  47

  262

  774

  1,823

  2,898

  3,436

  3,553

  South West

  34

  142

  422

  1,072

  1,532

  1,927

  1,975

  West Midlands

  52

  239

  721

  1,635

  2,574

  3,020

  3,031

  North West

  45

  245

  781

  2,059

  2,959

  3,666

  3,818

  Wales

  14

  116

  434

  940

  1,391

  1,570

  1,621

  1998

  Northern and Yorkshire

  63

  301

  856

  1,884

  2,975

  3,777

  3,909

  Trent

  56

  241

  672

  1,480

  2,317

  2,885

  2,936

  Eastern

  28

  156

  451

  1,108

  1,849

  2,298

  2,519

  London

  64

  280

  808

  1,852

  3,038

  4,157

  4,762

  South East

  54

  236

  773

  1,855

  2,997

  3,755

  4,005

  South West

  35

  144

  474

  1,065

  1,642

  2,130

  2,213

  West Midlands

  56

  227

  752

  1,567

  2,483

  3,116

  3,380

  North West

  39

  263

  826

  2,009

  3,113

  4,095

  4,099

  Wales

  28

  140

  429

  982

  1,451

  1,726

  1,746

  1999

  Northern and Yorkshire

  53

  260

  806

  1,908

  2,787

  3,515

  4,011

  Trent

  39

  204

  623

  1,428

  2,078

  2,748

  3,055

  Eastern

  27

  145

  455

  1,037

  1,756

  2,295

  2,477

  London

  71

  257

  730

  1,896

  3,021

  4,075

  4,894

  South East

  63

  256

  737

  1,754

  2,768

  3,570

  4,019

  South West

  28

  161

  469

  1,000

  1,513

  1,959

  2,229

  West Midlands

  49

  206

  635

  1,550

  2,398

  2,980

  3,445

  North West

  50

  258

  826

  1,904

  3,041

  3,746

  4,182

  Wales

  26

  119

  392

  857

  1,387

  1,739

  1,820

  20002

  Northern and Yorkshie

  43

  250

  805

  1,785

  2,667

  3,537

  3,794

  Trent

  40

  181

  590

  1,366

  2,042

  2,573

  3,024

  Eastern

  30

  153

  430

  1,113

  1,605

  2,157

  2,424

  London

  87

  303

  856

  1,892

  2,900

  4,057

  5,085

  South East

  47

  268

  792

  1,766

  2,736

  3,363

  4,043

  South West

  40

  153

  450

  984

  1,464

  1,966

  2,167

  West Midlands

  49

  234

  709

  1,512

  2,355

  3,021

  3,521

  North West

  38

  229

  840

  1,903

  2,983

  3,826

  4,192

  Wales

  21

  119

  354

  828

  1,327

  1,666

  1,851

  1 Boundaries as at 1 April 2001

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Insurance Premiums
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has evaluated the effect on the competitiveness of British businesses of increases in (a) employer liability insurance premiums and (b) other insurance premiums; and if he will make a statement. [39962]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government do not intervene in the setting of insurance premiums. These are currently increasing worldwide, not just in the UK.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who in his Department is responsible for co-ordinating export licence applications between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. [40255]
  702W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for co-ordinating export licence applications does not rest with the Treasury or any other department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Relevant Treasury teams may provide advice on the countries in question or on issues relating to international financial institutions.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the managers of pension funds about the impact of the new accounting standard FRS 17; and what assessment his Department has made of the effect of FRS 17 on pension funds. [40196]

  Ruth Kelly
  I meet representations of the pensions industry regularly and discuss a number of issues. However, the application of accounting standards, FRS 17 included, is a matter for the independent Accounting Standards Board.

  Independent School Fees
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the scope of VAT to include independent school fees. [40793]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no such plans.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what information is provided by information on business turnover collected by the Office for National Statistics which is not available to the Government from information collected by Customs and Excise; [40834]

  (2) for what reason the Office for National Statistics is required to collect turnover information from businesses. [40835]

  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. David Lidington, dated 11 March 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions on information collected on business turnover. (40834, 40835).

  The ONS collects monthly turnover data directly from businesses in the production, retail and services industries. These statistics are key inputs to monthly short-term indicators of economic activity such as the Index of Production, the Retail Sales Index and the Experimental Index of Services. The same data are used to give timely measures of quarterly Gross Domestic Product. These economic indicators are used by government and the public to help monitor the performance of the UK economy, and by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to help set interest rates. Other key users of the data are the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the European Union.

  Turnover information is also collected on an annual basis via the Annual Business Inquiry. Here it is one of a set of data items needed on a coherent basis from the annual accounts of a business and cannot be taken in isolation. This set of data is used to compile the National Accounts (including estimation of Gross Domestic Product and Investment) and for other important statistics such as Productivity. Key users again include the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the European Union.

  VAT returns made by businesses to Customs and Excise do include data on turnover. However VAT sources are far from ideal for the purposes of producing national statistics. The data are for the most part collected on a quarterly basis and they are less timely. Also, some businesses are exempt from VAT so that coverage is incomplete.

  The possible use of these returns to replace or partially replace directly collected survey data is part of ONS' long term strategic development programme. In 2000 a feasibility study suggested that it might be possible to use VAT sources more directly. In 2001 ONS piloted and introduced a secure system for transmitting VAT turnover data from Customs and Excise to ONS and confirmed that there would be no legal barriers to such data transfer. We plan to further develop the methodology adopted in the 2000 feasibility study, to prepare inputs to the Index of Production and Index of Services in parallel with those based on business surveys and to quality assure the alternative sources with key users. If this is successful ONS will then move to the much greater use of VAT returns.

  Cancer Deaths
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest assessment is of the number of 704W
  deaths from cancer which could be avoided in the UK each year if cancer survival rates were raised to the average level of other EU countries. [42286]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Tim Loughton, dated March 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of deaths from cancer which could be avoided in the UK each year if cancer survival rates were raised to the average level of other EU countries. (42286)
  The number requested is not readily available. Comparable survival rates do not exist for all EU countries or for the UK as a whole. The comparable figures that are available relate to the devolved administrations of the UK and those parts of EU countries that participated in the EUROCARE project.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the official visits (1) to(a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by each Minister in his Department in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on the choice of mode of travel for such visits; [38159]

  (2) within the UK outside London made by each Minister in his Department in 2001, giving for each (a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on choice of mode of travel for official visits. [38195]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 421W.

  Smaller Quoted Companies
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what incentives are in place to aid investment in research for smaller quoted companies; and what steps the Government are taking to make competition for investment capital less biased towards larger quoted companies. [40248]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An R&D tax credit for small and medium sized companies was introduced in Budget 2000. The credit increases the tax deduction for current spending on qualifying R&D from 100 per cent. to 150 per cent., reducing the cash cost of R&D by 30 per cent. for a company paying tax at the small companies rate. The credit can also be paid to companies that are not yet in profit, at a rate of 24 per cent. An R&D tax credit for larger companies will be introduced in Budget 2002. There are also 100 per cent. allowances for R&D capital spending, which are available to all companies and allow immediate tax deductions for qualifying capital expenditure.

  The Government commissioned the Myners Review in 2000 to look at factors that may be distorting the investment decision-making of institutions. The review reported in March 2001 and found weaknesses in the investment process that affect all quoted companies, including smaller quoted companies. The Government have accepted all the recommendations made in the review in principle and have published consultation documents on specific issues that were highlighted.
  705W

  Equity
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government intend to define initial costs incurred as a result of raising equity as a legitimate expense and allow them to be written off against tax. [40250]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The costs of raising equity finance are treated consistently between taxable profits and commercial accounts—they are not allowed as a deduction against profits because they relate to ownership of the company. The Government have not stated any intention to change this rule.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Escapees
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the escaped terrorist prisoners who were on the run and have been granted early release under the terms of the Northern Ireland Sentences Act 1998. [41618]

  Dr. John Reid
  11 prisoners on the run have successfully applied to the Sentence Review Commissioners for early release under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. In addition eight prisoners on the run have met the principles of the early release scheme but a strict application of the Sentences Act has created an anomaly whereby the Sentence Review Commissioners are unable to grant an early release. In those circumstances the Secretary of State's powers under the Northern Ireland Prisons Act 1953 or the Royal Prerogative of Mercy have been used to provide early release. It has always been the Government's policy that they do not name individuals released under the early release scheme.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the terrorists who are on the run from justice and who may benefit from future amnesty legislation. [41617]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Government have acknowledged that there is an issue concerning fugitives on the run who would stand to benefit from the early release scheme if they were convicted. As part of the package of measures proposed at Weston Park last July the Government made a commitment to take steps to resolve this issue. The Government are currently considering how to take this forward. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Ballistic Protection Kits
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many reclaimed ballistic protection kits have been(a) taken out of service and (b) retained for future use in the event of increased security demands. [30417]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable advises me that:

  (a) No Land Rover protection kits have been taken out of service. 70 armoured saloon protection kits have been taken out of service and recycled.

  (b) Reclaimed ballistic protection kits are always recycled and therefore not retained for future use.

  706W

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Data Protection
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the President of the Council what representations he has received on the responsibilities of hon. Members under the Data Protection Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [42121]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members about difficulties they are experiencing in dealing with constituency cases as a result of the Data Protection Act. At my instigation, officials are consulting their colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department about what changes might be needed to the present arrangements.

  Government Bills
  Norman Baker
  To ask the President of the Council how many Government Bills were announced in the Queen's Speech and were not introduced in the same Session of Parliament in the(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–12000 and (d) 2000–01 Sessions of Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [42123]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Subject to the exceptions set out, all legislation announced in Queen's Speeches from 1997–2000 was introduced during the same Session of Parliament.

  Queen's Speech 1998 announced our intention to introduce legislation to promote electronic commerce; the Electronic Communications Act was introduced the following Session.

  Queen's Speech 1999 announced our intention to introduce legislation to increase the effectiveness of the power to remove regulatory burdens and to improve the education of children with special educational needs; the Regulatory Reform Act and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act were introduced the following Session.

  Queen's Speech 2000 announced our intention to re-introduce legislation on giving courts the power to decide whether certain defendants should be tried by jury or by magistrates; the Government have subsequently announced their intention to bring forward legislation to reform the criminal courts system in the light of the recommendations from the review by Lord Justice Auld.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the average number of days of consideration for Government Bills in(a) the House of Commons and (b) the House of Lords in each parliamentary Session since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [42125]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Records are not kept in precisely the form required. The table' provides information on the time taken to consider Government Bills.

  1 Supplied by the Journal Offices in the Lords and the Commons.
  707W

  House of Commons

  Session

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Government Bills considered—floor

  53

  31

  40

  26

  Time taken debating

  781 hours 53 minutes

  396 hours 38 minutes

  565 hours 5 minutes

  243 hours 35 minutes

  Average time per Bill

  14 hours 45 minutes

  12 hours 48 minutes

  14 hours 8 minutes

  9 hours 22 minutes

  Government Bills considered'

  31

  26

  37

  17

  Sittings1

  228

  207

  341

  121

  Average sittings per Bill

  7.35

  7.96

  9.22

  7.12

  1 Standing Committee

  House of Lords

  Session

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Government Bills considered1

  50

  29

  42

  27

  Time taken debating

  806 hours 55 minutes

  622 hours 45 minutes

  791 hours 33 minutes

  223 hours 38 minutes

  Average time per Bill

  16 hours 8 minutes

  21 hours 28 minutes

  18 hours 51 minutes

  8 hours 17 minutes

  1 Floor or Grand Committee

  Norman Baker
  To ask the President of the Council (1) how many Government Bills were introduced in each Parliamentary Session since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [42122]

  (2) if he will list each Bill introduced by the Government which failed to complete its passage through Parliament in each Parliamentary Session since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [42124]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information is in the table.

  Number of Government Bills

  session Bill

  Introduced

  Which failed to complete their passag

  1997–98

  European Parliamentary Elections

  53

  1

  1998–99

  Northern IrelandSexual Offences (Amendment)Financial Services and Markets1Railways

  }13

  }4

  1999–2000

  Criminal Justice No. 1 2Criminal Justice No. 2 2European Parliamentary Elections

  }42

  }3

  2000–01

  Adoption and ChildrenCommonhold and LeaseholdCulture and RecreationHomesHuntingInternational DevelopmentTobacco Advertising and Promotion

  }28

  }7

  2001–02

  So far

  31

  —

  1 Carried over

  2 Mode of Trial

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has held with prison governors about the number of prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme. [38884]
  708W
  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary addressed prison governors on 6 November 2001.

  He and I saw representatives of the Prison Governors Association on 6 March. We have told governors that we want to see the fullest possible use made of Home Detention Curfew without compromising public safety. HDC has an important part to play in resettling prisoners on their release from custody and that is why the Government are looking at ways of extending HDC.

  Substance Abuse Centres
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the support given by the Government to drug rehabilitation and substance abuse centres. [38888]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government are making substantial investment to increase drug treatment services, 4 particularly for Class A drug users. Through the Pooled Treatment Budget, we are increasing funding from £234 million in 2001–02 to £400 million by 2003–04 to improve services locally and reduce waiting times.

  Everybody wants to see more treatment available—but we also want to ensure that it is better treatment, providing skilled staff and delivered in a way that is appropriate for the communities that they serve. Many treatment providers already offer excellent services. Where services need to be improved the National Treatment Agency is working with Drug Action Teams to raise standards and ensure that high quality treatment is available to everyone who needs it with a minimum of delay.

  Police Officers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet representatives of the police forces to discuss proposed changes to police pay and conditions. [38889]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary continues to have regular meetings with representatives of all police organisations. He had a meeting with leaders of the Police Federation on 6 March. His officials are involved in conciliation discussions in the Police Negotiating
  709W
  Board (PNB) about proposed changes to police pay and conditions with the representatives of all the main police organisations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional police officers have allocated to(a) West Midlands police force and (b) Coventry under his recent initiative. [38896]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Government's Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruitment initiative, the West Midlands police have been allocated funding for 523 recruits over the above their previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003.

  I understand that so far, 62 of the recruits funded by the CFF have been allocated by the chief constable to Coventry. In addition to the CFF, Coventry has been allocated funding for four extra officers from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

  Community Wardens
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the funding of community wardens in Lancashire. [38890]

  Mr. Denham
  Government funding for neighbourhood wardens schemes in Lancashire in the financial years 2000–01 to 2002–03 totals £740,070. Of this £197,500 will go to Skelmersdale in the West Lancashire district council, £343,274 to the Greater Lever, Hutton Lance and Deane areas Burnley and £199,296 to Wyre district council.

  Government funding for Street Warden Schemes in Lancashire in the financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04 totals £441,785. Of this £189,000 will go to Morecambe, £206,500 to Hyndburn and £45,785 to Burnley.

  Auld Review
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal courts. [38891]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government welcome Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts, the report of which was published last October, and are considering their response in the light of full public consultation.

  Refugees
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his proposals to develop a source country refugee resettlement programme. [38892]

  Angela Eagle
  As announced on 7 February in the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven", we intend to introduce a resettlement programme that will enable those refugees whose life, liberty, or security cannot be protected in their current place of refuge, to be brought in safety to the United Kingdom and provided with protection. This will provide a legal route for those seeking international protection and is further evidence of our practical support of the Refugee Convention.
  710W

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department is giving to victims of crime in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [38893]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I am fully committed to improve services and support to the victims of crime. That is why we have more than doubled the annual grant to Victim Support since May 1997 (from £11.7 million to £25 million), and delivered new services such as witness support in magistrates courts, a national telephone helpline and a victim personal statement scheme.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to police authorities on automatic referral of victims of crime to Victim Support. [38901]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Guidance about new arrangements for referring details of victims of crime to Victim Support by the police was issued in Home Office Circular 44/2001 of 3 October 2001.

  Citizenship
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that young offenders have instruction in the obligations of citizenship. [38894]

  Beverley Hughes
  Citizenship is an important part of the curriculum for juveniles in custody. It helps them to understand the consequences of their behaviour and prepares them for a useful life on release.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the numbers of young people serving custodial sentences in young offenders' institutions who come from deprived areas. [38895]

  Beverley Hughes
  While information about prisoners' home addresses prior to custody is not collected centrally, we know that many young prisoners have a multiplicity of serious problems and social exclusion. For some, prison can be the first chance to address the problems that contribute to their offending.

  In the spring, the Social Exclusion Unit are to publish a report into how the Prison Service, the National Probation Service and other agencies can better tackle the problems, including social deprivation, that contribute to prisoners' offending and reduce their likelihood of re-offending on release. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders in young offender institutions are fathers; and what the Prison Service is doing to ensure they maintain contact with their children. [38900]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no centrally held statistics. However, recent research suggests that 25 per cent. of male young offenders and 39 per cent. of female young offenders are parents. The Prison Service recognises the importance of family ties to the rehabilitation of prisoners, and in particular the value of prisoners continuing their parental
  711W
  role while in custody. Young offender institutions have introduced programmes which support this process, including the appointment of family liaison officers, extended family visits and parenting skills courses. For low income families, the Assisted Prison Visits Unit provides financial support for the cost of visiting, or escorting children to visits.

  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he issues on the proportion of youth offending team budgets to be devoted to preventative work. [38910]

  Beverley Hughes
  The aim of all youth offending team (Yot) spending is to prevnt offending. National standards issued by the Home Secretary in April 2000 state that a minimum of 2.5 per cent. of the Yot budget must be spent on preventive services for children and young people at high risk of offending. The remainder prevents offending by working with young people in the youth justice system who have admitted or been convicted of an offence.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has on the(a) numbers and (b) categories of young offenders broken down into those living with (i) a single parent and (ii) two married parents; [38423]

  (2) what recent research he has evaluated on a link between young offenders and the incidence of families living on some form of state welfare support; [38432]

  (3) what research he has commissioned on the link between young offenders and their family structures, with special reference to living with (a) never married parent,(b) single parents, (c) two married parents, (d) family members other than parents and (e) being adopted, in (i) the UK and (ii) in other countries. [39320]

  Beverley Hughes
  In last year's youth offending survey commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, 24 per cent. of young secondary school people in two parent households and 30 per cent. of those in one parent households admitted to an offence in the previous years.

  However there was not a clear difference in repeat offending.

  The Home Office and the Home Office-sponsored Youth Justice Board have commissioned a number of research studies into the causes of youth offending, including family background. Most recently, 19 November 2001, Communities That Care reported on risk and protective factors associated with youth crime for the Youth Justice Board. It showed that youth offending risks were increased by among other things family conflict, family structure, poor quality parental supervision and discipline, a poor relationship between the child and one or both parents and low family income. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  We have not commissioned any specific research on the link between youth offending and families living on welfare support.

  Police Administration
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his strategy for investment in technology designed to improve police administrative procedures. [38897]
  712W
  Mr. Denham
  The Police Reform White Paper includes major strategies for using information technology to reduce bureaucratic burdens on police officers.

  Major projects which will benefit from central investment include the Airwave national police communications service; the National Strategy for Police Information Systems to improve the recording and delivery of information across the police service and wider criminal justice system; the National Automated Fingerprint Identification's System and the Police National Network Two which will add new services such as internet and extranet connectivity to the original Police National Network.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what access to the Criminal Records Bureau will be available in Northern Ireland. [38898]

  Mr. Denham
  Arrangements for implementing Part V of the Police Act 1997 in Northern Ireland are still under consideration. Until Part V is implemented, some organisations in Northern Ireland, in considering applicants with connections in England and Wales for relevant positions in Northern Ireland, will wish to access information on lists held by departments here of people who are unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable adults.

  Rural Policing
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of rural policing in Somerset. [38899]

  Mr. Denham
  The Avon and Somerset police authority has received extra funding of nearly £1 million in the past two years to improve policing in rural areas. This has predominantly been used to make it easier for rural communities to access police services and to increase the visibility and effectiveness of police patrol and operations.

  The Somerset West Basic Command Unit area has been successful in attracting funding for the first national pilot Parish Warden Scheme. Four wardens were recruited in May 2001 and were operational from June 2001. They patrol on foot in local villages to reduce antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime.

  Community Support
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on community support officers' role in reducing the fear of crime. [38902]

  Mr. Denham
  Community Support Officers, who will be employed by the police authority and will be under the command and control of the chief officer of police, will be deployed in the community and will have a vital role to play in support of the police in increasing public safety, contributing to the regeneration of their areas, and reducing the fear of crime. They will provide a visible, reassuring presence to the public, and will have sufficient powers to deal with minor disorder and antisocial behaviour.
  713W

  Police Reform
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had on police reform with Hertfordshire Constabulary. [38903]

  Mr. Denham
  As yet, we have not been in direct discussion with Hertfordshire Constabulary on the police reform programme. We did invite comments on the police reform White Paper but there were no representations from Hertfordshire. However, we did receive responses from organisations such as the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, both of whom represent the interests of Hertfordshire Constabulary, and from the Police Federation and the Superintendents Association who represent other ranks.

  Bail Hostels
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on plans for private sector involvement in bail hostels. [38904]

  Beverley Hughes
  The National Probation Directorate is currently inviting tenders for a contract to provide facilities managements services, such as catering, cleaning and building maintenance for the approved probation hostels estate. The Invitation To Tender document has been issued and bids have been requested by the end of April. The contract is programmed to commence in September 2002.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce proposals for new laws to protect children from sexual abuse. [38905]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Protecting children from abuse is of the highest priority for this Government and we will continue to build upon and strengthen the measures already in place to safeguard children.

  Protecting children from sexual abuse was one of the principal reasons why we set up the Sex Offences Review in January 1999. Its terms of reference specifically included
  "to provide clear and coherent sex offences which protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation".
  The review made wide-ranging proposals both to introduce new offences and to clarify and amend existing ones. These proposals were published for public consultation in July 2000 and we are currently considering how to proceed in the light of the large number of responses. We intend to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Street Robbery
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce street robbery. [38906]

  Mr. Denham
  We are determined to reduce street robbery. Five metropolitan forces have received an additional £20 million to assist their efforts in tackling this crime. We are working with those forces, as well as 714W
  progressing an extensive robbery research programme, to enable us to identify good practice in tackling robbery which we will ensure is disseminated to all forces.

  We are working with schools, communities and local authorities to reduce the opportunities for robbery and to prevent people from drifting into a life of street crime. We have been working closely with the police and the mobile phone industry to take practical steps to tackle the mobile phone theft problem. We intend to ensure that all mobile phones can be barred as soon as their theft is reported, and we welcome the recent announcements by major network providers on progress towards this target.

  The new London Youth Crime Task Force will help tackle youth crime in London. It will pursue ways of improving the effectiveness of the youth justice system across the capital. We will ensure that the police and the criminal justice system give the highest priority to dealing with street robbers. We especially welcome the Metropolitan Police's Safer Streets initiative which was announced on 4 February and their Ultra Violet (UV) id initiative to mark mobile phones with ultraviolet pens.

  We have also published a Robbery Toolkit which is available to all forces and those involved in crime reduction and community safety and will help them to work as effectively as possible in tackling robbery.

  Drugs
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to focus the drugs strategy on class A drugs. [38907]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The main focus of the Government's drug strategy is on the drugs that cause the greatest harm, Class A drugs like heroin and cocaine. However, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated in his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 23 October 2001 we need to be even more effective at tackling the harm caused by Class A drugs. That is why he has sought advice from the Advisory Council on the misuse of Drugs on their assessment reclassifying cannabis from Class B to Class C; we launched an action plan to reduce drug-related deaths; we launched a campaign to raise the awareness of the risks of drugs and to encourage young people, their parents or carers to call the National Drugs Helpline on 0800 776 600; we set up an expert group to consider best practice guidance on the treatment of Crack Cocaine addiction; we are reviewing guidance on heroin prescribing; and also in conjunction with the Department of Health we are implementing a further series of measures to minimise the harm drugs cause.

  We are also reviewing programmes against all Drugs Strategy Targets as part of the work for the Spending Review 2002, to ensure we still have the right balance and focus.

  Police Pay
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent negotiations about reform of police pay. [38908]
  715W
  Mr. Denham
  The package of reforms were agreed in principle in the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) on 27 December 2001 is now the subject of conciliation, as required by the PNB Constitution.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police pay. [38911]

  Mr. Denham
  It is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to determine police pay in England and Wales, taking account of any recommendation by the Police Negotiating Board (PNB). The package of reforms agreed in principle in the PNB on 27 December 2001 is now the subject of conciliation, as required by the PNB Constitution.

  Prison Service
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the Prison Service in reducing re-offending. [38909]

  Beverley Hughes
  One of the principal aims of the prison service is to reduce re-offending. In order to provide regimes which are effective at reducing re-offending the Prison Service increasingly draws upon research about "What Works" to develop a more evidence based approach to tackling offending behaviour and the factors which contribute towards re-offending. The recently launched What Works Strategy provides a clear direction for the Prison Service for the further development of constructive regimes to reduce the risk of re-offending. The Prison Service and the Probation Service have been set a challenging but achievable target of reducing the level of predicted reconvictions by five per cent. by 2004.

  The What Works in Prison Strategy encompasses accredited Offending Behaviour Programmes, drug treatment programmes, increased eduction provision with a target of delivering 23,400 accredited education or vocational qualifications in 2001–02 and an associated Custody to Work Strategy, which is investing £30 million between 2001 and 2004 to improve resettlement outcomes.

  Travellers
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review guidance to police forces and local authorities on the removal of unauthorised traveller encampments and the tackling of antisocial behaviour by travellers. [38912]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office and Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions are currently revising the good practice guidance on managing unauthorised camping to encourage local authorities and police to develop robust strategies to deal with unauthorised encampments and crime and disorder. We are also seeking legislative changes to enable Antisocial Behaviour orders to cover a wider area to help police deal with individual members of the travelling community who persistently engage in antisocial behaviour across the country.
  716W

  Prison Education
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on education provision in adult prisons in England and Wales. [38881]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are increasing prison education funding by 15 per cent. in real terms over the next two years. We have set challenging basic skills targets for every prison. And we will raise standards and learner achievement by bringing developments in mainstream provision into prisons. For example, prisons are part of a national project to trail diagnostic assessments, curriculum materials and tests in basic skills, including English for Speakers of Other Languages. From April 2002 we will be ensuring that provision meets national standards by introducing the Common Inspection Framework into prisons along with a national strategy to support continuous improvement in prisons

  Crime Statistics
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many notifiable offences of(a) robbery and (b) burglary were recorded by the police on retail petrol stations in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001; and if he will make a statement; [39855]

  (2) how many police authorities record drive-offs as a discrete category of offence; and what plans he has to standardise recording procedure; [39856]

  (3) how many offences of drive-offs from retail petrol stations were recorded by the police in (a),. 1999 (b) 2000 and (c) 2001; how many offenders were found guilty of the offence in each year; and if he will make a statement; [39858]

  (4) how many offenders were found guilty, by sex and age, of (a) robbery and (b) burglry on retail petrol stations in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [39857]

  Mr. Denham
  Recorded crime and offender statistics collected centrally do not in general include the nature of offences so that offences of making off without payment (bilking), robbery and burglary from petrol stations cannot be distinguished from similar offences at other premises.

  The number of robberies involving firearms in garages and the total number of robberies in business properties are given in the table.

  Offences recorded, England and Wales

  Robberies involving firearms in a garage,

  Robbery of business service station property

  1998–99

  198

  10,481

  1999–2000

  213

  12,148

  2000–01

  219

  12,394

  We are determined to reduce the number of robberies across the country as a whole. That is why we have given five metropolitan forces, including the Metropolitan police, an additional £20 million specifically to assist their efforts in tackling robbery, and have set them the challenging target of a 14 per cent. reduction of robbery in our principal cities by March 2005. The additional funds have enabled those forces to introduce a number

  717W
  of new initiatives and to reinforce good practice. We are working with those forces to enable us to identify good practice in tackling robbery which we will ensure is disseminated to all forces. We have also published a Robbery Toolkit which is available to all forces and those involved in crime reduction and community safety and will help them to work as effectively as possible in tackling robbery.

  Public Appointments
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from Warrington, North he has appointed to non-departmental public bodies since 1997. [39446]

  Recorded violent crimes in East Sussex, 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  Crime and disorder reduction partnership (CDRP)

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Eastbourne

  1,301

  1,232

  80

  112

  87

  95

  Hastings

  1,755

  1,881

  130

  110

  134

  251

  Lewes

  690

  726

  45

  40

  28

  39

  Rother

  578

  552

  46

  42

  26

  50

  Wealden

  780

  743

  42

  37

  31

  23

  East Sussex total1

  5,104

  5,134

  343

  341

  306

  458

  1 Brighton and Hove is a unitary authority.

  Information on violent crime recorded in the whole of the Sussex police force area for 1997 and the years ending March 2000 and 2001, the latest available, is as given.

  Numbers of recorded violent crimes

  Offence group

  1997

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Violence against the person

  6,114

  16,924

  17,235

  Sexual offences

  766

  1,003

  1,029

  Robbery

  681

  1,020

  1,241

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which expanded the offences covered, and placed a greater emphasis on counting crimes in terms of numbers of victims. Owing to the change, over England and Wales as a whole, the numbers of offences of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery went up by 118 per cent., 4 per cent., and 1 per cent. respectively. Numbers of recorded crimes after this date are therefore not directly comparable with previous years.

  It should be noted that recorded violent crime is subject to changes in reporting and recording. The 2001 British Crime Survey found that, over England and Wales as a whole, reporting to the police of violent offences in total rose from 37 per cent. in 1997 to 45 per cent. in the 2000 calendar year.

  Also, the British Crime Survey has shown that, in England and Wales as a whole, the number of violent crimes recorded in the survey decreased by 23 per cent. between the 1997 and 2000 calendar years, whereas violent crime recorded by the police increased by an estimated 14 per cent. Violent crime recorded by the police may therefore not necessarily be a reflection of real changes in the level of violent crime.
  718W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]This information is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many violent crimes were recorded in East Sussex in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [33918]

  Mr. Denham
  Recorded crime data have historically been collected by police force area. Information on Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership areas has been collected centrally since 1 April 1999, and the figures for the two available years for the areas which comprise East Sussex are given in the table.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will design the proposed asylum accommodation centres; and if he will make a statement. [34481]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office intends to place contracts for the design, build and operation of the proposed accommodation centres which will place the responsibility for the design of accommodation centres with the contractor.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce his preferred sites for asylum accommodation centres. [41933]

  Angela Eagle
  We will announce the preferred sites later in the year, once bids to develop and operate accommodation centres have been evaluated.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sites are under consideration for the proposed asylum accommodation centres; and for what reason the sites originally proposed are no longer being so considered. [41935]

  Angela Eagle
  Each of the eight sites referred to in my answer on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 57W, remains under consideration.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where and when police marksmen were involved in culling animals during the foot and mouth outbreak. [41214]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: I regret these figures are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The responsibility

  719W
  for culling animals lay with veterinary officers and licensed slaughterers under the control of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports have been compiled by police forces on police involvement in measures to tackle foot and mouth disease. [41215]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]Following a national police debrief of the foot and mouth crisis, Suffolk constabulary circulated a report to all forces concerning the difficulties faced by the service during the crisis and making recommendations for improvements. The chief constable of Suffolk has made the document available to me and I am placing a copy in the Library.

  Asylum Centre (Edinburgh)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to build an asylum seekers' centre near Edinburgh; what time scale he is working to; and when he advised(a) official bodies and (b) local residents of his plans. [39672]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]The Air West Edinburgh (formerly Royal Air Force (RAF) Turnhouse) site is one of eight potential sites presently under consideration for the building of trial accommodation centres for asylum seekers. My noble Friend Lord Rooker wrote to the Scottish First Minister, Jack McConnell, formally informing him of the site on 21 January 2002. My noble Friend has also met the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) who, together with the planning authority, was advised shortly afterwards. The Home Office interest in the site was then made public. A meeting between Home Office officials and the Edinburgh city council planning department took place on 6 February 2002.

  Preferred locations will be decided upon in the next few months and the Home Office intends to consult widely within the constraints of the planning process, time and departmental resources. This will include public consultations.

  Yarl's Wood
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have (1) been admitted to Yarl's Wood Detention Centre since it opened; and of these how many at the time of entry(a) had removal directions set, (b) had removal directions pending, (c) had appeals pending and (d) were awaiting initial decisions; [38655]

  (2) passed through Yarl's Wood Detention Centre broken down by those who were (a) removed, (b) granted bail, (c) granted temporary admission, (d) transferred to Oakington Detention Centre and (e) transferred to other detention centres. [38654]

  Angela Eagle
  Internal management information, which has not been quality-assured, records that there were 385 individuals held at Yarl's Wood on 14 February 2002. In addition, 764 individuals have passed through the centre since it opened last November. Of those who have passed through the centre, 416 were removed from the United Kingdom and 16 were granted bail. The 720W
  remaining 332 were given temporary admission, moved to Oakington Reception Centre or transferred to other removal centres.

  Information about the stage reached in the asylum process by each of the 1,149 detainees who had either passed through Yarl's Wood or who were at Yarl's Wood on 14 February 2002 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by an examination of individual case files.

  Criminal Justice and Police Act
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the monitoring systems he has put in place to evaluate the effectiveness of section 71 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; [39807]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of section 71 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. [39808]

  Mr. Denham
  Section 71 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 came into force on 1 October 2001. Since 1 October, the police have been able to arrest suspected kerb crawlers and hit and run drivers and take them into custody for questioning rather than having to summons them to appear at a magistrates court.

  I am informed by the Metropolitan Police Clubs and Vice Unit that the Metropolitan police have made 221 arrests for the offence of kerb crawling since the implementation of the new power on 1 October 2001.

  As the new powers have only been in force for five months, we have not as yet set up any monitoring systems to assess their effectiveness. However, we intend to write to chief officers of police in the autumn to obtain a picture over a 12-month period of how many arrests there have been, how effective the new arrest powers are and whether any practical difficulties have been experienced.

  Prison Population
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the projected change in the prison population is over the next(a) 12 months, (b) two years, and (c) five years; for what reasons the prison population is expected to change over these periods; and if he will make a statement. [37741]

  Beverley Hughes
  Prison population projections are produced every six months; information from the latest projection (November 2001) is provided.

  Central population projection

  Higher population projection

  12 months

  69,264

  71,785

  2 years

  72,615

  76,068

  5 years

  77,922

  84,501

  The main determining factors in the size of the prison population are the numbers of offenders being sentenced at the courts, the proportions given custody, and the average lengths of sentences received. The projections make assumptions about future trends in court sentencing behaviour, based on observed trends in these three areas. The total number of persons sentenced for indictable

  721W
  offences has remained stable over the last eight quarters. Custody rates (the proportion of those sentenced at court who are given immediate custody) have increased for adult males and females, and have decreased for male young offenders. Average sentence lengths have remained stable for adult males, and have increased for young males, and also for females.

  The projections take into account the average year on year changes over the last four quarters for which information is available. Three scenarios, based on different possible sentencing trends at the courts, are used to project forward the prison population. These scenarios apply to prisoners sentenced to four years or less. Prisoners with sentences of four years or greater are assumed to increase in line with the long-term trends. Males are expected to increase by 70 prisoners per month, and females by 20 per month.

  As well as assumptions about court sentencing behaviour, the projections also take into account known changes in legislation and policy. That is, where the proposals are law, that relevant legislation has been enacted, and there is an agreed timetable for implementation. Various changes can act to increase or reduce the prison population. On 1 March 2002 the population had exceeded the higher projection for six weeks. The reasons for this are as yet unclear.

  Airguns
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the number of airguns handed in during gun amnesties in the UK; [38250]

  (2) how many air (a) rifles and (b) pistols are legally owned in the UK; [38251]

  (3) how many (a) airguns and (b) pellets were legally sold in each of the last three years in the UK. [38242]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  This information is not collected centrally.
  722W

  Wheel-clamping
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to investigate the charges private wheel-clamping companies levy for unclamping cars; [38103]

  (2) what assistance his Department offers (a) the police and (b) local authorities on controlling the activities of wheel-clampers; [38100]

  (3) what plans he has to regulate companies in the wheel-clamping sector; [38098]

  (4) if he will introduce regulations for stricter controls on unlawful wheel-clamping; [38104]

  (5) what advice his Department gives to police authorities on the activities of wheel-clamping companies. [38099]

  Mr. Denham
  Currently there are no regulations relating to clamping on private roads. However, last year the Government introduced the Private Security Industry Act 2001, in part because of concerns about the unscrupulous behaviour of some clamping companies. The Act specifies the creation of a Security Industry Authority. The authority, which will regulate the industry through licensing, will begin operations in 2003; it will have wheel-clamping as one of its priority areas.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department(a) budgeted to spend and (b) spent in each of the last six years on entertaining; and if he will break down these figures into categories. [32676]

  Angela Eagle
  [pursuant to her reply, 8 February 2002, c.1250] [holding answer 8 February 2002]I reported that the costs of entertaining official visitors and guests for the financial year 2000–01 was £143,269; it has since been found that a sum relating to costs of conferences had been incorrectly classified in the accounting system as hospitality costs.

  Expenditure for the year on entertainment was actually £62,410.
  723W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  SERPS
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) of 5 March 2002, Ref. 40938, if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter and the accompanying leaflet that will be sent to those within 10 years of state pension age, explaining how the changes to inherited SERPS may affect them. [42181]

  Maria Eagle
  The letter and accompanying leaflet have been placed in the Library.

  Appeal Costs
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average cost was of an appeal to(a) a social security appeal tribunal and (b) a child support appeal tribunal, in the latest year for which figures are available. [37586]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]The average cost of an appeal heard by an appeal tribunal is £139 (excluding first tier agency costs). Separate figures are not available in respect of child support appeals.

  The average first tier agency direct staffing costs of an appeal in respect of Benefits Agency administered benefits is £81.92 and in respect of child support appeals is £136.79.

  Long-Stay Hospitals
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what payments are available to patients in long-stay hospitals. [36076]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 778W.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce additional security measures for benefits offices after screens have been removed; whether these plans include(a) CCTV cameras and (b) security guards; and if he will make a statement. [32762]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]There are no plans to remove protective screens from Benefits Agency offices until they are converted into fully integrated offices of the new Jobcentre Plus service.

  In very Jobcentre Plus area there will continue to be screened provision for dealing with those customers and transactions known to give rise to particular risk. The precise type and location of this provision will depend on the recommendations of the risk assessments carried out in each individual Jobcentre Plus office. We have a zero tolerance policy under which determined action will be taken against anyone threatening or abusing Jobcentre Plus staff.
  724W
  56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices are already open and operating effectively—with positive feedback from staff and customers. For each of these offices a full health and safety risk assessment has been conducted and its recommendations implemented in full.

  Examples of measures implemented to support the safety of staff and improved customer service as a result of the risk assessments include:
  Close circuit television;

  Floor managers to greet customers and guide them through their visit;
  Ecurity guards with clear instructions as to when to intervene;
  Screened facilities to deal with situations likely to give rise to particular risk.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many prosecutions have been brought against perpetrators of physical assault on Benefits Agency and Employment Service staff in each year since 1997; and how many resulted in successful prosecutions. [32649]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: majority of prosecutions in cases of physical assault on Benefits Agency and Employment Service staff are criminal prosecutions brought by the police. The Department does not keep statistics on such cases.

  In addition, both the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service refer some cases to the Department's solicitor for consideration of proceedings where the police have decided not to prosecute. The Benefits Agency does not keep statistics on such cases. The Employment Service has referred 13 such cases since 1 April 1996, four of which have resulted in successful prosecution. A yearly breakdown of these cases is in the table.

  Year1

  Submitted for prosecution

  Successful prosecution

  1996–97

  4

  3

  1997–98

  4

  —

  1998–99

  1

  —

  1999–2000

  2

  —

  2000–01

  1

  1

  1 1 April to 31 March

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many incidents of(a) verbal assault and (b) physical assault reported in Benefits Agency offices in the last 12 months took place in (i) a reception area, (ii) an unscreened office and (iii) a screened office. [32645]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]The information is in the table.

  Benefits Agency incidents (2001)

  Physical assaults

  Verbal assaults,

  Unscreened area

  103

  914

  Screened area

  31

  1,422

  Unknown location

  1

  43

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on the number of cases reported so far. Other incidents could have taken place but have not yet been reported.

  2. Of the assaults in known locations, 23 physical assaults and 1,100 verbal assaults occurred in reception. The reception in Benefits Agency offices is generally a screened area.
  725W

  Visually Impaired People
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if all documentation and forms issued by his Department are available in formats suitable for the visually impaired. [41928]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department is committed to providing accessible information to all its customers and produces a wide range of information in a variety of formats. If a customer with a visual impairment requests a document or form in an alternative format (e.g. braille, large print or audio cassette) every effort is made, both locally and nationally, to provide it.

  Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) male and (b) female pensioners who have retired in each of the past five years have deferred their state basic pension entitlements for sufficient time to claim a pension increment of (i) less than £5 per week, (ii) £5 to £10 a week and (iii) exceeding £10 a week at present rates of payment; and how many such pensioners retired without such an increment. [31304]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is in the table:

  Number of pensioners in receipt of retirement pension on the dates shown, by amount of deferred retirement increment received and gender—Great Britain

  Thousands

  Total without incs

  Less than £5

  Between £5 and £10

  More than £10

  Total without incs

  March 1996

  All

  1,155.2

  653.3

  270.4

  231.5

  8,551.2

  Male

  290.6

  135.4

  60.5

  94.8

  3,123.5

  Female

  864.6

  517.9

  209.9

  136.8

  5,427.8

  March 1997

  All

  1,100.8

  607.4

  260.7

  232.7

  8,738.0

  Male

  266.6

  120.6

  55.1

  90.9

  3,234.0

  Female

  834.2

  486.8

  205.6

  141.8

  5,504.0

  March 1998

  All

  1,056.0

  576.5

  250.5

  229.1

  8,914.5

  Male

  247.3

  110.2

  50.8

  86.3

  3,335.9

  Female

  808.7

  466.3

  199.7

  142.7

  5,578.8

  September 1999

  All

  980.4

  517.6

  229.5

  233.2

  9,150.8

  Male

  218.6

  92.3

  44.4

  81.9

  3,483.2

  Female

  761.8

  425.3

  185.1

  151.3

  5,667.6

  March 2000

  All

  965.3

  510.1

  227.3

  227.9

  9,185.5

  Male

  210.5

  88.8

  42.8

  78.9

  3,511.9

  Female

  754.8

  421.3

  184.5

  149.0

  5,673.6

  March 2001

  All

  934.3

  490.7

  222.7

  220.9

  9,266.5

  Male

  196.5

  82.3

  40.1

  74.1

  3,561.2

  Female

  737.8

  408.3

  182.6

  146.8

  5,705.2

  Notes:

  1. The figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  3. Increments include basic retirement pension increments and additional pension increments payable.

  4. Analysis has shown that increments data for March 1999 are not reliable therefore September has been used for that year.

  5. Excludes overseas cases.
  726W
  Source:

  Five per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at March in each year, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001. Data for 1999 are at September of that year.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) mean level of income of each decile of people of working age and (b) overall mean income was in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what the (i) mean level of income of each decile of pensioners and (ii) overall mean income of pensioners was in the same period. [40110]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Equivalised money values of decile median income, and overall mean income, for working age adults and pensioners in December 2000 prices, including the self-employed.

  £pw

  Working age adults

  Pensioners

  Income before housing costs

  Decile 1 Bottom 10%

  116

  123

  Decile 2 10–20%

  165

  155

  Decile 3 20–30%

  199

  179

  Decile 4 30–40%

  237

  199

  Decile 5 40–50%

  278

  221

  Decile 6 50–60%

  321

  244

  Decile 7 60–70%

  372

  277

  Decile 8 70–80%

  435

  322

  Decile 9 80–90%

  524

  391

  Decile 10 90–100%

  755

  573

  Total population (Mean)

  363

  284

  Income after housing costs

  Decile 1 Bottom 10%

  75

  102

  Decile 2 10–20%

  119

  130

  Decile 3 20–30%

  154

  146

  Decile 4 30–40%

  194

  166

  Decile 5 40–50%

  235

  193

  Decile 6 50–60%

  276

  222

  Decile 7 60–70%

  322

  259

  Decile 8 70–80%

  380

  301

  Decile 9 80–90%

  462

  377

  Decile 10 90–100%

  678

  562

  Total population (Mean)

  311

  260

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set which is derived from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland and 1999–2000 is the latest year for which data are available.

  2. The estimates are sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for tenure, council tax band and a number of other variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and to variability in non-response and are presented on both a Before Housing Costs (BHC) and an After Housing Costs (AHC) basis in line with HBAI conventions.

  3. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income, that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household. This process reflects the common sense notion that a family of several people needs a higher income than a single person in order for both households to enjoy a comparable standard of living. Equivalence scales conventionally take a couple with no children as a reference point, with the cash incomes of larger households adjusted downwards, and smaller households upwards, relative to this benchmark. The income figures quoted therefore relate to the 'cash' income of a couple with no

  727W
  children only, and the equivalisation process must be reversed in order for them to be converted into cash incomes for other family types.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey

  Hospital Patients (Benefits)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many patients in long stay hospitals and nursing homes in Scotland are in receipt of benefits, broken down by benefits accessed. [37954]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available. Such information as is available is set out in the tables:

  Income support claimants in Scotland in residential care/nursing home or in hospital for more than 52 weeks, August 2001

  Thousand

  Circumstance type

  Number of claimants

  All

  26.5

  Residential care homes

  3.1

  Private nursing homes

  1.2

  Part III

  1.3

  Hospital personal allowance (over 52 weeks)

  10.4

  Residential allowance

  20.4

  1 Figure based on a very few sample cases and therefore subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a guide to the current situation only.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. Figure has been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2001.

  Incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and retirement pension recipients who have been in hospital for more than 52 weeks

  Thousand

  Number of recipients

  Incapacity benefit

  10.4

  Severe disablement allowance

  1.5

  Retirement pension

  3.2

  1 Figure based on a very few sample cases and therefore subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a guide to the current situation only.

  Notes:

  1. All 5 per cent. samples are subject to sampling error.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. Figures exclude Channel Islands and overseas cases.

  Sources:

  1. IB and SDA figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and exclude a small number of cases held clerically. Figures are expressed as thousands and are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Pension Strategy Computer System at 30 September 2001 based on a 5 per cent. sample.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 43W, on hospital stays, when his Department will announce the result of its consideration of the rules governing the docking of benefits for hospital in-patients. [30132]
  728W
  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 778W.

  Doctors' Handwriting
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to require doctors to produce evidence that is typed instead of handwritten in hearings of appeals of disability claims to the tribunal service. [38334]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]Medical Services are aware of problems with the legibility of some doctors' handwriting. They are currently developing a computer supported system for use in Personal Capability Assessments produced in examination centres which will generate typed reports, underpinned by the principles of an evidence-based medicine approach to the assessment.

  Medical reports for disability living allowance and attendance allowance are undertaken in the claimant's home. Computer generated reports in these circumstances are not a feasible option at present. The Department is undertaking a review of the current report form and will ensure that the format of the new report assists in legible completion. Where a decision-maker is unable to read a report it is returned to Medical Services for clarification.

  Linked Benefits
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list all linked benefits available automatically to those entitled to certain means-tested benefits, stating the qualifications for entitlement. [35219]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: People who receive either income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance are entitled to apply for the following additional benefits.

  Free milk and vitamins are available to people who are pregnant or who have a child under 5 years. Where a person has dependant children in full-time education they are entitled to free school meals. People who have savings of less than £8,000, or £12,000 if aged 60 or over, are entitled to free national health service (NHS) prescriptions, dental treatment, wigs, fabric supports, sight tests, money-off vouchers for glasses and help with the cost of travel to hospital for NHS treatment.

  For those people who have a close relative or partner in prison help with the cost of travel to visit them is available. Assistance can also be given to someone who is not a close relative or partner where they are the only adult visitor.

  In addition, pensioners, disabled people and families with young children receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance qualify for cold weather payments. These payments are made automatically if the average temperature at a specified meteorological weather station has been recorded, or is forecast to be, zero degrees celsius or below over seven consecutive days.

  A variety of local government schemes and benefits are also available to people on low incomes. Details of these schemes are not collected centrally.
  729W

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of possession proceedings for rent arrears in local authority and RSL accommodation related to tenants who have had their benefit reduced as a result of one or more non-dependent deductions in the last 12 months for which figures are available; what the average age is of housing benefit claimants affected by non-dependent deductions; what percentage of housing benefit claimants affected by non-dependent deductions are(a) registered disabled, (b) over 60 years old, (c) in receipt of income support or JSA and (d) lone parents; and what estimate he has made of the percentage of housing benefit claimants affected by non-dependant deductions who are left with a disposable income below income support level, once the non-dependent deduction has been taken into account. [34550]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We believe it is right that adult members of a household who are not eligible for housing benefit should contribute towards the cost of rent where they are financially able to do so. Non-dependent deductions are designed to reduce housing benefit to take account of the contribution towards rent that other members of the household should make. We would therefore expect any shortfall in housing benefit resulting from a non-dependent deduction could be met by the non-dependant person.

  The available information is in the table.

  Appeals heard where the appellant was represented, for all benefits: 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2001

  Case Load

  All attendances

  Representative attended

  Percentage where appellant was represented

  Attendance allowance

  1,294,300

  7,135

  5,455

  76.4

  Child benefit/one parent benefit

  7,102,800

  215

  70

  33.2

  Council tax benefit

  4,651,000

  20

  5

  33.3

  Disability living allowance

  2,271,100

  73,500

  48,405

  65.9

  Disability working allowance/DPTC

  28,900

  100

  45

  44.9

  Family credit/WFTC

  1,224,800

  560

  165

  29.5

  Housing benefit

  3,854,000

  155

  80

  50.6

  Housing/council tax benefit

  n/a

  105

  45

  41.1

  Incapacity benefit (personal capability assessment)

  n/a

  22,175

  11,385

  51.3

  Incapacity benefit (not personal capability assessment)

  n/a

  2,580

  1,300

  50.4

  Personal capability assessment (not incapacity benefit)

  n/a

  515

  225

  44.2

  Income support

  3,914,500

  10,310

  5,280

  51.2

  Industrial death benefit

  14,000

  5

  1—

  1—

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit

  280,800

  16,180

  8,875

  54.9

  Invalid care allowance

  379,800

  515

  275

  53.5

  Jobseekers allowance

  966,500

  3,495

  945

  27.0

  Maternity allowance

  16,300

  25

  1—

  1—

  Retirement pension

  11,067,100

  645

  215

  33.3

  Severe disablement allowance

  365,800

  1,215

  545

  44.9

  Widows benefit/bereavement benefit

  255,500

  305

  120

  39.9

  Others (extinct/rare benefits)

  n/a

  115

  65

  56.4

  1 Nil or negligible

  Notes:

  1. All appeals figures are provisional and subject to change as more up to date data become available.

  2. Case load figures are expressed in thousands and have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. Appeals figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  4. All case load figures are for Great Britain, except DWA/DPTC/FC/WFTC, which are United Kingdom.

  Sources:

  1. AA, CHB, DLA IB, SDA, MA figures are current at 31 August 2001, from 5 per cent. sample of data.

  2. IS quarterly statistical enquiries, November 2000 to August 2001.

  3. JSA quarterly statistical enquiries, November 2000 to August 2001.

  4. ICA current at 30 September 2001, 100 per cent. data.

  5. IDB current at December 2000, 100 per cent. data.

  6. IIDB assessments at 1 April 2000 from 10 per cent. sample data.
  730W

  Percentage of housing benefit cases in which non-dependent deductions have been applied—May 2000

  Client group—Great Britain

  Percentage

  (a) Receiving a disability premium

  3

  (b) Aged 60 and over

  5

  (c) Income support/income-based jobseeker's allowance

  4

  (d) Lone parents

  3

  Notes:

  1. Housing benefit recipients may fall into more than one client group so there may be overlaps between each client group.

  2. The figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample and are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. The data refer to housing benefit recipients which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit recipient can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share.

  4. The percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

  5. The average age of housing benefit recipients affected by non-dependant deductions is 59 years.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 2000

  Benefit Appeals
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the proportion of rejected benefit claims where the appellant was represented was(a) in the UK and (b) in the west midlands in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [23556]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the tables.
  731W
  7. DWA/DPTC current at July 2001, supplied by Inland Revenue.

  8. FC/WFTC current at 31 March 2001, supplied by Inland Revenue.

  9. RP/WB current at 31 March 2001, from 5 per cent. sample data.

  10. CTB/HB current at August 2001, 100 per cent. stock count. Approximately 80 per cent of housing benefit recipients also receive council tax benefit.

  11. Appeals figures are from a 100 per cent. down load of the generic appeals processing system.

  Appeals heard where the appellant was represented, for all benefits processed through the Birmingham regional centre: 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2001

  All attendances

  Representive attended

  Percentage where appellant was represented

  Attendance allowance

  635

  420

  66.2

  Child benefit/one parent benefit

  20

  5

  26.3

  Council tax benefit

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Disability living allowance

  5,935

  3,570

  60.2

  Disability working allowance/DPTC

  10

  5

  50.0

  Family credit/WFTC

  55

  15

  25.5

  Housing benefit

  15

  10

  53.3

  Housing/council tax benefit

  10

  1—

  1—

  Incapacity benefit (personal capability assessment)

  1,495

  720

  48.2

  Incapacity benefit (not personal capability assessment)

  175

  75

  43.8

  Personal capability assessment (not incapacity benefit)

  70

  35

  48.5

  Income support

  1,090

  560

  51.5

  Industrial death benefit

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit

  860

  370

  42.9

  Invalid care allowance

  40

  15

  39.5

  Jobseeker's allowance

  395

  120

  29.7

  Maternity allowance

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Retirement pension

  110

  45

  41.7

  Severe disablement allowance

  105

  35

  35.2

  Widows benefit/bereavement benefit

  45

  20

  44.2

  Others (extinct/rare benefits)

  10

  1—

  1—

  1 Nil or negligible

  Notes:

  1. All appeals figures are provisional and subject to change as more up to date data become available.

  2. Appeals figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  3. Representative figures may include cases where the appellant also attended.

  4. Figures where the appellant was there alone have not been included.

  Source:

  100 per cent. down load of the generic appeals processing system.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the percentage success rate of appeals against rejected benefit claims was(a) in the UK and (b) in the west midlands in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [23557]

  Appeals cleared and the number found in favour of the appellant during the period 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2001 expressed as a percentage of the case load

  Case Load1

  Appeals cleared at hearing

  Appeals found in favour

  Appeals found in favour of the appellant as a percentage of case load

  Attendance allowance

  1,294,300

  11,570

  5,355

  0.4

  Child benefit/one parent benefit

  7,102,800

  605

  75

  0.0

  Council tax benefit

  4,651,000

  50

  10

  0.0

  Disability living allowance

  2,271,100

  90,505

  46,815

  2.1

  Disability working allowance/DPTC

  28,900

  165

  45

  0.1

  Family credit/WFTC

  1,224,800

  1,500

  265

  0.0

  Housing benefit

  3,854,000

  205

  65

  0.0

  Housing/council tax benefit combined

  n/a

  155

  55

  n/a

  Incapacity benefit (personal capability assessment)

  n/a

  30,200

  12,870

  n/a

  Incapacity benefit (not personal capability assessment)

  n/a

  4,010

  1,430

  n/a

  Total incapacity benefit

  2,337,800

  34,215

  14,305

  0.6

  Personal capability assessment (not incapacity benefit)

  n/a

  800

  295

  n/a

  Income support

  3,914,500

  19,100

  5,350

  0.1

  Industrial death benefit

  14,000

  5

  5

  0.0

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit

  280,000

  18,455

  7,490

  2.7

  Invalid care allowance

  379,800

  920

  210

  0.1

  Jobseekers allowance

  966,500

  9,125

  2,380

  0.2

  732W
  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the tables.
  733W

  Appeals cleared and the number found in favour of the appellant during the period 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2001 expressed as a percentage of the case load

  Case Load1

  Appeals cleared at hearing

  Appeals found in favour

  Appeals found in favour of the appellant as a percentage of case load

  Maternity allowance

  16,300

  70

  15

  0.1

  Retirement pension

  11,067,100

  1,285

  150

  0.0

  Severe disablement allowance

  365,800

  1,825

  755

  0.2

  Widows benefit/bereavement benefit

  255,500

  635

  80

  0.0

  Others (extinct/rare benefits)

  n/a

  250

  40

  n/a

  1 AA, CHB, DLA, IB, SDA, MA figures are current at 31 August 2001, from 5 per cent. sample of data.

  Notes:

  1. All appeals figures are provisional and subject to change as more up to date data become available.

  2. Case load figures are expressed in thousands and have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. All case load figures are for Great Britain, except DWA/DPTC/FC/WFTC, which are United Kingdom.

  4. Appeals figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Sources:

  1. IS quarterly statistical enquiries, November 2000 to August 2001.

  2. JSA quarterly statistical enquiries, November 2000 to August 2001.

  3. ICA current at 30 September 2001, from 100 per cent. data.

  4. IDB current at December 2000, from 100 per cent. data.

  5. IIDB assessments at 1 April 2000 from 10 per cent. sample data.

  6. DWA/DPTC current at July 2001, supplied by Inland Revenue.

  7. FC/WFTC current at August 2001, supplied by Inland Revenue.

  8. RP/WB current at 31 March 2001, from 5 per cent. sample data.

  9. CTB/HB current at August 2001, 100 per cent. stock count. Approximately 80 per cent. of housing benefit recipients also receive council tax benefit.

  10. Appeals figures are from a 100 per cent. down load of the generic appeals processing system.

  Appeals cleared and the number found in favour of the appellant for all benefit appeals processed through the Birmingham regional centre: 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2001

  Appeals cleared at hearing

  Appeals found in favour

  Attendance allowance

  1,185

  455

  Child benefit/one parent benefit

  65

  10

  Council tax benefit

  10

  0

  Disability living allowance

  8,370

  3,640

  Disability working allowance/DPTC

  20

  5

  Family credit/WFTC

  155

  25

  Housing benefit

  20

  5

  Housing/council tax benefit

  10

  0

  Incapacity benefit (personal capability assessment)

  2,285

  880

  Incapacity benefit (not personal capability assessment)

  355

  95

  Personal capability assessment (not incapacity benefit)

  100

  40

  Income support

  1,985

  580

  Industrial death benefit

  0

  0

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit

  1,125

  530

  Invalid care allowance

  100

  20

  Jobseeker's allowance

  1,125

  280

  Maternity allowance

  10

  0

  Retirement pension

  160

  25

  Severe disablement allowance

  160

  65

  Widows benefit/bereavement benefit

  80

  10

  Others (extinct/rare benefits)

  20

  0

  Notes:

  1. All figures are provisional and subject to change as more up to date data become available available.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  3. '0' indicates figures are nil or negligible.

  Source:

  100 per cent. down load of the generic appeals processing system.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for infrastructure works on the channel tunnel route to(a) alleviate the effects of and (b) reduce the number of
  734W
  conflicting moves in the area between Charing Cross and Hither Green; and what is the (i) status of, (ii) start date of and (iii) expected completion date for such works. [32995]

  Mr. Byers
  Significant capacity on the existing network will be freed up in 2007, when the channel tunnel rail link (CTRL) is planned to open. A new franchise, independent of the Connex South Eastern franchise, will offer fast domestic services on the CTRL from Kent, with
  735W
  new trains, and will contribute to major reduction in overcrowding. A franchise proposal for such services will be published later this year.

  Rail Industry Group
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2002,Official Report, column 1189W, on Railtrack, if he will list those circumstances on which the Rail Industry Group has been called to meet to date; what changes have been made to the possessions regime; and if he will list the groups set up to tackle skills shortages, broken down by skills shortages to be tackled. [37580]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Rail Industry Group meets on an ad hoc basis.

  A Possessions Working Group, reporting to the Rail Industry Group (RIG), recommended changes to the possessions planning process to improve efficiency and flexibility. These were accepted. Detailed implementation is an operational matter for Railtrack.

  Under the auspices of RIG three work streams covering all the main skills areas in the industry are being taken forward. These are manpower planning, training and development, and attraction recruitment and retention.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the job advertisements placed by his Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39070]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This Department advertised 27 specialist and 190 generalist posts in the last 12 months. The advertisements were placed in a variety of national newspapers as well as in specialist journals and on a number of websites. The total cost of advertising was £175,000.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which contractual safety cases for each infrastructure company have(a) been conducted and (b) will be conducted by the Health and Safety Executive relating to the London Underground PPP; what timetable for assessment is being followed; and if he will place in the Library all related documentation. [38974]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive has accepted three successive versions of London Underground's safety case during the development of the tube modernisation plans. HSE is now considering a revised safety case covering the involvement of the private sector. The contractual safety cases of the infrastructure companies are interdependent on London Underground's safety case, and under the relevant regulations are not subject to HSE acceptance. However,736W
  HSE's assessment of the London Underground's case includes consideration of the adequacy of arrangements to control the infrastructure companies through their contractual safety cases.

  I understand that completion of HSE's assessment will depend on how quickly LUL is able to respond satisfactorily to the issues raised so far. HSE will release its assessment and acceptance reports when an acceptance decision is taken.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will(a) list the titles and (b) provide details of the length of the document supplied to his Department making up the contracts tendered by bidders Metronet and tube lines wishing to enter into a public-private partnership with London Underground. [38966]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is responsible for the development of PPP contracts for the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the anticipated(a) public resource, (b) public investment, (c) public resource supporting private investment and (d) private investment for the London Underground PPP is during (i) zero to seven and a half years, (ii) seven and a half years to the end of the 10-year Transport Plan period and (iii) the remainder of the contracts beyond the end of the 10-year Transport Plan period; [38983]

  (2) what the total level of private investment (a) expected and (b) required under contract with the Infracos for the London Underground PPP is; and what restrictions are placed on the procurement of finance by Infracos (i) within the first seven and a half years of the contract and (ii) in the remainder of the contracts after seven and a half years. [38982]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 7 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1126–28.

  London Underground is finalising contract terms with bidders on each of the three contracts. At the same time, the Government are discussing with Transport for London the greatly increased level of public grant with which it intends to support the tube modernisation programme. I understand that London Underground intends to make the contracts publicly available following completion of the competitions. Information on the expected level of investment and grant will also be made publicly available at that stage.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what responsibility his Department(a) has had and (b) will have relating to the development of the PPP contracts for the modernisation of London Underground's infrastructure. [42116]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has powers under section 212 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to designate contracts as PPP agreements.
  737W
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers he has to(a) place into administration and (b) take over work from the London Underground PPP Infracos; and under what circumstances he envisages it may be necessary to carry out such action. [42114]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In relation to(a), I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 March 2002, Official Report, column 85W.

  In relation to (b), the Secretary of State has no such powers.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions against what(a) test and (b) definition he measured the London Underground PPP to ensure that the plans did not involve privatisation. [42115]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 88W.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 85W, on London Underground real estate and property, (a) by whom and (b) how the length of leases of infrastructure were measured as appropriate and necessary; what involvement is meant by the phrase, interest in the infrastructure; and by whom, and against what criteria, sufficient interest has been and will be measured. [42265]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Details of the leases required for the plans for the modernisation of the underground are a matter for London Underground.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 85W, on contracts with Infracos, what the safety changes and qualifying law changes will include; and what the reasons are for the change in level of financing for these changes in the final contracts. [42266]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground is responsible for the development of contracts for the modernisation of the underground' infrastructure, including detailed provisions on safety change and qualifying change of law. I understand that London Underground concluded the revised level of and mechanism for financing would provide better value for money and a greater total of finance available for such changes. I understand that London Underground intends to make the contractual documentation publicly available following completion of the competitions.

  Railway Industry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002, ref 35798, columns 790–91W, who has been appointed as compliance officer; and what contractual agreement exists between his Department and that person. [39164]
  738W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has appointed Roger Clarke, a retired senior civil servant and a Chartered Arbitrator, as Compliance Officer. He is engaged under the terms of a contract, the details of which are exempt information.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how long he expects it will take to establish an SPV on the railways once the specification for a project has been agreed. [42185]

  Mr. Byers
  This will be determined by the commercial negotiations required in each particular case.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to make a statement on the future of Central Railway. [39420]

  Mr. Spellar
  Shortly.

  Driving Licences
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people applied for driving licences in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990. [39749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is as follows:

  The Department does not record the number of driving licences applied for. DVLA records show the following driving licensing transactions processed (including Northern Ireland).

  Million

  Financial year

  Transaction volumes

  1990–91

  6.35

  1991–92

  7.00

  1992–93

  6.52

  1993–94

  6.51

  1994–95

  6.46

  1995–96

  6.67

  1996–97

  6.93

  1997–98

  7.00

  1998–99

  6.40

  1999–2000

  5.55

  2000–01

  5.53

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the real terms cash and percentage increase in the(a) standard spending assessment between 1997–98 and 2001–02, (b) revenue support grant between 1997–98 and 2001–02, (c) total external support between 1997–98 and 2001–02 and (d) aggregate external finance between 1997–98 and 2001–02 broken down by (i) unitary, (ii) shire county, (iii) shire district, (iv) metropolitan district and (v) London borough council. [40188]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The following table provides the information requested. The increases have been expressed at 2001–02 prices based on the GDP deflator.
  739W

  Standard spending assessment

  Revenue support grant

  Total external support1

  Aggregate external finance2

  Type of authority

  Cash increase (£ million)

  Percentage increase

  Cash increase (£ million)

  Percentage increase

  cash increase (£ million)

  Percentage increase

  Cash increase (£ million)

  Percentage increase

  Unitary authorities

  3,164.234

  75.7

  1,265.017

  65.1

  2,316.131

  71.8

  2,912.769

  86.0

  Shire counties

  -456.964

  -2.7

  -869.549

  -12.8

  -714.618

  -5.8

  309.337

  2.4

  Shire districts

  -255.264

  -10.2

  -193.001

  -22.5

  -227.567

  -13.0

  -204.072

  -11.2

  Metropolitan districts

  939.589

  9.8

  329.660

  6.6

  674.745

  8.8

  1,455.243

  17.9

  London boroughs3

  659.821

  9.0

  89.866

  2.2

  320.230

  5.5

  1,013.070

  16.4

  1 Revenue Support Grant plus redistributed national non-domestic rates plus SSA Reduction Grant (SSA Review) plus SSA Reduction Grant (Police Funding Review) plus Central Support Protection Grant plus principal formula Police Grant.

  2 Total External Support plus the City Offset plus Neighbourhood Renewal Fund plus other special and specific grants within AEF. The data on the other special and specific grants within AEF have been collated from statistical returns supplied by local authorities to DTLR, the other data come from administrative records held by DTLR.

  3 Includes City of London.

  Between 1997–98 and 2001–02, the last round of local government reorganisation took place. In 1997–98, there were 27 unitary councils, 35 shire counties and 260 shire districts. In 2001–02, there were 46 unitary councils, 34 shire counties and 238 shire districts.

  Also, between 1997–98 and 2001–02 there have been a number of changes in the function and funding of local authorities, for example in the way education for four-year-olds was funded.

  It is not possible to calculate data for 1997–98 on a like-for-like basis with 2001–02. The data in the table do not make any allowance for local authority reorganisation or these changes in function or funding and the figures should therefore be treated with caution.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the White Paper on modernising local government finance will be published. [40013]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 6 March 2002]: The Government's proposals for reforming the local government finance system were published on 11 December 2001 in Part 2 of our White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services". Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what funding his Department has provided to the cities of(a) London and (b) Westminster in the years 1992–93 to 2001–02, including grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure. [40180]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Disabled Rail Passengers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 20W, on disabled rail passengers, where the revised code was published; and if he will place the revised code in the Library. [40265]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The revised code of practice is available on request from the Strategic Rail Authority and is also on their website. I have placed copies in the Libraries of the House.
  740W

  Departmental Staff
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of staff in his Department are dedicated to(a) roads, (b) rail, (c) aviation and (d) other forms of transport. [40205]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The tables give the proportion of permanent and casual staff (full-time equivalents) who are dedicated to(a) roads, (b) rail, (c) aviation and (d) other forms of transport, for DTLR (C) including GOs and the DTLR agencies. It takes no account of staff employed by other bodies, such as the Strategic Rail Authority, the Office of Rail Regulator or the Civil Aviation Authority.

  This information excludes staff working on cross modal transport issues.

  DTLR(C) and GOs—4,270 staff

  Percentage

  Roads

  11.5

  Rail

  1.9

  Aviation

  4.4

  Other forms of transport

  5.0

  Total

  22.8

  Executive agencies—13,070 staff

  Percentage

  Roads1

  78.7

  Rail

  0

  Aviation

  0

  Other forms of transport2

  8

  Total

  86.7

  1 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Driving Standards Agency, Highways Agency, Vehicle Certification Agency and Vehicle Inspectorate.

  2 Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

  All total figures are based on the Cabinet Office staff in post and diversity statistics for October 2001, published on 21 February 2002.

  Form SP3
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many organisations are being asked to complete form SP3. [40216]
  741W
  Dr. Whitehead
  I understand that SP3 is a form used by the Patent Office and as such is not a matter for my Department.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 806W, on NATS, if he will break down the costs of setting up the NATS PPP into the main heads of expenditure; what sums were paid to advisers; and who they were. [40618]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's principal advisers on the NATS PPP were Credit Suisse First Boston, Slaughter and May and Deloitte and Touche. Insignia Richard Ellis, Ove Arup and Real Time Engineering also provided specialist advice. A total of £18.2 million has been paid in fees to these companies.

  Total payments of £8.4 million and £23 million have been made to the CAA and NATS respectively, representing costs necessarily incurred by those organisations in preparing for the PPP. Other more minor items of expenditure account for the remaining £2.6 million.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 806W, in relation to the staff share allocation scheme in relation to the NATS PPP, how the valuation of shares will be calculated; by whom; what arrangements will be made for valuing shares of staff who leave; and by how much the shares have changed in value since they were allocated on 21 September 2001. [40619]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are matters for NATS and NATS Employee Share Trust Ltd.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation to the NATS PPP, what pension arrangements were made for(a) those employees formerly employed by the CAA and (b) new employees of the NATS PPP. [40606]

  Mr. Jamieson
  NATS employees formerly employed by the CAA retain the right to remain in the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme (CAAPS). The pension arrangements of persons employed by NATS Ltd subsequent to the establishment of the PPP are a matter for that company.

  Transport 10-Year Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 26 February 2002, ref. 37227, columns 1207–08W, on the 10-year plan, if he will state(a) the time scale over which this review will take place, (b) the parties who will be involved in this review and (c) when the outcomes of this review will be made available. [40620]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will be undertaking the first of the planned periodic reviews of the 10-year plan for transport over the next few months in conjunction with the Government spending review, as envisaged in the plan itself. The review will give an update on progress towards 742W
  the objectives set out in the plan and provides an opportunity to take account of new developments since its publication.

  In carrying out the review we will be drawing on information and feedback from a wide range of sources, including forthcoming reports from the House of Commons Transport Sub-Committee and the Commission for Integrated Transport. There is no fixed timetable for the review, but we currently expect to publish the results in July.

  En Route Centre, Swanwick
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total internal costs, as defined in the Arthur D. Little report, of the New En Route Centre at Swanwick were up until the operational start date of the centre; and if he will make a statement. [40767]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Arthur D. Little (ADL) estimated that £76 million to £86 million would be incurred on the Swanwick project in direct internal NATS project management costs and Swanwick staff costs from project initiation until the operational date. ADL assumed that the centre would be operational from November 2001. In the event, the Swanwick Centre successfully entered operational service on 27 January 2002. Including this additional period, direct internal costs were £93.6 million.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [41041]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Approximately 8 per cent. of DTLR central staff work part-time. Of these, a smaller percentage job share. Information specifically on job sharers is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Job sharing forms just one strand of a range of possible alternative and flexible working arrangements. Other options include home working and flexitime. Under DTLR central posting arrangements, all posts are open to part-time workers or job sharers. The central Department supports a part-time workers network and operates a job share register to assist staff in identifying job share partners.

  The DTLR agencies, in almost all cases, also operate a policy of advertising all posts as open to part-time workers or job sharers. All operate a range of flexible working options. Several also support part-time working or carers networks.

  Cross-channel Freight
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the decision by EWS to reduce its cross-channel freight business. [41146]

  Mr. Jamieson
  EWS has made no such decision. The current reductions in cross-channel rail freight result from decisions taken by SNCF since November 2001 in the light of attacks on their staff at Frethun.
  743W
  The Government are pressing the French Government at the highest levels to provide adequate policing resources at Fréthun to support the anti-intrusion measures already being installed by SNCF in order to address the disruption to channel tunnel services caused by would-be illegal immigrants.

  Rail Services (South-west)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Strategic Rail Authority's funding approach to the south-west. [41145]

  Revenue and capital grants paid to Liverpool city council

  £000

  Outturn

  Budget

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue funding

  Specific and special grants inside AEF1

  18,192

  20,488

  20,132

  42,626

  71,010

  Revenue support grant

  263,399

  284,715

  296,909

  298,271

  311,827

  Redistributed non-domestic rates

  102,791

  106,533

  114,392

  128,468

  124,481

  Revenue grants paid into GFRA2

  384,382

  411,736

  431,433

  469,365

  507,318

  Capital funding Credit approvals

  17,995

  27,823

  30,565

  40,082

  25,010

  Central Government grants3

  18,259

  22,190

  19,125

  17,958

  11,266

  Total funding

  420,636

  461,749

  481,123

  527,405

  543,594

  1 Aggregate external finance (AEF) is central Government support towards total standard spending. It comprises RSG, NNDR, and certain specific, supplementary and special grants. Within specific grants inside AEF, reported standards fund grant increased from about? 2 million in 1999–2000 to about £20 million in 2000–01, and Neighbourhood Renewal Fund was budgeted to be £10.006 million in 2001–02.

  2 This includes all revenue grants paid into the General Fund Revenue Account (GFRA), but may exclude certain public funding, for example from some non-departmental public bodies, which is recorded as income and is not separately identifiable.

  3 Includes capital grants from all central Government Departments (including specified capital grants) but excludes capital grants from the European Union, non-departmental public bodies, and the National Lottery.

  Sources:

  Revenue Summary and GFRA Budget Estimates return. Capital Outturn returns and Capital Estimate return.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1367W, on departmental underspend, if he will list (a) the relevant editions of the Public Expenditure Provisional Outturn Paper to which he refers and (b) the written answers to which he refers; for what reason it is not possible to provide separate figures in respect of rail expenditure; and if he will place copies related documentation in the Library. [41245]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Provisional outturn against cash limits, and departmental expenditure limits which replaced cash limits in 1999–2000, for the financial years 1997–98 to 2000–01 is published in the following editions of the Public Expenditure Provisional Outturn White Paper:

  1997–98: Cm 3988

  1998–99: Cm 4416

  1999–2000: Cm4812

  2000–01: Cm 5243

  744W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1052W.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much(a) capital and (b) revenue funding has been made available for local government services in Liverpool in each year since 1997. [41122]

  Dr Whitehead
  Liverpool city council have reported the following funding from central Government:

  Written answers announcing amounts taken up under end year flexibility (EYF) arrangements, in respect of unspent provision in 1997–98 and later years, are:

  3 November 1998, Official Report, columns 463–65W

  11 February 1999, Official Report, columns 311–14W

  30 March 1999, Official Report, columns 580–81W

  5 November 1999, Official Report, columns 346–49W

  February 2000, Official Report, columns 18–23W

  31 March 2000, Official Report, columns 223–24W

  13 June 2000, Official Report, columns 557–58W

  9 November 2000, Official Report, columns 350–54W

  26 February 2001, Official Report, columns 328–32W

  27 March 2001, Official Report, column 574W

  22 June 2001, Official Report, columns 12–13W

  28 November 2001, Official Report, columns 948–52W

  13 February 2002, Official Report, columns 398–401W

  The calculation of departmental EYF entitlement is undertaken at a high level of aggregation across departmental expenditure limits. Underspends on specific programmes may be partially offset by overspends elsewhere. Each Department draws down its EYF entitlement for specific purposes in accordance with need. It is therefore not possible to identify the areas to which EYF generated by a particular programme has been

  745W
  re-allocated. For that reason, DTLR does not keep central records of EYF entitlement generated by, and re-allocated to, railways.

  Copies of command papers and the Official Report, are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Rail Delays
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment has been made by his Department of the total cost, in terms of customer and business time, of delays on Britain's railways. [40952]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has made no such estimate.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he collates on the number of speed restrictions in place on the rail network in each Railtrack operating zone (i) in total and (ii) caused by gauge corner cracking. [40949]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for Railtrack.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) date, (b) location and (c) level of penalty of safety breach incidents that have resulted in prosecution of (i) train operating companies and (ii) Railtrack in each year since 1995–96. [40947]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Full details of each year's enforcement action on the railways for breaches of health and safety legislation, including prosecutions, is included in the HM Chief Inspector of Railways' Annual Report on the safety record of the railways in Great Britain, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the cost of installing a new train control and safety system throughout the UK railway industry. [41298]

  Mr. Spellar
  A rail industry group is investigating the options and costs of train control systems and is expected to report to the Health and Safety Commission this spring. The HSC will subsequently advise Ministers.

  Motorways
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what measures are in place to ensure that motorway roadworks are phased to prevent simultaneous workings being carried out close to each other on the same motorway; [41141]

  (2) when he expects the roadworks being carried out between junctions 24 and 25 of the M1 motorway to be completed; and what penalties will be imposed in the event that the works are not completed on time. [41142]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the right hon. Member.
  746W
  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Greg Knight, dated 11 March 2002
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about phasing of motorway roadworks and about roadworks on the MI between Junctions 24 and 25.
  In line with the Road User's Charter targets, our aim is to see that a minimum of 90 per cent. of works carried out during a year are no more than 2.5 miles long and are at least 6 miles apart.
  To achieve this, we have a system of booking road space so that works are co-ordinated. We also liaise with local highway authorities to avoid, as far as possible, works on the motorway conflicting with works on adjacent local roads.
  There are, of course, exceptions where we have to carry out emergency works, or where it would be beneficial in terms of cost, safety and the environment.
  The roadworks on the MI between junctions 24 and 25 involve the installation of noise barriers, resurfacing the road with a low noise surface and putting in new drainage, advance work for a new communications network and improvements to structures. The work is being done in two stages, the first of which is due to finish this month. If it is delayed, and the delays are the fault of the contractor, then a penalty of £10,000 a day would be imposed. The second stage is due to start in April and take about two months. That contract will also be subject to similar penalties.
  If you would like any further information please contact the Agency's Area Manager, Steve Forgham. His telephone number is 0121 678 8506.

  Fire Authorities
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to amend the criteria for the calculation of SSA funding arrangements for the Humberside Fire Authority. [41306]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government, in co-operation with local government, are currently working up proposals for the new grant formula that will be introduced in 2003–04. We have therefore not yet finalised proposals for the revenue grant formula for the fire service.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce precepting in place of the levying arrangements for combined fire authorities. [41307]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) on Monday 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 101W.

  Accident Reports
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what procedures are used to consult other jurisdictions prior to the release of(a) marine and (b) air accident inquiry reports. [41415]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Normally the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch (MAIB) does not consult other jurisdictions before releasing a marine accident investigation report, unless (1) the jurisdiction may be adversely affected by the report; (2) the jurisdiction has co-operated with the MAIB in the investigation in accordance with the International Maritime Organization's Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and Incidents; or (3) a recommendation has been addressed to that jurisdiction.
  747W
  The provisions for consulting other jurisdictions before releasing an air accident investigation report are laid down in Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch complies fully with these provisions.

  National Rail Academy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if a steering group has been established for the National Rail Academy. [41733]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An SRA taskforce has been formed and it had its initial meeting on 8 February 2002.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the total public sector budget for regeneration is allocated via the regional development agencies in the current financial year. [41679]

  Ms Keeble
  The total DTLR Urban Regeneration allocation for 2001–02 is £1,796 million. Of this, the regional development agencies, including the London Development Agency, have been allocated £1,363 million (76 per cent.).

  Green Belt Development
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what proportion of planning applications for green belt development considered in each Government Office in each of the past three years was referred to an inspector; [41739]

  (2) how many planning applications for green belt development have been considered in each Government Office in each of the past three years. [41738]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department, and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  School Bus Schemes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent estimates his Department has made on the impact of school bus schemes on road congestion. [41658]

  Ms Keeble
  We commissioned consultants to carry out an assessment of the potential take-up of additional home to school transport were this to be provided. The study, which reported in October 2001, found that 48 per cent, of parents who currently drive children to school would consider switching. We intend to commission an evaluation of First's pilot Yellow School Bus scheme which will include an assessment of the modal shift from car to bus.

  Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce a gap-funding scheme for housing following the ban on the Partnership Investment Programme; and if he will make a statement. [41384]
  748W
  Ms Keeble
  Yes. We propose to seek the European Commission's state aid approval for a housing gap funding scheme shortly.

  State Aids
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which organisations have been invited to participate in the conference organised by his Department on state aids on 21 March. [41483]

  Ms Keeble
  We have invited officials from the European Commission and all member states to participate in the meeting on state aids and regeneration which is being held on 21 March.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if SRB Round 6 funds can be used to gap-fund projects. [41386]

  Ms Keeble
  Following a ruling by the European Commission in December 1999 that the operation of the Partnership Investment Programme outside the Assisted Areas contravened state aid rules, the Department took the precautionary measure of disallowing gap funding schemes under SRB Round 6.

  SRB funds to assist commerce or industry are permissible within the regional aid ceilings published by the European Commission.

  South East ManchesterMulti-modal Transport Study
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government will respond to the South-east Manchester Multi-modal Transport Study. [41391]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am currently considering this report and the North-west Regional Assembly's recommendations and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Taxi Regulation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to publish draft regulations in connection with taxi regulation for all vehicles. [41335]

  Ms Keeble
  We have powers under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to introduce regulations setting standards of access for taxis in the same way as we have already done for trains and for buses and coaches. We are discussing with industry and our statutory advisers the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) how to implement the requirements most effectively. We need to ensure that our proposals meet the needs of disabled people for taxi services but also protect the viability of the trade. We will consult when we have finalised our proposals.

  White Papers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the reason for the delay in the publication of the(a) aviation and (b) regions White Papers. [42228]
  749W
  Mr. Byers
  There is no delay. Our manifesto commitment is to produce plans this year for aviation and airports over the next 30 years, and that remains our intention. As to the regions, we remain similarly committed to taking forward proposals on elected regional government and will publish a White Paper as soon as it is ready.

  Harbour Authorities
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will bring pilotage back under public jurisdiction. [42093]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Responsibility for the provision of pilotage services was assigned by the Pilotage Act 1987 to competent harbour authorities who have statutory powers in relation to the regulation of shipping movements and the safety of navigation. We have no plans to change this arrangement.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to whom a competent harbour authority is ultimately accountable. [42090]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The term "competent harbour authority" is used in the Pilotage Act 1987 for harbour authorities who have more general statutory powers in relation to the regulation of shipping movements and the safety of navigation. The Act extended these powers to include the provision of pilotage services. Harbour authorities are fully accountable for the exercise of their powers, as the prosecution of the Milford Haven Port Authority, following the Sea Empress grounding, has shown.

  The purpose of the Department's Port Marine Safety Code has been to establish an agreed national standard as a measure by which a harbour authority can be more openly accountable to a wide range of interests for the policies and procedures adopted to ensure that the harbour is run safely.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what method of arbitration replaced the temporary procedure for resolving disputes on terms of employment contained in the Pilotage Act 1987 after the three-year expiry period. [42173]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The temporary arbitration procedure was a transitional provision to enable new arrangements to be established between previously licensed pilots and competent harbour authorities following the transfer of pilotage functions to those authorities under the Act. It is now spent.

  Civil Servants (Relocation Companies)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many civil servants in his Department have used the services of Cendent or its subsidiaries(a) to relocate in London and (b) to be housed in London since May 1997; what the name was of the company employed in each case; and what were the dates on each occasion. [42364]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Since May 1997 my Department has used the services of Cendent on one occasion to relocate a member of staff from Bristol to London in April 2001.
  750W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which relocation companies his Department has used when relocating civil servants since May 1997; which relocation companies hold contracts with his Department for the relocation of civil servants; when the contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value of each contract is. [42361]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department has used two companies for the relocation of civil servants since May 1997.

  ARC, who later merged to become ARC/Phoenix in October 1999 was awarded a contract from 5 October 1995 to 31 March 2000. This contract was superseded by a three-year contract from April 2000 with Bradford and Bingley Relocation Services Ltd. Cendent subsequently acquired the company in September 2000.

  Both contracts were advertised through OJEC. The approximate annual value of the contract is £35,000 but fluctuates from year to year.

  Electoral Commission
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to raise the limit on the expenditure which the Electoral Commission can incur on promoting awareness of electoral and democratic systems; and if he will make a statement. [41927]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have today laid before Parliament an Order, under section 13(6) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, setting a limit of £7,500,000 on the total expenditure in any one year which the Electoral Commission can incur on promoting public awareness of the matters specified under section 13(1) of that Act. The Order has been made with the consent of the Treasury, as required by the legislation.

  Research Documentation
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 91W, on research documentation, for what reason the Department does not hold this information centrally. [42305]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not currently available centrally without disproportionate cost because responsibility for DTLR research is devolved to individual policy areas and programmes are not managed centrally. However, the Department is developing a central research database facility which is currently being populated with data. This should enable more information on research to be made available from a central source in future.

  Railway Industry Advisory Committee
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his reply of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 89W, on RIAC membership, (a) by whom and (b) when the review of RIAC was conducted; what conclusions were reached; by whom the role of the RIAC was refocused; and what form the strategic advice to the HSC (i) has taken and (ii) will take. [42178]
  751W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The review of the Railway Industry Advisory Committee (RIAC) was carried out in early 2001 by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), at the request of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC), and as part of a general review of their industry advisory committees. Copies of the conclusions of the review and RIAC's revised terms of reference have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The HSC considered these following publication of part 2 of Lord Cullen's public inquiry report, and implemented a key review conclusion through the replacement of the Chief Inspector of Railways as Chair by an independent member of the HSC (Margaret Burns) in November 2001. RIAC agendas and HSC minutes are available on the HSE website and indicate areas on which RIAC has advised the HSC.

  Financial Investigations
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 785W, on financial investigations, what areas of his Department are involved; what the aggregate sum of money is; when they are expected to be completed; and if he will publish the results. [40586]

  Ms Keeble
  Since the investigations in question are still taking place, there is nothing I can add to my earlier answer at this stage.

  Standard Spending Assessment(Care Home Registration)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the adjustments made to each local authority standard spending assessment as a result of the transfer of care home registration to the National Care Standards Commission. [41375]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A table showing:the 2002–03 Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) as it would have been had the transfer of care home registration to the National Care Standards Commission not occurred;
  the actual 2002–03 SSA;
  the difference; and
  the percentage difference
  for each authority with responsibilities for Personal Social Services has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  So that like-for-like comparisons between the 2001–02 and 2002–03 SSAs could be made, notional adjustments were also made to the 2001–02 SSAs to reflect these changes.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what adjustment was made to the East Riding of Yorkshire standard spending assessment as a result of the transfer of care home registration to the National Care Standards Commission. [41376]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The East Riding of Yorkshire would have had an SSA of £259.814 million if the transfer of care home registration to the National Care Standards Commission had not occurred in 2002–03. This is 752W
  £395,000 (0.2 per cent.) more than the actual SSA received by the East Riding of Yorkshire following the transfer.

  Electoral Spending
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much was spent by(a) central Government and (b) local councils on (i) electoral registration, (ii) advertising and (iii) the conduct of elections in each of the last five years. [40866]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information about local authorities spending on electoral matters is not held centrally. Central Government have incurred expenditure on advertising— to give information about electoral matters—and on the conduct of elections. I will write to my right hon. Friend shortly giving information about the level of this expenditure in relation to elections in England and Wales for which I am responsible and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Solway Harvester
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents received representation from the Attorney General of the Isle of Man on the release of the MAIB report on the Solway Harvester sinking. [41931]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents received a letter from the Attorney-General of the Isle of Man on 15 February 2002 requesting that the press briefing and release of the MAIB report on the Solway Harvester sinking be deferred until 15 May.

  Hijackings
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures are being investigated by his Department to protect commercial aircraft, their crews and passengers from terrorist hijacking. [41448]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK National Aviation Security Programme has for many years contained a range of measures to deter and prevent the hijacking of passenger aircraft. These measures were substantially enhanced in response to the attacks on 11 September. In particular it has been a requirement since 18 September 2001 for cockpit doors to be kept locked.

  In addition, the Cabinet Office commissioned, through the Committee on Domestic and International Terrorism, a wide-ranging review of aviation security following these attacks. As a result a number of potential measures have been identified on which work is currently being taken forward. However it is too soon to say what will be introduced as a result.

  Rural Bus Services
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of people living in(a) each predominantly rural constituency and (b) rural areas nationally live within 10 minutes' walk of a bus service operating at least hourly. [41447]
  753W
  Ms Keeble
  My Department's National Travel Survey indicates that 47 per cent, of rural households in England, defined as households in a settlement with less than 3,000 population, lived within about 10 minutes' walk of a bus service operating at least hourly in 1998 to 2000. This figure should be treated with caution as sample sizes for rural areas are small, despite aggregation of data over a three year period. For this reason, these data cannot be broken down to a constituency level.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what additional funding is being made available to meet the target laid down in the Rural White Paper for the proportion of the rural population living within 10 minutes' walk of a bus service operating at least hourly by(a) 2004 and (b) 2010. [41446]

  Ms Keeble
  We have made available £198 million for rural bus services in England over the period 2001–02 to 2003–04, through the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant and Rural Bus Challenge schemes. Funding for these schemes beyond 2003–04 will be decided in light of future spending reviews, reflecting our 10-year plan and Rural White Paper targets and commitments for rural transport. Local authorities also have the discretion to use revenue support funding allocated by my Department for additional rural bus services.

  Congestion Charging (Disabled Drivers)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on congestion charging towards disabled drivers. [42217]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government recognise the enormous importance of personal mobility for many disabled people. We are committed to making regulations in due course to require an exemption from local road user charges for at least some disabled people covering the whole of England including London. These regulations will set a minimum standard which local authorities must meet. They will be free to introduce more generous concessions or exemptions if they wish.

  We shall consult on the possible form of the England wide exemption after the current review of the disabled persons' parking badge scheme (the Blue Badge Scheme) is completed later this year.

  Shoreham Harbour
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what reports he has received from Shoreham Port Authority about the spread of business usage at the Harbour; [42324]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Shoreham Port Authority about the establishment of cross Channel ferry services; [42318]

  (3) what environmental impact assessment has been carried out with regard to the establishment of cross Channel ferry services from Shoreham Harbour; [42319]

  (4) what representations he has received about the establishment of cross channel ferry services from Shoreham Harbour; [42317]
  754W
  (5) what representations he has received from Shoreham Port Authority about extending their borrowing levels; [42315]

  (6) what details he has received from Shoreham Port Authority about the number of people employed at Shoreham Harbour (a) by the Port Authority and (b) by businesses in the harbour in each of the last five years; [42358]

  (7) what details he has received from Shoreham Port Authority as to the proportion of Shoreham Harbour in operational use and on plans they have to increase this; [42326]

  (8) what details he has received from Shoreham Port Authority about the average number of daily lorry movements on port-related activity in each of the last 36 months. [42320]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department last met members of the Shoreham Port Authority; and where. [42316]

  Mr. Jamieson
  One of my officials met the vice-chairman and the chief executive on 1 February 2002 at the authority's offices.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost has been to(a) Shoreham Harbour and (b) SEEDA in consultation fees related to the Maritime Vision for Shoreham Harbour Project. [42321]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A steering group comprising several bodies runs the Shoreham Harbour Project and information in respect of consultation fees incurred by them is not held by my Department.

  SEEDA has invested funding of £35,000 since April 2001 on the study (which includes consultation costs) in regard to the Maritime Vision for Shoreham Harbour. Prior to that date investment funding has been incurred by English Partnerships on the study through the former Partnership Investment Programme.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish remuneration figures for board members and executive employees of Shoreham Port Authority. [42322]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are matters for the authority.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is towards using areas of derelict land at Shoreham Harbour for housing. [42323]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government's advice on housing as set out in "Planning Policy Guidance note 3" (PPG3) give precedence to locating new housing on previously developed land within urban areas. Regional Planning Guidance for the South-east (RPG9) advises that development plans should seek to achieve at least 60 per cent, of all new development in the South-east on previously developed land.
  755W

  Road Maintenance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the trunk roads on which day-to-day maintenance is carried out by private sector companies. [42186]

  Mr. Byers
  The Highways Agency has overall responsibility for the management of the whole trunk road network in England. The day-to-day maintenance is, and has been for many years, contracted out to private companies.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what conditions are attached to the European Commission's agreement to the payment of state aid for Railtrack in administration. [42188]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 170W.

  Road Network Management(Emergency Services)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Department of Health regarding the impact on the Ambulance Service of his proposals to improve management of the road network. [42184]

  Mr. Byers
  Discussions on improving the management of the trunk road network have taken place with representatives of the Ambulance Service as part of a cross-organisation review of road incident management.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on the impact on police investigations of his proposal to improve management of the road network. [42182]

  Mr. Byers
  Discussion on improving the management of the trunk road network are taking place at several levels, involving Ministers, officials and representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Local Authorities
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what discussions he had with(a) the LGA and (b) the ALG on the impact of the banding of local authorities on their ability to recruit and retain staff; [41991]

  (2) what (a) research he commissioned and (b) representations he has received on the impact of the banding of local authorities on their ability to recruit and retain staff. [41992]

  Mr. Byers
  Discussions with the local government community were held during the preparation and drafting of the Local Government White Paper where the proposals to categorise authorities into four bands were announced.

  The White Paper charged the Audit Commission with developing the methodology for Comprehensive Performance Assessment and ultimately categorising
  756W
  authorities. The LGA and other key stakeholders are working with them in the development of the methodology and practical trialing with 10 Pathfinder authorities.

  The White Paper proposals taken together will enhance the status of authorities as community leaders and will lead to substantial improvement in service delivery. This is the best way of enabling authorities to recruit and retain high quality staff.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold on 12 February refs 37055 and 37057 on NATS, when he will receive an answer. [39760]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 806W, and 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 176W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Post-GCSE Studies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements she proposes to facilitate more advanced studies for pupils who have taken GCSE early in a school without a sixth form. [41203]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The consultation document "14–19: extending opportunities, raising standards" refers to the value of institutional collaboration, in the use of facilities and teaching staff, and the potential of ICT and interactive learning. The Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth will also help in this respect, by offering online courses and summer schools, and by piloting individual education plans for the most able. The consultation document confirms that further guidance and support materials will be developed.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list her Department's total expenditure by month in each financial year since 1997–98. [32789]

  Estelle Morris
  Monthly figures for the Department could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the Treasury has published full, financial year outturns for the years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 in Public Expenditure Analyses (Cm 5101). Provisional financial year outturns for 2001–01 have been provided in Public Expenditure 2000–01 Provisional Outturn (Cm 5243).

  Public Bodies (Chairmen)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the appointments made by her Department since 1 May 1997 of chairmen of(a) non-departmental public bodies, (b) commissions, (c) inquiries,

  757W
  (d) agencies and (e) task forces; and if she will list their (i) term of office, (ii) salary and (iii) known political affiliation (A) past and (B) present. [33894]

  Name

  Body

  Term (years)

  Annual Salary(£)

  Non-departmental public bodies

  1997

  Clive Booth

  Teacher Training Agency

  3

  15,759

  Sir Anthony Tippett

  Funding Agency for Schools

  2

  30,000

  Sir William Stubbs

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  3

  47,000

  Sir Michael Checkland

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  3

  37,822

  1998

  Lord Davies of Oldham

  Further Education Funding Council

  3

  37,014

  Norman Dunlop1

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  1

  0

  Keith Bridge

  Education Transfer Coucil

  2

  15,000

  Sir Anthony Battishill

  Student Loans Company

  2

  67,000

  1999

  Julie Meller

  Equal Opportunities comission

  3

  62,500

  Hugh Try1

  Construction Industry Training Board

  3

  27,695

  JimRowland

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  5

  9,232

  Sue Maynard-Campbell

  Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment andTraining

  2

  0

  Tim Melville-Ross

  Investors in People UK

  3

  0

  Bert Massie

  Disability Rights Commission

  4

  65,600

  2000

  Alan Pedder

  Remploy

  3

  25,000

  Nick Reilly

  Adult Learning Inspectorate

  4

  0

  Richard Greenhalgh

  National College for School Leadership

  3

  0

  Bryan Sanderson

  Learning and Skills Council

  4

  40,000

  Sir William Stubbs1

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  3

  42,559

  Clive Booth1

  Teacher Training Agency

  3

  16,767

  Sir Anthony Battishill1

  Student Loans Company

  1

  68,400

  2001

  John Taylor

  British Educational Communications and Telecommunication Agency

  1

  0

  David Young

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  3

  40,000

  Keith Beddell-Pearce

  Student Loans Company

  65,978

  2002

  Richard Handover

  Adult Learning Inspectorate

  4

  9,000

  Commissions

  None

  —

  —

  Inquiries

  None

  —

  —

  Agencies

  None

  —

  —

  Task Forces

  2000

  Sandy Leitch

  New Deal Task Force

  2—

  0

  2002

  Steve Morrison

  Post 16 e-Learning Strategy Task Force

  2—

  0

  1 Denotes a re-appointment.

  2 Until the task force reports.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 61W, on fair trade goods, if she will review and increase the amount of fairly traded goods purchased by her Department during Fair Trade Fortnight. [35916]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department takes every opportunity to encourage suppliers and partners to promote and purchase fair trade products. As the vast majority of goods purchased are via third parties my direct
  758W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is listed in the following table. Information on political affiliation is not collected influence to purchase these goods is limited. However I continue to support ethical trading in mainstream business and encourage suppliers and partners to become increasingly aware of fair trade products during Fair Trade Fortnight.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether fair trade products are sold in her Department. [39823]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department takes every opportunity to promote fair trade products. Fair trade products are offered for sale by our contracted caterer in all the main Department head office buildings.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what legal costs have been incurred by her Department in each of the last four years. [34347]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department has five contracts in total capital for a range of different services.1998–1999—This information can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
  1999–2000—This information can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
  2000–01—£632,896. 2001–02–£607,490 (April–February).

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children with statements of special educational needs were categorised as autistic in(a) 2001,(b)1996 and (c) 1991. [37422]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Capita Contracts
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many contracts the Department has with Capita. [38384]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department has five contracts in total with Capita for a range of different services.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of

  Campaign

  Details

  £

  1998–99

  New Deal

  To promote awareness of New Deal and to inform potential clients and employers, and to sign up employers

  4,772,000

  Reading and Literacy

  To encourage parents to get more involved in their children's reading (linked to National Year of Reading)

  3,648,000

  Disability Discrimination

  To inform employers about how the Disability Discrimination Act affects them

  1,924,000

  National Traineeships

  To encourage employers to take up National Traineeships

  1,502,000

  Learning Direct

  Promoting the Learning Direct helpline to young people

  619,000

  Career Development Loans

  To encourage young people to take out CDLs to improve their career prospects

  604,000

  Millennium Bug Busters

  To promote to employers training on how to prepare for the Millennium Bug

  585,000

  1999–2000

  Disability Discrimination

  To challenge the general public to change their attitude to disability and to inform employers about the Disability Discrimination Act

  2,643,000

  Maths Year 2000

  To challenge the general public to change their attitude to disability and to inform employers about the Disability Discrimination Act

  2,322,000

  Age Diversity

  To address age discrimination in recruitment and employment practice

  1,128,000

  National Traineeships

  To encourage young people to take up National Traineeships

  1,077,000

  Childcare Link

  To promote the launch of the One scheme in 12 pilot areas

  810,000

  Time Off for Study

  To inform employers of their legal responsibilities under the Right to Time Off for Study Act

  702,000

  2000–01

  Don't Quit Now

  To raise awareness of the benefits of staying in some form of learning after reaching the age of compulsory education

  2,700,000

  New Deal 50 plus

  To increase participation in New Deal 50 plus

  2,400,000

  ICT Employability

  To encourage those out of work to take up taster courses in ICT

  2,011,000

  Childcare Recruitment

  To encourage recruitment into the child care sectors by young people and returners

  1,821,000

  Disability Discrimination

  To tell SME service providers how aspects of the Disability Discrimination Act affect them

  1,242,000

  Modern Apprenticeships

  To promote the availability of Modern Apprenticeships

  856,000

  Individual Learning Accounts

  To encourage people to take up Individual Learning Accounts to improve their career prospects

  612,000

  Fast Track Teachers

  To inform potential recruits about the fast-track teachers scheme

  1,056,000

  Parents' Magazine

  To promote a magazine which helps parents to get more involved in their children's education

  1,484,000

  760W
  the change in costs incurred by local education authority maintained schools as a result of the introduction of the climate change levy. [38586]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Our assessment is that for a school that must pay the climate change levy (CCL), the increase in fuel costs in the financial year 2001–02 due to the levy was of the order of 10 per cent.

  Not all schools have to pay the CCL. Those schools which are eligible to pay the lower rate of VAT on fuel of 5 per cent. are exempt from the levy.

  Electricity sourced from new forms of renewable energy is also exempt from the CCL, as are supplies from registered sources of "good quality" combined heat and power.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by her Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpose,(b) cost to public funds,(c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case. [39092]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department's total spend on advertising was:

  £

  1999–99

  15,673,000

  1999–2000

  11,901,000

  2000–01

  29,110,000

  2001–021

  17,665,000

  1 Year to date.

  Campaigns over £500,000 are:
  761W

  Campaign

  Details

  £

  2001–021

  Childcare Recruitment

  To encourage recruitment into the child care sectors by young people and returners

  2,504,400

  Foundation Degree

  To promote Foundation Degrees

  667,000

  New Deal 25+

  To increase participation in New Deal 25+

  633,000

  Excellence Challenge

  To widen participation of young people in higher education

  1,750,000

  Science Year 2001–02

  To encourage more interest in science among young people

  1,803,000

  Adult Basic Skills 'Get On'

  To encourage adults to improve their basic literacy and numeracy skills

  4,597,000

  Parents' Magazine

  To promote a magazine which helps parents to get more involved in their children's education

  770,000

  Fast Track Teachers

  To inform potential recruits about the fast-track teachers scheme

  1,250,000

  Millennium Volunteers

  To encourage young people from 16 to 24 to become involved in volunteering activities

  848,000

  Foundation Degree (new terms)

  To provide information on the new terms of the Foundation Degree

  658,000

  Get On—Adult Basic Skills

  To encourage adults to improve their basic literacy and numeracy skills

  1,820,000

  Modern Apprenticeships

  To promote the availability of Modern apprenticeships

  1,670,000

  1 Year to date.

  It is not possible, except at disproportionate expense, to provide a detailed breakdown of the number of staff working on each campaign.

  The Department runs a number of campaigns in support of our key delivery priorities, in order to inform our target audiences of how they are affected by our policies. All of our campaigns follow the guidelines which govern Government information on issues of propriety and cost.

  Detailed evaluation criteria are not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost. However, every campaign is measured vigorously against specific communication objectives using pre- and post-campaign research, conducted by independent research companies, to record shifts in awareness, attitudes, knowledge or behaviour among the target audience(s).

  The Department employs tracking research to monitor these shifts over time and typically conducts telephone surveys of respondents to advertising campaigns to monitor satisfaction with the services offered and actions taken as a result of the campaign. It routinely tests the likely effectiveness of different creative approaches on the target audience(s) through market research, as part of the development of advertising campaigns. Lessons learned from previous campaigns are used to inform future ones.

  Student Debt
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the average level of student debt, broken down by subject, upon graduating from a first degree in the last 12 months. [39707]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Information on student debt is not collated by subject.

  Information on student loan accounts is held by the Student Loans Company, and relates to publicly owned debt or to debts held in the private sector following the two Government debt sales.

  The average debt of a borrower with a mortgage style student loan entering repayment at the start of financial year 1999–2000, the latest year for which data are available, was £3,210.

  The first cohort of students on a three-year course who entered higher education under the new student support arrangements is due to enter repayment in April 2002. The average debt of a borrower with a new income contingent loan entering repayment in that year is estimated to be some £6,100.
  762W
  Students who started their course in 1997–98, or earlier, repay their student loan on a mortgage-style (fixed-term) basis. Students commencing their course in 1998–99, or later, will repay their loans on an income-contingent basis. Their repayments will be linked to their income after leaving higher education so that leavers only repay when their income exceeds the threshold of £10,000 per annum.

  Information on students' private sector debt such as overdrafts and other commercial loans is not available centrally.

  Science/Engineering Students
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many undergraduate engineering students received sponsorship(a) in total, (b) per subject and (c) in relation to other disciplines, during the last academic year. [39708]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The available information, showing the number of full-time undergraduates whose tuition fees are paid by sponsors, is shown in the table. Contributions to tuition fees are income assessed. How much, if anything, a student pays depends on their income and that of their family.

  Full-time undergraduates in the UK whose tuition fees are paid by sponsors' 2000–01

  Subject

  Number

  As percentage of all students in the subject2

  Engineering and technology

  490

  0.8

  Medicine and dentistry

  102

  0.1

  Subjects allied to medicine

  2,930

  3.1

  Biological sciences

  96

  0.2

  Veterinary science

  2

  0.0

  Agriculture and related subjects

  21

  0.2

  Physical sciences

  96

  0.2

  Mathematical sciences

  17

  0.1

  Information technology

  163

  0.3

  Architecture

  92

  0.5

  Social studies

  537

  0.8

  Law

  530

  1.8

  Business/administration studies

  452

  0.5

  Mass communication/documentation

  20

  0.1

  Languages

  42

  0.1

  Humanities

  93

  0.3

  763W

  Full-tune undergraduates in the UK whose tuition fees are paid by sponsors12000–01

  Subject

  Number

  As percentage of all students Subject2

  Creative arts

  98

  0.1

  Education

  244

  0.6

  Combined subjects

  350

  0.4

  Total all subjects

  6,381

  0.7

  1 Covers fees paid by the student's employer, UK industry/commerce, and sponsorship by HM forces.

  2Excluding students who did not provide details of the source of their tuition fees.

  The 1998–99 Student Income and Expenditure survey reported that an important source of income for part-time students was their employers. One in five gained help towards their study costs, which was worth £452 over the academic year for those who received such help.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost of providing a full-time nursery education place is in(a) East Sussex and (b) England; and what the comparable figures were for 1997. [37910]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department does not hold information on the cost of full-time nursery education places.>

  The Department provides funding to early education settings for the provision of free, part-time early education places for three-year-olds at the current annual rate of £1,188. However, in addition, funding may be made available by local authorities from their own resources and the cost of places for four-year-olds is met by local authorities, drawing on funds made available through the standard spending assessment. The annual grant rate in 1997 was £1,100.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new child care places were created in Cambridgeshire during 2000–01; and what the targets were for Cambridgeshire for the creation of new child care places in 2000–01. [39903]

  Margaret Hodge
  Cambridgeshire created 2,208 new child care places in 2000–01. Cambridgeshire's target for new child care places in 2000–01 was 2,982.

  University Lecturers (Incompetence)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many university lecturers have been dismissed for incompetence in each year since 1990; what steps are being taken to improve the quality of undergraduate teaching; and if she will make a statement. [39947]
  764W
  Margaret Hodge
  The employment of lecturers is a matter for individual universities and no statistics are collected centrally on the number of lecturers dismissed or the reasons given for dismissal.

  We are continuing to work closely with the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Quality Assurance Agency to ensure that revised systems are put in place to monitor and improve teaching quality. We have also requested that HEFCE produces, by July 2002, a strategic plan for enhancing the quality of teaching.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many press releases were issued by her Department(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40032]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of press releases issued for each year from 1997 are as follows:

  Date/year

  Number

  1 May 1997–31 December 1997

  338

  1998

  598

  1999

  605

  2000

  538

  2001

  395

  All press releases dating from 1998 can be accessed via the Department's website, www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/newslist. Press releases dating from 1995 can be accessed via the Central Office of Information (COI) website, www.coi.gov.uk.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of students in each(a) LEA in England and (b) Government office region of England, were wholly or partially exempt from the payment of university tuition fees in academic year 2001–02. [40558]

  Margaret Hodge
  In England and Wales, under the student support scheme, students and their families only make a contribution towards their tuition fees if they can afford to do so. Students are assessed on family income.

  Data on student support for 2001–02 are not yet available. The proportion of students in each LEA and Government office region of England in academic year 1999–2000, the latest year for which data are available, are shown in the following table.
  765W

  Proportion of students in each education authority in England making contributions towards fees1 Academic year 1999–2000

  Number of students contribution to fees

  Percentage of students contribution to fees:

  Nil student/parent/spouse2

  Part student/parent/spouse

  Full student/parent/spouse

  Nilstudent/parent/spouse2

  Part student/parent/spouse

  Full student/parent/spouse

  Corporation of London

  17

  5

  12

  50

  15

  35

  Camden

  1,035

  115

  447

  65

  7

  28

  Greenwich

  991

  248

  414

  60

  15

  25

  Hackney

  1,541

  151

  140

  84

  8

  8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  695

  125

  286

  63

  11

  26

  Islington

  1,015

  211

  259

  68

  14

  17

  Kensington and Chelsea

  832

  129

  100

  78

  12

  9

  Lambeth3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Lewisham3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Southwark

  1,413

  187

  297

  74

  10

  16

  Tower Hamlets

  1,365

  68

  73

  91

  5

  5

  Wandsworth

  1,226

  242

  572

  60

  12

  28

  City of Westminster3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Barking and Dagenham

  467

  127

  86

  69

  19

  13

  Barnet

  1,647

  621

  1,482

  44

  17

  40

  Bexley

  591

  297

  534

  42

  21

  38

  Brent

  1,883

  705

  581

  59

  22

  18

  Bromley3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Croydon3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Ealing

  1,730

  679

  971

  51

  20

  29

  Enfield

  1,283

  494

  1,047

  45

  17

  37

  Haringey3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Harrow3

  1,169

  694

  1,181

  38

  23

  39

  Havering3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Hillingdon3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Hounslow

  1,301

  547

  190

  64

  27

  9

  Kingston upon Thames3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Merton

  724

  284

  647

  44

  17

  39

  Newham

  423

  62

  23

  83

  12

  5

  Redbridge

  1,222

  507

  905

  46

  19

  34

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,187

  386

  210

  67

  22

  12

  Sutton3

  465

  259

  719

  32

  18

  50

  Waltham Forest3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Birmingham

  4,768

  1,425

  1,537

  62

  18

  20

  Coventry

  1,301

  561

  709

  51

  22

  28

  Dudley

  917

  597

  701

  41

  27

  32

  Sandwell

  993

  453

  347

  55

  25

  19

  Solihull

  608

  367

  1,114

  29

  18

  53

  Walsall

  927

  445

  496

  50

  24

  27

  Wolverhampton

  1,243

  462

  556

  55

  20

  25

  Knowsley

  601

  188

  158

  63

  20

  17

  Liverpool

  2,317

  695

  572

  65

  19

  16

  St. Helens

  647

  422

  524

  41

  26

  33

  Sefton

  1,476

  649

  1,155

  45

  20

  35

  Wirral

  1,339

  750

  1,175

  41

  23

  36

  Bolton3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Bury

  868

  371

  635

  46

  20

  34

  Manchester

  2,296

  366

  418

  75

  12

  14

  Oldham

  930

  315

  447

  55

  19

  26

  Rochdale

  970

  367

  702

  48

  18

  34

  Salford

  542

  232

  369

  47

  20

  32

  Stockport3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Tameside

  740

  305

  347

  53

  22

  25

  Trafford3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Wigan

  1,048

  643

  733

  43

  27

  30

  Barnsley

  637

  294

  227

  55

  25

  20

  Doncaster

  856

  421

  615

  45

  22

  33

  Rotherham

  753

  433

  469

  45

  26

  28

  Sheffield3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Bradford

  2,334

  738

  1,082

  56

  18

  26

  Calderdale

  841

  328

  556

  49

  19

  32

  Kirklees

  1,660

  634

  1,093

  49

  19

  32

  Leeds3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Wakefield

  784

  436

  694

  41

  23

  36

  Gateshead

  783

  319

  385

  53

  21

  26

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,093

  440

  680

  49

  20

  31

  North Tyneside

  758

  382

  631

  43

  22

  36

  South Tyneside

  599

  416

  135

  52

  36

  12

  Sunderland

  1,007

  408

  553

  51

  21

  28

  Isles of Scilly

  8

  5

  8

  38

  24

  38

  766W 767W

  Proportion of students in each education authority in England making contributions towards fees1Academic year 1999–2000

  Number of students contribution to fees

  Percentage of Students contribution to fees:

  Nil student/parent/spouse

  Part student/parent/spouse2

  Full student/parent/spouse

  Nil student/parent/spouse

  Part student/parent/spouse2

  Full student/parent/spouse

  Bath and North East Somerset

  605

  267

  701

  38

  17

  45

  Bristol City

  1,459

  436

  860

  53

  16

  31

  North Somerset

  539

  321

  759

  33

  20

  47

  South Gloucestershire

  609

  375

  867

  33

  20

  47

  Hartlepool

  328

  124

  157

  54

  20

  26

  Middlesbrough

  590

  246

  381

  48

  20

  31

  Redcar and Cleveland

  449

  221

  332

  45

  22

  33

  Stockton-on-Tees

  637

  311

  550

  43

  21

  37

  Kingston upon Hull (Hull City)

  825

  231

  213

  65

  18

  17

  East Riding

  1,206

  640

  1,143

  40

  21

  38

  North East Lincolnshire

  576

  274

  352

  48

  23

  29

  North Lincolnshire

  609

  308

  439

  45

  23

  32

  North Yorkshire

  2,392

  1,142

  1,975

  43

  21

  36

  York City

  551

  311

  587

  38

  21

  41

  Bedfordshire

  1,119

  672

  1,705

  32

  19

  49

  Luton

  856

  311

  375

  56

  20

  24

  Buckinghamshire3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Milton Keynes3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Derbyshire

  2,245

  1,274

  2,139

  40

  23

  38

  City of Derby

  999

  405

  562

  51

  21

  29

  Dorset3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Poole

  458

  235

  411

  41

  21

  37

  Bournemouth

  685

  209

  221

  61

  19

  20

  Durham

  1,670

  855

  1,260

  44

  23

  33

  Darlington

  419

  283

  171

  48

  32

  20

  East Sussex

  1,356

  684

  1,465

  39

  20

  42

  Brighton and Hove

  1,080

  239

  573

  57

  13

  30

  Hampshire

  3,468

  1,942

  5,757

  31

  17

  52

  Portsmouth

  754

  224

  309

  59

  17

  24

  Southampton

  712

  295

  545

  46

  19

  35

  Leicestershire

  1,778

  1,220

  2,260

  34

  23

  43

  Leicester City

  1,649

  604

  374

  63

  23

  14

  Rutland

  III

  70

  187

  30

  19

  51

  Staffordshire

  2,595

  1,644

  2,531

  38

  24

  37

  Stoke-on-Trent

  751

  280

  261

  58

  22

  20

  Wiltshire

  1,631

  282

  2,082

  41

  7

  52

  Swindon

  475

  235

  481

  40

  20

  40

  Bracknell Forest

  203

  135

  460

  25

  17

  58

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  311

  191

  842

  23

  14

  63

  West Berkshire

  294

  211

  782

  23

  16

  61

  Reading

  363

  159

  420

  39

  17

  45

  Slough

  483

  201

  274

  50

  21

  29

  Wokingham

  323

  231

  1,043

  20

  14

  65

  Cambridgeshire

  1,544

  882

  2,496

  31

  18

  51

  Peterborough

  564

  276

  475

  43

  21

  36

  Cheshire3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Halton

  438

  210

  266

  48

  23

  29

  Warrington3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Devon

  3,300

  1,242

  1,719

  53

  20

  27

  Plymouth

  1,170

  416

  501

  56

  20

  24

  Torbay

  612

  220

  234

  57

  21

  22

  Essex

  3,041

  1,608

  4,650

  33

  17

  50

  Southend

  488

  193

  421

  44

  18

  38

  Thurrock

  235

  136

  205

  41

  24

  36

  Herefordshire

  685

  349

  522

  44

  22

  34

  Worcestershire

  1,794

  1,101

  2,172

  35

  22

  43

  Kent

  4,163

  2,196

  3,821

  41

  22

  38

  Medway

  637

  439

  585

  38

  26

  35

  Lancashire

  5,189

  2,119

  3,527

  48

  20

  33

  Blackburn

  832

  195

  254

  65

  15

  20

  Blackpool

  578

  214

  178

  60

  22

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  2,097

  1,363

  2,435

  36

  23

  41

  Nottingham

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Shropshire

  1,113

  583

  1,007

  41

  22

  37

  The Wrekin

  548

  231

  398

  47

  20

  34

  Cornwall

  2,615

  991

  956

  57

  22

  21

  Cumbria

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Gloucestershire

  3,275

  519

  1,492

  62

  10

  28

  Hertfordshire3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Isle of Wight

  577

  255

  278

  52

  23

  25

  768W 769W

  Proportion of students in each education authority in England making contributions towards fees1Academic year 1999–2000

  Number of students contribution to fees

  Percentage of Students contribution to fees:

  Nil student/parent/spouse

  Part student/parent/spouse2

  Full student/parent/spouse

  Nil student/parent/spouse

  Part student/parent/spouse2

  Full student/parent/spouse

  Lincolnshire

  2,056

  1,158

  1,850

  41

  23

  37

  Norfolk

  2,303

  1.178

  1,869

  43

  22

  35

  Northamptonshire

  1,889

  1,152

  2,160

  36

  22

  42

  Northumberland

  1,158

  619

  1,229

  39

  21

  41

  Oxfordshire

  1,592

  1,030

  1,642

  37

  24

  39

  Somerset

  1,719

  1,077

  1,561

  39

  25

  36

  Suffolk

  2,081

  1,204

  2,011

  39

  23

  38

  Surrey

  2,497

  1,469

  6,195

  25

  14

  61

  Warwickshire3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  West Sussex3

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  *—

  Regional Summary4

  North East

  9,491

  4,624

  6,464

  46

  22

  31

  North West

  20,811

  8,041

  11,460

  52

  20

  28

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  14,024

  6,190

  9,445

  47

  21

  32

  East Midlands

  12,824

  7,246

  11,967

  40

  23

  37

  West Midlands

  18,243

  8,498

  12,351

  47

  22

  32

  South West

  19,160

  6,830

  12,853

  49

  18

  33

  East of England

  12,231

  6,460

  14,207

  37

  20

  43

  London

  24,222

  7,143

  11,176

  57

  17

  26

  South East

  18,813

  9,901

  24,991

  35

  18

  47

  England5

  216,107

  96,140

  166,681

  45

  20

  35

  1 Assessed by local education authorities to students normally domiciled in their area.

  2 Includes students on courses where the fees were not subject to income-assessment (e.g. PGCE courses; and some other ITT courses; and some courses at private colleges).

  3 Not all LEAs were able to provide full and accurate data in 1999–2000 on student support.

  4 Care must be taken when comparing regional data as these are based on only those authorities able to provide full and accurate fees information and no allowance has been made for the missing authorities.

  * Data not available

  Source:

  F503G Student Support Survey

  Further and Higher Education Act
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to revoke section 68(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; and if she will make a statement. [40799]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 6 March 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no such plans.

  Ministerial Design Champion
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings the Ministerial Design Champion for her Department has attended in his capacity as Design Champion in the last month; and if she will make a statement. [41958]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department's design champion has not been involved in any design championship activity in the last month.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information on the Connexion Card database may be passed to(a) other parts of Connexions and (b) other public or private agencies (i) with and (ii) without the agreement of the data subject. [42136]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We anticipate that the name, address and date of birth on the young person's Connexions Card will be able to be used by the local Connexions Service 770W
  to supplement the information that helps them to provide help and support to young people. Similarly, in order to run the scheme effectively, information may also be shared with the Learning and Skills Council. The arrangements governing the sharing of information comply with the Data Protection Act and section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act.

  The Privacy Statement distributed to all young people when they register as card members allows them to choose whether or not they are content for information about them to be passed to commercial partners in order to receive information on goods and services. This permission can be altered by the young person at any time via the Connexions Card website. The information provided to commercial partners will be no more than to allow the mailing of information and is subject to the approval of my Department.

  Local Education Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment she has made of the amount of headteachers' time spent preparing bids for her Department's special funding; [42138]

  (2) if she will list, for each local education authority, the schemes through which (a) the authority, (b) some or all maintained schools and (c) both are eligible to bid for additional funding; and what the aggregate additional funding paid through such schemes was, in the most recent year for which information is available. [42139]
  771W
  Mr. Timms
  No such assessment has been made.

  Most additional education funding is allocated and paid to local education authorities through the Standards Fund and Special Grants. In 2001–02 the Standards Fund is worth £2.9 billion of Government grant and Special Grant worth £1.1 billion.

  Almost all Standard Fund grants are allocated to LEAs on a formula basis and the Government expects LEAs to devolve grants to schools by a fair formula, in which case schools should not have to apply for grant. All Special Grants are allocated to local education authorities via a specified formula by which they must pass grant on to their schools.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will state, for each local education authority, whether they(a) have beacon status and (b) have failed an Ofsted inspection. [42140]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is as follows:

  LEAs in which DFES has intervened on the basis of an adverse Ofsted inspection report:

  Bradford

  Bristol1

  Derby

  Doncaster

  Dudley

  Hackney

  Haringey

  Isles of Scilly

  Islington1

  Leeds

  Leicester City1

  Liverpool1

  Redbridge

  Rochdale

  Rotherham1

  Sandwell

  Sheffield

  South Tyneside

  Southwark

  Swindon

  Thurrock

  Waltham Forest

  Walsall

  1 LEAs that have subsequently been re-inspected and received a positive report

  LEAs that have been awarded Beacon status

  Year 1 (1999–2000)—"Helping to Raise Standards by Tackling School Failure"

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Camden

  North Tyneside

  Suffolk

  Year 2 (2000–01)—"Raising Attainment of Underachieving Groups"

  Camden

  North Lincolnshire

  York

  772W
  Year 3 (2001–02)—"Transition in Education"

  Results are due soon

  LEAs are awarded Beacon status for one year and are judged on their performance against a particular theme.

  Shortage-subject Specialists
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional rewards are available to teachers trained to teach in primary education who subsequently become shortage-subject specialists. [42606]

  Mr. Timms
  The School Teachers' Pay Conditions Document 2001 allows employers to offer recruitment and retention allowances worth up to £5,085 a year to classroom teachers in any subject or phase.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to extend golden hello payments to all teachers appointed as shortage-subject specialists in primary schools. [42605]

  Mr. Timms
  Golden Hellos are payable to eligible teachers in primary schools if they trained in a shortage subject and are responsible for teaching that subject to classes other than their own. My right hon. Friend has no present plans to change these criteria.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Community Court Orders
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent discussions he has had with the police and magistrates courts committees concerning the enforcement of warrants for the breach of community court orders; and if he will make a statement. [38886]

  Mr. Wills
  Lead responsibility for execution of community penalty breach warrants was transferred from the police to the Magistrates Courts Committees on 1 April 2001. No targets were set for execution of these warrants during the first year of operation to enable baseline data to be collected.

  On 28 February the Lord Chancellor announced challenging targets for Magistrates Courts Committees for 2002–03 for enforcement of both financial and non-financial penalties. I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on that day to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), Official Report, column 1554W.

  My officials have a constant dialogue with representatives of the magistrates courts service on this subject. The police now play a supporting but important role in enforcement in line with the National Framework Agreement between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. This agreement is working well and so there have been no recent discussions between my Department and the police on this subject.

  Auld Report
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration he has
  773W
  made of recommendations 106 and 107 of the Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales by Lord Justice Auld, October 2001. [41772]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have taken no decisions on the report of Sir Robin Auld's Review. The period for comment closed on 31 January. The Government are now considering the recommendations in detail, taking account of the comments received. The Government will announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper in the spring.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his Department. [41032]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In line with the Civil Service Management Code the Lord Chancellor's Department pays relocation expenses to staff who permanently transfer to another office, providing the following conditions apply: reimbursement is subject to a permanent compulsory move; the relocation terms are cost effective compared to the alternatives; and there must be a benefit to the Department or agency. Where posts are advertised with relocation terms then staff appointed to those posts may be entitled to reimbursement of their relocation expenses in accordance with our internal guidance.

  Gravesend County Court
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) default unliquidated amounts,(b) default fixed amounts and (c) possession actions were issued by Gravesend county court in each six month period from January 1999. [40770]

  Mr. Wills
  Figures concerning the above are provided in the table. However, since a breakdown of default claims is not collected as requested, a total figure has been provided instead.

  Default claims and possessions actions issued at Gravesend county court during selected periods

  Total default claims

  Total possession actions issued'

  January 1999 to June 1999

  489

  197

  July 1999 to December 1999

  439

  252

  January 2000 to June 2000

  409

  215

  July 2000 to December 2000

  436

  182

  January 2001 to June 2001

  357

  190

  July 2001 to December 2001

  483

  235

  1 Includes mortgage and rent actions.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many fixed date actions, excluding default fixed amounts, default unliquidated amounts and possession action, were issued by Gravesend county court in each six-month period from January 1999. [40771]

  Mr. Wills
  The figures requested are provided in the table.
  774W

  Fixed date actions issued at Gravesend county court during selected periods

  Fixed date actions

  January 1999 to June 1999

  38

  July 1999 to December 1999

  78

  January 2000 to June 2000

  54

  July 2000 to December 2000

  94

  January 2001 to June 2001

  12

  July 2001 to December 2001

  56

  Forfeiture
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to publish a draft bill on the reform of forfeiture. [40407]

  Mr. Wills
  The Law Commission published a draft Termination of Tenancies Bill in 1994. It proposed the abolition of a landlord's right to terminate a tenancy by physical re-entry and by way of a court order for possession. A subsequent Law Commission consultative document reiterated the proposal to abolish all means of forfeiture. It also proposed, in relation to commercial properties only, that either the original proposals stand or that there should be a statutory right in very limited circumstances for a landlord physically to re-enter the property. The majority of responses to the consultation favoured the second option.

  The Law Commission expects to publish a revised draft Bill in 2003.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the scope is of the inquiry into forfeiture being carried out by the Law Commission; and when he expects the Law Commission to publish the results of its inquiry. [40406]

  Mr. Wills
  The scope of the current work being carried out by the Law Commission is:"That an examination be made of the law relating to the termination of tenancies, to facilitate the implementation of the report previously published [Landlord and Tenant Law, Termination of Tenancies Bill, 1994 Law Corn No 221], with a view to modernising and simplification of the law in this area".

  The Law Commission is currently reconsidering the draft Bill (attached to the 1994 report) in order that it might be brought into line with changes in civil court procedure, the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 and changes in case law.

  The Law Commission expects that the result of this work will be published in final form in 2003.

  Courts (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the size of the annual case load is in each type of court in Northern Ireland; and what her estimate of the annual case load based on the proposals contained in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill is. [39664]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The annual case load for the years 1999 and 2000 for the various tiers of court in Northern Ireland are shown in the tables. The case load figures for the 2001 calendar year are currently being compiled.
  775W
  It is not anticipated that the proposals contained in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill will result in significant variation in overall case load size. There will be a redistribution of business as between the magistrates courts and the youth court consequent on the proposal to bring 17-year-olds within the ambit of the youth court. It is estimated that the business of the youth court will increase by some 50 per cent.

  However, it is also expected that, as the pre-court restorative justice diversionary conferences provided for come on line, there may be reductions in the numbers of cases appearing before the youth courts. It is not possible to estimate the numbers of such reductions at this time.

  Magistrates courts business dealt with–1999

  Case Load

  Civil applications1

  38,664

  Criminal defendants2

  50,702

  Total

  89,366

  1 Combines civil applications (33,562) and children order applications (5,102).

  2 Combines criminal defendants (48,777) and youth defendants (1,925)

  Business dealt with 1999–County courts, Crown courts, High Court

  Case Load

  County courts

  Civil busines

  45,440

  Criminal business

  2,451

  Total

  47,891

  Crown courts

  Civil busines

  103

  Criminal business

  900

  Total

  1,003

  High Court

  Civil busines

  21,045

  Criminal business

  53

  Total

  21,098

  Magistrates courts business dealt with–2000

  Case Load

  Civil applications1

  38,604

  Criminal defendants2

  50,034

  Total

  88,638

  1 Combines civil applications (33,541) and children order applications (5,063).

  2Combines criminal defendants (48,042) and youth defendants (1,992)

  Business dealt with 2000–County courts, Crown courts, High Court

  Case Load

  County courts

  Civil busines

  46,368

  Criminal business

  2,216

  Total

  48,584

  776W

  Business dealt with 2000–County courts, Crown courts, High Court

  Case Load

  Crown courts

  Civil busines

  215

  Criminal business

  963

  Total

  1,178

  High Court

  Civil busines

  21,410

  Criminal business

  69

  Total

  21,479

  Capita Group
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39351]

  Mr. Wills
  As the question does not specify a time period the Lord Chancellor's Department, incorporating its associated offices and the Court Service, provides information from 1997 onwards:

  Year/contracts

  £

  1997–98

  Nil

  1998–99

  2 contracts

  20,377.50

  1999–2000

  1 contract

  1,151

  2000–01

  5 contracts

  22,985.94

  2001–021

  1 To date

  The contracts were for the provision of business, management and specialist recruitment consultancy services.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by the Lord Chancellor's Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpose, (b) cost to public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case. [39089]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is presented in the tables.

  My Department conducts publicity and advertising campaigns to raise awareness among the public or legal specialists of new rights and responsibilities due to new legislation, to raise awareness of new services, or to recruit new members of the judiciary or for departmental staff recruitment.

  We do not record the number of staff involved in any individual piece of work.
  777W

  Activity

  (a) Purpose

  (b) Cost to public funds (£)

  (c) Number of staff involved

  (d) Method of evaluation

  1997–98

  Public Record Office

  Local press advertising

  To promote ad hoc open days/PRO exhibitions To raise public awareness of PRO publications

  Total: 4,465

  n/a

  Attendance/group types at events is recorded, but not attributed to specific advertisements

  Land Registry

  Local press advertising

  To raise public awareness of lost land certificates

  13,580

  n/a

  Response to each advert is monitored

  1998–99

  LCDHQ

  National press advertising via COI

  To encourage diverse recruitment of lay magistracy

  Total: 450,500

  n/a

  Monitored response to adverts via an inquiry line for information literature

  Public Record Office

  Local press advertising

  To promote ad hoc open days/PRO exhibitions;

  Total: 7,640

  n/a

  Attendance/group types at events is recorded, but not attributed to specific advertisements

  Trade press adverts and targeted mail shots

  To raise public awareness of PRO publications

  Demand for publications is monitored

  Land Registry

  Local press advertising

  To raise public awareness of lost land certificates

  9,625

  n/a

  Response to each advert is monitored

  Court Service

  Local press advertising

  To publicise court closures, as part of implementation of civil justice reforms

  5,345

  n/a

  1999–2000

  Public Record Office

  Local press advertising

  To promote ad hoc open days/PRO exhibitions

  Total: 2,710

  n/a

  Attendance/group types at events is recorded, but not attributed to specific advertisement

  Trade press adverts and targeted mailshots

  To raise public awareness of PRO publications

  Demand for publications is monitored

  Land Registry

  Local press advertising

  To raise public awareness of lost land certificates

  13,960

  n/a

  Response to each advert is monitored

  Court Service

  Local press advertising

  To publicise court closures or staff recruitment drives, as part of implementation of civil justice reforms

  18,960

  n/a

  N/a at this stage

  2000–01

  LCDHQ

  Multi-media campaign (National and local advertising campaign)

  To launch national roll-out of the Community Legal Service to stakeholders and the public. And to increase public awareness of Family Mediation

  4,283,780

  n/a

  COI conducted tracking research of public awareness of CLS logo and service

  Public Record Office

  Local press advertising

  To promote ad hoc open days/PRO exhibitions

  Total: 8,950

  n/a

  Attendance/group types at events is recorded, but not attributed to specific advertisements.

  Trade press adverts/mailshots

  To raise public awareness of PRO publications

  Demand for publications is monitored.

  Trade press advertising

  To promote PRO website to schools

  Number of hits to website monitored

  Regional talks/exhibitions

  To promote availability of 1901 Census website

  N/a at this stage

  Land Registry

  Local press advertising

  To raise public awareness of lost land certificates

  2,505

  n/a

  Response to each advert is monitored

  Court Service

  Local press advertising

  Staff recruitment

  13,000

  n/a

  Not available at this stage

  NICS

  Local press advertising

  Lay Magistracy recruitment

  4,800

  n/a

  Not available at this stage.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 943W, what the total area in square feet of all empty properties owned by (a) his Department, (b) his agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility was in each year since May 1997. [37916]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information requested, covering 1997–98 to 2000–01 (inclusive), is as follows.
  778W

  Square feet

  1997–98

  179,000

  1998–99

  292,000

  1999–2000

  292,000

  2000–01

  160,000

  With one exception, which is the subject of a forthcoming PFI, all buildings were surplus to the Department's requirements and were in the process of being disposed.
  779W
  Notes:

  1. The figures are for the "core" of the Department as none of its agencies, nor non-departmental public bodies have owned any empty properties.

  2. Excluded from the figures is the project, commenced in 1998–99, to refurbish three vacant buildings. The first of these (Admiralty Arch) was completed and occupied by staff in 2000–01. When the other two buildings (Kirkland House and the Ripley Building) are completed in 2002–03, they will form 22 Whitehall; one of the Department's major buildings.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many press releases were issued by his Department(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40031]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office released 159 press notices between 1 May and 31 December 1997.

  The number of press notices the Cabinet Office released for each calendar year from 1998 to 2001 is as follows:

  Number

  1998

  277

  1999

  343

  2000

  433

  2001

  203

  The Cabinet Office press office also issues press releases on behalf of the Privy Council Office. The figures for 1997, 1998 and 1999 include operational notes/invitations. The figures for 1999 and 2000 also include press notices issued by the Year 2000 Media Co-ordination Unit, which operated from the Cabinet Office.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in his Department on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39934]

  Mr. Leslie
  Before 1998 the number of press officers in the Cabinet Office press office is available only as an average for financial years. In the financial year 1996–97 the average number of press officers was seven.

  The number of press officers employed in the Cabinet Office press office since 1998 is as follows:

  Number

  January 1998

  11

  January 1999

  14

  1 January 2000

  20

  1 January 2001

  16

  1 January 2002

  18

  The Cabinet Office press office does not have specific personnel for performing public relations functions. Where required the press officers would fulfil some of this role.

  Government Regional Offices (England)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) running cost and (b) total budget is of the English Government regional offices in 2001–02. [33993]
  780W
  Mrs. Roche
  The administrative running costs (including a small capital allocation) for each of the Government Offices for the Regions for 2001–02 are given in the table.

  £000

  GO

  Running costs 2001–02

  North East

  9,694

  North West

  15,255

  Yorkshire and Humber

  10,467

  West Midlands

  10,184

  East Midlands

  8,388

  East

  9,238

  South West

  11,707

  South East

  10,330

  London1

  21,325

  Total

  106,588

  1 GO London figures include the Regional Co-ordination Unit

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [41013]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office currently employs 12 members of staff on a job share contract.

  The Cabinet Office is committed to supporting part-time working, job-sharing and other forms of alternative working patterns. It is Cabinet Office policy that all advertised posts will normally be open to anyone wishing to work an alternative working pattern, including part-timers and job sharers although there will be some instances where this is not possible due to the nature of the work. The flexibility of any alternative working pattern is decided in conjunction with local management to suit an individual's needs and the needs of their work.

  Non-Governmental Organisation
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the non-Governmental organisations operating in the South West Region that receive public funds from his Department; and what amount of annual funding they received in the most recent year for which figures are available. [39133]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Details of non-governmental organisations which receive grants from the Cabinet Office can be found on page 143 of the Cabinet Office Departmental Report 2001 (Cm 5119).

  Information is not held about the regions covered by the non-governmental organisations which receive grants from the Cabinet Office.
  781W

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  BSE
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when, and by whom, she was informed of the latest cases of meat from the offspring of BSE-infected cows entering the food chain; and when she informed the Food Standards Agency. [37864]

  Margaret Beckett
  DEFRA headquarters were verbally informed by the Animal Health Divisional Office on Friday 8 February. Ministers and the Food Standards Agency were informed on Monday 11 February when a more detailed report of the incident was received.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking in relation to the latest instances of meat from the offspring of BSE infected cows which has entered the food chain; and if she will make a statement. [37865]

  Margaret Beckett
  We are urgently checking to see whether there are any more cases and enhancing our computer systems to reduce the risk of this happening in future. We have also reminded farmers that animals subject to restriction notice must not enter the food chain.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the farms in North Yorkshire which became foot and mouth infected premises after their appeal against her Department's decision to cull on their land was upheld by the Divisional Veterinary Manager. [37528]

  Margaret Beckett
  The seven farms were premises under the following ownership:D. M. and R. E. Capstick of Bellbusk parish, Settle—IP 2001/1739
  P. T. Stephenson of Bishopdale parish—IP 2001/1812
  Mr. and G. D. Beresford of Haltonwest parish, Settle—IP 2001/1663
  J. H. Clarke Partners of Kepwick parish, Thirsk—IP 2001/1930

  Bainbridge Partners of Lealholm parish, Whitby—IP 2001/1815
  Wade and Son of Linton parish, Settle—IP 2001/1770
  W. and D. Scaife and Son of Nether Silton parish, Thirsk—IP 2001/1847.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) sheep, (b) cattle and (c) other animals subject to the three kilometre cull policy during the foot and mouth outbreak in Cumbria were destroyed under voluntary arrangements; and if she will make a statement. [38824]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: During the foot and mouth outbreak the following number of animals were slaughtered in Cumbria as a result of 3km cull arrangements:
  Sheep—405,557
  Pigs—3,344
  Goats—147.

  782W
  These data are based on DEFRA's Disease Control System (DCS) Database as at 25 February 2002. The figures may be subject to revision as DEFRA's data cleansing exercise is carried out and as more data becomes available.

  In the 3km cull animals were culled under the powers in the Animal Health Act 1981, on the basis that they had been exposed to infection. However, it was implemented by dealing first with those farms where keepers were willing to co-operate with the cull, hence the use of the term "voluntary cull" as a shorthand for the 3km cull operation.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the flock of sheep in Kirkby Stephen in which one animal was found to be foot and mouth antibody positive was tested for the presence of antibodies prior to its arrival on the farm. [38825]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Yes, the flock of sheep from which the seropositive sheep originated had been tested previously for the presence of antibodies, with negative results.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether confirmed cases of foot and mouth are determined according to clinical signs of the disease, the presence of disease antibodies, the presence of a live virus, or by other means; and if she will make a statement on whether the criteria for determining infected premises has changed since 30 September. [38831]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: During last year's outbreak, diagnosis of food and mouth disease (FMD) was normally confirmed by the National Disease Control Centre on the basis of clinical observations of a veterinary inspector on the spot. Some cases were confirmed on the basis of laboratory tests which confirmed the presence of FMD antibodies or virus. It is nearly five months since the last outbreak of foot and mouth and confirmation of any future case would need to be based on laboratory tests that confirm the presence of the virus.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reports she has received from police officers on police involvement in the culling of animals during the foot and mouth epidemic. [41219]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Department has received no reports on police involvement in the culling of animals during the foot and mouth epidemic.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many suspected cases of foot and mouth disease there have been since 30 September. [40370]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: Since 30 September there have been 75 suspected cases of foot and mouth disease reported in the United Kingdom. All have been thoroughly investigated and in all cases no evidence of the foot and mouth virus was found.
  783W
  Notes:

  This figure includes:
  Report cases which were later cleared on clinical examination;
  Slaughter on Suspicion (SOS) and Test on Suspicion (TOS) animals slaughtered on the grounds of suspected clinical signs of the disease.

  Not included in this figure:
  Flocks and animals in flocks which were slaughtered on the basis of sero-positive reactions where there were no clinical signs of disease are not classified as suspect cases as these animals were slaughtered because DEFRA had evidence that the animals had been exposed to infection but there were no grounds to suspect disease.

  Source:
  DEFRA Disease Control System database as at 12:00 on 4 March 2002–figures are subject to change as more data become available.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates, within the last two years, orders have been placed for the manufacture and printing of signs and notices indicating that the public should keep off premises owing to the presence of foot and mouth disease. [39990]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The Department keeps stocks of a range of warning notices for the control of food and mouth disease. The following orders were placed by the Animal Disease Control Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with the Department's own printing services.

  (i) On 22 February 2001, an order for the printing of notice FM44 which says "Please keep out".

  (ii) On 6 March 2001, an order for the printing of notice FM25, which says "No admittance on account of FMD".

  (iii) On 24 may 2001, an order for the printing of poster FM28 "Notice to the General Public in FMD Infected Areas".

  Information on orders placed by local Animal Health Offices and Disease Control Centres is not readily available.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the contractors involved in the slaughter and disposal of animals at Sparum Farm, Kidderminster, during the foot and mouth epidemic; and what the cost to public funds of their work was. [40369]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The contractors involved in the slaughter and disposal of animals at Sparum Farm, Kidderminster, during the foot and mouth epidemic were: F. M. Caine and Sons, Ruttle Plant Hire Ltd. and Farm Assist Ltd. The invoices and accounts for this work have not been finalised.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 212W, on culls, what measures she is taking to compensate those animal owners whose appeals against culls were upheld; and if she will make a statement. [41970]

  Mr. Morley
  Compensation at market value is paid to farmers whose animals are slaughtered as part of foot and mouth disease control measures taken under the Animal Health Act 1981.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what basis the decision was taken for interviews with Ministers and 784W
  senior officials not to be recorded verbatim during the Anderson Lessons Learned inquiry; and if she will make a statement. [40704]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: This is a matter for the Lessons Learned inquiry. The conditions under which any person will be interviewed (not just Ministers and senior officials) in London by the inquiry are outlined in Dr. Anderson's "Procedures for Gathering Information at Inquiry Meetings", which is available on the Lessons Learned website.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 212W, on foot and mouth disease monitoring, how many sentinel animals have been tested for foot-and-mouth since restocking of culled premises began; and what proportion were identified as carrying the foot-and-mouth (a) live virus and(b) antibody. [41973]

  Mr. Morley
  189,694 blood samples from sentinel animals have been tested since restocking began. Six samples (0.003 per cent.) have tested positive for Foot and Mouth Disease antibodies. No live virus has been detected.

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on hauliers of new biosecurity requirements at livestock markets. [41216]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: Interested parties, including the Road Haulage Association (RHA), were consulted on the new biosecurity arrangements at livestock markets. These procedures form a key part of the Interim Animal Movements Regime introduced on 11 February. We are monitoring the operation of the new controls on cleansing and disinfection of vehicles and the impact they are having on hauliers and officials are in regular contact with the RHA about this.

  Lottery Funds
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) DCMS and (b) lottery distributing bodies regarding the use of Lottery funds to support projects in rural areas. [40327]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The Minister for Rural Affairs met with the Under-Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport on 20 February, during which this issue was discussed. He is also holding a series of round-table meetings with the Community Fund and other relevant bodies, to discuss how we can better focus lottery distribution on rural areas.

  On 1 March the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced the Community Fund's launch of a £10 million initiative to help those rural areas that have received low funding by the lottery in the past.

  Illegally Logged Wood
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to seize shipments of illegally logged wood. [39989]
  785W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: When a shipment of wood arrives in the UK Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have powers under section 49 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to seize any shipment presented for clearance that has been imported contrary to a prohibition or restriction.

  There are restrictions in relation to international trade in some woods under the terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Those species of wood listed in Appendix I and II of CITES require import permits from the UK before they can be brought in. These are issued only where the UK Management Authority (DEFRA) is satisfied that the wood has been legally obtained in the country of origin and has the necessary permit for export form that country. Other species listed in Appendix III of CITES do not require import permits. For these species a self-completed import notification form must be presented to HM

  Triplet B—Devon/Cornwall

  Hartland B1

  Trial Area Putford B2

  Bude B3

  Number of cattle herds in trial area

  90

  153

  129

  Historical incidence of TB in cattle in herds in trial area Confirmed breakdowns:

  Three year (1995–97)

  37

  48

  35

  12 month (1997)

  16

  26

  11

  Annual incidence:

  0.1370

  0.1046

  0.0904

  Three year (1995–97)1

  12 month (1997)1

  0.1778

  0.1699

  0.0853

  Total surface area (trial area and inner buffer zone) (sq km)2

  119

  143

  130

  Total area for which permission for trial operations was sought (trial area and inner buffer zone) (sq km)

  114

  125

  120

  Number of land occupiers visited in trial area and inner buffer zone

  164

  270

  232

  Treatment

  Reactive

  Proactive

  Survey only

  Aggregated data on badger removal operations in localised areas under the 'interim strategy' 1986–97

  Total number of badgers caught

  306

  377

  331

  Percentage of badgers caught found to be infected with TB

  32

  20

  37

  Number of badgers trapped during the course of the trial to date

  107

  397

  None

  Triplet C—East Cornwall

  Otterham CI

  Trial Area Launceston C2

  Lanreath C3

  Number of cattle herds in trial area

  151

  180

  107

  Historical incidence of TB in cattle in herds in trial area

  Confirmed breakdowns:

  Three year (1996–98)

  21

  16

  14

  12 month (1998)

  7

  9

  5

  Annual incidence:

  Three year (1996–98)1

  0.0464

  0.0296

  0.0436

  12 month (1998)1

  0.0464

  0.0500

  0.0467

  Total surface area (trial area and inner buffer zone) (sq km)2

  145

  157

  151

  Total area for which permission for trial operations was sought (trial area and inner buffer zone) (sq km)

  137

  154

  140

  Number of land occupiers visited in trial area and inner buffer zone

  259

  315

  237

  Treatment

  Reactive

  Survey only

  Proactive

  786W
  Customs prior to the arrival of the specimens, together with the relevant export permit (s) or certificate (s) of origin issued by the Management Authority in the exporting country. Both of these provide controls against illegal imports of wood.

  Badger Culling
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what interim assessment has been made of evidence from the badger culling trials in Triplets B, C and F. [40411]

  Mr. Morley
  On the basis of advice from the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG), results from the badger field trial, which is part of the Government's wide ranging strategy to tackle TB in cattle, are expected by the end of 2004. Preliminary findings have not yet emerged but the Government will continue to liaise closely with the ISG during the course of the trial.
  787W

  Triplet C—East Cornwall

  Otterham CI

  Trial Area Launceston C2

  Lanreath C3

  Aggregated data on badger removal operations in localised areas under the'interim strategy' 1986–97

  Total number of badgers caught

  162

  360

  257

  Percentage of badgers caught found to be infected with TB

  19

  24

  22

  Number of badgers trapped during the course of the trial to date

  178

  None

  357

  Triplet F—West Cornwall

  Madron Fl

  Trial Area Godolphin F2

  StithiansF3

  Number of cattle herds in trial area

  137

  206

  253

  Historical incidence of TB in cattle in herds in trial area

  Confirmed breakdowns:

  Three year (1997–99)

  20

  25

  17

  12 month (1999)

  6

  19

  8

  Annual incidence:

  Three year (1997–99)'

  0.0487

  0.0405

  0.0224

  12 month (1999)'

  0.0438

  0.0922

  0.0316

  Total surface area (trial area and inner buffer zone) (sq km)'

  145

  149

  164

  Total area for which permission for trial operations was sought (trial area and inner buffer zone) (sq km)

  91

  113

  103

  Number of land occupiers visited in trial area and inner buffer zone

  252

  527

  658

  Treatment

  Proactive

  Survey only

  Reactive

  Aggregated data on badger removal operations in localised areas under the 'interim strategy' 1986–97

  Total number of badgers caught

  469

  246

  414

  Percentage of badgers caught found to be infected with TB

  13

  13

  19

  Number of badgers trapped during the course of the trial to date

  45

  None

  None

  1 Number of breakdowns divided by total number of herds (per annum), expressed as a decimal figure

  2 Some of this surface area will automatically be unsuitable for trial operations (including, for example, settlements, airfields, roads, rivers, lakes, quarries, etc.)

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evidence has been gathered from the badger culling trials in Triplets B, C and F. [40412]

  Mr. Morley
  Data from Triplets B, C and F is summarised in the table and is available on DEFRA's website at: http://defraweb/animalh/tb/. Other evidence

  Triplet B—Devon/Cornwall

  Hartland B1

  Trial area Putford B2

  Bude B3

  Number of cattle herds in trial area

  90

  153

  129

  Historical indicence of TB in cattle in herds in trial area:

  Confirmed breakdowns:

  Three year (1995–97)

  37

  48

  35

  12 month (1997)

  16

  26

  11

  Annual incidence:

  Three year (1995–97)'

  0.1370

  0.1046

  0.0904

  12 month (1997)'

  0.1778

  0.1699

  0.0853

  Total surface area (trial area and inner buffer zone) (km2)2

  119

  143

  130

  Total area for which permission for trial operations was sought (trial area and inner buffer zone) (km')

  114

  125

  120

  Number of land occupiers visited in trial area and inner buffer zone

  164

  270

  232

  Treatment

  Reactive

  Proactive

  Survey only

  788W
  has also been collected from these triplets including the prevalence of TB in badgers caught in the trial, locations of capture, and the number and location of cattle TB breakdowns in trial areas. These data have not been released so as not to discourage participation in the trial, or encourage either illegal killing of badgers or interference with trial operations.
  789W

  Triplet B—Devon/Cornwall

  Hartland B1

  Trial area Puybrd B2

  Bude B3

  Aggregated data on badger removal operations in localised areas under the 'interim strategy' 1986–97:

  Total number of badgers caught

  306

  377

  331

  Percentage of badgers caught found to be infected with TB

  32

  20

  37

  Number of badgers trapped during the course of the trial to date

  107

  397

  None

  1 Number of breakdowns divided by total number of herds (per annum), expressed as a decimal figure

  2 Some of this surface area will automatically be unsuitable for trial operations (including, for example, settlements, airfields, roads, rivers, lakes, quarries, etc.)

  Triplet C—East Cornwall

  Otterham CI

  Trial area LauncestonC2

  Lanreath C3

  Number of cattle herds in trial area

  151

  180

  107

  Historical indicence of TB in cattle in herds in trial area:

  Confirmed breakdowns:

  Three year (1996–8)

  21

  16

  14

  12 month (1998)

  7

  9

  5

  Annual incidence:

  Three year (1996–98)1

  0.0464

  0.0296

  0.0436

  12 month (1997)2

  0.0464

  .05009

  0.0467

  Total surface area (trial area and inner buffer zone)(km2)2

  145

  157

  141

  Total area for which permission for trial operations was sought (trial area and inner buffer zone) (km2)

  137

  154

  140

  Number of land occupiers visited in trial area and inner buffer zone

  259

  315

  237

  Treatment

  Reactive

  Survey only

  Proactive

  Aggregated data on badger removal operations in localised areas under the'interim strategy' 1986–97:

  Total number of badgers caught

  162

  360

  257

  Percentage of badgers caught found to be infected with TB (%)

  19

  24

  22

  Number of badgers trapped during the course of the trial to date

  178

  None

  357

  1 Number of breakdowns divided by total number of herds (per annum), expressed as a decimal figure

  2Some of this surface area will automatically be unsuitable for trial operations (including, for example, settlements, airfields, roads, rivers, lakes, quarries, etc.)

  Triplet F—West Cornwal

  Madron Fl

  Trial area Godolphin F2

  Stithia F3

  Number of cattle herds in trial area

  137

  206

  253

  Historical indicence of TB in cattle in herds in trial area:

  Confirmed breakdowns:

  Three year (1997–99)

  20

  25

  17

  12 month (1999)

  6

  19

  8

  Annual incidence:

  Three year (1997–99)1

  0.0487

  0.0405

  0.0224

  12 month (1999)1

  0.0438

  0.0922

  0.0316

  Total surface area (trial area and inner buffer zone)(km2)2

  145

  149

  164

  Total area for which permission for trial operations was sought (trial area and inner buffer zone) (km2)

  91

  113

  103

  Number of land occupiers visited in trial area and inner buffer zone

  252

  527

  658

  Treatment

  Proactive

  Survey only

  Reactive

  Aggregated data on badger removal operations in localised areas under the1'interim strategy' 1986–97:

  Total number of badgers caught

  469

  246

  414

  Percentage of badgers caught found to be infected with TB

  13

  13

  19

  Number of badgers trapped during the course of the trail to date

  451

  None

  None

  1 Number of breakdowns divided by total number of herds (per annum), expressed as a decimal figure

  2 Some of this surface area will automatically be unsuitable for trial operations (including, for example, settlements, airfields, roads, rivers, lakes, quarries, etc.)

  790W

  Circus Animals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will meet the All Party Group on Animal Welfare in order to discuss its recommendations on circus animals; and if she will make a statement. [42053]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is currently consulting widely on the content of a possible Animal Welfare Bill. The consultation includes the issue of animals in circuses. I will be happy to meet the group as part of the consultation process.

  Sheep Transportation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the safety standards are for the transport of live sheep on ships; when they were last reviewed; and if she will make a statement. [42127]

  Mr. Morley
  The requirements for the protection of welfare of sheep during transport on ships are set down in Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Directive 95/29/EC and implemented in GB by the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, as amended. We look forward to the European Commission's expected proposals to amend and update this directive.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many times the ship the Kalifeh has (1) breached safety guidelines when carrying sheep since January 2000; and if she will make a statement; [42130]

  (2) been refused entry to a European port while carrying sheep; and if she will make a statement. [42129]

  Mr. Morley
  Safety and standards in the maritime industry are a matter for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. With regard to standards for animal welfare, the MV Kalifeh 1 is known to have carried sheep twice from the UK. Both voyages were from Northern Ireland and the vessel was inspected by the Northern Ireland Veterinary Service and assessed as suitable to carry sheep. The vessel has not been refused entry to a European port following departure from the UK. However, on 16 February 2002 the French authorities refused a consignment of 274 sheep as a result of alleged irregularities in procedures relating to the animals which originated in the Republic of Ireland. This matter was resolved between the authorities in France and the Republic of Ireland.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [41048]

  Mr. Morley
  It is departmental policy, as an equal opportunity employer, to meet requests for all types of flexible working, including part-time working and job sharing, wherever the nature of the work allows.

  There are currently 83 people employed in DEFRA on a job share contract.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost of her Department's website was in real terms in each of the last four years; and how many hits it received in each of those years. [36148]

  Alun Michael
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was created only in June 2001. Many units across DEFRA contribute to the maintenance of the Department's website as part of their communications activities, and an overall figure cannot be arrived at without incurring disproportionate cost. The DEFRA website has received 30,581,206 hits between 8 June 2001, the date on which DEFRA was created, and 20 November 2001, the latest date for which usage statistics are currently available.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in her Department. [41029]

  Mr. Morley
  Staff in DEFRA and its executive agencies who are transferred from one workplace to another in the Department's interest and at its instigation are reimbursed reasonable costs for expenses necessarily incurred in moving home where the distance between the old and new workplaces merits a home move.

  Where it is possible to travel between the old and new workplaces on a daily basis, the Department meets any increased travel and associated costs for a limited period.

  Limited help may also be available to new staff who need to move home to take up appointment with the Department.

  Hunting
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated size of the(a) fox, (b) hunting dog and (c) hunting horse population in the UK has been in each year since 1995 for which figures are available. [40694]

  Alun Michael
  There is no way to collect such information, but the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, which was chaired by my noble Friend Lord Burns and published in June 2000 (Cm 4763), estimates the pre-breeding fox population of England and Wales as 217,000. The population almost trebles in early summer.

  The report contains information based on data returned in response to a survey of hunts conducted by Produce Studies Ltd. in February 2000. This provided an estimate that there are 793 horses owned by hunts in England and Wales and 19,162 hounds used for hunting in England and Wales.

  Dangerous Substance Rules
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what actions she is taking in response to the Reasoned Opinion relating to the dangerous substance directive and the waste oils directive. [40665]
  793W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are dealing with points made by the Commission in its Reasoned Opinions relating to the implementation of directives concerning the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances and the waste oils.

  Pollution Control
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to(a) increase the rate of response in the local authority pollution control statistical survey and (b) assess the performance of inspection of polluting processes of those local authorities who failed to respond to the local authority pollution control statistical survey in 2000–01. [38641]

  Mr. Meacher
  The rate of correct returns received at the time of publication of the 2000–01 statistical survey was 82 per cent.

  As a result of late returns and the inclusion of returns which had outstanding errors and queries at the time of publication, we now have a return rate of 92 per cent.

  We are pleased with this response rate, which we believe to be the result, among other things, of introducing electronic returns, despatching survey forms earlier, and improved guidance. We will, however, be writing to the 14 authorities that failed to send returns, and considering what steps can be taken to reduce errors and queries and tackle late returns, or whether it may be more sensible to publish the statistical report a little later in the year. We will also be contacting all authorities in the residual 8 per cent. to ascertain their inspection frequency in 2000–01.

  Sustainable Construction
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library copies of(a) the "Green Guide for Buyers" and (b) "Towards More Sustainable Construction". [40788]

  Mr. Meacher
  Both documents can be found on the Greening Government website: the guide for buyers at http://defraweb/environment/greening/greenpro/greenbuy/index.htm and the construction guide at http://defraweb/environment/greening/land/suscon/index.htm. The "Green Guide for Buyers" was revised in February 2001 and produced in electronic format only as the information it contains needs to be updated regularly. However, copies of "Towards More Sustainable Construction in the Library-a green guide for managers on the Government estate" that was published in April 1999 will be placed in the Library.

  Toxic Substances
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consideration she has given to further guidance and controls since the unauthorised disposals of toxic ash residues from the incinerator and fuel plants at Byker, Newcastle. [40575]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency is currently piloting new procedures to track the destination of ash following disposal by municipal waste incinerators. Subject to a satisfactory outcome of the pilot exercise, the agency intends to apply this approach to all municipal 794W
  waste incinerators in England and Wales, and any other municipal waste derived fuel plant that is similar to the one at Byker.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantity of toxic ash residues was disposed of in unauthorised ways from the incinerator and fuel plants at Byker, Newcastle; and how much of this material was dumped outside the city boundaries of Newcastle upon Tyne. [40564]

  Mr. Meacher
  In its investigations the Environment Agency established that approximately 2,000 tonnes of ash from the Byker plant were deposited in and around Newcastle over a five-year period from 1993 to 1998 by Newcastle city council.

  There are two sites outside Newcastle upon Tyne that the Environment Agency has identified as receiving ash from the Byker plant. Approximately 11 tonnes was deposited at Northumbria Horse Holidays, Annfield Plain, Durham and 40 tonnes was deposited at Murton Riding School, Murton village, Shiremoor. Newcastle city council deposited the ash at the owners' requests for use as exercise arena surfacing.

  All ash deposits known to the Environment Agency in and around Newcastle have been removed by Newcastle city council and disposed of to an appropriately licensed landfill site.

  Waste
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many hazardous waste landfill sites will be available when co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste is banned; what volume of hazardous waste will have to be disposed of in specialist sites; and if she will make a statement. [40861]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The EC landfill directive bans the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste from July 2004.

  The choice about whether to operate co-disposal sites as hazardous or non-hazardous sites beyond July 2004 is a commercial decision for landfill operators. We will not have a clear picture of likely capacity until operators submit site conditioning plans in July 2002 stating the classification (hazardous, non-hazardous or inert) they are seeking for the site following the end of co-disposal.

  We are currently working with the waste industry and the Environment Agency to forecast how much hazardous waste will need to continue to be landfilled following the end of co-disposal. This will depend on the proportion of the total hazardous waste arising that can be recovered or recycled, the extent to which the waste can be treated to allow it to go to non-hazardous landfill sites, and the availability of alternative disposal routes such as incineration.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will reply to the question tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough for answer on 30 November 2001, on public speeches on agriculture; [2831
  795W
  (2) for what reason she has not provided an answer to the question tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough on 28 November 2001, on public speeches on agriculture, ref. 20000. [41092]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answers 18 January and 7 March 2002]: I regret that the original question was overlooked. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied on 7 March 2002, Official Report, column 485W.

  Public Appointments (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people from Warrington, North she has appointed to non-departmental public bodies since 1997. [39447]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: To the best of my knowledge one person living in Warrington, North has been appointed to non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) by Ministers of this Department and it predecessors since 1997.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding the specification of works under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme; and if she will make a statement. [38305]

  Mr. Meacher
  HEES measures are installed to the requirements of two technical specifications: one for insulation the other for heating. The scheme uses a system of heating packs based on six property types rather than individually designed heating systems.

  The pack approach has been designed to meet the heating industry's codes of practice. The design process was carried out for my Department by Advantica, Gas and Research Technology Centre (a commercial arm of British Gas). In designing the heating packs Advantica took into account statistical data from the 1996 English House Condition Survey, in particular data relating to dwellings occupied by the over-60s on low-income.

  Both scheme managers have received comments on the scope of the scheme and its specifications, which we continue to keep under review.

  Land Economy
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial support her Department makes available to landowners to promote stewardship of(a) wetlands and (b) woodlands. [38496]

  Alun Michael
  This Department and its agencies offer a broad range of land management agreements, which may provide landowners with financial support to promote stewardship of wetlands, woodlands and other types of land. Examples include the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Countryside Stewardship and Farm Woodland Premium Schemes. The Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme provides financial support for the management, and planting, of woodland. These schemes are available through the England Rural Development Programme which offers £190 million in this financial year.796W
  It would be well-nigh impossible to separate out the spending on wetlands or woodlands and a couple of examples may help to explain why this is the case.

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) scheme includes some well-known wetlands (Somerset Levels; Broads; Suffolk River Valleys; Essex Coast; North Kent Marshes; Avon and Test Valleys). Total ESA payments to farmers in these areas will amount to £10 million this year. However, this figure would be difficult to separate into categories of land. In addition, the Environment Agency, English Nature and the Countryside Agency all make contributions to individual cases through their own mechanisms in pursuance of the objectives we have agreed with them.

  Taking the Somerset Levels as an example, in the raised water level area, the Environment Agency provides funds for sluices and the ESA scheme contributes towards land management and ditch maintenance. In parts, there is SSSI land on which England Nature provides grants under the Wildlife Enhancement Scheme. In the Suffolk River Valleys ESA, financial support to farmers comes from a combination of ESA funds and Countryside Stewardship support. The Environment Agency and English Nature also support some cases. Further public sector support is also available from the local authority. Some schemes are supported by private money from the RSPB and National Trust. Many of these cases would also cover land other than wetland and woodland.

  This joined up approach is now producing excellent results. The ESA and Countryside Stewardship schemes cover hundreds of individual cases which include wetland and woodland areas but dissecting the national spend on wetlands and woodland from each case could he achieved only at a disproportionate cost.

  Tail Docking
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she plans to introduce legislation to ban the tail docking of dogs. [41802]]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is currently consulting widely on the content a possible Animal Welfare Bill. The consultation includes the issue of whether tail docking should be banned. A copy of the consultation document can be found on the DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk.

  Hens
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the scientific evidence upon which the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive 1999/74/EC was based. [41230]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Commission Scientific Veterinary Committee on Animal Welfare published a report on the Welfare of Laying Hens in October 1996. This report provided the basis for the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive 99/74/EC.

  Waterways
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the accessibility of the UK's waterways to canoeists. [40706]
  797W
  Alun Michael
  The research report "Water-Based Sport and Recreation: the facts", published in December 2001, found that the lengths of water for canoeing on canals, rivers with public navigation rights and rivers with formal access agreement total 5,490 km. This amounts to 27 per cent. of the major river and canal network or 6 per cent. of the major and minor river and canal network.

  DEFRA officials are currently discussing the report with other Government Departments and agencies. Following those discussions, I shall consider what further work or action is needed in the light of the report's findings.

  Warm Home Scheme
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government's warm home scheme was introduced; how it was advertised to possible claimants; what overlap there was between this scheme and similar ones provided by local authorities; and if she will make a statement. [40330]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: The two scheme managers, TXU and Eaga, were appointed in March 2000, this enabled them to start marketing the scheme prior to the launch date of 1 June 2000. The scheme managers adopted a number of forms of advertising.

  Referral networks were set up and are maintained by the scheme managers. Referral partners come into contact on a day-to-day basis with householders who may be eligible for assistance and are ideally placed to pass details directly to the scheme managers. These can involve local authority staff, Citizen Advice Bureaux, doctors, local health workers and Energy Efficiency Advice Centres.

  Leaflets were issued through targeted drops and stocks left at key local venues such as post offices, local authority reception areas, libraries and supermarkets. There was also some limited use of local advertising on the radio and posters inside buses.

  The consultation paper issued before the launch of the scheme, said that there would be limited funding for measures in the properties of social landlords, including properties owned by local authorities. This was limited to a maximum of £45 million or two years from the start of the scheme. All social funds available under the scheme have now been allocated.

  Organic Action Plan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce the organic action plan. [42179]

  Mr. Morley
  The development of the organic farming sector will be carried forward in the context of an organic action plan, taking account of the recommendations of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food.

  Refrigerators (Disposal)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her 798W
  understanding in December 1998 was of the purpose of, and requirements for the UK, of EU Regulation 2037/2000. [34838]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on substances that deplete the ozone layer (ODS) was published by the European Commission on 14 August 1998. The environmental purpose of the regulation was to further protect the ozone layer during a decade when ozone depletion was expected to peak.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the requests made by her Department to the European Commission for clarification of the practical implications of implementing EU Regulation 2037/2000 in theUK. [40366]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 922W.

  Nitrates
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many replies she has received to the consultation paper on nitrate vulnerable zones; and if she will place a list of consultees in the Library. [41496]

  Mr. Meacher
  As of 6 March 2002, we have received 12,696 replies to our consultation entitled "How Should England Implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?".

  A list of responding consultees will be placed in the Library, though this will exclude those who have requested their reply be confidential. These currently number 2,535.

  UN Ancient Forests Summit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if(a) Ministers and (b) officials will attend the UN Ancient Forests Summit at the Hague in April. [36399]

  Mr. Morley
  The United Kingdom expects to send a delegation comprising officials from a wide range of Government Departments to the meeting formally known as the 6th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Forest biodiversity is one of the main issues on the agenda, and we are committed to seeking a successful outcome that will make a real contribution to the conservation and sustainable use of all forest biodiversity, including that in ancient forests.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for South Suffolk of(a) 18 June on behalf of Ms Lesley Denny and Mrs. Eileen Denny, (b) 25 June on behalf of Mrs. J. M. Wellington,(c) 25 June welcoming her to her job, (d) 26 June on a public inquiry into foot and mouth disease,(e) 4 July on behalf of Mrs. A. R. Gascoigne, (f) 24 July on behalf of Mrs. J. Fenton, (g) 16 July on behalf of Mr. R. N. Bracher, (h) 24 July on behalf of Mrs. J. MacDonald,(i) 24 July on behalf of Mr. J. Sanderson, (j) 24 July on behalf of

  799W
  Mr. K. Bendon, (k) 23 July about cleaning and disinfection of farms affected by foot and mouth disease and (l)30 July and 29 August on behalf of Mrs. P. M. Baylis. [75821]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The hon. Member has received replies to the following:

  (a) 18 June on behalf of Ms Lesley Denny and Mrs. Eileen Denny, reply sent on 31 January 2002.

  (b) 25 June on behalf of Mrs. J. M. Wellington, reply sent on 26 January 2002.

  (c) 25 June welcoming her to her job, reply sent on 23 February 2002.

  (d) 26 June on a public inquiry into foot and mouth disease, reply sent on 23 February 2002.

  (f) 24 July on behalf of Mrs. J. Fenton, reply sent 23 January 2002.

  (h) 24 July on behalf of Mrs. J. MacDonald, reply sent 30 January 2002.

  (i) 24 July on behalf of Mr. J. Sanderson, reply sent 29 January 2002.

  (j) 24 July on behalf of Mr. K. Bendon, reply sent on 8 March 2002.

  (k) 23 July about cleaning and disinfection of farms affected by foot and mouth disease, reply sent 23 January 2002.

  (l) 30 July and 29 August on behalf of Mrs. P. M. Baylis, reply sent 5 January.

  We have no record of receiving letters (e) 4 July on behalf of Mrs. A. R. Gascoigne, and (g) 16 July on behalf of Mr. R. N. Bracher.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many registered small businesses there were in the United Kingdom, broken down by(a) category and (b) region in each year since 1990. [40820]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of VAT registered businesses is the best available measure of the registered small business population. Most VAT registered businesses are small but the figures will include a small number of large business. Due to significant changes in the VAT threshold in 1991 and 19931 it is difficult to compare the 1994 to 2001 time series with previous data.

  The figures have been placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Health Spending
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what year he expects United Kingdom spending on health to equal the European average; on what basis this estimate is made; and if he will make a statement. [4849]
  800W
  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The average health expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) of European Union countries has been around 7.9 to 8 per cent. for a number of years. By 2003–04 total health spending in the US will be around 7.6 per cent. of GDP. Spending plans beyond that time will be made in the coming spending review.

  This forecast is based on current national health service spending plans, and an assumption that private expenditure remains at around 1 per cent. of GDP.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health purchasing authorities which were overspent in 2000–01. [42195]

  Mr. Hutton
  The annual accounts for 2000–01 show only one health authority—Bexley and Greenwich failed to achieve financial balance. The health authority merged on 1 April 2001.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health service budget heads which(a) were underspent in 2000–01 and (b) are expected to be underspent in the current year, in each case showing the extent of underspend. [42194]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested for 2000–01 is contained in the Department of Health Appropriation Account and Expenditure Statements (HC 335–1122 February 2002). A copy is held in the Library.

  Information for the current year will not be available until after the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the purchasing health authorities which were headed for a current year overspend between October and December 2001, stating(a) the then estimated overspend and (b) the latest estimated overspend. [42193]

  Mr. Hutton
  By year-end we expect all health authorities to live within their agreed resource limits and not to overspend.

  Heart Disease
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate(a) when the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will commence its work into the investigation and management of heart failure, (b) whom the institute will invite to participate in the production of a clinical guideline and (c) when he anticipates that the institute will produce clinical guidelines into the investigation and management of heart failure; and if he will make a statement. [1414]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.
  801W
  The development of a guideline on the management of heart failure began in September 2001. The Chronic Condition Collaborating Centre has been asked to lead the development on behalf of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The provisional date for publication of the guidelines is summer 2003. The collaborating centre will consult the organisations listed.

  British Heart Foundation

  British Geriatrics Society

  Medtronic

  AstraZeneca UK Ltd.

  Roche

  British In Vitro Diagnostics Association

  Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd.

  NHS Information Authority, (PHSMI Programme)

  Department of Health

  Family Heart Association

  Age Concern England

  Cardiomyopathy Association

  Contact a family

  Chartered Society of Physiotherapy

  Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Royal College of General Practitioners (Wales)

  Ambulance Service Association

  Association of British Clinical Diabetologists

  Royal College of Nursing

  Royal College of Anaesthetists

  Royal College of Midwives (Wales)

  Royal College of General Practitioners

  Royal College of Physicians

  Royal College of Nursing (Wales)

  Royal College of Surgeons of England.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the extent of variation in access to health services in England. [2841]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department has commissioned a number of reviews to assess health inequalities, as well as National Service Frameworks which analyse the evidence and set out blueprints to raise standards and reduce variations. There are also a range of measures to assess performance (including national health service performance indicators which measure access). Improving access to health care is a core underpinning principle of the new NHS reforms and the NHS Plan sets out a substantial programme for addressing variations across the country.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of days hospital beds are blocked because of local authority delays in providing(a) care packages and (b) aids or
  802W
  adaptations to patients' homes for each local authority area in the north-west; and if he will make a statement. [2107]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Information is not available in the form requested. However, on 3 March 2002 some 82 people were in hospital beds in the north-west region awaiting public funding of post-hospital care, compared with 168 in August 2001. There were another 29 people awaiting domiciliary care packages of some form, compared with 45 in August 2001. It is not possible to break these down by local authority area.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters to him dated 6 August 2001 and 25 September 2001 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. S. Holden. [12671]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The reply to my right hon. Friend's letters of 6 August and 25 September regarding his constituent Mr. Stephen Holden was sent on 5 November 2001.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 8 October from Sandi O'Donnell of Resvil to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State regarding a survey of carers' and patients' preferences in housing for people with learning disabilities. [20413]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A reply was sent on 26 November 2001.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter of 24 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A. Battersby. [22189]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A reply to the letter of 24 October from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about Mr. A. Battersby was sent to him on 11 December.
  803W
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter of 31 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. E. Johnson. [22186]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent on 5 November.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letters of 25 September and 26 November 2001, from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald about the provision of general practitioner services in Staplehurst. [36389]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the right hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A reply was sent on 8 March.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the letter of 3 September from the hon. Member for Woodspring on the treatment of British patients in European hospitals; and if he will make a statement on the cause of the delay. [10805]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  A reply was sent on 31 October 2001.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the letter of 22 August from the hon. Member for Woodspring on free nursing care; and if he will make a statement on the cause of the delay. [10806]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  A reply was sent on 31 October 2001.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 6 December, 2 January, 29 January and 26 February relating to correspondence from her constituent Mr. Phillip Goldsmith of Broxbourne. [39558]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: A reply was sent on 8 March 2002.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for West Worcestershire will receive an answer to the letter written to the Secretary of State for Social Security on 24 April on behalf of Mrs. Copson, which was transferred to his Department on 8 May (ref: POH (3)5505/6). [12384]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the 804W
  Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  A reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent from the chief executive, National Health Service Pensions Agency, on 5 November 2001. I apologise for the unacceptable delay in replying to the hon. Member's correspondence, due to the Department not receiving the original correspondence transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the letter of 19 March sent to him by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East about his constituent, Ms Lesley Talbot. [24284]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department has no record of receiving this correspondence. The Department's ministerial correspondence unit requested a duplicate copy of the correspondence. The issues raised in the correspondence were the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP will arrange for a reply to be sent shortly.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Public Service Agreement target for procurement savings by NHS trusts in 2001–02. [14900]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  All national health service trusts have targets for procurement savings in their procurement strategies. They will all be measured against these targets by the Audit Commission and the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency and the results will be made available in April.

  Also, trusts have been set targets to increase efficiency across the range of services they provide. This is embodied in the new public service agreement target for value for money that was agreed as part of spending review 2000:
  "The cost of care commissioned from trusts which perform well against indicators of fair access, quality and responsiveness, will become the benchmark for the NHS. Everyone will be expected to reach the level of the best over the next five years, with agreed milestones for 2003–04."

  The aim of this new target is to ensure that cost-savings are not at the expense of service quality. The year 2001–02 is the first year covered by this new public service agreement target. We will be monitoring progress against this new target as data become available.
  805W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Public Service Agreement target of a reduction in the death rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least 20 per cent. by 2010. [14886]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 23 October 2001 Official Report, column 147W.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish an evaluation of the NHS Executive North West's recruitment of foreign general practitioners. [24601]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department is working with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges to establish a suitable evaluation process for the international recruitment programme including the recruitment of general practitioners from abroad in the north-west.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of GPs in(a) Pendle and (b) East Lancashire are due to retire before 2004; what steps he is taking to attract young doctors to the area; and if he will make a statement. [12046]

  Ms Abbott
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002 Official Report, column 192W.

  Figures are not available centrally in the format requested. However, during 2002–03, 14 (5.1 per cent.) general practitioners (GPs) in the East Lancashire Health Authority area are expected to retire. A further 8 (2.9 per cent.) GPs are due to retire during 2003–04.

  18 GPs currently within the Pendle Primary Care Group are aged over 55.

  East Lancashire Health Authority is pursuing a number of initiatives both in the long and short term to help address the problems in recruiting and retaining GPs.

  Notes:
  These figures have been extracted from a study by Lancashire University in 1998 relating to workforce planning for general medical and other primary care staff.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs are expected to be recruited to carry out GP appraisals; if these GPs will be expected to continue in general practice; what remuneration they will receive for 806W
  performing appraisals; and what estimate has been made of the amount of time a GP appraiser would be expected to spend on appraisals in a calendar year. [12711]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  General practitioners (GPs) who are to be GP appraisers should be practising general practitioners. To date, primary care trusts and groups have identified over 900 such GPs to participate in the initial appraiser training programme, which starts this month.

  This programme is intended to provide an initial cohort of trained GP appraisers. It is, however, for Primary Care Trusts themselves, working with their local GPs, to decide how many GP appraisers they each need, the level of commitment required and the remuneration to offer. These decisions may be informed by the work commissioned by my Department from the School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield which suggests it is reasonable to expect a GP appraiser to undertake between 10 and 25 appraisals annually.

  Information for Health Strategy
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 737W, when his Department expects to receive the assessment by Professor Protti of the Information for Health Strategy. [25350]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The report commissioned from Prof. Protti by the Information Policy Unit and the NHS Information Authority to inform internal thinking about policy and development issues in implementing "Information for Health" has now been received and is being considered.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many current NHS private finance initiative contracts a preferred bidder was designated; and in respect of how many of these the preferred bidder did not get the contract. [33282]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  53 private finance initiative (PFI) schemes with a capital value of over £10 million appointed preferred bidders of which 42 have proceeded to sign contracts and 11 are still in negotiations.
  807W
  A further seven (PFI) schemes with a capital value of over £10 million appointed preferred bidders, but did not proceed on to sign contracts.

  Detailed information is not held centrally for schemes with a capital value below £10 million.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of a correlation between NHS waiting lists and consultants' income from private patients. [34664]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  From the small number of studies related to this issue no conclusions either way can be drawn from the current evidence on any correlation between NHS waiting lists and consultants' income from private patients.

  Speech Therapists
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the allocation of speech and language therapists for children with(a)severe learning difficulty and (b) moderate learning difficulty. [38437]

  Jacqui Smith
  Speech and language therapists have a broad range of responsibilities and children with severe and moderate learning difficulties are one of many important groups they can help. The proportion of their time devoted to the treatment of people with severe and moderate learning difficulties varies according to local needs assessment.

  Children's Refuges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children's refuges there are; where they are located; and how much his Department contributes to funding their operation. [4089]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 July 2001]I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  There is one children's refuge, which is located in London. Funding for the refuge is provided by the Department of Health and by the Greater London Association of Directors of Social Services (GLADSS). For the financial years 2001–02 and 2002–03, each member of GLADSS has contributed 0.9 per cent. of their Quality Protects grant towards the refuge's costs. The Department acts as a conduit for this funding as well as making its own financial contribution. The approximate funding required for the coming financial year (2002–03) will be in the region of £390,000.
  808W

  Whittington Hospital
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will commence a programme for the refurbishment of the Whittington hospital; and if he will state(a) the total cost, (b) the cost of financing by the public sector and (c) the cost of funds from private sources. [7550]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The first stage of development, which is mainly new build, at the Whittington is expected to commence in April 2002 with a total building cost of around £28 million. £3.9 million is being funded publicly and is currently under way. £24.1 million is expected to be provided by the private sector. Future planned works are currently in the earliest planning stages and capital costs for these are not currently available.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential homes(a) in the private sector and (b) owned by local authorities have closed since 1 May 1997. [8922]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The table shows the number of residential care homes by sector, in England on 31 March in each of the last five years. These figures take account of new homes, those that closed and those that made changes to their registration status or extended their existing facilities. It is not possible to determine the precise number of homes that have closed from this information.

  Residential care homes, 1997 to 2001, England, as at 31 March

  Rounded numbers

  Residential care homes1

  (a) Private sector residential homes2

  (b)local auhority staffed homes

  1997

  24,500

  22,200

  2,300

  1998

  24,900

  22,700

  2,200

  1999

  24,800

  22,700

  2,100

  2000

  24,800

  22,700

  2,000

  2001

  24,100

  22,200

  1,900

  1 Includes dual registered homes.

  2 Consistsof voluntary, private, small homes and dual registered homes.

  Note:

  Figures may not add to totals because of rounding.

  Source:

  Department of Health annual returns.

  809W

  Treatment Abroad
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legal advice he has received on the European Court of Justice judgment for receiving health care treatment abroad; and if he will place it in the Library. [11042]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Legal advice was received from two counsel. It is not normal practice to publish advice obtained by the Secretary of State and there is no reason to depart from that practice in this case.

  Outpatient Waiting Times
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the maximum permitted out-patient waiting time is for NHS patients; and if he will make a statement. [13486]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 November 200I]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The waiting time standard as set out in the Patient's Charter for a first out-patient appointment from general practitioner (GP) referral is for patients to be seen within 26 weeks. The service is aiming to achieve no patients waiting over 26 weeks following GP referral by the end of March 2002 as a first step towards reducing the maximum wait to three months by the end of March 2005.

  Suicide
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the change in the suicide rate between the 1995 and 1997 baseline and the most recent data. [13966]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001): I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

  HCHS capital spending

  £ million

  1997£98

  1998£99

  1999£2000

  2000£01

  2001£02

  Government spending

  1,068

  782

  928

  1,353

  1,949

  Receipts from land sales

  471

  500

  549

  575

  351

  PFI investment

  58

  170

  381

  632

  788

  Total investment

  1,597

  1,452

  1,858

  2,560

  3,088

  Source:

  Figures taken from 2001–02 departmental report
  810W
  gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 147W. There are insufficient data available to assess whether the recent rise is a reliable indicator of a particular trend.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the proportion of young men who commit suicide while suffering from mental illness; and if he will make a statement. [13967]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness collect data on suicides by people in contact with mental health services in the year before death. In March 2001, the inquiry published its five-year report, "Safety First", which was based on the detailed study of 5,582 suicides by psychiatric patients in the UK between 1996 and 2000.

  The inquiry is crucial to gaining a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding homicides and suicides committed by people with mental illness. The Department is committed to taking appropriate action in response to the findings of the inquiry.

  Ward Refurbishments
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been made available to hospital trusts in the last five years specifically for the refurbishment of hospital wards. [26496]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The general policy over the last five years has been that the refurbishment of hospital wards is one of the priorities funded from the general capital that is available to national health service trusts. The private finance initiative is also being used to refurbish wards. A summary of capital investment available to the NHS Hospitals and Community Health Service (HCHS) over the last five years is:
  811W
  During the last five years two budgets have been set up, both in 2001–02, to target funds specifically at ward refurbishment.

  Year

  Budget

  £million

  2001–;02

  Refurbishment of psychiatric wards

  15

  2001–02

  Conversion of Nightingale wards

  40

  Prescribing Budgets
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expected level of the overspend is on the general practitioner prescribing budget in the Wigan and Bolton health authority; and what the expected average overspend is on the prescription budget for health authorities in England. [31109]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The latest forecast of the overspend on practice prescribing budgets for Wigan and Bolton health authority suggests there will be a 12.1 per cent. overspend in 2001–02. This position is based on practice budgets notified to the Prescription Pricing Authority and prescribing data up to and including December 2001. The expected average overspend on prescribing budgets for all health authorities in England indicates a 7.2 per cent. overspend nationally.

  Note:
  The prescribing budgets notified to the PPA are practice level prescribing budgets. They do not necessarily reflect the total resource set aside locally for prescribing as primary care trusts, primary care groups and health authorities may hold contingency reserves.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many girls received the rubella vaccine in(a) each county or health authority and (b) England in each of the five years before the introduction of the MMR vaccine; and what proportion those who had received the vaccine represented of the total number of girls under 12 years of age. [34360]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Prior to the introduction of the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, coverage for rubella for girls was measured by 14 years of age. A table of the available information has been placed in the Library.
  812W

  MMR Vaccination
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to improve MMR vaccination rates since 1 January. [34878]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Last year, the Department worked with general practitioners and health professionals to give them the most up-to-date information on MMR, so that they could discuss the issues with parents with the help of full access to the facts.

  Currently, the Department is working on ways to ensure parents can get answers to their questions including using NHS Direct and the internet, as well as through local health professionals.

  A conference was held on Monday 25 February this year, where the latest issues and research were discussed with District Immunisation Co-ordinators, consultants in communicable disease control and representatives from the nursing profession; information packs were made available to all delegates who attended.

  The Department will also be working with health authorities and primary care trusts, particularly in low uptake areas, to provide additional information to parents and to ensure all parents are given the opportunity to have their children immunised.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives are payable to general practitioners for achieving MMR vaccination targets; and what the targets are. [35214]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Measles, mumps and rubella is one of the vaccinations which form part of the childhood immunisation programme. The others are diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, pertussis and haemophilius influenza type b (Hib). General practitioners who provide General Medical Services receive on average a payment of £2,730 per annum for reaching 90 per cent. coverage in childhood immunisations. The average payment for the lower target of 70 per cent. coverage is £910. Actual payments depend on list size. Similar arrangements apply to GPs who work under the arrangements for Personal Medical Services, though the actual payments under this system are agreed locally.

  NHS Purchasing
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the status is of the National Service Framework in assisting purchaser health authorities to determine the quality of service in(a) NHS and

  813W
  (b) independent hospitals; and if he offers guidance to purchasers on securing quality service from independent hospitals. [40693]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The National Service Frameworks (NSFs) and the National Cancer Plan set clear national standards for the prevention, investigation and treatment of leading causes of ill health and premature death. They also recommend how services can be organised so that they are effective, efficient and dependable and set out the criteria that will be used to monitor progress.

  As these frameworks are being implemented, together with effective clinical governance, and backed up by more quality-focused methods of monitoring and performance management, the quality of care for people with coronary heart disease, cancer, mental health problems and for older people is improving rapidly.

  National health service patients treated in independent hospitals remain NHS patients. When commissioning treatment from the independent sector, NHS commissioners must be satisfied that the treatment will be of a high standard, with reference to relevant national standards and service guidance. Quality requirements can be set out in contracts between the NHS and the independent providers.

  The Department is developing guidance to help NHS bodies effectively commission high quality services from independent hospitals.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the care homes in England are small businesses. [41270]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students in higher education were training to be dentists in(a) 1979, (b) 1992, (c) 1997 and (d) 2001 or the most recent available date. [36392]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available data are shown in the table. Figures for 2001–02 will be available at the end of April 2002.

  Full-time students1 on undergraduate courses in dentistry2 Great Britain

  Academic year

  Students

  1979–80

  4,140

  1992–93

  3,550

  1995–96

  3,910

  1996–97

  4,170

  1997–98

  4,180

  1998–99

  4,050

  1999–2000

  4,090

  2000–01

  4,080

  1 Home and overseas students. Census count as at 31 December in years up to 1992–93, and 1 December in subsequent years. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  2 Covers clinical and pre-clinical dentistry.

  814W

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of primary care teams have met the target set down in the national service framework on coronary heart disease requiring every primary care team to have(a) all medical records and hospital correspondence held in a way that allows them to be retrieved rapidly in date order, (b) appropriate medical records that contain easily and (c) a systematically developed and maintained practice-based CHD register which is actively used to provide structured care to people with CHD; and what measures he intends to take to ensure that the targets are met at the earliest possible opportunity. [1412]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Health authority service and financial framework (SAFF) returns for March 2001 show over 90 per cent. of primary care practices plan to be meeting these milestones by March 2002.

  Local health communities are currently taking stock of progress towards the NHS Plan and national service framework milestones as part of the local modernisation review process. Departmental regional offices are working closely with local health communities to ensure these milestones are delivered in a realistic timeframe.

  Deferred Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in respect of each health purchasing authority in the south-east and south-west regions in 2000–01, whether they improved their budget position during that year by deferring admission of patients for certain procedures. [42196]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Cancer Nurses
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) pay, (b) conditions and (c) recruitment of nurses specialising in cancer care. [38235]

  Mr. Hutton
  All nurses, including those specialising in cancer care are graded in accordance with the nationally agreed clinical grading structure.

  We have accepted in full the recommendations of the independent Pay Review Body for 2002–03. From 1 April all nursing staff will receive an above inflation increase of at least 3.6 per cent. Pay has increased across the board for all nurses by at least 26 per cent. in cash terms since 1997.

  We remain committed to working with unions, professional organisations and employers to introduce a new pay system that will offer staff working in the national health service a more attractive career structure, fairer pay and consistent conditions of service.
  815W
  The NHS Plan set out our commitment to increasing the work force and the NHS Cancer Plan confirmed our commitment to investment in the cancer nursing work force. The Department's census shows that since the launch of the NHS Plan in September 1999 until September 2001, there was a net increase in nurses working in the NHS of 20,740. This increase will enable the recruitment of additional cancer-site specific nurse specialists, chemotherapy nurses, palliative care nurse specialists and additional nurses on cancer wards.

  We are committed to continue increasing the number of nurses employed in the NHS and improving retention, increasing training places, encouraging former staff to return, and increasing international recruitment. The NHS is also changing to become a modern, flexible employer. The current recruit, return and retain campaign covers all nurses, including those involved in cancer services and the staffing of all NHS services should inform a Trust's recruitment and retention strategy.

  Temodal
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Temodal has received approval from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; what plans he has to increase its availability to NHS patients; and if he will make a statement. [1415]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued guidance to the NHS on the use of temozolomide (Temodal) for the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma (brain cancer) in April 2001.

  On 5 December 2001, the Government announced that they would meet their commitment to ensure that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by NICE on the NHS if deemed appropriate by their clinicians. Directions have been issued obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments.

  Hospital Beds (Merseyside)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State what estimate he has made of the additional number of beds that would be required to eliminate queueing for a bed on wards at(a) Whiston hospital, Aintree, (b) University hospital, (c) the Royal Liverpool teaching hospital and (d) Alder Hey hospital; and if he will make a statement. [2168]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Whiston hospital, University hospital, Aintree and the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen hospital each has a higher than average proportion of patients experiencing a long wait in an Accident and Emergency (A&E) department or elsewhere for admission to a bed in a ward.
  816W
  The reasons that patients have to wait in accident and emergency or elsewhere for a bed in a ward are complex and not always solved solely by the addition of extra beds. However, more ward beds have been opened in each of the hospitals as part of the overall strategy for reducing the length of time patients are waiting for admission to a bed.

  Health Authority Restructuring
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the change to overall management costs in the NHS of his health authority restructuring proposals. [1845]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Changes to health authorities are one strand of the Shifting the Balance of Power initiative. The number of health authorities will reduce and, subject to the National Health Service Reform and Health Professions Bill, become strategic health authorities later this year. In addition, the number of primary care trusts will increase. There will also be changes to the Department. The reductions in bureaucracy made as a result of the whole reform programme will release savings of £100 million by 2004.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made on restructuring health authorities; and when he expects the changes to be fully implemented. [1846]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 July 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the shifting the balance of power initiative in April 2001, 22 simultaneous public consultation exercises on the boundaries of the proposed new health authorities were conducted between 7 September 2001 and 30 November 2001. The names of the 28 new, larger and more strategic, health authorities in England were announced on 18 December 2001. The names of their chairs (designate) were announced by the Appointments Commission on 19 December 2001. The names of the chief executives (designate) were announced on 21 December 2001. The 28 new health authorities will be established on 1 April 2002, when the 95 existing health authorities will be abolished. Subject to progress with the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, the new health authorities are expected to be designated strategic health authorities and to be fully operational in their new roles from October 2002.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the arrangements that he
  817W
  intends to put in place from October to ensure homeowners will no longer be required to sell their homes to pay for their long-term care. [2540]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Deferred payments arrangements came into force on 1 October 2001. Under this power, on admission to permanent residential accommodation, councils can agree to defer the contributions to care costs that residents would normally make from the sale of their home. Once the home is sold, the resident or their estate repays the council. If this repayment is made within 56 days, interest is not charged.

  Councils have been given a grant to cover the cost of agreeing to deferred payments.

  Health Action Zones
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce health action zones covering the Greater London area. [2848]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  There are already four health action zones (HAZs) in the Greater London area. East London and the City and Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HAZs were established in 1998, and followed by Brent and Camden and Islington HAZs in 1999. There are no plans for further HAZs.

  Health Authorities (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the merger of health authorities in Lancashire. [2935]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on "Shifting the Balance of Power", the current 75 health authorities will be merged to form 28 strategic health authorities.

  Three strategic health authorities will cover the northwest: Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Merseyside, and Cumbria and Lancashire. All of the proposed strategic health authorities have already been subject to a formal period of public consultation. The health authorities in Lancashire and Cumbria will therefore merge on 1 April 2002, but subject to legislation, the new health authorities will form the strategic health authority by the autumn.
  818W

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the powers he has to remove a chair of a hospital trust, indicating the circumstances where these procedures apply. [29371

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Under the terms of paragraphs 9(3), (4) and (6) of the National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 1990, and paragraph 2(2) of the National Health Service Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 1997, the Secretary of State for Health can terminate the appointment of a chair or non-executive director of a national health service trust if:
  he is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of the health service that a person who is appointed as chair or non-executive director of an NHS trust should continue to hold that office;
  the chair or non-executive director has not attended a meeting of the trust for a period of three months; or
  if it appears to the Secretary of State that the chair or non-executive director has failed to comply with the requirements of the regulations with regard to disclosure of pecuniary interests in matters under discussion at meetings of the trust.

  Enforcement of these provisions has now been delegated by the Secretary of State to the NHS Appointments Commission.

  Hospices
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government funding is available nationally for(a) hospices and (b) children's hospices. [2853]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  It is for the national health service locally to make arrangements for financial support for both adults' and children's hospices, given the extent of local diversity both of the services provided and of alternative sources of local support.

  In the NHS Cancer Plan we pledged that the NHS contribution to the costs of specialist palliative care (including hospices) would increase. By 2004 the NHS will invest an additional £50 million. This investment is intended to help tackle inequalities in access to specialist palliative care and enable the NHS to increase their contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service.

  Hospices will also benefit from £70 million allocated by the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) to support palliative care projects for adults and children. £22 million has been allocated for adults and £ 48 million for children to support palliative care projects for adults and children suffering from any type of life threatening disease, including services provided by children's hospices.
  819W

  Mental Health
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of mental health patients received a care plan in the last 12 months. [3452]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2001]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Information collected by the Department's common information core at end March 2001 shows that 94 per cent. of mental health patients on the enhanced level of the care programme approach (CPA) had a written care plan. Information is not available about the number of other mental health patients who have care plans, or of the number that received care plans over the past 12 months. March 2001 data are the latest currently held centrally but the Department plans to collect information about care plans for all those on CPA from April.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what local arrangements have been made under the Health Act 1999 to integrate council and NHS mental health services for(a) adults, (b) adolescents and (c) children; and if he will make a statement. [12020]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column I92W.

  A number of partnership arrangements under the Health Act 1999 have been set up to integrate mental health services, covering a total budget of approximately £300 million. A large proportion of this money has been allocated to adult services. Some of these projects incorporate child and adolescent mental health services, and there are also some separate projects for these groups.

  Details of Health Act partnership arrangements are available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/jointun it/notifications.pdf.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those appointed as non-executive directors of the new Five Boroughs mental health care trust; and what proportion of those members are from the Warrington, North constituency. [41440]

  Mr. Hutton
  Of the six non-executive positions on the board of the Five Boroughs Partnership national health service trust, only the chair has been appointed to date. He does not live in Warrington, North. The NHS Appointments Commission expect to make four further appointments very shortly.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the extra spending on mental health services over three years announced in "Modernising Mental Health Services" has been(a) allocated and(b) spent in each of the three years. [8176]
  820W
  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002 Official Report, column 192W.

  The allocation of additional central investment on mental health care over the three years from 1999 is shown in the table,(a) for each year, and (b) between health and social services (£ millions). The mental health national service framework contains national milestones and target dates which are monitored to ensure that they are being met.

  Mental health investment: NSF/NHS Plan implementation

  NHS

  PSS1

  Revenue investment

  1999–2000

  68.5

  246.0

  2000–01

  66.0

  13.0

  2001–02

  12.35

  3,420.0

  Capital investment

  1999–2000

  4.5

  2000–01

  9.0

  2001–02

  568.0

  1 Personal social services

  2 8 for camhs

  3 Of the £20 million, £1 million went to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the Homeless Mentally Ill initiative and a further £1 million is to be used for central initiatives.

  4 5 for camhs

  5 Includes £5 million for acute psychiatric ward refurbishment, £9 million for Fallon, and £10 million additional funding issued mid-year.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in order to discuss training for school staff in the skills and knowledge to ensure children have access to early assessment and support in relation to mental health. [37389]

  Jacqui Smith
  Ministers and officials have regular meetings with colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills to discuss all matters surrounding child and adolescent mental health. I met Cathy Ashton on6 February 2002. They are also represented on the child mental health External Working Group (EWG) of the Children's National Service Framework. The EWG will look at the access children have to early assessment.

  Cancer Research
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on research into the causes and treatment of(a) prostate and (b) testicular cancer in (i) 1971, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 2000. [4274]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.
  821W
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatment for diseases is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department's direct expenditure is on research into policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department's indirect expenditure provides national health service support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS.

  Figures are not available centrally for expenditure on prostate and testicular cancer research in 1971, 1980 and 1990. The MRC spent £340,000 on prostate cancer research in 2000–01. The Department's direct expenditure was £1,150,000 in 2000–01 but figures for the Department's indirect expenditure on prostate cancer research were not collected centrally in 2000–01. The MRC spent £220,000 on testicular cancer research in 2000–01. The Department had no direct expenditure in 2000–01 on testicular cancer research and figures for indirect expenditure were not collected for 2000£01.

  Dialysis (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people in East Lancashire who will require dialysis in each year up to 2005. [3841]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The estimated number of patients from East Lancashire requiring dialysis in the years up to 2005 are as follows:

  Haemodialysis

  Peritoneal dialysis

  Total

  2001

  117

  64

  181

  2002

  123

  67

  190

  2003

  128

  70

  198

  2004

  135

  73

  208

  2005

  138

  75

  213

  Note:

  The calculations were made using the Hennel, Wood and Mallick model and were based on the 1999 stock of renal patients and an annual uptake rate of 92 new patients per million. This is an uptake rate of 80 per million adjusted for the age distribution and ethnicity in the population of East Lancashire.

  Pain Clinics
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy for there to be a pain clinic in every major hospital; and if he will make a statement. [5311]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Chronic pain services exist in 220 acute hospitals, 88 per cent. of acute hospitals in the United Kingdom.
  822W
  The Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) report on "Services for Patients with Pain" published in April 2000 highlighted variations between hospitals in quality and access to pain management services. Trusts should review the services they provide against the standards set out in the CSAG report and other guidance. In this review account should be taken of the needs of both adults and children, and include patients with acute pain resulting from sudden illness or accident, as well as post-operative pain and chronic pain. Trusts should also agree with commissioners the services and resources which are appropriate to meet local needs.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated at the accident and emergency department of St. George's hospital, Tooting, in 2000. [4881]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  In the financial year 1999–2000, St. George's Healthcare National Health Service Trust had a total of 82,718 accident and emergency attendances, 78,898 being first attendances.

  Bed Blocking (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled in Buckingham, in each quarter in 2000 and 2001, as a result of hospital beds being occupied by(a) delayed discharge patients who were awaiting social services funding or assessment or (b) delayed discharge patients who had fully funded social services packages arranged. [5638]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Drug Treatment Programmes
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the level of participation of problem drug users in drug treatment programmes in each year since 1997. [5886]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  It is estimated that there were around 118,500 drug misusers in treatment in England in 2000–01 (from "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug misusers in treatment in England, 2000–01");

  823W
  comparable information is not available for earlier years. The number of users presenting to drug misuse agencies (including both doctors and other agencies) in England in each of the six month periods ending 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2001 is given in the table. Figures exclude treatment in prisons.

  Number of users presenting for treatment to drug misuse agencies in England during the six month periods ending 31 March 1997 to 31 March 2001

  Number

  March 1997

  25,925

  September 1997

  21,996

  March 1998

  23,916

  September 1998

  28,599

  March 1999

  28,499

  September 1999

  30,545

  March 2000

  31,815

  September 2000

  33,093

  March 2001

  33,234

  Source:

  Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases, Department of Health

  Trivax Vaccines
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities inoculated children with Wellcome's Trivax vaccines that came from(a) batch 3741 and (b) batch 3732; how many children were so vaccinated; how many adverse reactions were reported in respect of each batch, including fatalities; if he will take steps to trace those who have been inoculated with vaccines from these batches; and if he will make a statement. [5695]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 20 July 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Batches 3741 and 3732 of Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis (DTP) vaccine are believed to have been manufactured and distributed in Eire in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At that time DTP vaccine was not provided by the Department but was either purchased by local health authorities or obtained by general practitioners (GPs) from local retail pharmacists. Thus, information on whether batches 3741 and 3732 were supplied to United Kingdom doctors is not held centrally. Should such vaccines have been issued, the only information on who might have received them will depend on GPs or local health authority clinics maintaining records that will be now over 30-years-old. The Department has asked the then manufacturer's present owners, GlaxoSmithKline, to investigate their records. The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control has also been asked to investigate whether they tested these vaccines.

  Extensive investigation of the safety of pertussis vaccines was undertaken during the 1970s and early 1980s following negative publicity about brain damage following pertussis immunisation. In 1981 a major report was published by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation which investigated pertussis vaccine, including suspected adverse

  824W
  reactions to the vaccine. The report of this investigation was published in 1981 ("Whooping Cough", HMSO, ISBN 011 3207646) and advises on page 47 that
  "From 1964 onwards, all vaccines used in the UK also conformed to World Health Organisation standards of preparation and potency".

  The Yellow Card database has been interrogated for reports of suspected adverse reactions to the vaccine batches 3714 and 3723 which were available between 1968 and 1971. No such reports have been identified. For reports received in the late 1960s and early 1970s, full data are not available for all reports. For those reports where full information is available, the batch number of the suspected vaccine is not always provided. The Yellow Card used at that time did not specifically ask reporters to provide information on batch numbers. The Yellow Card used currently asks specifically for information on batch and since 1992, where this information has been provided by the reporter, there has been full electronic capture of this information on the database.

  Investigation of reports of suspected adverse reactions following pertussis containing vaccines (principally DTP vaccine) reveals no rise in reactions during the period when, if they were used in the UK, batches 3741 and 3732 might have been given (late 1960s and early 1970s) (see table).

  Breakdown of reports of suspected adverse reactions

  Year

  Number of reports received

  1964

  92

  1965

  69

  1966

  42

  1967

  63

  1968

  40

  1969

  44

  1970

  36

  1971

  44

  1972

  37

  1973

  19

  1974

  37

  1975

  15

  1976

  46

  1977

  127

  1978

  143

  1979

  168

  1980

  209

  Note:

  Suspected adverse reaction reports for pertussis containing vaccine collected via the Committee on Safety of Medicine's Yellow Card Scheme

  These figures represent suspected adverse reactions associated with single and multi-component pertussiscontaining vaccines. It should be noted that a report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine. Many vaccines are administered in combination and in these circumstances it may be difficult to ascribe the cause of the reaction to an individual vaccine.

  Adverse reporting rates are influenced by many factors, including the extent of use of a drug or vaccine and any publicity about the vaccine.
  825W

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what disciplinary action has been taken over the statement of the chairman of the National Blood Authority concerning gay men who consider blood donation. [5994]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt of Kingsheath met the chairman of the National Blood Authority on 24 April. The chairman sent a letter of apology to the Pink Paper which was published on 3 May.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and residential care(a) homes and (b) beds have closed in Oxfordshire in each year since 1997. [6099]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The number of residential and nursing care establishment closures in 1999 and 2000, together with number of new registrations, are presented in the table. Information is not available centrally on the number of beds associated with closures or new registrations.

  Number of care home establishment closures and new home registrations in Oxfordshire, year ending 31 March

  Residential1

  Nursing2

  Number of establishment closures

  1999

  13

  n/a

  2000

  16

  1

  Number of new registrations

  1999

  8

  n/a

  2000

  17

  7

  n/a = not available

  1 Oxfordshire county council

  2Oxfordshire health authorities

  colspan="3">Source:

  Registration and Inspection Survey

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and residential care(a) homes and (b) beds have closed in Essex in each year since 1997. [6332]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The number of residential and nursing care establishment closures in 1999 and 2000, together with the number of new registrations, are presented in the table.
  826W
  Information is not available centrally on the number of beds associated with closures or new registrations. Information is not available for the years ending 31 March 1997 and 1998 as the registration and inspection survey was first collected in its current format for the year ending 31 March 1999.

  Number of care home establishment closures and new home registrations in Essex, year ending 31 March

  Residential1

  Nursing2

  Number of establishment closures

  1999

  n/a

  1

  2000

  33

  17

  Number of new registrations

  1999

  n/a

  11

  2000

  58

  11

  n/a = not available

  1 Essex county council and Southend and Thurrock councils

  2 North Essex and South Essex health authorities

  Source:

  Registration and Inspection Survey

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authority population includes the highest proportion of patients waiting over a year for in-patient treatment. [6475]

  Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  East Kent health authority has the highest proportion of patients waiting over a year for inpatient treatment. At the end of January 2002 there were 14.3 patients waiting over 12 months for in-patient treatment per 10,000 population.

  The Department is monitoring its progress closely and is working to improve this performance.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) national average waiting time and (b) Avon health authority waiting time was for glaucoma and cataract operations in the last 12 months. [10070]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The median average waiting time for glaucoma and cataract operations are given in the following table.

  Glaucoma and cataract operations. Median waiting times (in days)

  Area of residence

  Median waiting time

  Avon health authority

  109

  Al areas

  159

  Notes:

  Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting

  827W
  list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  A finished consultant episode is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give figures for(a) in-patient waiting lists and (b) in-patient waiting times for each financial year between April 1971 and March 1976. [10821]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The information on waiting lists is shown in the table. The data given refer to waiting lists rather than waiting times, as information on waiting times of patients on the list between 1971 and 1976 is not available.

  Size of in-patient waiting listJune 1971 to March 1976

  Number of patients

  June 1971

  519,322

  December 1971

  493,731

  June 1972

  496,569

  December 1972

  479,199

  June 1973

  542,074

  December 1973

  508,617

  June 1974

  508,390

  December 1974

  517,424

  June 1975

  532,613

  December 1975

  588,483

  March 1976

  583,851

  Notes:

  Figures relate to ordinary admissions only, as number of people waiting for day cases were not collected until 1987.

  Source:

  Department of health waiting times returns

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients requiring knee replacement operations have been waiting for(a) less than 12 months, (b) one to two years and (c) more than two years. [11786]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 November 200I]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002 Official Report, column 192W.

  The number of patients waiting for trauma and orthopaedics, the specialty that includes knee replacements, at end June 2001 are shown in the table.

  As part of the National Health Service Plan, the maximum waiting time for inpatient treatment will be cut from 18 months now to six months by the end of 2005.
  828W
  As a first step towards this reduction, the maximum wait for a NHS operation will be cut to 15 months by the end of March 2002.

  Patients waiting for elective trauma and orthopaedics admissions Quarter ended 31 December 2001 NHS trust based

  Patients waiting

  Total

  258,776

  Less than 12 months

  245,570

  12–24 months

  13,206

  Over 24 months

  0

  Source:

  Department of health form KHO7

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average accident and emergency department waiting times were(a) at the Royal United hospital, Bath, (b) in the UK and (c) in each region in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [12857]

  Ms Blears
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Government do not collect statistics on average waiting times in accident and emergency (A&E) departments centrally.

  The Government are committed to reducing waiting times in A&E and the NHS Plan includes the target that by March 2004 no patient will wait more than four hours in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge. The NHS is currently on track to reach this target with 77 per cent. of attenders spending four hours or less in A&E.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting(a) over six months, (b) over nine months, (c) over 12 months, (d) over 15 months and (e) over 18 months for in-patient treatment in the mid-Essex hospital trust area for (i) the latest available month and (ii) the previous month. [41921]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Inpatient data for mid-Essex hospital services NHS trust

  November 2001

  December 2001

  Of those waiting, number who have waited:

  More than six months

  2,426

  2,605

  More than nine months

  1,232

  1,209

  More than 12 months

  452

  370

  More than 15 months

  61

  58

  More than 18 months

  0

  0

  Total number waiting

  8,787

  9,228

  Source:

  KHO7 quarterly return/monthly waiting times returns

  Spinal Injuries
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many serious spinal cord injuries occurred in each of the last five years. [6750]
  829W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 October 200I]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The information requested is not collected centrally. We do, however, have some data on the incidence of spinal injury consultations, as detailed in the table:

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs1) by main diagnosis NHS Hospitals England 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Spinal cord injuries1

  1996–97

  11,490

  1997–98

  11,433

  1998–99

  10,900

  1999–2000

  11,071

  2000–01

  10,813

  1 An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider.

  Note:

  1. Data in this table is grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 1998–99 to 2001–01 which are ungrossed.

  2. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within a year.

  3. The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  Hip Replacements
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the average cost of financing a hip replacement operation for a 65-year-old British citizen in each EU country. [7600]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department has not undertaken a review of the cost of treatments and procedures across all member states of the European Union. Within the national health service in England, we collect and publish the costs of a range of treatments and procedures on an annual basis. This information is made available to the NHS and general public and can be found on the Department's website. The cost of a primary hip replacement for a British citizen (carried out as a planned in-patient procedure), is detailed in the table for four preceding years.

  £

  1997–98

  3,678

  1998–99

  3,755

  1999–2000

  3,899

  2000–01

  4,179

  The costs are not differentiated by age, therefore the costs apply equally to patients of any age, not just those who are 65 years old.
  830W

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on changes in the number of places in residential care homes. [6173]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 October 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I regularly receive representations from a number of different sources such as hon. and right hon. Members, care home owners, interested individuals, organisations and local councils about the provision of residential and nursing home care.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if public health medicine will be under the authority of primary care trusts. [9055]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  As a result of the changes outlined in 'Shifting the Balance of Power', primary care trusts (PCTs) will be responsible for the delivery of the majority of the public health services. From 1 April 2002, for the first time, all PCTs will have a Director of Public Health on its board.

  PCTs will be performance managed in this role by the new strategic health authorities and supported through the Regional Directors of Public Health and their teams co-located with Government offices of the regions.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals closed in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001 to date. [10511]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Information on hospital closures ceased to be collected in 1991 following the introduction of the national health service internal market and trusts.

  The Government intend to make the best use of existing and new hospitals to improve access and standards of care for the whole population. The largest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS is under way. Since May 1997, 68 major hospital developments worth over £7.6 billion have been approved to proceed.

  Last year, for the first time since 1971, the number of general and acute beds increased by 714.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1242W, if he will list those CHP projects that have been installed in NHS properties since 1997. [11063]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 October 2001 J: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  We do not currently collect this information. However, we intend to take action and capture data on the number and age of combined heat and power (CHP) installations in the national health service as part of the estates returns information collection performance monitoring system from 2001–02. We recognise the importance of obtaining the necessary information on CHP installations within the NHS.

  Energy Efficiency Week
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department took in recognition of Energy Efficiency Week. [11512]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment (Mr. Meacher) on 30 October 2001, Official Report, column 592W.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many free eye tests were undertaken in Pendle in each year since 1995. [12401]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Information specific to the Pendle area is not available centrally. However the total number of sight tests carried out within the East Lancashire health authority from 1996–97 onwards is as follows:

  Number

  1996–97

  81,242

  1997–98

  82,270

  1998–99

  80,493

  1999–2000

  103,719

  2000–01

  105,480

  Notes:

  1. Information for the year 1995–96 has been excluded due to health authority boundary changes and as such the data are not comparable.
  832W
  2. Nearly all the increase for the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is due to the extension of eligibility for national health service sight test to all those aged 60 and over from I April 1999.

  Zyban
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how the underspend on anti-smoking initiatives has been spent. [12771]

  Ms Abbott
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The 1998 White Paper "Smoking Kills" set out an overall strategy on tobacco control including health education and cessation services.

  The commitments we made in that document have been kept under review in the light of experience across the whole programme and changing priorities. In fulfilling our commitment in the NHS Plan, we have made Buproprion (Zyban) and all nicotine replacement therapies available on NHS prescription. This required the addition of substantial sums to the unified budgets to meet the expected cost of this development.

  Taking this into account together with the resources made available for smoking cessation services and health education the overall provision for tobacco control measures exceeds the White Paper commitment.

  Bed Shortages
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has held with(a) senior health service officials, (b) senior clinicians and (c) patient groups on the possibility of bed shortages in hospitals (i) in London and (ii) elsewhere in the United Kingdom this winter. [13114]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 November 2001]: apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Ministers hold regular discussions with key groups of health service officials, clinicians and patient groups. Health service circular 2001/014/local authority circular (2001)17 published in July 2001 gave guidance to the national health service in England on planning capacity. Under this guidance all health authorities established local capacity planning groups to plan capacity for winter 2001–02. As a result the NHS went into winter with 1,225 more general and acute and 198 critical care beds than the same time in 2000–01. The results of the bed census which was carried out at the end of November 2001 were published in "NHS Emergency Pressures—Making Progress" which was placed in the Library in December 2001.
  833W

  Hearing Aids
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answers to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) of 24 April 2001,Official Report, columns 171–72W, on digital hearing aids, whether first wave sites will receive funding for the continued provision of digital hearing aids throughout the financial year 2002–03; and if the allocated money for national roll-out will cover two years. [14568]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The first wave trusts will receive funding to allow them to continue providing digital hearing aids throughout 2002–03. The £20 million announced on 24 December 2001 will also allow another 30 sites to be providing digital hearing aids by the end of 2002–03.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been given(a) digital hearing aids and (b) analogue aids at each of the designated pilot sites since the instigation of each trust's pilot status. [16852]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Royal National Institute for Deaf People manages the project on behalf of the Department. The project team has provided information showing that by the end of January 2002, 21,347 adults had been assessed for digital aids by the 20 trusts involved in the pilot project. 16,352 of these had been fitted with 22,346 digital hearing aids. In addition some 400 other patients had received analogue aids. It is not possible to break down these figures by site.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the anticipated savings to public funds from the private finance initiative schemes for mental health and community services. [15248]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 22 November 2001, Official Report, columns 411W, and 413W) in which I listed all major private finance initiative contracts which have reached financial close since May 1997 with figures for projected savings on each.

  The table includes two mental health and community services schemes: the West Berkshire priority care NHS trust (now Berkshire Healthcare NHS trust) and the Leeds community and mental health services NHS trust.
  834W
  Value for money in private finance is assessed on a case by case basis upon presentation of the full business case. None of the other 60 major and medium sized hospital schemes comprising the NHS plan target have yet to reach this stage so it is not possible to anticipate the savings to public funds for these schemes.

  Value for money figures are not held centrally for schemes with a capital value below £20 million.

  Private Health Care Provision
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 112W, on private health care provision, how the money being made available to the NHS to buy treatment for NHS patients in the private sector will be spent on different medical specialties; how much money he estimates will be saved compared with carrying out the same treatments in the NHS itself; and if he will make a statement. [14027]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  £40 million has been allocated to buy additional elective cases in the private sector this year. It was targeted to those health authorities most in need of short term support.

  The funding will be used to free up national health service capacity but the exact number of cases purchased, the specialties which the money will be spent on, and the prices of the different procedures is not yet known. This will depend on the final details of contracts negotiated with the private sector. We will make the final figures available after the end of the financial year.

  Suicides
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what key indicators are used to assess whether a person is actively contemplating suicide; and what plans he has to raise awareness of them among(a) health professionals and (b) the public. [13968]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Information about the factors associated with suicide, including the social, economic and clinical indicators for vulnerable individuals and groups is provided in the National Service Framework for Mental Health, along with the action needed to achieve the target in "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" to reduce the death rate from suicide by at least one fifth by 2010. We are also in the process of developing a national suicide prevention strategy which we will launch for public consultation in spring 2002.
  835W
  The Department continues to work in partnership with mental health service users, voluntary sector charities and professional organisations to provide better information about mental health issues, to challenge the stigma and discrimination that is often associated with mental ill health and to contribute to a reduction in suicide rates.

  Fair Trade Goods
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods. [15207]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  I refer the hon. member to the reply given to him by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development on 16 November 2001, Official Report, column 931W

  Service Delivery
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the NHS has met its targets for service delivery since 1997. [20267]

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent to which the NHS has improved in terms of delivery since 1997. [19967]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) for the delay in responding to these questions. I refer both hon. Members to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Progress made to date is outlined in both the Department of Health's annual departmental report and the Modernisation Board's annual report ("The NHS Plan—a Progress Report"); both of which are available through the Library. These documents clearly show that, thanks to the hard work of frontline staff and managers, the NHS is making good progress towards its targets for service delivery. Our on-going monitoring includes these examples of good progress:
  The Q3 access survey shows the NHS is on target to meet the 2004 primary care access milestones.
  Since May 1997, 68 major hospital developments (64 PFI and four public) worth over £7.6 billion have been approved to proceed. 10 of these (eight PFI and two public) are already operational and are treating patients.
  Since 1997 the number of nurses has increased by 31,520. Between September 1999 and September 2001 the number of nurses increased by 20,740 or 9.9 per cent. This means the NHS
  836W
  plan target has been reached well in advance of the 2004 target. We are now focusing on achieving the manifesto commitment and on retaining existing staff.
  There are now 20 per cent. (4,320) more consultants than there were in 1997. The number of consultants increased by 10.6 per cent. (2,460) between the NHS plan baseline (September 1999) and September 2001.
  668 new critical care beds since January 2000 represents a 28 per cent. increase, putting us on course to achieve the target of a 30 per cent. increase by January 2003.
  714 new beds in general and acute wards puts us over a third of theway towards the target of 2,100 by April 2004.
  163 rapid access chest pain clinics were open by the end of quarter 3. The plan target was 100 clinics by April 2002.
  The target of 6,000 extra heart operations by April 2003 should be achieved this year.
  91.3 per cent. (67,650) of patients referred urgently with suspected cancer were seen within two weeks during Q2 2001–02.
  By the end of March 2002 no patients should have to wait more than 15 months from the time of being placed on an in-patient waiting list. Latest figures show that, at the end of January 2002, 72 per cent. of trusts are already meeting this target.
  In the last 22 months, 97 per cent. of GP surgeries have been connected to "NHSnet", providing desktop email, access to the internet and a communications infrastructure for general practice across the NHS.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what submissions he has received seeking the increased use of anti-TNF therapies for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis; and what assessment he has made of the level of financial support from pharmaceutical companies for these submissions. [26031]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  We are not aware of having received any formal submissions on this subject. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence are currently evaluating anti-TNF therapy, so we would expect that they would receive any submissions. There has, however, been correspondence from MPs and the public, as well as several parliamentary questions, on anti-TNF therapy.

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the ability of local authorities to commission vocational rehabilitation programmes for individuals with acquired brain injury on the basis of optimum outcome. [30795]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  We have made no such assessment. Local authorities, as part of the wider welfare to work strategy, are currently taking the lead on the joint investment plans on welfare to work for disabled people initiative.
  837W
  At the local level, local authorities are working with a range of partner agencies and organisations including health and social services, employment services, Jobcentre Plus, local education authorities, Connexions and Learning and Skills Councils, user groups, and employers' representatives.

  NHS Professionals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses holding substantive positions within the NHS are now registered with NHS Professionals. [30767]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The information requested is not collected centrally. The Audit Commission report "Brief Encounters: Getting the Best from Temporary Nursing Staff' published in September 2001 finds that:
  "Typically, over half (about 58 per cent.) of bank staff are substantive post holders".
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has put in place to record complaints about NHS Professionals. [30765]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  No central mechanism has been developed to record complaints about national health service professionals. This issue will be addressed as part of the on-going development of the service.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of bookings received by NHS Professionals in December 2001 were successfully filled by NHS Professionals using its own nurse database. [30771]

  Mr. Hutton
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  National health service professionals was launched on 22 November last year. In December, NHS professionals saw an average fill rate of 58 per cent. with more established pilots sites like Burnley and Pinderfields and Pontefract having a 84 per cent. and 89 per cent. fill rate respectively over the same period.

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with representatives of the Leonard Cheshire Foundation concerning funding for long-term care. [36906]
  838W
  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Representatives of the Leonard Cheshire Foundation have regular opportunities to discuss a range of issues, including the funding of long-term care, with Ministers and officials. I met with representatives of the Leonard Cheshire Foundation on 4 February 2002.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speech and language therapists are employed in the national health service. [36776]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  As at 30 September 2001 there were 5,680 qualified speech and language therapists employed in the national health service.

  This represents an increase of 17 per cent. more speech language therapists since 1997.

  Nurses
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the number of whole-time equivalent nurses performing non-clinical duties with(a) NICE, (b) CHI and (c) the NHS Modernisation Agency. [37372]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of nurses performing non-clinical duties with the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the Commission for Health Improvement and the Modernisation Agency is a matter for each of the organisations to determine and will be kept under review.

  There are currently two nurses working in NICE, 26 in CHI and 52 in the Modernisation Agency. Nurses are also employed on short term contracts and are represented on internal committees established by the organisations. There are 350,400 qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff employed in the national health service.

  Nurses working in these organisations are using their clinical, leadership and management skills as nurses to improve the quality of care delivered in the NHS.

  Practice Nurses
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practice nurses were employed by general practitioners in England in(a) 1997 and (b) the most recent year for which information is available. [37390]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is in the table.

  Between 2000 and 2001 there was a 4.2 per cent. increase in the number of practice nurses (whole time equivalent).
  839W

  Practice nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs) 1 in England as at 1 October 1997 and30 September 2001

  (headcount) and whole time equivalents (WTE)

  Practice Nurses

  1997

  2001

  Headcount

  18,389

  19,846

  WTE

  10,082

  11,163

  1UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  NHS Pensions
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will change the rules whereby women who worked for the NHS prior to 6 April 1988 do not have their contributions to the superannuation scheme prior to that date counted towards the calculations of their widower's pension, whereas male contributions prior to that date are counted towards their widow's pension. [37106]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the former Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on 13 January 1999,Official Report, column 212W.

  Residential Care (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care beds in private homes there were in Lancashire in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000,(e) 2001 and (f) today. [37841]

  Ms Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of residential and nursing care beds in independent care homes in Lancashire at 31 March of each year is shown in the table.

  Number of care beds in independent care homes in Lancashire1.2,1997 to 2001

  Rounded numbers

  Year3

  Number of care beds in independent care homes

  Number of care beds in independent residential care homes

  Number of care beds in independent nursing care homes

  19974

  19,850

  12,200

  7,650

  1998

  20,390

  12,620

  7,780

  1999

  20,100

  12,790

  7,310

  2000

  19,830

  12,900

  6,930

  2001

  18,870

  12,690

  6,190

  1 Following local government reorganisation, information for Lancashire includes Lancashire County (remaining) and Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen Unitary Authorities.

  2Information includes nursing care beds figures from East Lancashire, North West Lancashire and South Lancashire health authorities but excludes figures from Morecambe Bay health authority whose boundaries cover part of Cumbria local authority.

  3At 31 March.

  4The number of nursing beds in 1997 refers to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns.

  Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulatory exemptions from the Care 840W
  Standards Act 2000 are available to operators of simple hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the community who are registered charities. [37605]

  Jacqui Smith
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  There are no exemptions from regulation under the Care Standards Act for operators of simple hyperbaric oxygen therapy chambers who are registered charities. However, the standards for hyperbaric facilities for therapeutic use are considerably fewer than for those used to treat patients with acute medical conditions, and proportionate to their simpler operation.

  Northwood and Pinner Community Hospital
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 112W, what progress has been made on the modernisation of Northwood and Pinner community hospital; and if he will make a statement. [39324]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Hillingdon modernisation review began in the autumn of 2001. Its purpose is to set the strategic context for the longer term development of Hillingdon health and social care services, including the estate and facilities required to deliver these services. Proposals for the future of Northwood and Pinner community hospital will emerge from the strategic plans currently being drawn up for the development of the Hillingdon hospital infrastructure and services, and will take account of the needs of Harrow residents. The proposals are being developed to support the priorities identified within the local modernisation review.

  NHS Concordat
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 1047, on the NHS Concordat, how many patients have been treated under the NHS Concordat by each health authority area. [37279]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North, and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  This information is not available centrally.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the definition of registered used for a(a) residential and (b) nursing home. [41438]

  Jacqui Smith
  The definition under the Registered Homes Act 1984, Part I for the registration of a care homes is:"any establishment which provides or is intended to provide, whether for reward or not, residential accommodation with both board and personal care",

  841W
  The definition under Part II of the 1984 Act for registration of a nursing home is more extensive covering premises providing nursing, maternity care and other specified services.

  Under the Care Standards Act (CSA) 2000, the definition of a care home or nursing home for registration is as follows:
  an establishment is a care home if it provides accommodation, together with nursing or personal care:

  The definition then sets out persons to whom such services are provided. The changes under the CSA 2000 remove the old requirements in relation to "board" under the 1984 Act, and include nursing and personal care in the same definition. From 1 April 2002, the other services covered by Part II of the 1984 Act will become independent hospitals.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where new(a) nursing and (b) residential homes have been registered in each of the last three years. [41437]

  Jacqui Smith
  Details of the number of new homes registered are available for 1998–99 and 1999–2000. These are in the publications for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 entitled 'Activity, workload and resources of Local Authority, Health Authority and Joint Inspection Units: summary results of a survey in England'. Copies of the publications are in the Library and on the website at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/regandinspect.htm for 1998–99 and http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/regandinspect2.htm and http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/regandinspect3.htm for 1999–2000.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which bed and breakfast accommodation has been utilised in place of residential or nursing home beds in the last 12 months; [41435]

  (2) how many local authorities have utilised bed and breakfast accommodation for(a) residential and (b) nursing home facilities in the last 12 months. [41436]

  Jacqui Smith
  I am not aware of any cases where local authorities have used bed and breakfast accommodation in place of either residential or nursing home care during the past 12 months.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002 to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble),Official Report, column 275W, on parliamentary questions, what the average time taken is (a) to draft an answer for submission to a Minister for approval, (b) for the Minister to approve and (c) from approval to providing the answer to the hon. Member, for parliamentary questions tabled since June 2001. [41775]

  Mr. Milburn
  I regret that this information cannot be provided because the record management database, from which it would be drawn, is currently not reliable for the reasons set out in the answer to which the hon. Member refers.
  842W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002 to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble),Official Report, column 275W, on parliamentary questions, what evidence he has of the systematic falsification in recording the handling of parliamentary questions in his Department. [41774]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is evidence that the record management database used in the Parliamentary Section has been falsified—apparently deliberately—to show answers as having been dealt with when they had not.

  This is the subject of the investigation now under way. I will report to the House on the outcome of the investigation as soon as possible.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002 to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble),Official Report, column 275W, on parliamentary questions, what systems his Department uses to monitor the number of unanswered parliamentary questions. [41777]

  Mr. Milburn
  The record management database in the Department's Parliamentary section provides this information and has been used to monitor progress on outstanding questions.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002 to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble),Official Report, column 192W, ref. 41128, on parliamentary questions, what form his investigation into the systematic falsification of records in his Department will take; when he expects to complete the investigation; how much the investigation will cost; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library when the investigation has been completed. [41779]

  Mr. Milburn
  The investigation is being carried out under the personal supervision of the Department's Director of Corporate Affairs; and it will report to the Permanent Secretary. The aim of the investigation is to establish the facts about what appears to be the systematic falsification of the record management system in the parliamentary section and to ensure that the necessary remedial action is taken. I have undertaken to report to Parliament on the outcome of the investigation; and I will do this as quickly and as fully as possible, subject to the need to avoid prejudicing any disciplinary proceedings. It is too early to give an estimate of the cost of the investigation.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002 to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble),Official Report, column 192W, ref. 41128 on parliamentary questions, if he will break down by political party, the number of questions that were systematically recorded as being answered but were not. [41778]

  Mr. Milburn
  A total of 214 parliamentary questions were found to be falsely recorded on the Department's record management database as having been answered when they had not. These were broken down by political party as follows.
  843W

  Number

  Conservative

  86

  Labour

  71

  Liberal Democrat

  45

  Scottish Nationalist

  10

  Plaid Cymru

  2

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W, ref. 41128, on parliamentary questions, when he first was informed of the evidence suggesting systematic falsification in recording the handling of parliamentary questions. [41696]

  Mr. Milburn
  I was first informed of this on 28 February, following which a full audit of outstanding questions was carried out. This provided the basis for the answer to which the hon. Member refers.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2002 to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble),Official Report, column 192W, ref. 41128, on parliamentary questions, how many extra civil servants he has drafted into the Department's parliamentary section to reduce the backlog of unanswered parliamentary questions; and what he estimates the additional costs to his Department will be. [41776]

  Mr. Milburn
  To meet the commitment to aim to deal with all outstanding questions due for reply before 14 February by 12 March, three extra staff have been redeployed to the Parliamentary Section. The section is also receiving additional support from other areas of the Private Office. This involves re-prioritising work, rather than incurring additional overall costs, except for the additional cost of paying for a temporary replacement for the suspended member of staff which it is too early yet to estimate.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2000 to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble),Official Report, column 275W, ref 41128, on parliamentary questions, if he will list the roles and responsibilities of the civil servant who has been suspended in his Department. [41781]

  Mr. Milburn
  The individual concerned works in the Parliamentary Section of the Department. It would be inappropriate to give further details which might identify the individual, as departmental disciplinary procedures are being followed.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to answer questions numbers(a) 9513,(b) 17418,(c) 16461,(d) 13966,(e) 13780, (f) 12020, (g) 10511, (h) 13967, (i) 13968, (j) 13853, (k) 13856 and (l) 14110. [41971]

  Mr. Milburn
  The aim is to reply to all these questions by 12 March.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how Ministers in his Department ensure that answers to parliamentary questions are given as speedily as possible. [42273]
  844W
  Mr. Milburn
  Ministers and officials throughout the Department are committed to providing speedy answers to questions and respecting the tight timetables this involves.

  There are departmental procedures which provide for advice to be submitted to Ministers within a set timetable and for regular monitoring of the process of answering questions at all stages.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are in place in his Department to pursue answers to parliamentary questions which have not been given a substantive reply by a named day. [42203]

  Mr. Milburn
  This information is derived from the record management database in the Parliamentary Section and follow-up action is pursued by staff in the section.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many officials in his Department are involved in answering parliamentary questions; and how subject responsibilities are allocated among those staff. [42201]

  Mr. Milburn
  Questions are assigned to the official dealing with the subject area raised. As this can involve officials across the whole Department, it is not possible to give a reliable estimate either of the potential number involved or the number involved at any one time.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how Ministers in his Department check the appropriateness of their answers to parliamentary questions; [42272]

  (2) what are the procedures followed by Ministers for signing off answers to parliamentary questions. [42274]

  Mr. Milburn
  The procedure is for the answers to all parliamentary questions to be approved by a Minister. If Ministers are not satisfied with the advice on the reply, they will seek further advice.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the official in his Department suspended for alleged falsification of recording answers to parliamentary questions was suspended; if he will name him; and what grade his post is. [42275]

  Mr. Milburn
  The official was suspended on 28 February. It would not be appropriate to name the official, who works in the Department's Parliamentary Section, or to provide further details which could identify the person concerned, as departmental disciplinary procedures are being followed.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the procedures within his Department for(a) registering parliamentary questions when received in the parliamentary unit,(b) monitoring the progress made in answering them and (c) registering that they have been answered. [42207]

  Mr. Milburn
  Action on the different stages in the process of handling parliamentary questions is recorded on a database in the parliamentary section, including when they are received and when they have been answered. The database is used to monitor the progress of outstanding questions.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department monitors the time it takes to answer parliamentary questions. [42200]
  845W
  Mr. Milburn
  The record management system in the Department's parliamentary section provides this information and has been used to support monitoring of the handling of parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary questions have been(a) answered and (b) unanswered in each month the House has been sitting since July 2001. [41780]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary questions have been answered by his Department since 7 June 2001 by each of the Ministers responsible; and how many are awaiting answer. [42202]

  Mr. Milburn
  I regret that the information is not readily available in the form requested because the record management database from which it would be drawn is currently not reliable, for the reasons set out in the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Consultants Contracts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in his negotiations over NHS consultants' contracts, including the proposed seven year commitment to whole-time NHS work; and if he will make a statement. [41378]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our proposals for the new consultant contract were published in February 2001 and these, alongside the British Medical Association's own proposals, form the basis of continuing negotiations

  The proposals envisage that for an initial period, perhaps seven years, the terms of the contract would prevent newly appointed consultants engaging in similar work outside the national health service whether the individual is employed on a full-time or part-time basis. This is designed to maximise consultants' contribution to the NHS, but not to prevent doctors from working part-time if they wish to do so.

  Child Protection
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure adequate funding of area child protection committees; and if he will make a statement. [41938]

  Jacqui Smith
  Area child protection committee (ACPC) expenditure, and administrative and policy support, is a matter for local agreement. As a multi-agency forum, the ACPC should be supported in its work by its main constituent agencies, reflecting the investment of each agency in activities which are of benefit to all, in particular inter-agency training.

  East Riding and Hull Health Authority
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many posts will be made redundant when the East Riding and Hull health authority is terminated. [41377]

  Jacqui Smith
  No decision has yet been taken on this issue.
  846W
  Arrangements are being made for staff to be transferred to strategic health authorities until such time as their futures are determined.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of constructing the East Riding and Hull health authority HQ in Willerby. [41371]

  Jacqui Smith
  The cost of constructing the East Riding and Hull health authority HQ in Willerby in 1993 was £3.4 million.

  Intermediate Care (Adur/Worthing/Arun PCT)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the Adur/Worthing/Arun PCT has not qualified for additional allocations from the intermediate care investment programme. [42212]

  Ms Blears
  There was a joint bid from Worthing and Southlands and Worthing, Adur and Arun primary care groups for intermediate care capital. This bid, to provide 25 dedicated overnight beds and 10 day places for assessment and care is currently being developed.

  Cancelled Operations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cancelled operations there were in the last two years in each hospital trust in England. [7606]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in responding to this question. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  Data on the number of operations cancelled at the last minute are placed in the Library. Data on the number of last minute cancelled operations by national health service trust were not collected until April 2001, prior to this, data were collected on last minute cancelled operations within each health authority.

  A cancellation is counted as 'last minute' when the operation is cancelled on, or after, the day the patient is due to be admitted to hospital, for non-medical reasons.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his definition is of operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons. [42306]

  Mr. Hutton
  Operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons include any operation cancelled by the hospital except where the patient is not medically fit for surgery or where surgery would no longer be medically appropriate at the scheduled time.

  Clinical Decisions
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with representatives of healthcare professionals on the impact of Government targets on clinical decision-making. [36520]
  847W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: Ministers in the Department regularly meet representatives of the health care professions to discuss all aspects of the Government's strategy for investment and reform in the national health service.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have applied for extra funding to implement the Department's policy of partitioning hospital wards to ensure non-mixed sex wards; and if he will make a statement as to the level of the financial settlement received by individual authorities and name those authorities in receipt of this extra funding. [42263]

  Ms Blears
  Guidance on maintaining privacy and dignity was first issued to the service in 1997 and the date for achieving single sex accommodation in 95 per cent. of trusts is December 2002.

  Trusts are expected to use their centrally allocated funding, including block allocation for building improvements, by prioritisation of their resources over that period of time. No extra funding programme exists and it is for trusts to manage their capital to address these issues.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1077W, if he will make a statement on the progress being made to reach the target of eliminating mixed sex accommodation in 95 per cent. of national health service trusts by December. [42359]

  Ms Blears
  The national health service is continuing to work to the target to eliminate mixed sex accommodation in 95 per cent. of national health service trusts by December 2002.

  On-going monitoring of progress continues to ensure that the target date is met.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer given on 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 763W, if he will define the meaning of partitioning in mixed-sex wards in hospitals. [42360]

  Ms Blears
  Partitioning can be used to divide wards into bays as a means of achieving an acceptable method of protecting patients' privacy and dignity.

  To ensure that they provide adequate physical separation, sound reduction and visual privacy the partition must be permanent, rigid and fixed to the building structure.

  A mobile privacy screen alone is not an acceptable solution to enhancing privacy and dignity for the patient.

  "NHS Plan News"
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is of producing and distributing "NHS Plan News"; and how many copies were distributed. [42307]
  848W
  Mr. Hutton
  The cost of producing and distributing "NHS Plan News" was £800,000 a year for four quarterly issues. This is a cost of 0.2p per copy. Approximately, one million copies per edition were distributed.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his plans are to replace "NHS Plan News". [42368]

  Mr. Hutton
  As part of the continuous drive for effectiveness and value for money in its communications the Department is currently seeking proposals from commercial organisations about partnership arrangements to produce a regular publication for NHS staff. A commercial tendering process is under way. Any contract awarded as a result of this will be duly announced.

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many formal complaints have been received by the Brighton Health Care NHS trust in each of the last five years. [42284]

  Ms Blears
  Information on complaints received by national health service trusts is contained in "Handling Complaints: Monitoring the NHS Complaints Procedures" statistical report. Copies are available in Library.

  Ambulances
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been provided to hospital trusts from his Department for requiring NHS patients to pay for private ambulance services for transfer between hospitals to obtain specialist treatment within the NHS; and on what basis NHS ambulances will not be provided. [42278]

  Ms Blears
  In 1991, guidance was issued to the national health service which set out eligibility for transport (HSG(91)29 issued in 1991 with booklet "Ambulance and other patient transport services"). A copy is in the Library. The guidance states that if a patient has a medical need for transport as determined by the clinician in charge of their case, then transport should be provided free of charge, as part of NHS treatment. Medical need for non-emergency patient transport must be determined locally by a clinician and will depend on the medical condition of the patient, the availability of private or public transport and distance to be travelled. The principle applied is that a patient should be able to reach hospital in a reasonable time, in reasonable comfort, without detriment to their medical condition. Transport may be provided by either a NHS ambulance trust or other private or voluntary organisation.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust about shortage of funds restricting availability of ambulances to transfer NHS patients to alternative hospitals for treatment. [42280]

  Ms Blears
  There has not been any restriction placed on the use of ambulance services at Brighton Health Care NHS Trust by the Surrey Ambulance Service NHS Trust (SAST). In agreement with Brighton Health Care, an additional dedicated routine services ambulance has been
  849W
  made available since 1 February 2002, controlled by Brighton Health Care, to assist with transfers and discharges. This operates from 09.30 to 18.30 daily.

  "Primary Care" Magazine
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is of producing and distributing "Primary Care" magazine; and how many copies have been circulated. [42351]

  Mr. Hutton
  The cost of producing and distributing "Primary Care" magazine and its accompanying website is approximately £38,900 per edition, depending on advertising revenue. It is mailed to 27,000 GPs and practice managers working in primary care and distributed to 1,000 Department of Health managers 10 times a year. A further 1,000 are printed for potential advertisers, requested copies and storage. This is a cost of approximately 1.3 pence per copy.

  Hospital Food
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he uses to judge the success of the Better Hospital Food programme being implemented in NHS hospitals. [42264]

  Ms Blears
  The Better Hospital Food programme was announced in the NHS Plan and is a long-term initiative designed to improve the quality, availability of and access to food in hospitals. The programme is supported by an additional £38.5 million over four years.

  There are two key areas through which success will be judged—patient satisfaction and nutritional outcomes.

  The NHS Plan required NHS trusts to secure year-on-year increases in patient satisfaction levels with the standard of food. From this year the National Patient Survey includes questions related to the food served in hospital, and in addition hospitals undertake regular surveys of patients on this issue. Through the Better Hospital Food programme a Patient Catering Survey has been designed to test the quality of the services on offer against criteria designed in consultation with patients which addresses those issues which patients have said are important. This will be available for all hospitals to use shortly.

  There are clear links between good nutrition and good health. Through an ad hoc working group which includes nutritional experts, representatives of the British Dietetic Association, NHS dietitians and nurses, principles for nutritional screening are being devised which will facilitate the measurement of both under and over-nutrition on entry to hospital. This will allow early intervention of clinical and dietetic staff to address problems which, unchecked, may lead to prolonged ill health. In addition research will be undertaken to establish the clinical outcomes of improved nutrition and to provide a tool to ensure that the nutritional aims of the Better Hospital Food programme are taking effect.

  Assaults on Staff
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the figures for recorded violent incidents against NHS staff for 2000–01. [42199]
  850W
  Mr. Hutton
  Figures for reported incidents of violence against national health service staff in 2000–01 are currently being analysed by the Department. The figures will be published as soon as the Department is satisfied the figures are sufficiently robust and reflect NHS trust mergers and other organisational changes in NHS.

  NHS Leadership Centre
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 676W, on the NHS Leadership Centre, when he expects the appointment to be made on a permanent basis. [42387]

  Mr. Hutton
  The post is still being held on a temporary basis. This arrangement will be kept in place for the time being in order to provide a period of stability for the Leadership Centre. It remains our intention to fill the post on a permanent basis, following open competition, later in the year.

  MRSA Superbug
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1087W, to how many in-patient deaths the MRSA superbug has been a contributory factor. [42309]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1087W.

  Mid Sussex NHS Trust
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he anticipates spinal cord stimulation treatment will be available in the Mid Sussex NHS Trust. [42211]

  Ms Blears
  Mid Sussex national health service trust has no immediate plans to provide this treatment. The treatment is, however, available though the trust at St. Thomas's Hospital in London.

  Radiographers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified radiographers (a) joined and (b) left the NHS in each of the last five years. [42288]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information regarding the number of radiographers joining and leaving the national health service is not collected centrally.

  The number of qualified radiographers increased by 940 (eight per cent.) between 1997 and 2001 (11,770 in 1997 to 12,710 in 2001).

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified NHS radiographers per head of population there are in each health authority area. [42289]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  851W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): qualified radiographers working in the scientific, therapeutic and technical area of work by health authority area in England as at 30 September 2001

  whole-time equivalents

  Whole-time equivalents radiographers per 100,000 population

  headcount

  Headcount radiographers per headcount 100,000 population

  England

  10,650

  21

  12,710

  25

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,510

  24

  1,820

  29

  Bradford

  110

  23

  140

  30

  County Durham and Darlington

  80

  13

  90

  15

  East Riding and Hull

  110

  19

  130

  23

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  70

  19

  80

  23

  Leeds

  330

  45

  390

  53

  North Cumbria

  60

  18

  80

  25

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  170

  36

  190

  41

  Northumberland

  50

  16

  60

  19

  Sunderland

  50

  18

  60

  21

  Tees

  170

  31

  200

  37

  Wakefield

  60

  20

  80

  24

  North Yorkshire

  140

  18

  170

  22

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  110

  19

  140

  23

  Trent

  1,010

  19

  1,200

  23

  Barnsley

  40

  16

  40

  18

  North Derbyshire

  40

  11

  60

  15

  Southern Derbyshire

  110

  20

  140

  24

  Doncaster

  50

  19

  60

  21

  Leicestershire

  180

  19

  220

  23

  Lincolnshire

  130

  20

  160

  24

  North Nottinghamshire

  40

  10

  50

  13

  Nottingham

  180

  28

  210

  32

  Rotherham

  30

  14

  40

  16

  Sheffield

  170

  32

  190

  36

  South Humber

  30

  10

  30

  11

  West Midlands

  1,020

  19

  1,260

  24

  Birmingham

  310

  25

  350

  29

  Coventry

  100

  32

  120

  39

  Dudley

  50

  17

  70

  23

  Herefordshire

  20

  14

  30

  17

  Sandwell

  30

  10

  40

  12

  Shropshire

  90

  21

  120

  28

  North Staffordshire

  110

  23

  140

  29

  South Staffordshire

  80

  13

  100

  16

  Walsall

  40

  14

  40

  17

  Warwickshire

  50

  10

  70

  13

  Wolverhampton

  70

  29

  80

  33

  Worcestershire

  80

  14

  100

  19

  North-west

  1,670

  25

  2,020

  31

  South Lancashire

  20

  7

  20

  8

  Liverpool

  150

  33

  190

  43

  Manchester

  280

  65

  320

  74

  Morecambe Bay

  70

  23

  100

  30

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  60

  19

  80

  23

  Salford and Trafford

  70

  15

  80

  17

  Sefton

  120

  42

  150

  52

  Stockport

  40

  13

  50

  17

  West Pennine

  80

  17

  90

  19

  Bury and Rochdale

  60

  14

  60

  16

  North Cheshire

  70

  22

  110

  35

  South Cheshire

  110

  16

  140

  21

  East Lancashire

  100

  20

  120

  23

  North-west Lancashire

  170

  36

  200

  43

  Wigan and Bolton

  120

  22

  150

  26

  Wirral

  150

  47

  170

  52

  Eastern

  1,030

  19

  1,240

  23

  Bedfordshire

  90

  16

  110

  20

  North Essex

  140

  16

  170

  18

  South Essex

  110

  15

  130

  18

  Suffolk

  110

  16

  150

  22

  Cambridgeshire

  210

  43

  250

  51

  Norfolk

  190

  18

  230

  22

  Hertfordshire

  170

  16

  200

  19

  852W 853W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): qualified radiographers working in the scientific, therapeutic and technical area of work by health authority area in England as at 30 September 2001

  whole-time equivalents

  Whole-time equivalents radiographers per 100,000 population

  headcount

  Headcount radiographers per 100,000 population

  London

  1,750

  24

  1,920

  26

  Hillingdon

  40

  16

  40

  17

  Kensington, Chelsea and Wesminster

  210

  51

  230

  55

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  40

  9

  40

  9

  Croydon

  30

  9

  40

  11

  Kingston and Richmond

  50

  13

  60

  16

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  250

  32

  260

  35

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  140

  22

  160

  25

  Barking and Havering

  90

  23

  100

  25

  Brent and Harrow

  90

  19

  100

  21

  Camden and Islington

  280

  73

  300

  78

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  140

  20

  150

  22

  East London and the City

  180

  28

  180

  29

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  110

  13

  130

  15

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  110

  15

  130

  17

  South-east

  1,530

  17

  1,880

  21

  Berkshire

  130

  15

  160

  19

  Buckinghamshire

  100

  14

  130

  18

  East Kent

  100

  16

  110

  19

  West Kent

  180

  18

  220

  22

  East Surrey

  40

  9

  50

  11

  West Surrey

  160

  25

  200

  31

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  150

  19

  170

  22

  West Sussex

  90

  12

  110

  15

  Northamptonshire

  100

  17

  130

  21

  Oxfordshire

  160

  26

  200

  31

  North and Mid Hampshire

  60

  11

  80

  14

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  140

  25

  170

  30

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South-east Hampshire

  120

  18

  160

  23

  South-west

  1,130

  23

  1,370

  27

  Somerset

  70

  14

  90

  18

  South and West Devon

  150

  24

  180

  30

  Wiltshire

  100

  17

  130

  21

  Avon

  320

  32

  380

  37

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  100

  20

  120

  23

  Dorset

  170

  25

  210

  29

  North and East Devon

  90

  19

  110

  23

  Gloucestershire

  130

  22

  150

  27

  Notes:

  1. Figures are combined totals for qualified therapeutic and diagnostic radiographers

  2. Staff in post figures are round to the nearest 10

  3. Radiographers per 100,000 population are rounded to the nearest whole number

  4. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  5. The former Solihull HA population figure is included in the Birmingham HA total

  6. Population figures are 1998 based population projections for England for 2001 by HA

  Source:

  Department of Heath Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Office for National Statistics

  Surgical Instruments
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department will take with NHS trusts who are found to be persistently reusing single-use surgical instruments having previously been advised to cease such actions. [42262]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has advised national health service trusts on a number of occasions that they should not reuse instruments designated as single use. We would regard doing so as a serious breach of governance. The 854W
  specific action to be taken in a particular case would need to be determined in the light of the individual circumstances of the case.

  Oncology Specialists
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working time equivalent oncology specialists have been employed in each of the last five years by(a) the Worthing and Southlands Hospital Trust and (b) the Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust. [42279]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  855W

  Hospital medical staff within Brighton Health Care NHS Trust and Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust in the medical oncology and clinical oncology specialties—as at 30 September

  Whole time equivalents

  All oncology

  Clinical oncology

  Medical oncology

  All

  Consultant

  All

  Consultant

  All

  Consultant

  1997

  Brighton Health Care Trust

  10

  1—

  10

  1—

  2—

  2—

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  1—

  2—

  1—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1998

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  10

  10

  10

  10

  2—

  2—

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1999

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  10

  10

  10

  10

  2—

  2—

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  2—

  2—

  1—

  1—

  2000

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  10

  10

  10

  10

  1—

  2—

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  2—

  2—

  1—

  1—

  2001

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  10

  10

  10

  10

  2—

  2—

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  2—

  2—

  1—

  1—

  1 Denotes five or less

  2 Denotes zero

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census

  Administration and Estates Staff
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define what categories of staff come under the heading Administration and Estates Staff. [42330]

  Mr. Hutton
  The following staff groups are collected under the heading "administration and estates staff' in the non-medical work force census; senior manager, manager, clerical and administrative, maintenance and works and unclassified. This includes clerical and administrative staff who support clinicians.

  Administration and estates staff can work in central functions, hotel and property, scientific, therapeutic and technical support, clinical support and ambulance service support.

  Since 1997 the number of administration and estates staff working in the national health service has increased by 27,330, 14 per cent. (from 196,700 in 1997 to 224,030 in 2001).

  Patient Records
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of hard copy patient records going missing in hospital departments; and what steps he is taking to reduce it. [42327]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health does not make assessments of the loss of hard copy patient records in hospitals, but measures are in place to minimise such losses.

  The Department promotes good practice in managing hospital records by issuing guidance on standards, procedures and management of hospital records. National health service organisations are required each year to provide assurances on the arrangements in place for
  856W
  ensuring the proper management of both paper and electronic patient's records. If a patient's record is mislaid, local management is accountable and should investigate the reasons why this occurred and takes all reasonable steps to prevent recurrence.

  In addition, the Department is promoting better ways of managing records. The Information for Health strategy sets out plans for the development of electronic patient records and electronic health records, with substantial progress expected by 2005.

  Physiotherapists
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working time equivalent physiotherapists were employed by the Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust in each of the last five years; and what the current vacancy rates are. [42282]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff working within the physiotherapy area of work in Brighton healthcare NHS trust as at 30 September each year—whole-time equivalents

  All staff

  1997

  70

  1998

  70

  1999

  80

  2000

  80

  2001

  80

  Notes:

  1. The current three month vacancy rate for Brighton healthcare NHS trust is 1.3 per cent. and the number (wte) of three month vacancy rate is less than 10.
  857W
  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  3. Three month vacancies rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 non-medical work force census (whole time equivalent).

  4. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  5. Percentages are rounded to the nearest decimal point.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2001—vacancies in NHS trusts by health authority areas and trusts1, qualified physiotherapists three month vacancy rates2,3 numbers and staff in post

  Whole time equivalents

  Three month vacancy rates (percentage)

  Three month vacancies

  Staff in post

  England total

  5.0

  660

  12,990

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  0.6

  0

  180

  Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  40

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  50

  South Downs Health NHS Trust

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  1.3

  0

  80

  Eastbourne and County Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  20

  Sussex Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  5—

  5—

  5—

  West Sussex HA

  5.1

  10

  140

  Worthing Priority Care Services NHS Trust

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Sussex Weald and Downs NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  30

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  6.3

  0

  60

  The Royal West Sussex NHS Trust

  12.6

  0

  20

  Mid Sussex NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  30

  1 HA figures are based on trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of health care.

  2 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents)

  3 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 non-medical work force census (whole time equivalent)

  4 Indicates where staff in post and numbers of vacancies are less than five

  5 Indicates zero

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to one decimal place

  2. Staff in post figures are as at September 2000

  Sources:

  1. Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2001

  2. Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the policy is of the Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust for isolating patients who contract hospital-acquired infections. [42281]

  Ms Blears
  The management of patients who contract hospital acquired infections at Brighton Health Care NHS Trust is dependent on their medical condition and the location of their care, such as an intensive care unit.
  858W
  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical work force census>

  Department of Health vacancy survey March 2001

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) vacancy rates and (b) full role figures are for physiotherapy posts for NHS hospitals in Sussex. [42283]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  Patients would be placed in a degree of isolation taking account of these two factors.

  Bed Availability
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the latest level of bed availability in each hospital trust. [42215]

  Ms Blears
  The latest information on the average daily number of available beds at each national health service trust is on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.
Lord Elystan-Morgan—Took the Oath.

Airport Security
Lord Clinton-Davisasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps have been taken following the theft of some £4½ million at Heathrow airport on 11th February.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Secretary of State for the Home Department ordered an immediate review of airside security and its interface with landside security at UK airports. A government working group is now considering the issues and will report to Ministers in April. The robbery is, of course, also the subject of an ongoing police investigation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, can he assure the House that the implications for security described in the House will be taken careful note of in the review to which he referred? Can he say anything about the efforts that are being made to retrieve the £4½ million that were stolen?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can give my noble friend the assurances that he seeks. That is exactly why the working group, chaired by DTLR and including representatives of the Home Office, the police, customs and the immigration service, is working to advise Ministers on what can be done in the light of the robbery.
Although it was a robbery, not a terrorist attack, it was carried out either by unauthorised people who had access to the restricted zone or by authorised staff who were themselves criminals. It must have been one or other of those. As noble Lords would expect, the police are pursuing the people who stole the £4½ million.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, can the Minister tell us who is involved in the government working group? Does it include representatives from the industry, for example the British Airports Authority, or representatives of the airlines? Does the Minister agree that it is particularly worrying, in view of the stringent regime at Heathrow for combating terrorism, that such a thing could happen?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, at this stage, the working group consists of officials of the departments that I
522
mentioned. Undoubtedly, there are considerable implications for BAA and other airport authorities and for all the airlines that operate out of the UK, as the noble Lord said. I am confident that there will be liaison with the relevant parts of the industry, as things move forward. There has, of course, been substantial liaison with and joint involvement of such interested parties since 11th September.
I agree that it is of concern. Despite the United Kingdom's reputation for strong airport security, we must never treat that as sufficient. We must always assume that our security systems are not adequate, without, of course, going so far as to make Heathrow or other airports not commercially operable.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, on occasion, such offences involve people working on the inside, as it were? Does he believe that things should improve dramatically, once we regulate fully the private security industry in this country? Are the Government in a position to announce the appointment of the chief executive and chairman of the new Security Industry Authority, which will speed up the process of improvement?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, at this stage, the police do not know who carried out the robbery. As my noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate implied, it was either inside people or robbers who penetrated the security zone. There have been one or two other issues relating to security—or robbery—at airports that involved inside knowledge, and, to an extent, one would always consider that to be a possibility in such cases.
The Government are in the process of moving, under the Terrorism Act 2000, to bring in regulations requiring the registration of all firms providing security services at airports. We are also considering other measures, including the extension of some counter-terrorism checks and employment checks on people who work in all or part of restricted zones.
I have no information for the House at this stage about the chief executive of the new security authority. No doubt a statement will be made in due course.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the European Community will be fully consulted? It is important for our security and that of other member states of the European Union that they be fully consulted about the implications for security beyond the British Isles.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, yes, I am sure that all appropriate consultations will take place. I would hope that the UK was seen as a strong source of advice in some of those respects. The issues which arise as a result of the robbery point not only to the need to have good regulations but, as always, to try to ensure that they are effectively enforced not only at Heathrow but at airports throughout the country.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble friend help the House by saying how much is the budget for the

523
police and security staff at Heathrow and who is responsible for managing them and ensuring that they operate effectively?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first question, no, but I will write to him. As regards his second question, the police in the airport, whether land side or on the airport side, are the direct responsibility of the police authorities. I am sure that in these circumstances they must be the Metropolitan Police. No, I am not sure and I will check that last point. As regards their normal line of command, they do not come under the command of British Airports Authority management or airport management elsewhere.

Zimbabwe
2.44 p.m.
Lord Moynihanasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their appraisal of the situation in Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the situation in Zimbabwe is fluid. The management of the presidential election, especially the number of polling booths in urban areas, has come under close scrutiny. I understand that there have been legal moves to extend polling for a third day. For obvious reasons, I do not wish to speculate any further at this stage.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that today, Commonwealth Day, the Commonwealth has little to celebrate? Does she further agree that the Commonwealth's inaction has caused long-term damage to its credibility as an organisation whose members are committed, in a bitter ironic twist under the Harare Declaration, to observe the fundamental principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights? In the light of that, do the Government recognise that there is an urgent need for internal reforms to the Commonwealth and will they make it a priority to lead that reform process?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord and others in this House will be aware of our views, which were strongly expressed before we attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and at that meeting. We felt that the Harare principles had been violated and flouted by Zimbabwe and that the evidence existed for Zimbabwe to be suspended from the Commonwealth. However, we also recognised that the Commonwealth operates by consensus. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting agreed a statement and a mechanism to deal with the situation if the observers find that the current elections are judged not to be free and fair.
524
I would like also to say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that good things came out of the Commonwealth meeting, including the review of the high level group. Our Prime Minister has played an important part in that group in ensuring that views taken at the meeting, which looked forward to the Commonwealth's role in the 21st century, were taken on board.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the general secretary of the Movement for Democratic Change, Mr Ncube, and his deputy, have been arrested? Is she further aware that the polling stations which were opened as a result of the decision of the high court closed again almost immediately in Harare because an appeal was forthcoming to the supreme court and, when we entered Question Time, had not been finally decided?
Is there any way in which the observers present can inquire as to the grounds on which Mr Ncube was seized and perhaps discover whether there are legitimate grounds for what looks like an extremely troubling further intervention in what one hoped would be a reasonably free and fair election?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I understand that the MDC secretary general, Mr Ncube, was this morning detained by police in Plumtree, which is on the border with Botswana. I also understand that Tendai Biti, the shadow foreign minister, was detained about an hour ago. We have no further information about the grounds on which they have been detained; we are doing our best to obtain it. I shall keep the noble Baroness and other noble Lords informed of any further information we receive.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what is the present and future position of the British High Commissioner in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness is asking me. We have a High Commissioner on the ground and he will remain there. He is reporting back to us on a regular basis.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may explain what I meant. As the BBC has not been allowed to make any broadcasts, to what extent is the public speaking capability and the integrity of the British High Commissioner now at stake?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our High Commissioner has been able to carry out his duties. He will continue to do that and he will keep us informed if he is constrained in any way.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, in the appraisal of Zimbabwe, can the Minister say how much time Her Majesty's Government expect the country to take to move from apartheid into full democracy?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have not carried out any analysis, and I know of no research having been clone, into the time it takes a country to move from an apartheid situation into a democratic situation. However, Zimbabwe has held elections in the past; we are all aware of that. There were parliamentary elections in 2000. Observers were present for them and they made a full report. That is why this time, when violence and intimidation have marred the run-up to the elections, the international community has been so concerned.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that, whatever the outcome of the Zimbabwean elections and desperate though the situation is in that country, the Commonwealth is a very much larger issue? As someone who comes from Australia, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether, during her visit, she detected the feeling in Australia that the Commonwealth must remain strong and should continue.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I detected a strong feeling that the Commonwealth is regarded as important and of value. It was recognised that the Commonwealth, as an international organisation comprising 54 diverse countries all operating on an equal footing, is almost unique in the world. Furthermore, a number of different issues were discussed at the meeting. For example, we discussed the position of the smaller states with regard to environmental concerns. A wider discussion was held on issues related to African development and the New Partnership for Africa's Development. As I said, a range of issues were discussed, but the situation in Zimbabwe dominated the agenda.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, given the atmosphere of violence that has pertained in Zimbabwe for several months now, can the noble Baroness say how many Zimbabweans have been refused entry to the UK over the past three months?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am unable to give that figure to the right reverend Prelate. However, he will be aware that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it absolutely clear that until after the elections are completed Zimbabweans requesting asylum will not be returned to that country.

Ronald Rae Statues
2.52 p.m.
Lord St John of Fawsleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
When the undertaking given by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 24th October 2000 (HL Deb, col. 142) that the millennium exhibition of Ronald Rae statues in The Regent's Park would be removed by March 2001 will be implemented.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, Mr Rae was unable to move the sculptures to the Yorkshire Sculpture Park as planned last year because of restrictions on movements due to the foot and mouth outbreak. I understand that Mr Rae has now assured William Weston, the chief executive of the Royal Parks Agency, that the exhibits will be removed by the end of April.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and constructive reply, which was worth waiting for. Is she aware that during this long campaign I have had the generous support of my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes—who unfortunately cannot be with us today—so much so that we have become known in park circles as "Bonnie and Clyde"? Does she agree that it is not a question of residents' interests, but the rights of all urban dwellers to enjoy the parks—they are their countryside—and to enjoy the grass, flowers and trees, among which they can walk, play and picnic peaceably?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I hope that "Bonnie and Clyde" do not come to the bad end that the fictional characters came to, in a shoot-out in one of the Royal Parks. Of course I entirely agree that the Royal Parks are there to be enjoyed by people throughout London and, of course, by visitors from all over the world. However, in earlier plans for the park put forward, I believe, by the Marquess of Bute, it was suggested that sculptures should he exhibited in different parts of the park. I believe that the Ronald Rae sculptures, which I know the noble Lord did not much like, were appreciated at least by some members of the public. But the important point to make is that they are now going to be removed.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in October 2000 the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, described the statues as "disfiguring" that corner of the park? However, when I visited the area on my motorcycle earlier today, I found three people—only three because it is a Monday—visiting and photographing the area. Two of them were entirely in support of the statues and liked them very much, while one was non-committal. I have been lobbied by a number of people— all of them young, curiously enough—who love the statues, particularly now that they have weathered. Will the noble Baroness take into account the fact that that corner of the park has now been established as a very good area for statues? Furthermore, when the statues are removed, as is likely to be the case, will she be certain that we do not go down rather than up in terms of quality and suitability in that part of the park; that is, if she does intend to see that other statues are put in the place of the Ronald Rae statues?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Viscount has just said. Not everyone disliked the sculptures. Indeed, we have had very few

527
complaints about them. Obviously it is all a matter of taste. What I cannot tell the noble Viscount is whether in the future other sculptures will be put in their place. That is a matter for consideration by the agency. However, I should like to repeat what I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley: there is scope for having sculpture in our London parks, and in particular in the Royal Parks.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, returning to the noble Baroness's original Answer, how could a statue have become infected with foot and mouth disease in Regent's Park?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may explain further to the noble Baroness. I did not actually suggest that the sculptures had caught foot and mouth disease, but I did suggest that removing them to Yorkshire was a problem. I have not seen the sculptures myself, but I am told that they are rather large and therefore require to be transported across the countryside in large lorries. It proved to be impossible to do that while the restrictions were in place during last year.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given that earlier this year London Zoo lost its elephants, which are prone to foot and mouth disease, it will be a great shame to lose the rather fine elephant statues that are now to be removed? Can the Minister say whether, as a result of the loss of the real elephants, we might have some further sculptures of elephants to replace those which are to be transferred to Yorkshire?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure whether a sculpture of an elephant is a replacement for a real elephant.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take this opportunity to say something about the future of the Royal Parks Agency? Are any developments being planned? Is it to be guaranteed that any activities will be adequately funded from public money rather than from private events, which destroy the very characteristics which people visit the parks to experience?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, may be aware that there is a plan to turn the Royal Parks Agency into a non-departmental public body. That will allow the new body to obtain support from a variety of different funds for different projects, including the lottery, which is not possible at the moment. However, that does not in any way mean that the current public funding of the Royal Parks will decline.

Afghanistan: International Security Assistance Force
2.58 p.m.
Lord Redesdaleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the size, composition and designated mission of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan are adequate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the size, composition and mission of the International Security Assistance Force have proved adequate for helping the Afghan Interim Authority to provide the security and stability in Kabul which is needed for the Afghans to begin the rebuilding of their country. Its success and the warm welcome the ISAF has received from the people of Kabul are evidence of that and much more.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Although we support wholeheartedly the aims and objectives of ISAF, if in the short term no other country is found to lead the ISAF mission, can he say whether Britain will carry on in its present role of leading the mission? Furthermore, can he say whether the Government have entered negotiations with our European partners over whether they would be interested in increasing their commitment? At present, British forces comprise half the membership of ISAF and our European partners have not shown the degree of willingness required to provide soldiers for this role.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. The handing-over of the leadership is obviously a matter of interest to the House but we are not yet in a position to make a statement on the transfer. We shall, of course, do so when we can. We hope that Turkey will become the lead nation for ISAF but, at the moment, there are still some uncertainties surrounding the transfer. Prime Minister Ecevit has told my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he strongly supports his country taking on the role and we are working hard to tie-down the details. We are now negotiating the details of the hand-over and we do not anticipate failing.
As to the noble Lord's second question, our troops comprise 1,630 out of the 4,610 troops—a little fewer than the half mentioned by the noble Lord—and we do not accept for one moment that our European partners and others of the 17 other countries which make up ISAF are not playing their part. They are playing their part in the same way as we are.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House which countries will continue to provide troops for ISAF after April? Are the costs of the operation being shared by all participating countries? What is the Government's policy on the possible expansion of the ISAF mission beyond Kabul?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is too early to say who will be providing forces after 30th April. As to the question of costs, as I understand it, each country is paying its own costs in regard to ISAF. As far as extending its mission beyond Kabul—and I recognise that in my answers to the three questions posed by the noble Lord I am not being particularly informative—we have been discussing such an expansion and other issues with our partners and allies but no decisions have yet been taken. The noble Lord will know of the immense challenges involved in deploying the ISAF to Kabul. There will be challenges equally as great—if not greater—elsewhere in Afghanistan.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, if I understood the Minister correctly, he said that it is too early to say who will comprise the force on 30th April. Can that really be right? Who will notify the troops that they are going? Who will give them training before they go? Who will provide the intelligence background that they will need to undertake the task? It seems absolutely incredible that within five or six weeks of new forces being deployed or existing forces carrying on, no one has been notified of who will be there.
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is not a question of no one being notified. As the noble Lord probably knows, negotiations are advanced as to which countries will or will not he involved. A number of countries that have armed forces there at the present time will be there after 30th April—as, too, will we. I am not able to tell the House at the moment who will make up the full force of ISAF because negotiations are still continuing. However, there is no danger that ISAF will not have the forces that it needs in Kabul. As the noble Lord knows, ISAF's six-months' remit runs out on 20th June.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say who is responsible for providing security on the internal road system of Afghanistan—for example, between Kabul and Herat or between Kabul and Kandahar? Can he say whether the phenomenon of banditry on the roads, which was hindering traffic and the movement of aid until very recently, has now been brought to an end?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I understand it, the interim authority is responsible for the security of roads both inside and outside Kabul; it is the interim authority for the whole country. ISAF's writ does not run beyond Kabul and its surrounding area.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that this issue will be on the agenda for the Barcelona European Council next weekend? Although it is mainly concerned with economic issues, it is important that other European Union countries committed to the headline goals should be playing a larger part. The Minister said that each country is paying its own way. Is it intended that
530
the Turkish troops will be paid for by their own government or will other financial arrangements be made?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as far as Turkey is concerned, it is too early to say; we shall have to wait on events. I should say for the second time that it is not fair to say that other European countries are not playing a big role in ISAF. They are—and a very important role too. For example, Germany will take over from 16 Assault Brigade and replace the second headquarters in ISAF. It has agreed to do that. There is no suggestion at all that any European country presently there will do anything other than continue to support ISAF.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should explain that in the report of the Liaison Committee we make three recommendations, which I shall summarise briefly.
First, the Liaison Committee considered a proposal that the Religious Offences Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, should be committed to a Select Committee. While the Liaison Committee recognised the value of examination of this matter by a Select Committee, it was considered that it would be better to refer the subject of religious offences to an ad hoc Select Committee rather than limit the Select Committee to the terms of the noble Lord's Bill. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is supportive of that view.
This ad hoc Select Committee would, in effect, be the successor to the ad hoc Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, which has slightly overrun its time. We were worried that this would cause problems in terms of staffing, but I am pleased to say that the Clerk of the Parliaments has indicated that it will be possible to provide staff resources to enable the new Select Committee to be set up after Easter rather than await the completion of the work of the Select Committee on animals.
The Liaison Committee also considered the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for a Select Committee on the subject of communications, which has received wide support throughout the House. It was suggested that such a Select Committee might be set up in late 2003 after the passage of the Government's proposed Communications Bill. The Liaison Committee has welcomed this proposal in principle and will make a further recommendation nearer the time. The Liaison Committee fell that in the first instance the Select Committee should be set up as an ad hoc Select Committee rather than as a permanent sessional committee. This has been done in the past. If it proves successful, it would be possible to move to a permanent sessional committee if required.

531
Finally, the Liaison Committee considered a proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for a Select Committee on measures to combat international terrorism. The Liaison Committee felt that such a Select Committee would risk duplicating the work of departmental committees in another place, which we have always sought to avoid. The Liaison Committee recognised the case for more Select Committee work in the field of foreign affairs and will return to that issue later in the year, but it does not recommend the appointment of a Select Committee on measures to combat international terrorism. However, your Lordships will see from the report that the Liaison Committee proposes to return to the possibility of a Select Committee to scrutinise treaties. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 84) be agreed to. (The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
Religious offences
1. The Committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Avebury that his Religious Offences Bill [HL], which received a Second Reading on 30 January, should be committed to a select committee.
2. This bill would create an offence of religious hatred, as proposed in a provision in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill which was deleted during its passage through the House. It would also abolish blasphemy and certain other religious offences. These are both matters which could benefit from examination by a select committee. A select committee set up to examine Lord Avebury's Bill might be unduly constrained, so we recommend the appointment, as soon as clerk resources permit, of an ad hoc select committee on the subject of religious offences.
A select committee on communications
3. The Committee has considered a proposal put forward by Baroness Howe of Idlicote for a select committee on communications. A letter from her to the Chairman is printed as Annex 1 to this Report.
4. The proposed select committee would examine a subject on which the House has a great deal of expertise, and which cuts across Government departmental boundaries. We believe that it would be a good subject for a House of Lords committee.
5. Baroness Howe's proposal is for a sessional rather than an ad hoc committee, to be appointed after the passage of the proposed Communications Bill -probably in late 2003. We would prefer the appointment of an ad hoc committee in the first instance, with a view to making it permanent if it were a success. We will return to the matter with a firm recommendation nearer the time.
A select committee on measures to combat international terrorism
6. The Committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Gilbert for a select committee on measures to combat international terrorism. A letter from him to the Chairman is printed as Annex 2 to this Report.
7. Lord Gilbert's letter indicates that this is a matter which has been considered by three of the House of Commons' departmental committees. In our view this provides a strong argument against the proposal— Lords Committees should complement and not duplicate the work of Commons Committees. We recognise that there is a case for more select committee activity in the field of foreign affairs, and we propose later in the year to return to the proposal for a select committee to scrutinise treaties, previously postponed pending developments in the Commons. We do not, however, recommend appointment of a select committee on measures to combat international terrorism.

ANNEX 1

  Letter and memorandum from Baroness Howe of Idlicote to the Chairman of Committees
  Proposal for the House of Lords to set up a Communications Select Committee
  As you suggested when we spoke last week, I am enclosing details of a proposal, which I'd be most grateful if you could put before the members of the Liaison Committee, that the House of Lords should establish a Communications Select Committee. The idea has arisen in light of the Communication industry's ever widening remit, rapidly growing economic and cultural importance to the United Kingdom, and not least because of the considerable expertise and experience of the industry that exists in this House.
  As I explained, I wanted to test the amount of support that might exist amongst the 100 or so peers within that particular group before putting the suggestion formally to your Committee and, hopefully, for the idea to receive wider circulation and debate. So far I have had replies from over half of those to whom I wrote on 14th January, with the vast majority supporting both the proposal and its outlined remit. (I have, of course, been warned that resources for Select Committees are scarce, and that there may well be a queue of equally deserving suggestions ahead of this one!)
  Enclosed is both a copy of the letter I wrote to each Peer [not printed], and the paper setting out a reasoned case for the establishment of a Communications Select Committee. Perhaps, however, I might mention that although the proposal is made now, I see the ideal time to set up such a Committee, if the idea should eventually be approved, might well be when the proposed Communications Bill (due to be debated in the Spring of this year) is finally on the statute book. Up to that point their Lordships' expertise will no doubt be fully occupied with that Bill's Pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee, and with the process of the legislation itself.
  I obviously hope the suggestion will gain your Committee's approval, and if so, I should be most grateful for advice as to what further steps need to be taken.
  5 February 2002
  PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS SELECT COMMITTEE
  Reasons for Establishment.
  1. Due to almost continuous technological innovation and change in the last 20 years, the whole business of communications is of increasing importance in all our lives, whether as citizens or consumers. Quite apart from its economic importance, we rely on it for information, entertainment and education. It helps mould our culture, our attitude and reaction to events, and we have a vital interest in its accuracy and impartiality - and thus in its ownership, management and control.
  2. Moreover, the industry's contribution to the UK economy is considerable and growing at a faster rate than any other part of the economy. The Government White Paper on "A New Future for Communications" reported that UK creative industries generate revenue approaching £60 billion a year, contributing 4% to GDP, whilst the telecommunications industry generates revenues of £31 billion and contributes 2% to GDP.
  3. As another example of the industry's importance, the power of the media to destroy reputation - where inaccurate or biased information is used - is arguably far greater than that of the Courts to protect them. Human Rights issues for individuals or organisations have, quite rightly, a higher profile since the European Convention of Human Rights became part of UK domestic law. A reformed House of Lords, with an even greater complement of independent peers, could play an increasingly important part in assessing and advising upon the impact of such changes. Moreover, even during the last five years, communication matters have been debated in the House on no less than 21 occasions - not including the time devoted to the current OFCOM Paving Bill.

  533
  4. These issues become all the more challenging with the spread of international and multimedia ownership. So too because of the overlap between UK controls - statutory, self-regulatory and common law - and those of the European Union; and in other countries from which communications to UK citizens and consumers may increasingly originate.
  5. The House of Lords already contains peers with considerable experience of, and expertise in, the Communications Industry. (96 have had either career involvement in the sector or have listed communications as a 'special interest'.) A tacit acknowledgement of this expertise is the fact that at least the last two broadcasting Acts have been introduced in the Lords.
  6. The creation of a Communications Select Committee, able to require attendance of appropriate witnesses, could have particular value in informing policy development in this area. As an example of this, with the OFCOM Act (and its sister Act, expected later this year), a Lords Select Committee could be especially useful - not least in the assessment, pre and post the BBC's Charter Review - of whether the BBC's particular relationship with OFCOM is working in the public interest.
  7. The Government's emphasis (in 'The House of Lords, Completing the Reform') is on using the reinforced independence, expertise and experience of a reformed Second Chamber more effectively, but without duplicating or undermining the House of Commons' primacy. Whilst rejecting the setting up of a "… nexus of departmental select committees like those in the Commons …" the Government sees "… the second chamber (as) better placed to examine cross-cutting issues." (P. 11 para 13 in Supporting Documents.) A Lords Select Committee of the kind here proposed, would be addressing exactly such cross-cutting issues as would fall outside the remit of any one Commons departmental select committee.
  Proposed Communications Select Committee—Remit.
  Possible areas of coverage suggested so far:
  —All broadcasting media and telex: radio and television—terrestrial, cable and satellite.
  All aspects of the Internet and telecommunications (including mobile telephones.)
  Newspaper and periodical publishing.
  Film and video.
  Advertising.
  Coverage to include ownership, licensing, control and management.
  A relatively wide remit may be thought necessary, because of the rapidly developing cross ownership and interactivity—broadband etc—between all methods of communications.

  ANNEX 2
  Letter from Lord Gilbert to the Chairman of Committees
  As you know, I have had discussions with several senior members of the House, in addition to yourself, about the House's ability to make a useful contribution to the struggle against international terrorism.
  It seems to me quite extraordinary, considering the vast amount of experience at the disposal of the House, with respect to matters involving defence, intelligence, internal and external security, and foreign affairs, that we should not have a single committee considering these matters. The other place, which cannot call on anything like the experience and knowledge available to our House, has no fewer than three committees, Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Defence, which have been briefed by the Prime Minister on these matters. The Committee on Intelligence and Security, which was also briefed by the Prime Minister, counts only one member from our House in its membership.
  I would, therefore, be very grateful if you could invite the Liaison Committee, at its next meeting, to discuss the setting up of a Select Committee on, say, "Measures to Combat International Terrorism", or such other title as might seem appropriate to your committee, and endowing it with the wide terms of reference that it would clearly require.
  534
  I have also talked about this idea with various back bench members from all parties in our House, and have encountered no resistance to, but rather enthusiasm for, the proposition.
  I would be very grateful for your kind attention to this suggestion.
  14 February 2002
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, I welcome the recommendation of the Liaison Committee that the whole question of religious offences and not merely the subject matter of the Religious Offences Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. This allows the Select Committee to take the broadest possible view, even though the Law Commission, when it examined the matter in 1985, included within its remit all religious offences then on the statute book. Those are the offences dealt with in my Bill. It may be that the Select Committee will wish to consider some new religious offences and its terms of reference will allow that if, in its wisdom, it so decides. I very much welcome the decision of the Liaison Committee and I look forward to its work.
  Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for considering the proposal that I put to it. I am also grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for the extremely courteous letter he wrote to me informing me of its decision.
  Although no fewer than three committees in the House of Commons were briefed on this subject by the Prime Minister at the beginning of hostilities with elements in Afghanistan, not one of them is considering the whole range of issues that affect this country in terms of international terrorism. One of the committees is doing nothing about the subject whatever and the other two have on-going inquiries which touch only tangentially on the whole subject.
  Is it not time that this House ceased to be inhibited by the fact that the other place may also be investigating certain subjects? There is a far higher degree of talent, intelligence and experience, particularly on these matters, in all parts of this House—it is not a matter for jest; it is extremely serious—than exists at the other end of the corridor. It is high time that we stood on our own two feet. We should not merely be saying, "Yes, we shall have a few crumbs which the other place is not looking at and examine that". I hope that the Liaison Committee will examine the matter—
  A noble Lord: Nonsense!
  Lord Gilbert: My Lords, if the noble Lord thinks that it is nonsense, he should be prepared to get to his feet and say why. That is the attitude at the moment, and it is not good enough.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I strongly support the Liaison Committee's report. I understand the strength and vigour with which the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, argues his case. There are limited resources for conducting studies of this kind. It seems wise to pursue a part of the counter-terrorism Bill which—for reasons that we all understand—could not

  535
  be proceeded with at the time but to which many minorities in this society had been looking forward. We strongly support the proposal to go ahead as urgently as possible with a Bill such as that introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
  As to the other demand on the committee's resources—namely, the proposal for a communications committee—I commend the Liaison Committee on the wisdom that it has shown in proposing an experiment based on an ad hoc committee in an area peculiarly appropriate for consideration by this House, cutting as it does across several disciplines. It affords an opportunity to examine one of the most significant developing influences on politics in this country; namely, the inter-relationship between the political process and the media. I commend the committee's report to the House.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in relation to the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I wholly support the committee's recommendations. I say that, having asserted at Second Reading that the Committee stage, were there to be one, should ensue on the Floor of the House and that the matter should not go to a Select Committee. I support in particular the recommendation which widens the scope in terms of religious offences without reference to criminalising religious hatred as the Bill does. I particularly welcome that in our multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. It is of great importance, in particular as regards the law on blasphemy. In my opinion, the Liaison Committee has come to entirely the right conclusion.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for their comments. I understand the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, has expressed. However, there is so much expertise on so many subjects in this House that we could have 50 or 60 Select Committees based on it. The Liaison Committee has to prioritise the work that we do. That is what it has attempted to do in this case. I commend the report to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Education Bill
  3.13 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  It is with a sense of privilege as well as pleasure that I rise to speak on the Second Reading of the Education Bill. It begins a new phase of educational reform: a phase of reform that starts from the belief that schools themselves have the capacity to lead change; renews our programme to raise standards and strengthens the teaching profession; and seeks to create a culture of collaboration between schools. It is a Bill that looks to
  536
  what has already been achieved in our schools and takes the next important steps to ensure that we continue to push back the boundaries of excellence and offer support to our most challenged schools. It can do so from the knowledge of real progress in education.
  I shall take a moment to set out the changes that make this Bill possible. First, we have seen real and sustained progress in our schools. The latest report from the Chief Inspector of Schools tells us that we have the best ever generation of teachers—with more good lessons than ever before. The recent OECD PISA study showed that our 15 year-olds are now performing well above the OECD average in literacy, mathematics and science. Performance at all levels has improved—so that 150,000 more children begin secondary school with the sound foundations in literacy and numeracy that they need to succeed; and almost half a million infants benefit from reductions in class sizes.
  Secondly, we now have a highly developed accountability framework based on clear standards, national targets and well-established inspection arrangements. Alongside that framework, we have better data about school performance than ever before. At the touch of a button, it is possible to tell how a school is doing, how its performance compares with other schools in similar circumstances and how quickly it is improving.
  Thirdly, major national investment in continuing professional development for teachers means that now, more than ever, we can trust the informed professional judgment of teachers.
  With this clear national framework in place, we can take the next step—a step which I believe deserves support across your Lordships' House. We can look to our schools and local education authorities to lead the way, to be the innovators in education so that our children and young people get the skills they need to take their place in a fast-changing world.
  We know that many of the best ideas in education begin in our best schools—schools that have risen to the challenges facing them and found new ways of working that have benefited their children, and often their communities. We want to free them further to develop those ideas, to share them with other schools and to help our school system to take the next big steps forward to higher standards for all our children.
  The Bill will enable government, for the first time, to respond quickly and effectively to schools and to LEAs which come forward with good ideas that do not fit the rules as they stand. Where schools come up against legislative barriers, they will be able to seek to have them removed for a pilot period under Chapter 1 of the Bill.
  It is important for noble Lords to understand the role of the Secretary of State in this process, for this power may be used only where she is satisfied, on the basis of professional advice, that the proposals will raise standards. She may neither impose, nor instigate:

  537
  she may only respond to schools and LEAs with good ideas that benefit pupils. And, of course, existing freedoms to innovate are not reduced.
  Schools and LEAs will be able to propose a wide range of changes. We do not have a fixed wish list—those on the ground will lead the way. We expect that proposals for legislative change will often be on a small scale. For example, if a school wishes to introduce a continental day, then it may simply need to be freed from requirements to register pupils in the afternoon and have a break between sessions.
  In recent years, schools have wanted new flexibilities. Some of these can be given permanently under this legislation. In so doing, we are seeking to preserve important existing safeguards, while enabling schools more easily to develop the arrangements best suited to their needs.
  First, there will be new opportunities for schools to do more to support other schools. Under Clause 23, there will be new freedoms for schools to federate, so that, for example, weak schools can benefit from the effective leadership and management of good schools; small schools can work together more easily; and schools can formalise close links.
  Under Clauses 10 to 12, schools will be able to give others the benefits of their strengths by joining together to provide LEA services where the LEA chooses to contract these out. On the same basis, schools will be able to join together to purchase goods and services, so creating economies of scale.
  Governing bodies of different schools will be allowed to form joint committees under Clause 29 to carry out some of their work together. That could mean partnerships to develop specialisms, to maintain shared sites or to work together in any of a range of areas where schools can benefit from sharing strengths.
  So at the heart of the Bill are measures to support schools to work together ever more closely. From informal approaches; to joint committees; to full federation—the Bill creates a range of options. Schools will have far greater freedom to determine for themselves their preferred model of governance; and they will be able to tailor their approach to suit their circumstances.
  Secondly, through Clauses 34 and 35, schools will gain significant new flexibilities in staffing. This is not flexibility for flexibility's sake. It is fundamentally about the quality of education that we are offering to our children. It is about helping schools to put in place new ways of delivering the more individualised education that we all want to create. In short, it is about raising standards to benefit all children. As a result of the Bill's provisions, schools will be able to share staff and so share good practice, with perhaps several schools benefiting from a strong subject department—for example, modern foreign languages, music and ICT. There will be new opportunities for schools to make use of other skilled professionals, such as lecturers from further and higher education. And schools will have greater freedom to involve properly trained assistants in supervising classes.
  538
  The Bill recognises in Clauses 128 and 129 the fundamental importance of qualified teachers, there to teach our children and young people. But it recognises too the valuable contribution that properly trained assistants can make in strengthening support for pupils and reducing workload for teachers.
  This Bill creates a flexible framework within which schools can develop the model of staffing that best suits the needs of their pupils.
  Thirdly, Clause 25 makes it possible for schools to become "extended schools". It will enable those that wish to do so to provide additional services to the community, such as childcare or adult education. We know that the local school is at the heart of many communities—associated with care, with teaching and learning and with safety for children. Many schools have wanted the opportunity to be directly involved, often in partnership with others, in providing high quality services. They know that the provision of services for the family and the community helps to support their children and helps to raise educational standards for all.
  Fourthly, there will be even greater freedoms for the best schools, as set out in Clauses 5 to 9. The best schools, defined against their achievements with the students they have, compared to similar schools, will be able automatically to gain greater autonomy over the curriculum and over teachers' pay and conditions. We will define the qualifying criteria at a challenging level—perhaps 10 per cent of schools will initially meet them—but they will be objective criteria, to which all can aspire. There will be no compulsion to use this earned autonomy, but where schools believe it can improve standards for all their pupils, they will be able to take advantage of it.
  Let me be clear that none of this will be freedom without accountability. Far from it—in the interests of children, we must not discard the accountability framework, which is at the heart of our approach to school improvement. And there must be powers to intervene when things go wrong, because our interest here is that every child has the opportunity to succeed.
  So our simple principle continues to be: intervention in inverse proportion to success. And just as that principle suggests that we should free the best schools to achieve more, so it means that we must intervene decisively where necessary to bring up the standards of the weakest schools in the system.
  Ofsted estimates that over a quarter of a million children have received a better education because failing schools have been tackled. Some 850 schools have come out of special measures since 1997 and the number of schools in special measures has been sharply reduced, to around 300 now.
  We now want to step up our efforts, finding new ways to tackle failure in the hardest cases on the one hand; and new ways to ensure that weak schools do not slip into failure on the other. Our principle is simple: we must give children the quality of education that is their right as quickly as possible.

  539
  The Bill gives us new reserve powers to deal with the very hardest cases. If, for example, the problems at a school are deep-seated, and the LEA has not been able to solve them, then the powers in the Bill could be used to involve another partner in turning the school round. That could be a nearby successful school, another LEA, or one of a range of public, voluntary or private sector bodies, which have the capacity to help schools to raise standards. If the governing body is part of the problem, Clause 54 provides powers to replace it with an interim executive board for the period of the turnaround.
  Through this Bill we are going further still. We already have in place a range of measures to challenge and support weak schools that are not in special measures. But as the number of schools in special measures falls, we are preparing to raise the bar and to take powers to intervene if necessary to prevent a weak school falling into failure. Through these measures we will continue to help schools to turn failure into success; weakness into strength; and raise the minimum standard.
  The funding we have given schools is an important part of the equation that results in better standards for all. Capital investment alone is three times higher than in 1996–97. More goes directly to schools. So we believe that it is essential that resources raised nationally for education should be passed on locally to education. That is why Clause 40 contains a reserve power to require local authorities to set a minimum level of schools budget. My honourable friend has made clear in the other place that where an LEA plans to passport funding increases in full, there will be no use of this reserve power. Indeed, we expect this power to be used very rarely. But we do believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that increases in government education funding benefit schools as we intend.
  So there is more funding; a greater proportion going directly to schools; and now a backstop to ensure that money for schools reaches them. And the Bill creates a schools forum, so that, where it is appropriate, schools can play their part in taking decisions about the level of delegation in an authority.
  Furthermore, we will build on our reforms of the Standards Fund, which are breaking down bureaucracy for schools—welcomed by schools. Through Part 2 of the Bill, we are sweeping away a number of powers for the Secretary of State to pay grant, and putting in their place a single, simple power. The savings in time and effort are clear.
  All of this is essential if we are to ensure that every child receives a sound basic level of education. But we have never believed that this alone is enough. What we want to achieve—what we know everyone involved in the education service wants to achieve—is an education system more closely tailored to helping each individual to fulfil his or her potential. That idea permeates this Bill and our recent Green Paper on 14 to 19 education.
  540
  We are seeking to create a new, coherent 14 to 19 phase of education that will enable each individual to develop more fully their talents and aptitudes. We are committed to consulting very widely on how best to achieve that goal. In this Bill, we separate key stage 4 of the national curriculum from the other key stages, and so create the framework that will enable the conclusions of that consultation for the curriculum to be implemented.
  As we move towards a more innovative system, more closely tailored to the individual, we want to move towards greater innovation in the provision of new schools. So this Bill introduces a new approach to the supply of new secondary schools. When a new school is needed, any interested party will be able to bring forward a proposal and have it considered on an equal basis with all others. It will create a level playing field between those who have traditionally promoted new schools and potential new partners for the schools system. Through this process, we will encourage new thinking as well as new partners for the education service. I assure the House that the basis for decisions will be the quality of the proposals for the education of our children, the value for money that they provide and the opinions of local people.
  Whatever the framework of schools, fairness in admissions is critical, too. Through the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Government brought forward major reforms of admissions law, strengthening arrangements that ensure that all children are treated fairly. Research evidence has shown how positively parents have responded to the reforms; and we are now in a position to build on them further.
  We remain committed to ensuring that admissions policies work in the best interests of all, and that parents' preferences are met as far as possible. Clause 44 will now make admissions forums compulsory, with an advisory role, so that in every area they can make recommendations about the best way to serve the interests of local children and parents. We plan to include on the forum the elected parent governor representatives to offer advice from the perspective of parents.
  Clause 46 will introduce co-ordinated admissions arrangements in every LEA area, so that every child receives a single offer of a place at the appropriate time and, most importantly, no child is left without a place at the end of the admissions round. As we continue our reform, we continue to put the interests of parents and children first.
  The Bill also takes forward a number of other reforms. Though I will not spend long on each, they are none the less of great importance. The first are the steps we are taking to enable the repayment of student loans for teachers of shortage subjects. This is one of a range of measures that we have discussed many times in your Lordships' House to attract and retain high quality graduates to our teaching profession.
  We are also taking the opportunity to strengthen the workings of the exclusion appeals panels to support better behaviour in schools—an issue of great

  541
  importance to our teachers, which we are addressing in a number of ways, not least in bringing support to the classroom from other professionals.
  We want, too, to continue our transformation of early education and childcare. Already our commitment that every four year-old whose parents want one should have an early education place has been met in full, and we are on target to complete our pledge for every three year-old.
  There are a number of measures in the Bill to build on our commitments: to ensure proposals are published if a nursery school is to be established or closed; to ensure our registration and inspection of nursery education and childcare is efficient and high quality; to provide for each nursery school to have its own governing body; to place a duty on LEAs to carry out annual reviews of childcare provision in their area, and to establish and maintain an information service.
  Finally, the reforms in this Bill of the regulation of independent schools will overhaul an out-of-date system and implement the recommendations of the lining and Waterhouse reports. They have very widespread support from the independent school sector. In many respects we are simplifying and clarifying legislation to make it more transparent and more usable.
  Before I finish I want to say a little about what is not in the Bill. First, the Bill does not water down our commitment to inclusion. Noble Lords have heard me say before that it is our firm belief that the inclusion of every child in mainstream education who wishes, and is able, to he there is paramount, Secondly, there are no measures in this Bill to promote faith schools. Within the Bill we seek to ensure that those who put forward proposals to a school organisation committee and are not represented on that committee shall have the right of appeal to an independent adjudicator in the event that their proposals are turned down. Thirdly, this is not a Bill that seeks to centralise but to devolve: to devolve to our teachers and governors the kinds of flexibilities that will enable them to improve the education they offer to our children.
  The past five years have seen teachers, young people and all those involved in education achieve remarkable things. They deserve our praise and gratitude. But we must not rest until we have an education service that leads the world, until every teacher has enough support to tailor their work to the needs of every child and until every child achieves their potential in full. This Bill is reform for a purpose. I commend it to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
  3.32 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the details of the Bill. I say at the outset how much I look forward to working with the noble Baroness on what I believe is her first major education Bill. The noble Baroness has earned a reputation for diligence and fair-mindedness in
  542
  debate. Both attributes no doubt will be called upon in considerable measure over the next few weeks as the stages of the Bill unfold.
  My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, when winding-up the debate for these Benches, will deal with those aspects of the Bill relating to Wales and my other Front Bench colleague, my noble friend Lady Seccombe, will record her concern about child protection issues.
  We on these Benches support the aims of this Bill—to give schools greater autonomy, to support teachers, to promote innovation and to involve new partners including the private sector. However, as I shall point out, this Bill will not achieve those aims. It is centralising and puts unprecedented powers in the hands of the Secretary of State.
  Detailed scrutiny and revision of the Bill by Members of this House is crucial in order to restore some parliamentary democracy which was almost absent from another place. A pernicious procedure called, menacingly, "the knife" has been added to that of the guillotine. The "knife" has been used liberally to eliminate discussion on large parts of this Bill. That is a constitutional outrage. The irony will not be lost on all those who are involved in the world of education; that is, that the elected Chamber, when considering this Bill, chose to ride roughshod over the democratic process whereas the appointed Chamber will, as is customary, be assiduous in carrying out its duty to scrutinise and revise legislation and to hold the Government to account. It would seem that time can be given to debate fox-hunting, but not enough time can be allowed for consideration of a subject that affects the daily lives of all families throughout the land. Such a dereliction of duty by the Government tells us much about their so-called priority, "Education, Education, Education"!
  It has been said by some—and with, I believe, some force—that this could be the last education Bill. Certainly, if one looks at the power to be taken in Clause 2, any education statute, past, present or future, could be altered or swept away by order of the Secretary of State.
  On the face of this Bill there is no protection for the rights of a child enshrined in previous education Acts of Parliament and no protection for children with special educational needs, even though we have only recently passed an Act of Parliament for young people requiring special educational needs. Those who care for such children are naturally concerned about the power in Clause 2 which allows the Secretary of State to exempt any piece of education legislation. We are looking to the Minister not just for reassurance across the Dispatch Box, but for it to be placed on the face of the Bill.
  There is hardly a mention in the Bill of parents or parental rights, even in the consultation process. If we are to consider giving the Secretary of State wide powers to alter the nature of schooling in this country, parents, staff and local education authorities must by right be consulted.

  543
  The Bill is a massive contradiction; it advocates an extension of autonomy and freedom but within a strait-jacket of central power and prescription wielded by the Secretary of State. Without more detail no one can predict the impact of this Bill, containing, as it does, the mother of all Henry VIII powers.
  All of the detailed implementation of this Bill will follow by order, guidelines, circulars and regulation entirely at the whim of the Secretary of State. That is serious because we know that changes are afoot by the Government to reduce the powers of this House in relation to secondary legislation. Even as the rules stand at present, we are unable to amend secondary legislation and therefore it is essential that the scope and qualification of these powers are made clear on the face of the Bill. Certainly, there will have to be greater use of the affirmative resolution procedure.
  We shall almost certainly hear from the Government today that there is no way that the Clause 2 powers will be used to invalidate important rights and safeguards set out in previous statutes. However, let us record again what Clause 2(1)(a) states:
  "On the application of one or more qualifying bodies … the Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the National Assembly for Wales … may for the purpose of this Chapter by order make provision—
  (a) conferring on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation".
  There is no restriction or limitation on any part of any previous statute. Indeed, the true interpretation of this clause, as I have pointed out, is that any education legislation, past, present or future, can be exempted by order. In fact, this, or any future Secretary of State, could by order change the whole nature of education without the need for primary legislation. That cannot be right. There must be some qualification for the use of that power.
  One of the claims made by the Secretary of State for this Bill is that it will,
  "set out plans for supporting teachers to raise standards in secondary schools".
  The Secretary of State will not impress teachers by making that claim against a background where the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools has worsened; where there is a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention; where there are problems of discipline in the classroom; at a time when far too many temporary supply teachers are employed in our schools and when an unprecedented number of teachers are being required to teach children subjects for which they are not trained; when the burden of bureaucracy and additional responsibilities which detract from teaching is not lessened but increased by this Bill; when the Government have not fully funded the teachers' pay and performance awards; when post-16 examinations are in disarray and when, according to the financial appraisal of this Bill, some of the additional costs are to be met from within councils' and schools' own budgets.
  544
  As the Secondary Heads Association has said,
  "The Bill is a ragbag of peripheral proposals which fail to address the central concerns of school leaders—teacher shortages, excessive workload, inequitable funding and the failure to finance the next stage of the Government's own performance pay system".
  While I am on the subject of finance may I say that any control over the wholesale confiscation of funding by the Secretary of State is singularly absent from this Bill. Unprecedented sums of money from the overall budget for education are held back by the Secretary of State. The costs of running the department have soared. The number of civil servants in the department has grown and the number of pet schemes which require excessive bureaucratic work from schools and LEAs has proliferated. Why does not the Department for Education and Skills set an example by improving its own cost-effectiveness and pass the benefit to schools where it will really add value?
  The more funding held back by the Secretary of State and local government, the more the core funding for schools is reduced. It is no surprise that each time the Government boast about the additional money that they claim will go into education, teachers at school level are baffled about why they are not benefiting.
  While we do not support the taking of industrial action by teachers, are the Government not troubled in particular about the possible ballot by members of the NAHT and the Secondary Heads Association? Whatever plans the Government propose for the School Teachers' Review Body, the Minister will know that there is great anxiety about the Government's negative response to the STRB's 2002 recommendation, which was that:
  "Sufficient resources should be made available to ensure that teachers who meet the (Government's own) performance criteria for progression on the upper pay scale can in fact progress".
  It also recommended that the grant should be,
  "increased to enable a substantial majority of teachers to progress".
  That the Government have not done. It is a fact that taking into account teachers' basic salary, plus the shortening of the "mainscale" costing a further 0.5 per cent, plus fees for membership of the General Teaching Council and 1 per cent additional pension contributions—not to mention the additional financial burdens arising from the Bill—there will be a large shortfall in the funding of our schools. To claim that it can be made up from within budget without serious adverse effects on the education of children is deeply misleading.
  Another measure in the Bill that will dissipate yet more funds is the establishment and servicing of admissions forums and schools forums. Why oh why must schools be subjected to attendance targets? The target for attendance should be 100 per cent. Authorised and unauthorised absences are already recorded and inspected by Ofsted. What is the point of adding yet more bureaucracy?
  The clauses dealing with earned autonomy on the basis of performance are unnecessarily complex. Why should schools have to apply and be subject to assessment—that is another costly and bureaucratic

  545
  diversion—in order to exercise autonomy? Grant maintained schools proved the success of self-management. Surely there should be a presumption of autonomy for all schools, unless a school is giving cause for concern. Schools are more openly accountable these days, thanks to many of the reforms that the Conservative government put in place and which have been accepted by the present Government. Also, thanks to the work of Ofsted, there is now enough information to record and identify those schools that would not qualify for local autonomy. So why not cut Whitehall control and give the cost savings to schools?
  Why should schools have to apply for flexibility at key stage 4, when all secondary schools should be able to operate a more flexible approach? In fact, the Bill appears to be in conflict with the recent proposals for the 14 to 19 age group.
  When it comes to exemptions under the Bill, I ask the Minister: what is the status of compulsory subjects such as the core curriculum, religious education and daily worship and the newly imposed subject of citizenship, about which we have reservations, especially if proposals come forward that link the dropping of those subjects with the raising of standards? There is nothing on the face of the Bill to protect them. If the answer is that that will be addressed in secondary legislation, I say to the Minister that she must spell out on the face of the Bill the scope and limitations of earned autonomy.
  It is clear that the clauses dealing with the formation of companies have not been thought through. Ministers in another place did not answer adequately many of the searching questions and points that were put by my honourable friends. I must ask the Minister: what is the liability of governors, head teachers and other partners if a company fails? Who assesses the risks? If it is the Secretary of State who does so, would he or she he the guarantor—as with the new Railtrack—of a company by government guarantee?
  Also, if local authority consent has to be sought before a company can be set up, would the Government consider making it clear that, where a consent by a local authority is withheld, reasons should be given?
  The subject of exclusions, which is addressed in the Bill, is, we can all agree, a serious issue and the proposals are to be welcomed. Indiscipline in the classroom rates very highly on the list of reasons why teachers are leaving the profession. The Warwick report, which was commissioned by the National Union of Teachers, confirms that very strongly. The U-turn performed by the present Secretary of State following the restrictions that were put in place by the right honourable Mr Blunkett was welcomed by teachers. However, in a consultation document, the Government promised to extend the range of parenting orders. The NAHT and others welcomed that because problems that are thrown up by disruptive and violent parents are also serious. There is no proposal to that effect in the Bill. I ask the Minister: is that because any changes relating to
  546
  parenting orders must be dealt with in a criminal justice Bill? If that is so, I suggest that, rather than waiting for parliamentary time, an amendment to amend the relevant Criminal Justice Act be put into this Bill. That is a perfectly acceptable procedure and there does not appear to be any argument about what is needed. Schools certainly require that change as soon as possible.
  Is it the case that governors will no longer have an involvement in the appointment of staff? If so, I must record my concern and intention to return to that matter in Committee. However, the Minister may agree with me that the involvement of governors in the appointment of staff is important. My reading of the Bill may be incorrect.
  I cannot hide my dislike of the unaccountable learning and skills councils. To learn that the Government intend to hand over the reorganisation of post-16 education, including that of sixth forms, is alarming. We were given reassurances on many occasions in this place by the Minister's predecessor that school-based sixth forms were not under threat from the establishment of learning and skills councils. There are already problems of funding which have not been resolved. However, as many teacher representatives have said, the learning and skills councils could ride roughshod over local decision-making in relation to sixth-form provision. One's suspicions are certainly aroused by the proposal that the learning and skills councils are tempted to look for a tertiary solution for all post-16 education. The Government's plans will raise the level of anxiety among schools, especially those with small but viable sixth forms. It is a known fact that for many teachers a school with a sixth form is a particular attraction. We will do all that we can to persuade noble Lords to remove that proposal from the Bill.
  On a separate but related issue, can the Minister confirm that sector skills councils, which were announced by the Secretary of State last October, are still to be set up? If so, when, and what is their justification?
  One also cannot help but conclude that the Bill is a further step on the road to regional government and involves an end for shire counties. Would the Minister care to prove me wrong on that point?
  The way in which the education system is now regulated is over-burdensome and the Bill makes matters even worse. The labyrinthine system of councils, committees, forums and advisory bodies, most of which are unaccountable, together with the required plans, information returns, assessments and endless second guessing of local authorities and schools, has become complex and inefficient, not to mention the fact that it has become costly. When one takes into account the cost of the time spent providing information and statistics, much of which gathers dust in the DfES, plus the cost of the time given by heads, teachers and all those who sit on those bodies—I refer to endless meetings and the hours spent consulting, co-ordinating and co-ordinating the co-ordinators—it is

  547
  not surprising that there is a shortage of funding for the running of decent, high-quality schools in which teachers can teach and pupils can learn.
  As if all that is not enough, I understand"that under race relations law yet another statutory code of practice is being produced requiring schools to admit quotas of ethnic minority children to reflect the racial mix of the local population and to record the national origin of all children. That would require unacceptable intervention into parental choice. Head teachers have been sent a 73-page document, which they believe has not been thought through, and which is designed to cause even greater tension between schools and parents. It has even been said that there could be conflict between the CRE document and education law. Our schools can do without even more tension.
  I can hardly believe the U-turn on governing bodies covering more than one school. During the passage of the School Standards and Framework Act, the Government were so determined that each school should have its own governing body that it overturned an amendment that was agreed to in this House for Church, junior and infant schools to continue to have a joint governing body. That arrangement had been in existence for more than 100 years. That was a mean-spirited act of spite, and it will be undone by this Bill.
  They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It is a fact that many of the education reforms that were introduced by a Conservative government, and which were opposed tooth and nail by the then Labour opposition, have been adopted by the present Government. Therefore, we are fully in support of the extension of city technology colleges, which are now to be called academies. I am pleased that the rural areas may also benefit from that development.
  However, we shall be vigilant in ensuring that the academies have all the freedoms enjoyed by CTCs. I take this opportunity to congratulate, and thank most warmly, my noble friend Lord Harris of Peckham on the impressive support that he has given to their development. Not only has my noble friend been involved from the outset with their development by providing generous funding; he has also taken a practical interest in their progress. My noble friend has now embarked on another project to establish one of the new academies in his home town of Peckham. Ever since my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who will speak later, established the first tranche of CTCs, the partnership between education and the private sector has been a great success.
  The Government's plans to pay off student loans for newly qualified teachers in shortage subjects will inevitably cause tensions. For example, religious education has been a shortage subject for a very long time and yet it has never been included in the Government's qualifying list. There is also the inequity of waiving student tuition fees for postgraduate students and not for Bachelor of Education students. How can that be justified?
  No doubt an amendment along the lines of that discussed in another place will be tabled in relation to faith schools. We shall never support the imposition of
  548
  quotas which force schools to accept children who do not share the schools' religious commitments. The Government have caused some confusion about whether or not there is to be a considerable expansion of faith schools. My own view is that the present system works well. Whenever a request to establish a faith school is received, it is considered on its merits.
  This is an unwieldy Bill. It is very fragmented and impossible to cover adequately in the time allowed. Therefore, I look forward to debating its next stages. Although I predict that it will provoke lively debate and will be time-consuming, I know that the Minister will give a fair hearing to those of us who have concerns and wish to improve the Bill. Meanwhile, we shall support its aims: to promote diversity; to allow for innovation in order to raise standards; and to provide more freedom and autonomy with accountability to our schools. However, we shall not support increasing Whitehall control and unnecessary interference and bureaucracy.
  Heads and their teachers will not hold their breath in anticipation of a new dawn in education from the Bill. There is already a discernible groan about this ill-thought-through legislation. Teachers are restive and their concerns are more immediate. We must be conscious of that as we fulfil our duty to scrutinise and revise the Bill.
  3.52 p.m.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her clear exposition of the Bill and I look forward to debating with her over the next few weeks all its complications. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I regret very much that the other place dealt so little with the detail of the Bill. I echo the noble Baroness in pointing out the irony that it is we, the unelected Chamber, who must provide the true scrutiny of the Bill.
  We on these Benches share with the Government a desire to improve the quality of primary and, in particular, secondary education, as embodied in the Bill, and the reform of the 14 to 19 curriculum. But I cannot hide my great reservations about the Bill as it stands today. There is very little in it that I welcome unreservedly. The proposals for paying off loans to those training to be teachers, I welcome. The institution of a proper curriculum and the Government's regime for early years, I welcome. I also welcome extending the community role of schools, giving pupils a proper voice, and introducing some kind of order into the chaos of admission procedures.
  But in other respects I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in saying that this is a ragbag of a Bill. It brings together bits of legislation which the department considers useful but there is no rhyme or reason in gathering them together in the Bill as a whole.
  I have three main reservations about the Bill. My first question is: is it really necessary? What is the Bill for? Let us consider the Government's present agenda on education—the provision of specialist schools; bringing in private sector and not-for-profit providers;

  549
  and extending the number of faith schools. All those can go ahead without new legislation. But the Bill does nothing to address the biggest problem faced by the education profession at present; that is, the recruitment and retention of teachers.
  The one aspect of the Bill which is really required—legislation for the reform of the 14 to 19 curriculum—is surely premature. A Green Paper has just been issued and we are going through a period of consultation. Is it not an insult to this House to bring forward proposals on that issue before the consultation period has finished? Do we really need a Bill of 210 clauses and 22 schedules when all those other matters are proceeding? As I said, the main agenda is, in any case, being taken forward.
  The Minister made clear in her exposition that the Government see the main purpose of the Bill as promoting innovation and encouraging diversity. But, again, I raise the question: do we need a Bill in order to achieve that? What good school does not constantly innovate and do new things? Yet, when pushed in Committee about what was meant by innovation, the Minister, Mr Timms, came up rather lamely with the response that "it implies something new". Why must we legislate to encourage schools to do new things? In some senses, the Minister provided the answer because she presented the Bill as a measure of deregulation. Schools are to be given permission to innovate in ways which break the current rules of the game set down by Ministers. She presented it as "setting them free".
  Is that not an admission of the shocking state in which we now find ourselves—an admission that the labyrinth of rules and regulations that we have now wound around our schools and colleges stifles innovation and creativity? Is it not also naive to think that more rules and regulations will help the situation, especially when, as in so much of the Bill, it is a question of granting plenipotentiary powers to the Secretary of State? Clause 1 says it all:
  "innovative projects that may … in the opinion of the Secretary of State".
  Is that not a case of "Please Miss, may I have permission to innovate"?
  Surely we know better than to regulate to innovate. Have we learnt nothing from the Soviet experiments in eastern Europe? Over the past 10 years, we have set up a panoply of targets and performance indicators; we have consumed valuable and potentially creative management time in filling up forms to satisfy the bureaucrats that the targets have been measured and met; and we have created further rules and regulations to reinforce the whole process. And then we wonder where the innovation and creativity have gone.
  Surely the lesson that we learnt from the Soviet Union was that all such top-down planning and bureaucracy stifled creativity—or, rather, that it drove people into finding creative ways around the performance indicators. Now, here we are, just like the Soviets, trying to legislate for innovation. The answer is not further rules and regulations which give the Secretary of State powers to decree who may and who
  550
  may not innovate; it is to set the whole lot free. We should be legislating to encourage every school to innovate.
  I return to where I started. Creativity and innovation are in the genes of every good teacher and every good school and have, in the past, characterised all that is best in our education system. They have been stifled by the regime of rules and regulations imposed over the past decade. Yes, we need to set our schools free, but that should include every school and not only the one in 10 envisaged by Mr Timms when he was pressed in the other place as to who should benefit. Only 10 per cent of schools will benefit from earned autonomy. Above all, that freedom should not be at the behest of the Secretary of State. That is my first main reservation about the Bill.
  My second main point concerns the heinous concentration of powers for the Secretary of State. Henry VIII clauses abound in the Bill. There are two different aspects of that. First, time and again they give powers to the Secretary of State: power to decide who may innovate; power to set up companies; and power to lay down the allocation of schools' budgets. But they also confer power to lay down the detail by secondary legislation and by regulations and guidance, which cannot be amended by this House.
  If the Government had their way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, we in this House would not have the power to question or to delay secondary legislation. Not only would that prevent Parliament from fulfilling its scrutiny role, but it is also a lazy way to legislate. It indicates a failure to think through clearly what is wanted, allowing half-baked ideas to emerge in the legislation, such as the power for school governors to set up companies, described by the National Association of Governors and Managers in an editorial as an idea "from out of this planet".
  Secondly, concentrating powers in the Secretary of State takes power away from the accountable, local democratic institutions. It is no secret that this Government have little time for local education authorities. Nor did the Opposition when they were in government. Over the past two decades, successive education Acts have diminished the powers of local education authorities and have given powers to the Secretary of State to deal directly with schools. There it is again.
  I have already instanced the power of the Secretary of State to decide who may and who may not innovate, but the matter goes further than that. There are powers to finance schools directly; powers to determine how much a local authority has to spend on schools, the setting up of the new unnecessary and wholly unaccountable schools forums to allocate the budget between schools; powers to set up academies; and powers to appoint interim boards of governors.
  In effect, that accretion of power to the centre amounts to the nationalisation of our education system, which, traditionally, used to be one of the main responsibilities of local government. Now it is to be all but removed from local democratic control. That is a dangerous path. Not for nothing was the control of

  551
  education in post-war Germany vested in the Länder and not in the federal government. In the 1930s we saw how dangerous it was to have a malign, totalitarian regime dictating the education agenda. I know that the Minister will assure me that neither she nor her colleagues are malign in any sense. I shall believe her when she says that, but we may not always have such a benign government. That is a dangerous route. The Liberal Democrats have always believed that decisions should be taken as close as possible to those who are affected by them.
  It is interesting to note that the Euro-barometer indicates that those countries that are most satisfied with their education systems are the Scandinavian countries. They run education at a local level. In that regard there is something to be said for taking lessons from countries such as Sweden and Denmark. They delegate decisions down to a local level. It is also somewhat surprising that currently the DTLR is encouraging local authorities towards greater flexibility and yet their colleagues at the DfES are decreasing the degree of local autonomy given to local education authorities.
  My third reservation is about hierarchy and diversity. Can we separate the two? Sadly, in Britain we never appear to have been able to divorce education from the class system. From Victorian England we inherited the hierarchy of the public schools with their classical education for the upper classes; the grammar schools which do their best to mirror that system for the middle classes; and the elementary schools and, post-1944, secondary modern schools for the lower classes.
  In the 1960s the movement for comprehensive secondary education was, in modern parlance, a massive attempt to develop a more socially inclusive system of secondary education in Britain. Where it was followed through, as in Scotland, it has achieved considerable success. Compare, if you will, success rates in Scotland in GCSE and its equivalent with success rates in England; look at post-16 participation rates; and look at the class profile of those going on to university and you will find that in Scotland, where the comprehensive agenda has been pursued without the hang-ups of its English counterparts, it has performed very well.
  In many parts of England the comprehensive principle is working as well as it is in Scotland and comprehensive secondary schools are providing high quality, stimulating and exciting educational opportunities for their communities. But, that is not always the case, particularly in our cities. The Government's chosen response has been in this, as in other areas, to opt for competition. The Bill paves the way for that competition.
  In addition to the programme for specialist schools, the way is now open for other groups from both the private and the not-for-profit sectors, including the faith communities, to promote new secondary schools with voluntary-controlled or voluntary-aided status. The agenda is—I understand this—to offer choice through diversity. In many ways it is an exciting
  552
  agenda. Communities which have seen little or no new investment in school buildings since Victorian times and have been making do with those towering Victorian three-deckers for decades, are seeing new investment, new schools, and new ideas burgeoning.
  However, can we really be confident, amidst all this diversity, that investment is going where it is most needed? With the specialist schools' agenda and its requirements for co-funding, we have already seen a tendency for investment to go into those areas where middle-class parents can find the sponsorship and co-funding required. Can the Minister assure us that such new investment will go where it is needed? Is there not a danger, in the competitive world that is being created, that all the prizes, all the earned autonomy, will go to those schools that are regarded as "good"—predominantly middle-class schools which are already confident and capable of handling experiments—leaving the problem schools in problem areas as persistent poor performers and poor relations? Far from cementing those schools into their communities, is there a danger that such diversity will fragment the whole situation much further, setting school against school, and, dare I say it, faith against faith?
  That brings me to the final issue of faith schools. Other noble Lords will have much to say in this debate and in Committee on the subject and I look forward to hearing them. In the other place the Secretary of State has stressed that there is no clause in the Bill that directly relates to faith schools and I hope that this issue will not dominate debates in this House, for there is so much else in the Bill that I regard as objectionable.
  However, I share, with my colleague, Phil Willis, who led the debate on the Bill for our party in the other place, an uneasiness about the degree to which this Government have changed the agenda overnight and, bearing in mind the well-established and well-respected compromise between Church and state, which has stood the test of time since 1944, they have made it known that they would welcome substantial numbers of new faith-based secondary schools. It is totally reasonable that Parliament should be given an opportunity to debate such a marked change in policy and, as the Government have provided no such opportunity, my colleague used this Bill as a vehicle by which to initiate such a debate in the other place.
  On these Benches, we are concerned that such schools should not only serve their faith communities, but also their local communities and should not, as in Northern Ireland, segregate effectively one faith from another, allowing deep-seated prejudice to be passed on too easily from one generation to another.
  I have made it clear that we on these Benches have many difficulties with the Bill. We contend that it is of quite unnecessary length and, in so far as it has a purpose—namely, to reform post-14 curriculum—that it is premature. We are still in the midst of consultation. In addition, it is a bad Bill, in that it continues the process of concentrating power in the hands of the Secretary of State, giving her wide discretion to rule by regulation and guidance which cannot be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. It also further

  553
  diminishes the decision-making powers of democratically elected local authorities. If that were not enough, we contend in addition that, far from helping to build communities and ensuring that their schools are embedded within them, the measures being promoted by the Bill risk fragmenting communities and setting school against school. Our greatest fear is that, far from helping those whose needs are greatest, the rewards and the resources will go disproportionately to those who are already successful.
  As we take the Bill through its stages in this House, we shall constantly try to make it a better Bill; to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State; to disperse power down to local education authorities and schools; to encourage all to innovate, but also to work together as communities; and to ensure that the rewards and the resources go to those who need them most.
  4.10 p.m.
  Lord Dearing: My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate. I had an engagement to speak in Barnsley at a diocesan conference organised by the diocese of Sheffield. I shared the platform with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. My doing so may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that neither of us is in the business of setting faith against faith. I had limited faith that my train would arrive on time and warned the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, that I might be a little late.
  I want to be brave and welcome the Government's policies. I have some reservations. I am particularly concerned that we should do more to help those who are doing least well in our schools. Fundamental to that is the freeing up of the system to enable the schools to respond to existing needs rather than to provide a curriculum into which they should fit. That is particularly relevant when pupils are becoming young adults and are not prepared to accept that something is good for them. They vote with their feet. I believe that it was the chief inspector who reported that 10,000 just disappear; and many more stop listening.
  I welcome the freeing up of the key stage 4 curriculum to respond to those people. I welcome, and have respect for, the new thinking that the Government are attempting on a vocational approach. I have one reservation. A reading of the Green Paper is fundamental to understanding the Bill. The paper raises the question of whether the standard should be called GCSE (Vocation). Vocational education must have high esteem. But if the two are put in the same basket, the very characteristics that make a vocational approach to education so valid will be lost through having to conform to the mores of the academic standards of a GCSE. We shall lose what we seek to achieve.
  I want to be a touch wicked. With regard to the various categories, I understand why the Government are saying, "Let loose the top performers in those categories". But for those schools which are doing best, the school curriculum is not a problem. So why do we need to free them up? Is not the real problem the schools where the system is not working? Do not they
  554
  need to be freed up to offer an education that is apt for those children? Perhaps it is not beyond the bounds of thought that an LEA might have some discretion under Clause 1 of the Bill. If the school has a good head and comes forward with a good programme, there should be more freedom to adapt the curriculum in order to engage those children in education.
  A principal objective of any education is for the child to switch in to education before he leaves school. For him to say, "I have shaken the dust of school off my sandals and never again" is a disaster. Our principal objective should be to engage those who are faring least well and who will be a burden to themselves and to society all their lives.
  We are all concerned about the 60,000 prison population. I understand that the figure is 70,000; I am out of date. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has commented that time spent idly in prison is badly spent. Of course we must keep people safely in prison if they are a danger to society. But one of the reasons why they are in prison is that they fared so badly in education. They had nowhere to go. Let us use the time constructively to help those 70,000 into education and to become useful citizens rather than returning to prison in a year or two.
  That is my principal concern. On that basis I encourage the Government to promote vocational education and open up the barriers between schools and FE. I welcome their concern about FE teachers and heads being qualified to be good at their job. I have this fear. Some 14 year-olds will go into FE institutions and have a bad experience. Perhaps I may counsel Government: in your concern to introduce change—for example, on vocation or with regard to foreign languages in primary schools—abate your enthusiasm until you have teachers who can do a good job and have the equipment they need. We remember the design and technology issue under the noble Lord, Lord Baker. We needed to change the nation's thinking about design and technology. But I used to go into classrooms in primary schools which had ordinary desks and no kit. The teachers were as bewildered as the students. It was and is a good idea but it has to be done well and that takes time. So the Government must take time over these changes.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, opposed the idea of attendance targets and said that the aim should he 100 per cent. As noble Lords may remember, once upon a time I was chairman of the Post Office. We had an excellent medical service which undertook a lot of statistical analysis. It demonstrated a close correlation between attendance at school and attitudes to attendance throughout working life. The proposal does not relate to playing truant but to the kind of absence which is authorised. Believe me, different parents have different attitudes on whether the child should turn up that morning. I do not want penalties; I do not believe that the Government want them. Perhaps there could be a John Harvey crate of champagne for a school which improves its achievements. Schools should try hard to improve attendance levels.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. For the purpose of recording statistics for the department, the authorisation is that of the school and not that of the parent.
  Lord Dearing: My Lords, the point I make has some value. High attendance must be promoted. My father bequeathed to me his school prizes. There were prizes for attendance. We need to care about attendance because a lot of children just do not turn up at school and that is a disaster for us and for them.
  I like a great deal of the policies that the Government put forward but I have concerns—they are shared by others—about the extent to which they will be given effect through regulation from the department. Could not more be given effect by the affirmative resolution procedure? Could not the Government set a framework in which local authorities exercise discretion with powers to intervene if they are used badly? I hope that the Government will respond to the idea that local authorities have something to offer: they are close to schools.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, hoped that the House would not spend too much time on faith schools. To some extent, I am the cause of that subject being an issue. A couple of years ago, I was invited to chair a committee to advise the Church of England on its schools. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn will doubtless have something to say on behalf of the Church. I am unable to do that. However, perhaps I may refer to the meeting I attended with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, this morning in Barnsley. One of the reasons that my committee suggested more Church schools is because there are seven dioceses without a Church school—I believe that there are 71 LEAs without one—including the diocese of Sheffield. There are 8,000 children attending a Church school but not one is a secondary school. The governors in a former mining village have proposed a secondary Church school. The proposal is being discussed by the diocese and the local authority. The proposal is that the school should serve the existing community but because there is a surplus of places the excess will be offered to Christian families outside. Because there are quite a lot of primary Church schools, some pupils will come from those schools into the secondary school. But there is no question of quotas. The situation is very relaxed. There is no question of doing other than welcome children of all faiths.
  In July 2000, long before the riots in Oldham, Bradford and Burnley, my committee issued an interim report. We recommended to the Church of England that it should pursue a policy of welcoming children of other faiths. We said that,
  "new Church schools should always have a substantial core of Christian teachers and pupils from Christian families, so that they are in effect a living Christian community, but that they should also serve the whole community of which they are part, welcoming pupils from all backgrounds and faiths".
  The final report—if I may respond directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—explicitly says that the Church in making proposals for the Church of
  556
  England should not destabilise another faith school. It recommends an ecumenical approach. It recommends special care for social hardship areas, offering service where people have least in life. It is a recommendation of inclusiveness. I shall say no more on that matter.
  The Government consulted well by issuing a flotilla of Green Papers before presenting the Bill. I have read five of them and I hope to read the remaining two shortly. I hope equally that the Government will listen to such good counsel as is offered from the Benches around them in this House. I hope that there is the will on the part of the Government to take time to consider the wisdom available to them and to use it well.
  4.22 p.m.
  Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to listen to and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I am very happy that he arrived on time from Barnsley to be "a touch wicked". There is much vigour already surrounding the Bill. I look forward to the vigorous progress of the Bill in its various stages.
  I, as do we all, wish to ensure high standards in education for all children and young people. Improvements have certainly been made in schools since my own children were pupils and I was a teacher. Many of these improvements I now see as a school governor.
  The improvements in schools are due to developments in structures, systems and support for teachers. There has always been good practice and innovation in teaching. There have always been schools with an ethos which supports learning; an ethos built on productive interactions between teachers and teachers, teachers and pupils and pupils and pupils. Many good schools have always been, and always will be, ahead of legislation and have innovated in ways which have benefited children, parents and their communities.
  The inner city primary school where I am a governor, and which the Minister visited last week, has many spectacular achievements, including good academic results. Part of its improvement is due to legislation and part is due to talented leadership. Some of what is in the Education Bill is happening already. But the Bill also, as the Minister said, introduces new measures and possibilities and seeks to build on good practice and tighten up legislation.
  I want to restrict my contribution today to the issue of school governors and their responsibilities. That is mainly contained in Part 3 of the Bill. I shall also refer to the need for more participation by children and young people in educational systems. I shall not go through Part 3 in detail but I want to speak about school governance because it is my experience that it is important in relation to standards, to local involvement in the management of education, to support for schools, and, where necessary, intervention to improve performance. Indeed, Clause 20(2) of the Bill states:
  "The governing body shall conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement at the school".

  557
  Where governors do not focus on delivery of high standards and are part of a school's problem, there will now be the possibility of removing them from office. That is perhaps an unlikely scenario, but one which has certainly been relevant in the past.
  An issue raised by the Minister was the power of an LEA or the Secretary of State to provide for governing bodies to consider interim executive members to address serious weaknesses or special measures. That reflects a determination to drive up standards. My reading of Clause 34 of the Bill is that governors certainly play a part in the appointment of staff.
  Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Bill implements the consultation paper The Way Forward—A Modernised Framework for School Governance. It establishes instruments of governance and regulations about the control and occupation of school premises and measures to enable more than one school to federate under a single governing body if they so choose. That could have enormous advantages in relation to links with communities and community involvement and in relation to productive collaboration between different types of school. Nursery schools will be required to have a governing body and could form part of a federation. Primary/secondary liaison could be enhanced. I take on board the concerns of the Special Educational Needs Consortium and recognise that special educational needs must continue to be supported—as they are now—through dedicated special needs governors. But we can discuss that issue at later stages of the Bill.
  Chapter 2 of Part 3 refers to new financial arrangements as they apply to school governors. The governors will need training and support to carry that through. Financial management of schools is complex. Indeed, if they are to have the power to form or invest in companies to deliver services they will require even more training. Relevant training for governors is built into the Bill.
  Chapter 3 discusses admissions, exclusion and attendance. In my experience, these areas can cause confusion and distress for schools, parents and children. Co-ordination of application processes across LEAs and the involvement of parent governors may help. It is important that exclusion panels will have to consider the interests of the whole school community and not just those of the excluded pupil. The appeal panel may be constituted to reflect that.
  I turn to the issue of pupil participation in school systems. In November last year, following the report Schools—achieving success, the Department for Education and Skills together with Save the Children met with young people to talk about secondary education. It was clear from the young people's comments that they felt that they should have a say in the systems of their schools. Such involvement encourages ownership of systems and a commitment to make them work for all pupils. It tells young people that democracy is important and beneficial. It is a
  558
  lesson in citizenship. The White Paper and the SEN code of practice support pupil participation. The White Paper states that the Government will,
  "encourage students' active participation in the decisions that affect them, about their learning and more widely".
  The SEN code of practice states:
  "Pupil participation should be the goal for all children and opportunities for participation should expand as pupils develop".
  An amendment was put forward in another place at the Committee stage of the Education Bill which asked school governors to seek to ensure that the views of young people are taken into account in schools. The amendment was well received by all parties. I shall not go into further detail on pupil participation, but in Committee I shall discuss the issue widely and table a suitable amendment. I hope that there will be sympathy for it.
  To conclude, a large section of the Bill is devoted to the powers of school governing bodies. It is clear that at a local level the Government take school governors seriously. These issues will require detailed discussion at a local level. That process will be healthy for schools and for their governing bodies as I think that it would be healthy to encourage pupil participation. I look forward to further discussions on these issues in your Lordships' House and in wider contexts.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I wish to comment on three aspects of the Bill: the 14 to 19 curriculum, exclusions and faith schools. Before doing that, I would say, en passant, that the Bill was treated very shabbily in the Commons. For such a lengthy Bill, with literally hundreds of clauses and schedules, it had 40 hours of debate. The Bill that I introduced in 1988, which was called the "Great" Education Reform Bill— at least, I called it the "Great" Education Reform Bill—had 200 hours of debate in the House of Commons, and was debated for almost the same time in this Chamber. As the Government Chief Whip is present, I would say that the only concessions on that Bill were made as a result of debates in this House, although we had a huge majority in the House of Commons. I hope that that has set a very happy precedent.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I have only just react the quotation that says that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch,
  "remembers being shocked that the 1988 Education Reform Act arrived in the Lords with only a quarter of its clauses scrutinised".
  Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, it did not seem so, I can assure the noble Lord. I was up night after night after night. We had a huge Report stage and a long period for Lords amendments. But the noble Lord will have to do quite well to improve upon what we did, let me assure him of that. The other extraordinary aspect is that the Welsh clauses of the Bill were not debated at all. That was an inverse victory for devolution.

  559
  I shall speak first about the 14 to 19 curriculum. I welcome the relaxation of the national curriculum for some 14-year-old pupils. Noble Lords might think it strange that I, the author of the national curriculum, should say that. However, I advocated that change some five years ago. By the age of 14, many pupils have decided where their interests lie in education. At the age of 11 that is often not at all clear, so that is not a good age at which to transfer children. Fourteen year-old children can make much better decisions on whether they wish to pursue an academic or a more vocational education. I welcome, therefore, the proposals that there should be a relaxation in respect of certain pupils.
  However, the Bill does not go far enough. I do not want the relaxation to be a cop-out in favour of easy studies. The Government should devise a new system for 14 to 19 education that enables a 14 year-old pupil who gives up certain subjects to enter into a contract that will ensure that he or she continues in education and work from 14 to 19. There should be a rebirth of the old form of apprenticeship. In addition, I hope that the Government will decide to give big support to the sort of vocational training that society needs: electrical engineers, motor mechanics, electronic engineers, computer programmers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, agricultural and horticultural workers. I would welcome a move by 14 year-olds into those vocational studies. Please may they not find it too easy to do such courses as media studies, peace studies, third world studies or other forms of social studies, all of which are fascinating and interesting, but are neither intellectually demanding nor likely to lead to a job. The Government have a good deal more to do in respect of the relaxation of the curriculum for 14 year-olds.
  I welcome the Government's U-turn on exclusions. The previous Secretary of State, on coming into office, said that he would make it more difficult for governors and teachers to exclude unruly children, on the basis that once excluded, they are in an even greater mess, so one should try to keep them in mainstream schools. Fortunately, and correctly, that policy has been changed. It is welcomed by the teachers' unions, head teachers and teachers, because the capacity of an unruly child to disrupt the rest of a class's education should not be tolerated—it is as simple as that.
  That change in itself is not sufficient. The Government will probably realise that, as a result of the inclusion of this clause, there will be more exclusions. Excluded children are usually provided with a pattern of home tuition, which can be good, but is often inadequate. The Government must be much more positive in this regard. Anyone in the education world will say that one can detect whether children will be unruly and difficult during their primary ages, usually between five and eight. Endless education studies prove that to be the case. Much more intervention is needed at an early age. When one is considering excluding a 12 or 13 year-old boy or girl, one is dealing with someone with set behaviours of disobedience and unruliness. There is a need to devise
  560
  a system that involves much greater scrutiny of children between the ages of five and eight, whereby they can moved into special schools.
  There are a few of those schools in our country, including a very good one in north Oxford. They deal with very difficult children with behavioural problems, who have perhaps attacked a fellow pupil, stabbed a teacher or who simply shout out all the time. Pupils attend those schools for various reasons: psychological disturbance, a physical impediment, a lack of parental control or the fact that they behave in unruly ways with their peers. Those children should be identified and sent to such schools, not for life, but until they have been taught the lessons of integration, as happens at the school in north Oxford to which I referred. The Secretary of State and education Ministers must realise that that is their obligation.
  I have misgivings about the Bill's proposals on faith schools. When I was Secretary of State, I visited several exclusive Muslim and Jewish schools—I do not believe that there were Sikh schools during my time. They were independent schools. Some were very good, some barely adequate, and others appalling. I was asked sometimes, not very strenuously, whether those schools could be state-maintained. I always turned down those requests, as did my successors in Conservative governments until 1997. I did that because the Butler settlement of the 1944 Act was essentially a religious settlement that, I believe, settled the position not for the foreseeable future but for ever. So, I did not welcome the idea of establishing new faith schools.
  The Labour Government coming into power in 1997 decided to change that policy. I am unsure why they decided to change it to provide for new faith schools because, during all my years in the Commons, I do not remember any major debate being initiated by the Labour Party in favour of faith schools. An element in the Labour Party was always strongly opposed to faith schools. The humanist element of that party believed that all education should be secular, and another element opposed selection anyway. Therefore, the matter never came on the agenda. In 1997 the policy was changed, and the Secretary of State decided to accept proposals to convert independent faith schools to state-maintained faith schools. It was suggested to me last week that that has nothing to do with education, but with the positioning of marginal seats in inner-city areas.
  I see that someone on the Benches opposite is nodding. I did not intend to be so ungenerous to the Labour Party, because I am feeling generous today. However, in the debate in the House of Commons, several Labour MPs who spoke, and who came from inner cities with large immigrant communities, were opposed to faith schools. For whatever reason—perhaps they simply gave in too easily to the arguments—they decided to open up the lists for new state schools. I am not against Church schools; I went to one. My primary education was conducted at Holy Trinity School in Southport, which was a wonderful

  561
  Victorian redbrick school, next to a Victorian redbrick church, "a three-decker", as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guilford, said. That school gave me an excellent education, as noble Lords can see. Therefore, I am not opposed to the concept of Church schools, but my school was an Anglican Church school, which today would be called a voluntary controlled school. It was a relaxed, inclusive school.
  My closest friend at that school was a young Jewish boy, and I remember that he took me back to his flat, where his mother explained to me how they prepared meat, the candles and the celebrations of religious observance. I would never have understood that if that boy had attended a separate Jewish school. My attitude to toleration probably began with those thoughts and experiences. Religion was not thrust down. We were taken to church twice a year, during Easter week and Christmas week. We started the day with a hymn and a prayer. Most schools in those days would have started with a hymn and a prayer or some sort of song. That school had what was the attraction of being an Anglican. There was forbearance, acquiescence, tolerance, an absence of fervour, enthusiasm was constrained and there was a commitment but not a crusade. Those are the elements I find attractive in Anglicans. That attitude permeated most Church primary schools and still does.
  So I would have kept those things as they are. I feel that, with the creation of new faith schools, there will be a move towards exclusion. I know that the movement which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—my very dear friend Lord Dearing—supports says that the 100 Christian schools he wishes to establish will be inclusive. I am sure that that will be the intention. However, I cannot help feeling that such will be the enthusiasm in the communities for those 100 schools that they may be overwhelmed by applications from Christian parents to take up the places. I am sure that Muslim parents will want to see their children attend Muslim schools for very good reasons—so that they are not only taught about the Koran and Islam, but also about the habits and behaviour in Muslim life. They will also learn that the Islamic religion is a religion of peace, forbearance and tolerance, which are good lessons to learn.
  I am not against all of that. But I cannot help feeling that it will be difficult for children who are non-Muslims to attend schools which have such a strong ethos. Indeed, in the debate in the House of Commons, the two Asian Members of Parliament who spoke—Dr Kumar and Mr Khabra—were both against new faith schools.
  I appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, that he wants the new faith schools to be inclusive. There is an easy way to achieve that, though it is a little technical. There are two types of faith school: voluntary aided and voluntary controlled—the school that I attended must have been a voluntary-controlled school—the difference being that in a voluntary-aided school the governing body is controlled by the relevant religion. The governors are the employers of the teachers and the diocese can dictate 100 per cent
  562
  preference in terms of selection. For that they contribute only 10 per cent of the cost— it was 15 per cent in my time.
  The admissions policy of voluntary-controlled schools which are also faith schools does not require the intake to be 100 per cent based on their religion. Instead it reflects the normal local education procedure. That means that such schools reflect the community which they serve. Around 40 per cent of Church of England secondary schools are like that.
  The test for those people who want new faith schools would be for them to be prepared to be voluntary controlled. That is the test. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, will measure up to that test and agree.
  Finally, perhaps I may say something about why I believe that that is the way we should go. Our society in the inner cities today is under enormous pressure for all the reasons that have been well documented and of which Members in this House are well aware. There is a real danger of community fragmentation. I do not say that inclusive schools will solve that overnight. The problems of housing, employment, racism and attitudes of parents are complicated and come together. But the existence of new faith schools, which will tend to be more exclusive, will tend to reinforce the tendency to parallel communities. I do not believe that that is the best way for our society to go forward over the next 20 or 30 years.
  Your Lordships should appreciate that the children of those who attend the new schools will also attend them and their children's children will attend them. Is not that how the troubles in Northern Ireland started?
  When I was returned as an evacuee after the war, I went eventually to St Paul's School. Dean Colet founded the school in 1509—an inspired aim when one considers that it was a time of one universal Catholic faith—for the children of all nations and all countries indifferently. Over the years that school extended admission to boys without any distinction of race, nationality or creed. That should be the ideal to which we aspire.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, I should perhaps declare that the whole of my education was in non-Church schools and the whole of my teaching career was in non-Church schools, and I think I had a very good education none the less. I hate to do battle with a former Secretary of State and correct him, but it is not right that a diocese has control over the admissions to voluntary-aided schools; that is a matter for the governing body of those schools.
  However, that said, it is surely commendable that the Government seek to raise educational standards in secondary education. Although aspects of this Bill will require the most careful scrutiny in this House, from these Benches we welcome the Government's desire to promote innovation; new forms of partnership with greater flexibility in the provision of schools; and the increase of community services to be provided by

  563
  schools. That said, we shall work with other noble Lords to ensure that decisions are taken at the appropriate level, which may not necessarily be by the Secretary of State.
  We have real concerns about the number of matters which are to be dealt with by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill in primary legislation. Of course, we welcome heartily the Government's wish to build on what has been achieved in recent years at the primary level. It has been a great joy for me in the past year to share in the opening of new facilities in a whole range of primary schools in my diocese, and in east Lancashire often to share that privilege with the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Blackburn, which in itself is a symbol of the ability of faith communities to work and co-operate together.
  However, that progress noted, as we debate this important Bill we must not forget the continuing and pressing need to address the pressures under which many head teachers and teachers are working this day; the need to boost their morale; to renew their sense of self-esteem as well as to promote the vocation to teaching. We must ensure that the effects of this Bill on our schools will serve to support rather than undermine dedicated teachers.
  The Church of England has a long-established and continuing concern for the education and well-being of all the nation's children, and not least for their spiritual and moral education. That is enshrined in legislation by the separate committee and vote given to the established Church in the arrangements for the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, which seeks to regulate the teaching of that subject in the community rather than in Church schools.
  Again we believe that our long experience in the provision of schools means that we have a significant contribution to make when it comes not only to the provision of schools, but also to achieving success in education. Although preparing the young for the world of work is a laudable aim, we believe that education, not least at secondary level, is about living rather than simply earning a living; about contributing to society, rather than learning how to achieve what one wants for oneself.
  What is it that makes a good school? What is its "success"? Is it academic success? Is it good pastoral care and concern for the pupils? Is it the appropriate disciplinary measures? Or does it include a sense of spiritual awareness and sound moral values, for no school or education system is value free? Quality education must include all those things.
  I wonder whether the Government were surprised by the way in which, in another place, their desire to improve standards in secondary education in this Bill seemed almost to be high-jacked by the debate on what are now to be called "faith schools", once termed "schools of a religious character". The powers to create such schools already exist. This Bill has little to say on the subject. Yet the debate on the issue has dominated the press. As chairman of the Church of England Board of Education I have been happy to
  564
  engage in it, although listening to some it would appear that Church schools are responsible for most of the evils which beset urban life today.
  The Secretary of State was surely right when she said in another place that Church schools were being used as scapegoats for wider and more profound concerns. Of course, the reality is that, while negative points have been made in this debate, parents are continuing to choose Church schools in this year's admissions round, and parents are not fools; they know a good thing when they see it, even if they cannot always put their intuitive feelings into words. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the very debate has increased the pressure for places by drawing attention to the quality of many such schools.
  I believe that I should make it clear that the official policy of the Church of England has been stated recently over and again on the subject. It was reaffirmed by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Times Educational Supplement on 11th January this year, by the General Synod of the Church of England in November 2001, and last January by the House of Bishops, that Church of England Schools should be distinctive of their Christian foundation, but inclusive in their pupil intake.
  It has to be said that most of our 4,700 schools achieve that aim in rural, urban and suburban settings. Their link with the local community through the Church is often second to none. However, with only 150 secondary schools randomly located across the country we simply do not have enough places to meet parental preferences. This leads so easily to the accusation that Church secondary schools are exclusive and admit only the children of church-going parents. Surely the answer to that charge from the opponents is to call the bluff of the Church of England, and to enable it to create more secondary schools to meet local parental need, as was suggested by The Way Ahead working party, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. We owe the noble Lord an enormous debt for this, and many other recommendations in the field of education. That would be my answer to the Member of Parliament for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who represents part of the country where, until last year, there was only one Church of England secondary school between York and Harrogate and the Scottish Border—one in whose foundation I played a part in 1972.
  In their White Paper, the Government rightly saw and supported that argument. Given the number of faith community secondary schools, it really will not do to lay at the door of the Churches and of the Jewish community this charge of segregation. Church schools, like the Church itself, are multi-racial and multi-cultural. If people do not believe me, I suggest that they go and visit the Archbishop Michael Ramsey school in Camberwell, or Archbishop Tenison's School in Kennington.
  In my own diocese in east Lancashire the Church primary school is often the only place in the normal course of events where Muslim and Christian

  565
  communities, Asian heritage, and indigenous communities meet. Burnley, which is in my diocese, experienced riots last summer, but it is the one town in the diocese of Blackburn with no Anglican high school at all. Similarly, Bradford had no Anglican high schools until recently. Most of the racially-segregated schools in this country happen to be community schools, which serve particular communities or local neighbourhoods. That is just how it is.
  Before we went to Lancashire, my wife was head teacher of a large, what we would today call "community", first school in Dewsbury that had nearly 400 pupils—all Asian heritage, all Muslim in faith. That was not a Church school. The history of England and Wales is not the history of Northern Ireland. It could be said that the presence of faith schools, in which the name of God is honoured and religion respected, has enabled a tolerant society to flourish in this country. Religion may, sadly, get caught up in war, but the most oppressive regimes suppressing the freedom of people in the 20th century in fact denounced faith and embraced atheism. I have in mind Stalinism, Nazism, Pol Pot, and Communist China, among others.
  Surely the Government are right to say that what is permitted for Christians and Jews should also be available where need is proved for Muslims and other world faith communities. It is simply part of the ongoing development of education in our land. If they are not very careful, those opposed to the establishment of new faith schools come close to saying that the members of some world faiths cannot be trusted to run good, sound schools. Surely, in a society where independent Muslim schools are mushrooming, it would be better to invite them to come into the maintained sector and be subject to the national curriculum and Ofsted inspection. Like many others, I believe that the Government's policy on this matter is enlightened in meeting the needs of a pluralist society.
  Those opposed to faith schools, and those who seek to undermine them, must address the question as to how community schools can be enabled to provide that spiritual and religious awareness that so many parents, whether or not they have faith themselves, require for their young. This question is touched upon in the helpful National Union of Teachers' briefing for this debate. My diocese has been under great pressure from other faith communities to provide places in our few secondary schools from parents who feel that, in some community schools, the very fact that their family practise a faith would be questioned, or even derided. I know that some would like to see a percentage of places for those of other faiths, or of no faith. In principle, that is not a problem for the Church of England, but it may be very difficult for schools to work out in practice—a point well made by the Catholic Education Service. It would create a new category of so-called "exclusion"; namely, have faith and, therefore, cannot be admitted to a faith school. That would be arrant nonsense.
  566
  In welcoming the broad scope of the Bill, with its emphasis on raising standards and the professionalism of teachers, perhaps I may turn, briefly, to some of the more technical aspects of the legislation. Among our principal concerns is the need to safeguard the foundation and distinctive qualities of schools with a religious character. While understanding the need for flexibility, we have a real concern, shared with others, that too much is being left to regulations. We shall want to pursue some of those concerns in Committee.
  Given our desire that Church schools should be distinctively Christian, yet committed to inclusiveness, we regard it as absolutely fundamental that the Christian foundation of our schools in the maintained sector should continue to be securely recognised in law. Therefore, with regard to the provisions under Clause 18 relating to governing bodies, we wish to provide for a foundation majority of at least two in voluntary aided schools, and for three foundation governors, or a quarter of the governing body to be foundation governors, whichever is the less, in voluntary controlled or foundation schools.
  On staffing, which is dealt with in Clauses 34 and 38, we believe that the role of the governing bodies in aided schools in appointing and dismissing staff must be preserved, particularly where that relates to the safeguarding of the religious character of the school.
  We welcome the proposals for federation, but we wish to ensure that the religious foundation of an individual school is not so weakened. We should seek to provide for the consent of the relevant religious authority before federation takes place. Regulations in respect of school forums should specify representation of voluntary aided schools. Again, where an "interim executive board" is established, we should like an assurance that the religious promoter is appropriately involved in its establishment. In welcoming the proposals for the inspection of independent schools, we ask that the inspection rubric includes reporting on their religious character, if they have such a foundation.
  Finally, like other Christian Churches, the Church of England's whole approach in developing provision is one predicated on partnership with the local community. Therefore, we request—and would welcome—an amendment to the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 that would give diocesan boards the power to give advice to governing bodies of Church of England schools on admission policies, to which advice they must have regard. This would be in line with our historic responsibilities within the maintained sector, and our renewed commitment to promoting Christian education in an inclusive context. We welcome much of the Bill, and very much look forward to the debate that will ensue in your Lordships' House.
  4.58 p.m.
  Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of such an important Bill, and in such a thoughtful debate. Given the choice of 229 clauses, I have decided that it

  567
  is wiser to stick to two unifying themes that I believe run across the Bill, and the positive choices that they offer schools. I should declare an interest. I am the director of a national charity, Education Extra, which works with schools precisely to help them to innovate during out of school hours so that they can expand the school day and develop new programmes of learning and teaching to help children, especially those who are not doing well in school. On that basis, I can say with some conviction that I believe that teachers and head teachers will welcome much of the Bill.
  Having been slightly alarmed by some of the headlines in the educational papers recently, I took the precaution of assessing my own very small straw poll of head teachers over the weekend. I was pleased to see that their reaction was not, "This is terrible. Estelle Morris is turning into Stalin"; on the contrary, they said, "This is an opportunity for us to be more creative." That has been echoed by the Campaign for State Education.
  The Bill demonstrates that the Government are learning some lessons. One of those lessons is the fact that elephants cannot tie their own shoelaces—and that things cannot be left to the DfES. Schools alone have the knowledge and skills to bring ideas forward from their own ecology and climate. That should be welcomed. In recent years, we have heard so much about the threat that schools would be stifled by bureaucracy. Schools are tired of having changes imposed on them; this Bill sends the opposite signal. In Clause 1, it sends that signal to all schools and, in particular, to aspiring teachers that schools are creative places and that they are the people who can make things happen and who know what children will respond to and what they need. The Bill is a green light to teachers and says to them, "Bring us your ideas; let us see whether we can help you". It is an invitation to all schools, not just 10 per cent; but the condition is that knowledge and practice must be shared with other schools that may not be at the same stage of development.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, said that innovation did not require deregulation. I agree; in many cases, it will not. Many of the powers that schools have to innovate already exist. However, as I visit schools, I find that many teachers simply do not know what powers they have. One of the things that holds back schools that are not successful and prevents them innovating is the sense that they may be out of order if they do. It is also clear to me that the criterion will not be how novel the innovation is; the ultimate test will be whether it will raise standards of achievement. It is safe to raise such questions. We are no longer operating in a failing education system, but in a system in which there is, to quote the Financial Times,
  "a solid framework of standards in place that should ensure that overall quality is maintained".
  The FT is doing nothing more than drawing on the words of the chief inspector and the praise that he lavished on schools for the improvements in leadership, management and standards.
  568
  I know that there are concerns about the scope and meaning of innovation, the relationship between innovation and earned autonomy and the scope of the regulations that will implement so much of the Bill. For now, however, it is important to recognise the logic of what is proposed. By definition, innovation means doing things for the first time. The Secretary of State cannot second-guess what schools will come up with. Innovation, however, is not a licence for careless or risky experimentation.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness admit that, in the first clause, schools are required to seek permission from the Secretary of State to innovate? Will it actually come from the bottom up, just like that?
  Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the intention of the clause is that the schools should bring their new ideas to the Secretary of State for her consideration, so that she can judge what is required of the school to put it into effect. We will have to follow up that matter in Committee.
  In respect of innovation, the Minister gave the example that the Bill might enable schools to make changes to the school day. That is an interesting example. The enemy of innovation, in many schools, is lack of time. Many schools already use hours outside the school day for wonderful programmes of extra-curricular activity, but there is a barrier to what they can do under the present structure. The Ofsted report makes it clear that schools that offer after-school activities bring tremendous opportunities to their young people to achieve more. Research bears that out. How much more effective it could be if the whole afternoon were available to the school to offer programmes of extra-curricular activities—covering everything from sport to citizenship to extra study support—available to everybody, including the families, and if schools could use their staff and their budgets more flexibly.
  There are many challenges in making the Bill work as effectively as possible. Schools will need support, and I ask the Minister to say something in her summing-up about the work of the schools innovation unit and how much it will support the work of schools. There are issues relating to the time limits on innovation; the evaluation of innovative programmes and decisions on what happens afterwards; and, at various stages in the Bill, consultation with local authorities. As my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen said, there is a great opportunity to listen to the voice of the child, to make sure that that innate wisdom about what works in the classroom is fully taken into account.
  There are often—not always—resource issues that cluster around attempts to innovate. There are also issues relating to sustainability. Above all, however, there is a need to ensure that schools which have the confidence to go for the extra opportunities share them effectively with others. The Ofsted report showed that the gap between the best and the worst-performing schools was widening. The Bill proposes greater

  569
  opportunities for partnerships. That is the antidote to diversity. Diversity need not mean disadvantage. I hope passionately that innovation will not run out at the point at which we are looking for ways to ensure that the stronger schools and the schools about which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, spoke so passionately can genuinely get the extra help that they need from the schools that can lead. Sometimes, it is not easy for schools to ask for help, to borrow from each other or to know where to go. We must examine that part of the policy closely.
  There is also the question of which schools will get the status and advantage of earned autonomy. I am pleased to see that, in the policy statements document, the Government said that they would review the proposed criteria for earned autonomy and that consideration would be given to using value-added data alongside performance data to help to identify successful schools. I hope that that will happen as quickly as possible. I would argue strongly that some of the most effective lessons can be learnt from some of our most successful schools, which, day in and day out, are fighting a battle in hugely disadvantaged areas, where the added value comes from getting the child to turn up at school and stay there to acquire what it is necessary to learn. It is in such schools that the flexibility of the key stage 4 curriculum will be particularly useful, because they will be in a position to pioneer many of the things that schools in other circumstances want to do.
  I have been pleased by the welcome that your Lordships have given to Clauses 25 and 26, which create a legal framework to make it possible for school governors, if they so choose, to set up new partnerships between schools, families and communities. What is proposed is not new. There is a fine tradition of schools working with communities and families, but there has never been a legal framework to allow governors to do that. The Bill provides that, and signals to schools that greater partnership with the community is welcome. It is not an extra burden on schools; it is not a distraction from the business of educating children. It is part of a coherent strategy for raising achievement that would bring extra support and extra capacity to schools and might even create more time for them to get on with their job. It has been widely welcomed, and it is worth saying that, every day, schools must deal with children whose ability to learn is completely impaired by their family and community circumstances. I am told by those who know that, every week in every primary school, 13 instances are referred to the head teacher that are not child-related but relate entirely to the adults who are looking after them.
  A health centre on a school site would cut down on absences. Family learning centres on sites would help parents to know how to support their children. Skill centres would help adults to get jobs. The schools will win, because such integrated services will support their work. The community will win, because the schools will be playing such a powerful role in regeneration. As the Minister said, it could make a massive difference to childcare, freeing schools up in a way that has not been possible before to offer after-school childcare clubs to
  570
  working parents, for example. What a boon. In the past, governors had to go through the hoops of setting up voluntary management committees; now, they could do it more easily, and we could meet our national targets.
  Finally, I welcome the Welsh clauses. Among the clauses special to Wales are those providing for a separate curriculum for Wales, for special needs, for partnership agreements between local authorities and schools, and giving help to schools to work closely together across the transitional divide between primary and secondary schools. The clauses will be extremely welcome in schools across Wales because, as the Minister has said, they fit the needs of a distinctive small country. She described it in the paving document as "a learning country"; that is a very splendid title for the Welsh part of the Bill. It makes the Welsh commitment to lifelong learning transparently clear.
  Like other noble Lords, I look forward, in a conditional sort of way, to the next stages of the Bill. In Committee we shall tangle with the definitions relating to scope and powers. I agree with the Minister that this is reform with a purpose. I hope that we shall all be able to support that.
  5.10 p.m.
  Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, it is, indeed, a pleasure to welcome the parts of the Bill on which there is obviously a great deal of consensus in the House. I know that the Government are working hard to raise standards in education and there is no question that their motives are laudable. Many aspects in the Bill command approval. I welcome the increased powers and functions of the General Teaching Council which takes the GTC beyond its advisory role and brings it closer to what we hoped for when it was first introduced.
  I also welcome the encouragement of federations of schools—I believe that that will be a good thing—and, like the previous speaker, I welcome the extended services that schools will be able to offer. I welcome the commitment of the Government to increased autonomy for schools and the freedom to innovate. It is therefore profoundly disappointing to find that the Bill seeks instead to impose enormously wide-ranging new powers on the Secretary of State, with increased centralisation.
  The past 20 years of experience of managing people in the education, and mainly the higher education, service have convinced me of one truth which I learnt in a very humbling way. It is that decisions get progressively worse the further they are away from the people who actually have to implement them. The people who are implementing the decisions are the ones who should take them and make them. I thought that the Government also believed in devolving decisions to schools.
  Therefore, why is the Secretary of State taking powers, for example, to intervene even more extensively than at the present time, over the heads of school governors, and over the heads of Local Education Authorities? She will impose on schools

  571
  which, in the Secretary of State's opinion, are considered to be weak interim executive governing bodies to replace the properly constituted governing body of a school or impose a minimum schools budget on LEAs.
  The Secretary of State is taking the direct power to approve an innovation in those schools which, in her view, are successful schools. We find in the Bill that she will do that by modifying existing legislation. Clause 2, as other noble Lords have said, gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers. In my long time on the Delegated Powers Select Committee, I do not believe we ever saw a Henry VIII clause which actually allowed the Secretary of State to grant to institutions exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation. That drives a coach and horses through all previous legislation in the field of education. Why is she taking those powers? If schools cannot innovate within existing legislation, then amend that legislation for all schools, not just for ones which are considered successful in the view of the Secretary of State.
  It is wrong to parade as giving greater freedom to schools the granting of freedom on this very limited and centrally controlled basis. It is the Secretary of State taking to herself the power to decide which schools can break the law, if I may put it that way. She will exempt some from the requirement to meet the law and other schools will still be required to battle on.
  I beg her to think again. If there is something wrong with the existing law—whether it is about teachers' pay or the national curriculum—which is making it impossible for schools to innovate, please change that law. The Secretary of State should not be allowed the power to change it for certain schools only. The failing schools, or the weak schools, will be the subject of the draconian powers to which I have just referred.
  My second concern is about the separation of key stage 4 from the other three key stages. Clause 82 gives the Secretary of State new powers to alter or remove the requirements for the fourth key stage; that is, the 14 to 16 year-old phase. We now have the Green Paper on 14 to 19 year-olds, which was promised at Second Reading in the other place, so we have a clearer view of what the Government intend by Clause 82 in taking that power.
  I hate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Baker who felt that this was a wholly good thing. It could be a wholly good thing, but I have a very great fear that it will simply be replacing selection at 11, which we all long ago decided was a wholly wrong and foolish thing to do for our country. It will be replacing selection at 11 with selection at 14. When children reach the age of 14, schools will effectively be required to sit down with them and classify them. Let us just reflect for a moment. The brightest will be able—just as the boys at Eton are able—to bypass GCSE and pass straight on to A-level. If they are very bright, they can take special extra questions at A-level and achieve distinction. That abolishes the AEA qualification which will be offered to some pupils for the first—and incidentally, now the last—time presumably this year.
  572
  That is fine. The bright kids are well catered for and I am always happy to see bright kids catered for. We need the bright kids and their needs are very real. Meanwhile, we are told, the less motivated, the less academic are going to be put, at 14, into a vocational stream. They will be the ones now who take the GCSE, which apparently is such an inferior examination that the bright kids can skip it.
  What sort of message does that convey? Can anyone seriously believe that it will achieve the parity of esteem that the Government say they want for vocational and academic education, and which I most sincerely want? We need parity of esteem between vocational and academic education. We need it for the sake of the country; we need it for the sake of the economy; and we need it for the sake of the kids themselves. However, we are saying to the less motivated kids, to the less bright kids, and to the ones who are failing that they can become the vocational stream and that the academic bright kids can go into the other stream.
  I once taught high school in the United States and experienced exactly that same system in the state of Massachusetts where the kids were classified at the age of 15. I can remember little 15 year-old lads in tears saying to me, "Please, Miss, do not send me into the commercial stream. Please do not send me into the vocational stream". They were in tears because they knew that that would classify them forever as second class.
  Someone referred passionately to the virtues of Sweden recently, where they have 32 lines or streams. One has only to visit a Swedish high school to see the gradations. In the vocational streams the teachers look down at heel and second class and the kids look down at heel and second class. Sweden has not achieved the goal of parity of esteem either. It is a desirable goal but one can reach it only if the vocational subjects are spread right across the curriculum.
  Having disagreed with my noble friend Lord Baker I should like to pay him fulsome tribute for establishing not only the national curriculum in the 1988 Act but also for the reform of examinations which turned the GCE and the CSE into one common examination.
  As an HMI in the 1970s and 1980s, I can tell noble Lords that there was nothing more depressing than a head teacher showing one around and saying, "This is the GCE stream". There sat the bright kids, smart and knowing that their futures were assured. Then, "This is the CSE stream". Those classes comprised poor little kids who wondered why they were there and what they were doing. What would a CSE offer them in future years? Lastly, "This is the non-examination stream. They drop out, of course". Why should they not?
  Keith Joseph used to agonise about the bottom 40 per cent. That bottom 40 per cent were those who left school with no qualifications and who very often had long been truanting. The introduction of a national curriculum meant that all children had access—access which I passionately believe is so important—to the same curriculum for as long as was

  573
  reasonably possible. Thus every child had an opportunity to do well, even if he or she only developed later on. Indeed, some pupils blossom at 15 or 16 years old.
  We can attribute the extraordinary leap ahead in the rate of staying on after the statutory leaving age of 16 to the common GCSE examination. The percentage rose from 60 per cent to over 80 per cent. The GCSE gave far more children a realistic chance of achieving something which would have real coinage in the world outside. Furthermore, the huge expansion of higher education during the early 1990s, over which my noble friend and others presided, was built on the foundation of more young people staying on post-16 and more, therefore, being motivated to take their A-levels and move on into higher education. Please, please do not unscramble that and take us back to a two-tier system between 14 and 16 years old.
  My second concern is over who is to teach these vocational subjects to the 14 to 16 year-olds. Over my years of inspecting schools and institutions of further education, I saw some wonderful and inspired teaching of vocational subjects—usually, I have to say, in further education. I also saw some appalling teaching of those subjects—teaching that was boring, repetitive and enough to switch anyone off. Why is it assumed that putting a label on a course and calling it "plumbing" or "engineering" (I should add that only a few days ago the Engineering Council bent my ear on this subject; it is deeply, deeply insulted at the suggestion that the subject is to be something for only the non-motivated and not very bright) is the way to address lack of motivation among kids, in particular if they are then taught in a very boring way?
  Alternatively, teachers may have no experience of the application and reality of the subject and thus they may fail to inspire. In post-16 teaching, joint arrangements can be agreed with local further education colleges. The regulations are different and it is possible to bring in people who are excited about teaching vocational courses and use their resources well to teach 16 to 18 year-olds. From the existing pool of school teachers, where are we to find people who can inspire and demonstrate with enthusiasm the wonder of some vocational subjects to 14 to 16 year-olds?
  The test of the Bill is whether it will provide genuinely equal access to a broad curriculum for all children, thus maximising the opportunity for all children to achieve and to get to where they want to go. I believe that it will fail in that. It will create a dangerous, two-tier system for the post-14 year-olds. In other aspects of the Bill, which I have not touched on in my remarks, it will create a two-tier structure for schools, with academies and specialist schools acting as magnets and drawing to themselves the brightest of kids and the best of teachers, while the rest are left with what we have been told is the "bog standard".
  I hope that I am wrong in my concerns and that the Bill will succeed. However, I ask the Minister to think again very carefully about what is being done with post-14 education.
  5.24 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, sitting as I was like a greyhound straining in his slip, I was so moved by the final words of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that I rose to my feet. I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark. As a former HMI she knows so much more about this topic than I do. Her speech, which we have just heard, was most interesting and full of detail.
  My noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildforcl referred to the "hierarchic" class system in England. I am glad that that comment came from an English lady, not from myself. Living as I do not too far from the border with England, I have always been intrigued and slightly amused by the hierarchical and stratified nature of English society. If one attended a social function of some kind in England, the first question one would be asked—so that one could be placed in the proper position within the strata—was, "Where do your children go to school?". Because I would reply, "They go to the local comprehensives in Wales, of course", I would notice a certain degree of switching off.
  I regard this Bill from a Welsh angle and it is the Welsh provisions within it that are my main concern. However, perhaps I may comment first on some of its general provisions. A theme running through the legislation seeks to fulfil a certain desire to stratify the English education system. I refer to "earned autonomy", so that only one in 10 schools can achieve the imprimatur from the Secretary of State to become more flexible and to experiment a little. Then we shall have "specialist schools" which will divide one kind of student from another—and all the prizes are to go to the "good schools", as my noble friend put it. The divisions between such schools and the "bog standard" comprehensives will only increase. Thus this Bill, rather surprisingly for a Labour Government, seems to move us closer to a stratified society in England.
  As my noble friend pointed out, that has not been the experience in Scotland; and, looking back over my own life in Wales, it certainly was not the situation there. I went to the local grammar school. In my day, some 45 per cent of young people attended grammar school. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, with whom I spoke only a short while ago, told me that the level was 50 per cent in Denbigh. I am sure that it was even higher for Rhyl Grammar School, which my father and my wife attended, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Wales had a great tradition of grammar schools, which an awful lot of people attended.
  The system had its limitations. We were brought up to believe that our first role was to become teachers. However, girls might become nurses. One way of escaping that kind of career was to become a lawyer, which is why noble Lords will find on these Benches and on the Benches opposite Welsh lawyers in far too great a number. The law provided an escape route from our upbringing. However, it is funny to note that the businessmen, the successful entrepreneurs in my home area today, are those who failed the 11-plus.

  575
  My four children went through the local comprehensive system which followed on from the kind of school I attended. I have to say that, within the system—comprising various comprehensive schools for 11 to 16 education, and then on to colleges of further education for 16 to 18 year-olds—all of my children received an excellent education. They also maintained their roots. They know where their home is: home is where people do not speak with a funny accent and it is where they return to see their friends. They are part of the community—and those community values underpin so much of the strength of Welsh society.
  It is for those reasons that I welcome the work being undertaken by the National Assembly for Wales—I should remind noble Lords that the Liberal Democrats are in coalition with the Labour Party in the Welsh Assembly—in the production of The Learning Country, a White Paper which sets out the Assembly's total commitment to comprehensive education—and nothing else. In this party we have always fought for that and it is what the party opposite used to fight for before it started to introduce divisions, as is being done in this Bill.
  In its report, Children and Young People: Framework for Partnership, the National Assembly for Wales has proposed that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should underpin all service provision for children and young people in Wales. It is further proposed that all primary and secondary schools should establish school councils because it is believed that children should be listened to. I hope that that is something which will be further developed.
  We are developing in our own way in Wales. We do have specific problems. We need to increase the skills base. Certain areas of our economy require skilled workers who, traditionally, we have not previously produced. However, by various means, the National Assembly for Wales has taken the matter forward—for example, by the introduction of the baccalaureate; the provision of a Welsh curriculum, a matter referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews; and the development of student support. Just as in Scotland, the coalition government in Wales are introducing learning and maintenance allowances for 16 to 18 year-olds, and learning and maintenance bursaries for students. We believe that it is very important that no one should be prevented continuing in education because of a lack of funds.
  I welcome the Bill because it puts these matters into legislative form and gives the Welsh Assembly the tools to put its policies into effect. It is much more effective that these policies are being put into effect not by a Secretary of State with a political adviser and a group of civil servants behind him, but by a democratically elected body which will discuss what it is going to do. It will come together to consider the issues and the solutions, and put them into effect.
  The only problem is that we have to come to Westminster to get the primary legislation to be able to do so, but we have put forward the proposals in the Bill
  576
  with consent across the board. Not even Plaid Cymru dissents from the way in which we are developing education in Wales.
  I have only one further comment on the Bill. An increase of faith schools in Wales would be unthinkable. I recall a colleague of mine who was educated in Belfast in a well-known Protestant school. He told me that he met his first Catholic at the age of six and his second Catholic at the age of 15. If we are to have a multiracial society, are we seeking the development of different cultures as separate streams, or are we seeking some kind of integration? We can accept faith schools as they are at the moment but, if we are seeking integration into a truly multiracial society, the development of faith schools must be entirely contrary to what we wish to achieve.
  I confine myself to the Welsh provisions in the Bill. I welcome them and I shall support them as they pass through the House.
  5.33 p.m.
  Lord Moser: My Lords, the recent Ofsted report—an excellent document—paid tribute to the considerable progress made in our educational arrangements during the past two years. However, it also stated that we were still failing a great number of children. It is to that aspect that I wish to devote my remarks.
  Before turning to the two issues I want to talk about, I should say that, in reading the Bill, I share the sense of puzzlement. On the one hand is the most welcome stress placed on more autonomy and flexibility and a greater emphasis on innovation and so on hut, on the other, how we translate those worthy principles into something that is good for all schools and not only the successful ones remains a puzzle. How we give the local communities, where schools belong and thrive, their due involvement is another puzzle. But perhaps the Committee stage is the right time to talk about those issues.
  The two matters I shall refer to relate to the unsuccessful part of the system. I declare an interest in basic skills in that for another week or two I shall be the chairman of the Basic Skills Agency, which has been prominent in the field. It is at the lower end of schooling—primary schools—and not least in tackling the problems of literacy and numeracy, that the Government deserve every possible credit. Enormous progress has been made and it looks as though the Government's key target for literacy—which is that 80 per cent of 11 year-olds will achieve level 4 or above at key stage 2—will be achieved, with a similar target for numeracy.
  Eighty per cent is a very big number, but so is 20 per cent. I am more worried about the 20 per cent who will not achieve those targets. This remains a serious problem because it means that 20 per cent of children are unfit to go into secondary education—the toughest transition of all—because they lack the basic skills of literacy and numeracy to cope with the enormous problems of the secondary curriculum. Moreover, just

  577
  when one may have been hoping that the problem of adult literacy and numeracy was on its way to solution, further in flows into that pool look inevitable.
  The recent report which bears my name shows that some 7 million adults in this rich country have poor basic skills, which is shocking. It has shocked the nation and has led the Government, I am happy to say, to a promising strategy for a solution. The hope was that by stemming the flow of more illiterate and innumerate children from primary schools into secondary schools, that number would not grow—but we are not yet anywhere near that point, with 20 per cent still a problem.
  That is the first point I wish to stress, simply to illustrate that, in spite of the enormous improvements made at primary level, there is still quite a long way to go, which will cost a great deal of money. There is no doubt that the greatest problems are at secondary level and I very much welcome the Government's decision to focus most attention on that sector.
  The second point on which I wish to comment is the structural change foreshadowed in the Bill. The underlying principle is diversity and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, diversity is one thing but hierarchy is another. What are we facing? We have specialist schools; a new layer of advanced specialist schools is promised; there are academies replacing earlier city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts; and we have faith schools. I will not speak at length on those. Other noble Lords have mentioned them and no doubt there will be further opportunities to do so. But I share the view of those who stress the overriding importance of strengthening social cohesion in every possible way within our increasingly multi-cultural society and who see, certainly in single faith schools, a move in the other direction.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, there is too much hierarchical emphasis to these structural changes. We are rather obsessed with categories and hierarchies, a kind of infection of the league table virus from which we all suffer. The problems are obvious. Let me take specialist schools as an example. By the end of this year there will be 1,000 such schools out of a total of 3,500 secondary schools. Those selected will have considerable additional resources, so it will not be surprising if they do better than the others. They will be able to employ better teachers and have better facilities and they will probably have more motivated children and parents. However one phrases it, that means a two-tier system. As we are on this route, I can only express the hope that in due course all schools will have the advantages of this top tier.
  The proposals for specialist schools give rise to another issue. They are rightly required to take poorer, weaker, struggling local schools under their wing. However, as Ofsted states in its report, that approach has yet to bear fruit. Moreover, is it not a mistake that, although the specialist schools have to link to five local schools, only one has to be a secondary school. Will the Minister comment on that? Would it not be better, given that primary schools are on the whole in better
  578
  shape than secondary schools, for the arrangements to be changed so that specialist secondary schools have to link to perhaps four local secondary schools rather than primary ones?
  The new academies are another privileged category, although they replace the previous schools of that type. I believe that they owe their origins in part to the American system of charter schools and private ownership and management developments. I have some links with the American education system. I remind your Lordships that in the United States neither experiment—neither the charter schools nor the financially managed school—has been claimed to be a total success educationally, which is what ultimately matters.
  I am particularly worried about the potential influences of private ownership, which has yet to be tested. It is one thing for the PFI or PPP to spoil our London Underground system, but let us at least ring fence education from the negative effects of private involvement.
  There is one common thread to the structural changes. Schools are graded as successful or not. If successful, they receive more money and so will become more successful; and that will perhaps means more freedom and flexibility.
  My concern is with the other schools. The hope must be that in these hierarchies more resources and attention will gradually be directed towards the struggling and weaker schools. It is no good merely hoping that the poor schools will learn by some kind of osmosis from the success of the better schools. The evidence is against that. It does not work that way. In introducing the Bill in the other place, the Secretary of State stressed,
  "the responsibility to raise standards in our weakest schools".
  We are still missing a range of policies that will focus attention on secondary schools at the lower end.
  Finally, I want to focus on two issues of disadvantage—those who remain short of basic skills and the schools that remain short of being favoured. Time is too short to talk about the things that matter most. I refer, for example, to the curricula—I am rather cheered by the new 14 to 19 consultative document—and above all to the teaching profession.
  Nothing is more important in any education debate on any educational agenda than the future of our teaching profession. It is full of devoted, committed people. But there are still enormous problems of recruitment, retention and morale. These have recently been discussed in this House. I hope that there will be further opportunities for debate. The problems are vast. Of those who joined the teaching profession, in five years' time only half will be still be in it. That says everything and is not acceptable.
  On a general point, everything that has been mentioned in the debate depends on resources. Fortunately, we are climbing up the resources ladder from the days when this country spent less than 5 per

  579
  cent of GDP on education. I believe that the figure is now closer to 52½ per cent. That is still far short of the 7 to 8 per cent that is spent by some countries.
  I was delighted, as was everyone involved in education, when the Prime Minister famously announced the three priorities for his government. The Government have been true to those priorities. I have no doubt that education belongs at the top of the political agenda—not only because it is basic to the quality of life of every one of us but because it actually helps to determine our future economic health. In that, it differs from other key priorities. Of course health and transport deserve every possibly priority and what can be spent on them must depend on our economic health. The same is true of education. But education is different because it actually determines our economic health. That difference needs always to be remembered.
  5.46 p.m.
  Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, the first serious political opinion I ever held emerged from living and working in the East End of London in the 1950s and 1960s. It was that the segregation that divides cities into vast one-class quarters is very damaging and needs to be tackled. When I moved to south London as Bishop of Woolwich, I saw the beginning of another segregation—by race. When I came to Liverpool, I saw both class and race segregating people—but, thank God, I saw determined efforts beginning to remove the bitter divisions between Protestant and Catholic that had marred the city.
  Segregation is a serious issue. In my years in Liverpool, it was a high priority to me to seek to break down divisions of whatever kind—Protestant-Catholic, black-white, Christian, Jewish, Muslim. So I understand the anxiety expressed by some noble Lords about an increase in the number of faith-based schools. But I welcome that increase, and the variety that it can bring to our schools.
  The accusation is being made that an increase in the number of faith-based schools will add to segregation. But are those critics suggesting that segregation has not already happened? The segregation that I met in east London had nothing to do with faith-based schools, and in so many cities the origins lie in completely different places. Housing, jobs and fear have created segregation. In some areas, 90 per cent of the children in county schools are Muslim. That is reality. So is the fact that Muslim communities have founded, and would continue to found, their own independent schools.
  To say that segregation would be removed by a thoroughgoing secularism would be nonsense. Perhaps I may quote from the Runnymede Trust report on The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, chaired by my noble friend Lord Parekh. The report states:
  "There is a tendency in western democracies to believe that secular society provides the best public space for equality and tolerance … but secular society tends to push religion to the margins of public space and into the private sphere. Islamophobia
  580
  and antisemitism merge with a more widespread rejection of religion, which runs through a significant part of 'tolerant' society, including the educated middle class and the progressive media".
  The report says that anti-racist organisations frequently appear insensitive to forms of racism that target religious identity.
  Tolerance and respect for other faiths grows from confidence and security in one's own identity and faith. Bringing schools in from the private sector means that some requirements can be made. One of the words of the moment in education is "clusters"—the idea of schools making links with other schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, said that setting up faith-based schools would set school against school. She made no mention of what the Secretary of State has been saying about a "family of schools".
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I did not say that the idea would set school against school; I said that there were some who feared that.
  Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, I want to take that fear very seriously and I understand it.
  My noble friend the Minister spoke about a culture of collaboration. A cluster of schools sponsored by different faiths and the local authority can be highly creative. Moving out from the secure base of belonging to a school in which their own faith is taught, children can meet others and work out what tolerance and respect mean. Pretending that religious faith is not there will not do that. Clusters can be a significant way of beginning to build some bridges. The Church leaders in Liverpool used to meet—and still do—with our opposite numbers in Belfast and Glasgow twice a year for 24 hours. Perhaps 10 years ago, our Belfast colleagues gave us a presentation on the EMU programme—education for mutual understanding—which is required of all schools in Northern Ireland. The Protestant child who was mentioned earlier who did not meet a Roman Catholic from when he was six until the age of 15 would not be able to do that today.
  As I dare to mention Northern Ireland, no doubt if we could start all over again we would not start precisely where we are now. The same is true of Bradford. However, programmes such as EMU begin from where we are. Last week I rang Bishop Walsh, the Roman Catholic diocesan bishop in Belfast, to ask whether the programme continues. He said that it does, with enthusiastic support from schools. As we might expect, the links are easier and more successful in the areas where sectarian passions are not the strongest, but even in those areas where it is most difficult, the programme makes a beginning. There are a number of areas in other cities where we need to make a beginning. EMU is part of the required curriculum. It is cross-curricular, appearing especially in history, English, drama and RE. The EMU co-ordinator in each school has to make a report to the governing body every year. The programme insists on links between schools.

  581
  I could see such a programme being appropriate in other parts of the UK. I hope that Muslim leaders, for example, might echo the comments of the Roman Catholic bishops in Northern Ireland last November, that EMU sets out,
  "to address issues of conflict and overcome the all-pervasive culture of silence on the causes and consequences of division".
  Opening up the possibility of Muslim schools in the maintained sector sends a strong message of inclusion to that community. Many of their young people feel disenfranchised and excluded from places of influence and power. Our message to those young people is, "We want you as full citizens".
  Let me say a little about Church of England schools. When I first became a bishop, as Bishop of Woolwich, I was made aware of criticism of Church schools in London of the kind that Frank Dobson has been making in another place. It was claimed that they created sink schools by creaming off the nice children. During those years, I learnt that any successful schools were in danger of doing that—faith-based or secular. I saw two Church schools that took more than their share of children with special needs. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn mentioned Archbishop Michael Ramsay school in Camberwell, which did just that, and no doubt still does.
  Our ideal is that Church of England schools should not be simply for the children of Church families. Pressure on admissions has sometimes made them more like that, but the traditional C of E school has always wanted to serve the neighbourhood more widely. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has encouraged the Church of England to increase its number of secondary schools. If that happens, I have no doubt that it will make that traditional dream more possible.
  When I moved to the North, I saw Church schools—in Wigan, for instance—that were clearly for the whole community. Lancashire taught me to be much more enthusiastic about Church schools than I had been in London. Archbishop Warlock and I in particular worked for a joint school with the Roman Catholics. It was very difficult for years because the population of Liverpool was declining and falling rolls meant that no new schools were being opened. However, I have been invited this May to celebrate five years of the joint Anglican and Roman Catholic Emmaus School—a large, two-form entry primary school, which is the first new school that Liverpool City Council had built for 25 years. I am also delighted to learn that a new city academy high school is proposed in the inner city in Liverpool, to be sponsored jointly by the Anglican diocese and the Roman Catholic archdiocese.
  When these discussions take place, we seem to speak only about the Bradfords and Oldhams—places with large Muslim communities. There are also cities and towns with smaller Muslim communities that would find it very hard to run their own school. That is also true of Sikh and Hindu communities, in which parents are often glad to send their children to a school based on another faith. We have been glad to offer places to those who are not part of our Church. I well remember the leaders of the Muslim community coming to ask
  582
  for our help when Liverpool education committee went co-educational. I am glad to say that our Archbishop Blanch Girls High School has for some years been happy to include a number of Muslim girls. Another school in Liverpool with a most honourable tradition in that respect is a Jewish high school—King David school—which has included perhaps 30 or 40 per cent of gentile children, with its particular appeal of specialising in music.
  When my noble friend replies to the debate, I hope that she may be able to tell us that there will be a realistic programme along the lines of the Secretary of State's hopes for a family of schools and her own phrase of a culture of collaboration—perhaps through a programme building on the experiences of EMU from Northern Ireland. That would help pupils to feel secure in their own identity and worth and to experience steps in building mutually enriching relationships with others.
  5.58 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, one of the problems with this debate is that there are so many good speakers that it is almost impossible to nip out for a cup of tea. However, I see that this is one of the exceptions. The Benches are emptying rapidly. Be back quickly, my Lords, because I shall not be long.
  I have an interest to declare, as many know, as the editor of the Good Schools Guide. I am also one of the sponsors of a local school in its bid for technology college status. I am participating actively in the campaign that the Government are taking forward.
  I shall save most of my comments for Committee. I am fond of detail. Many subjects have been raised today and I look forward greatly to debating them. I welcome many aspects of the Bill, although, along with many others, I note the tendency to do much more by secondary legislation and to give many more powers to the Secretary of State—a tendency that is twinned with a proposal to diminish the powers of this House to consider secondary legislation. If we are to go that way with Bills, we must go the other way with the powers of this House and give it much greater power to deal with secondary legislation.
  Along with my noble friends, I am concerned by the trend towards centralisation. We have in the Department for Education and Skills a great fondness for pet projects and budgets of a few hundred million pounds given to this and that, and involving centralised control from the centre. The sort of thing we are telling local education authorities not to do and preventing them doing is springing tip in the Department for Education and Skills. That is a trend which ought to be sat on. It is not the best way to run schools. We are producing a plethora of plans and forums—and even more in this Bill, all of which take the time of the most senior people in a school and the best people in a local education authority to formulate and then to make work. There are so many around at the moment that they cannot possibly work well. That cannot be the right way to go. We have a lot of good people out there in schools; we ought to give them

  583
  more responsibility. We ought to think of the Department for Education and Skills much more as a centre of expertise, of initiation and encouragement—not of control in the sense of having to dot every "i" and cross every "t" but more in the sense of an enlightened Ofsted watching what is going on and lending a helping hand, or insisting on lending a helping hand, when something is clearly going wrong. We should not think of it in the sense of day-to-day control, ever looking upwards, even for little things. If I want to change a school day, I have to apply to the Secretary of State. That is utterly ridiculous and is the wrong way to go.
  I am glad to see that we are slightly opening the door on new schools, but I am sorry to see that LEAs are to remain the gatekeepers for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, hymned Denmark as an example of a Scandinavian school system. If parents in Denmark get together in sufficient numbers, they have a right to start their own new state school. There are no controls on school numbers. If parents want to create a school with a particular character to suit their wishes and the needs of their children, they may do so. That has not led to a vast expansion in the number of schools, any more than the freedom to make jam sandwiches means that we are flooded with jam sandwiches as there are natural economic constraints on these matters. However, that process leads to a much more dynamic and much more parent-centred school system and one where the state has no control over what kinds of schools are created, where they are created and what their underlying religious, or any other, philosophy is. That works extremely well. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, having raised the subject of Denmark, will feel able to support me in Committee when I shall try to move a little further down that road.
  One of the advantages of a Bill as diverse as this one is that you get a chance to ride a few of your own hobby-horses in Committee. I give the Minister advance notice that I shall be out there on one called "statistics". One of the great failings of a department for education which is supposed to know about these things is the statistics it produces. Take the performance tables. Every year or so it changes the bases. Does it provide historical data? No. The Scots do. When the Scots change the bases, they redo the historical data. You can get a time series. You can see how schools are doing. When the bases were changed again this year, no historical data were provided. I can get nothing out of the Department for Education and Skills to enable me to look back. That is destructive of a proper understanding of the way schools are going. If performance tables are meant to be out there so that we can, as the noble Baroness said, "judge" a trend, a trend is what we should be given and not a lot of discontinuous measurements on different bases.
  We ought also to pay more attention to research. There are some wonderful projects going on. Beacon schools constitute one such project that I am enormously glad this Government have carried out. It has been sitting there waiting to be done for years and I am glad that the Government have done it. But what
  584
  data are becoming available on how that system is being used, what its successes are and on what it takes to be a good beacon school? There is nothing on the DfES website. That is absolutely the kind of research that ought to be carried out to make the best of that kind of initiative. There is little good educational research; there needs to be a lot more. I shall come back to that particular hobby-horse in Committee.
  The General Teaching Council's first disciplinary action is interesting. The Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 sets out the crime of unacceptable professional conduct which means conduct which falls short of the standards expected of a registered teacher. The first person to be accused under that rubric has two particular crimes against him. He handed to a registered inspector a folder of correspondence between himself and the head teacher; in other words, he told an inspector what was going on in the school so that the inspector knew what was really happening. He also handed to Edexcel correspondence between himself and the head teacher which constituted a formal complaint about the running of the GCSE mathematics examination; in other words, he told the authority responsible for running the mathematics examination what was being done wrongly in his school. I find it totally astonishing that the first case to which the GTC turned its attention involves closing the gates on openness as if it is saying that it should be illegal for a teacher to blow the whistle and, indeed, if you blow the whistle, you risk your entire career and you could be prevented teaching ever again. I hope that we shall be able to add a small amendment to that bit of the 1998 Act to make it clear that that kind of action is to be praised, and not condemned as a crime.
  I turn to religious schools. I find myself aligned with my noble friend Lord Baker on that matter. I have severe doubts about the effect that religious schools have. One can see too may examples—Oldham is one of them—where religion has been used to exclude children of another faith and deny them a part in the community. The schools ask, "How can we turn away Christians"? However, if a school is to represent the community and to be the kind of school which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, wished, it has to turn away children of its own faith community. I have no difficulty with schools which hold to a faith and all the things of the spirit that faith can bring. However, I refer to the issue of having only children of that particular faith in that school. If a private school wishes to do that, it should be permitted to do so. Most private religious schools, except perhaps some that represent minority religions, admit children of all faiths because they need the money. By and large it is only in the state system that religious schools are exclusive. If you want a decent school in some parts of London, you have to convert to Catholicism about three years before you conceive, go to mass every day and produce a certificate from a priest to get access to state money to pay for the education of your child. That seems to me entirely wrong and not the way in which the state should disburse its money. It is fine to permit a religious-based

  585
  school to control its intake, but it is not fine to make little exclusive sects at the expense of the taxpayer and all of us.
  I have seen some fascinating research. People have carried out controlled experiments in which pupils in one class have been taught nothing about racial and religious division while pupils in another class have followed a course designed to improve tolerance. In every case the class that is properly taught is less racially tolerant: as they know what the enemy is like. They find it easier to pick out points of difference and to see others as different because they understand more about them. However, if I were brought up with a Jewish boy or a Muslim in a mixed community, it would be ridiculous for me to regard them as different as I would recognise immediately so many points in common. To bring up people separately builds in differences. You can afford a little of that in a society, but once you start to treat large groups in a society in that way it becomes dangerous over the long term.
  We shall have a great deal of fun talking through the curriculum. What Lord Denning said about prison education should inform a good deal of what we say. There is a great deal of understanding and innovation taking place as regards how to bring kids back into education who were lost to it when at school. If we can understand a little of the successful experiments in that area, we may understand a little about what we should have done in schools to stop that situation arising in the first place.
  6.9 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that only a week ago I spoke at a Catholic sixth form college in London, at which 50 per cent of its 850 students were from other faiths—25 per cent were Hindu and 10 per cent were Muslim. I hope that he realises on reflection that the caricature that he painted of Catholic schools is extraordinarily unfair.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I did not give a caricature and my point did not apply to all such schools but to very many of them. I see many schools and know that some schools are as the noble Lord described. However, to give a counter-example, there was an excellent sixth form college in Bristol that the Catholic Church closed because it could not find enough Catholics for it. As he will remember, that caused a great furore at the time.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord makes the case for the integrated nature of Church schools and Church education. As he said, if there are not enough people from a particular denomination, those schools simply do not survive. The figures show that across the country, more than 20 per cent of those in Catholic schools come from outside the Catholic Church. That does not bear out the proposition that he placed before your Lordships' House.
  586
  I declare an interest by virtue of the chair that I hold at Liverpool John Moores University and as a foundation governor of the Liverpool Bluecoat School. Perhaps more relevantly, before going to another place, I spent seven years as a teacher. For five years I worked in the state sector with children with special needs, and the two years before that I worked in the voluntary aided sector in a Church school in Kirby, on the outskirts of Liverpool. I strongly welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, on the nature of those schools in that area. I am a product of Church education myself and my four children are currently being educated in a Church school. I therefore recognise what he and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said about the way in which those schools have risen to the challenge— I stress that it is a challenge—of ensuring that we do not slide into sectarianism or division. We need to draw out the best—the generosity of spirit—that is deep inside every person and which is waiting to manifest itself if only it can be drawn out.
  In broadly welcoming the general thrust of the Bill, I shall at this stage raise only two questions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who said that there will be plenty of time at later stages of the Bill to debate our many other questions. My first question is about the general level of morale—many people in the teaching profession feel a sense of devaluation. My second question involves the question of ideology.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that we must concentrate most during the passage of the Bill on the immediate needs of teachers. I entirely agree with her. The National Union of Teachers says that of every 100 final-year trainee teachers, 40 will not enter the classroom and a further 18 will leave the profession within three years. The Government's own figures, published in February, put the number of vacancies over the past year at more than 5,000. Although there are 7,000 more teachers than 12 months ago—I congratulate the Government on that and welcome the figure—we are still not keeping pace with need.
  Mike Tomlinson, the Chief Inspector of Schools, candidly admits in his annual report that mathematics, science, foreign languages, religious education and design and technology have all been adversely affected. He said:
  "Where a subject is taught by a high proportion of teachers with limited qualifications in the subject, this lack of subject knowledge manifests itself in lower expectations, weaker teaching, and less effective learning in the subject".
  It is suggested that there are now fewer than 20,000 maths specialists in England and Wales, compared with 40,000 some 20 years ago. Academic reports into the causes of that problem cite stress, abuse, administrative overload and long hours as contributory factors in repelling potential teachers. Accelerated and never-ending pressure for ever-improved results—that issue has already been raised—also plays its part as a negative force.

  587
  In September, school rolls will swell by about 40,000 pupils. That will require 2,000 extra teachers just to keep class sizes at their present levels. Alan Smithers, who is director of Liverpool University's centre for education and employment, has warned that,
  "staff may be expected to teach outside their subject or the continuity of children's education could be put at risk by a succession of supply staff".
  The significant increase in the use of supply staff is one of the least-observed changes in our schools and one which I should like to be capped in the Bill. Of the 465,000 teachers in the UK, 19,000 are supply teachers. That figure is up from 12,000 in 1995. Education Data Surveys has put the costs to schools at around £600 million, with agencies taking some £200 million of that. One London school has spent £37,000 on supply staff and it is estimated that it costs schools up to £200 per day simply to hire one supply teacher. That raises questions about the effects not only on school budgets but also on stability and quality. I would welcome the Minister's response to the chief inspector's comment that supply teachers,
  "perform less well than any other category of teacher; with less than half of their lessons being good or better compared with two thirds of the lessons of qualified and permanent members of staff".
  It is especially sad that that should be so when general standards have been improving significantly. It is also sad that the problem is at its worst in what are already the most disadvantaged areas.
  The cost of recruitment is also becoming wholly disproportionate. Last summer, one head teacher spent more than £35,000 on agency fees in an attempt to recruit staff. Others have had to fund visits overseas to find teachers. Whether those costs come from the Government's recruitment and retention fund or from school budgets, it is money that could be better used. Liverpool University's research claims that pupil behaviour is the second most common reason given by teachers for leaving the profession. No one would disagree with the Warwick University study—it has already been referred to in this debate—which reported that 80 per cent of teachers believe that pupil behaviour has deteriorated during their time as teachers. I hope that the Minister will tell us, perhaps when she replies tonight, how the Government's new initiatives on exclusion and problem pupils are developing.
  Teachers need to be retained and new ones recruited; that, rather than over-reliance on supply teachers, is what we need. If the immediate haemorrhage is to be averted, it will require more drastic measures to reduce teacher workload and to enhance the professional status of teachers. That will need to be accompanied by less emphasis on targets—that point has been made by several noble Lords—and more emphasis on the children who are being educated and on the vocational calling of the teaching profession.
  If it is important to address questions about teachers' status and morale, it is also important to avoid an overly dogmatic and ideological approach, which can undermine schools and teachers. In so far as
  588
  the Bill seeks to free teachers and schools in that regard, I welcome that. However, the imposition of a mandatory quota, which we fought in another place, is the reverse of that trend. That is an affront to schools in the voluntary aided sector and such diktats should be vigorously resisted. I congratulate the Government on having done so.
  At the end of World War II, many aspirations were properly met in what Estelle Morris, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, described in another place as the historic concordat between the state and the Church. That became the foundation of the Education Act 1944. That legislation was the fruit of a remarkable partnership between a Conservative and Anglican, R. A. Butler, and the Labour Member, Chuter Ede, a Free Church man. Butler was President of the Board of Education and Chuter Ede was his Private Parliamentary Secretary.
  It is extraordinary that that legislation—it is perhaps the most important legislation of the 20th century—has stood us in such good stead for so long. It stands in sharp contrast to the overly partisan, ill-considered, meretricious and often contradictory changes that central government and local authorities have imposed on education during the 50 years that followed. Among many other things, the 1944 Act provided a small grant towards the cost of building Church schools.
  Following that Act—the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned this—the Church of England decided to scale down significantly its commitment to education. Of the 9,000 Church of England schools in existence in 1944, nearly half have closed. However, in total in the UK today, there are 6,384 religious primary schools and 589 secondary schools of different denominations. All but 40 of them are Christian. What signal does that send—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in this regard—in multicultural, multiracial Britain? The suggestion is that some Church schools may exist—no noble Lord has argued that we should close down those schools—but that people from other faiths will not be permitted to have similar schools. I notice that a noble Lord on the Back Benches opposite is shaking his head and suggesting that that is what he supports.
  Following the publication of the report of my noble friend Lord Dearing, the decision of the Church of England to create new faith schools is, I believe, a welcome recognition of the need to change. Many people, some of only nominal belief, want an education which offers more than places in the academic league tables. The Church of England has some 775,000 places in its primary schools but only 150,000 places in its secondary schools. Clearly there is an unmet demand.
  In another place it was suggested, and implied again in an earlier speech today, that the allocation of places in the present system is based upon hypocrisy. One honourable Member in another place said:
  "Many people suddenly find a faith and start going to church"—
  a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—in order to get their children into Church schools. It is true that some Church schools are over-subscribed,

  589
  and parish priests and vicars provide affirmation of Church commitment. But who is to say how deep is another person's faith, and who is to question a person's desire to return to it or to prevent him from transmitting his belief to his children?
  According to Dr Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi—I agree with him—
  "Denominational schools have a great strength. Often they have a clear ethos that gives consistency and power to the lessons they teach".
  He adds that a survey of 34,000 teenagers in England and Wales, carried out by the Jewish Association for Business Ethics, found that children educated in such an ethos,
  "are less likely to lie, steal or to drink alcohol illicitly … the evidence is that teaching about the morality of everyday life does make a difference".
  The imposition of arbitrary quotas will undermine ethos but it will also undermine the self-governance which allows Church schools to determine their own composition. And such questions must be determined locally according to local needs and circumstances.
  As I heard personally from teachers working in Church schools in Oldham—a part of the country referred to during the debate—they place a great premium on preparing their children for active citizenship and for the responsibilities that that entails. To imply otherwise illustrates a profound ignorance of what goes on in those schools.
  Lorna Fitzsimons, the Member of Parliament for Rochdale, said in a very good speech in another place that when she looked into the disruptions and rioting that had taken place in Oldham, she found that those involved had not been educated in Church schools; they were children from non-integrated state schools where it may certainly be the case that the whole basis of teaching citizenship should be reconsidered.
  I end with a quotation from the Archbishop of Birmingham, Vincent Nichols. In a trenchant and hard-hitting statement he expressed his anger at the caricature of Catholic education, saying that Catholic schools are the fruit of "a struggle" to which Catholic parents,
  "have contributed financially for many generations".
  He said:
  "Admission quotas could effectively undermine the cohesiveness of the school".
  In welcoming the general thrust of the Bill, I hope that, when we come to consider it further, we shall resist the temptation to break the concordat and the trust that exists between faith schools and the state; that we shall recognise the extraordinary contribution that these schools make; that we shall strongly affirm them as a valued and integral part of the provision of education in this country; and that we shall not add to the pressures that already affect the teaching profession.
  6.23 p.m.
  Baroness David: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I welcome some parts of the Bill, not because the Bill is long and complex, which it
  590
  certainly is, but because I believe that it takes some steps in the right direction. It consolidates some law, introduces new freedoms for schools and LEAs to get on with the job and introduces new legislation which I believe will be of benefit to children, young people, schools, their communities and local government.
  However, I have three main concerns which I shall speak about shortly. I start with three positive aspects about the Bill: the opportunities for local government; the opportunities to reform 14-to-19 education; and the opportunities for new forms of governance.
  I turn, first, to the subject of local government. There is much in the Bill for local government to do, although it does not appear that all those involved appreciate that. I know that there are concerns about the imposition of a minimum schools budget, and I look forward to hearing the Government justify that new power for the Secretary of State.
  Although the new power may detract from the freedom of local authorities to determine local needs and allocate resources accordingly, education is a national service and there has always been an element of national responsibility in spending on what is a national investment in our future. I hope that local authorities will be able to use the new responsibilities in the Bill positively.
  The duty to co-ordinate admissions arrangements gives LEAs a responsibility to overcome some of the problems with the present admission arrangements. I should have liked to see the Government do more in relation to admissions. Who will determine the criteria for admissions? Where is that to go? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions. Part 1 of the Bill allows LEAs, together with their schools, to propose new ways of working—innovation to raise educational standards. Innovation has to be welcomed. I wish that perhaps education law had not become so restrictive and that the innovation that occurred in Cambridgeshire under Henry Morris could have happened without recourse to the Secretary of State. There are concerns about how the new powers to innovate will affect teachers and young people. I look forward to the debates which we are bound to have on that issue.
  I welcome the Government's Green Paper on 14-to-19 education, Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards, and the parts of the Bill which support it—particularly the new definition of secondary education in Clause 170—which will enable vocational education to take place off school premises for children at the end of their secondary education. I shall be interested in the debates on the new powers for the Learning and Skills Council to rationalise sixth form provision. I have always felt that small sixth forms are uneconomic and that they do not provide a wide enough choice of subjects for children to follow. Again, I look forward very much to what I imagine will be heated debates on that subject.
  I have known many attempts to develop educational provision for the l4-to-16 group, particularly during the last half century. All have been found wanting in

  591
  some respects, but I hope that the proposals will provide a coherent system which meets the needs of young people. I like the greater flexibility.
  I welcome the Bill's provision for new forms of school governance, particularly with federated schools and extended schools. Cambridgeshire pioneered extended schools more than 60 years ago with the creation of community colleges. Those secondary schools provided not only education for young people but learning opportunities for adults. One of the great challenges of education today is how to get schools to work together for the benefit of all the young people in an area, and those not so young as well. That could be assisted by federating schools. I look forward to hearing from the Government how that will be done while still preserving the character of individual schools.
  I have three concerns about the Bill, two of which mainly relate to what is not in the Bill. I am concerned about the additional bureaucracy, workload and central powers in the Bill, and about the DfES's transforming secondary school programme and whether it will cause disparity of funding between schools. Lastly, I am concerned about the policy on faith schools.
  I turn to the issues of bureaucracy, workload and central powers. There will be an increase in workload. Every new Bill, especially one which is 210 clauses long, requires new things to be done, new strategies to be worked on, new ways of funding and new targets to be met. I want schools to provide education and I want teachers to teach and not fill out forms. I support what the Government have done with the teachers in reviewing workload. I hope that it is successful, but I want to know whether the Bill will help or hinder the work of schools.
  Along with the additional workload, the Bill also gives the Secretary of State more powers. I hope that we shall be able to scrutinise those new powers in Committee. I am not against shifting legislation from the statute book, but it does need care so that the key principles of what is being attempted are set out in primary legislation while the details are in secondary legislation or, if possible, abandoned altogether. At present the detail in regulations can be enormous. The school government regulations is a sizeable book covering 57 regulations and six schedules. The accompanying DfES Guide to the Law for School Governors is a large A4 folder. I hope that we can find ways of reducing the amount of legislation if not in this Bill perhaps in the next one. Are we to have a consolidated education Bill? We certainly need one.
  I know that Opposition parties will make much of the taking of central powers and additional bureaucracy. I hope that the Government will be able to defuse the debate by recognising that much detailed work needs to take place to reform the nature of education legislation. Perhaps the Government will make proposals about how education law will be reformed; otherwise, I fear that that may take up much time in Committee when we should be discussing the new proposals.
  592
  While I wish to support the thrust of the Government's proposals on transforming secondary education, I am concerned that there will be back-door selection by secondary schools that receive Beacon or specialist school status. Although there is not much in the Bill about improving secondary education, I am concerned about the academies and how they may disrupt the existing arrangements for school choice. The Bill also gives the Secretary of State new grant-giving powers to reward schools that have achieved a new status.
  I am concerned that there should be equality of funding between schools and that the Secretary of State should not use those powers to fund schools more generously because of their perceived performance. I would have thought that as a basic principle—one that the Labour Opposition used to oppose grant-maintained schools—pupils should not have more money spent on their education because of the accident of which school they happen to attend. The Higher Education Consortium for Special Education is anxious about that.
  The Government do not need to legislate to bring about more faith schools or to extend the range of faiths that have voluntary-aided status. A century ago the future of Church schools was the main educational debate in England. This year is the centenary of one of the major pieces of education legislation which brought religious schools under the management of the local authorities. The Education Act 1902 affected the politics of the rest of the decade, with various Liberal government attempts to undo it, mainly stopped by the House of Lords. I suspect that in the next century this House will still be debating faith schools.
  I want to quote from an article on exclusion and inclusion, by Amartya Sen, a Nobel prize winner. He finds that faith-based schools are divisive and damaging, as I do, despite the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Sheppard. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, towards the end of his speech, was moving in that direction as well. The article states:
  "the public policy of placing children in faith-based schools … may sometimes come with a severe reduction of educational opportunities that could help informed choice on how to live. The purpose of education is not only to inform a child about different cultures in the world (including the one to which his or her family may, in one way or another, belong), but also to help the cultivation of reasoning and the exercise of freedom in later life. Something very important is lost if the doors of choice are firmly shut on the face of young children, on the misguided belief that tradition makes choice unnecessary … You may think I am talking about Madrassas in Pakistan, or religious schools here, but I am actually talking about also Britain. Such has been the state of confusion about identities, and the force of the implicit belief that a person has no choice over priorities regarding his identity, that nothing particularly wrong is seen in the lack of choice for children in the new dispensation regarding 'faith-based schools' (Muslim or Hindu or Christian) in the new multi-ethnic Britain. The human right that is lost in this is, of course, the children's right to a broad education that prepares them to choose, rather than just to follow".
  As a postscript to that—Amartya Sen mentions children's rights—I raise a point that I have often raised in this House, that is the right of children to express their views and to have them taken seriously

  593
  within education. When in opposition during the passage of the Education Act 1994 Labour advocated strongly in both Houses for the right of pupils to be consulted about matters that affect them. We lost the argument then but society and politics have moved on. These days there can be few politicians who reject the logic and principle of listening to children and including them appropriately in decisions about their education and about the running of their schools.
  Increasingly, children and young people are encouraged to take active roles in their local communities and in improving the design and delivery of public services. The Government have issued guidance to all government departments requiring them to produce action plans for involving children and young people in developing policies and services. The time is now absolutely right for children and young people to be given a statutory entitlement to consultation about decisions in education that affect them. Scottish children already have such a right, introduced through the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000.
  I am aware that the Government have offered guidance on that, but that is not enough. Such guidance will simply encourage good schools and others will leave it to gather dust. It has to be on the face of the Bill, as in Scotland. I hope that the Minister can comment on that in her reply.
  6.36 p.m.
  Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, although I am not sure that I agree with all the reservations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, I wholeheartedly agree with her questions on the meaning of certain parts of the Bill. I believe that elaboration is required.
  I want to touch on three aspects of the Bill. First, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said in her forceful speech, that it would be churlish of those on this side of the House not to recognise that the Bill has many good aspects. Its objective is to raise standards in secondary schools in England and Wales, which we wholeheartedly welcome. For 20 years I have been arguing for four of the proposals outlined by the Minister. The first is greater delegation to head teachers, to classroom teachers and to governors.
  When I was a special adviser in Downing Street, my Minister used to say, "Brian, teachers know far more about what to do in a classroom than you and I and we should not be as prescriptive as we look like being in legislation". Looking back, the legislation was far too prescriptive. The Bill gives greater flexibility on staffing; on the sharing of staff, with good departments linking up with departments in other schools; on employing people from further and higher education; on having trained assistants in the classroom—not equivalent to teachers but complementing them; on having greater flexibility in governance; and on encouraging innovation. The principle of delegation is to be welcomed.
  Similarly, there should be a lighter touch on regulation when it is clear that a school does not need the degree of regulation that is in place. I was trained
  594
  as an economist. If one considers secondary education as an industry, one sees that it is an extraordinarily regulated industry. To the extent that this Bill deregulates, it is excellent.
  Thirdly, and perhaps a little contentiously, I feel that a major aspect of the Bill is extending diversity. I have never seen diversity as fundamentally opposed to the comprehensive principle. The kind of schools that we need in this country should be sufficiently diverse so that in a city a child can have a choice and say, "I want to go to a school that suits my needs best of all". I have seen the whole movement—city technology colleges, specialist schools and now academies and so on—as an attempt to extend that principle. If I were being romantic, my ideal would be a situation where every school in Britain was a specialist school. By having choice between specialist schools, we could help individual pupils realise their potential. Fourthly, greater transparency in funding appeals to me. We on this side of the House support the idea that money given to a local authority and an LEA gets into the classroom.
  I believe, therefore, that the Bill has a logic to it. It states that we want to raise standards in secondary schools; and that we shall do so by delegating more, having lighter regulation, flexibility and different kinds of schools and ensuring that the money gets to the classroom. In saying that, noble Lords may feel that I should be speaking from the other side of the House. However, on reading the Bill on Saturday evening—it is not the best time to read a Bill as complex as this—I suddenly felt dismayed. On the one hand, the Bill puts forward these great principles. Nevertheless, I felt that they were being anchored in a sea of bureaucracy.
  I give some examples. If a school wants to apply for exemptions on the curriculum it has, first, to consult the parents. If it wants to apply for exemption on pay and conditions of teachers, the Bill states that the school has to consult each teacher in the school and any others who may have an interest. A school cannot start a company without the explicit permission of the LEA. Further regulations will be introduced in which the LEA may be the supervising authority for the company. Providing community facilities seems an excellent idea. Again, the school has to go to the LEA; and again the LEA can issue regulations There are two new advisory bodies: the schools forums; and the admissions forums. Again there will be more meetings and more regulation.
  From talking to teachers, heads and governors, I believe that they want to be told: "This is what you have. Get on with it". The last thing they want is to be given freedom and alongside that freedom extra responsibility in terms of consultation, being part of new bodies and so on.
  My next reservation—it has been mentioned forcefully already—relates to the Henry VIII powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State. I recognise that once one deregulates in this way, the Secretary of State has to have certain powers. If we give schools powers, for example, to borrow money and to start a

  595
  business, what will be the implication on the school if it goes bust? It is wrong to attack the issue simply as centralisation. A measure of centralisation is necessary. In the deregulation by the Conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s, we introduced an element of centralisation in order to make deregulation effective. But as my noble friend Lady Blatch said so forcefully, under Clause 2(1) the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may by order make provision,
  "conferring on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation".
  That is a massive change from everything we have known. I am not constitutionally opposed to a degree of centralisation but surely some constraints could be imposed on the freedom we are giving the applicants in that provision.
  My next point relates to Wales. I may part company from two previous fellow countrymen who spoke on the subject. Parts of the Bill relate to England and Wales, parts to England only and parts to Wales only. I seek guidance from the Minister on what this House can and cannot do in Committee in relation to Welsh issues. In this House, I have supported strongly, and believe in, devolution for Wales. However, I have a problem about why certain clauses of the Bill apply to England only and not to Wales. My problem is this. The Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales issued a paving document—it has been referred to already—entitled The Learning Country. That document is similar to a White Paper but totally different from the Bill. I am told that the Bill has not been discussed in a plenary session of the Welsh Assembly: that a statement was made and a few questions asked. The Education Committee took something like two hours to discuss the Bill.
  The powers in Clauses 62 to 67 on academies, city colleges, and additional secondary schools relate only to England. I find it inconceivable that Wales could not also benefit from them. I find it inconceivable that some form of specialist school more suited to the community would not be as relevant in Swansea, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport and the valleys as to England. I have no desire to question the integrity of the devolution process. We must respect the wishes of the people of Wales with respect to Welsh legislation. I do not question that. However, if an amendment were introduced enabling the Minister for Education in Wales to have the provision included in the Bill, it need not be taken up. But at least we would have passed primary legislation so that if the Minister changed her mind or another Minister of State came in with a different view, he or she would be able to do that. As drafted, the Bill is a missed opportunity for Wales. I should like to hear the Minister's views on the subject.
  Thirdly, on the issue of faith schools, rarely do I find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Baker. However, on this issue there is a nuance of difference. The White Paper was more fulsome on faith schools than the Minister today. The White Paper states that we wish to welcome faith schools with
  596
  a distinctive ethos and character into the maintained sector where there is clear local agreement. I believe that the present debate over faith schools was introduced by the wonderful report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. What comes out of that report is that faith schools are very popular with parents. That is something we have to accept. Why are they popular with parents? As the right reverend Prelate said, they are popular partly because they have a distinctive ethos: a moral and spiritual basis for education. It is partly because of discipline and partly an expectation of good academic results.
  As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard, mentioned, most faith schools are genuine community schools. Church of England schools are there to serve the community as well as to teach Christian faith. They are not there to proselytise. We must remember that the Church of England became serious about education in 1811. It did so specifically to help poor communities which were suffering because of industrialisation. That was their rationale. Catholic schools were built up in the 19th century in order to help poor immigrant families and to bring them into an inclusive community. As the right reverend Prelate said, the Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that Church of England schools should not exclude people of other faiths and of no faith. The House of Bishops has said the same. I worship at All Souls Church, Langham Place, which is just at the top of Regent Street. We have a Church of England school. Forty-seven per cent of its pupils are Muslim. More than 50 per cent are from non-Christian faiths; 14 per cent are of no declared faith; only 35 per cent are Christian; and 12 per cent are Anglican. The reason that Church schools work is that they manage to bring together the home, the parish and the school. That is a tremendous advantage. Why interfere with it by having something like a 25 per cent quota?
  I recognise that there are objections to Church schools. Some come from people who are declared to be secular. Amartya Sen may well be in that category. They feel that a secular foundation would be a better one. This is a great subject. We cannot go into it in any detail now. It seems to me that, as the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said, we are in danger of making Church schools a scapegoat for other problems.
  Can anyone really believe that the lack of integrated schools in Northern Ireland is the reason for the issues which it faces when it has had, frankly, hundreds of years of discrimination against the Catholic community? Likewise, can people feel that in some of our inner cities—in towns of northern England where one has second generation immigrants who find it very difficult to find jobs—that faith schools can somehow explain the problem rather than the issue of poverty?
  I would encourage anyone who has not done so to read the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. There is an enormous amount of good will in faith schools. My experience of them has been that they are not narrow, proselytising bodies but that they are there to

  597
  serve the community. Far from being divisive in our society I believe that they can be integrative. Therefore, I commend them to your Lordships.
  6.52 p.m.
  Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I shall devote most of my remarks to faith schools. I welcome many of the provisions of the Bill. I should also like to say a few brief words, partly inspired by what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, about the diversity that the Bill will encourage which will not turn into rigidity, particularly at the age of 14.
  I say that with some feeling since I failed the 11-plus. At the age of 14 it was assumed that I was someone of a practical bent. That turned out to be a completely false judgment. My first piece of career advice from the local authority careers adviser, so that I could begin to think about what I should major on in school, was that I might like to think of becoming a mastic asphalt spreader. As time went on, I became an academic philosopher. I do not know whether that has been to the benefit of the philosophical world, but it has certainly been to the benefit of the mastic asphalt spreading industry.
  However, I do believe that it is very important that children in schools have many opportunities for change throughout their career. We do not want to be committed to lifelong learning beyond school with lots of new opportunities and so forth while the regulation of the school curriculum makes such changes less possible for young people.
  I want to use my speech to express some anxieties about the provisions in the Bill which would allow for the potential expansion of faith-based schools. I fully accept that there are important arguments in favour of the establishment of such schools, but I still have misgivings. I want to make it clear from the start that my misgivings are not based on some kind of aggressive secularism. I have been a faithful member of the Church of England throughout my life. Indeed, I was accepted for ordination in that church in the 1960s. Thai was going to be my second career after mastic asphalt spreading. But, as time went on, I felt that I was not capable of the priesthood either.
  My wife's first teaching post was in a Church of England school. My three sons attended Church infant to primary schools because they were our local schools. My youngest son is currently doing his teaching practice in a Roman Catholic school in Woking. A daughter-in-law teaches in a Church school. So I am not coming at this issue in an aggressively secular way. Nevertheless, I have qualms about the proposals in the Bill.
  So, what are the arguments in favour of the expansion of state-funded faith schools? I think that we can distinguish five separate arguments. First, there is parental choice. Parents who profess strong moral and religious beliefs are entitled to have their children educated in a school where the ethos and the teaching represents their deeply held convictions.
  Secondly, there is an argument about fairness and justice. The state has supported the establishment and maintenance of schools for Roman Catholics and
  598
  members of the Church of England. Therefore, in fairness, other denominations within Christianity, and other religions, should be able to use public funds to support education, consistent with the values, ethos and teaching of those religions.
  Thirdly, there are the results of such schools. It is argued that the schools produce good academic results; they have high standards of educational attainment, high levels of discipline and low levels of truancy and exclusion. Supporters argue—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was saying this—that there is a close correlation between the religious and moral ethos of these schools and those types of attainment.
  Fourthly, in many areas of British society we are witnessing a decline in a sense of discipline, moral responsibility and moral authority. If society is to sustain high moral standards, that cannot be done primarily by the state. It has to be the job of parents, churches and schools in some kind of relationship. It is then claimed that Church schools bring together parents and schools in a common moral enterprise, and that that will have an impact on strengthening the moral fabric of society.
  The fifth argument is the one that is I suppose reflected in the Runnymede report, which my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sheppard mentioned. It is that a sense of cultural and religious identity is essential for those who come from groups within society with a strong sense of those things. It is important that that is capable of being maintained rather than eroded through the educational system.
  It is no part of my case to underestimate or belittle the importance of these arguments. What I want to do, however, is to look at the other side of the coin. It is surely vital for our society, as the noble Lord, Lord Moser, said, to have a sense of its own identity, of the common values that unite it—a sense of social cohesion. Collective action in both peace and war ultimately has to draw upon common beliefs and values—a sense of common citizenship.
  At one time in British society these values and beliefs may have been a matter of tradition and habit. We shared, by and large, the same kind of moral heritage. Society was more homogeneous in cultural, religious and ethnic terms than it is now. In our day we cannot just assume a sense of common civic culture and a sense of civic virtue. It has to be worked on and created out of the many diverse groups that make up British society.
  Given the importance of a sense of social cohesion, it is very important that we do not go too far down the road of emphasising what is sometimes called "the politics of difference"—what separates us rather than what unites us in the exercise of a sense of common citizenship. One of the central values of citizenship in a pluralist society of the kind in which we live has to be mutual respect and toleration. These concerns with common identity, common values, mutual respect and toleration are not just theoretical issues, as we saw from the riots in northern cities last year.

  599
  No doubt those with a strong belief in the expansion of faith-based education will hold up what they sincerely regard as an ideal and practical picture of how faith-based education, far from undermining a sense of common identity, will in fact enhance it. I think that that was precisely the point that my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sheppard and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, were making. Those coming through to adult citizenship from faith-based schools will have a strong sense of their moral responsibility and identity through their membership of the faith community which has also been sustained by faith-based education. From this they will engage actively in common and civic tasks in society. On this view, there is no conflict between the recognition and, indeed, the funding of difference and the emergence and upholding of a sense of common identity. So, parental choice, religious identity and common values can all be held together.
  If this ideal picture were to turn out to be the most likely one, I would have no practical qualms. However, I am worried that this may not be quite how things turn out. My worry is that faith-based education may not continue in the rather benign way that the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, experienced in Southport, because the fastest-growing areas of religion are of a fundamentalist and dogmatic kind. That is not just true of Islam, although we talk rather glibly so often of Islamic fundamentalism, but it is also true in the context of Christianity and, for all I know, of Judaism as well.
  I have absolutely no objection to people holding their religious beliefs in a fundamentalist way. That is fine, but if faith schools that cater, or come to cater, for forms of fundamentalist forms of religion were to be established, there would be genuine concerns in respect of public policy and for a sense of common citizenship and common identity. The reason for that is simple: a fundamentalist regards it as unreasonable to disagree with his or her beliefs, "If I know the truth, why should I tolerate or respect dissent?". However, respect for others, toleration and a recognition that it is reasonable to disagree on such matters as religion are among the common values that are essential to a liberal democratic society marked by pluralism. They are essential features of the social cohesion about which the noble Lord, Lord Moser, talked. Yet fundamentalism does not recognise the reasonableness of disagreement between people over precisely those deep values of religious belief. So, although we must take into account parents' beliefs and choices, we cannot be indifferent to the potential consequences of such choices on the common values without which society cannot be sustained.
  Indeed, it could be argued that faith communities, including those who hold their beliefs in a fundamentalist way—in the sense that I use the term—will receive state support if the Bill goes through, precisely in terms of the recognition of mutual tolerance and reasonable disagreement. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, perhaps the most persuasive argument for the
  600
  extension of faith schools to religious minorities would be on the basis of fairness and justice—the very ideas that are founded on a sense of mutual toleration and a recognition of reasonable disagreement. It would be odd, to say the least, to use such arguments in favour of the extension of religion-based schools if the ethos and teaching of some of those schools did not embody the very principles that have justified their own funding.
  Critics of the position that I outline would say that fundamentalism in schools can be constrained through Ofsted inspections and other measures. I doubt that. Although I am sure that Ofsted does an exceptionally good job in monitoring teaching standards and delivery, it is difficult to gauge a school's ethos on the basis of limited and infrequent inspection, partly because an ethos is not codified.
  How might we respond to concerns about the possible use of faith schools by fundamentalists and those who wish to exclude people from other faiths? Constraints on the further development of faith schools are needed. That might be done through the proposals that my honourable friend Frank Dobson made in another place; I can see the difficulties of that approach. It might also be done by means of voluntary controlled schools, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, or through more informal procedures such as those that operate in Northern Ireland, which were mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard. If we are to go down that track, I should like to see the emergence of multi-faith schools rather than single-faith schools only.
  It is important that schools play a full part in their community, that they should not be exclusionary bodies, and that we learn respect and mutual toleration through, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, living with people of different beliefs, not just learning theoretically about those beliefs. If we are to facilitate and endorse faith-based schools, we must at the same time examine ways to ensure that they are neither exclusionary nor fundamentalist in terms of excluding a sense of reasonable disagreement.
  7.6 p.m.
  Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I am not alone in seeing the Bill as something of a curate's egg. Many noble Lords have welcomed its aspirations to reduce the lockstep of the middle school, to open secondary schooling to greater diversity, and, above all, to find ways to reach young people who are so disaffected that they disrupt others' education. In addition, many have welcomed the aspiration to better vocational education, and I ought to welcome all those aims. However, like many others, I query the means by which that is to be achieved, by taking so many extensive Henry VIII powers to the Secretary of State. In particular, I wish to focus on the degree to which the curriculum is legislated on in the Bill. That is prescribed at a time when consultation is being carried out on a Green Paper that raises the very questions the answers to which have been written into the Bill.

  601
  If the proposals in the Bill at present were to go through, they would impose considerable damage on a range of young people. In particular, they would damage that cohort of young people who may aspire to higher education, but for whom that is quite a stretch and a leap.
  Noble Lords will not be surprised that the clauses to which I refer are those that specify the academic content for the curriculum at key stage 4. Clause 81 reduces the core subjects for that stage of education to mathematics, English and science. The study of a foreign language is to be made optional at age 14, with decisions to drop foreign languages to be made at age 13. Foreign languages are not the preserve of an academic elite. In this world, more people are bilingual or multilingual than are monolingual. Languages are, in the way and in the end, much more like vocational subjects than those that should be preserved for an academic elite.
  One might argue that the Bill is neatly structured to make those worries irrelevant, because Clause 82 would allow the Secretary of State to waive or amend Clause 81; therefore, why should we worry about the proposal in Clause 81? Perhaps Clause 81, or better still, Clauses 81 and 82, need not stand part of the Bill at all. However, I speculate; that matter is for later.
  I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the Nuffield Foundation, which funded an inquiry into languages in the UK. We did not fund that because we thought that everything was all right, but because the foundation believed that there were serious problems with language teaching in the UK. The inquiry identified those problems and made substantive proposals for their remedy. However, to be blunt, it did not occur to those who worked on the inquiry, or those who gave information to it, that a Government that were ostensibly committed to education, would take the view that the remedy to current problems with language teaching in the UK was to stop doing it, rather than do it better.
  The foundation joined many others in urging government to set out a language strategy that links different stages of education and meets both employment and cultural needs. A language strategy of course needs to set out objectives, and at that the Green Paper is quite good and so is the Bill. But it also needs to set out stages for implementing those objectives and appropriate methods and provisions for teaching. Nobody imagines that the change can be instantaneous owing to the present lack of language teachers, the consequent lack and growing lack of university language entrants, the consequent cutting and closure of university language departments that is taking place, and the consequent reduced flow of language graduates into the schools. It will take political will to reverse that downward spiral. But I fear that when it comes to languages the Bill and the Green Paper have only a strategy of surrender rather than political will.
  In thinking about the importance of creating a language strategy in what is admittedly a difficult situation, we might take some courage from the
  602
  example of France. France is a country that was not always known for excellent teaching of foreign languages. In fact, they were pretty bad at it, like ourselves. We know a lot more now, thanks in particular to the energetic involvement in our debates of the Ambassador of France, M. Bernard. It was only in 1989 that France set out its language strategy and made a commitment to teach all young people—I stress, "all" young people—two modern foreign languages. During the 1990s in France primary language teaching was introduced, and since 1998 study of two foreign languages has been compulsory for all. French children start one foreign language at the beginning of their primary education, when they are most receptive to this delightful skill, and another at the start of their secondary education. Yet we propose to make universal provision only for three years of learning one language. They order these things better in France!
  The Green Paper gestures towards the introduction of primary language learning, which deserves wholehearted support. But that is not to be universally introduced until 2012. In the meantime, after age 14, young children are to have only a language "entitlement", in the words of the Bill. Schools will be required to offer a foreign language to those who want it. Will a school have done enough if it provides for teaching only of one foreign language? Does that constitute the "entitlement"? Even more ominously the Green Paper suggests that 14 to 16 year-olds should have an entitlement to study what is called rather coyly, "a humanities subject". Will a school have done enough by teaching history but no English literature, or English literature but no history? Apparently these entitlements are the new way of referring to reduced opportunities and provision.
  Pupil choice is an important principle in schooling. But we know that a good education, particularly in the middle school years, cannot be based solely on pupil choice. Many pupils would give up mathematics at age 14 if they were allowed to. But the Bill does not propose that it he allowed. Language learning too needs persistence across time. So much will still not be prescribed, but this reduction of middle school core requirements is to be resisted.
  Allowing young people to give up foreign languages very early might be educationally timid, but perhaps it would not be immediately harmful to all young people, provided that they made a choice in their own best interests. But the incentives will be for young people to choose subjects in which Grade As and Grade A*s at GCSE are more easily earned, and the incentives for schools seeking to improve their position in the famous league tables will be the same. Able and well advised young people in good and ambitious schools will know that dropping out of language learning early will jeopardise their futures. However, equally able but less well advised young people in less secure schools may discover that too late.
  If the proportion of each age group who go on to higher education is to grow, we need an Education Bill that pays attention to those pupils. An unintended consequence of this Bill would be that able young

  603
  people in less good schools will drop out of academically important subjects too young. That may later have serious consequences for their future. I do not think that it is likely that all universities will allow their matriculation requirements to drift downwards with the proposed weakening of the middle school curriculum. So able young people who ill-advisedly opt out of languages may later face formal as well as substantive obstacles when they seek to move on to higher education. Clause 81 of the Bill in particular—but the Green Paper in many paragraphs also—risks damaging able pupils in weaker schools by undermining their preparation for higher education. I believe it will jeopardise any plan to expand university intake.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, it is 15 years almost to the day since I first arrived in your Lordships' House. There is one problem I have never been able to solve; namely, when is it best to speak. It is a great honour to speak at the beginning but then one has nothing to look forward to. It is a great privilege to be the last speaker, as my noble friend Lord Hattersley will be. The trouble with that, of course, is that the only people who will be present are those who have taken part in the debate, all of whom are tired and bored and only there because the Companion says that, as a matter of courtesy, we have to be here for the wind-up. To speak in the middle one suffers the indignity of having one's friends come up and say, "I am terribly sorry I will not be there, but of course I shall read your speech in Hansard tomorrow".
  I have three preliminary remarks to make, one addressed to the Opposition—again to my old friend the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who arrived at the same time as I did and with whom I have debated with great pleasure over a great many years. We can complain about secondary legislation and the powers of the Secretary of State, but there is no possibility that the official Opposition can because they are the ones who started all this. I sat exactly where the noble Baroness is currently sitting when we were dealing with the deregulation Bill. Curiously enough, I used exactly the phrase she did; I referred to it as a "constitutional outrage". I also added, for want of using a cliché, that one day we would be in power, that they would not be and that the chickens would come home to roost because we did not know before then that we could do that sort of thing.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Nobody, but nobody, has ever taken a power to sweep away all legislation in a specific subject, in a specific area—education—past present and future. This is unique in government-taking powers.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, no, it is not. The real point is that chickens come home to roost. The difference is that what they did, we are doing in spades. So we can complain, but the noble Baroness cannot.
  604
  I turn to another of my old friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. Again she made many remarks with which I agree, but I felt that her suggestion that what this Bill does is take us on the path to Nazi Germany is really going too far. My noble friend the Secretary of State will be subject to quite a bit of criticism on this Bill, but to see her as a successor of Joseph Goebbels is not appropriate. I hope that my old friend will withdraw the remark.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I can remind my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that what I was saying was that in post-war Germany it was an important principle to decentralise power.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, there is nothing wrong with decentralising as long as it does not involve professors, which I had to put up with at one point. I am simply saying that a reference to the possibility of another Nazi Germany with this Bill is simply absurd.
  Lastly, addressing another of my old friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, who again made a speech much of which I agreed with, she reminded me as a former HMI that one thing this Bill does not do, but which it should do, is to abolish Ofsted and bring back Her Majesty's Inspectorate and some of the people who both knew about education and, more importantly, cared about it.
  Perhaps I can now get down to business. I have great difficulty with this Bill. I can see all the bits but I cannot see the whole, as other noble Lords have said. What seems to be lacking is anything resembling a philosophy. Perhaps I can therefore trouble your Lordships by enunciating one or two of my philosophical ideas in this area. What I have and what matters to me, first of all, is a commitment to education, and I regard that as something that is valuable in its own right. I do not doubt the economic benefits of education, which again my old teacher, the noble Lord, Lord Moser, referred to: I do not doubt the social benefits. But more important is the simpler, albeit now regarded as old-fashioned, view that it is a good thing to be an educated person.
  No matter how rich one is, if one is not an educated person and one who appreciates the correct things, one's life is poverty-stricken. Nothing disheartened me more than reading in the paper not long ago that one of England's most brilliant young footballers, who will be playing for us in the World Cup in a few months time and who earns millions every year, proudly said that he has never read a whole book from beginning to end. What a dreadful state of affairs we appear to have in our society when we are told such things.
  Secondly, in education—for me at least—equality is of the essence. I do not mean that those of us who lack flair or brilliance or other specific aptitudes can hope to achieve the same as those who are so privileged. I mean that all of us are as valuable in education as everyone else. We are all worth educating. I add that I have been convinced throughout my adult life that all of us ought to be educated in the same schools. I do not resile from that view today and shall never resile from

  605
  it. I believe that the form of our education system should be comprehensive; that there should be a curriculum that all children follow, but within which there would be sufficient flexibility to cope with different speeds of learning and different interests; and that resources should be allocated not to give more to those who already have most but to give more to those who have least.
  Try as I may, I can find nothing in the Bill that sets out the Government's commitment to comprehensive schools and their antipathy to selection. I am sure that the fault is my own. Ever since I have been here I have always had great difficulty in reading legislation. Therefore, I rely on my noble friend the Minister to help me out on this subject when she responds. As most of our children actually attend comprehensive schools—or what are called comprehensive schools—and the Government make a strong claim about rising standards, it is reasonable to infer that comprehensive schools have been a success. So it is also reasonable to expect that comprehensive schools ought to be reinforced in a piece of Labour Party legislation and not undermined by all the fancy new forms to which the Bill refers, the need for which has never been established.
  I turn to the curriculum. I believe that I follow what the Bill says in that respect—largely, it seems sensible. However, I am rather lost on what it says on the subject of languages. I am also a little lost as regards history. It looks as if you can also drop history at the age of 14, but perhaps my noble friend the Minister can confirm that in her response. It also looks as if the role of languages will be downgraded; indeed, there has been more information on this in newspaper reports than appears in the Bill. However, we have already heard useful comments on that subject today.
  I am absolutely certain that we need to reconsider new ways of acquiring foreign language skills. The traditional method that most of us experienced in school—the class of pupils sitting at desks with the teacher standing in front—failed for most of us. Whatever else we say, there must be better way of teaching the subject. Indeed, we know that there is. I know from personal experience that the use of tapes and videos, and being forced to express myself in the foreign language, is the way to do it. If that is what the Government propose, I totally support them.
  I am doubtful about two matters. The first, which worries me, is that this seems to imply that such teaching would not be available in schools from now on. Secondly, following the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, it seems that it will not be provided for a large number of children. There is a great problem with the curriculum: if you are to introduce new methods, you have to drop some old ones. The laws of arithmetic still hold. In the case of foreign languages, it might make sense if those who demonstrate skill in, say, French could drop the subject, but we all know what will happen. It is precisely those who do not demonstrate such skill who will drop the subject. It seems to me that we ought to reflect upon that possibility. I wonder whether that is the way forward.
  606
  However, I believe that the Government are trying to go in the right direction as regards the curriculum. I also think that the same applies to vocational skills, though I entirely accept that we must be careful how we approach the matter. When I was at school the cleverest boys all wanted to be doctors. That is what you did if you were clever in east London. But in order to be doctors they had to be adept at dissecting frogs. One of the reasons that I did not become a doctor was that I could not even face the thought of a frog, let alone face the prospect of dissecting one. If people who dissect frogs are regarded as intellectuals, I do not understand why those who have the ability to strip down a car engine or rebuild a computer are not held in exactly the same esteem.
  As various speakers said, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, if people have such vocational skills they still require the appropriate fundamental engineering and physical principles at the same time; in other words, doing it but not knowing why is not satisfactory in education. That is a vitally important point.
  I am faced with my usual problem. I have written down many points to raise, which following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, noble Lords will hear in Committee rather than tonight. However, I feel obliged to say a few words about what are called "faith schools". I regard the expression as neither grammatically nor epistemologically satisfactory. When we debate the subject in more detail we shall look for a more appropriate expression. I have said nothing about them substantively; and, indeed, I have said nothing about the other phenomena that are beginning to litter the education field.
  I should like to make a few remarks on the subject tonight while saving my heavy artillery for later. First, I simply see no serious argument—I have heard none today—in favour of expanding the number and range of such schools. We have been told that there are Christian schools and a few Jewish schools, from which we are told we must infer the need to use public money to provide Sikh, Muslim, Greek Orthodox and goodness knows what other schools. We may have to do it. However, it does not follow logically from the fact that we have some schools of that sort that we must have more of them, as well as different ones. That case needs to be made in some other way.
  We have also been told that parents want such schools. I do not wish to be cynical, but what I find astonishing is the number of parents who suddenly discover that they are truly religious in order to get their children into schools that do not let in rough boys, blacks or those sorts of people. Again we shall look into the matter at a later stage. There is a good deal of evidence to consider, both on the social nature of these schools and on why parents choose them—
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I realise that the noble Lord is making his case in a very measured way, but I believe that he should reflect further upon the remark that he just made about how admission into Church schools would be sought because they would not, for example, permit the admittance of blacks. If

  607
  the noble Lord thinks about it, he will realise that many Church schools were built in order to accommodate immigrants. He will find that large numbers of children in Church schools come from many racially diverse backgrounds.
  Lord Peston: Yes, my Lords; they certainly do. However, I am questioning the attitude of parents. I should add that the Church has nothing to apologise for in terms of the history of education in this country. I have forgotten which speaker made the point, but if we are worried about who was involved in education some 100 or 150 years ago, there is little doubt that the Church of England has to apologise to no one for the contribution that it has made. I am not attacking the Church on the matter. However, I will be attacking religion on a completely different basis when we meet again in Committee. I am not attacking the Church: I am talking about what it is that parents are selecting.
  It just happens that the best argument that I have heard for the extension of faith schools came from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and was repeated by my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sheppard. It appears that we are to have these restrictively constructive schools. My right honourable friend said—and I believe that my noble friend repeated the argument—that if we are to have them, we would be better off having them within the maintained system rather than in the private sector. That at least seems to be an argument worth reflecting upon, though I have not got much further with it. If my noble friend the Minister takes that view, she ought to generalise it completely to the whole of the private sector and ask why we do not bring in the latter in all its different forms in the same way.
  As I said, I shall reserve most of my remarks on this hotchpotch of,
  "city technology colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts … city academies",
  and so on. I am not in the least surprised that noble Lords opposite are in favour of such innovations; indeed, they are all Tory phenomena. I cannot see any connection between them and the Labour Party.
  I shall conclude my remarks. I am sorry that I have spoken for 14 minutes, but I have two urgent questions for my noble friend the Minister. One is whether she has seen the case of the Cooper's Company School, which appears to use interviewing techniques to achieve academic and social selection in practice. I read her department's statement on the matter and I was not convinced by it. However, the Minister could easily convince me.
  More serious is the story that appeared in the Guardian on Saturday about the school in Gateshead that has been taken over by a group of creationists. I stand second to none in my support for freedom of thought and expression, however idiotic it is. The people in this case can believe anything that they like, but I say in terms that such people are not fit to be allowed within a million miles of our schools or the education of our children. What will the department
  608
  do about that? Does it have the power to do anything about it? If not, should it not reflect on such matters? Does not the Minister see that, if she and my right honourable friend go down the proposed path, those chickens—to return to today's cliché—will definitely come home to roost?
  7.31 p.m.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, after that marvellous description from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, of how to do one's own warm-up and then pick a fight on one's own ground, even if it does not appear in the Bill, I shall try to be as brief as I can.
  Most of my comments are not inspired directly by the Bill either; they are inspired by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. I felt, with that Act, that I might be able to excuse myself from the education debate for the foreseeable future, at least. I thought that we had covered most of the relevant things. There was something in the legislation to cover everything. Now, we have a Bill that says that we can ignore parts of it, in the context of primary education. So, we have a problem: is it the case that certain parts of the Bill do not apply? I cannot find them. If we are handing out awards for lack of ability to read Bills, I may even be ahead of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. However, I cannot find it in the Bill and nor can any of the people who have been advising me. If that is not taken into account, we have wasted a great deal of our time.
  The Minister is aware of the issue. She was in at the last stage of that process. She looks fairly comfortable, so I hope that we will get some assurances. However, if we suddenly say that we have something here that makes it possible to suspend activities for 20 per cent of the school population—20 per cent of the adult population, as we always forget, when we discuss education—generally in the schools in which those people will get the best support, there is something fundamentally wrong with the thinking behind the Bill and with the department. It is removing people. It is a fundamental error that that has not been made clearer. I give the Minister every opportunity to correct me and show me what I have missed. If I have missed it, so have many others.
  If it is not part of what is going on, there is something wrong with the whole process of education. It means that we cannot deal with any problem without someone in the education system saying that it is inconvenient for us to deal with our social responsibilities, so we shall ignore them. If that applies to the whole system of government—not only education—it is something that should not be happening, especially when it is done in a spirit of innovation, creativity and raising standards. There is something of an intellectual obscenity there.
  I hope that the Minister will show me that it is not happening and say whether the Bill says that such things can be done when the regulations come into force. If we come around to the idea that everybody else should have a go at secondary legislation, I will sing, rather badly, a song that has already been gone

  609
  through several times. However, there are a couple of issues. First, where does secondary legislation fit into our process and should we be given some warning about it? Secondly, can we simply ignore a fundamental part of the Government's thinking because it is inconvenient?
  I hope that I will get some answers. If not, I will take up a lot of the Minister's time in Committee.
  7.35 p.m.
  Lord Rix: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, bemoaned the fact that he had hit the tea-break. I can only bemoan the fact that I seem to have hi t the dinner hour.
  Having listened to four and a half hours of debate, I have heard a great deal of discussion of faith schools. I realise what a terribly mixed-up childhood I must have had. My prep school in Hornsea in Yorkshire was a Church of England school and my best friend was a Primitive Methodist. I was then sent to Bootham School in York, which is a Quaker school, where my best friend was of the Jewish faith. At the outset of the war, we were evacuated to Ampleforth, which, as noble Lords will know, is a Roman Catholic school. There I made no friends at all. The Roman Catholics made me extremely jealous: after they had been to Mass they could go out and play cricket on Sundays, whereas those of us who were members at that time of the Society of Friends could only stay inside and write letters. Such are my thoughts on faith schools from my experiences of many years ago.
  I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Bill and the thinking that lies behind it. As president of Mencap, however, I have, on behalf of the children with disabilities for whom Mencap speaks and also the wider group of children with special educational needs, concerns about the possible unintended consequences of the Bill. The doubts cast on the proposed overarching powers of the Secretary of State by that triumvirate of noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch, Lady Perry of Southwark and Lady Sharp of Guildford, backed by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, induced a quick bout of atrial fibrillation. However, I recovered quickly, and I can comment only that, as the shelf of educational law continues to fill, we must watch carefully for the potential of new provisions for undermining the equal access and equal value provisions that we have secured so very recently.
  Last year the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act fulfilled many of our ambitions for children with special needs. The emphasis was on education in mainstream settings, while carefully preserving the special school option for children for whom it is in the shorter or longer term the best option. The combination of education and disability rights legislation gave grounds for optimism that all children would get fair access to good and appropriate education across the range of mainstream and special schools.
  If we are to move further away from the broad concept of mainstream schools, through specialism and flexibility, we must look closely at the small print
  610
  to see what losses might offset the gains. The right to education in a mainstream school will be rather shallow if large numbers of schools cease to be mainstream. The Education Bill, according to what the Secretary of State in another place said at Second Reading, is,
  "intended to build on the excellent work that schools, governing bodies and all those who serve our children have achieved in the past four years in taking forward the standards agenda".— [Official Report, Commons, 4/12/01; col. 190.]
  None of us would decry standards in education. My definition of standards would be as follows: a curriculum; teaching skills and resources; teaching materials; and measures of achievement that enable every child, however severe their disability, to achieve their potential and enjoy their childhood.
  We have only one childhood, although Master Shakespeare would have it otherwise. They should be golden years, if not necessarily the best of our lives. I hope that we have left behind any notion that standards are only a matter of academic success, leading to economic prosperity. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is in his place. I am sure that he will agree with me that for many of our severely disabled children eye contact with the teacher and the exchange of understanding smiles are success enough.
  Since we cannot decry standards, we cannot decry innovation, diversity and schools pooling their resources in federations where they so wish. All those feature of the Bill have something to commend them. However, to put it bluntly, my concern is that those spearheading innovations and diversification and those creating new federations may see catering for special needs as someone else's problem and a distraction from their main task and that the flexibility they enjoy will let them get away with this.
  Policy in the field of education is an emotive and challenging subject, as no doubt the debate will show. I hope to secure some measure of agreement on special needs by deliberately not taking sides on selection and specialist schools and by not starting from the perspective that there is no place for special schools. Dogma needs to allow space for reason and eventually for evidence. In education, as in most areas of policy, one size does not fit all—particularly for children with complex needs.
  The specialist school programme is central to the policy of quality through diversity. In 1999, 11 per cent of all state secondary schools—some 395 schools—were designated as specialist schools. The Government have set a target of 50 per cent of all secondary schoolchildren being educated in specialist schools by the year 2005. Up to 10 per cent of admissions to those schools can be selected on the basis of ability or the rather more speculative "aptitude".
  The Bill provides a framework for specialist schools and encouragement for other schools to join their ranks. While my main concern is that becoming specialist should not be a pretext for becoming exclusive of special needs, I want to acknowledge that for some children with special needs a school's specialism may actually be an attraction.

  611
  Two schools in Birmingham, a mainstream and a special school, have jointly earned specialist status as an arts college. They are a model of good practice, where pupils with special needs and non-disabled children have fully integrated sessions and performances. That success in combining specialism and inclusion shows what is possible. It also shows what we should be trying to achieve if we believe in the best for all children and not the best just for some children. Unfortunately, there is evidence that we need to try harder.
  Research both from Ofsted and from Sheffield Hallam University indicates that specialist schools are not taking their fair share of pupils with special educational needs. I am not aware of any evidence that they are recruiting support staff to help them work with children who need support in their specialist subjects. Given the doubt that this research casts on selective admissions policies and practices, I would welcome an assurance of better things from the Minister.
  Specifically, I would welcome the assurances that children with special educational needs will not be consigned to the non-specialist, less favoured schools, and that schools applying for specialist status will have to demonstrate high SEN standards and commit themselves to improving access and curriculum support for children with special needs.
  Across social policy there is a difficult balance to be struck between freedom to innovate on the one hand and caution on the other. I have said that I do not want to stifle innovation; to stifle innovation is to lose possibility. We can combine innovation and caution if we do something about what seem to be largely unaccountable admissions processes and make them more accountable. Writing in attention to special needs as a condition brings in that conditionality.
  The concept of federation is an interesting one and no doubt we shall explore the detail at some length in Committee. At this stage my feeling is that federation offers an interesting possibility for alliances, for which I am sure it was not primarily intended. Federation could mean effective alliances between mainstream, specialist and special schools. However, as has been well said, when the elephant dances with the chickens the partnership can be a little unequal. There are real grounds for concern that that sort of federation might be bought at a price—that price being the loss of dedicated special needs governors currently valued by special schools. Beyond that, there is the risk of loss of a separate special needs head teacher. That combined loss would reduce the status of special needs work and diminish SEN expertise.
  My request is that the special needs implications of federation should be carefully thought through, clearly expressed and specifically consulted on locally before decisions are taken. Where federation goes forward, there should be a requirement to have dedicated special needs expertise at both governor and leadership level. That will help ensure that special needs work is not reduced to a minor corner of a federation which is looking in other directions.
  612
  I turn to the other collective innovation—the admissions forums which local education authorities are required to set up. In my younger days, in that extraordinary mixed-up education of mine, it would have been "fora", but let that be. Collective responsibility for regulating the admissions process makes sense. However, we also need to make sense of the relationship between the new forums and the existing requirement to monitor admissions of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.
  I hope that the Minister may be able to clarify what will be the impact of regulations on forum responsibilities for special needs policies. It is essential that when schools are working corporately, as well as when they are working separately, they should be helping to develop policies which help ensure the best possible appropriate education for children with special educational needs.
  In conclusion, I want to underline my concern for a strategic approach to combining the potentially good things in the Bill with the quite definitely good things already secured through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act. A conflict is not inevitable. A modest degree of specialist selection—accountable, fair and regulated—is compatible with the inclusion of children with special educational needs. However, selective schools creaming off children with obvious talents and no obvious special needs is not so compatible.
  We have come a long way since the days before the 1970 Education Act which gave all children a place in our education system and filled the gap left by the 1944 Act. In 1981 and 1993 and in last year's Act we moved further forward. I do not want to see us sliding back, as there is always a risk of so doing when we legislate for children in general and for excellence in particular areas, without specific regard to special educational needs and disability.
  I look forward to the Minister's response and to the assurance that the Bill will offer opportunities and not threats for children with special needs. As long ago as the 17th century Francis Bacon commented that:
  "a wise man will make more opportunities than he finds".
  I am certain that in the 21st century, a wise noble Baroness will do no less.
  7.48 p.m.
  Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lady Blatch and other noble Lords have already referred to the matter of scrutiny. As I consider it of the utmost importance, I hope noble Lords will forgive its repetition. My point is this. As each Bill reaches your Lordships' House from another place, a most worrying feature is becoming more and more prevalent: the scant scrutiny that it has had.
  Amendments have been submitted and rejected without debate. It appears that business managers in another place seem more enthusiastic in getting Bills completed than in allowing Members to perform their legitimate role. Whole sections are not debated at all through the use of the "knife", as it is called, or by use of the guillotine. Thank goodness we are able to do our

  613
  duty and, in so doing, can try to improve a Bill so that it leaves this House in a better and more acceptable form.
  This Education Bill sadly comes into the category of needing extreme care. I believe that it requires very detailed consideration as many of the proposed measures would make it a Bill to end all Education Bills. I say that because it would transfer power to the Secretary of State to do practically anything he or she wished through secondary legislation. That must be bad for democracy as well as, in this case, being bad for the children it is meant to serve.
  It is not possible to refer to every issue, so I intend to concentrate on those that give me the most anxiety. The Bill professes to decentralise and give more independence to schools, but in fact the opposite is the case. I want to see real freedom given to head teachers and schools. So many organisations, including the DfES, are like Big Brother breathing down the necks of head teachers. The bureaucratic burden they impose has become intolerable and teachers are voting with their feet and leaving the profession. It is not surprising that the National Association of Head Teachers has stated that:
  "Greater autonomy for successful schools is all spin and no substance".
  Where have we heard that before? The association went on to say that,
  "the idea that head teachers have to prove to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State is highly prescriptive and over bureaucratic. As far as the NAHT is concerned all schools other than those in special measures or serious weakness should be self-managed".
  I am sure that all noble Lords want to see successful schools that are enthusiastic and innovative. However, should we not only want them to be so, but expect that standard to be the norm? Being a successful school in government terms will qualify a school to be allowed to practise self management, but I should like to see a system in which only weak and failing schools would be denied that facility.
  Teacher shortages are frighteningly high, with around 5,000 vacancies. In some areas the number has doubled since last year. One has only to look at the Times Educational Supplement to see how grave is the problem faced by schools. The addition of another tier of bureaucracy with the imposition of school forums and admission forums will only exacerbate the situation.
  For myself, one of the most important and worrying issues is the future of sixth forms. My experience as a governor of an independent school has taught me the significant value of a sixth form in staff recruitment terms. Teachers of high calibre relish the extra challenge of more advanced work with pupils preparing for university. I have always believed that senior pupils over 16 years old contribute enormously to the school in their final two years. They become role models for the younger ones and as they take on responsibilities in the school, they also become good ambassadors for the school. I believe that it would be criminal to take measures to reduce the number of
  614
  those precious places. My view is that exactly the opposite should apply, with every encouragement given to heads who expand their sixth forms.
  I turn now to what I consider to be a matter of vital importance and urgency and in consequence to flag up our intention to table amendments in Committee to strengthen the law in respect of child protection.
  I am sure that many noble Lords are aware of the haunting and horrifying case of Lauren Wright, whose stepmother and father were convicted of her manslaughter and wilful neglect last October. Lauren, aged six, attended her two-teacher primary school for 16 months before she died. Despite the fact that she lost four stone in weight during that time, and at her death weighed only two stone, and that she regularly appeared with bruising, her tragic plight was not reported to the relevant local authorities either by the head or the assistant teacher. It is difficult to believe that such brutality could be seen and not acted on.
  The issues raised by the case are to be presented to the Victoria Climbié inquiry by an all-party group of Norfolk MPs. One of the proposals in their submission will be some changes in the law. The MPs have accepted suggestions from the Norfolk director of education who, rightly concerned about the implications of the case for the management of his LEA, has made two proposals.
  The first is that DfES Circular 10/95, which requires schools to have a designated teacher for child protection issues—Lauren's school did not—should be strengthened so that there is a specific requirement for head teachers and governing bodies to have regard to it. The second is that regulations dealing with head teacher appraisal should give the LEA a locus in regard to the advice given to governing bodies so far as child protection is concerned. Currently no day-to-day managerial link is in place between LEAs and head teachers, which is acceptable given the increasing powers of self determination in schools, but which gives LEAs no disciplinary or other powers in this highly sensitive and often multi-disciplinary area.
  My right honourable friend Mrs Gillian Shephard has been invited to attend the Climbié inquiry to put these and other points on behalf of the all-party group of Norfolk MPs. I know that she has already approached officials in the DIES who are working on the Bill, and that she has also written to the Secretary of State.
  In conclusion, I believe that this important Bill fails to tackle the genuine problems throughout our schools today. It tinkers around the periphery and, at the end of the day, I just cannot see that there will be any improvements. Teacher shortages and a very real crisis of discipline are catastrophic for the education of our children. Local people and parents appear to be locked out of decision making in the future, while in their place added numbers of unelected placemen will be given unfettered powers. There is therefore much serious debate to be had in the later stages of the Bill as it proceeds through this House. I believe that it is our duty to scrutinise all the issues and I look forward to working with the Minister in the weeks ahead.
  7.56 p.m.
  Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it does not surprise me in the least that this is a Bill to which noble Lords have wished to contribute their considerable expertise. What we have all heard so far augurs well for a continuing lively debate in the future. I am not certain that I envy the noble Baroness on the Government Front Bench who has to sum up the debate, but having listened to her introduction, I am more than confident that her remarks will be professional, expert and enthusiastic.
  I should like to start by saying that my own contribution will be much more modest. I am very much an amateur, one who over the years has become involved on the fringes of education in a number of different capacities: as a parent, a care committee worker, a governor and manager, a co-opted member of the ILEA and a pre-school playgroup enthusiast.
  I should also like to say how refreshing it is to see educationalists and most, but not quite all, politicians concentrating on trying to deliver what is really important; that is, quality in education, education for today's changing needs—they are changing rapidly—and, above all, education that the individual young person recognises as necessary for him or her and relevant to their future role. Clearly noble Lords are not wholly in agreement on all aspects of the Bill, but gone for good, I certainly hope, are those ghastly ideological battles over comprehensive versus selective education. The guiding principle is, as surely it always should have been, parental and, increasingly, individual pupil choice.
  It was not all that long ago that educational opportunities were mainly for boys, although not of course for all boys. The Victorians thought that education was far too stressful for girls, so they were among the first group of disadvantaged. One hundred years later, the 1944 Butler Act—I was glad to hear it referred to by at least two noble Lords, because it is referred to in rather disparaging terms in the Green Paper—granted free education for all. That was a major step for both sexes, not least because, well ahead of other organisations, it repealed the requirement for female teachers—not male teachers—to resign on marriage. Where would the teacher shortage be today if that rule had not been abolished?
  However, I have to say that it was the 1972 Act which provided the real breakthrough for the 50 per cent of our population that is female. By raising the school leaving age to 16, girls who would have previously left school at the earliest possible moment stayed on long enough to take national examinations and began to be taken seriously in employment.
  I mention this because, among the many other areas considered in the Bill, the White and Green Papers and the Bill itself are quite rightly concerned, for all our sakes—and above all for our future competitiveness—to tackle the unequal educational attainment, commensurate with their abilities, of those from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is on this issue that I wish to concentrate.
  616
  This has been a problem for at least as long as I have been alive. Indeed, I remember the famous speech by Keith Joseph in 1974 in which he made us all focus on the "cycle of deprivation". It was howled down, but it was absolutely right.
  Today's figures, quoted in the Green Paper, are depressing but instructive. Fewer than 20 per cent of young people from the lower socio-economic groups go to university; 70 per cent from the highest. Only 13 per cent of the same group achieve two A-levels, or equivalent, at 18. So the earlier in a child's schooling potential problems are spotted and resources mobilised the better. Only last week, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out how much cheaper and more humane it is to spend £5,000 or £6,000 on a child at that stage rather than £25,000 a year when they reach prison.
  For me, the most depressing aspect of my time as a juvenile court magistrate in London was to see the first time a child or young person was brought to court for a criminal offence. All too often—I would say 99 times out of 100—a totally unacceptable record of truancy had by then been established which was almost impossible to break. Alongside that would be the problem of disruptive behaviour in school. Often the two problems go together because, as teachers will privately admit, they are often quite thankful when the pupil does not turn up and make teaching impossible and influence other children's behaviour.
  Here I rather agree with the points made, perhaps rather obliquely, by the noble Lord, Lord Moser, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on where the money should be spent. Should it really be given to schools that are doing well, doing better, or should it be placed where the job of teaching is double the job it might be in such schools?
  One of the most vivid lessons I learnt was as a care committee worker for ILEA in the East End. The head of the brand new Stepney Green comprehensive gave a talk on her role as the head. She was asked how she spent her time. "A very large part", she said, "with the first year, getting to know the 25 per cent or so who have problems. By the end of the first year I've reduced that to 10 per cent, and they are with me for their whole school career". "How on earth can a head possibly justify spending that amount of time?", she was asked. "Easily", she replied. "If I did not do that then the 25 per cent would swiftly become 30 per cent, 40 per cent, and eventually take over the whole ethos of the school".
  So, for the sake of the community as well as the individual, exclusion and truancy have to be tackled. We know that the figures in some areas are appalling, so the overall figures may look fairly bland. These same, often very bright, youngsters' energy has to be channelled into far more productive outlets and, equally early, work begun with their families within the community.
  Statistics show, alas, that it does not help a child educationally to have been in care. The education attainments of such children are among the lowest.

  617
  I shall quote only one more horrendous statistic—that is, that 40 per cent of young prisoners have been in care. It is clear that a different approach is urgent.
  There are, of course, real concerns about some aspects of the Bill. A number of these concerns have been referred to already by noble Lords and I shall not go into them again. There is a concern about teacher overload and, with a 20 per cent drop-out rate within the training and first year of teaching period, it is a crucial issue.
  I have some concern about governing bodies. For many years now I have watched the growing importance of their expanded role. I say "expanded" because at the time when my noble and learned kinsman Lord Howe of Aberavon and I joined the initiative of Tyrrell Burgess and Anne Corbett as founders of NAGM, the National Association of Governors and Managers, governors then had a fairly minimal role and little influence. Now, of course, it is different. NAGM now represents a great many governors and managers and plays a key role in monitoring what goes on.
  Surveys undertaken over the past four years reveal that NAGM members, too, are showing increasing signs of overload, even though they enjoy and are very committed to the work that they do. There is a belief that they are being asked to take on inappropriate responsibilities and are being swamped with paperwork and bureaucracy. On the other hand, there is a fear that some of their most valued and useful functions may be reduced or even taken away. I have in mind their crucial role in connection with appointments, above all, of senior staff. I hope that the Minister will give firm reassurances on these points.
  But, that said, I am rather attracted by the flexible plans for educating 14 to 19 year-olds—although not in regard to language, which I think is entirely wrong. But I shall leave that aside for the moment. The determination to use today's incredible technology, combined with younger people's more critical approach 10 the choices before them, to help create personalised packages—spread over time between schools, FE colleges and local businesses—for the most deprived as well as the brightest pupils is admirable. The delivery side will be difficult.
  The important decision to introduce citizenship from September is long overdue. We have to do much more to educate people in tolerance and respect for other people, other races, other faiths, other ages and even other interests. That ties in with what many noble Lords have mentioned already about faith schools, to which I shall certainly come back on another day.
  Equally, we have to teach the young from an early age about how important for the individual is a democratic system of government, which will survive only if each one of us plays our part in supporting it. We need, of course, to know about our rights as citizens, but even more important are our responsibilities.
  It has been good to see that many schools now involve pupils in working for those in need within their own communities. It is also true of many universities.
  618
  For example, LSE students—I declare an interest as a governor—go to schools to encourage bright pupils with no background in higher education to raise their sights. But, equally, every student and every pupil could and should experience this kind of voluntary action throughout their educational career, not only for the benefit of the community but for their own benefit.
  I shall stop there because other noble Lords wish to speak and everyone wishes to end fairly rapidly.
  8.9 p.m.
  Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I must declare two interests. The first is that I am a trustee of the Learning Foundation, the remit of which is to ensure that every child in this country has his own portable computing device. The second interest is that I am chairman of a company engaged in the financing of computer equipment to schools and institutes of higher education.
  I do not want to be over dramatic about this, but, to me, the Bill has a certain 20th-century flavour about it. It is good stuff, of course, and long overdue, but I am aghast that it lacks even a passing reference to the technological onslaught that is about to change education for ever.
  I do not know how many words there are in the Education Bill. I would hazard a guess at around 100,000. I scoured the document for three specific words which were important to me, and which would have given me some hope: "IT", "computer" and "laptop". It will come as no surprise that I did not find one. I did the same with the Explanatory Notes, and with the briefing document put out by the Department for Education and Skills. The results were the same. It is all a tad disappointing. Yet my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that IT will do for education what penicillin did for medicine and what the combustion engine did for transport. She puts it well. So why is IT omitted from the Bill?
  I want to paint a picture of how the classroom of the not-too-distant future will look. Before doing so, perhaps I may correct a common misapprehension. The computer in the classroom is not a replacement of the teacher; nor does the idea seek to diminish teaching skills. We see information technology as a complementary tool, capable of dramatically boosting the effectiveness of our hard-working teaching professionals. In short, used well, the computer ought to make teachers' lives much more productive and mean that their pupils are better taught.
  By and large, today's classroom has changed very little since Victorian times. The child sits facing the teacher. In general, he or she learns a subject at the same speed as his or her peers, and at the same level of complexity. Usually, parents are not engaged in the learning process and too often they are actively discouraged from participating. Teaching media today are very much what they were 100 years ago: chalk, textbooks, blackboards and exercise books—hardly the stuff of the 21st century.

  619
  A frightening percentage of boys are disengaged from school and a surprisingly high proportion of children do not attend school at all. That may be due to behavioural problems, personal illness or family illness; or it may even be because they are bullied at school or abused at home. The IT revolution will help those children to become re-engaged.
  The schoolroom of the future will be different. All children will have a laptop which will be connected to the school's own network through wireless. There will be no cables and no physical restriction where the child works within the school.
  The same network will be available from home on the Internet. That means that a child will be able to access the curriculum, continue his homework, check his marks, and go over what he may not have fully grasped at school.
  Blackboards will become whiteboards and will be interactive. The teacher will not use chalk but a pointer, or even his own index finger, and very soon just his voice, in order to write, to cut and paste, to colour and to design. Such intelligent whiteboards will appear on the student's screen whether he is in the classroom or 500 miles away.
  In rural areas, the secondary school child will not have to journey to school every day, but will be able to "hot desk" in a primary school or community centre, under supervision but remote from his school. In schools which are not able to provide a wide curriculum, video-conferencing will provide an effective alternative. The teacher's own computer will enable him to monitor how each child is doing on a constant real-time basis.
  Education content has lagged behind some of the very real IT developments that are happening up and down the country, but now dramatic progress is at hand. The BBC, which has been a leader in distance learning, is close to launching the entire curriculum online. This development will be amazing in its effect. Other companies and institutions are also doing some brilliant work. We in Britain are very good at producing this type of content. Once the equipment is installed and broadband is connected, and once the content has matured, e-learning will really take off. Today, we are on the cusp, and we can expect very rapid change.
  Having painted one picture (of the classroom of the future), I should now like to paint another, and that is of the school leaver of the future. Every child will be, and will need to be, computer literate. That does not mean that they will have learnt about IT as they might learn about history, but that they are familiar with using IT for their lessons and in their lives both at school and at home. By 2010, most jobs will require IT knowledge. Jobs which today are still based on craft skills, very soon will require an in-depth knowledge of IT.
  Perhaps I may give just one example. Today, expensive, top-of-the-range cars have more computer processing capability than was on board the "Apollo" spaceship that landed on the moon. Indeed, it is no
  620
  exaggeration to say that some modern cars require formidable IT skills. They have GPS navigation, voice-activated phone connections, SMS texting and will soon provide for speech-recognised e-mails—and that is even before the engine is turned on. In consequence, it is no longer acceptable for car mechanics just to be handy with a spanner. Today, and certainly tomorrow, they will need to have in-depth knowledge of automotive IT systems. Lawyers, doctors, soldiers and—yes, my Lords—even parliamentarians are going to need advanced IT skills. These skills are becoming the key to living and working in the new century—and school is the place where they need to be taught.
  To most children, computers are fun. The computer-games generation is used to screen-based interaction. It is an exciting and interesting medium to learn and it reduces boredom.
  So I ask your Lordships to imagine this. Difficult children, or children with domestic problems, or health problems, will soon be able to learn anywhere, at any time, and at their own pace. Children who are unable to come to school for a variety of reasons will now have the freedom to keep up with their studies at home or in a hospital.
  We talk endlessly about the knowledge-based economy. We hear politicians telling us till they are blue in the face that Britain in the 21st century needs modern skills if we are to compete in this new world. We know that the new technologies are the key to our future success. But so often we forget what is happening out there in the real world.
  What I should like to have seen in the Bill is a statement of the vision of e-learning and a requirement for every child eventually to have his or her own portable computing device. I should like to have seen that enshrined in legislation. There are, I believe, 9 million schoolchildren in this country. I am told that in English schools there are approximately 100,000 laptops. That makes it about a 1 per cent penetration. It is clear that we still have a long way to go.
  8.17 p.m.
  The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I listened with interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. He may be aware of the Care Zone project run by the Who Cares? Trust, an innovative Internet access for looked-after children, with high levels of security.
  I warmly welcome the clear and emphatic commitment to inclusion given by the Minister in her opening remarks. I noted that my noble friend Lord Dearing gave the Bill a warm reception, and he is the expert in this area.
  However, I am very concerned that the guidance on exclusions has been all but removed from this Bill. After a near quadrupling of exclusions in the 1990s, the report by the Social Exclusion Unit on truancy and exclusion published in May 1998 recommended:
  "Clearer guidance, with legal force, to cut down on inappropriate exclusions".

  621
  Such guidance was introduced in the previous Education Bill, and exclusions have since fallen by close to a third.
  I am particularly concerned about what might be taken to be a weakening of resolve towards looked-after children. They are 10 times more likely to be excluded than other children. The outcomes for these children have been unacceptable. They grow up to represent about a third of rough sleepers and 32 per cent of male young offenders. The prison population stands at an all-time high, of approximately 70,000. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to this. It is second in size, in relation to population, only to that of Portugal in the European Union. Without the socialisation offered by mainstream education, without the benefit of educational qualifications, a care leaver is likely to be nigh unemployable, illiterate and qualified only for the prison system. Yet only 5 per cent of children enter care after any involvement with the criminal justice system. On the continent they do far better. In Germany, 50 per cent achieve the Abitur, which is the German equivalent of A-levels.
  An important finding of the Social Exclusion Unit report on teenage pregnancies was that early pregnancy was closely related to a lack of hope for the future. Without education and the prospect of employment, there is little motive to postpone beginning a family. This may be one important factor in the sad fact that an exceptionally high rate of teenage pregnancy is experienced by children in care and those leaving care.
  Exclusion from education puts tremendous pressure on foster and residential placements for looked-after children. There is a far greater risk that a placement may break down. If such children have experienced neglect or other abuse in the past, this is a retraumatisation. They experience the rejection that they received from their parents once again. Anyone involved in the field knows how damaging repeated breakdown of placements is and how regrettably common their collapse is.
  Some years ago I assisted in workshops for children who had been excluded from mainstream schooling for unacceptable behaviour. Nothing that I have done before or since has been as stressful. There are increasing numbers of children with conduct disorders. Children are increasingly growing up with a father who is largely absent in their early years. That can lead to children who are particularly challenging, especially if the mother is struggling with poverty, ill health or isolation. For some children, mainstream education is inappropriate. There need to be effective assessments of children to ensure that they are capable of regular schools. Schools need to be resourced so that children with particular needs are noticed early, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, requested, and that those needs are met before the child becomes too powerful and disruptive to staff and to fellow pupils.
  The second key recommendation of the Social Exclusion Unit report on truancy and exclusion is that by 2002 all excluded pupils should receive a full-time education. Even if there were now adequate numbers
  622
  of places in pupil referral units of high quality to receive increased numbers of excluded pupils, an increase in inappropriate exclusions would still be a seriously retrograde step. If a child can cope, or can be helped to cope, mainstream education is by far the best option. Integration is greatly to be desired for that child, as long as he does not disrupt the education of other children. Furthermore, there are doubts that there will be sufficient pupil referral unit places. Other provision is patchy.
  I know from my current experience with children and young people how easy it is to turn away from the challenging ones, unwittingly. I know that I tend to spend my time with the better educated children with a background more similar to my own. How many head teachers have, for instance, experienced life in the care system or are of Afro-Caribbean origin? I strongly suspect—and anecdotal evidence supports this—that a few head teachers, perhaps unknowingly, have little time for such alien and sometimes problematic children. Perhaps I am giving my own faults to others.
  More importantly, there is the ever-increasing pressure on schools for better academic results and success in academic league tables. Many teachers recognise that that affects exclusions. That factor is heightened by the Bill. It is all too easy to envisage children being excluded inappropriately or failing to be admitted, their parents being encouraged to withdraw them or the children being made to feel unwelcome because of their threat to the school's examination record.
  The Government have already achieved a great deal. The 2001 Ofsted study, Raising Achievement of Children in Public Care, states:
  "The raising of awareness of the needs of children in foster care or children's homes has led to the development of strategies to avoid confrontation and subsequent exclusion in all but the most extreme cases. This has resulted in an overall reduction of exclusions by up to 70 per cent in some areas, and this is reflected in the retention in school of children in care who may well otherwise have been excluded".
  I am concerned that the removal of most of the guidance on exclusions from primary legislation may send the wrong signal to schools. A loosening of the legislative framework may be perceived as an easing of the commitment to retain challenging children in mainstream schools, provided they do not disrupt the learning of others. I look to the Minister for an assurance that that will not happen and that the process of exclusion will remain fair to all, rigorous and allowing proper appeal.
  8.26 p.m.
  Lord Hattersley: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Peston set out the advantages and disadvantages of speaking at different times of the day, he did not say that speaking very late in the day enables one to cannibalise other people's good points and, perhaps more importantly, to avoid their errors. I shall not say under which heading it comes, but I do not propose to say how enthusiastic I am for improving educational standards. I take it for granted that that unites us all. The argument concerns how best that should be

  623
  done—whether by a system of secondary education that aims to meet the needs of all our school students, or by a system of secondary education that is geared to the needs of a minority and therefore neglects many others.
  I fear that that involves me in what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, described as that ghastly ideological debate about comprehensive education—described by other people as the democratic process. In my experience, people who reject and resent ideological debate normally assume that everybody should share the ideology that they prefer. I hope that she will forgive me for pursuing the line to which she so strongly objects and saying how encouraged I was, on that point of the success of the system that I prefer, to read the first paragraph of the Secretary of State's speech when she introduced the Bill for Second Reading in the other place. The first paragraph rejoiced that the OECD had just congratulated Great Britain—no, England, as distinct from Great Britain, which is very important in this context—on the improvement in and quality of its secondary education. She gave some other statistics about how well secondary schools were doing. I can only assume that it is because she overlooked a line in her prepared text that she did not go on to say that that was the achievement of the comprehensive system, which has dominated secondary education in this country since the 1970s, when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, achieved the all-time record for creating the most comprehensive schools in one year.
  When we receive congratulations on how much our education has improved and how well it is doing, it is down to that system. Indeed, the explosion in higher education—which has made the Robbins principle no longer possible under the old financing schemes and has put the Government in such a quandary about how to finance higher education—is the achievement of the comprehensive system in this country.
  It is therefore very much to my regret that the Government have spent so much time in the recent past denigrating the comprehensive system—examples of which I shall gladly give the Parliamentary Under-Secretary if she doubts that that has occurred—and now consciously eroding it. They consciously erode the comprehensive system in this Bill under Part 5.
  It is no surprise that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, supports Part 5. Mr Willis, the Liberal spokesman in the House of Commons, said that if it had been introduced by a Tory Government, it would have been denounced by the Labour Opposition. He was in part wrong. It was introduced by a Tory Government and it was denounced by a Labour Opposition. We have now taken it over and extended it in a way that I believe is disastrous to the principle of comprehensive education. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has noticed that noble Lords on every side of the House have expressed extreme concern about those provisions. Their principal objection is that they encourage informal, surreptitious and—how shall I describe it?—covert selection in secondary education.
  624
  That began with the creation of the specialist schools. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said that he—I believe that he used the word "romantically"; a romantic economist is a contradiction in terms but there we are—looked forward to the day when all comprehensive schools were specialist schools. If that could happen, it would be a quite different issue. However, the Government aspire to 50 per cent of schools being specialist schools. Yet the Parliamentary Under-Secretary used the awful cliché in her opening speech—I do not object to the cliché but to the thought—that she wanted there to be a level playing field. What do we mean by a level playing field? Do we mean a level playing field between some comprehensive schools which are specialist and are given a half million pounds bounty and the rest of the comprehensive schools? So far as the Bill is concerned, there is no level playing field between the generality of comprehensive schools and those which are called city colleges, technology colleges or academies. I shall explain to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary why that is.
  I know very well that on those occasions when the Government say that they support comprehensive education sometimes they cannot even bring themselves to say those words and they call it inclusive education. That reminds me of one of the great moments of the 1987 general election campaign when the present Secretary of State for Industry sent me an agonised message which stated: "Delete from all speeches the word 'equality' and substitute the word 'fairness'". The two matters are not, of course, the same, nor is inclusive education necessarily the same as comprehensive education. When the Government bring themselves to support it, they say that it is going on even though there are selective schools side by side. They say that Kent is a comprehensive county and there are some comprehensive schools side by side with grammar schools. That is a contradiction in terms. It is like saying that someone is part pregnant or that medical equipment is semi-sterile. You either have non-selective education or selective education. What the Government have to understand is that by encouraging the development of schools which are special in the public mind—whether or not they are special in their literal performance—they are encouraging covert, informal and in many ways the most insidious selection, because that is what happens. Parents see schools which have different names, extra money and which claim to be specialist in one form or another. The articulate, self-confident, determined parents talk their way into those schools which may be outside their normal catchment area. That has been done by a number of notable figures, none of whom I propose to mention this evening, and it encourages selection due to the abilities, determination and the self-confidence of the parents concerned.
  In a free society you cannot stop parents doing that, nor would I wish to do so. What I object to is the Government facilitating that and providing what speaker after speaker has called the hierarchy of schools. It is a formal hierarchy of schools which makes informal selection unavoidable. We are also

  625
  extending selection in another way. We are extending it by the 10 per cent rule, which is to apply to every specialist school—soon to be 50 per cent of the schools in the country—and to all the city academies and the city technology colleges. From time to time the Government in their more reckless moments say that that is not really selection because selection by aptitude and selection by ability constitute quite different things. No honest person can sensibly believe that. Were the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to attempt to argue that case this evening, I would refer her to a reply given in this House by her predecessor in this Government when I asked her to distinguish between the two things. The reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was a paragraph of gobbledegook which she concluded by saying that it may not satisfy anyone but it was what the previous government asked officials to find out and that was the best that they could do. In my time in politics I have never heard a Minister be so dismissive about her own reply. That was the moment when the idea of a distinction between selection by ability and selection by aptitude went out of the window. The truth of the matter is that this Government are covertly increasing the number of selective opportunities in secondary education. That is deeply detrimental to the education of the whole country.
  My noble friend Lord Peston said that he could not detect any philosophy in the Bill. We rarely disagree. When he was my special adviser many years ago—in those days we did not have political advisers but special advisers—
  Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: What was the difference, my Lords?
  Lord Hattersley: My Lords, the difference was that the special advisers knew something. The Permanent Secretary asked him what he thought his role was. He said that his role was to give spurious intellectual justification for my political prejudices. As I say, we rarely disagree but he is wrong to say that there is no philosophy in the Bill. The philosophy of the Bill is the Prime Minister's philosophy of meritocracy. The able, the industrious, the determined surge ahead and we do not have to worry much about the rest. That is a philosophy which I find offensive to all the standards and all the beliefs I hold.
  I wish to say a few words about faith schools. That is another example of "new speak". We used to call them religious schools and I propose to call them religious schools tonight. I do not share some of the concerns of my noble friends as regards faith schools. Certainly, in a free society faith schools should exist. However, faith schools existing is rather different from faith schools being promoted by the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said. If the Secretary of State for Education is right and if she means what she says and they will be created only if there is a real demand for them in an area, although I am not an enthusiast for faith schools, it is difficult to deny that right if there is a real demand. However, I should like to know how the demand is to be assessed. I do not think that the
  626
  demand can be represented by the views of the Episcopate or the views of the mosques in the area; it has to be the views of the people. I notice that my noble friend Lord Dearing nods his head. He mentioned the absence of a faith school in South Yorkshire. In fact there is a faith school called Notre Dame, but he was thinking of faith schools in rather more limited terms. I believe that I know South Yorkshire at least as well as he does. I see no upsurge of demand from the people of South Yorkshire for a faith school.
  Lord Dearing: My Lords, I am no expert on the wishes of parents in that part of Yorkshire. However, the papers I was given at this morning's meeting show that of the 8,000 children in Church of England primary schools, the parents of 3,200 of them had explicitly asked for the opportunity to send their children to a Church of England secondary school. I agree very much—I believe that the Government have said this—that it is a matter of whether the parents want that and, I would further say, provided there has been full consultation and agreement with the LEA and it has been through a schools organisation committee and there has been full discussion and, hopefully, a unanimous recommendation.
  Lord Hattersley: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House too long by giving a reply to that intervention which in a sense it deserves. However, I am sceptical about the genuine demand of parents for that education. I understand the genuine demand of parents to send their children to Church primary schools, but I also know, as my noble friend Lord Peston said, that part of the demand for a place in a faith secondary school is because that is regarded as a bit special. Therefore, the demand has to be genuine and have a religious rather than a social base. I do not understand how the Government can assess that and that worries me. How can the Government assess which Church should be allowed to develop faith schools? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn referred to world faiths of every kind. Would the Government approve a Jehovah's Witness school or a Seventh Day Adventist school? I cannot see constitutional propriety of any kind in the Government having a list of acceptable religions and other religions with which they will not do business.
  That situation has enormous dangers, some of which my noble friend Lord Plant mentioned. I spent 33 years of my life representing a constituency which, by the time I retired from the House of Commons, comprised almost entirely Muslims, Sikhs or Hindus. What my noble friend said was certainly borne out by my experience; that is, the people who push hardest for faith schools have the most fundamental view of their religion and the most, dare I say, extreme interpretation of what their religion demands. I say only that there are immense dangers in going clown that path. However, I doubt whether the Government will go down it.
  The noble Baroness who speaks for the Liberals said that on reading the Bill she sometimes wonders what it

  627
  is really about. If she will forgive me for saying so, her naivety astounds me. The Bill's principal purpose is declaratory. Governance has changed during the past four years. There are not just two arms of government, the executive and legislative; there is the executive arm, the legislative arm and the declaratory arm. The most important of the three is the declaratory arm. The Bill demonstrates that the Government are not somehow held back by the old principles of equality, equal shares and democratic socialism, which brought many of the Government's supporters into politics in the first place.
  I do not believe that the proposal about faith schools will be put into practical operation because of the associated difficulties. The proposal is in the Bill to create an impression. More importantly, the impression that is being created in the secondary field is bound to increase covert, informal selection. That is a fundamentally bad thing for the future of this country. I shall try to develop that theme in Committee.
  8.41 p.m.
  Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, this really is a terrible Bill. It is riddled with the fear of losing control and lack of trust in communities, local government and the biggest body of professionals in the country. It has potential for selection and discrimination and suggests a lack of belief that a public service can deliver high-quality education with creativity and efficiency without much meddling from people who are committed primarily to profit. I shall never accept that state-run public services cannot deliver innovation and efficiency, given a level playing field with the private sector.
  I can hardly believe that a government of the Labour Party, with all of its heritage, could have brought forward such a Bill. No wonder many Members on the Benches opposite are looking and sounding very uncomfortable. I am tempted to say, "Tony Crosland, thou shouldst be living at this hour". I am also tempted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we could easily make room for him on these Benches, at least for the passage of this Bill.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Baroness's party is far too Left-wing for me!
  Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford ably expressed the reservations felt on these Benches about the Bill. I was disappointed to notice that the Secretary of State did not remain at the Bar to hear her. As my noble friend said, Parliament needs to introduce legislation to deal with a large number of important constitutional issues and with matters relating to the way in which government is run and is answerable to the people of this country. However, this is the moment that the Government choose to introduce a largely unnecessary Bill, which nevertheless will take many parliamentary days to scrutinise properly. It is vital that we do so in this place, because the democratically
  628
  elected House has had totally inadequate time in which to do so. However, I should prefer it if we did not have to do so.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, nicknamed the Bill as "The last ever education Bill" because the powers that it will give to the Secretary of State are so draconian that she may not need ever to come back to Parliament again—she will have all of the powers that she will ever need to control schools from the centre. I hope that the Bill is not the "Second to last ever education Bill" or a paving Bill for total deregulation of schools. The word "deregulation", as it has been used in this context, means the centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. The Minister referred to the fact that it will set schools free. Now where have I heard that before? However, that involves 180-degree spin because the Bill does entirely the opposite.
  Local education authorities, which represent the needs and wishes of local people in their own communities, are being subject to death by a thousand cuts. I am beginning to wonder why the Government claim to desire more people to take part in elections when at every turn they are taking away the powers and freedoms of local authorities and putting them in a straitjacket.
  The Bill will create a de facto national education system. It condemns the comprehensive ideal to the history books, it undermines the principles of local democracy, it introduces more selection by faith, specialism and postcode, it creates a two-tier system in which schools serving the most challenging and deprived communities are penalised for their poverty and it attacks the very foundations of one of our most important public services.
  The Bill is also an attack on the whole principle of comprehensive education. As the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, said, that has delivered unprecedented success over the past 30 years. As I have said previously in your Lordships' House, if the Government want a bit of novelty, why do they not try committing themselves totally to comprehensive education and to funding schools properly and believing in them? That would indeed be a novelty. The comprehensive principle has been adhered to much more closely in Scotland, with the result that Scottish education shows better results across the spectrum of ability than we have here in England. We heard from my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, about a similar commitment in Wales. However, we welcome the proposals in Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill to give heads and teachers greater professional freedom. But why ration that?
  The Government claim to want schools to innovate. I go into schools every week and I find that every good school already manages to innovate, despite the tendency in recent years to specify exactly what they do in so many areas. The fact that the Bill will allow only 10 per cent of schools to innovate with their "earned autonomy" is not likely to extend innovation. Only the schools that please the Secretary of State—presumably

  629
  those that please her with the type of innovation that they are proposing—will be allowed to do it. Besides, that sets school against school and particularly disadvantages those in challenging areas. In a situation of teacher shortage, what is going to happen to those schools that already find it hard to get teachers? Are they the ones that the Secretary of State will allow to offer attractive pay packages? And where will they get the money—out of the books budget, which they need to compensate for the fact that the children do not have books at home; out of the buildings and maintenance budget, when many of those schools are already in a terrible state? No, my Lords, schools already have quite a lot of flexibility to vary the pay of good teachers and they do not need any more. What they need is the performance-related pay scheme to be fully funded. However, that is a matter for my Question next Monday, so I shall leave the matter for now. They also need the power to be flexible about the curriculum in order to respond to local needs with protection of a minimum curriculum entitlement.
  One of the problems with this part of the Bill is how one defines "success". We must challenge the narrow criteria of success involving five A to C GCSE grades, as is favoured by the No. 10 Policy Unit. Amazingly, in her introduction, the Minister claimed that the Government can find out how successful a school is at the touch of a button. That is far too simplistic. How can one measure motivation, loyalty and curiosity at the touch of a button? What about added value? Why is not achievement of added value in the Bill as a qualification for all of the Secretary of State's sweeties?
  The Liberal Democrats have just completed a survey of 244 so-called failing schools; that is, those with less than 20 per cent A to C GCSE grades in the past three years. The vast majority have good Ofsted reports. They are not in special measures but they are trying to cope with huge problems. We found that those schools have three times more pupils eligible for free school meals than the national average. They have twice as many children with statements of special educational needs. They have more than three times the national average for unauthorised absence and 50 per cent more for authorised absence. On average, 4.3 pupils were permanently excluded from each of the schools last year, compared with the national average of 1.5 per school. Significant numbers of those schools are secondary moderns—the product of a selective system such as operates in Kent. Many of them are producing enormous added value but they are being measured in terms of absolute value. All are likely to be denied the freedoms available in Part 1 of the Bill.
  The very schools which need to innovate and which need to offer radical change, especially to the curriculum, are those excluded in the Bill. On that and many other aspects of the Bill, the Government speak with forked tongue. That is why we on these Benches shall challenge the Government's policies on specialist and faith schools. While they are not referred to directly in the Bill, Parts 1 and 5 provide the overarching legislation for those schools.
  630
  I hope that noble Lords will not misunderstand me. Liberal Democrats are not opposed to schools having a special ethos so long as they do not select. But we want all schools to develop their own personality and areas of special excellence. However, that should be for the schools to choose; it should not be for the Secretary of State to offer a limited menu of specialisms to a maximum of half the schools. Why should a school not be able to offer a community ethos as a specialism or a special needs specialism or a citizenship specialism? What about another category—a school which specialises in teaching children how to think, learn and make life decisions? Some of us believe naively that that is, in any case, the prime purpose of any school.
  How can a Labour Secretary of State justify a system that puts a £50,000 price tag on entry to the specialist club and then limits entry to only half our schools by 2005? We on these Benches believe that all schools, excluding those with special needs, should have access to that money. Only nine out of the 244 schools in our survey had achieved specialist status, although many had tried. Naturally, they were attracted by an extra £0.5 million; but in the brave new world of the two-tier education system, they were denied.
  I remain concerned about the expansion of faith schools. Historically in this country, the only way in which to obtain an education was in a faith school. That was yesterday. We are legislating today for a multi-cultural community of schools tomorrow. To promote an expansion of schools that select on the basis of faith is to deny the reality of the composition of our country today. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has a very naive impression of how admission to Church schools works and would work in future. I believe that there is more than one way to skin the equality cat than to open more faith schools. I consider that to be the wrong way.
  The structure of our education system should be based on two key principles. From what he said, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will agree with them. The first is equality of access to the best possible education for all our children of whatever faith or none. The second is a system which promotes racial harmony and understanding, not awareness of difference, ignorance and division. Expansion of the ability to select on the grounds of faith may achieve the first of those but, crucially, it will not achieve the second.
  As many speakers have said, parents want not faith schools but good schools for their children. The fact that many are prepared to put themselves through a faith test in order to get their children into good schools and then abandon that faith vividly demonstrates the point. Perhaps I may now challenge two myths. Not all faith schools are excellent schools, and many state schools do promote a set of moral values. The Churches do not have a monopoly on morals.

  631
  I was delighted that the Church of England recently conceded that schools operating admissions policies which discriminate against non-Christian children or children with no faith are wrong. But, sadly, the Secretary of State seems prepared to allow that situation to continue. The Liberal Democrats will propose an amendment to the Bill that makes it unlawful for any school in receipt of state funding to deny access to a child from its local community on the grounds of faith or lack of faith.
  My noble friend Lady Sharp referred rightly to the increased central powers taken by the Secretary of State. I agree with her very much. Nowhere is that more evident than in relation to local authorities. It is as if the No. 10 Policy Unit wants to abolish them but does not have the courage to do it. For example, by increasing the Secretary of State's powers to determine the minimum amount that LEAs should delegate to schools, Clauses 39 and 40 make a mockery of decision-making at the local level, despite what the Minister claimed at the beginning of the debate. Likewise, it should be the LEA's decision to close a failing school. Such a decision should not, and cannot, be made by the Secretary of State.
  There are a number of inconsistencies, too. My noble friend Lady Sharp referred to the differences between government departments in their attitude to local decision-making. There are other inconsistencies. Schools can form private companies and can presumably operate commercial activities that LEAs cannot. Although their activities will be monitored by the LEA, such companies will be directly accountable to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can set up a commercial company to supply services and goods to schools but the LEA cannot. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised a number of questions about this part of the Bill. We on these Benches have similar concerns but we shall return to that matter in Committee.
  Typically, the one area where interference would be welcomed is in addressing our teacher shortage. A key principle in any state education system is a sufficient supply of high quality teachers and their retention in our school system. Yet nowhere in the Bill is there a strategy to deal with the long-term retention crisis. Instead, the Bill sets school against school in the matter of attracting teachers. The noble Lords, Lord Moser and Lord Alton of Liverpool, highlighted that, despite the Government's claims of rising teacher recruitment, the total shortfall against target since 1997–98 in secondary teacher training is a staggering 14,208.
  However, with the exception of paying off student loans, where is the evidence in the Bill that the Government are serious about retention of teachers? Why is there no statutory time off for professional development? Why is there no legislation to allow primary teachers more non-contact time? Why is there no commitment to a new teacher's contract? And why is there no national retention and deployment strategy? Do the Government not recognise that in a buyer's market teachers will be attracted to schools
  632
  which they see as offering stability, freedom and career progression, and that it will be increasingly more difficult for schools in challenging circumstances to compete in the new regime of the education ration book? We share with the Conservative Benches concerns about the power of the learning and skills councils over sixth forms and the side-lining of the wishes of local people.
  However, there are aspects in the Bill that the Liberal Democrats welcome. Indeed, much of the Bill simply consolidates legislation. We welcome the opportunity in Part 6, for example, to discuss the inclusion of a statutory curriculum for the foundation key stage and to open up discussion about the key stage 4 curriculum. However, I suspect that we shall concentrate on the 14 to 19 curriculum. I believe that it is a significant example of the "mother knows best" attitude of this Government that they are trying to legislate before the consultation on 14 to 19 education is complete.
  As a party, we are extremely concerned at the marginalisation of the arts and humanities at key stage 4. We hope that the question of maintaining breadth as well as specialism will be explored later in our debates. That said, huge parts of the Bill concern us on these Benches. But my main concern is that this is not a Bill of equality of opportunity—a matter that was a primary concern of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby when she was Secretary of State for Education. I echo the concerns of my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about the position of pupils with special needs.
  This Bill denies the ethos of the Labour Party, founded to battle social exclusion. It is up to this House to try to make a silk purse out of sow's ear. I hope that the House will improve it and send it back to the No. 10 Policy Unit from whence it came.
  8.59 p.m.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we have had a fairly lengthy but lively debate on various aspects of the Bill. The bulk of the Bill relates to both England and Wales, but parts of it apply to England only and parts apply to Wales only. I hasten to add that that is not the reason why the Guardian described the Bill as a "rag-bag", but because it hands so much power to Ministers. The division of the Bill in the way that I have described highlights differences of approach to education in England and in Wales. I shall be told that that is one of the natural consequences of devolution, as children are the natural consequence of marriage.
  I begin with the familiar themes in the Bill, themes that I remember being discussed and acted upon in the 1980s when my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking was Secretary of State for Education and I had a modicum of responsibility for education in Wales. Raising standards in schools, increasing variety in the kind of schools permitted in the state system and ensuring that schools received their proper share of the education budget were high on our agenda. It will not please the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, that the

  633
  present Secretary of State appears to have learned something from our Committee sessions on Conservative education Bills in the 1990s in which she was a regular participant. Parts of this Bill are based on the continued application of those innovative and successful Conservative reforms that instituted assessment of pupils at key stages and so on. I welcome that, but I detect a weakening of resolve, a softening of rigour in certain areas, which is regrettable.
  "The Bill's key theme is innovation: freeing schools to try out new ideas, to excel and to work with other schools to lead change in secondary education".
  That is a direct quotation from the glowing summary of the Bill produced, I am told, by a special adviser in the department. At first sight it appears to be a brave admission that Whitehall does not necessarily know best, but on further examination we find that almost every innovation, almost every change of step, has to be approved by the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly in Wales. It is clear that the spirit of that great control freak, Henry VIII, runs rampant throughout this Bill.
  One can hope that such centralised control will not be a totally dead hand on new ideas and that the proposals emanating from schools and other qualifying bodies will survive the ever-sharp axe of the bureaucratic executioner. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, put it rather more positively than I have.
  Other themes from the past have been developed in England, if not in Wales: school businesses, specialist schools and so on. The theme that attracted most attention, although there is no direct reference to it in the Bill, is the extension of the Church schools concept to faith schools. Over the centuries, both Christian religions—Catholic and Protestant—and the Jewish religion have been active educators. We owe to them the transmission of the Judaeo-Christian fundamentals of our Western civilisation. Religious schools have been in the state system since 1944. Their record of achievement has been good and they have been valued by the parents who send their children to them.
  Other faiths, outside the Christian tradition, that also set great store by education, now permeate our multicultural society and, in fairness—I almost said "logically"—they should be supported by the state where there is a clear local desire for such support, provided that they are not fundamentally opposed to the state itself and the democratic foundations that sustain it. Arguably, it is better to have them within the state system than outside it. I understand that there are four Muslim schools, two Sikh schools, one Greek Orthodox and a Seventh Day Adventist foundation within the maintained sector. I see the Minister nodding.
  The social implications for the future of a significant extension of faith-based schools may be immense and must be carefully thought through, but we are a tolerant society. Without tolerance and freedom under the law, we should be very impoverished. We have to rely on the intrinsic benevolence of the faiths themselves to ensure a good social outcome. I hasten to say that that is a personal contribution and not a statement of the party line.
  634
  I should be neglecting my duty in this House as an Opposition spokesman on Welsh Affairs if I failed to draw attention to the uniquely Welsh aspects of this England and Wales Bill. Some 32 clauses apply to Wales only. We do not have a Welsh equivalent of the glowing England clauses summary but, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, we have a documentary guide to the Welsh clauses, and some of us have had the benefit of an oral briefing from the Assembly Minister for Education, Jane Davidson.
  The Welsh sections of the Bill are the outcome of a consultation last year on a wide-ranging document titled The Learning Country, which has been referred to in the debate. That consultation ended on 16th November, six days before this Bill was introduced in the other place. It is hard to believe that any late responses were taken into account, but be that as it may, the Welsh approach which focuses on high standards, the removal of barriers, evidence-based policies, partnership and the celebration of the professional judgment of teachers, have been welcomed by the National Union of Teachers. That union says:
  "In the NUT's opinion, these principles are far more visionary than the arid notions of autonomy and diversity".
  So someone is pleased by the Welsh approach, although I am bound to say that the ultimate verdict of the NUT on the Bill is that it is a curate's egg.
  In the other place there were complaints of a difference of approach between the Welsh and the English sections of the Bill. At Second Reading Ministers barely mentioned Wales in their opening and closing speeches, and that has been the subject of complaint from the Government's own Benches. Indeed, the Welsh clauses have hardly been discussed at all and I take issue with the noble Baroness for not mentioning Wales in her opening speech today.
  However, my main complaint is that the Welsh contents of the Bill have still not been discussed at a plenary session of the Assembly. My noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach is right. In response, it is argued that the Bill is largely enabling—I would say permissive—and that the Assembly will have ample opportunity to discuss the secondary legislation which will make the Bill operative in Wales. Is this the best way to proceed—for Parliament to give the Assembly a plenitude of powers which it may or may not use; and if it does, it may not do so in a way that Parliament anticipated? It would surely be better if we had a clear sense of the Assembly's preliminary views to guide us.
  There is widespread concern about the extent of the powers given to Ministers in the Bill to exercise through secondary legislation subject to negligible parliamentary scrutiny. If this is true of England, it is certainly true of Wales. We shall not even see the secondary legislation that emanates from the Assembly. We shall have nothing to do with it.

  635
  The Education Network (Ten) refers to,
  "the vast amount of secondary legislation arising from this Bill",
  and states that,
  "it will be difficult for Parliament to debate the measures adequately, as their outcomes in practice will depend so greatly on the subsequent regulations".
  It continues that,
  "there will be a further avalanche of consultation on the individual Statutory Instruments through which the regulations will be introduced, scrutinising and responding to which will be a major task for people already overstretched by implementing policy—despite one purpose of the Bill being to lift such burdens of over regulation".
  It concludes that the Bill is a highly centralising measure despite its stated purpose of facilitating local innovation and initiative. Others, including the Local Government Association, have come to the same conclusion.
  What appears to be happening is that we are giving carte blanche to Ministers to do as they please. In Wales, for example, there is talk of abolishing tests at 11 as well as seven and of forgetting the proposition that schools can form businesses. The emphasis there seems to be on partnerships, especially with LEAs. Some of our larger schools could well form and run businesses that could support the drive for innovation and benefit other schools as well as themselves.
  What exactly is to happen to the 14 to 19 age group is still a mystery despite the Green Paper and will presumably remain so until the Government announce their conclusions in the summer. But there is concern about the involvement of the LSC and its Welsh equivalent, ELWa, and sixth forms feel very much under threat. I note, for example, that under Clause 135 further education colleges in Wales are to be prevented from providing higher education courses without Assembly approval and are to be constrained as to the numbers on such courses. The Government's general policy is to extend and enlarge access to higher education by all possible means, and institutions have taken them at their word. Higher education institutions in Wales rightly pride themselves on their success in this field. What have the Assembly government now got in mind? What lies behind the clause is uncertain.
  As one would expect, there are distinctly Welsh clauses relating to the national curriculum, clearly intended to ease transition from one stage to the next. Precisely how this is to be achieved is not clear. Special educational needs also feature prominently. There are questions, of course, about regional provision, particularly its accessibility. Wales is to have its own SEN tribunal to hear claims of disability discrimination against schools. I sense that that is right, provided there are sufficient cases to justify it.
  There has been talk in Wales about a pilot Welsh baccalaureate. Such a pilot would be possible under the Bill. Although many educationists may favour such a development and the broader approach to education implied, it is important to remember that qualifications must be recognised and respected by
  636
  higher education institutions and by employers, not just in Wales. Qualifications that are not genuinely comparable with existing qualifications can be a handicap to a young person's progress in higher education or in finding a job.
  There is no significant reference in the Bill to parents, which I find strange in view of their critical importance. The Bill offers little to address the fundamental problems of low teacher morale and the increasing teacher shortages, with the exception perhaps of Clause 180 which proposes to pay off student loans for some teachers. One cannot avoid agreeing with the view in The Times that the Bill somehow misses the point so far as concerns teachers and head teachers. It represents a detached autocratic approach to the problems in schools today. Its ultimate answers to all problems appear to lie with the Secretary of State or the National Assembly. Local education authorities and the teaching unions are all complaining that they are left with very little discretion.
  I find the Bill curiously unfocused; it sounds an uncertain note. We are bound to examine it very carefully at every stage and test the validity of the Government's approach.
  9.14 p.m.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this has been a wonderful debate. I have listened with great interest to every contribution. I have been pleased that, however guarded, there have been noble Lords willing to welcome the purpose and initiative behind the Bill. I recognise that I always should listen, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has said.
  I have been interested in the geography. We have ranged from the Soviet Union and post-war Germany, to Scotland and Wales via the USA, Sweden and Denmark. I have learnt that elephants cannot tie up their shoelaces, but they can dance with chickens. I have learned that what I am doing may not be equated—and rightly so—with events in Germany. I was interested in the Times Educational Supplement. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, says, if the TES is to be believed, that what we are trying to do is,
  "open to comparison with Gosplan, the Soviet planning ministry".
  I say that in answer to my noble friend Lord Peston who was worried that we might be equated with Nazi Germany. No, it is the Stalinist Soviet Union.
  I was fascinated to hear the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, talk about his experiences of going to parties and being asked where his children go to school. I would say to him very gently that perhaps he is going to the wrong parties. That might be worth thinking about..
  The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is fond of detail and particularly of statistics, made me feel rather squeamish for a moment, particularly as I am responsible for performance tables. Value added is something to which I am extremely committed.

  637
  Like my noble friend Lord Peston, I am pro-education, pro-equality and pro the comprehensive system.
  My noble friend Lord Mitchell talked with great passion about there being no mention of IT in the Bill. I hate to disillusion my noble friend, but if he turns to page 54 of the Bill he will see that there are two such occasions. In fact, my noble friend is right: "computers", "IT" and "laptops" are not mentioned, but "information and communication technology" is mentioned in Clause 80(3)(b) and again in Clause 81(3)(b) in relation to the curriculum. My noble friend made the important point that the world that our children are growing up in—and the education that they receive—is a different world certainly from the one in which I grew up. I do not agree with my noble friend's analysis that the teaching media have not changed. Blackboards are becoming whiteboards.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said on a number of occasions, we share a passion for ICT. I am well aware of the advances which are before us. Not only is the technology of a car now more advanced than was that of the "Apollo" mission, but those greetings cards that play a tune when opened are further on technologically than was the "Apollo" programme.
  I was pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned the Carezone project which works with children in care and which I have been pleased to take forward within the department.
  I could spend a great deal of time on the various contributions, so I begin my detailed remarks by apologising to those noble Lords who I fail to answer properly. I say at the outset, and I shall repeat this at the end, that I shall be available to any noble Lord who wants to discuss any aspect of the Bill. I shall ensure that officials are available also.
  Some noble Lords began their contributions by talking about the timetable in the Commons. I have made it my business to examine in precise detail the Commons' timetable. Although I know that noble Lords feel that there were missed opportunities, I have to say that the Government made repeated offers to extend the programme. The first offer was made very early on, in the third Committee sitting and extra sessions were available. Despite that, I recognise the will of this House to examine legislation in detail. I am more than happy to go through this legislation word by word if that is what your Lordships want.
  My noble friend Lady Andrews raised the question of the role of the school innovation unit in reference to the Bill, particularly with regard to the early powers—the power to innovate and earned autonomy. I advise my noble friend and other noble Lords that the unit is being established. Its purpose is to support schools with innovative practice. We have described it as an incubator for innovative practice. It will be made up of practitioners. I believe that they will make a great contribution.
  I turn to the power to innovate and to earned autonomy. I want to spend a moment or two just clarifying precisely the difference between those two
  638
  elements of the Bill. There was confusion about that in another place and a little confusion here. Let me make it clear: the power to innovate is for any school or local education authority; it is not for the most successful only. Any school may apply to the Secretary of State to relax regulatory requirements for a fixed period if that is necessary to carry out projects to raise standards. We have created the power in this way precisely because we believe that schools in the most challenging circumstances may benefit from it. As this experimentation in education will directly affect our children, it is important to ensure that there will he a professional assessment of whether the project would raise standards. It should not under any circumstances be a free-for-all.
  We are saying that autonomy would be available to schools which meet specified performance criteria and that it can be applied only to issues relating to the curriculum or pay and conditions. Essentially, the purpose of the Bill is to allow that to become an automatic provision for schools, thereby freeing them up to be able to do that. As I said earlier, those powers do not allow the Secretary of State to impose anything on anyone; they will only allow her to respond to those that are put forward to her.
  Several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Rix, raised the question of special educational needs and inclusion. The Special Educational Needs Consortium has asked us to give reassurances, and we would be delighted to meet it to do so. However, I wish to record a couple of those reassurances immediately. The only permitted variation to the disability legislation would be one that would strengthen provision for children. In considering the effectiveness of the innovative approaches that are adopted, we wish that every child will benefit.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Bill does not say that. It does not exclude any single piece of legislation on education, from time immemorial to the present and in the future. There is, therefore, no safeguard to say that a piece of legislation could not be changed by the Secretary of State. Let me give an example: a school could make a legitimate application to the Secretary of State based on the claim that if it did not have in the school certain children with special educational needs it could improve its pupils' education. Under the Bill it is technically possible—although probably unlikely, knowing the present Secretary of State—to agree to that application. There is, therefore, no absolute safeguard for the contents of that Bill or any other Education Bill.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Indeed, I am trying, by virtue of giving those assurances, to point us in the direction that we will pursue as we take the Bill through. I draw noble Lords' attention to policy documents that we have produced on the legislation to date.

  639
  In regard to special educational needs—we believe that some of the issues that we raised in the Bill, for example, the ability of schools to federate and the school forum, particularly the admissions forum—will be opportunities to meet more effectively the requirements of children with special educational needs. That is because, when the requirements of children with special educational needs are put forward, it is always an issue that some schools have taken numbers of those children while others have not. We hope that, by looking more collectively at their needs, we will be able to ensure that we spread good practice, that schools are geared up to support those children and that their needs will be considered fully in their locality.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, the point we are making is that that would be technically possible under this Bill unless there were some other form of legislation. What happens now and what has been the practice in the past is that people do not understand the conditions and make assumptions. That is the background as to why we have had to introduce legislation in the past. It is not because teachers are basically evil or because the system has not worked; it is because people have not understood what is going on. Current legislation makes them go away and think about it and do something about it. That is the kind of assurance we need in this Bill, not merely a statement of good intentions. That simply has not worked in the past.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we will return to this in detail. But we have the SEN code and the legislation; that has not changed. Within the power to innovate, noble Lords will have the opportunity to look at the guidance, to look at what the Government are proposing and to table amendments if they so wish.
  I want to move on to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and the case of Lauren Wright. In the course of the debate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised this at the beginning, I have been able to obtain copies of correspondence. The right honourable Gillian Shepherd MP wrote to the Secretary of State. This is a desperately tragic case. We recognise the importance of the issue and will look carefully at any amendments that are tabled. I give no promise to accept them. As the right honourable Gillian Shepherd has already said, we need to ensure that they fit within the legislative framework. However, we can assure noble Lords that we take the matter extremely seriously.
  I turn to the issue of schools forming companies. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that she understood that LEAs cannot form companies; in fact they can. They already have the powers to do that and we expect them to take an active role in school companies as they are set up.
  I want to focus on the three circumstances in which we envisage the power being used. The first is that LEAs will be able voluntarily, if they wish, to contract out a wide variety of their education services. Where schools wish to get together to run the services, it
  640
  makes no sense to exclude them. But we need a legal vehicle to do that. We believe that forming a company will be the simplest and best vehicle.
  Secondly, we want schools to pool their resources to become more efficient purchasers. We are currently running pilot projects in that area. If schools form a company it will be easier for them to do that and so benefit from the economies of scale.
  Finally, we want schools to be able to form joint venture companies to prepare PFI and PPP schemes more easily. Noble Lords will be aware that I will be working with the Church of England to develop its plans on improving its stock of smaller schools that would otherwise not benefit from this investment. We hope that the experience from this approach will help to shape potential future ventures.
  I turn now to the issue of school governance. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly pointed to the fact that, having de-coupled schools, we now give them the power to "re-couple". There is a difference in that we now offer the choice. We recognise that for some schools it will be an important opportunity. Other schools which have moved away from being together because of earlier legislation, in my experience and from talking to them, will generally decide to stay that way. Quite often, where there is an infant and junior school and the junior school was the dominant partner, infant schools valued the opportunity to have their own governing bodies and move forward. But we recognise that in some communities and in some schools it is an important opportunity.
  Noble Lords raised the question of the role of head teachers within staffing. We are looking, with governors with whom I have talked over the past few months and the Way Forward Group, to the recognition that head teachers would play the key role in appointments outside what we describe as the leadership group. We also expect school governing bodies to take a slightly different role in relation to staff dismissals. Instead of there being two committees, there will now be one which will deal with appeals. We will place head teachers in the role of being the chief executive of the school in that context.
  I know that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn is interested in that area for schools within the Church. We will return to that topic and, I hope, have conversations as to how to put it into practice. In terms of federations, which the right reverend Prelate also raised, we expect the governing bodies of schools to decide whether that is the route down which they wish to go. They will of course be aware of the character, the ethos, the status of their school and I am sure will wish to ensure that it is fully recognised. We shall of course discuss further the ways in which we can consult on interim executive boards.
  I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was generally happy with what we are trying to do. Though we recognise that governors have had an increased workload, part of the policy behind the Bill is to ensure that we deal with that effectively and give them a more strategic role, which noble Lords will welcome.

  641
  A number of noble Lords rightly raised the issue of school staffing. As several speakers pointed out, it is not simply a matter of financing, though that is important. There are other issues that affect the way in which we staff our schools and the expectations that we have for our teachers. In terms of the role of the STRB it is important to get this right. We have looked into the matter at the request of the review body, and we have at its request put forward the proposals for debate.
  We recognise the challenge of performance pay, but we believe that we have made the right, and significant, contribution in that respect. We need to pursue this at present. We do value our teachers. We are conscious of the number of supply teachers who are in our schools. In January 2001—the latest information that I have—there were 19,000 short-term supply teachers working in schools compared to 410,000 regular teachers; that is, about 4.5 per cent of the total number. We understand what Ofsted has been saying about this, though I pay credit to many supply teachers who perform an important task and carry forward their work professionally.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised the issue of non-contact time. As she is aware, we have been looking into this matter. More generally, I should add that we recognise these issues as being very important. Part of the Bill's purpose is to encourage our teaching staff to stay; to give them the power the innovate; to look at the way in which we organise our school staffing; and to support them in other ways.
  Noble Lords were a little, though not terribly, interested in the issues surrounding the advisory forums. We recognise that these bodies are not perhaps as understood as might be the case. I hope that we shall get to grips with the detail during the passage of the Bill. We are trying to make it clear that there is an opportunity here for schools to work with LEAs in an advisory capacity on some of the issues of science. There are details to be discussed, to which we shall no doubt return. We believe this to be an important move—one which some schools and LEAs have already begun to develop.
  The noble Baroness, Lady David, raised the question of the criteria for admissions. When considering admissions I am sure we all agree that it is most important for every child to have a place. The admissions authority is the LEA for voluntary, controlled and community schools, while the governing body performs that role for voluntary-aided and foundation schools. As regards academies, I can tell the House that the admissions policy is set within the funding agreement. Therefore, it fits into the admissions criteria of other schools.
  During the course of the debate we returned on several occasions to the issue of exclusions. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked why parenting orders are not included in the Bill. We are still deliberating on how best to take this forward. I shall be very happy to have some discussion with the noble Baroness as to her thinking on the matter. It is not forgotten. It is an important part of our thinking and policy. The question is how best to do it.
  642
  The general comments that were made in the course of this debate raise the question of the role of exclusions within a broader strategy. There is a difference as regards the position of children who cannot be educated within a mainstream school and have to be removed because their behaviour is too difficult—the main reason for exclusions in this context. From September of this year they will have a place in full-time education. I know that many noble Lords will have been worried that exclusion would mean a child being out of the school system and, if you like, roaming the streets, which is something that we should not encourage under any circumstances.
  We have put in place another raft of measures designed to support teachers when considering the behaviour of children and ensuring that they are able to cope within a classroom environment. We have discussed some of these measures in this House previously. It is about the role of learning mentors and it is about the role of some of our classroom assistants. In a group that I am chairing within the department we are also looking at how we can more effectively bring some of the expertise of professionals, especially m the health service, closer to schools. I believe that that will make a difference.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned children in care. The noble Earl is right: most children in care are there because of abuse or neglect. They are vulnerable children. The noble Earl said that exclusion was just part of their story; that is true. We are examining the issue of educational attainment for such children carefully among departments. In particular, we are investigating whether they have the opportunity to sit the examinations in the first place and, thereby, increase their attainment. That is an issue of great importance, to which, I am sure, noble Lords will wish to return.
  It is not the case that the Learning and Skills Council is inherently anti-sixth form. I have answered questions in the House by saying how much we value the importance of the role of sixth forms in schools. We are simply making sure that we have a rational view. The Learning and Skills Council will be able to make proposals only where there is a problem. I am interested in ensuring that small schools with small sixth forms have the opportunity to collaborate with others. That can extend the opportunities for children with their studies.
  The 14 to 19 curriculum was referred to by many noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, raised the question of the legislation itself. Clause 81 re-enacts Section 354 of the Education Act 1996; it does not change anything in the curriculum. In particular, it does not make anything optional The Bill simply re-states what is in the foundation subjects. For "foundation" one should not read "optional". That is not what we are describing. As we have a consultation on the 14 to 19 strategy, we want the results of that consultation to be enacted in the Bill. That is why we have taken key stage 4 and described it slightly differently—in order to put it in its place in the Bill.

  643
  Noble Lords have raised the issue of languages and will be aware from previous debates that I am working closely on that matter. That is why we produced a document on language learning at the same time as the 14 to 19 strategy. It is not true that it will take until 2012 to have a full primary entitlement. I hope that we will have moved substantially towards that in a short time. It is simply that it is important to hold us to account on what we are trying to do. The purpose of the languages strategy is to consider lifelong learning of languages, focusing on primary education but offering opportunities to every citizen who wishes to take up languages. In your Lordships' House I have described a system rather like music grades that we might use.
  We talk about academic and vocational education. I have said before that those are false issues. Some of our most vocational or academic people, in a sense, cross over: wanting to be a doctor or a teacher is a vocation, but those people need to achieve high academic standards. It is important that we do not maintain a system that says that vocational education is somehow inferior. In the 14 to 19 strategy we are trying to provide the flexibility that will enable us to offer children and young people genuine choices; it is not about selection at 14, which the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, was particularly worried about. It is not about classifying children or saying that the less able will take vocational GCSEs. It is about a tailored education that is appropriate for our children.
  I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for not mentioning Wales in my opening remarks. I shall endeavour to make up for that during the passage of the Bill. The noble Lord described many of the joys of devolution. It is true that the National Assembly for Wales will make its own decisions. In the Bill there are separate clauses for Wales which will be appropriately dealt with. In that discussion, the noble Lord will have the opportunity to raise any issues. It is worth saying that the Assembly Government fully supports the Bill, and the Assembly will debate secondary legislation. Whether they choose to debate the Bill itself in plenary session is a matter for them, not me, as noble Lords will appreciate. But, of course, the United Kingdom Parliament remains responsible for primary legislation in Wales, while the Welsh Assembly is responsible for secondary legislation. Therefore, this House is in order to scrutinise those parts of the legislation that relate to Wales. We have worked very closely with the Welsh Assembly government to reach the provisions that reflect the policy aims of both administrations and the Bill is supported by them.
  Noble Lords have spoken at length about centralisation and I know that we shall return to this in greater detail. I draw noble Lords' attention to the report from the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. We shall be picking up the points that have been made but my reading of it is that it is fairly supportive in terms of how we have tried to do this. It is a matter of opinion whether what
  644
  we are doing is centralising in order to put power in the hands of the Secretary of State, or sweeping away some of the issues that have prevented our good schools—indeed, all our schools—from being able to look to their future and to innovate.
  The matter of attendance has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and other noble Lords, as being important. I was delighted to learn while sitting here that my noble friend had 100 per cent attendance from the age of 11 to 18. That is something we should all commend him for. However, the links were very firmly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, between those who end up in our penal system and the attendance issues. When we come to that part of the Bill we shall look carefully at what kind of attendance we are seeking in order to understand the difficulties for schools and the need for us to think very hard and very carefully about how best to ensure the highest possible attendance for our children and the role of parents and schools within that.
  Some noble Lords welcomed the work of the academies and the work that we are undertaking within the Bill to expand outside of city academies. As I said before to the noble Baroness, Lady David, academies are subject to the same admissions rules. In the context of their discussions concerning different kinds of schools, the noble Lord, Lord Preston, raised the question of funding for the schools in greatest need. There are significant sources of funding for weak schools.
  The Schools in Challenging Circumstances programme provides additional support for approximately 500 schools which face the biggest challenges, but are not in special measures. Excellence in City provides additional support. There is considerable targeted support for those schools.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that subject, can she explain to the House how it is possible to have additional sums of money for special schools for a proportion only of schools, which is bound to attract better teachers and better opportunities to move on to the innovations that she talks about? Can she explain why that does not bring about a two-tier educational system?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pre-empted me as I was moving precisely onto the issue of specialist schools. The noble Baroness said "special" schools but I believe she was referring to specialist schools in this context.
  We have said that we want all schools to become specialist schools and I want to spend a moment describing how the Secretary of State described specialist schools recently. When I walk into a school I realise that every single school is different. There are many aspects that are the same, but there are differences. One of the things that we all notice about schools, from our own experience, is that there is often an area of the school which is stronger than the others. It can often be a particular department within a school.

  645
  The purpose of looking at specialism is not to take away from being a good school; it is simply to add on. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, referred to the school of the future and the role of ICT. We want schools to develop and grow that which they are very good at to enable them to share it with other schools. We said that we want 50 per cent to become specialist schools simply to give a figure on what we are trying to achieve. That is not a figure that debars the other 50 per cent. It is a figure that we hope to reach.
  I recognise the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and others raised; namely, funding. We have said that we would not want that to stand in the way and that we have had discussions with the Technologies Colleges Trust and others in order to ensure that that does not prevent schools from participating in the programme.
  Specialist schools are required to spend a third of their money within the community. The noble Lord, Lord Moser, asked why the provision was for only one secondary school and the rest for primary schools. That is a good point and I shall seek advice on precisely how we have developed the programme in that way. Obviously it is important to recognise that our primary schools should be able to benefit from knowledge of and links to specialist schools. That is not something from which I would wish to move away. That point addresses the diversity that we want to see in our schools and I shall return briefly to that point towards the end of my remarks.
  Briefly, because I am conscious of the time, I turn to the question of pupils' rights to consultation. We are looking at this and we are aware of the need to consult with young people. Whether that should be put on a statutory basis is a matter that we shall need to discuss.
  I turn now to the issue of faith schools. There has been an important debate in your Lordships' House in which many noble Lords have spoken with great passion. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, said that he believed that the Butler Act had settled the position. With respect, I would say to him that the world has changed. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn mentioned the attractive attributes of faith schools, as well as the tolerance that can apply. I believe that that is an attractive trait in all schools, not only in faith schools.
  I am pleased that no move was made by noble Lords to lay society's ills at the door of our schools. I know that noble Lords are far too experienced to do that. I recognise, when it is said in your Lordships' House that parents know a good thing when they see it, that I want all schools to be "a good thing" so that all parents have the opportunity to recognise that good thing.
  I was much taken by the view of my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sheppard of the tolerance that comes out of security and identity. I was very much reminded of the work of Steve Biko, whose writings helped me to understand the need to develop a separate ethos from which one meets others; that is, from a position of strength and security. I am sure that we shall deliberate on that again. I recognise the work of my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sheppard
  646
  from when I was 17 years old and living in Liverpool. I attended a conference at which he addressed us on precisely the issue of tolerance.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke of the generosity of spirit in many of our faith schools. I would agree with him, as I would agree that there is a generosity of spirit in many of our schools more generally. I was taken by the speeches of a number of noble Lords, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady David, who discussed the need to be pragmatic. Parents have chosen to educate their children by sending them to Church schools or schools with a faith ethos for a long time. I believe that they will continue to do so, whether or not such schools are in the maintained system.
  My noble friend Lord Peston raised the issue of the Cooper's Company School. I understand that the school was found to be interviewing inappropriately; namely, that it was not interviewing purely to establish the religious grounds for attending the school. I believe that the school has accepted the position and has changed its criteria accordingly.
  I was most taken by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, and how mastic asphalt spreading led him to becoming a priest, but that later he was drawn to philosophy. There is an issue surrounding the need to ensure that faith schools are wanted by the community. Indeed, the only basis on which the matter has been raised in the Bill is to ensure that, where a school does have the support of the community but perhaps does not achieve the support of the school organisation committee, there will be an opportunity to go before an adjudicator and ask for the position to be looked at. However, as I have said, it is only in that context that the Bill touches on the issue of faith schools.
  We think that it is important to be pragmatic. I would prefer to see faith schools in the maintained system. I make no bones about that. I want to ensure that schools teach the national curriculum, that they teach girls and boys equally, that they teach citizenship and that we are able to influence the work they undertake on inclusion. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that is what I think is important in a multicultural society.
  My noble friend Lord Peston mentioned creationism in a school in Gateshead. Rather than take up the time of the House at this point, I shall write to him. My noble friends Lord Hattersley and Lord Peston raised issues of ideology and philosophy. There is no time to debate them at this stage and I am only sorry that we have not had the chance to do so. I should welcome the opportunity to do that. I hope that either or both of my noble friends will consider initiating an appropriate debate in which we can discuss what we mean by the comprehensive system.
  For my part, I shall state my philosophy in 30 seconds. The comprehensive system does not mean that all schools are the same. I believe in a comprehensive system, but one where every child has the opportunity to achieve. We have not yet finished the task before us. Our comprehensive system has done a great deal, but still too many of our children do

  647
  not achieve in the way in which they should. Therefore diversity rather than hierarchy—which of course the House would expect me to say, but I shall be happy to debate that at greater length—is the way in which we can help to improve the standards of all our children. I do not believe that more of the same would necessary solve—
  Lord Hattersley: My Lords, did I understand my noble friend to say that there is not time to deal with the central point, which has been raised by nine noble Lords during the debate, about the creation of a hierarchy of schools? It has been the major issue of contention during the debate. Surely she does not mean that she will not deal with it at all.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would happily deal with it. I was trying to make the point that the issue of ideology and philosophy is worthy of more than a comment in a winding-up speech from a Minister at the end of a long debate. It is worthy of a debate in itself and I would be more than happy to discuss the issue. I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with my noble friend—nor, indeed, do I believe we have ever formally met—but I would be very happy to do so in debate at any time. I am simply saying that the subject is worth more. My point was meant as a compliment to the issue, not to detract from it. This is an issue at the heart of what we are trying to achieve.
  It is through diversity for our children that we shall provide the right kind of education. Noble Lords have referred to the need to ensure that children get the education that is appropriate to them, that suits them, that will enable them to achieve. That is what we are trying to do. We may argue and disagree during the proceedings on the Bill about the means, but we are united in the recognition that we are seeking something that will benefit all our children. I should say to my noble friend that I will be here when any opportunity arises to debate the philosophy behind that in more detail.
  My noble friend also raised questions about selection, aptitude and ability. No doubt we shall discuss those issues at great length. I hope that I can give him the answer that was felt not to be appropriate from my predecessor.
  I would describe aptitude and ability in the context of children as follows. If you have a child, as I do, who can build Lego models and make them look perfectly symmetrical, and can turn a pile of Lego bricks into an engineering triumph, then I believe that he has an aptitude for either architecture or engineering. He is also very good at science at school; he has an ability for science.
  Let me conclude by saying that we have produced policy statements which I hope will address some of the concerns raised. I am much taken by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moser, about the 7 million adults who do not have basic skills. Whatever system of education we put in place for the future we need to ensure that that is not repeated.
  648
  We recognise the value that we should all place on our teachers. We will have the opportunity to debate many issues. As usual, noble Lords have given me a flavour of what is to come. I look forward to it enormously. I hope that the debate will make the House feel that I am worthy of standing in this position. We all know that our children will grow up in a world that we cannot imagine. I hope that our deliberations in setting out an education agenda for the future will give them the kind of education they deserve.
  On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2002
  9.54 p.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn.
  The draft order was published as a proposal last June and laid before this House. Perhaps I may deal first with the proposed powers in the order. It contains an enabling power for the Secretary of State to make his scheme for payment of compensation to victims of violent crime. It is therefore not possible for the House to approve the details of the scheme until the order has been made which provides the Secretary of State with the necessary powers to do so. The draft scheme will itself be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses so that there will be a further opportunity for more detailed debate on the scheme once the order has been made.
  The order provides my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with the power to make a criminal injuries compensation scheme for Northern Ireland along similar lines to the scheme which has been operating in GB for some six years. This is not an absolute power but one which is restrained by the requirement to have the scheme affirmed by both Houses. Article 3 provides those powers.
  Article 4 of the draft order then goes on to outline how compensation is to be calculated. The method of assessing compensation brings the arrangements in Northern Ireland broadly into line with provision in Great Britain.
  The reason for the proposals is clear. What we are attempting to do is to reform the compensation arrangements for the benefit of victims of violent crime. The proposed tariff system has been drawn up on the basis that current average values of awards paid to victims of criminal injury in Northern Ireland under present arrangements are higher than equivalent injuries in Great Britain would attract, and the tariff amounts are therefore higher than the awards in Great Britain.

  649
  The draft order also provides for the scheme to compensate for loss of earnings, special expenses and, in fatal cases, for bereavement. The provision is the same and in effect adds considerably to the parameters of a strict interpretation of a tariff based scheme. The introduction of a more straightforward system of assessing compensation mitigates against a continuing need for legal intervention in the process of claiming compensation.
  Article 5 provides that the Secretary of State determines awards of compensation. In practice, administrative arrangements for the determination of awards will remain largely unchanged, with the service delivery continuing in the hands of the compensation agencies.
  Article 6 continues the theme of moving towards parity with arrangements in the rest of the country. It states that the scheme shall make provision for the review of decisions.
  The draft order also sets out arrangements for the approval of the statutory scheme and for future alterations to the scheme. These provisions are contained in Articles 9 and 10. As I have indicated, the scheme cannot be made by the Secretary of State without the draft being approved by both Houses. Similarly, future alterations to the tariff, and other major changes, as set out in Article 10, are subject to an affirmative procedure.
  My remarks in this opening speech would not be complete without a reference to two important issues for all draft legislation in Northern Ireland; namely, its compatibility with human rights obligations and with the equality standards under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. On the first, I am advised that we are introducing arrangements which are compatible with standards required under the Human Rights Act and which meet, and in many cases exceed, the provision of the international convention dealing with compensation for criminal injuries.
  The Northern Ireland Office has also carried out a fully satisfactory equality impact assessment, as required under Section 75 and Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act, of the policy behind the proposed changes.
  I hope that I have provided a comprehensive overview of the provisions contained in the draft order and their impact on the proposed payment of compensation for criminal injuries in Northern Ireland.
  Victims of violent crime, far from being disadvantaged by the introduction of this legislation, will in overall terms benefit from these reforms. I commend the order to the House.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the order before the House. I believe that it will significantly improve the situation in relation to criminal injuries compensation. There has been a great
  650
  deal of consultation on the scheme. A lot of its basic content was initiated by the excellent report produced by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. I have to declare an interest as I welcome the order, because Sir Kenneth Bloomfield has been a friend of mine for more than 40 years. He is a close personal friend in whom I have great trust and who has been a valuable servant to the state. I have great pleasure in supporting the order.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, welcome the next steps in setting up the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I have a couple of points to raise. There was a fair amount of discussion about the issue in the Northern Ireland Assembly in November and in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee of the other place in December. I hope that when we come to the scheme due account will be taken of those deliberations.
  I also note that paragraph 11 of the order, on advice, assistance and support for victims, says:
  "The Secretary of State shall inform persons seeking compensation for criminal injuries sustained in Northern Ireland of any body designated by him for the purposes of this Article as a body providing advice, assistance and support to persons seeking compensation for such injuries".
  There is concern that the Secretary of State may well appoint Victim Support Northern Ireland. That may be right but, on the other hand, that organisation is about providing comfort to people and is not necessarily able to advise people on their rights. That should be looked at. However, there is plenty of time, because this is not the scheme—that will follow. I hope that those issues will be borne in mind when we get the scheme.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: M y Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his support. Like him, I pay great tribute to those who have been involved in bringing the proposals forward. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that, as on all occasions, we shall give due and proper regard to the views of people in Northern Ireland, particularly those in the Assembly. We are not proposing that legal assistance should be replaced by Victim Support Northern Ireland. With a tariff scheme legal assistance to process an application through to a settlement will not be required. Therefore, the role of VSNI will not be to offer legal assistance but to help applicants with administrative procedure, in much the way that citizens advice bureaux might assist with social security claims.
  However, VSNI has embarked on an intensive training programme for advice workers and volunteers to ensure that those involved with claimants are fully aware of the extent of service that needs to be provided. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that the department will monitor very closely the service provided by Victim Support Northern Ireland to ensure that victims are getting the service that they need.
  I thank both noble Lords who have offered their support.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
  10.5 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 14th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of these regulations is to increase the fees for certain, microfiche based products provided by Companies House. The reason for doing so is that the demand for such products is declining steadily. New electronic search services available from Companies House are taking over as the primary medium for searching company records. Indeed, the increase in demand for the electronic services can be seen as a significant achievement in progressing the Modernising Government agenda.
  As Companies House is an executive agency with trading fund status, it is obliged to recover the costs of the services it supplies through the fees it charges. The declining demand for microfiche products does not correspondingly reduce the costs for updating them and running the necessary processing and computer systems to ensure their proper storage, maintenance and retrieval. Consequently, the unit cost for producing a microfiche will rise significantly as demand falls.
  On the current fee of £6.50, Companies House is making a loss estimated at £2.50 per microfiche. The predicted cost for next year is estimated at £11.50. As explained above, this is an untenable situation given the trading fund status of Companies House and the requirement that it recover its costs through fees charged for its services. In addition, Companies House has to fund future development programmes from fees it charges for its services. It is vital that the agency invests in new and up-to-date technology to provide more efficient and flexible services to its customers.
  We therefore intend to increase the cost of a microfiche from £6.50 to £9. This represents a significant increase but it has to be set against a decline in volume from 600,000 units in 2000–2001 to around 300,000 anticipated for 2002–2003. Other options were considered, including that of doing nothing. However, that is not acceptable within the trading fund rules as it would mean Companies House making a substantial loss on its microfiche products. A second option was to increase the price by more, but that is unlikely to increase revenue as demand would be likely to drop even more than predicted as a consequence of demand and price elasticity. Increasing the fee by a lesser amount would simply mean the need for a further increase in the short term in order to ensure that Companies House recovered its costs.
  The final alternative is to end microfiche availability completely and this is something that Companies House is looking at currently. It is, however, unlikely to be possible in the immediate future, but microfiche will in time become a specialist product for forensic
  652
  analysis or historical research, and be priced accordingly. Companies House proposes to stop updating microfiche records at the end of this year.
  The House was warned of the possibility of the likely increase in microfiche fees when a similar order was presented just over a year ago. This may well be the last such increase. More and more people are turning to the electronic information services now available from Companies House. These are becoming increasingly comprehensive and easier to access, as well as progressively cheaper. For example, since October last year, searchers have been able to purchase copies of company documents over the Web using their credit cards. The demand for such services is continuously increasing and this in turn will lead to lower prices for conveniently accessible, high quality, electronic information.
  We are increasing these fees by regulations under Section 708(1) of the Companies Act 1985. Companies House also uses Section 708(5) for setting charges for the new electronic, same day and other specialised services. The flexibility afforded by Section 708(5) is vital for the pricing of new products whose development costs and take up may be uncertain or variable.
  To conclude, Companies House is the key statutory registry for companies and company information in Great Britain. In modernising its services in line with government targets it has seen the demand for traditional microfiche products decline significantly while running costs remain broadly the same. I hope that the House will accept my explanation for the increase in these fees. I commend the regulations to the House. I confirm that, in my view, the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
  Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 14th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the previous occasion on which I spoke in your Lordships' House on the question of companies' registration fees was as a new Back-Bencher, when I sat on the Benches opposite. I complained then that the fees for registering annual returns were excessive and a burden on small businesses. On that occasion, I am happy to say that the registry reduced the fee from £32 to £18, and has since reduced it further to £15. It is a little strange to find myself saying that in the way of things such an increase is inevitable. Having listened to the Minister's lucid explanation, it seems odd that because fewer people use the service, those poor unfortunates who need to use it have to pay more. Having said that, we support the regulations.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, these figures seem appropriate.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had hoped to have a chance to say how awful microfiches are. Have any noble Lords ever done a microfiche search? It is an absolute nightmare. One gets these little

  653
  photographic things, puts them in a machine, turns the light on and scrabbles around trying to find what one wants. It is an awful business, and I do not recommend it to my worst enemy.
  The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is that there is a combination of fixed and variable costs. The fixed costs do not change when demand declines and the variable costs are insignificant. That is why the price has to go up.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  BBC
  10.11 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannochasked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether the chairman and governors of the BBC are fulfilling their duty to produce political programmes which are impartial, wide-ranging and fair.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who put their names down to speak tonight, especially at this late hour. I suppose that I am a little disappointed that no past or present governor of the BBC is joining us, of whom there are a few in your Lordships' House. I cannot help wondering whether their absence says anything about the Question before us.
  I suppose that bias, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. If broadcasting bias exists, it is peculiarly difficult to prove. That is because the programmes in question flash across our television screens or we listen to them on the radio perhaps with half an ear, and then they are gone. To prove broadcasters' bias or narrowness of coverage, their output has to be recorded, transposed into writing and analysed by an objective mind. Even then, there are difficulties because the written word does not record the tone of voice in which a question was put or a comment made, and that may be significant in relation to the way in which an interviewee is treated. So, laborious cross-referencing between the broadcast programme and its text is sometimes necessary. Also, in order to establish consistent editorial bias, it is not enough to record and transpose the odd programme here and there. One has to analyse a number of programmes which can reasonably be said to amount to a series. The whole process is laborious but it has to be done if the analyses are to carry credibility and thus form the basis of useful dialogue with those responsible for the programmes.
  For many years, the Euro-realist movement in this country has been convinced that the BBC is biased in favour of the United Kingdom becoming part of European economic and monetary union and even more so in favour of our continued membership of the European Union. That partiality is alleged to go back to the 1975 referendum at least, and indeed the BBC has been good enough to admit that it was disgracefully biased in favour of the "yes" campaign then. But what about now?
  654
  To answer that question, some three years ago, the noble Lords, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I—through the medium of our research unit, Global Britain—decided to commission serious analysis of the BBC's coverage of our relationship with the European Union.
  I am aware that there are other areas in which the BBC's coverage is alleged to be unbalanced. There are, for instance, many who feel that the BBC has been less than even-handed in its treatment of the Irish question, that it is biased in favour of the Palestinians in the tragic conflict that is unfolding before us in the Middle East, and that generally it panders to anti-Americanism, perhaps in part as a result of its blind enthusiasm for the European dream. I simply do not know enough about those other very important areas to comment; nor am I aware of any relevant research of sufficient depth to put before noble Lords tonight. However, I understand that the research commissioned by my noble friends and I may well be unique in the history of the BBC. That is why I feel it is worth giving your Lordships some of its headline findings.
  Before I do so, I should say that we were lucky to find analysts of impeccable background who have worked in broadcasting for most of their lives—insiders who brought an open mind to the subject. The firm we therefore commissioned was Minotaur Media Tracking, which is directed by Mr David Keighley and Mrs Kathy Gingel.
  Mr Keighley's career went from reporter to producer at the BBC, after which he became publicity officer for BBC TV news and current affairs. He was then director of corporate affairs at TV-am, where his duties included compliance on editorial matters under the former IBA. He founded, and still is a non-executive director of, Newsworld, the leading international forum for news broadcasters. Mrs Gingel was a producer for London Weekend Television and rose to be features editor of TV-am. Therefore, no one can say that Minotaur's conclusions have been reached by a bunch of disgruntled Euro-sceptics who do not know how broadcasting works.
  We have so far commissioned six surveys of the BBC's political coverage of the "European" issue. The main reports run to some 400 pages, supported by around 600 pages of background analysis, and some 780 transcripts which run to a further 1,800-odd pages.
  Minotaur's first report covered the elections to the European Parliament, from 9th May to 6th June 1999. The headline findings were disturbing and were as follows. Less than 2 per cent of TV news coverage was devoted to the elections. There was no discussion about the wider issue of the UK's relationship with the European Union, and thus about the reasons for Euro-scepticism in Britain. The BBC concentrated massively on Conservative Party splits about the single currency, which were not otherwise evident at the time. It gave the meaningless Pro-Euro Conservative Party, which went on to win 1.2 per cent of the votes and no seats, similar prominence to the Conservative Party itself. Minority parties were virtually ignored, with the UK Independence Party being allowed only one

  655
  negative interview, although it went on to win 7 per cent of the votes and 3 seats. The best statistic of all is that not a single Labour Euro-sceptic—not even the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, and not even the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon—went on air for a single minute in 400 hours of coverage monitored.
  Since then, we have commissioned five further reports into the BBC's political coverage, two of which concentrated on the "Today" programme, given its political influence. In one of these, for the period from 21st May to 21st July 2000, the report found that "Today" put on air two-and-a-half times more people in favour of the single currency than those against it. I leave your Lordships to decide upon the BBC's defence against this finding from the Assistant Director of BBC News:
  "Clearly if the Government is having difficulty in deciding its European strategy and tactics, there is bound to be regular questioning of Labour MPs and supporters about those difficulties".
  Indeed, but without putting a single Labour Eurosceptic on air?
  Another survey of "Today" from 9th January to 3rd February 2000 covered a series of three programmes lasting 30 minutes, which were billed as a discussion of the case for the UK to leave the European Union. But, in the event, only one person was allowed to put that case for some 35 seconds, perhaps because he was live and the BBC could not cut him out.
  In fact, all those reports tell the same story, but I do not have time to give more detail tonight. We are putting all the reports on our research unit's website—globalbritain.org—in case any of your Lordships is a glutton for further punishment of this kind. We are also putting on the web most of our correspondence with the last and present chairman of the BBC, with some of the BBC senior staff, including the Director-General, and with the last and present Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
  All this leads me to lay two complaints about the BBC before your Lordships tonight. The first, as your Lordships may have guessed, concerns the fact that its coverage entirely excludes any debate as to whether or not we should be in the EU. I know that many of your Lordships do not want to venture into that debate either, but millions of British people do, and the BBC has a clear duty to help them have it. It has a duty to do so because its charter and guidelines demand that:
  "No significant strand of British public thought should go unreflected or under-represented on the BBC".
  The BBC's defence, when accused of this omission, is understandable but not very good. It says that none of the main political parties wants to talk about leaving the European Union. But surely that makes its duty even more clear and urgent. And there can be no doubt that we are looking at a significant strand of public thought. I know that opinion polls are unreliable, but in this area they remain remarkably firm.
  In answer to the consistent question from MORI, "If there were a referendum on whether the UK should stay in or leave the European Union, which way would
  656
  you vote?", the vote to leave rose to 52 per cent during the last general election campaign and indeed it has not fallen below 40 per cent of those expressing an opinion since 1987.
  Another consistent answer, supported by some 80 per cent of respondents, is that the British people do not think that they have been given enough truthful information about our relationship with the European Union to be sure what their opinion is, and they would like more. Surely the BBC should meet this need.
  My second major complaint against the BBC concerns its internal procedures. It appears that all our reports have been given by the chairman to the BBC's management, and not to the governors, for consideration. I have to say I simply cannot understand this. How can it be right for the management to sit in judgment upon programmes which it has produced? Surely, it is for the governors to judge whether the BBC's management's output is impartial, wide-ranging and fair, and not for the management themselves.
  I suppose I have only two areas of questions for the Minister. First, are the governors equipped to deal with the kind of deep and complex—and lengthy—reports that we have been giving to the chairman? If not, will the Government, encourage them to so equip themselves? There may be a chink of light in the new committee of 10 people which the chairman has recently proposed to assist the governors, but who will appoint those 10 people, who will pay them, to whom will they owe allegiance—to the BBC's management or to its licence fee payers? Failing a satisfactory new system here, is not the obvious answer to put the BBC wholly under Ofcom, which I know is not the Government's present intention?
  Secondly and finally, if the Government are genuine when they say that they want to encourage public debate about the next and possibly last EU inter-governmental conference in 2004, will they start that debate? Will they ensure that the BBC covers that debate? Or are the Government not genuine about wanting to encourage that debate? Is the real situation that the BBC will not hold the national debate which is so clearly needed, at least in part because the Government do not in fact want it and the BBC does not want to offend the Government lest it ends up under Ofcom? Could the Minister tell us the truth of the matter?
  10.22 p.m.
  Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I greatly welcome the chance given to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to debate this matter, although not in the terms in which I had originally hoped to congratulate him. I thought that we were to have the opportunity for a far-ranging debate on the BBC's political coverage at a time when it is under consideration in the light of the Kevill review and when there are many interesting points to be made about it. However, I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. What we turn out to be debating is

  657
  whether the BBC is fair on Europe. I rise to the challenge and scrap the speech I would have made. I shall address the points that he has made.
  I am glad that such points are now in the open. We have heard them muttered about wherever the old fogies gather in their tweedy uniforms to complain about the decline of our country. To have them in the open is much better.
  The noble Lord wisely started by saying that bias is in the eye of the beholder. I shall state my own bias on this matter which is similar in direction, although not in degree, to that of the noble Lord. I am by no means a Euro-fanatic. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I voted no in the referendum in 1976 and I may well vote no in the forthcoming referendum on the euro, if it ever happens. So I start with the same bias, but I see different results.
  I remember the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Donoughue, who is not in his place, in No. 10 Downing Street. Often over a late night whisky we would gossip away about the complete inability of the BBC to reflect the brilliance of the Government that we served. I also remember a chap called Davies who worked in the policy unit at the time who occasionally joined in those discussions. When we left No. 10 at the behest of the electorate, I remember reading in the newspapers that in Mrs Thatcher's No. 10 our counterparts used to complain that the BBC was a haven of Trots determined to undermine her regime. And so it goes on. Bias is in the eye of the beholder. When beheld by government it is always a bias against government. That is the fundamental reason which underlies the issue.
  We have had evidence laid before us. I have not had the pleasure of reading the website and the research to which the noble Lord referred. I have a tremendous scepticism about research into media bias. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will remember—I do not—whether the Glasgow media group was biased in favour of the far Left or far Right. Having suffered for tedious years its own supposedly academic reports on the bias in the media, I am disinclined to discount it heavily.
  I have a general point on reports from consultants. We were dealing with one such report last week in the debate on the National Lottery. Consultants do this work quite well and they always arrive at the conclusion of the people who commission them. Having secured the commission for the first report, any consultant who dared to report to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the noble Lord, Lord Harris—I greatly revere him—and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the BBC was unbiased in that matter would be sure not to get the commission for the second report, let alone reports three, four, five and six and all that assembled on the website. Bias is in the eye of the beholder and in the eye of the commissioner of the beholder.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if consultants are always biased, does that apply to Mr Wanless' report for the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the health service?
  Lord Lipsey: My Lords, having read it from cover to cover, I did not detect any bias in it. But some matters were absent from Mr Wanless' report which my own commission for the Social Market Foundation intends to fill in. For example, absences about the role of private insurance need to be filled. To that extent, it could be supplemented.
  My third point is this. Sometimes reporting may appear to be biased. Let us take the launch of the euro. I am fairly sceptical about the euro. It is undoubtedly true: rejoicing was reported in Europe. Other European countries are often delighted to get rid of currencies which have served them badly in the past. But the operation went well. It is silly for even those of us who are sceptical about the euro to deny that the operation went well. What was the poor BBC supposed to do? Was it supposed to go around with tubes of superglue sticking together the cash machines so that the euros did not come out? Would that then be unbiased reporting? Alternatively, was it supposed to sniff out little groups which could find some possibility of a forged note somewhere to show biased reporting? It was not biased reporting: it was accurate reporting which showed that it was a successful launch. If we join the euro in Britain, and if the launch is not so well managed—I hope that neither eventuality comes about—I would expect the BBC to report that in exactly the same straight way.
  The fourth curiosity is that it seems strange to focus on the BBC. Is there no other bias on Europe? Does the noble Lord read the Sun, the Daily Mail-The Times or the Daily Telegraph? If one wants to see undeniable, admitted, frank bias to a political cause, the noble Lord should read those newspapers and complain about them. It is not bias that the noble Lord worries about. It is not bias about which he is concerned. It is the fact that the BBC refuses to share his view—my view—on this issue. Whatever accusations may be levied against the BBC's coverage, the notion that it is biased on Europe is in my experience in no way reflected by the programmes I see.
  I turn to the subject that in my naivety I had thought we were debating: the BBC's political coverage. I make one fairly brief point. On the whole, political coverage is very good. I am a great fan of, for example, "On the Record". No one watches it, but it is a great programme. On two subjects very dear to my heart—electoral reform and long-term care of the elderly—it produced some magnificent unbiased and impartial reports of the arguments on both sides.
  I am concerned—this is a danger rather than a reality—that that kind of programming will be cast aside in a desperate attempt to get hold of young people. There is a logical mistake that underlies that. What happens is that the BBC has gone off to ask young people what they want as political coverage. It has come back with the poll data which says that young people are deeply interested in politics, except that they do not like the BBC's programme on it. But the real truth is that nowadays with opinion polls one in two, one in three or one in four perhaps of the people that one approaches to ask questions agrees to take part in the surveys. The people who agree I o take part

  659
  are the young people who are interested in politics. Naturally, being interested in politics, they say that they are interested in politics and naturally, being young, they say that they do not like what they are given on the subject.
  In order to cater for a normal audience of young people who are supposedly extremely interested in politics, it would be a great pity if we threw out the established and excellent serious programmes that we get. They may not be watched by many people, but the people who watch them do so with very great appreciation. Politics, alas, is never going to be "Big Brother", "Pop Idol", "Who wants to be a Millionaire?", or a mass audience activity. But that does not mean that the BBC should not continue with its well-established tradition of serious political coverage. I do not look to a past age as a golden age when I believe the radio announcers appeared in evening dress, although no one could see them. I do not think that that was a virtuous age. But I hope that we will not go all the way to trendiness and lose the many great qualities of the broadcast coverage that we have.
  10.32 p.m.
  Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords, I too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter today.
  As your Lordships know, broadcasting is a reserved matter in terms of the Scotland Act. Therefore, I hope that it is a legitimate subject for me. It is of particular interest to me as a former spokesperson on Scottish affairs in another place.
  My reason for wanting to take part in the debate is once again to draw to the attention of the BBC and your Lordships' House the fact that Scotland is still being denied its right to have an evening news and current affairs television bulletin, commonly known as the "Scottish Six", which, if it came about, should be in the words of the Motion,
  "impartial, wide-ranging and politically fair".
  It would allow for a proper presentation of news and political views from a Scottish perspective.
  It was hoped at the time of the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament that we could have our own flagship six o'clock news covering Scottish, UK and international matters from a Scottish point of view—one which would more fairly reflect the policies and activities of all the political parties within the Parliament in Edinburgh.
  I believe that the BBC has to review how it is covering a partnership government, which is something it is new to. To be fair and impartial it has to remember that there are two parties making up this partnership and it should report accordingly. The "Scottish Six" was supported at the time by the unanimous view of the Scottish Broadcasting Council. The BBC Scotland management and staff and the opinion polls showed a majority of Scots in favour. It was rejected by the Board of Governors, deemed by
  660
  some, including those politicians who hated the idea of Scotland having its own parliament and government, that it would be too parochial, that our reports and presenters were not up to scratch and inferior to those in London. That, despite the fact that the much-acclaimed "Good Morning Scotland" radio programme is a model of a successful blend of Scottish national and international news.
  If it is done well on radio, why not so on television? Why was it rejected? At the time Sir Christopher Bland wrote to me, saying:
  "I can assure you that the Board of Governors is not influenced by political pressure on this or any other issue".
  If that is the case, one might ask why we are having this debate tonight. Who am I to question the veracity of the then chairman of the board of governors? The political voices, those who believe that London control is best, were, and still are, raised against the notion of a "Scottish Six"—and do not tell me that they do not have influence. As a sop, we were given an opt-out on "Newsnight", much to the disgust of the redoubtable Mr Jeremy Paxman, as reported at the time.
  The concept of an integrated Scottish news television programme with proper editorial control is technically and logistically achievable. Surely it is not such an outrageous idea. We, north of the Border, pride ourselves on our internationalist outlook. We seek a much wider perspective. We have, for example, close historical and cultural links with North America and Europe, particularly Scandinavia and many of the eastern bloc countries that have applied to join the European Union. We want to develop those links. I was unsure of whether the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was saying that too much, or not enough, time was given to European matters. It is important that people further their knowledge about Europe, which gets little airtime on news and current affairs programmes.
  Perhaps it will surprise noble Lords to learn that there is a Gaelic programme called "Eorpa", which, although it has subtitles, is probably the best unbiased European programme on any television network. I recommend that noble Lords watch it when they can. Perhaps if more airtime were devoted to what goes on in the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the European Commission, people in this country would take a greater interest when it comes to turning out for the European elections. BBC Scotland has an important part to play. There is no question of Scotland being deprived of UK news from London—for goodness sake, it comes through 24 hours a day.
  With recent reports in Scotland that the radio "Newsdrive" programme is to be reduced by half an hour and the radio six o'clock news cut to five minutes, it is even more imperative that we now have a six o'clock Scottish news to reflect fairly and report on the political scene and current affairs, given that we are almost three years into devolution. Surely the BBC, as a so-called British institution, is big enough to accede to the view of the Scottish Broadcasting Council. Not to do so seems timorous, so lacking in aspiration, ambition and fresh ideas. Is the BBC really saying, "You can do what you like within certain parameters,

  661
  but London must keep control, have the final veto"? Sadly for Scotland it was ever thus. I firmly believe that it is time for the BBC to reconsider the matter.
  10.40 p.m.
  Lord Laird: My Lords, in rising to take part in this Unstarrecl Question this evening, I pay tribute 'to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for initiating this debate and for his most interesting contribution. The hour is late and I do not propose to detain your Lordships longer than necessary. However, I wish to take the opportunity to make a few remarks about the special situation which pertains in Northern Ireland in regard to BBC Northern Ireland.
  Religion, culture and sport as well as current affairs are all sensitive areas and should be treated as such by the BBC. Unfortunately that is not the case. Let me outline a few thoughts.
  I n 2001, BBC Northern Ireland broadcast many hours of Irish language programming yet there was no Ulster-Scots language programming in the same year. In fairness, I must add that I am glad to note that BBC Radio Ulster is broadcasting four 30-minute programmes on Ulster-Scots language and culture during this month, March 2002. However, just consider that the Irish language died out in Northern Ireland in the 1930s and is sustained today by revivalist speakers whose first language is English. Ulster-Scots is still the first language of a large minority in the community, which is estimated at around 100,000.
  The Government ratified the Council of Europe's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in March 2001. That gives minority language communities the right of media access. BBC Northern Ireland, our public service broadcaster funded by public money, has not fully delivered on that obligation in relation to the language of Ulster-Scots yet it has, quite correctly, met its obligations to the Irish language community.
  The Government also ratified the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. That also assures media access for national minority communities for the sustainability of their language and distinctive cultures. BBC Northern Ireland has not delivered on shat either.
  The BBC in Northern Ireland has built up extensive in-house expertise on the Irish language and culture. I have no problem with that, but that is not balanced with similar in-house expertise on the Ulster-Scots language and culture, although the Ulster-Scots tradition is as important in the community as the Irish tradition.
  Local political current affairs programmes seem more likely to address issues of concern to the nationalist community and are less likely to address issues which are of special concern to the unionist community. It is the view of many that BBC Northern Ireland adopts an editorial stance which reflects a nationalist perspective. Issues of concern to the unionist community are not often addressed by current affairs programmes. Those issues include, for example,
  662
  population displacement, the marginalisation of the unionist community in major areas of activity including education, higher education, broadcasting media, the arts, the voluntary sector, the community sector, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, museums and galleries, and the use of lottery funding to deliver public services. Those issues are not dealt with by BBC Northern Ireland on its public affairs programmes.
  I urge BBC governors to acknowledge their obligations to equality and human rights in respect of regional operations in Northern Ireland by, first, voluntarily embracing the equality obligations of Section 75 and Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That is obligatory for all public bodies in Northern Ireland. Since the BBC is in receipt of public funds, it is only right and consistent that it should also formally sign up to the equality obligations and build them into its business plan as objectives underwritten by appropriate key performance indicators. It should then acknowledge its human rights obligations under both the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and integrate those obligations into its programme planning.
  I should like to see the BBC taking an open and transparent approach to the delivery of those obligations. They should be written into the annual business plans for BBC Northern Ireland as a collective objective with appropriate key performance indicators that will allow measurement against achievement. I see these, or similar methods of redress, as being the only way forward to the re-establishment of faith in the BBC among the greater number of people in Northern Ireland.
  10.46 p.m.
  Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for instigating this debate, because it enables me to say that I am a great supporter of the BBC. My comments are not drawn from commissioned research, I speak only from an English—I stress the latter after following the last two speakers—layperson's viewpoint.
  Political reporting has become more complex over the years, and organisations have had to adapt accordingly. I believe that the BBC has done this well. The BBC is known and respected for its wide variety of broadcasting. It's World Service is second to none. Its "BBC News 24" channel is increasingly becoming a well recognised vehicle for fair, knowledgeable and serious reporting from all corners of the globe—for me, the first programme to which I turn when I return home. I need to know what is happening both here and abroad.
  Having lived for some periods of time in different European countries, I know how valued is the BBC. We are the envy of friends who are interested in politics in France, Holland, and especially Portugal, because we have the BBC. They believe in its impartiality and its political wisdom. So do I.

  663
  As the UK's largest broadcaster, its role in our political life is vital. It is also vital that it is fair and forward thinking, as well as being wide ranging. It should provide a forum for debate, and include people of all ages and of all political views in that debate. I believe that it does so.
  I have time only to pick up and highlight a few of the glories of the BBC. I believe that all of the following are bias free and vastly informative. First, "Yesterday in Parliament". It is really amazing how often this programme is mentioned to me. It is ideal for those who drive to work, or those who want a briefer snippet of political information and a flavour of what happened yesterday in Parliament. The second programme is the "BBC News" at 6 o'clock in England—having listened to the noble Baroness, I stress "in England"—which is the most-watched bulletin on television. It needs no further explanation or expansion from me.
  Thirdly, there is "Newsnight", the cut and thrust of which is notorious. I know from experience that tough general secretaries of trade unions, both large and small, tremble when they know that they are to be grilled by the "Newsnight" team. But they believe them to be fair, and worthy. Finally, I mention "Panorama", an old-friend of a programme, expert in both its presentation and its content over many years.
  However, it is not all perfection. Before I close my remarks, I shall take this opportunity to air one grievance. I expect that we all think at times that news programmes have a bias to them. That is usually when the reporter puts a contrary view to our own. We have to agree to differ on those occasions. But there are other occasions when steps can be taken to improve reporting; namely, when interviewers seem to think that they are the most important person in the interview rather than the person being interviewed. This happens particularly on Radio 4 on the "Today" programme, where the interviewers often talk across the interviewee—the result is that neither person can be heard. I find myself shouting at the radio in sheer frustration, much to the consternation of those who witness my outbursts. Surely, common sense should tell the presenters that that is neither acceptable nor sensible. I am sure that I am not alone in that thinking.
  As regards the future, I believe that the BBC has it right. Radio l's "Newsbeat", with a target audience of 15 to 24 year-olds, is lively and appears relevant to those listeners. A new landmark programme for BBC1, uniting different parts of the BBC, aims at a broad appeal and crosses traditional boundaries. There are new ideas for a new regular political programme designed to appeal to the under-45s. I do not know why it should be that age group, but I am told that that is the age group to whom it is designed to appeal. Finally, there is Interactive, a project to explore how the BBC's popular online services can be better used to attract audiences to political debate.
  The BBC is one of our greatest institutions. Long may it remain so.
  10.51 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for raising the matter and for his persistence in challenging the BBC in its treatment of several items, especially matters relating to the European Union. I am pleased to be associated with him as a co-critic of the BBC and as a co-founder of Global Britain, together with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who is in his place this evening. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not to contribute to the debate; that is unfortunate.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, made the valid point that all too often the interviewers on programmes—on the BBC and ITV—seem to want to project themselves rather than get to the interviewee's point of view and inform listeners about it. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, bravely took on Mr James Naughtie of the "Today" programme and is something of a national hero because he did so. Mr Naughtie has perhaps had a few thoughts about his interview with the noble Lord.
  The debate has ranged rather more widely than perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, expected. It has been interesting to hear the points of view, particularly those from Scotland and Northern Ireland. The BBC must examine its attitude towards those parts of the United Kingdom.
  I am concerned with the BBC's attitude to matters European. It is unacceptable that it should treat with disdain a large body of people who question the validity and benefit of our membership of the European Union. The BBC gives the impression that those who wish Britain to remain a self-governing nation and retain its own currency are in some way a way-out sect that should be ignored. My correspondents and the people with whom I deal are concerned that their point of view should be put on the BBC as well as others. It is time that the BBC grappled with that problem and took all points of view fairly into account.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, asked about bias in newspapers. He knows that he will not get away with that. He knows well that there is a big difference between a publicly financed BBC, which has a statutory duty of fairness and balance, and privately owned newspapers, which, of course, get their money from the voluntary contributions of their readers. There is no comparison. The BBC has a duty to be unbiased and unfair, but unfortunately it is not. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and the Minotaur monitoring exercise clearly showed that the BBC is biased but that it refuses to accept that it is.
  I have been and still am a supporter of public service broadcasting. I believe that it is legitimate for a publicly funded broadcaster to set standards of honesty, integrity and fairness, as well as to set an example in matters of programmes, taste and education. I am not opposed to the BBC; I just want to see it doing its job properly. I do not believe that it is.

  665
  I believe that the BBC no longer meets that criteria. It has become an arrogant organisation and it believes only in itself. It wants to arrogate to itself the duty which belongs to elected parliamentarians—to hold government to account. It is about time that instead of trying to undermine Parliament, which it often does in its programmes, it should be its supporter. In the last analysis, Parliament is the protector of the people, and let us not forget that.
  I believe that under present arrangements the BBC will not work—not even with the beefed-up support system promised by Mr Gavyn Davis to assist the governors in doing their job. The fact is that self-regulation will not work and it is not working. The public need an independent regulator to whom they can complain and in whom they can have confidence. I can assure noble Lords that the general public do not have the same confidence in the BBC as they used to have in my young days.
  Indeed, the manner in which it dealt with the Minotaur monitoring survey and reports is completely unsatisfactory. They were carried out by independent experts over a long period of time and at some considerable cost. Their treatment by the BBC was cavalier, to say the least. If such high-level surveys and reports are treated in such a manner, what hope is there for the ordinary man in the street who has a legitimate complaint? He has no hope at all. That is why the I3BC is losing the confidence of ordinary people.
  I have taken up several matters with the BBC, not to much effect. For example, the Democracy Movement organised a march and rally in November 2000. Twelve thousand people marched and rallied in pouring rain to Trafalgar Square to hear national and international speakers, including the late Lord Shore of Stepney. There was no mention of that. The BBC did not mention it—yet it gave good coverage to some protest in Whitehall about Gay Pride. That was featured prominently on its evening programme.
  My final example is a lobby of Parliament on 17th November 2001 against the Nice treaty. Two thousand people attended, and yet the BBC gave it no coverage. It wanted to know nothing about people who were prepared to come to Parliament in the middle of the week to protest about a Bill that was going through Parliament. The BBC completely ignored that lobby. It was an item of news, but it was ignored. Frankly, the BBC needs to examine its attitude to the European Union and to understand that there is a large body of opinion which is concerned about our continued membership and, indeed, might very well wish to withdraw from it.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate but I was stimulated by what has been said. I am grateful for the indulgence of noble Lords. I shall be extremely brief.
  Like other noble Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch on initiating the debate and on the trouble that he has
  666
  taken over the research that he has had commissioned. I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but I am not sure that I would go all the way with his view. I am not sure that I believe that the BBC is deliberately biased over the question of Europe. However, I believe that it is de facto biased, it is instinctively biased, it may be accidentally biased, it may be what one might call institutionally biased because it mindlessly follows a certain conventional and hackneyed view of the world.
  Why do I say that? One sees it again and again. I recall John Simpson's report on the introduction of the euro in Ireland. He said that the Irish economy was booming because of the introduction of the euro, but not a word was said about the dangers of inflation caused by the need to halve Irish interest rates at precisely the wrong moment. That was said by the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland.
  I think of the endless appearances of Jonathan Charles on the news. He cannot utter the words. "the EDX committee", without using the adjectives "powerful" and "influential". He seems to think it a miracle that Britain is excluded from a committee concerned with interest rates in a currency of which it is not a member, but never mentions that Britain retains its veto on taxation and public finances, a point frequently made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I turn to the coverage of the European elections. Even the experienced and supposedly wise Anthony King, when looking at the first election results and exit polls which made it perfectly obvious that the UK Independence Party was going to win a few seats, might have thought that worthy of some comment. But three hours had to pass before such an obvious fact struck the mind of that great academic, Anthony King, or anyone else in the studio. The presenters were simply encapsulated and imprisoned in their own conventional view.
  We are given mindless programmes about the high level of the pound and how much better it would be if we were to devalue in order to join the euro. Never a word is said about the dangers of devaluation or the problems of how to achieve a lower level of sterling, and not a word about the dangers of an inappropriate interest rate.
  It seems to me that what is at fault is not perhaps deliberate bias but rather a plain lack of imagination, an inability to comprehend that there is another view apart from the one shared by a great many people producing current affairs programmes.
  As has already been pointed out, I do not think that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, are right with regard to the comparison with newspapers.
  Like everyone else, I believe in public service broadcasting, but I think that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, also pointed out, there is a wider debate to be held.
  Current affairs programmes have been dumbed down. "Question Time" has been dumbed clown and comedians have been incorporated into it. The programme continues until after midnight. "Panorama" is now scheduled on a Sunday night. I do not believe that the BBC is fulfilling its public service

  667
  obligations with regard to politics or, indeed, with regard to many other aspects. Furthermore, I certainly do not believe that the BBC continues to remain the envy of the world. It will be interesting to see how this debate is reported by the BBC.
  11.4 p.m.
  Lord McNally: My Lords, it is perhaps appropriate that we are holding this debate at a time when the BBC usually covers politics in its own schedules. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and, I suspect, the Minister, I was somewhat aghast when we discovered that the rather broad-based Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on the responsibilities of the Governors of the BBC with regard to news and current affairs turned out to be almost solely concerned with the BBC's coverage of Europe. Knowing the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as I do, that comes as a shock to me. However, it was interesting to listen to him go over some familiar territory.
  I was also interested to hear about the organisation that he and the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Harris, have set up. It reminds me of Dorothy Parker's comment on an actress, that she went through every emotion from A to B. There seems to be a tightly-knit group of prejudices there.
  Nevertheless, it is interesting to hear the views expressed on Europe. Although the Minister may not be able to cover them tonight, I hope that she will take back to her colleagues in the Government the fact that we on these Benches at least cannot wait to get into full debate in a referendum on British membership of the euro. I look forward to the regular appearances on BBC radio and television of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson, Lord Stoddart, Lord Harris of High Cross, and even the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and perhaps Bill Cash from the other place. That would be welcome.
  I should also like to see more coverage of Europe on the BBC. Perhaps it could send a camera crew around with the Tory shadow Ministers who have been sent to Europe by fain Duncan Smith to look at good governance. That would be an excellent choice for a European programme.
  As to the question of news and current affairs coverage by the BBC, the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, put her finger on the issue—times are a changing. We are a long way from the deference of 50 years ago. One of my favourite television clips is of an obsequious interviewer who was interviewing Clem Attlee a few days before the 1955 general election. He said, "Well, Mr Attlee, in three days' time the country will be coming to a decision. Is there anything more you wish to say to the nation"? "Nope", said Attlee, leaving the interviewer somewhat aghast at what would happen next.
  We now have two trends. As we have seen since those days, there is now much more aggressive questioning by television interviewers. On the other side, there is much more aggressive spin doctoring, even from the halcyon days when the noble Lord, Lord
  668
  Lipsey, and I were in No. 10. It needs courage to resist the sheer aggressiveness of the political parties and other interest groups in pushing their agenda with editors and programme makers, particularly when the aggressiveness comes from representatives of the Government of the day. It needs a particular courage to retain independence from the bullying and hectoring spin doctors.
  Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, it is true that the BBC has some answering to do. Perhaps that is why it has set up its own internal review of its coverage of current affairs, which I greatly welcome. There was more than a suspicion of the dumbing down of news, of the marginalising of major programmes such as "Panorama", of putting the political programmes on the outer limits of the schedule and of trivialising parliamentary coverage. Goodness knows how the broadcasters campaigned to get cameras into Parliament in the first place, and now they tell us that, other than the odd clip, they are not interested in showing it. The same seems to be happening with the party conferences.
  This is a serious misjudgment by the BBC. It will not win friends in the battles that lie ahead by competing with "Big Brother" or putting "East Enders" on seven days a week. It will win friends in the battles that lie ahead by fulfilling its responsibility to educate and inform.
  Actions can be taken to make politics more stimulating and interesting. The BBC has an important responsibility, not just to provide programmes on ghetto channels for the political anoraks. It should also stimulate interest in our political system among the passive and the disinterested. We are all worried about low turn-out and low participation. We must all share a responsibility. But in sharing that responsibility, the broadcasters have to think hard about how they cover politics.
  There are some new initiatives. BBC Online had 25 million hits during the general election. That is a most impressive use of the new technology. Other things could be done. I should like to see a quality mid-evening news programme by the BBC to equal "Channel 4 News". It should be possible for the BBC to produce both radio and television programmes covering the work of Parliament and not bury them at obscure times or on obscure channels. It could, for example, experiment with repeats of political programmes such as "Question Time" and "Panorama" on other channels or at other times. "Panorama" could be repeated in the morning, as could "Question Time". If that slot is good enough for "Match of the Day" and "Have I Got News for You", surely it is good enough for some of the political programmes, to seek out different audiences in terms of political views. It could experiment with a youth edition of "Question Time", with young people in the audience and young people on the panel. I refer simply to an attempt to carry the message to other audiences.
  I am worried that, after the great battle to have Parliament televised, it now seems that fewer of the digital platforms carry Parliament live. It is absurd,

  669
  when we have 200-channel television, that Parliament cannot have one or two of those channels to carry its work.
  The BBC could produce omnibus editions of "Newsnight" and other political coverage to be shown at weekends. What is lacking is an enthusiasm by the BBC for such political and news coverage. It realises that it has to do it, but it does not seem to have the same commitment to provide adequate resources that it has in other parts of its activities. The messages that have come from the regions tonight are ones that bear listening to.
  I conclude, alas, on a point of disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. I still believe that one of the things that creates the greatest sense of confidence, indeed pride, in Britain is the statement: "Here is the news from the BBC". Those words send out a message of probity which enhances our position abroad and strengthens our democracy at home. What we must do is encourage what is best in the BBC. We must encourage it to find the resources and the new ideas to bring politics and current affairs to a wider audience in the years ahead.
  11.13 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Pearson for giving us the opportunity for this debate. He has done it at a crucial time in the history of the BBC. Last month, the BBC announced its own review of its political programming. The Office of Communications Bill completed its final stages last week in another place. Last month the BBC published its document, BBC Governance in the Ofcom age. Furthermore, we await the publication very soon, we hope, of the draft communications Bill. So at the moment it is "all systems go" for broadcasting.
  The BBC is a powerful organisation with a distinguished history. It is important that it has a successful future in the multi-channel world, and one in which it fulfils its duty to produce political programmes which are impartial, wide-ranging and fair.
  The BBC review of political programming has stirred up passions on the issue, as we have heard tonight. There is a real fear that the BBC is embarking on changes to its political programming that could confine politics to small audience outlets on digital channels—to which only half the population has access at the moment anyway—and perhaps to late-night or early-evening slots on BBC1 and BBC2. The more that happens, the argument goes, the less chance there will be of television playing the role that it should do in reconnecting the wider public to the political process.
  After last year's general election, the BBC commissioned its own research into public disillusion with politics. Its broad conclusion is that young people are disenchanted with traditional institutions —so what is new?—and that Westminster seems increasingly irrelevant to them—so what is new?
  670
  The critical question is: will the BBC use the conclusions that it has drawn from that research to skew the way in which political programming is delivered so that it breaches its public service broadcasting remit? Instead of providing information that people need in an impartial, wide-ranging way, will it chase ratings with issue-based reportage that could trivialise political reporting?
  Sian Kevill, the head of the BBC's new politics initiative, is reported as saying that the findings of the BBC's review of its political coverage had highlighted the need for a more creative approach to politics, including injecting more humour into its coverage. Let us try to inject humour at 11.15 at night. That is a bit tough for any of us. One of her programme ideas is to find ways of explaining politics through different genres, such as drama. I understand that a UK version of "The West Wing" is on the boards. I love "The West Wing"—I am an addict—but as entertainment. I certainly would not see it as a substitute for political programming, which should inform.
  As has already been mentioned tonight, "Panorama" has been shunted into the graveyard slot on Sunday evenings. BBC2's late-night parliamentary programme "Despatch Box" is reported to he for the chop, and so may be "On the Record", we are told.
  It was against that background that last month the chairmen of the two major parties, Labour and Conservative, wrote a joint open letter to Gavyn Davies, expressing their concern at the reports that a number of political programmes might be dropped. They made it clear that such a fundamental downgrading of political coverage would not be consistent with the BBC's position as a publicly funded public service broadcaster and that the BBC's response is not appropriate to the debate that it set up last November in its seminar "Beyond the Soundbite".
  David Davis and Charles Clarke rightly said that they are concerned to see high quality coverage of political news and debate in the UK and that it is important for the BBC to provide the range of programmes necessary in order that important issues can be aired thoroughly in a way that allows the arguments of both the Government and the Opposition to be conveyed. However, as my noble friend Lord Pearson pointed out, at the moment the BBC is judge in its own court as to whether its programming is impartial and fair. The Government have decided that the BBC governors will continue to be judge in their own court. They made that clear in debate on the Office of Communications Bill in both Houses.
  For his part, my right honourable friend Tim Yeo made the Conservative Party's position clear last Wednesday. He said:
  "The time for the BBC governors to be judge and jury in their own affairs has ended. Those governors will sill have an important function in the future, but it will be a different one. It is clear to me that most of the media world believes that the BBC should be fully within Ofcom's remit".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/02; col. 352.]

  671
  That includes backstop powers in tier 3. That was also the view of many Members of both Houses, including some on the Labour Benches.
  As has been mentioned tonight, the latest development in this saga is the publication by the BBC governors of BBC Governance in the Ofcom age. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views about the significance of that document.
  I have met Gavyn Davies on only a couple of occasions, but he seems an impressive, shrewd manager of people. I am sure that his recommendations are as welcome as they go, within the current rules under which the BBC operates, but that is the point: at the moment, the BBC will not be brought wholly within Ofcom.
  Whatever the timetable for change to the governance of the BBC, change there will be. It is inevitable. In the fast-moving world of technology, it is important that it does not come too late. That would fatally wound the BBC itself, and it is too valuable to our whole broadcasting world for that to be allowed to happen.
  When Tessa Jowell spoke at the Radio Festival last July, she gave her definition of public service broadcasting. She said that PSB exists to make the good popular and the popular good and that PSB is necessary to support democracy, so that citizens have access to impartial news and current affairs at times of the day or at lengths that purely commercial pressures would not permit. I agree with her on that. I also agree with the view of Patricia Hodgson, chief executive of the ITC, who wrote in The House Magazine in January:
  "The commitment to news and public policy debate is essential to an informed society. And yet it is under real threat because it does not drive revenues or audience share. Guaranteeing that commitment is a key test for the [communications] Bill and for broadcasters and regulators in the run-up to legislation".
  If I am persuaded by any argument in favour of public service broadcasting, it is quite simply the following: that without it we could lose the opportunity of being surprised by programmes that we did not know we wanted. If, therefore, people say that they are not interested in politics, that is not in itself a sufficient reason for the BBC to drop political programming or to skew the way in which it presents its coverage of politics.
  The job of the BBC is clear: it is to find new ways of engaging the public in the democratic debate without downgrading the quality of that debate. It is the job of all politicians to ensure that they engage positively and constructively in the pursuit of that aim. I enjoy doing that.
  11.21 p.m.
  Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, and, indeed, to the contributions of other noble Lords.
  672
  I have to admit that I cannot claim to have read the website of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. However, my department was already very much aware of the noble Lord's interest in this issue in relation to Europe. Therefore, unlike the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I was neither shocked nor surprised to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, which did indeed focus on that issue. He and his colleagues from the Global Britain organisation have commissioned a number of surveys on the coverage of European issues on TV, and particularly on the BBC, and have kept my department in touch with their correspondence with broadcasters about alleged bias. Therefore, we were familiar with his arguments and I am consequently not surprised by what he said this evening.
  Before I turn to the specific issue under discussion, it might be helpful if I first put it in context by, reminding the House that it is a fundamental principle of our approach to broadcasting in this country that the Government do not—I emphasise the words "do not"—intervene in detailed issues of programming content or scheduling. I fear that I shall disappoint many speakers in saying that and not rising to many of the issues that have been raised by noble Lords. Such issues really are a matter for broadcasters' editorial judgment exercised within the regulatory framework which is approved by Parliament.
  I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, and the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that I entirely accept that they raised a number of important points and made some detailed proposals. However, I am sure that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord accept that that is a matter for broadcasters and not for the Government. Neither of them would want the Government to intervene to try to impose programming content on broadcasters, although I entirely accept that it is important that the BBC speaks to people in all parts of the United Kingdom, whatever their cultures, interests and views.
  In relation to impartiality, all broadcasters in the UK's system are under an obligation to ensure that any news given, in whatever form, is presented with due accuracy and impartiality. Furthermore, all national broadcasters, including the BBC, are required in all their programming to preserve due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy.
  I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that it would clearly be quite wrong for the Government, as an interested party, to rule on whether or not the output of an individual broadcaster does or does not meet that obligation. It is therefore the very firm view of this Government that impartiality is, and must remain, the responsibility of the relevant broadcasting regulatory body. That means the BBC governors in the case of the BBC and the Independent Television Commission in the case of commercial television broadcasting.
  Under the terms of the BBC's charter and its agreement with the Secretary of State, the board of governors is responsible for ensuring that the BBC meets its obligations, including the obligation to

  673
  provide comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs. The charter specifies the governors' obligations at a level similar to that of a company's board of directors. They determine strategy, approve the corporation's objectives and monitor and supervise compliance. Their job is to ensure that the right systems are in place rather than to try to second-guess management in relation to the day-to-day running of the corporation. It is right to put all of that clearly on the record. Although the charter and agreement set out the responsibilities in some detail, I emphasise that that does not indicate any special concern that the BBC is at significant risk of illegitimately promoting particular policy positions. On the contrary, as I am sure many noble Lords are aware, it was the BBC itself that developed the policy of impartiality in broadcasting. That policy was adopted by Parliament as a principle for all the main UK broadcasters, whether public or commercial, and has led to the broadcast media maintaining a position in this country today as the most trusted sources of news and information. That should be compared with the situation involving the newspapers, which was discussed by my noble friend Lord Lipsey.
  What was originally the BBC governors' policy is now their duty under the BBC charter and agreement. In order to fulfil that responsibility, I understand that the governors have commissioned six-monthly reports from the controller of editorial policy, which include an assessment of how well the corporation has met its obligations. Those form the basis of the governors' report, in the BBC annual report, on compliance.
  Within the BBC management team, there is a continuous process of peer review and of assessing editorial output against producers' guidelines, which set out the policies and principles to which broadcasters must adhere. In the end, someone—and someone other than Government—has to decide whether or not broadcasters are meeting their impartiality obligations. We have probably all of us felt at times that an item was biased in one way or another. My view is that those biases are usually felt to be in the opposite direction to those propounded by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Certainly, governments and political parties rarely feel generously treated by the media. However, that does not mean that overall there is bias.
  The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, submitted to the chairman of the BBC monitoring reports that Global Britain prepared. They purport to demonstrate a Europhile bias in the BBC. The chairman invited the news department to comment on the reports and the deputy director of "BBC News" has rebutted the allegations in some detail. The conclusion of the BBC governors is that the allegations of bias are unproven.
  I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is dissatisfied with the way in which the BBC has handled his complaints. He said that he is unhappy at the fact that the BBC chairman has referred the reports to management when it is the governors who have the ultimate responsibility for editorial standards.
  674
  However, Gavyn Davies has made clear that the proper role of the governors is to satisfy themselves that BBC management has appropriate procedures in place for editorial standards to be maintained. It is not the function of the governors to monitor every programme broadcast by the BBC. The Government see no reason to take issue with their approach. The systems which the governors have put in place seem to us to be both thorough and robust.
  The noble Lord has made representations direct to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport linking his concerns, as he mentioned tonight, about BBC bias to the debate about the relationship between the BBC and Ofcom. My right honourable friend's response made clear that the Government see no reason to question the arrangements that the BBC board have in place. She has also confirmed that it is the Government's policy that, under the proposed new system of regulation, the BBC's impartiality requirements should remain with the board of governors.
  The crucial place of impartiality in the BBC's reputation and the governors' responsibilities was, of course, recognised in the communications White Paper. I do not have time this evening to go through exactly what that said, and I am sure that most speakers in the debate are familiar with it. However, I want to reiterate that the Government remain committed to the policy set out in the White Paper in this respect. The aim is to create a system which promotes competition while recognising the distinctive role of the BBC. Overall, the BBC will be subject to greater external regulation while other public service broadcasters will be subject to greater self-regulation.
  At the same time, the BBC governors have addressed the issue of the perception that they are too close to BBC management properly to regulate it. The governors' whole purpose is to ensure that the BBC delivers its public service responsibilities. The corporation is closely regulated compared with other broadcasters. But I believe that those outside the corporation are often unaware of the very detailed compliance systems which operate. The new proposals for BBC governance announced on 26th February seek to address some of the concerns expressed this evening by establishing a rather clearer division of responsibility between the governors and the management of the BBC. In response to the particular question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I understand that the governors' proposal is that the new staff whom they wish to appoint to support them will be independent of BBC management.
  We all recognise that impartiality is a difficult obligation for any regulator to monitor in detail because it requires a wide knowledge of the overall output of the organisation. However, I believe that the regulators are taking their responsibilities seriously in that respect.

  675
  A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of news and current affairs. They stated that the coverage of the BBC and other public service broadcasters in this area should continue to be strong and that there should be no dumbing down. Of course, the Government accept that.
  In conclusion, it is right that our broadcasters should be held to account and that those who believe that they are not fulfilling their responsibilities should
  676
  raise the issues with the relevant authorities. But there must surely come a time when it is better to direct our energies at seeking to persuade people by arguing our case on its merits.
  I hope that the systems that I have described this evening, and the changes in governance announced recently, will reassure noble Lords that the impartiality of the BBC will remain secure.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.

  Transexuality: Human Rights Court
  Transexuality: Human Rights Court
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Retail Crime
  Retail Crime
  Mobile Phones and Driving
  Mobile Phones and Driving
  Fingerprint Identification
  Fingerprint Identification
  Animals in Scientific Procedures
  Animals in Scientific Procedures
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Reserve Forces
  Reserve Forces
  Technical Legislation: European Commission Notification
  Technical Legislation: European Commission Notification
  BSE
  BSE
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Ecolabelling
  Ecolabelling
  On-product Environmental Claims
  On-product Environmental Claims
  Choosing Green Report
  Choosing Green Report
  Drink Containers: Deposit Systems
  Drink Containers: Deposit Systems
  Sustainable Development
  Sustainable Development
  Albanian-speaking Unaccompanied Minors
  Albanian-speaking Unaccompanied Minors
  Gambling
  Gambling
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Human Organs and Tissue Removal
  Human Organs and Tissue Removal
  Lancashire: Care Homes
  Lancashire: Care Homes
  NHS Trusts
  NHS Trusts
  Civil Service
  Civil Service