Sitting of 21 March 2002

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Tuesday 26 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Aerospace Industry
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What steps she is taking to encourage research and development in the UK aerospace industry. [42845]
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If she will make a statement on the future of the aerospace industry. [42853]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are taking a number of steps to support and improve the competitiveness of the United Kingdom aerospace industry. These include providing substantial launch investment and we are providing support of £20 million a year through the civil aeronautics research programme.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I, however, press her on the funding of CARAD—the civil aircraft research and technology demonstration? The aerospace industry, which has been identified by the Government as a priority area for investment and encouragement, depends heavily on research. Yet UK public investment in research, particularly in aerospace research and development, has decreased significantly over the past decade. Funding through the CARAD programme in particular has fallen by 80 per cent. over that period. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to review that programme and commit more resources to aerospace research and development?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point about the importance of research and development in this world-class sector. I am looking at whether it is possible to do more through the CARAD programme and others to support research and development in aerospace.
    416
    Aerospace companies will benefit significantly from the Chancellor's proposal to extend the research and development tax credits from the small and medium-sized enterprises, to which it already applies, to larger companies. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take account of my hon. Friend's views in reaching the public spending settlement.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for agreeing to visit the Isle of Wight, a visit that is eagerly anticipated by former staff of GKN Westland and the many others on the island who work in the aerospace industry. Can the Secretary of State give some hope to those who still have jobs in the industry that those jobs will be secure in the future, and reassure them that help will be given to attract new jobs to the island for the benefit of the 650 who have lost their jobs at Westland?
    Ms Hewitt: I should like to extend my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's constituents who lost their jobs at Westland and to their families. Talking to a number of business leaders and trade unionists in the aerospace sector, I find that although the sector is going through a very difficult time, exacerbated by the effects of 11 September, the medium-term outlook is very bright as demand recovers in the world economy, and particularly as the impact of the Lockheed joint strike fighter contract is felt. I look forward to my visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and believe that the medium and longer term outlook for workers and companies in the aerospace sector is bright.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: I thank my right hon. Friend for the support that the Government have given, both directly—and, through Yorkshire Forward, indirectly—to the investment in my constituency for an advanced manufacturing aerospace research and development project between Boeing and Sheffield university. I hope that we can get the same support for the neighbouring manufacturing companies that are working on aerospace projects in my constituency to make sure that we build from research and development into the most advanced aerospace manufacturing base not only in the United Kingdom but potentially in the world.
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I was delighted to hear Tom Bell, the chief executive of Boeing in the UK, say recently that in order for Boeing to be a world-class company it needed to be in partnership with the United Kingdom's world-class universities. Those partnerships between industry and our science base will ensure that our aerospace companies remain at the forefront of innovation and are thus in the competitive position to take advantage of the upturn in demand that will quite clearly come through in the world economy.
    Mr. Richard Page: Will the Secretary of State place in the Library details of the support that the Government give to small businesses in the supply chain for this most important industry—particularly for project and development work and enabling them to quote for projects? Will she include comparisons relating to what our European competitor countries do for their small businesses?
    Ms Hewitt: I shall be happy to provide a note along those lines. I remind the hon. Gentleman that through

    417
    programmes such as the SMART awards, through the research and development tax credits for small and medium-sized companies and through partnerships with the universities, we are already doing a great deal. Over the next year centres of manufacturing excellence will be established in every region of the country, along with programmes like the Centre for Aerospace Innovation in the north-west of England. All that will help to ensure that the smaller companies in the supply chain, in aerospace in particular and in manufacturing in general, have the chance to go on increasing their productivity and sales and continuing to provide good employment.
    Paddy Tipping: Companies such as Rolls-Royce, which has a strong base in the east midlands, have suffered badly since 11 September, but in the long term they have the opportunity of a very good future. That will come about only if they are able to compete in research and development for the future against countries like Canada.
    In my right hon. Friend's discussions with the Chancellor, will she point out the real need for investment in research and development?
    Ms Hewitt: I continue to make the case not only for an increase in our investment in the science base but for an increase in both public sector and private sector investment in research and development and in knowledge and technology transfer. Next month I shall open the centre for manufacturing excellence in the east midlands. That will benefit aerospace and manufacturing companies in the region.
    We have, of course, examined the Canadian scheme to which my hon. Friend referred. It is always helpful to see what we can learn from other countries' initiatives. However, it is worth pointing out that, according to the latest figures, business research and development investment is lower in Canada than in the United Kingdom.
    Lady Hermon: As I shall be visiting Shorts-Bombardier Aerospace in Belfast tomorrow afternoon, could the Secretary of State outline what measures are being taken to encourage research and development there?
    Ms Hewitt: I have had several discussions with executives and trade unionists at Shorts-Bombardier since I became Secretary of State. That company, like others in the sector, will benefit from the tax credit for R and D from larger companies as well as from the support that we can give, for instance, through the Export Credits Guarantee Department. We shall continue to support the company, and many others across the country, in ensuring that they have the skills, technology and access to export markets that they need to continue to succeed and to provide good jobs in high-technology manufacturing.

    Fairness At Work
    Rob Marris: What action she is taking in respect of her policy on fairness at work. [42846]
    The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): Since 1997 the Government have shown their commitment to minimum standards and fairness in the workplace with the introduction of the national minimum wage, paid holidays and many other measures. We are building on that commitment in our second term—for example, by introducing new family-friendly rights such as paid paternity leave and measures to support flexible working, and new protections from discrimination in the areas of age, religion, and sexual orientation. We are about to review key parts of the Employment Relations Act 1999, to revise Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 protections and to implement the information and consultation directive. That is a substantial agenda to deliver the Government's commitment to fairness at work.
    Rob Marris: I am grateful to the Minister for reminding the House of the great steps that the Government have taken in their goal of modernising labour relations in this country and of the welcome steps that they propose to take to further that modernisation, leading to greater protection for employees and a better work-life balance.
    Does the Minister agree, however, that this country remains in breach of some of its obligations under some International Labour Organisation and other labour relations conventions to which the United Kingdom is a signatory? If so, by what date do the Government propose to comply with those treaty obligations?
    Alan Johnson: No, I do not accept my hon. Friend's point. The UK has ratified all the ILO core conventions. In those and other ratified conventions we work across Government to ensure that we are meeting all the necessary requirements. We report to the ILO accordingly. We also keep all the conventions under review and try to increase ratifications as appropriate. The ILO itself reviews the application of conventions in member states as part of a process of peer review and continuous improvement in which we play a full part.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Minister not even mildly embarrassed when such modernising, reform-minded trade unionists as the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress describe the Government's employment policies as "bloody stupid"? More specifically, have Ministers met to reconcile their differences about contracted-out public services in view of the growing concern among not only trade unionists but responsible employers about the way in which training, pensions and holiday pay are being eroded by cowboys in industry?
    Alan Johnson: As the Minister responsible for employment relations, I feel that it is a sign of my abject failure that I have made the TUC speak to the Conservative party. That is a terrible thing to force anyone to do. I also wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is mildly embarrassed at having launched for the Liberal Democrat party the policy not of a national minimum wage but of a regional minimum, only to ditch it a year later, describing it as "politically illiterate". No, we are not at all embarrassed.

    419
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said—indeed, I said it as recently as 14 February—that we will protect the pensions of public sector workers transferring under the TUPE regulations.
    Mr. David Watts: May I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that many British workers still do not receive bank holiday pay? With the Queen's jubilee holiday on the horizon, will he take action to ensure that all employers face up to their responsibilities and pay their workers for all bank holidays?
    Alan Johnson: We have introduced the right for every worker to have four weeks paid holiday a year. Bank holidays are a matter for contractual arrangements with individual companies. We are aware that the TUC has recently produced a report and we will look at it, but we do not think that that should detract from the real and tangible benefits that we have introduced since 1997.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: As strike days increased from 235,000 in 1997 to more than 500,000 last year, does the Minister accept that, for all this Government's employment regulations, guidances and so forth, the reality is that industrial relations are getting worse?
    Alan Johnson: That is frankly ludicrous. A couple of years ago, under this Government, we had the lowest level of industrial action since records began in 1841.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister is referring to two years ago.
    Alan Johnson: Let us leave aside the Thatcher years when there was an incredible level of industrial action, and consider the Major years. 1990–97, when the average for days lost through such action was 833,857. Since we came to power, the average has been 353,540, which is almost a third of the level that we inherited. Employment relations are good and they are made better by the fact that we have established minimum standards in the workplace. We are pro minimum standards and pro free, independent trade unionism. The Conservative party is anti-worker and anti-union.

    Broadband Communications
    James Purnell: What progress is being made towards the Government's targets for broadband communications. [42847]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The UK Online annual report, published in December 2001, detailed progress towards our broadband targets. Broadband services in the UK had continued to develop over the year and 60 to 65 per cent. of the country is now covered by an affordable broadband technology.
    Progress is being made by industry and Government. Last year, we announced a £30 million fund to encourage broadband roll-out. This week, I detailed how that money
    420
    would be spent in each region and, earlier this month, I welcomed BT's announcement that it was looking to reduce wholesale prices for broadband technologies.
    James Purnell: I thank the Minister for that answer, which will be particularly welcome to small businesses in my constituency that are trying to use the potential of new technology to widen their markets and customer base. Does he agree that the announcement by BT in particular shows the importance of competition in achieving the goals that the Government have set? Will he also reassure the House that he will help businesses in rural areas to connect to broadband in the same way that businesses in city areas already can?
    Mr. Alexander: I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend's comment that we need an extensive and a competitive market in this country, and I know of his long-standing commitment to this area of Government policy. Indeed, the £2.7 million that was recently allocated to the north-west will address the specific concerns of the small businesses that he addressed in his question.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister boasts that there is 60 to 65 per cent. broadband penetration in this country, but there is broadband and broadband, isn't there? At the great risk of sounding like an anorak and boring the entire House, broadband is 1.5 megabits a second, and the hon. Gentleman is not talking about that sort of bandwidth. The penetration of real broadband is only 25 per cent. We lag at 22nd in the world for broadband penetration. Will the hon. Gentleman stop being complacent and say how we will become No. 1, not No. 22?
    Mr. Alexander: I certainly would not wish to bore the House, but the current generation speeds of 384 kilobits, up to 10 megabits, comply with the UK Online target that was set. However, the substantive point that the hon. Gentleman makes in relation to the challenge of meeting our targets is important. I am sure that he will agree that prices are falling, ADSL has reduced to less than £30 a month and take-up is rising—it is up more than 500 per cent. on last year. So we face two challenges: first, how we achieve a more extensive roll-out of broadband services and, secondly, how we drive usage across those networks. We are making real and substantive progress on both those challenges.
    Jim Knight: Will the Minister focus on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) about what progress is being made in broadband roll-out in rural areas? In areas such as Dorset, which I represent, what progress has been made has largely been through the education sector. Bournemouth university is working with a business park and the learning and skills council is working with a group of small businesses. I am particularly interested in what work the Minister is doing with the Department for Education and Skills, so that the regional broadband consortiums and similar bodies link in with small business access to broadband.
    Mr. Alexander: I certainly pay tribute to my hon. Friend's concern with this issue. I would make a central point: the public sector's aggregation work is absolutely

    421
    key to the roll-out of broadband services in rural areas; it is the fundamental means by which we change the risk and reward balance through which investment decisions are taken in the private sector. I can also assure my hon. Friend that very considerable work is taking place not just in the Department of Trade and Industry, but right across the major spending Departments, anticipating the comprehensive spending review, to address exactly the issue that he raises.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: I am sure that the Minister will agree that one of the great potential advantages of broadband is in reducing the significance of geographical location for business, thus supporting the regional rebalancing of the economy. But does he also recognise that the telcos, whose investment will determine the roll-out of broadband in the United Kingdom, are heavily capital constrained and debt burdened and that they will inevitably invest where returns are quickest—principally, in London and the south-east? Will he tell the House what specific proposals the Government have to stimulate investment in other parts of the country, so that broadband's true potential can be achieved?
    Mr. Alexander: I am indeed surprised at a Conservative party spokesman advocating balanced regional economic growth throughout the United Kingdom, but, be that as it may, I will take the point that he makes in two parts. First, he is right to identify the need to ensure that the public sector leverages its investment in broadband effectively in a way that affects investment decisions by the private sector. Across Government, we spend approximately £1.7 billion a year on information and communications technology. One of the fundamental challenges that we have set ourselves is to discover how we can leverage that investment more effectively to address exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
    Not only have we detailed this week the money allocated to each of the regions and devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom to try to ensure that regionally balanced economic growth takes place, but we have ensured that the plan that we have devised allows central Government to capture the insights garnered by the pilot projects that that money will facilitate. That is smart policy making to ensure that, in a competitive framework, we achieve the regional economic balance that the Government are certainly sincere in wanting.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Minister accept that although the recently announced price cuts by BT are welcome, they do nothing to help the third of the population who are not connected to ADSL-enabled exchanges, and that that is not confined to rural areas, but includes suburban areas, such as large parts of Sheffield, where people still cannot connect? Does he have anything positive to offer many of my constituents—including me, because my office is connected to a non-enabled exchange—in terms of a timetable to ensure that all the exchanges will be enabled so that businesses do not suffer this lack of competitiveness?
    Mr. Alexander: Obviously, BT faces a number of commercial decisions in taking forward what is a wholly new strategy for the company of focusing on broadband.
    422
    The present figures are approximately 50 per cent. cable coverage across the United Kingdom and 60 per cent. enabled exchanges. It is an important challenge for BT, if it is sincere in wanting to drive forward further broadband connections, to move higher the number of about 1,010 exchanges which are at present enabled. I have form in this regard, because five months ago I challenged the company to lower its prices. I would be happy to reinforce that today by challenging it to enable more exchanges.

    Sub-post Offices
    Mr. James Clappison: What assessment she has made of the prospects for sub-post offices. [42848]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. We have allocated £270 million over three years for modernisation of the network. In January, we announced our support for a compensation package for the urban network restructuring programme to be undertaken by Post Office Ltd. Detailed discussion of this and an investment support package is continuing and a state aids notification will be submitted shortly.
    Mr. Clappison: While the Secretary of State may say that she is committed, is it not the case that last year a record 547 sub-post offices closed and that sub-post offices faced a further loss of business through the introduction of automated credit transfer? Can she give an assurance for her Department that the universal bank is on course to be delivered at the same time as the introduction of automated credit transfer—in April 2003? Apparently, it has already been delivered to the wrong address once and had to be redirected. Can she assure us that it will not be lost in the post altogether?
    Ms Hewitt: I will not take lectures on post office closures from a member of the Conservative party, given that there were 3,500 post office closures under the Conservatives. In the last nine months we have seen a welcome reduction in the rate of post office closures. As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, we placed a requirement on the company to avoid preventable closures. Discussions are progressing on the universal bank and the project is on track.
    Dr. Ashok Kumar: What steps are being taken to strengthen the management of the network?
    Ms Hewitt: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and the Regions said last month, a new chief executive has been appointed for the post office network. David Mills, the new chief executive, has an excellent track record in retailing and will be able to bring that experience to exploit the extraordinary potential of what is our largest retail network. He will take up his job next month and immediately start going round the country to talk to sub-postmasters and their customers. I look forward to the proposals that he will no doubt wish to put to the board and Ministers for further strengthening the post office network.
    Brian Cotter: On 1 March in response to a question I asked, the Secretary of State indicated that 73 post offices are currently under consultation with regard to closure. In the majority of cases nobody is applying to take them over. Does the right hon. Lady agree that that is not in the least surprising, given the uncertainty over the profitability of sub-post offices and the uncertainty that continues, following the answer just given, on the universal bank? Can we have more certainty, particularly about the universal bank, because there is no real commitment that it will be a profitable concern sufficient to make up for the lack of profitability as regards other Government measures?
    Ms Hewitt: It is perfectly true that there are some sub-post offices in urban and rural parts where it is not possible to get somebody to come forward and take over. That in part reflects the fact that we have within urban areas alone about two-thirds of the population living within half a mile of two and sometimes up to five sub-post offices. Some of those sub-post offices are struggling to survive commercially. That is why we have agreed with the company and the National Federation of Sub-postmasters a programme both for compensation and investment to ensure that sub-post offices will indeed have a good commercial future. As I said, we have already committed £270 million over three years to implement the recommendations of the comprehensive performance and innovation unit report to ensure that customers and sub-postmasters alike have confidence in the future of the post office network, which is vital to the social fabric of our country.

    Steel Imports
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: What action she proposes to take in response to the US Government's decision to impose tariffs on steel imports. [42849]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government will stand by our steel producers in combating this unjustified and deeply regrettable action. We fully support the action already taken by the European Trade Commissioner in initiating World Trade Organisation action against the United States. We are pressing the Commission to take appropriate and urgent action to safeguard British and European steel producers and workers against a flood of steel imports. We expect a decision on that within a matter of days, and we are working closely with British companies to support their efforts to secure exclusion from the American measures of products that American steel producers cannot supply.
    Mr. Cawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for her efforts on behalf of the steel industry, which we hope will be successful in persuading Commissioner Lamy to introduce quotas at the pre—1998 level. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the problems of the British steel industry did not begin with American tariffs. The relative strength of the pound against the euro has made life very difficult, and although EU defensive mechanisms are appropriate, what unilateral measures will she take to ensure that EU partners with a
    424
    high dependency on US exports do not merely export those goods to the United Kingdom, further hitting the British steel industry?
    Ms Hewitt: We are working closely with our steel companies, trade unions and trade association to ensure that we do everything that is possible within the framework of WTO rules, which we support even if the Americans do not, to protect our companies and workers against the American action. Of course we are all aware of the impact of the weak euro on many of our steel companies, but despite that our steel industry has an excellent productivity record and a range of very high value-added products. We will continue to support the innovation and R and D that will help them to sustain their competitiveness both in Europe and globally.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: During the Secretary of State's recent statement to the House, she continually refused to answer questions on when the Prime Minister first became involved in making representations to the President and others in the American Administration. Will she now answer that—otherwise we, like steelworkers and others around the country, will conclude that the right hon. Gentleman's representations were woefully inadequate and made very late in the day?
    Ms Hewitt: I find it a little difficult to regard the right hon. Gentleman as a consistent and effective spokesman for our steel industry. I made it clear in that statement that since last July, the British Government—the Prime Minister, myself and other Ministers—and our embassy in Washington have consistently lobbied the American Government to persuade them not to take this deplorable action. We are now doing everything that we can to protect our industry against the consequences.
    Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the steel industry in the UK is very appreciative of the efforts that she and her Department are making following the imposition of tariffs? Does she recognise the importance of the urgent action that Commissioner Lamy is considering, to which she referred in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey)? There must be proper recognition of the time scale within which the European Commission applies the import safeguards. We need to return to the level set five years ago, or at least to take into consideration the fact that 2001 was an exceptional year. If the Commission does not note that, it will not provide the safeguards that the steel industry expects.
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the base of imports from which safeguard action is calculated. That is a matter that we have been discussing both with the steel companies and with the Commission. A decision on safeguard measures is expected within a matter of days, and our target is to ensure that provisional safeguard measures across the European Union are put into effect as close as possible to 1 April.
    In the meantime, discussions on compensation have already started, and if they do not lead to agreement by about the middle of April the European Union will then

    425
    be free to take retaliatory action against the United States. All those issues are being pursued as quickly as we possibly can.
    Adam Price: May I press the Secretary of State on this important point? She mentions safeguard measures against imports from outside the European Union, but one of the most urgent threats to the UK steel industry will be the approximately 4 million tonnes of western European steel that will be displaced out of the US market. If that steel is targeted at the UK because of the exchange rate, the effect on the UK steel industry will be devastating. What urgent measures will the Secretary of State take to prevent that from happening?
    Ms Hewitt: We are talking to the industry and working with our European partners to minimise the damage that the American action will do to British and to other European steel producers. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, as are the Government, of the damage that the weakness of the euro is doing to many of our exporters in steel and in other parts of manufacturing industry. However, we will not make the mistake that Conservative Governments made in the past of trying to operate both an inflation target and an exchange rate target. Above all, our steel and manufacturing industry requires the framework of economic stability that this Government have delivered and the Conservative Government so signally failed to deliver.
    Alan Howarth: I echo the thanks expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) to my right hon. Friend for her tough championship of the UK steel industry.
    Has my right hon. Friend had occasion to make clear to the US Administration how profoundly offensive is their steel protectionism at a time when British troops are mobilised to fight alongside American troops in Afghanistan and the Americans are making big demands of British friendship in international affairs? What sort of behaviour is it deliberately to impose restraints on trade to ensure that British workers lose their jobs to protect American ones?
    Ms Hewitt: As I said when I made my statement to the House on the American action, we would be wrong to link the war against terrorism with the trade war on steel that the Americans have unfortunately launched. We stand with our American allies and with the international coalition against terrorism because that is the right thing to do and it is in British interests—just as we stand with our steel producers against the American import tariffs on steel because on this occasion the American Administration are doing the wrong thing. I have expressed very directly to the American Administration our views on this unlawful and wholly unjustified action, and I shall continue to have discussions with members of the Administration to seek to mitigate the worst effects of their action on our British steel producers and workers.
    Alan Simpson: Will the Secretary of State use this as an opportunity to review the effectiveness of the UK's anti-dumping policies? She will be aware that in the past week Raleigh Cycles in Nottingham made the sad announcement of its intention
    426
    to cease producing bicycles in the United Kingdom. The main reason that it cites is the dumping of bikes from south-east Asia in terms with which it is impossible for the UK economy to compete.
    Raleigh has invested money to raise the standards of health and safety in its factory and to reduce waste by a factor 10 times better than that of its competitors from south-east Asia. Is not it a good time to consider the case for environmental tariffs so that we reward those who do not poison the land or the labour that they use in production?
    Ms Hewitt: I share my hon. Friend's real disappointment at the announcement made by Raleigh a few days ago. Raleigh is a great British firm that has been manufacturing bicycles in the city of Nottingham for many, many decades.
    We are always willing to look at evidence of dumping when it occurs and, where there is that evidence, to take action within World Trade Organisation rules. Environmental standards are of real concern not only to us but to our European partners. We discussed them fully during the Doha negotiations for a new world trade round. I hope that those discussions will proceed—but in the appropriate framework. My hon. Friend is aware that, unfortunately, many developing countries regard Europe's concern for the environment as no more than disguised protectionism.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: As the Secretary of State knows, we support the imposition of safeguard measures by the EU in the form of steel quotas. However, this week, Corus announced losses of £400 million last year and confirmed that another 4,000 British steel workers are to lose their jobs. Is not that further proof of the damage caused by the overcapacity in the global steel industry, which is being sustained by her Government's support for Mr. Mittal's takeover of Corus's foreign competitors, while her Government are destroying the competitiveness of the UK industry through the climate change levy?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an absurd proposition. The challenge to him is: does he support enlargement of the European Union, or does he not? Does he support economic reform in the candidate countries, or does he not? Does he support the steps that we are taking to sustain economic stability and to support directly the increasing competitiveness of our steel industry and the rest of our manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Whittingdale: It is no good for the Secretary of State to put on her pained expression. The issue will not go away. Does not she understand the feeling of betrayal among steel workers who have the prospect of their market being flooded by steel that previously went to the American market, while the steel produced by the Romanian company that is owned by the Government's crony, Mr. Mittal, will escape tariffs in the United States? Perhaps she will tell us whether her efforts to persuade the United States authorities to exempt British steel from tariffs have been half as successful as Mr. Mittal's efforts to have those tariffs imposed in the first place.
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman continues to talk nonsense. The steel output from Romania—a tiny, tiny

    427
    fraction of European or world steel output—will continue to be exported to the American markets because it has been exempted by the American Government from the tariffs, just as steel produced in other developing countries has been exempted. The issue of the diversion of Romanian steel—or that of developing countries—from the American markets to the British and European markets simply does not arise. The much larger issue is that of world overcapacity in steel and American overcapacity in steel. That is why we have been supporting multilateral talks under the umbrella of the OECD to try and deal with the problem.

    Science
    Joan Ryan: What impact Government investment in the UK's science base is having on British industry. [42851]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government are providing a strong framework for scientists and business to work together to drive innovation, and are encouraging collaboration between universities and business to ensure that scientific breakthroughs are turned into commercial success and benefit the UK economy.
    There has been rapid progress in generating businesses from the science base, with 199 new companies spun out from universities in 1999–2000, compared with 338 in the previous five years.
    Joan Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer.
    The London business innovation centre is based in the Innova science park in my constituency. The centre provides incubator units for developing innovative ideas as well as business advice and support. My hon. Friend is welcome to visit that facility to see its success. However, it demonstrates the need for practical advice on the ground to ensure that "Invented in Britain" becomes "Made in Britain". Will my hon. Friend tell us what further measures the Government will be taking to ensure that higher education institutions that do not currently provide incubator units can do so?
    Miss Johnson: I am delighted to hear of the success of the centre in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I should be pleased to try to visit it in the not-too-distant future. The successful exploitation of new ideas is a crucial component for our productivity growth, a topic about which I know my hon. Friend is concerned, as am I. In the knowledge economy it will not be enough for us to generate research—we need to make the most of it too. As my hon. Friend said, we need to ensure that there is a spin-off from the world class research in universities and the private sector, and we need to develop the ability to capitalise on the innovations that research produces.
    My hon. Friend will be interested to hear of the success of our policies compared with those in north America. In 1999–2000, UK universities identified one spin-off firm for every £8.6 million of research expenditure; in Canadian universities, the spin-off in 1999 was one firm for every £13.9 million, and in the USA the rate was one
    428
    firm for every £53 million. That shows the success of UK universities and businesses, and of the support given by the Government.
    Mr. Robert Key: I should be delighted to meet the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) in her constituency to see if her incubators are as good as mine at Porton Down.
    Does the Minister agree that we all have a responsibility to encourage a pro-science culture in this country, starting with more and better science education in schools? What regular meetings occur between her or her Department and the Department for Education and Skills to discuss the need to encourage science education?
    Miss Johnson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we invest in science, including science in schools. Our whole aim has been to commit additional money to investment in the science base; for example, a £1 billion package has been invested in the science and engineering base in partnership with the Wellcome Trust and the funding councils. In addition, we have given a £100 million boost to the science budget to build on universities' potential as drivers of growth in the knowledge economy. There has also been a £252 million boost to research in key areas that will shape life in the 21st century, such as understanding the genome, developing the next generation of e-science and creating new basic technology capabilities. All those things are very important.
    I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the work that is done with our young people is important too, as is the development of science in the primary and secondary school curriculum. I assure him that my hon. Friends and myself have regular contacts with the DFES to ensure that we make the most of science education and the UK's science potential.

    Small Businesses
    Gillian Merron: What assessment she has made of the impact of the Employment Bill on small businesses. [42854]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Government consulted extensively on the proposals in the Employment Bill to ensure, among other things, that the impact on small businesses was taken into account.
    Gillian Merron: I thank the Minister for his reply. I particularly welcome the measures in the Employment Bill to allow small businesses easily to give paid time off to parents welcoming a new child into the family. However, having heard the continuing concern of my local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses, may I ask my hon. Friend to outline the action that he is taking to relieve the burden of red tape? What steps is he taking to outline to small businesses the implications of the Employment Bill?
    Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend rightly points out how improved statutory maternity pay provisions from April will aid even more small businesses with 105 per cent. refunds, which will help 60 per cent. of affected small

    429
    and medium-sized enterprises, compared with 44 per cent. beforehand. The Government have accepted all but eight of the 294 recommendations from the better regulation taskforce. Our Regulatory Reform Act 2001 is making it easier and quicker to repeal out-of-date legislation. Our Small Business Service is working in partnership with the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the chambers of commerce and others to identify the impact of the Employment Bill on SMEs in particular, and how that might be dealt with.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Is it true, and can the Minister confirm, that the cost of the Employment Bill rose during Committee stage from about £200 million to £500 million, that cost falling on businesses, in particular small businesses? Will he reflect on those costs and listen to and understand the concerns expressed by small business organisations, which believe that what they were originally promised when the Bill was introduced in the House has changed substantially?
    Nigel Griffiths: We have listened with care to the representations that we have received from small businesses, but we are firm in our support for proper standards in the workplace. That is why we are for the minimum wage, increased maternity and paternity leave, and the flexible working that is so essential to the 21st-century economy. What is important is that the benefits of the legislation to many millions of workers far outweigh the costs involved.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Women's Unit
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: If she will make a statement on the work of the women's unit within the DTI with specific reference to the promotion of science, engineering and technology. [42880]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The DTI's unit promoting SET for women is doing excellent work on the recruitment and retention of women in science, engineering and technology and ensuring that women contribute to scientific policy making. I recently launched a report commissioned by the unit on maximising returns to science, engineering and technology careers.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I suspect that my right hon. Friend shared the delight I felt to hear so many questions relating to science today. It is an opportune moment to remind the House that the Government have invested £1.7 billion in academic science provision in this country. Focusing on women in science, I understand that my colleague Susan Greenfield, now Baroness Greenfield, is currently producing a report on women and their opportunities to re-enter science and engineering activities. Is my right hon. Friend in a position to provide an update on that report?
    Ms Hewitt: I recently met Baroness Greenfield to discuss the approach she is to take to the issue of how to
    430
    get more women into science and engineering. I am delighted to say that she has already established three working groups, which will consider the three key stages of a career in technology and science: early stage, mid-career and management, and then going right through to the top. She is to consult women already working in SET, as well as women who would like to return to the field but have not yet done so. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend is looking forward to Baroness Greenfield's report, which I expect to receive in June.
    Sandra Gidley: I am beginning to feel that I am living in a parallel universe—[Horn. MEMBERS: "You are."] Part of the problem is women's uptake of science and engineering A-levels and degrees: of those embarking on an engineering degree, only 14.5 per cent. are women. Is not an indictment of the Government's performance provided by the "Women in ITEC Courses and Careers in 2001" report, which shows that the proportion of women employed in ITEC—information technology, electronics and communications—jobs decreased from 16 per cent. in 1999 to 13 per cent. in 2000? That suggests to me that employment of women in science has decreased, not increased as the Minister suggested. Other aspects of the problem have been identified as: problems with part-time working and with—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady resume her seat? She has finished.
    Ms Hewitt: I am sorry that the hon. Lady finds the Liberal Benches to be a parallel universe. She might be more comfortable on the Government Benches—we would be delighted to welcome her.
    The hon. Lady makes an important point: the proportion of women employed in information and communications technology jobs has indeed been falling. The absolute numbers have risen as the total sector has increased, but the proportion of women has been falling. We have a very real problem in that the image of engineering, computing, and science and technology careers is deeply off-putting to many girls and many young women. That is why we are putting such emphasis on getting women role models and women ambassadors, especially into schools, so that we encourage more women to enter the extraordinarily exciting field of science and technology that offers such wonderful and well-paid job opportunities.

    Public Life
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: What steps she is taking to increase female representation in public life. [42883]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act received Royal Assent on 26 February. I hope that all political parties will seize the opportunity that the Act presents to increase the number of women candidates.
    Mrs. Lawrence: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that she accepts that women from all walks of life can make a valuable contribution to public life and to public bodies. Will she give an outline of what

    431
    her Department is doing to encourage a wider range of women to put themselves forward as candidates, not just women from professional and managerial backgrounds?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, and I have been organising meetings and seminars around the country that are designed to encourage women from a variety of backgrounds to think about possible public appointments for which their skills in the family, in their local neighbourhoods and in voluntary organisations have made them well fitted. I am pleased to say that that programme of seminars has been such a success in attracting women to apply for public appointments that I shall do three more meetings targeted at women from the black and Asian community, women from business and women from trade unions.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Minister will know that in 1997 33 per cent. of public appointments were held by women, and that this year the figure is 34 per cent. Does she acknowledge that, at that rate of progress, it will take till 2082 to reach the Government's target of 50 per cent. of public appointments being held by women? What progress does the Minister claim for herself?
    Ms Hewitt: We are making faster progress than the Conservative party, which has just gone through Trade and Industry questions with no women present. It is precisely because the rate of progress in the past has not been fast enough that we are taking much stronger measures to improve the recruitment of women and of men and women from ethnic minority communities to public appointments. That is why we have targets across all Departments and public agencies for the appointment of women and people from minority ethnic communities to public appointments. I am glad to say that the majority of Departments are well on track to reach that target of 50 per cent. of public appointments being held by women.

    Mothers
    Fiona Mactaggart: What steps she is taking to promote Government measures to make it easier for those mothers who want to return to work to do so. [42884]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We are promoting a range of measures to tackle this issue, including investment in child care, the working families
    432
    tax credit, the new deal for lone parents and the new deal for partners, and increased access to adult education. The Employment Bill currently before Parliament includes further measures to enable more mothers who wish to return to work to do so.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome the steps that have been taken to help women to return to work, one of the most significant of which is the improvements in child care provision, especially after school child care. May I urge the Secretary of State to do what she can to ensure that, as new opportunities funding runs out for after school child care schemes, support for mothers, especially low-paid mothers, through such schemes continues so that we carry on making the progress that we have started to make in opening up work opportunities for women?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have begun to make real progress on child care. We have created additional child care places for almost 880,000 children since 1997, and we are on track to help more than 1.5 million children with child care places by 2004. The specific issue of new opportunities funding in disadvantaged areas and how we sustain and grow provision in those communities is being reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, and is also the subject of a study by the performance and innovation unit.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that parents returning to work often prefer informal child care arrangements, and, if possible, leaving their children with a relative. Does she accept that we were right to criticise this gap in the arrangements for the working families tax credit, and that yesterday's announcement that child care tax credits might be extended to grandparents represents a welcome climbdown?
    Ms Hewitt: I am delighted that the hon. Lady has told us that she and the Conservative party strongly support the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit that goes with it. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor first announced the working families tax credit, he made it clear that he would keep its operation under review. It is already enormously popular and it is helping more than three times as many people as the Conservatives' family credit was helping. The issue of whether it can be extended to family carers including grandparents is of real concern, for instance, to some of my constituents in low-income communities. That is why we are looking precisely at that possibility.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business of the House for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 25 MARCH—Second Reading of the State Pension Credit Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 26 MARCH—Motion to approve the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on the registration of interests by Members who have not taken their seat.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill.
Motion on the Easter Recess Adjournment.
The business for the week after Easter will be:
TUESDAY 9 APRIL—Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 APRIL—Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 11 APRIL—Debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement on Wednesday 17 April.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for April will be:
THURSDAY 11 APRIL—Debate on UK—Japanese relations.
THURSDAY 18 APRIL—Debate on the report from the Social Security Committee on the Social Fund.
THURSDAY 25 APRIL—Debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on British—US relations.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for telling us the business.
A Second Reading debate on the Enterprise Bill on 9 April has been announced. I am led to believe that that Bill has not yet been published, but it is rumoured that it may contain more than 250 clauses and in excess of 20 schedules. The Leader of the House is putting us in a position whereby a major Bill containing enormously complex material, which, I gather, has had no pre-legislative scrutiny, will not be published until next week when the House goes into recess for two weeks. Immediately on the House's return, it will be asked to conduct its Second Reading debate. Surely that flies completely in the face not only of all parliamentary convention but of the Leader of the House's principles—which he likes to set out frequently—which include a belief in the value of pre-legislative scrutiny and in the necessity for the House to have a proper opportunity not only to debate and to scrutinise but to consult legitimate outside interests before doing so. I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter.
Given that we are not exactly under enormous pressure of time, will the Leader of the House consider delaying, even at this late stage, the Second Reading of the
434
Enterprise Bill? We would thus have more time properly to consider it and properly to consult outside the House before we debate it.
There is an item in a newspaper today headed: "Labour peer quits in job row". Apparently, the peer in question is a nice man called Lord Warner, who is a Labour peer. I gather that, at one time, he was a special adviser to no less a man than the Foreign Secretary. Lord Warner lists law and order as his special interests in "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", so he is obviously a good chap. I am really inviting the Leader of the House to tell me that the story is completely wrong. It is reported that this nice man was going to be offered the job of head of the Audit Commission, and that that was endorsed by No. 10, no less. However, it is alleged that another nice man, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—to whom the House has had to get used, as he comes here so often to grovel—for some reason vetoed the appointment of the nice Lord Warner.
We really must get to the bottom of this. If that Secretary of State is messing things up again, defying No. 10 and disappointing one of his colleagues so much that a Labour peer has resigned from his party and joined the Cross Benches, we need to know more about it. Moreover, if that nice man has seen fit to resign, what has happened to the Labour Chief Whip in the Lords? Some very serious allegations were made last week—
Mr. Robert Key: Another very nice man.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) says that the Labour Chief Whip in the Lords is a nice man, but that is not how he came across on Sky Television last weekend, when he made some very serious allegations. Why has he not stepped aside until his name is cleared—if it is going to cleared? Why is he still in his job, when Lord Warner has left the Labour party? I think that we need to know.
I genuinely regret to say this, but the Prime Minister's contempt for Parliament is becoming more and more obvious. We must not forget that, according to the House of Commons Library, the Prime Minister has a voting record of 3 per cent. That means that he bothers to turn up to this House to vote on only 3 per cent. of occasions. What the people of Sedgefield think about that I do not know as, apart from anything else, the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to represent them in the House of Commons.
However, the problem is even worse. The Prime Minister was not present for the debate on our military involvement in Afghanistan, even though the Secretary of State for Defence has said that our military personnel may be putting their lives on the line. The Prime Minister was not here to support the Secretary of State, or our young men and women in uniform. I have heard, although I can scarce believe it, that, at the material time, the Prime Minister was talking to Labour MPs about foxes. I hope that the Leader of the House can confirm or deny that.
If the Prime Minister seriously believes that foxes are more important than the lives of our young men and women in uniform, he should be ashamed of himself. He should come to the House to make an apology. I hope that the Leader of the House will urge him to do so.
Mr. Cook: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for drawing our attention to the Enterprise Bill. It is a very important Bill—
Mr. Forth indicated dissent.
Mr. Cook: It is indeed an important Bill, and we understood that the principle on which it is based was supported by the Conservative party, just as it is extensively supported throughout industry and business. I am happy to confirm that the Bill will be published next week. By my reckoning, that will allow a clear two weeks before the Second Reading debate. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is one of the more able and intellectual of Opposition Front-Bench Members, and I am sure that it is within his wit to prepare a 25-minute speech over the two-week period of the recess.
Mr. Forth indicated dissent.
Mr. Cook: Apparently, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does not have faith in the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, or believe that he can prepare a 25-minute speech in that time. It is very important that the Government respond to the strong wish in industry, commerce and business to improve the competition regulations. We must make sure that those regulations promote competition and break up cartels, and that they are more independent of political control. I totally support the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford will be able to say the same when he returns after the recess, when he will have had plenty of leisure to consider these matters in full.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his observation that Lord Warner is a very nice man. He used another term to describe Lord Warner that is not one normally used by Labour Members, but I am happy to accept his word that he is also "a good chap"—I hope that I have got the phrase right. I shall not dispute either of those points with the right hon. Gentleman, and no Labour Member would suggest that Lord Warner was not a nice man or a good chap.
However, I have been sitting here wondering what the right hon. Gentleman would have said if Lord Warner had been appointed to chair the Audit Commission. I know exactly what he would have said. He would have said, "Another of Steve's cronies gets an appointment … a Labour special adviser to Labour Ministers … it is disgraceful that such a man should have a very important position of independence." The right hon. Gentleman should spare us the humbug. He hits us over the left ear and, when we react in a different way, he tries to hit us over the right ear.
Lord Carter has issued a full statement through his lawyers fully rebutting the allegations mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. It was available to Sky Television before it went ahead with the programme. I very much regret that the current standards of journalism are such that Sky proceeded with the piece, paying no attention to the rebuttal and making no mention of the denial. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to show a greater sense of integrity and honesty than Sky by studying the rebuttal with great care.
436
I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman, as he appears worried about it, that the electors of Sedgefield have full confidence in their Member of Parliament. I would be prepared to bet, fairly confidently, that they will demonstrate that again at the next general election. As for where the Prime Minister was, I was at the meeting that he is alleged to have attended. The Prime Minister left the meeting before the discussion about foxhunting, in order to attend a meeting with the Prime Minister of Australia. I consider that to be an entirely legitimate activity for the Prime Minister of Britain, and personally I am rather glad that Britain has a Prime Minister who has the respect of other Heads of Government around the globe.
The right hon. Gentleman alluded to a general matter that has been raised in the press. I had understood—perhaps I was wrong, and perhaps Conservative Members will correct me—that the Opposition had tabled their emergency motion to demonstrate their support for our action in rounding up al-Qaeda terrorists and standing shoulder to shoulder with our United States allies. We are, of course, grateful for that support. I am sorry if Opposition Members feel hurt by the fact that we did not turn up in sufficient numbers to convince them of our gratitude for their loyal support, but if they really want to show support of a bipartisan character for our action in Afghanistan and the work of our troops there, they ought to say so clearly and unequivocally, and stop scoring cheap party political points.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1041, which concerns military action against Iraq?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there is a debate and substantive motion in the House before any further British forces are deployed in any military action beyond present commitments against Iraq by land, sea or air, and if necessary to recall Parliament during any recess for that purpose.]
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a specific undertaking that there will be no deployment of any British troops on any exercise involving Iraq until there has been a debate in the House?
Also, will the right hon. Gentleman again consider the need for clarity and an early statement on the Government's intentions in relation to House of Lords reform? As he will recall, on Tuesday, in answer to our questions, he himself said:
"I also welcome the Public Administration Committee's thoughtful contribution to the debate, which has proved that it is possible to find a centre of gravity on the composition of reform".—[Official Report, 19 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 163.]
It would seem that the Prime Minister had not read the right hon. Gentleman's words when he said yesterday, on the very same subject:
"There are many different voices."—[Official Report, 20 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 304.]
I am a great admirer of the dexterity and ingenuity of the Leader of the House, but how can he possibly reconcile those two entirely different statements?
Mr. Cook: As I have said on two previous Thursdays and am happy to say on a third, no decision has been taken on Iraq, and no decision may be taken. As for a debate in the House, I think that Ministers can refer with credit and with honour to what we did in relation to the

437
action in Afghanistan. There were five full debates on the subject, at least two of which preceded any military action. I am confident that should any decision be made—I am not prejudging whether it ever will—there will be a full debate in the House before any such action.
As for reform of the House of Lords, I am tempted to say that no decision has yet been taken, although I am confident in this instance that one will be taken. I am distressed that the hon. Gentleman should imagine that the Prime Minister does not read my words and those of every other Member who speaks in the Chamber, and I do not see the gulf that the hon. Gentleman sees. There are a multitude of views on this matter—indeed, we have received more than 1,000 responses to the consultation—but as the Public Administration Committee has shown, it is not impossible to find a centre of gravity among the voices in favour of reform. I hope that we will continue to search for it, and will succeed in that search.
John McDonnell: My right hon. Friend will know that eight weeks ago there was a breach of security at Heathrow airport and that more than £3 million was stolen. The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Home Secretary then announced a review of security at Heathrow. Two days ago, there was another breach of security and £2 million was stolen. Will the respective Secretaries of State make statements in the House on the progress of the review? The issue is important, as money has been stolen and lives could be put at risk. We need to reassure the travelling public and restore their confidence in security at our airports.
Mr. Cook: I understand the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend and his constituents; indeed, it is also of acute interest to Members of this House who, like me, regularly pass through Heathrow and want to have confidence in security there. The particular incident to which he refers is being pursued by the police, who are questioning those involved. Of course, it must also be a factor in the review on security at Heathrow, which is already under way. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to write to my hon. Friend advising him when we expect the review to be concluded.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Although today's statement on Zimbabwe is obviously welcome, does the Leader of the House agree that, in the light of the atrocious way in which Mugabe stole the election and the appalling recriminations against that country's Opposition, the time is right to have a full day's debate—in Government time—on this important issue? Surely it would have been better to debate that rather than hunting, for example, last Monday. Does he agree that more targeted sanctions are needed, such as banning all flights by Zimbabwean airlines?
Mr. Cook: We have already adopted a battery of measures against Zimbabwe. First, we established an arms freeze; secondly, we have ensured that we provide no economic aid to its Government; thirdly, action is being taken, through European Union measures, to prevent President Mugabe and his cronies from flying to this country, and against any assets that they hold.
438
We have taken great care to ensure that we do not adopt measures that would hit the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, who already suffer enough as a result of President Mugabe, without our adding to it. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless be aware that there are some 40,000 British passport holders in Zimbabwe, who want to visit Britain regularly. We would want to reflect very carefully before adopting a measure that might hit them harder than anybody else.
David Wright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hospital trust mergers need to be considered carefully? Several of my constituents are concerned that the proposed merger of Telford's Princess Royal hospital and the Royal Shrewsbury hospital will prove disadvantageous. Can we have a debate in the House on hospital trust mergers?
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the enormous local sensitivity to hospital mergers and the great affection that communities have for their local hospital, which underlines their faith in the national health service. I fully understand why my hon. Friend wants to raise this issue and put it on the record, and I shall invite my colleagues at the Department of Health to write to him. Obviously, I cannot promise a debate on the topic to which he refers, but I can assure him that these matters are followed closely at ministerial level.
Pete Wishart: We hear weekly of the Government's intention to change the drugs laws, most notably through the reclassification of certain soft drugs, but no legislation or statutory instruments to that effect have so far been proposed. How will the process be pursued? Will a Bill be introduced, and will hon. Members be given the opportunity to debate the Government's proposals? Most important, given that we are talking about the most fundamental change to drugs laws since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, will we be allowed to vote on the Government's proposals?
Mr. Cook: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have already made a number of statements on this issue, and some local initiatives are under way. I am sure that the entire House followed with close interest the results of the policing experiment in south London, which has actually increased the number of arrests of those who peddle hard drugs. That is particularly welcome.
As the hon. Gentleman suggests, no decision has been announced by the Home Secretary, so it would be premature for me to say how we would implement such a decision. However, the House has not been short of opportunities to debate the matter; indeed, a full debate took place only two or three months ago, if I recall rightly. I am sure that we will return to the matter again.
Margaret Moran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today marks the end of car manufacturing in Luton? After almost 100 years, Vauxhall is closing, resulting in the loss of 5,000 jobs in the region. He will doubtless want to join me in thanking the workers, unions and local authority members who tried so hard to retain car manufacturing in!my constituency. Will he agree to an early debate on how to ensure that companies such as General Motors undertake

439
to consult employees and the Government on an ongoing basis before such major decisions are taken, and that they take full responsibility in ensuring that compensation and assistance is provided to regenerate local economies, which are devastated by such decisions?
Mr. Cook: The whole House will sympathise with my hon. Friend on the loss of employment in Luton and wish to raise its concern about the loss of employment for several thousand people across Europe within Vauxhall production. I agree with my hon. Friend that if a work force and local community have given their loyalty and contribution to a company in the way that her constituents have done for Vauxhall, they are entitled to look to the company to help them to adjust to the process of change. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are assisting in all the ways that they can to ensure that those who were employed by Vauxhall have the opportunity of fresh work and Luton has the opportunity of a fresh start for its economy.
Sir George Young: When the House returns after the Easter recess, may we have a debate—this time in Government time—on the progress of action in Afghanistan?
Mr. Cook: I shall keep all those issues under review. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have just announced the business for the first week after the recess and that will include a day's debate on armed forces personnel, when I am sure that many references to Afghanistan will be made. I am also sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will wish to speak further about those of our personnel in action in Afghanistan.
Paul Flynn: Could we have a debate on small businesses so that the House could congratulate my constituent, Mr. Shelim Hussein, who was named the young Asian business man of the year? In a short time, he has gone from being a waiter in a restaurant to the owner of a business with a turnover of £50 million, under the benign influence of an enterprise-friendly Labour Government. Could we also congratulate Mr. Hussein on his statement that however big his business grows he will still have it firmly located in the brand new city of Newport?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to say that my hon. Friend has relieved me of the obligation to have a debate in order that he may congratulate his constituent, as he has just done so eloquently and convincingly. I welcome the fact that he has mentioned the success of the young Asian business man of the year, because it underlines the theme that I have often mentioned to the House of the enormous asset to this country of those who have come here and made their home here and the strength to Britain of being a multicultural, multiracial society.
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I draw to the attention of the House early-day motion 910?
[That this House calls upon the Parliamentary Ombudsman to initiate an immediate independent inquiry into the Equitable Life affair and the gross dereliction of duty of the regulators appointed by the Government to monitor Equitable Life policies.]
440
The motion has now attracted 147 signatures from Members on both sides of the House. Will the Leader of the House use his influence to persuade the parliamentary ombudsman to address the issue, to give us an independent inquiry and to achieve a satisfactory conclusion for more than 1 million policy holders, past and present, who believe that they have been disadvantaged?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having pursued an issue of immense and real concern to thousands of United Kingdom citizens. It is an important principle that the ombudsman is independent of Government and not subject to pressure from Ministers, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the ombudsman has the matter before him. He has, sensibly, concluded that it would not be proper for him to take action pending the outcome of the inquiry by Penrose, which has already been appointed by the Government, but I am sure that he will return to the matter and consider what action he can take once we have received the report.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the ongoing crisis in the railway industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not know why Opposition Members laugh, because they are the cause of it. That crisis covers not only Railtrack but the train operating companies, two of which have recently had subventions from Government to dig them out of financial difficulties. It is alleged that another four are in serious financial difficulties. Maintenance is an ongoing problem and train delays are getting worse. More than half of the delays are due to train operating companies, not Railtrack. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only a Labour Government can sort out the mess in the rail industry and that it is time for a full debate in which all the options can be considered, including wholesale renationalisation of the rail industry?
Mr. Cook: I fully share my hon. Friend's sentiment, but I could have drafted his question slightly differently.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Tell him about your philosophy.
Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful idea. I might take refuge in it if my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) presses me too far.
I and my colleagues believe that we were right to take action and end the competition for Railtrack's resources between the travelling public and the private shareholder. That is why I hope that what results from administration will be a company that can devote itself single-mindedly to serving the travelling public without having to serve the master of private shareholders. We shall continue to ensure that investment goes into the rail industry. Those who travel on the continent are well aware of the distances involved and of the enormous gulf between the performance of our railways and that of the better continental railways, resulting from the long period of neglect under the previous Administration.
Mr. Graham Brady: May we have an early debate on the operation of the Data Protection Act 1998, particularly in the light of concerns

441
raised by hospital chaplains against whom the Act is being used to stop them receiving information about the religious affiliation of patients in hospitals? My constituent, Rev. Graham Skinner, wrote that his chaplaincy team had found the new legislation to be a millstone for their ministry. That was not intended when the legislation was enacted. It is now affecting many vulnerable people. May we have a debate so that those concerns can be brought out into the open?
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of some hon. Members' concerns about how the Data Protection Act is impinging on their constituency work. I am actively pursuing that matter and hope to bring any findings before the House. The Data Protection Act was plainly correct in principle and in its objective—to protect the rights of our citizens and constituents—but it must be applied with common sense. It should not become a means of denying our citizens and constituents their rights.
I shall happily look further into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. He may have encountered an over-official interpretation of the Act. I am not aware of a parallel case, but it is important that a law that was intended to protect our people benefits them rather than detracts from their quality of life.
Dr. Howard Stoate: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the state of the transport network in Kent Thameside? I ask because it is an area with massive inward investment and is of huge strategic importance to the whole nation. Several outstanding transport issues remain, particularly the state of the railway network, the channel tunnel rail link, Ebbsfleet station and now the possibility of an airport at Cliffe in north Kent. Those strategic issues impact on the whole nation, so will my right hon. Friend find time for a full debate on the subject?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises some strategic and profound issues affecting the region that he represents. It is right for him to put his constituents' concerns before the House. I encourage him to examine further ways to ventilate them, perhaps in Westminster Hall. In the meantime, he will share our pleasure that section one of the channel tunnel link is on schedule and should be completed thisyear.
Angela Watkinson: Can the Leader of the House inform us how many additional cannabis users and dealers have been attracted to the streets of Lambeth from other areas during the recent experiment?
Mr. Cook: I cannot answer the hon. Lady's question and I might be regarded with some suspicion if I could. I advise her to examine the results of the experiment carefully. I would personally applaud the police in that area if, as a result of the experiment, they were bringing to book more of those who peddle hard drugs—the ones that we should focus on.
Gillian Merron: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the public interest report drawn up by external auditors KPMG, who have investigated serious allegations of political and financial mismanagement by
442
Lincolnshire county councillors? The report is not yet in the public domain. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on improving the public availability of public interest reports, which is vital to restoring my constituents' confidence in local democracy?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has just put some of the material of that report in the public domain, and I congratulate her on her vigilance. As I said last week when the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised a similar issue, I fully deprecate any failure of probity, integrity or financial honesty in public life, whether it is in the House or local authorities. The best weapon against such corruption is transparency. The best remedy that we have is letting in daylight and making sure that the constituents themselves know what is going on.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the Leader of the House, who is always so reasonable and affable on these occasions, consider arranging for a debate ahead of the Chancellor's statement on his Budget on public spending, as we now learn that since the Government were elected in 1997, taxation receipts have increased by about 50 per cent? As the Leader of the House will know, in the west midlands the transport infrastructure is close to collapse, hospital waiting lists are rising, beds are blocked through lack of resources and crime on our streets is almost completely out of control. We need an urgent debate on when we will get value for money for all that extra taxation.
Mr. Cook: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to be flattering in describing me as affable and I will not take offence at the description. In order to preserve that mood of affability in these exchanges, may I try to encourage him to take a more cheerful perspective on the public services that he has described? In the west midlands, as elsewhere, there are more doctors, more nurses and now more hospital beds than ever before. He will no doubt wish to congratulate the Government on the fact that we are on target to achieve by the end of this month the 20 per cent. reduction in bed blocking that we promised.
John Barrett: The Leader of the House will be aware of the ongoing crisis in the Scottish rail industry following the 24-hour strike last Tuesday.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: That was not a proper strike; it was only one day.
John Barrett: The Leader of the House will also be aware that a further two strikes planned by ASLEF have been cancelled, but there are reports in today's paper that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has actively blocked a resolution of the Scottish rail dispute. Can the Leader of the House find time for the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain exactly what has been going on between the Minister for Transport and Planning in Scotland and the Secretary of State's Department? He should be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Mr. Skinner: No sooner started than it finished.
Mr. Cook: I think that my hon. Friend has said quite enough.

443
I am very sceptical about the allegation to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) refers, and I advise him not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers; indeed, he would possibly be wise not to believe most of the things he reads in the newspapers. We are clear that these are primarily matters for the train operators themselves to resolve. They are not primarily in the first instance a matter for Government. We have always encouraged both sides to seek independent conciliation and arbitration to find a resolution, and we continue to do so.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Sadly, James Tobin died last week. He was best known for the tax that bore his name, an international tax on currency speculation to be used for developments in the third world, yet he had no sympathy for anti-globalisation rebels who took up the tax. Would he not have been pleased to see early-day motion 885?
[That this House notes that international currency transactions total more than $1 trillion a day and that the vast majority of this is unrelated to the real economy of tangible trade goods and services; believes that such enormous speculative flows have contributed to serious economic damage to countries and regions such as Mexico (1994), Southeast Asia (1997), Russia (1998), Brazil (1999) and Argentina (2001); further believes that a small levy on such currency speculation, the Tobin tax, named after the Nobel Laureate who originated the concept, could both dampen down the scale and scope of speculation and raise substantial revenues, potentially in excess of $50 billion each year, for projects targeted towards ending global poverty; is pleased that this initiative now enjoys the backing of a number of governments and parliaments across the world, including France? whose parliament recently passed a law authorising its implementation; is heartened by the words of the Chancellor that innovative ways need to be urgently found, including currency taxes, to finance development; wishes the Chancellor a successful mission to the UN 'Financing for development' conference in Monterrey, Mexico; urges him to take steps towards the introduction of a internationally co-ordinated currency transactions tax, with the proceeds ring fenced for international substantial development objectives; and further urges the Chancellor to ensure that these proceeds do not replace either existing international aid disbursements or agreed commitments to increase international aid.]
It has been signed by 115 hon. Members, a wide range of respectable people from different parties. Would not James Tobin also have been pleased to see the ten-minute Bill that was introduced last week by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)? Can we not, therefore, now have a debate in Government time on what is seen increasingly internationally as a very important issue?
Mr. Cook: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to pay tribute to James Tobin, whose work has provided an important contribution to the debate on international financial movements. I am sure that James Tobin would have been gratified to see the support that my hon. Friend and his colleagues have secured for their early-day motion.
The Tobin tax is a perfect, wonderful and impressive construct but it requires everyone in the world to participate in it in order for it to work. If just one held
444
out against the tax, it would be very difficult to make it succeed in practice. It is essential that we find ways of increasing the resources that go into third world development; James Tobin had intended his tax to provide the funds. There will very shortly be just such a conference in Monterrey, where the British delegation will be promoting the commitment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has just made to continue the improvements that we are making in the British overseas aid budget, and to continue to ensure that we make steady progress towards the agreed international targets.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread disquiet in the House and outside about President Bush's remarks about an axis of evil, which suggest that we want to go to war on many fronts? There is also disquiet at the Government's rather quiescent attitude to those remarks. I was going to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would bring the Foreign Secretary to the House to make a statement on the matter, but I see that he is here already. Perhaps the Leader of the House would give him a nudge and ask him to disavow George Bush's remarks.
Mr. Cook: I am delighted to have delivered on my hon. Friend's request even before he made it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has addressed the House on the issue on several occasions.
The action that we took in Afghanistan was absolutely correct and plainly in defence of our national interest. It was not in the service of United States interests alone. We, too, lost citizens in the attack on the twin towers and are exposed to the complex, sophisticated and expensive terrorism mounted by al-Qaeda. It is important that we act whenever necessary to ensure that our people can live and travel the world in safety. We must continue to consider carefully the British national interest and act on it.
Mr. Nick Gibb: The Leader of the House may be aware that the TV Licensing recently changed its procedures. People who do not have a television set and give the authority that information are being visited by officials, who request admission to their home. That is causing enormous stress to several of my elderly constituents who have no television and feel harassed. Following the first visit, they are liable to receive more visits every couple of years thereafter. That is a gross intrusion into the privacy of people who do not receive BBC services. The change of policy is a result not of a debate in the House but Executive action. Might we have a debate, followed by a vote, to assess hon. Members' views?
Mr. Cook: I shall happily look into whether there has been a change of policy, but in my long constituency experience it has been the practice of inspectors to call on people who do not have a licence to investigate whether they have a television. There is nothing new in that: it is, after all, the role for which they have been appointed. If the hon. Gentleman wants to challenge that role, it is open to him to draft a Bill or table a motion in the House, but we need a system to ensure that people who have a

445
television have paid for a licence and are not having a free ride on the back of the millions of law-abiding people in Britain who have done so.
Mr. Greg Knight: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the Enterprise Bill. I raise the matter as a House point, not a party political one. The timetable that the Leader of the House announced is indecent, unjust and unreasonable, and I hope that he will reflect on his answer. I understand that if the Opposition want to table a reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill, they will need to do so by next Tuesday. That means that we shall have only a few hours in which to draft and table such an amendment.
The Leader of the House often claims to be a champion of proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. The timetable that he announced today makes those words ring rather hollow. If he is not prepared to announce a change of business, in future we shall have to judge him on his actions, not his words. I hope that he will be prepared to think again.
Mr. Cook: I am suitably intimidated by the right hon. Gentleman's closing remarks. I shall reflect on his comments and consider whether an adjustment would be appropriate. On preparation for the debate, it is not unreasonable to announce a debate that is a clear two and a half weeks away and will still be two weeks away when the Bill is published. That seems an entirely reasonable time for those taking part in the debate—
Mr. Knight: The House will not be sitting.
Mr. Cook: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to suggest that hon. Members do not work when the House is not sitting. Whenever there is a recess, someone, somewhere, is preparing for the first debate to be held on the day that we return. I do not take seriously the idea that Opposition Members are unwilling to work at any time during the fortnight's recess.

Zimbabwe
1.10 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, I should like to make a statement on Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth.
As the House will be aware, a Commonwealth troika consisting of Presidents Mbeki of South Africa and Obasanjo of Nigeria and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia was authorised by the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to review the outcome of the Zimbabwe elections in the light of the Commonwealth observers' report, and to decide on any action.
The troika met in London on Tuesday. It had before it the final report of the Commonwealth observers group. That confirmed the findings of the preliminary report that I put before the House in my statement last Thursday. The group concluded that
"the conditions in Zimbabwe did not adequately allow for a free expression of will by the electors".
The troika accepted the conclusions in full and decided as a result to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth for one year with immediate effect. The issue will be revisited in twelve months' time having regard to progress in Zimbabwe, based on the Commonwealth Harare principles and reports from the Commonwealth Secretary-General. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our appreciation to Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard and in expressing our full support for their conclusions.
Three months ago, on 20 December, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, of which I was a member, concluded that Zimbabwe was in "serious and persistent violation" of the Harare principles. It was my view at that stage that Zimbabwe should then and there be suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth: I made that case again at CMAG at the end of January, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in early March. As the situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated day by day since December, it follows that we believe that suspension now is fully justified.
The Commonwealth depends above all on its moral authority and the force of the principles that it codified in Harare in 1991. That is why the decision was so important for the Commonwealth as a whole, as well as—of course—for Zimbabwe. That moral authority is what gives this decision its force. I am in no doubt, from the way in which the Government of Zimbabwe sought actively to divide the Commonwealth and to prevent it from taking decisions about suspension, that they were and are profoundly concerned about the international isolation that suspension signals.
Tuesday's decision was significant in many respects and above all for the fact that leaders of two key African nations have taken a clear and definitive stand in defence of the Commonwealth's fundamental principles. They have also underlined Africa's commitment to the universal and indivisible principles of democracy and human rights.
Suspension is one of the strongest measures that the Commonwealth can impose. In the past, countries have been suspended only after the violent overthrow of their

447
elected Government. Zimbabwe's suspension is therefore a new departure. Moreover, the Commonwealth's decision is in addition to the targeted sanctions that the European Union, the United States and now Switzerland have imposed against the leaders of ZANU-PF. European Union Heads of Government also decided, at the European Council in Barcelona last weekend, to ask Foreign Ministers to consider options for further measures.
What has happened in Zimbabwe is a tragedy, imposed on that once prosperous land by Robert Mugabe. Our commitment and that of the Commonwealth to the people of Zimbabwe remains as strong as ever. We have made it clear since 1997 that the case for land reform in Zimbabwe is very strong and that we were willing to provide considerable financial support for a land reform process that would be transparent and lawful and that would give priority to the needs of Zimbabweans in overcrowded communal lands. That position was supported by the international community as a whole, but rejected by the Mugabe regime.
At Abuja in early September last year we agreed a pathway for Zimbabwe that would have allowed for a resumption of international aid, including from the UK, for a programme of sustainable land reform implemented in accordance with the rule of law.
Respect for the rule of law and a return to democratic principles and sensible economic policies are the only way back for Zimbabwe. We remain ready to do all that we can to achieve that. We will continue our programme of assistance for humanitarian and HIV/AIDS projects.
In the short term, the prospects in Zimbabwe look bleak, which is underlined by the murders since the election of Movement for Democratic Change activists and a commercial farmer and the fact that the Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has formally been charged with treason. Today, it is all the more urgent that the Government of Zimbabwe commit themselves to healing the divisions in the country and taking the path of genuine reform and national reconciliation, as the leaders of the Commonwealth have called for. In that context, we shall do everything that we can to support Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo and other African partners in their efforts to bring stability back to Zimbabwe.
That is what the people of Zimbabwe desperately need and today I believe that the whole of the democratic world supports them in that goal.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement on Zimbabwe and for, as usual, doing me the courtesy of giving me advance sight of it.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that last Thursday, on a similar occasion when he made a statement to the House, he told us:
"I thought that I had made it palpably obvious that we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy."—[Official Report, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1035.]
Would he tell the House what action the Government have taken in respect of diplomatic relations and other protocols with Zimbabwe as a result of that non-recognition of the result and its legitimacy? That is an important question in light of the recent Commonwealth troika decision to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth.
448
I also pay tribute to the outstanding leadership of Prime Minister John Howard of Australia. I suspect that many people feared that the Commonwealth would not be able to be decisive. Prime Minister Howard has succeeded where many thought that he would fail. The Opposition warmly congratulate him and his two colleagues on the troika.
The Commonwealth has taken action. The House wants to know what action the Government will now take. Once again there is little sign of any new or real initiative in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. May I press him? What discussions has he had in the past two days with President Mbeki of South Africa? I ask that question as South Africa has just announced that it recognises Robert Mugabe as President of Zimbabwe. That mixed signal is damaging not only to the Commonwealth and its democratic principles, but to the people of Zimbabwe, who are looking to the international community for assistance. How can it be that the troika accepted the Commonwealth observers' report but at the same time South Africa accepted its own observer report that the election process was acceptable?
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the outlook seems bleak. I am not as sure as he is that what has been done has been persuasive for Mr. Mugabe. Has the Foreign Secretary called in the Zimbabwe high commissioner about the fact that Morgan Tsvangirai was charged with treason yesterday? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity today to make it clear that any action taken against Morgan Tsvangirai will be unacceptable and an affront to democracy?
We have been calling for some time for an international coalition to confront Robert Mugabe. Is it not time to act on that? The Commonwealth and members of the South African Development Community and the New Partnership for Africa's Development, as well as the United States and the European Union, must all now put down a marker. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a clear marker is available: that any action against Morgan Tsvangirai that goes beyond the bounds of acceptable democratic behaviour will be seen as a hostile action against all those who believe in democracy and action will be taken accordingly?
Will the Foreign Secretary now start working towards bringing together that international coalition to work with the countries of southern Africa to bring about a rerun of this month's presidential election, but this time on an independently monitored and clearly free and fair basis and within months rather than years? Will he also agree that if the democratic void in Zimbabwe is not overcome, it will destroy all prospects of success for the region's most promising recent initiative, NEPAD? As one of Zimbabwe's foremost economists, John Robertson, has concluded:
"The far-reaching vision of NEPAD would not be enough to overcome the fears of political interference among investors."
Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear today that the threat that Zimbabwe poses to NEPAD is a threat not only to that country, but to the well-being of the whole continent? What pressure will he bring to bear on President Gaddafi of Libya, who is apparently currently bankrolling Robert Mugabe? Libya needs its trade links with the European Union, and now is a good opportunity for the EU to act. On this occasion, will the Foreign Secretary take the lead on that issue?

449
I also seek clarification of the Government's stance on Zimbabwe's participation at the Commonwealth games. The Foreign Office has briefed the press that that is a matter for the Commonwealth Games Federation. The Foreign Secretary cannot duck this one; the United Kingdom has to make it clear that Zimbabwe is not welcome at the games. To allow its attendance would make a mockery of the decision to suspend to Zimbabwe from the Councils of the Commonwealth, and he must make his position clear today.
I have asked many questions, and the House expects answers to them, but I remind the House that, for several years now, we have been calling on the Government to act. They failed to act over the illegal farm occupations; they failed to act over the dubious elections in 2000; they failed to act after Abuja, despite the Foreign Secretary's protestations at that time; and Robert Mugabe had the last laugh at Abuja. All that time we called for the assets of Mugabe and his henchmen to be frozen; we called for travel bans; we called for suspension from the Commonwealth; and the Government told us that we were irresponsible.
We were told that all was well because the Government had an ethical foreign policy. Well, let me tell the House that history will record that this Government got it wrong, and it is about time that they admitted it. They now have time, belatedly, to get it right by following the suggestions that I have outlined. I repeat the call that I made in the House last Thursday: the time has come for the Government to stop talking and to start doing.
Mr. Straw: Let me run through the right hon. Gentleman's specific questions. First, he asked whether we recognise the legitimacy of the result—we do not—and what action we would take. Well, the action that we have taken is to call for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth and to achieve that. He also asked what other action the Government will take now. I shall underline the point that I made to him last week: this is not an issue on which there is serious division between either side of the House. That became evident during the course of those exchanges given the very constructive contributions made by virtually all the Conservative Back Benchers who spoke, some of whom were more willing than others to recognise that the previous Conservative Government's record was not one that was covered in glory. For example, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) spoke, rather eloquently, about the preceding Government's failure to take any effective action in the 1980s.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what action will be taken. We have taken the action that it has been necessary to take because of the illegitimacy of the Mugabe regime. That includes the sanctions to which I was able to get the EU to agree on 18 February.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about an international coalition. I have to say that that is exactly what we have been seeking to put together and have, indeed, put together. Again, I say gently to him that it would have been much more difficult for him to have achieved that action in the Commonwealth and almost impossible for him to have achieved that result in the EU, given the other approach that he and his Front-Bench colleagues take to international relations.
450
The right hon. Gentleman asks me about diplomatic and other action, and he came close to asking whether we should break off diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. Let me make the position clear. In 1979, the Government whom he supported decided—Lord Carrington announced this at the time in the other place and the announcement was repeated here—that in future Her Majesty's Government would recognise states, not particular Governments. We have followed that policy since then; it seemed sensible at the time, and it still is.
We have diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe because of our concerns about the citizens of Zimbabwe and those of other countries and—I say this very specifically—well over 40,000 British citizens and dependants. I have received no representations whatever from the opposition, representatives of British citizens or from anybody else who cares about the future of Zimbabwe that we should either break off or reduce diplomatic relations. I judge that it would not be helpful to the people whom we care about or to democracy, were we to do so. If I receive representations from those quarters, of course I shall consider them and make their position known to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the Commonwealth games. The decision formally is for the Commonwealth Games Federation. That is my view and the Government's view. Throughout we have sought to impose sanctions with adverse consequences on the people responsible for bringing Zimbabwe to this sorry pass. I have received no representations which suggest that the young people who are involved in sport in Zimbabwe are responsible for stuffing ballot boxes and murdering opposition opponents. If I receive such representations, of course we shall take full notice of them. Meanwhile, it is entirely right that the Commonwealth Games Federation should follow the examples of countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth, previously or currently, namely Pakistan and Fiji. It should draw a clear distinction between the sanctions that we are taking against the undemocratic and, in the case of Zimbabwe, violent forces and target those people and their actions, while making it crystal clear that we are on the side of people of democracy who want to celebrate the best in their country, which in this case includes sport.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary understand that welcome though the suspension is, for many of us it is overshadowed by an acute sense of disappointment that it became necessary and that Robert Mugabe would not respond to the moral authority of the Commonwealth and draw back from the actions that have ultimately precipitated the suspension? For many of us, welcome for the suspension is overshadowed by a profound anxiety for the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, both urban and rural, who now face the prospect of six years of ignominy and isolation, of corrupt military adventurism in the Congo, of economic mismanagement and even of food and energy shortages.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the decision taken by the troika establishes a new precedent for the Commonwealth and that it would be right now to consider the extent to which mechanisms of the Commonwealth should be adjusted so as to allow for suspension more easily if such circumstances were to arise in future? Some have considered that the proposals made by the high level

451
review group in this regard were rather lacklustre. Is it not time for much more responsive mechanisms to be established?
On the Commonwealth games, in which I should declare an historical interest if nothing else, may I remind the Foreign Secretary that on two occasions during the Conservative Government there was a mixture between sport and politics? The consequence for the 1986 Commonwealth games was a substantial boycott and the success of the games hung in the balance. That was because a view was taken of the political attitudes of the then Government. An even more salutary example was the effort of Mrs. Thatcher to persuade British competitors not to compete in the Moscow Olympic games. It is fair to say that her efforts received rather mixed results.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): Seb Coe won his gold.
Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend says, Seb Coe won a gold, so those efforts did not permeate even the Conservative party, still less the country.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks. I share his view that the decision of the Commonwealth troika and therefore of the Commonwealth, although welcome in itself, in context casts an acute sense of disappointment at the fact that the sanctions are necessary.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about profound anxiety, and I should have responded to the point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about Morgan Tsvangirai. We have not had to call in the high commissioner from Zimbabwe to explain what we think about the arrest and subsequent charging of Morgan Tsvangirai with treason. One deals with opponents in a democracy by argument, not by arrest and pursuit of them on trumped-up charges. If those charges are pursued by Robert Mugabe, the international consequences for his Government in terms of isolation and, I suspect, greater sanctions, will be considerable. We remain very concerned about the position of Morgan Tsvangirai and other members of the opposition, but above all about those who are suffering daily the most acute violence in that country.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked whether I agree that there should be a new precedent to widen the circumstances in which the Commonwealth could take such action. Personally, I think that that should happen. To those who think that Zimbabwe was not bothered about the result, I say that for a very long time, Dr. Stan Mudenge, the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe, used to chair the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group That is one reason why no action could be taken against Zimbabwe for such a long time, and would not have been taken even if the skills of the right hon. Member for Devizes had been brought into play.
Once Dr. Mudenge had vacated the chair, he argued for years, like the good barrack-room lawyer that he is, that CMAG and the Commonwealth had no right to suspend any country from the Councils of the Commonwealth except where a democratic regime had been overthrown in a violent coup d'etat. We managed to overcome that, but it is one reason why he refused the use of CMAG to
452
sort out a land deal, and why President Obasanjo had to create an equivalent of CMAG, which met in Abuja. It is also why the decision is in itself historic. We must ensure that better structures are put in place so that everyone who signed up to the ironically named Harare principles understands that they are not just words, but require commitment by Governments and Heads of Governments, and that action will follow if they are broken.
Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend has taken a consistent, firm and principled attitude throughout and, with the troika, deserves congratulations on a result that helps to salvage and maintain the credibility of the Commonwealth. Will he say a little more about the one-year suspension? It sounds a little difficult because, after all, it would be reviewed in any event, and it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rerun of the election during that period. Indeed, the actions of the Mugabe Government since the election have been very negative.
As the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) mentioned, part of the tragedy is that all the grand declarations of President Mbeki and other leaders on African renaissance and NEPAD are undermined by a picture of ill-governance and maltreatment of the opposition. That means that it will be increasingly difficult for private investors in a highly competitive world to look to Africa and provide the renaissance, through NEPAD, which we support.
Mr. Straw: I thank my right hon. Friend for his initial comments, and I agree that Zimbabwe has already had a terrible effect on not just its own economy but that of all countries in southern Africa, and investor confidence throughout the continent. That is one more reason why I believe that the decision taken on Tuesday by the leaders of two of the most important countries in Africa is so important. It draws a line between those who subscribe to principles of democracy, as the leaders of South Africa and Nigeria of course do, and those who follow a different, violent and undemocratic path. I very much hope that, notwithstanding that, NEPAD and the determination by democratic Africa and the international community to help Africa to rebuild its prosperity will continue. No one should be in any doubt about the damage that President Mugabe has already done and could continue to do.
My right hon. Friend asked about the time period. The Committee stated in paragraph 8 of its conclusions that the suspension will be for one year with immediate effect and that the issue will be revisited in 12 months' time, having regard to progress in Zimbabwe based on the Commonwealth Harare principles and reports from the Commonwealth Secretary-General. I take that to mean that the suspension will continue unless the Harare principles have meanwhile started to be properly observed and there has been a positive report from the Commonwealth Secretary-General.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Although I of course welcome the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, that cannot be the end of the matter. Does the Secretary of State accept that we have a special interest as there are 40,000 UK passport holders in Zimbabwe? Does he agree that the time has come for us to explore with other Commonwealth states

453
how we can make Mr. Mugabe and his lieutenants personally accountable for the crimes that are being committed in Zimbabwe either by himself directly or by his lieutenants in his name?
Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the scale is different, Mr. Mugabe's policies of murder, arson, ethnic cleansing, intimidation and vote rigging have a great deal in common with those of Mr. Milosevic? Should we not explore ways in which Mr. Mugabe could be brought before a competent criminal court, so that if he is convicted, he spends his declining years not in Government house, to which he has no entitlement, but in premises that are equally secure but rather less accommodating?
Mr. Straw: I agree with the entirety of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. This is not the end of the matter, and we have a direct interest in what happens in Zimbabwe because at least 40,000 British citizens and their dependants are there. However, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that even were those 40,000 British citizens not there, our concern about the humanitarian and economic disaster would be exactly the same, because it is a concern without regard to race, colour or citizenship.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that we must be indivisible and universal in applying principles of human rights and international crimes. There is a difference between what Milosevic did and what has happened in Zimbabwe under the ZANU-PF regime, but it is only a matter of degree. One reason why I am profoundly committed to the establishment of the International Criminal Court is that if we are to avoid a repetition of what has happened in Zimbabwe, as well as other disasters, it is hugely important that leaders do not get themselves into a position whereby they believe that they are wholly immune from any possibility of real sanction against their person, as well as their property, for their actions.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his approach in leaving open matters such as humanitarian aid in connection with HIV projects and the position that he has taken on sport. There is clearly a distinction between the people of Zimbabwe and the regime that has forced itself upon them. We need to target the regime as strongly as possible while doing whatever we can to assist the people. I commend that general approach to my right hon. Friend in respect of some of his other briefs.
Mr. Straw: I cannot think what my hon. Friend is talking about.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. All along, President Mugabe set a trap into which he wanted the United Kingdom to fall—namely, that we would target black Zimbabweans on a blunderbuss basis so that he would be able credibly to claim that it was a case of white versus black. So far, we have avoided that trap, and we must continue to do so.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I warmly welcome the decision of the troika, acting on
454
behalf of the Commonwealth, to suspend ZANU-PF and the Government of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth's counsels for 12 months, does the Secretary of State accept that the recognition of President Mugabe by President Mbeki of South Africa undermines the influence of that decision and sends out quite the wrong messages?
Will the right hon. Gentleman take on board the deep concern of member states throughout the Commonwealth and hon. Members on both sides of House about the safety of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, and other opponents of President Mugabe, against whom he is taking brutal action in complete disregard of the views of the world?
Bearing in mind that on 6 March the Prime Minister expressed concern and said that he would consider the entry of Zimbabwe into the Commonwealth games in light of the outcome of the elections, does the Foreign Secretary accept that if Zimbabwe competes in the Commonwealth games, the impact of the decision on the people of Zimbabwe will be lessened? I am visiting all the sites of the Commonwealth games tomorrow.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, and the House needs to be grateful to him for the consistent position that he has adopted on Zimbabwe and for his interest in the country over many years.
I will put more details before the House as soon as I receive them, but I do not think that more should be read into the South African Government's decision on recognition than could be read into the fact that, for reasons that I have explained, we recognise states that still have diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. We cannot take away from President Mbeki the fact that as a member of the troika that met on Tuesday, he, with the other two members, decided on behalf of the 54 members of the Commonwealth to take the action, which is unprecedented in the circumstances, to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. For that, President Mbeki. President Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard ought to he applauded.
On the Commonwealth games, the hon. Gentleman put his point rather gently, but I say to him that that is a matter for the Commonwealth Games Federation, not for me. I have given my opinion to the House. Earlier examples in which people have sought to make Government decisions and impose them on games federations have not been particularly successful because such decisions appear to be punitive to innocent people, namely sports people, rather than to the Government concerned.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: The Foreign Secretary must be right to state that the welcome suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth is not the end of the matter. May I urge him to give us an undertaking that he will regularly return to the Dispatch Box in the next few months to make statements and initiate debates? The House can then show, first, that it is totally united against the Mugabe regime; secondly, that we will not stand idly by if opposition leaders are persecuted by a flawed judiciary; and thirdly, that we in no way recognise the corrupt election that has just taken place.
Mr. Straw: I apologise to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for my failure to answer his

455
question about Morgan Tsvangirai. We will do everything that we can in difficult circumstances to help ensure the safety of all those who have been unjustifiably accused of crimes, including Mr. Tsvangirai, although the hon. Gentleman will understand the limitations of what we can do in practice because of the nature of the Mugabe regime.
I say to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that I have sought to keep the House fully informed at every stage, and I will continue to do so.
John Barrett: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the responsible decision by Nigeria and South Africa will give a welcome boost to the New Partnership for Africa's Development? Will he, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister be championing NEPAD at the G8 and in other forums?
Mr. Straw: I agree that the decision is a welcome boost to NEPAD, and it would have been have really serious for NEPAD if the decision had gone the other way. No two people are more committed to NEPAD's success than my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. The Prime Minister has been in the lead on the matter throughout all the discussions in the G8, and I know that he is utterly determined to pursue NEPAD to the benefit of the whole of Africa when the G8 meets later this year.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the tactics employed by Mr. Mugabe before, during and after the election campaign resemble nothing so closely as the tactics employed by fascists in the 1920s in Italy, and by the Nazis in the 1930s in Germany? Given that some Opposition Members have been consistent supporters of the International Criminal Court, will he give an undertaking that the fate that befalls Mr. Mugabe when that court is up and running will be analogous to the fate that befell the Nazis in 1945 at Nuremberg? Will he give a specific undertaking that the Government will initiate the appropriate proceedings?
Finally, may I gently and without rancour say to the right hon. Gentleman that it ill-behoves a Labour Foreign Secretary and a Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman to lecture the Conservatives on the importance of keeping sport and politics separate when—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mr. Straw: On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have to be careful about the direct
456
comparisons we make, for the reasons cited by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). It is a question of degree. Do I believe that Mugabe and his people are probably guilty of crimes that should come before the International Criminal Court? Yes. Should they be taken before the court? Yes. Should they be punished appropriately? Yes.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Will the Foreign Secretary be more specific about his objectives regarding Mugabe himself? Is it an objective that he be removed from office, that he resign, or that there be new, free and fair elections in which Mugabe would either be free to take part, or not be allowed to take part? Will he give us some idea of the time scale of his policy? He has made it clear that we are in for a long haul, but he will understand the House's desire to be able to judge the effectiveness of his policy. Does he believe that that will be possible in six months, 12 months, two years—or when?
Mr. Straw: I think that I speak for the whole House when I say that if I had the means, I would want to ensure that President Mugabe resigns and accepts that he stole the election, and that free and fair, non-violent elections, properly monitored and observed, take place. However, as long as Mugabe is where he is, that will not happen, which is why we have to resort to the measures I have announced, which are necessary in the circumstances, but unwelcome given the context.
As for the time scale, it is important that the House neither underestimates nor overestimates what we as a country and a Government can do. I cannot say with any certainty how long it will take to remove Mugabe and his ZANU-PF henchmen from power. That is ultimately in the hands, not of us or the international community, but of the people of Zimbabwe, influenced by the circumstances there.
Of one thing I am certain, knowing about all the other awful regimes around the world. Regimes that are undemocratic, violent and based on stolen elections are inherently unstable, and therefore only temporary. Although a difficult and dark period lies immediately ahead, I believe that ultimately the future of the people of Zimbabwe will be far better.

Hunting with Dogs
1.49 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): Our manifesto gave a commitment on hunting with hounds, stating that:
"we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view.
We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue."
I have been given the responsibility of leading that enabling process. In reaching my decision on how to proceed, I have listened carefully to what has been said in the debates. The votes this week leave the two Houses diametrically opposed—indeed, I have rarely seen an issue on which the divisions have been greater. It is precisely for that reason that it is right to see how it can be resolved with as much agreement as possible.
We want to respect all views, but that must start with respect for the strength with which the Commons made its views clear on Monday. I promise to engage with everyone who has an interest in this issue to make the legislation practical and robust. I promise to bring to the House of Commons a Bill that will deal with this issue effectively once and for all, and that will make good law. I earnestly hope that we can achieve that by finding as much common ground as possible. I propose a process of consultation on the practical issues of detail with a wide variety of interested parties. That consultation period will last no more than six months, including work on drafting a new Bill.
We promised in our manifesto that this issue would be resolved. Should there be no way through, and should the new Bill be frustrated in its passage rather than scrutinised and improved, the Government could not properly stand in the way of the application of the Parliament Act, which of course would be a matter for this House. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
Alun Michael: I ask Conservative Members to listen carefully to what is being said. The Government would prefer the Bill to proceed by debate and through a search for common ground wherever possible, with conflict tempered by tolerance.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Where is the tolerance?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand the word "tolerance". I suggest that he listen.
If that process is frustrated and the Bill rejected, we would reintroduce the Bill as quickly as possible to this House. It would then be for this House and its procedures and for Mr. Speaker to determine whether the Parliament Act should apply. However, the reason for re-engaging in a process to try to achieve wider agreement is precisely that we recognise that there are legitimate concerns in the countryside about pest control, land management and other practicalities, and we want to address those issues in the Bill. Those concerns were raised both in this House and in the other place.
458
I reiterate our manifesto commitment that
"we have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting."
I also want to stress to everyone in the countryside that hunting is at the margins of the real debate about the priorities that we set out in the rural White Paper, which are to ensure that people in the countryside get access to good public services, proper investment, sound environmental policies and sustainable development.
On the content of the Bill itself, I believe that some common ground can best he found by focusing on two general principles. The report by Lord Burns on hunting with dogs examined in great detail the principles of cruelty and utility. We propose to frame legislation that prohibits activity based on those two principles rather than simply setting out a list of activities to be banned.
The Burns report did not provide a route map, however. That is why further thought should be given in applying these principles, and that is what I shall be doing over the next few weeks.
I am sure that the House will have noted the very clear assurances that I have given today about timing and outcome, and about the engagement of those campaigning for a ban on hunting, of Members of this House, and of those involved in land management. I recognise that this is a difficult issue, especially as we all know that there are other pressing matters, such as legislation on crime, health and education, that also demand our attention. We must deliver on our central promises on reform and investment in our public services.
I ask the House to trust me to deliver, and to join me in a process that is guaranteed to achieve an outcome as soon as possible. I look forward to engaging with colleagues on both sides of the House and in the other place. The process that I am setting out today will ensure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to resolve this issue during the lifetime of this Parliament.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I thank the Minister for letting me have sight of his statement this afternoon. I had tremendous difficulties with my computer at the weekend, and I understand that he had similar difficulties today. I received the statement hot off the press only a few minutes ago, therefore. However, I am grateful at least for the attempt to get it to me in good time. The proposals that the Minister has announced today, which will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament by the use of the Parliament Act if necessary, say very little and shed very little light on how the Government see the way forward, especially after two full days of debate this week.
The proposals are most certainly not a middle way. However, in their small print, they show the way in which the Minister proposes to curtail the freedoms enjoyed by generations of British people. Can the Minister take powers, on a whim, to make regulations under the new "necessity" test, in the Burns report, of "cruelty and utility"—"vermin control"—which will, at a stroke, maim hunting as we have known it, except for a few foot packs in some upland areas? Hunting would then only be tolerated under licence, with rights of appeal given to anti-hunt organisations if a licence were granted.
The devil will, as ever, be in the detail. When will we see precisely what regulatory powers are planned? How will they be implemented, and by what means? With whom will the Minister consult? How will he reassure the

459
countryside that he is not just buying time? Many believe that the decisions are already taken, as The Times today makes clear. Will he confirm that, in addition to the list of consultees on page 3, he will fully consult those who support field and country sports and foxhunting in particular? How will he ensure that the consultation focuses on other real issues such as species management, conservation and employment?
It is obvious to one and all in the House and elsewhere that the Government are caught between a rock and a hard place of their own making. They are caught by their own Back Benchers, who are deeply unhappy about the failure of Government policy, and by the fear of a countryside march of up to 1 million people joining together in comradeship and common purpose, as they did before. The issue is not animal cruelty; it never was. It is about the settling of old scores.
The message must go out the length and breadth of this land: we must fight for our country traditions and values. That fight for freedom and liberty begins today.
Alun Michael: It is very disappointing that the Conservative response has been so narrow and petty. It is clear that Opposition Front-Bench Members are determined to create division and not to help a process that will create good legislation. It is the process of creating good legislation that is important—[Interruption.] I invite Opposition Members to stop gnashing their teeth, and to listen to what I am saying in response to serious points made by the hon. Lady—her contribution included serious points among its scattering of prejudice.
We seek to introduce legislation based on principles. Legislation often bans things—frequently, it involves a curtailment of liberty—and the House must ensure that that is done carefully, judiciously and appropriately. Surely that is the purpose of writing good legislation. It is ludicrous of the hon. Lady to suggest, in her words, that I intend to take powers "on a whim". The House will decide exactly what legislation is passed. My responsibility is to help that process and to enable us to have good law.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is right to say that the devil is in the detail, which is why I have announced a process in which the detail and the practicalities will be discussed. She asked for the sort of information appropriate to a Second Reading debate, after the publication of a Bill. As I indicated, we are starting a process. I assure the hon. Lady that consultation will be open to anyone.
I am not sure what it says on page 3 of The Times, as I have not read it today—
Mrs. Winterton: I was referring to page 3 of the statement.
Alun Michael: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. She was speaking about The Times, so I thought that that was the organ to which her pagination applied. I know what is in my statement; it is The Times that I have not read.
I can tell the hon. Member for Congleton that the consultation process will be very open. Certainly, people who engage in hunting will be part of the process, and they will be fully involved. Indeed, I met representatives from the campaign for hunting yesterday. My door has
460
been kept open to that organisation, as it has to other bodies with an interest in the matter. I had friendly and useful exchanges with them, because I am engaged in a process of dialogue.
The hon. Member for Congleton spoke about marches. I do not recall any Conservative Government being swayed by marches of any sort, whereas this Government do take notice of strong opinion, regardless of whether it is expressed by demonstration or by the process of consultation. We respect people's freedom to protest, but I ask those who consider protesting about the issues involved in this matter to recognise that they are being invited to take part in a process. They will be listened to and they will have an opportunity to influence the legislative proposals that come before the House. That seems to be the biggest difference between Government and Opposition.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. It would be extremely helpful. Therefore, if hon. Members raised only one point with the Minister.
Mr. Michael Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today. My question will no doubt be put to him by people outside the House. If, after the process outlined today, the House of Commons once again votes to ban cruel and unnecessary sports such as lowland fox hunting, and if the House of Lords rejects that view, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government use the Parliament Act to allow this House to have its say?
Alun Michael: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for my statement. In essence, he asks whether the Government would apply the Parliament Act. However, use of the Parliament Act is a matter for the House. As I made clear, that process would be enabled by the Government if it became necessary, but we very much hope that the process will be one of engagement, and of improvement of any legislation that is brought forward. Our preference is that the Parliament Act will not be needed. I hope that that will be the case, but my hon. Friend is right to understand that the Government would enable use of the Parliament Act, if necessary. In that way, the House of Commons will be able to decide the matter.
Norman Baker: I welcome the fact that the Minister has made an early statement to the House, following the debates in both Houses earlier this week. Since 1997, Parliament has spent more than 130 hours discussing hunting. The Minister is therefore right to say that we need to reach a conclusion "once and for all", to use the words in his statement. However, I notice that the process that he has set out will take another 12 months to complete.
Does not the Minister's statement take us back to square one, in that all options are open again? The Minister has changed the way in which matters will be dealt with. Rightly, he has moved away from discussing particular bans, and has proposed that we look at questions of cruelty and utility. Will he accept, however, that the definition of cruelty is subjective, and that

461
hon. Members of all parties will reach different conclusions about it? How does he intend to reconcile subjective views of that nature?
Will the Minister accept that his statement could be interpreted by some as code for a sort of middle way solution, which will stop hare coursing but allow some foxhunting to continue? That would be in line with the briefings that senior people in Government gave to the press last weekend.
Finally, it may be admirable to try to bridge the unbridgeable—and I applaud the Minister's attempt—but I hope that he will clarify his intentions, in light of the question from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Bill will be subject to a free vote? Will he also ensure that, if the House of Commons votes for a form of legislation that bans all foxhunting and hunting with dogs, he will enable the Parliament Act to be used, and that the will of the Commons will triumph?
Alun Michael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for a series of interesting questions. The Government are promoting discussion and debate. We are taking a little time to try to seek agreement and to achieve as much common ground as possible.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is right to say that my statement takes us back to the beginning. I explained the process that will be undertaken, and the principles on which it is based, and I suggested that what we need to discuss are the practicalities. For those reasons, therefore, my statement moves matters forward.
The hon. Member for Lewes said that the definition of cruelty is subjective. I am sure that there will be much discussion of that when we come to scrutinise the legislation, but the law is already clear that cruelty is defined as that which causes unnecessary suffering. In practice, the concept is used in the courts in a variety of ways, so I do not think that there is the uncertainty about meaning that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the proposals did not look a little like the middle way. I assure him that this is not the middle way. He also referred to briefings from elsewhere in Government, but I know of no such briefings. I assure him that the only authoritative briefings on this issue come from me. If he has any doubts about anything that he hears and which is ascribed to someone else in Government, the hon. Gentleman should give me a call and I will put him right.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the question of hunting will continue to be dealt with on a free vote. I can confirm that it will. His final question referred to the nature of the Bill. The Government have made it clear that the Parliament Act is enabled to allow the House of Commons to come to decisions. The use of the Parliament Act is a matter for the House of Commons. We will not stand in the way of that. We will enable the process if it is needed, but I again make it clear that I am dealing with that point now so that we can put it to one side and ensure that we do not spend ages discussing whether the Parliament Act will be used. We should prefer it if the Parliament Act were not used, as we want to deal with
462
the matter by seeking common ground, through debate and through the normal processes of this House and the other place.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had hoped to receive from him today a precise statement that Monday's decision by the House of Commons that a full ban on all forms of hunting with dogs would be introduced as a substantive Bill as soon as possible? However, that is not what we heard.
My right hon. Friend asks us to trust him. I certainly trust him, as I have a high personal regard for him. In the end, however, the only thing that I will trust is a Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a very clear answer to the question that I am about to ask him. His answer will govern my approach to this matter and—for what it is worth—to other matters that arise in this House for the remainder of this Parliament.
Let us assume that, after the consultation period, the Government introduce a Bill that contains some exceptions, and that the House of Commons on a free vote decides to remove all those exceptions and to impose a complete ban on all forms of hunting with dogs. In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend give me the clear assurance that that would be the Bill for which the Parliament Act would be invoked?
Alun Michael: First, I am aware of my right hon. Friend's preference. No one who has heard him speak on the matter could be in the slightest doubt about what he wants to happen. However, I hope that the promise that what he called a substantive Bill would be introduced as soon as possible will encourage him. I have suggested a specific time scale for that, and again I hope that he will accept that the intention is to provide certainty, for him and for the rest of the House.
I am absolutely clear that if the Government introduce a Bill that is amended in the House of Commons, our promise in relation to allowing the Parliament Act to obtain will apply. It would be a matter for the Commons. I think I cannot underline enough the important words "This would be a matter for the House of Commons".
Mr. John Maples: I am sure that when the Minister first entered the House he, like me, considered protecting the rights and freedoms of minorities one of its most important functions. On that basis, we in the House have for many years continued to tolerate things of which, individually or collectively, we disapprove. Is it not a very sad day for the Minister and the House when he invites us to abandon that long-established principle?
Alun Michael: There are many minorities whose freedom of action is curtailed in a variety of ways because the House has decided through history that a particular thing should be banned. That applies whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to bear-baiting, cockfighting or similar activities relating to animals, or to various other activities that are regarded as offences because one person's ability to exercise his or her freedom of action impinges on the rights and obligations of others. I am afraid that, by simply referring to the freedom of the individual, the hon. Gentleman is not helping us to arrive at appropriate and robust legislation.

463
Yes, I believe entirely that it is the responsibility of a majority to protect the rights and, freedoms of individuals; but it must be done in a manner that also ensures that where there is a principle that should not be offended against, that principle is upheld.
Mr. Chris Mullin: My right hon. Friend is a very reasonable man. He has talked a good deal about the need for discussion and debate. May I express the hope that there will not be too much discussion and debate? After all, we have had rather a lot of that already. What we seek is a watertight Bill, and what I seek from the Minister today is an assurance that what will result at the end of this is not a Bill leading to years of litigation, with judges driving a coach and horses through the various definitions in the Bill, followed by demands for yet another Bill. We must bring this matter to an end; the will of Parliament must prevail.
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is important to produce a Bill that is effective and watertight, and will not lead to a mass of litigation. I assure him that I am not in the business of increasing the incomes of lawyers, or the amount of activity in the courts. I will seek to apply the principle that he has put to us to the drafting of the legislation.
My hon. Friend says that there has been enough discussion and debate. I suspect that in embarking on this process the person I am condemning to the greatest quantity of discussion and debate is myself, in listening mode but also in discussion mode, trying to tease out the best way of implementing the legislation. I shall try to live up to the term that my hon. Friend used in his vicious attack, and continue to be a reasonable man.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister accept that by himself voting against the middle way the other night, he demonstrated that he was not prepared to listen? Does he also accept that to millions in the country at large, and to all who love hunting and the countryside, the Government's sense of priorities is astonishing and impossible to understand? Finally, let me tell him this: the countryside will fight for liberty, livelihood and freedom. What he proposes does indeed mark a black day for freedom in this country.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a rather populist point. Most people whom I meet in the countryside would set as priorities for action by the Government the very actions to which we have given priority—the revival of the economy in rural areas, encouraging communities in rural areas, looking at the future of food and farming and promoting tourism in rural areas. They would expect us to give priority to issues that affect people's everyday lives in rural areas, such as education, health and transport, in which we have invested massively more than the Conservative Government.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the way in which I voted on Monday had somehow compromised my role. This issue has been before the House on a free vote on numerous occasions. It would be a very odd Member of Parliament who had not reached a conclusion on questions such as those that were before us on Monday; it would be a very odd Member of Parliament who failed to vote on them.
464
I have always been absolutely straight and honest with people I have met—including members of the campaign for hunting—to ensure that they know which way I have voted on the matter over the years. I have also made it absolutely clear to them, and to every group, that I have been given a separate role by the Prime Minister, which is to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. I shall do the job as objectively as I can: having personal opinions takes away none of my responsibility for enabling that process.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I welcome the preparedness to invoke the Parliament Act, should that be needed, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it could not be invoked in the next Session with a new Bill, and that the process would therefore probably take a further year? Will he also confirm that the Government have moved from a position of neutrality—of merely facilitating Parliament's arrival at a conclusion based on one of the three options—to the undertaking of a new process to secure a Bill based on common ground? Has he any idea what that common ground would be?
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right: the process will take a little longer by the means I have proposed today than by the means of applying the Parliament Act to the previous Bill. That, however, is a price that we consider worth paying to try to avoid the continuing danger of a stalemate between the two Houses, and to find as much common ground as possible between us and those who feel strongly about these issues, both in this House and outside.
My hon. Friend asked whether the Government had moved. The Government have not moved from being neutral on the issue, but we have accepted a responsibility that we gave ourselves in our manifesto before the general election—a responsibility for enabling Parliament to reach a conclusion. That is the responsibility I have taken on in trying to find the best possible legislation in order to reach the best possible conclusion. I see that as a role for enabling Parliament.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my regret that discussions on this important issue should be couched in terms of class warfare? Does he accept that many of us who have been involved in this and other campaigns have a long record of fighting for the welfare of animals? Does he find it remotely likely that when the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) mounted a campaign to protect tortured bears in China, he was declaring class warfare on the communist regime there?
In every free vote since 1987, has it not been standard practice for the Minister and the Opposition spokesman to give their personal views and then to make clear that they nevertheless have a duty to the House? Finally, is not the method of resolving the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has announced just a recipe for yet more delay, and for allowing the issue to run up and down the parliamentary system when we should be discussing other issues? Should the matter not now be brought to a firm conclusion? The House has shown its view; we are the democratically elected body.
Alun Michael: I can agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Lady said. I certainly share her regret that

465
the issue should be debated in terms of class warfare, and I am sure that members of her own Front Bench will have heard her injunction. I will leave it to her to debate issues with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), but I am sure that any debate of that kind would be worth listening to, given two such robust participants.
I endorse the right hon. Lady's point about the difference between a personal view and a Minister's responsibility to the House. As a shadow Minister, I always took the view that a similar need exists to distinguish between personal responsibilities and one's responsibility to the House in trying to enable good legislation. On several occasions when I was in opposition, contributions and discussions—sometimes in the House, sometimes outside it—helped the Government to improve legislation. I hope that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has listened to this exchange.
Kate Hoey: May I welcome the fact that the Minister has not introduced a Bill today to ban hunting with dogs? That shows that the many people in the countryside who think that we should not spend huge amounts of time on this issue are being listened to, and that a way exists to satisfy most sensible people. Do the Government have a view on cruelty, and does the Minister have a view on what Lord Burns himself said in the House of Lords? He said:
"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying"—
in the Burns report—
"that hunting is cruel …The short answer to that question is no."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 533.]
What is the Government's view on the Burns report?
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend refers to comments made in another place, rather than to the report itself. One problem is that many people pick out a particular paragraph from the Burns report and use it to justify the position that they adopted before reading it. I take the view that it is important for this House to be able to deal with cruelty in respect of hunting with dogs—that is what the issue is all about. We should do so by referring to the useful work undertaken by Lord Burns, and to the practicalities that I referred to in my statement. That is the subject for consultation in the next few weeks, and that process will certainly be interesting. However, it will be informed by the contents of the Burns report.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Was not the Parliament Act designed to allow the House of Commons to get its way only when the House of Lords thwarts a specific and detailed legislative commitment in a general election manifesto? The Labour party's last manifesto makes no such specific commitment to a ban; instead, deliberately chosen, mealy-mouthed, ambiguous words are used. Is it not a complete abuse of the Parliament Act, therefore, to try to invoke it in this case, or can the Minister cite a precedent for its being used for a non-manifesto or non-budgetary issue?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman hangs together several errors and imprecisions. The point is that, should the two Houses reach an impasse, we will enable the Commons to have its way, but I have made it clear time
466
and again that we hope that the process will avoid that outcome. A very precise manifesto commitment was made to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the legislation. The hon. Gentleman should examine that precise commitment and recognise that it is on that authority that the House of Commons is able to proceed. However, if possible we want to achieve maximum common ground for all who engage in the debate. That is as much an offer—as it were—to the House of Lords as an illustration of what would happen should such an impasse arise.
Mr. Tony Banks: The comments of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) have already made clear to my right hon. Friend the impossibility of securing consensus in any form. He pointed out in his statement that the two Houses are diametrically opposed. Where can common ground be found? There is no common ground. I do not know why he wants to spend six months chasing shadows. A clash is obviously coming between this House and the House of Lords, so he ought to face up to that fact. To use some of the hon. Lady's rhetoric, he might as well cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war.
Alun Michael: I am not sure that I should take much notice of that encouragement. As my hon. Friend knows, by nature I am an optimist. He will also know that I am a Labour and Co-operative MP, so I seek wherever possible to co-operate and work with others. I am even open to co-operating with Opposition Front Benchers and other Conservative Members—if they will engage in the process, rather than simply writing it off at the outset. Similarly, many in the other place—some of whom disagree passionately with the views of people such as my hon. Friend—nevertheless say, "Let us talk. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war, so let us examine the options and see where they take us. Let us discuss the practicalities." I very much hope that matters will proceed in that way.
Mr. Simon Thomas: May I give a cautious welcome to what the Minister said today, particularly on the process and the new twin principles of utility and cruelty? I hope that he will introduce a Bill that is genuinely based on those twin principles and will not approach countryside activities in a prejudiced way. Does he acknowledge that the difference in votes cast in this House and in the other place reflects a wider disagreement in society about the way in which the issue needs to be addressed? Within the six-month period he has granted himself, he needs to engage in that wider public debate. We are not the only people who have something to say on hunting and cruelty.
In that context, he will have received a letter from Glyn Davies, Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in the National Assembly for Wales. It asks him specifically to take into account more than 900 submissions to the committee on hunting in Wales, and further to take into account in the legislative process the Committee's deliberations on the best way forward for hunting in Wales, which is characterised by upland areas. Will he undertake to do that?
Alun Michael: I am happy to respond positively to each of those three points. First, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are seeking to legislate through the

467
application of principles. I have outlined those principles, it is clear that he understood my comments, and that is the way forward. Secondly, he is also right to say it is not just a question of views in this House and the other place. There is wider disagreement in society—and in the countryside—and it is right that we engage with people outside this House. He will know that I have met a wide variety of groups in England and Wales that wish to make representations on the issue, and I shall continue to do so. Thirdly, it is certainly right to take into account views from Wales, including views expressed by the National Assembly for Wales and its Members. I have not seen the letter to which he refers, but I would expect to be able to respond positively to it.
Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend is right to establish a short period of consultation, but he is fundamentally wrong if he believes that consensus can be achieved for a Bill with a framework of utility and cruelty. Will he stick to a closely defined timetable, so that those of us who live in, and represent, rural areas can get on with the real issues that affect the countryside?
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend says that I would be wrong to believe that consensus can be achieved, but I have not used that word—I used the term "common ground". We want to achieve as much common ground as possible, and in that regard I am being realistic. I am not hoping that somebody will suddenly wave a magic wand and achieve consensus across the piece on this difficult issue.
As I said, the timetable for consultation on the practical matters to which I referred, and for the drafting of legislation, will be very tight. The answer to his question is therefore a simple yes.
Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister properly suggests that there should be a six-month period of consultation, and he tells us that he is a co-operative person and Member of Parliament. In the interests of informing himself over the next six months, will he come to Harborough in Leicestershire, where five hunts operate, the better to learn about the utility of hunting and the absence of cruelty? I appreciate that he takes a different view, but will he please take the opportunity to meet the people in Leicestershire with an interest in the subject? I invite him to come and stay with me. In Committee, I invited the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) to do so, and she would be very welcome. The right hon. Gentleman could bring his wife and his private office staff, but I urge him to come to hear at first hand the worries of my constituents. He could then come back to Parliament after the six-month consultation period better informed for that visit.
Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his invitation. I referred to a period of six months of consulting and drafting in order to get the legislation right, and we want to stay within that time scale. He generously invites me to Leicestershire—I am very popular; I am being invited to visit many parts of the country—but his underlying question is whether I will listen to people involved in hunting, consider the practicalities and listen to their experience. Yes I will, which is why I visited a hunt a few weeks ago at the invitation of the campaign for hunting and devoted as
468
much time as I could to listening to people's views. I did so partly to hear those views and partly to engage with the practicalities, which is one of the reasons why it is important to have the process that I have introduced today. I make no specific promise about where I will spend my time in the next few months.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I trust my right hon. Friend and we all know of his deep personal commitment to an outright ban. The House will know my view that this is a wasted opportunity and that, even with this timetable, we might still be discussing the issue right up to 2004. Who wants that? The Minister talked about consultation—endless consultation. What will we learn from six months of consultation that we do not already know?
Alun Michael: If one does not take part in a discussion, one does not discover what one would learn by having the discussion. My hon. Friend asks me to jump ahead of a process that, I suggest, makes sense. I have proposed not endless consultation but a limited period of consultation and drafting—the serious work of enabling the process of bringing legislation before the House at the earliest possible date.
Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister accept that the two principles of cruelty and utility offer a serious chance for discussion of the best alternative means of adhering to those principles? An unwillingness to engage by those who take an extreme view can be interpreted only as an unwillingness to listen to alternative ways to achieve those two principles. Does he agree that if the Middle Way Group, Countdown to the Ban and the Countryside Alliance wish to be involved in the process, the best thing that he can do is to ensure that they listen without prejudice to the reasons why they have reached different views? The best legislation will be achieved by listening generously, even to views that one does not hold at the beginning, in the hope that we will find something better than anything on the table at the moment, in the interests of animal welfare.
Alun Michael: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments and for his underlining the issue of animal welfare. I assure him that all three groups will be welcome to take part in the process of considering the practicalities, as will a variety of other organisations that have an interest, such as the farming organisations and others that are not part of the three groups. I underline the point that this will be an open process, not a closed one. An unwillingness to engage in discussion looks not like strength but like weakness.
Mr. John McFall: I commend the Minister for his patience in renegotiation, but may I remind him that in 1994, when the House passed my anti-fox hunting Bill—the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill—by a majority of 253 to zero, I engaged for six months with those in the other place but not one inch was given on foxhunting? Let us face the fact that this is no longer about foxhunting but is now a constitutional

469
issue. [Interruption.] If the will of the House prevails, as expressed year after year in massive majorities—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman put his question.
Mr. McFall: Will the House's will prevail, and within a year will foxhunting be totally and utterly banned?
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend refers to his own history in these matters, and I remember the frustration that he experienced in being unable to enact a Bill that had been passed by this House. Above all, we do not want this issue to become a constitutional issue. If there is a will in the House of Lords and this place to avoid that, it can be avoided. However, I have made it clear—and my remarks are intended to assist this House and the other place in terms of the confidence that they may have in the process—that were the other place to frustrate legislation, the Government would not stand in the way of the Parliament Act being used as the result of the reintroduction of a Bill. I hope that I have been clear—not because I wish to provoke confrontation with the House of Lords but because I wish to avoid it.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman take time to reflect on the fact that in a democracy majorities—even elected majorities—can be as tyrannical as individual dictators? 'When he frames the legislation, will he bear it in mind that his fellow citizens should be as free to go foxhunting as they are to go fishing and shooting—as do many Labour Members? If he does not allow those principles, lie will have to accept that his legislation will be perceived to be but a form of mob rule.
Alun Michael: I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that majorities can be tyrannical in the
470
light of personal experience during his political career. We certainly saw many tyrannical actions during the years of Conservative government that damaged people's lives and communities up and down the country. I welcome his conversion to generosity towards those who are not in the majority, but I would have thought that he would understand what I am doing today. He might have said that we were being tyrannical if we had reintroduced the previous Bill and pushed it through by allowing the application of the Parliament Act; instead, we have invited all concerned to enter into a process. We are showing the generosity of a majority that is confident rather than one that is being tyrannical.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservatives' reactions to his statement—with the notable exception of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—are reassuring to many of us, because they make us think that he is closer to getting it right than we had feared? Does he agree that the crucial issue is the timing? Other hon. Friends have made the point, but can he state categorically that six months from today the consultation will have ended and the Bill will be drafted? Is he worried that any slippage in the timetable that lengthens the process will create more cynicism outside the House, especially among those who support what he is trying to do, and that the Government could end up pleasing no one?
Alun Michael: I certainly accept what my hon. Friend says about the need to stick to a timetable once it has been given as an indication of the period within which we intend to complete the job. I shall do everything I can to ensure that there will be no such damage to the reputation of Government, and no delay.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order

Points of Order
2.40 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following today's business statement, I consulted further on the Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill. I remain convinced that two weeks from publication of the Bill to its debate is an adequate period for preparation, but I accept the force of the point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) about the desirability of allowing time for the tabling of a reasoned amendment. I therefore wish to announce the following re-ordering of business for the week after the Easter recess.
TUESDAY 9 APRIL—Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 10 APRIL—Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said during business questions, and for coming back to the House so promptly with a change in the order of business, which will at least allow for the possibility of the tabling of a reasoned amendment, for example.
I do not want to sound churlish, but I hope that the Leader of the House will reflect further, perhaps over the recess, on whether this is a proper way to conduct what is a very substantial Bill. I thank him for what he has done, but I ask him to give further, perhaps long-term, thought to whether a Bill of this magnitude should be conducted in this way. However, I am grateful for what he said just now.
Mr. Gregory Barker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that as a Back Bencher I am greatly troubled by the fact that my constituents, who stand to lose their jobs and livelihoods as a result of the potentially momentous legislation on hunting, which will have a devastating impact, have been denied a voice through their Member of Parliament? Despite sitting through the debate on Monday and through the statement and questions today, I have been unable to speak. I feel that my constituents have been denied a voice.
Mr. David Cameron: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): May I deal first with the point of order raised by the hon. Member
472
for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker)? I must inform him that the statement ran for 50 minutes, we had a statement on Zimbabwe earlier, and I also have a duty to protect the business of the House.
David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should it not also be borne in mind that some of those who are in favour of ending this barbaric practice once and for all were not called because of the number of people who were trying to catch your eye? The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) and some of his colleagues are disappointed, but I have argued for a ban for a long time and am no less disappointed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point of debate.
Mr. Cameron: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, raise this point of order as someone who sat for five hours during the debate and was not called, but the purpose of my point of order is to ask whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asked, before the statement it made this afternoon, whether it could withdraw its White Paper entitled "Working for the Essentials of Life", as it says that its key objective is to tackle social exclusion. As someone who represents a constituency with five hunts and many people employed in hunting, I cannot understand how throwing them out of work will aid social exclusion.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I repeat what I said earlier: that is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Forth: On a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that, in business questions, all those on the Government side who were seeking to catch Mr. Speaker's eye were called, but that Mr. Speaker then finished business questions while a number of colleagues on the Opposition Benches were still standing and seeking to catch his eye. May I ask you to have a very quiet and gentle word with Mr. Speaker and satisfy yourself that that will not be a precedent? If it were, obviously, the number of Labour Members standing would be a mechanism to curtail participation by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sure that that was not the intention, but I ask you to draw Mr. Speaker's attention to that and express to him the hope that, whatever the reason was today, it will not be repeated.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Mr. Speaker is normally very generous, but he too has a responsibility to protect the business of the House, as the right hon. Gentleman will I am sure agree.

Education
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
2.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak about the proposals in the Green Paper entitled, "14–19: extending opportunities, raising standards", which the Government published on 12 February. Unfortunately, due to a prior long-standing engagement in my constituency, I will not be able to stay for the whole of the debate, and I offer the House my apologies for that. I will, of course, read the report of the debate with great interest.
It is also appropriate to say at this stage that I am aware that the spokesperson leading for Her Majesty's official Opposition is the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), which strengthens the Bury connection. This is probably the only kind thing I will say about the Opposition during my speech; the hon. Gentleman is still spoken of very highly in the Bury, North constituency that he used to represent. I am sure that he will agree that the priority for us all at the moment is to save Bury football club from extinction.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will use this opportunity to make constructive contributions. The Green Paper offers all those with a genuine commitment to education the opportunity to contribute their ideas, experience and to express their concerns. It poses as many questions as it prescribes solutions. Political knockabout and serious scrutiny have their place in the proceedings of the House but we are sincere in our desire to achieve maximum consensus as we seek to transfer an exciting vision into effective reforms which transform the life choices and life chances of all our young people.
I am proud of the fact that last week we published probably the first ever young people's version of a Green Paper, demonstrating our commitment across government to consult young people on policy developments that impact on their lives. For too long we have treated young people as passive recipients of reform. As the Minister with responsibility for young people and learning, I am determined that their status as users and consumers of the education system should be recognised and acted upon.
I want to put our 14 to 19 proposals in the context of our overall vision for high-quality education and training. As hon. Members will know, the past five years have seen dramatic improvements in education. Spending on education has risen from 4.7 per cent. to 5 per cent. of gross domestic product—an increase of £13.6 billion. The exam results of those aged between 14 and 19 continue to improve, and Ofsted recently confirmed that the quality of teaching found to be "good or better- has never been higher.
Mr. Mark Hoban: Given the improvement in exam standards to which the Minister refers, can he explain why the gap between the best and worst performing schools has widened, not narrowed, as is outlined in the Ofsted report?
Mr. Lewis: Twenty years of under-investment and neglect of the most socially excluded communities and
474
the most disadvantaged young people have probably led to that situation. This Government have introduced a number of specific measures to tackle that very problem. Literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools are proving to work. A new key stage 3 strategy aims to tackle the fact that too many young people stagnate at that stage in their education or at worst go backwards. We have floor targets that are specifically focused on those schools and local education authorities that are not performing as well as they should; we are focusing resources and attention on those individual schools and LEAs. Therefore, it is not accurate or reasonable to suggest that the gap has grown in recent years. There is clear evidence that the Government's policies are designed to ensure that every individual young person, whatever their social background, whatever community they live in, gets the opportunity to achieve their potential.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Of course, educational standards are improving under this Government, but does my hon. Friend not agree that the widening gap between schools is more a result of effective selection that is gradually taking hold following the policies of the previous Government, moving away from the comprehensive ideal?
Mr. Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend that that has not helped the position. It created a two-tier system of education in this country. During those years—and prior to them—we concentrated our efforts on educating a small elite. That was not sensible if we were trying to create either a socially inclusive or economically successful society.
Although 14 to 19 education and training is improving, much more remains to be done. Too many young people still leave learning at 16 with few or no qualifications, and too many still drop out at 16, which often leads to negative consequences—unemployment, low-paid work or, even worse, a drift into a world of drugs, antisocial behaviour and crime.
Similarly, only six out of 10 in the 15 to 24 age range attain level 3 qualifications in the UK—compared, for example, with nearly nine out of 10 in Germany. Only three out of four 16 to 18-year-olds in England were in education and training at the end of 2000—well below European and OECD averages, so there is an urgent and clear case for reform.
If we want to be a successful nation with an effective high-skills economy, there is no alternative: more people need to be better educated than ever before, and we must end the culture of leaving learning at 16. We believe that we have already made a good start.
At primary school level we have focused on embedding the basic skills of numeracy and literacy. That has produced the largest and most sustained improvement ever seen in primary school results. We have also put in place measures to improve education between the ages of 11 and 14. Through the key stage 3 strategy, we aim to build on the successes achieved at primary school, to ensure continuous progression from primary school to the early years of secondary education and to improve the quality of teaching by investing in teachers' professional development.
We have put other initiatives in place to address particular problems in the secondary education sector: for example, various strategies to close the gap between the

475
highest and lowest performing schools. I have already referred to the expansion of the excellence in cities programme and to increasing the number of beacon and specialist schools. We are also supporting teachers and pupils in tackling bad behaviour, through formal behaviour management training, learning mentors, learning support units and the creation of the new Connexions service.
We are committed to increasing and broadening participation in higher education so that by 2010, 50 per cent. of those aged between 18 and 30 will participate.
The challenge at 14 to 19 is to build on that good work. We want to achieve several objectives: raising the participation of young people in post-16 education; supporting the retention of young people in that sector; improving their attainment; and encouraging their progression onwards into higher education and skilled jobs. At the same time, we want to address the fact that educational underperformance disproportionately affects those from lower socio-economic groups.
We know of various current barriers to achieving those objectives. One is the fact that some young people are clearly turned off by the options currently open to them. Speaking to educationists and others around the country in consultation on the Green Paper, there is no doubt about that. Many teachers and head teachers welcome this debate because they know that the current system is not working for a core of young people within their schools. The system is undoubtedly turning them off learning.
Many young people are, of course, happy to pursue a traditional academic GCSE/A-level route, but many others would benefit from a different mix of styles and types of learning. In recognition, we want to put in place new pathways of learning, so that from age 14 young people will be able to follow learning programmes more tailored to their individual aptitudes and aspirations. We want to build an educational learning experience around individuals' strengths, needs and aspirations rather than offer an inflexible range of opportunities that often leads to a cycle of failure, exclusion and social problems.
We believe that our capacity to raise the status of vocational learning will be crucial. We have already introduced vocational A-levels and from this September we are introducing GCSEs in vocational subjects, so that any young person who wants to pursue a vocational career can have access to high-quality learning options that they will find demanding and rewarding.
Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Minister explain how introducing vocational A-levels, which by definition will not offer access to at least 50 per cent. of our youngsters, will improve access to the training and vocational enterprise that he claims the Green Paper is intended to promote?
Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman argues that vocational A-levels are somehow outside the reach of many of our young people. He is right that we must ensure that all young people have a clear pathway to success. We believe that if vocational education is to succeed, it must be viewed as a high-status, high-esteem option. One of the historical problems with vocational education is that is has been perceived as a second-rate easy option.
The introduction of vocational A-levels is at its early stages and we are willing to acknowledge that they may be inappropriate for some students. In the wider context,
476
we are willing to engage in a genuine debate about how best to create educational qualifications and experiences that are as high status and stretching as academic options, but which are not the same and do not have the same assessment processes. It is our responsibility to get those reforms right, and further examination of vocational routes and qualifications will be part of finalising our response when the consultation is over. If vocational courses become the same as their academic alternatives, it will defeat the object.
Mr. David Drew: I welcome the Government's re-evaluation of the importance of vocational education. The Minister may know of some interesting developments in Stroud, where a consortium has been set up between three 11 to 18 schools and the local further education college. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to pay a visit in future. One problem that the project has encountered is the differential in pay between staff in schools and those working in the further education sector. Until those pay and conditions are sorted out, it will be difficult to realign the sectors. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. If 14 to 19 reforms are to achieve their full potential, it is important to raise the status of further education in this country. We must demand higher standards, a clearer focus, a much closer partnership between schools and the FE sector; but we must also invest in that sector to ensure that it becomes the high-status option for young people that it deserves to be. The Government understand that success and investment in FE is central to our capacity to deliver our objectives.
In providing individually tailored learning programmes, it is important to ensure that young people are stimulated and motivated to learn. If we do not achieve that, we will not achieve any of our objectives. Crucially, young people must acquire skills relevant for today's world. The local economic needs of communities, as well as today's competitive global economy, are important, and we must secure a better match between the worlds of education and of work.
Providing a range of options is only one piece of the jigsaw. For students to benefit from increased choice, there must be more flexibility in the national curriculum between the ages of 14 and 16. We therefore propose to narrow the core of compulsory subjects to English, maths, science and information and communications technology—the subjects that we believe are vital for progression in learning.
Young people should also study some other essential subjects that are key to personal development: religious, careers and sex education and physical exercise. Similarly, from this August, citizenship is to become a statutory part of the national curriculum. We are also proposing that all young people undertake some work-related learning.
We remain committed to the principle that all young people should be entitled to a broad and balanced learning experience. With this in mind, we also propose a statutory entitlement to access a subject in modern foreign languages, design and technology and the arts and humanities. Young people would not be obliged to study those subjects, but schools would he obliged to make

477
them available. That is consistent with the message that we hear repeatedly from head teachers and teachers who are trying to teach young people subjects in which they do not want to participate.
The pace at which pupils move through the system is also important. Traditionally, all young people have done that at pretty much the same pace and have passed or failed whether they were ready or not. The system has not taken sufficient account of the different ways in which people learn. We propose that more young people should experience, where appropriate, accelerated or slower paced learning, so that they can take courses at the time that is right for them. It is unlikely that accelerated or slower paced learning will be taken up by the majority of students, but it will certainly be of benefit to the highest achievers and those who need more time to achieve.
As I have said, we want to raise attainment for all young people, but we also want to help the high achievers to fly. Accelerated learning is one way of doing that; another way is by increasing the challenge at A-level. The Green Paper proposes introducing more demanding questions into the A2 papers that are taken at the end of an A-level course. In this way, they will give some students the opportunity to show their greater depth of knowledge, skill and understanding, without the need for a separate examination paper. We propose to introduce a higher "A distinction" grade to recognise this greater depth. Of course, we will continue to set the existing A to E grades at their present levels to ensure that A-level standards are maintained.
The Green Paper contains other proposals for 16 to 19 learning within a more coherent 14 to 19 phase. For example, we are committed to raising the status of modern apprenticeships to meet today's skills needs. Modern apprenticeships provide high-quality work-based learning. They are a key rung in the vocational ladder, enabling young people to progress from GCSEs towards their chosen profession and, if they so choose, foundation degrees. The modern apprenticeship provides practical benefits in terms of gaining high-status employment and young people who opt for that high-status route also have the opportunity to go on to a degree course. It is not necessarily either a vocational or higher education route.
We are upgrading modern apprenticeships by introducing technical certificates to deliver broader knowledge and understanding, alongside the national vocational qualification and key skills. We will also take forward the main recommendations of the modern apprenticeship advisory committee, chaired by Sir John Cassels.
Honourable Members may have seen the national television advertising that began on 4 March, which is the first stage of a three-year marketing campaign to promote modern apprenticeships and boost participation. How many hon. Members are told by employers and parents that it is a pity that we no longer have the old apprenticeship system? We do have an apprenticeship system—it is called the modern apprenticeship system. It is important that we raise the profile and status of modern apprenticeships and make employers and young people far more aware of the opportunities that they present.
We have begun work to establish a national framework for apprenticeship. By 2004, we aim to increase by 35,000 the number of young people entering modern
478
apprenticeships before they are 22. Also in 2004, we aim to fulfil our manifesto commitment of an entitlement to a modern apprenticeship place for all 16 and 17-year-olds with the necessary qualifications.
The Green Paper also proposes a new award to mark the completion of the 14 to 19 phase. An overarching award should be available to young people to recognise breadth and depth of achievement by the age of 19. It could be called the matriculation diploma, but if hon. Members have a better idea, I would be delighted to hear from them. We believe that the matriculation diploma would be a common outcome, achievable by any of the available 14 to 19 pathways. That is important in terms of parity of status. Young people will be able to gain the overarching certificate by going down an academic route, a mixed academic and vocational route or an exclusively vocational route.
Such an award would have the benefits of, among other things, focusing young people on outcomes at 19 rather than at 16 and giving them something to aim for over the whole 14 to 19 phase. It would widen young people's horizons beyond individual formal qualifications, encourage the development of the whole person and would convey valuable information to employers and higher education.
The Green Paper asks for views on whether there should be such an award and, if so, what its precise content and structure should he. It offers for discussion a model that would allow young people to achieve the diploma at three levels—intermediate, advanced and higher. It suggests that those who do not achieve the award at any level by age 19 but have remained in learning and made a sustained effort should be given a record of progress setting out their achievements. It also suggests that an alternative to that model could be a certificate that simply sets out attainment available to all young people on leaving learning at 19.
For the first time in our education system, it is proposed that young people should be encouraged to participate in voluntary work, active citizenship activities, wider activities such as art, music and sport as well as work-related learning and to receive recognition for doing so. That responds to the concerns increasingly expressed by employers that young people progressing from the world of education to the world of work often lack communication, interpersonal, teamwork and leadership skills, all of which we regard as essential to successful businesses and high-quality public services in a modern world.
Some other things have to be done to make the new structure and reforms work. Under the proposals, the age of 14 would become a more significant decision point than it is now. A flexible, more individualised, 14 to 19 programme of learning would involve wider choices, made earlier. It is therefore essential that young people receive the support, information and guidance to choose wisely. We have set out various proposals, including the effective use of the Connexions service, to ensure that that occurs.
It will also be important to engage parents, in a way that we have not done previously, at this crucial time. We should remember that when we talk about giving young people a variety of options and greater flexibility, parents continue to be the most significant influence on the choices that they make.

479
Our proposals also have significant implications for the institutional structures by which education is provided. To make a reality of the 14 to 19 phase, we must develop the kind of institutional structures that can deliver the full range of opportunities.
We do not expect every school, college or workplace to deliver the whole variety of a 14 to 19 curriculum on its own. However, if an institution offers only part of a young person's programme of learning, access to complementary facilities should be available elsewhere. In other words, a range of institutions in every area should be able to contribute to a comprehensive and diverse pattern of local provision. This means that area-wide planning of provision—bringing together providers from various sectors and backgrounds—will need to feature much more prominently in our ways of working. We need schools, colleges, training providers, small and medium-sized enterprises and universities to work far more closely together in the future.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister says that we need area planning to co-ordinate the whole of the 14 to 19 phase. Is he saying that learning and skills councils will in due course take over the funding and the planning of that phase?
Mr. Lewis: No.
To succeed, in terms of the new relationships between institutions that focus on the individual learner, we believe that there will need to be a new commitment from all those involved. We also acknowledge our responsibility to encourage collaboration by removing barriers to co-operation, rewarding good practice and providing some financial assistance.
We also intend to use pathfinders to assess different models of collaborative working and to develop best practice that will inform the full national development of the 14 to 19 phase. This innovative work is already taking place in institutions in a number of areas; because of their experience of the limited way in which they can allow all young people between 14 and 19 to achieve their potential, those institutions are collaborating and working together. We want to use pathfinders to focus attention on that good practice so that, in areas where it has not been the norm, we can bring institutions together and support closer working relationships.
The reforms will give us a more coherent 14 to 19 phase of learning, providing balanced programmes of learning that meet the individual's needs, interests and aspirations, offering flexible progression from age 14 to post-16 learning. That will lead to an education system in which young people want to keep learning throughout the 14 to 19 phase and beyond, and which directly improves young people's employability.
The solutions that we offer in the Green Paper are not set in stone. We are consulting widely on them, and for longer than usual—until the end of May.
Mr. Robert Syms: Will the Minister undertake to publish the consultation when it ends in May? It would be useful to hear what trade unions and others have to say about the implications for teachers and lecturers.
Mr. Lewis: We will publish the results of the consultation. Hon. Members will not expect to receive a
480
copy of every letter and submission, but a representative summary will be published. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It will be an accurate and representative summary. We are committed to consultation. The Green Paper could have been prescriptive on areas in which we have asked open-ended questions. In that respect, it is an important document. We want to hear from the widest possible variety of individuals, educationists and politicians on how we can raise the status of vocational education—something that no Government have ever achieved. There are no easy answers or quick-fix solutions. We want to listen to people who have practical experience of trying to make the system work day to day. I am sure that the Opposition will want to rescind their cynicism about our commitment to consultation.
The solutions in the Green Paper are not set in stone. Reform must be introduced over a reasonable period. We accept that that will require significant change to the status quo. It is important to introduce change in a measured way over a number of years and to get those changes right.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Will my hon. Friend consult with young people who are in education and listen to them more carefully than any politician has ever done before?
Mr. Lewis: I entirely agree with the sentiment behind my hon. Friend's comment. Last week, for what I suspect was the first time ever, we launched a Green Paper specifically for the young people who will be most affected by the changes that we propose. Before the end of May, we shall hold several consultation events to ascertain the views of young people. We should also ask young people who have gone beyond the 14 to 19 phase what worked and what did not, and how the system could be better.
We are committed to consultation and engagement with young people. That is not easy—it could be done tokenistically or superficially, but we want to do it in a genuine way. We want to reach not only articulate young people who are already well served by the system, but those who are disengaged so that we can find out their reasons for their disaffection and to see how our reforms respond directly to their concerns.
Mr. Chris Mole: Will the Minister share with the House his experience in front of several hundred young people at the UGC cinema in Ipswich when the Suffolk Connexions service was launched? There was a lively direct engagement between the Minister and those young people.
Mr. Lewis: It was a memorable occasion. The first speaker was the young and impressive leader of the local authority—little did I know that he would soon join us in the House of Commons. He was pelted with aeroplanes by the young people in the audience. The next speaker was hissed and jeered. I was due to speak next, and I can assure the House that I made probably the shortest speech ever given from a public platform. The young people then asked me whether I would meet a juggler who was performing elsewhere in the exhibition centre. He in turn asked me to lie on the floor, and when I did, he swapped his juggling sticks for knives. The face of the civil servant accompanying me was well worth seeing.

481
During the few months in which I have had the privilege of being the first Minister for young people, that and many other experiences have told me that they are amazingly sophisticated and articulate, able to tell us exactly where the system is working or failing. In the past, we have ignored them at our peril. We have treated young people as passive recipients of services rather than seeing them as users and consumers. The Government are absolutely committed to changing that, as am I.
Mr. Willis: The Minister makes a powerful point. Does he accept that one of the things that young people find most disillusioning is being asked for their views, then having them totally disregarded? That may be why he was pelted in Ipswich. Does the Minister agree that the largest recent survey to be carried out with young people was the one on the future of faith schools? Young people gave expansion of faith schools a total thumbs-down, but the Government simply ignored them.
Mr. Lewis: No, I do not agree with that. When I asked the people who claimed to have undertaken extensive consultation how many young people had been consulted, the number turned out to be so small that the evaluation evidence was entirely meaningless. The hon. Gentleman should not make such a spurious point in support of an argument that he usually articulates in a way that I respect but do not agree with.
When one speaks to audiences of young people, it is important not to make promises that cannot be kept. We must be honest about the resource limitations within which politicians must work, although that would make it difficult for the Liberal Democrats ever to engage in constructive discussion with young people.
Alistair Burt: Does the Minister agree that anyone who has experienced opinion polls run by the Liberal Democrats during by-elections would do well to be jaundiced about anything that arose from that method of gauging people's opinions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. May I remind the House that we are debating education for 14 to 19-year-olds?
Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that the Bury consensus continues so far into the debate.
The credibility of our engagement and consultation with young people is important. Frankly, they expect us to fail to deliver and to let them down. Politicians in general—whatever their party—are not held in high regard by young people. Our work of engaging day after day in debate with young people is essential if we are to restore the integrity of democracy and do something about the low turnouts—particularly among young people—that are the biggest threat to that democracy. All Members of Parliament have a special responsibility to do something about the breakdown of the relationship between the political process and young people. I urge every hon. Member to make an effort in his or her constituency to engage with that by consulting young people on the 14 to 19 Green Paper. We shall receive favourably the results of any such consultation.
482
Our reforms are important and we must take time to get them right. It is absolutely essential that we ensure that more young people achieve their potential. We are committed to seeing them attain good qualifications and to giving them the education that they need if they are to be successful in today's high-skilled economy. The Government are committed to rebuilding our country on the dual foundations of social justice and economic success. We want a fair society in which every young person has the chance to fulfil his or her potential and in which we no longer tolerate having far too many young people being consigned to the margins of society. We are committed to a successful society, with the skilled work force who are so essential in an increasingly competitive global economy and in which we bridge the competitiveness gap, which continues to hold our country back.
Our proposals for the reform of 14 to 19 education and training are an integral part of the society that we seek to build. I commend them to the House.
3.20 pm
Alistair Burt: I welcome the opportunity to join in this debate to discuss the 14 to 19 curriculum and the Green Paper that the Under-Secretary outlined. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech and for his courtesy in informing the House that a constituency engagement will take him away from us. I can only hope and assume that that engagement is a fund raiser for the Shakers, in which case the whole House will join in wishing him well. Contributions may be sent to Bury football club, either through its website or directly to the club at Gigg lane, Bury. I urge all hon. Members who have not already added themselves to the roll of honour on the website to do so as soon as possible. It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. The Bury connection is very strong. I appreciate his kind words and wish him well in his ministerial career.
I will have some nice things to say about the Green Paper and some of the aims and aspirations behind it. The Conservative party is concerned to ensure that our criticism of education policy comes from the same general base as the hon. Gentleman would expect, which is with an understanding of the aims of education in this country, but with the sharp edge that is necessary to turn decent aspirations into reality.
As always, the devil is in the detail. Parties of all colours realise when in government that good aspirations can sometimes flounder. It is therefore the job of the Opposition to point to some of the matters in the Green Paper that need a little more consideration if they are not to spoil the aims and aspirations in the way that I shall outline.
Before I consider the Green Paper in detail, I must deal with three vital areas that must be addressed if the curriculum is to be delivered satisfactorily. First, I pay tribute to the hard work that is going on in all our schools. From my county of Bedfordshire to Yorkshire, teachers, their support staff, governors, pupils and parents are working extremely hard to make education work. As the Secretary of State has said more than once, we are asking more of them every day. That is why some discrimination in the documents that the Government are continually sending them is necessary as those documents are getting in the way of the staff doing their jobs.

483
As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), made clear in the debate on Tuesday, the paperwork that the Department produces for schools is reaching mammoth proportions, which is preventing heads from doing their jobs. If we add together all the documents sent out between April 2001 and February 2002, they total 4,333 pages for head teachers to plough through. In April 2001, documents with a total of 853 pages were issued to primary schools. Assuming that each page takes two minutes to read, those documents would have taken more than 28 hours just to read, which is equal to three and a half working days.
No matter how diverting or interesting it is to knock up some new idea or develop policies such as the 14 to 19 curriculum, doing so must not deter the Government from tackling the problems that are undermining schools: the specialist teacher shortage, the burden of paperwork, and behavioural issues with pupils. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work that is being done to improve behaviour and the like, but that comes on the back of the Government's failed exclusion policy, which they have now changed.
I visited Orpington college yesterday and talked to a newly qualified teacher who had just started in his job. I asked him why he was in the college rather than the schools sector and he said that it was because of behaviour—he wanted to be in a place where children wanted to learn. That is a message for all hon. Members, not only for the Minister. All teachers want to be in places where children want to learn. Behaviour problems are causing a major crisis for schools. While we are concentrating on one policy, let us not take our eyes off the other ball.
Secondly, I stress the crucial importance of the further education sector in making the post-16 curriculum work. The quality and purpose in further education is extraordinary. I have been delighted in the past few months to visit a variety of different colleges: Barnet, Bedford, Dunstable, Thurrock and Orpington. I was most impressed by the commitment and the close connection between staff and their students, which might be due to the intimate connection with the local community and the need to be closely involved with employers. I found genuine esteem for the students and the courses that they are doing. I will return later to the difficult issue of vocational education. People in those colleges have real concerns, however, and unless they are tackled, the hopes of delivering some of the 14 to 19 curriculum through further education will be damaged.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who has just left the Chamber, made a point about pay and recruitment, and he is right. It is my impression from talking to principals that the FE sector is worried about core funding, which continues to go down because the new money coming into FE is always tied to initiatives. Colleges must bid for all the money and there is a sense that new money is centrally directed, which has led to a lack of trust in the sector.
David Wright: Given the aspirations of the Leader of the Opposition to reduce public expenditure to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product and the funding
484
issue that the hon. Gentleman is raising, where would the cuts fall in further education if the Conservative party were in power?
Alistair Burt: I will knock that argument on the head before it consumes every debate. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said clearly that the public services will be the first call on the Exchequer when we return to office. We have made that clear in all our actions in the past few months. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will care to get to his feet on the day of the Budget when the Chancellor may have some rather different things to say about the public services than he has hitherto said.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman help the House by explaining the proportion of Government expenditure that is not spent on public services?
Alistair Burt: About 60 per cent. is not spent on public services. We commonly talk of education and the health service as such services. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is including social security. I was drawing that distinction, but perhaps he was not.
People in further education are concerned that they are not quite trusted to handle their budgets. The core funding issue and the efficiency drive are causing them real problems. Academic pay and recruitment have reached acute levels. Those teaching in FE do not have some of the advantages of teachers in schools, such as housing allowances, golden hellos and laptops. Consequently, there is now a drift from further education into schools, which is affecting the ability of the FE sector to deliver.
Despite that fact, performance in the FE sector is exceptionally strong. Accordingly, the way in which the Minister for Lifelong Learning is treating the sector is unwarranted and it is causing completely unnecessary anger and concern. All Ministers sometimes have difficult things to say to those in their Department or in the area of their expertise and work. However, one must get people on one's side at some stage, particularly if one wants to give any sense that one understands the problems that they are facing. When the Minister wrote in The Independent on 7 March,
"Students have a 50-50 chance of coming away from post-16 learning having achieved what they set out to do…Further education serves too many learners to be a lottery for success",
she must have been unaware of the degree of anger that she has caused in the sector.
As the Association of Colleges pointed out, FE colleges receive 20 per cent. less funding for every individual who goes through an A-level programme than schools get for their A-level students.
According to the Further Education Funding Council inspection report of 2000–01:
"The amount of good or outstanding provision in programme areas increased significantly between 1999–2000 and 2000–2001. Overall, in 2000–2001, 97 per cent. of lessons were judged to be satisfactory or better. The proportion judged good or outstanding was 62 per cent."
How does that square in any way with the hon. Lady's unwarranted attack?
Gillian Merron: I was interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman referred to his visits to various

485
colleges and in his subsequent comments. Is not the Green Paper all about how we work with that sector to extend opportunities to young people and improve them? In his travels around the sector, did he not find an overwhelming welcome for the Green Paper?
Alistair Burt: I am awfully sorry, but no. The hon. Lady is absolutely right in her first contention: the whole point of working together is to build up a partnership. However, I put it to her—she should put this to her hon. Friends—that the Minister for Lifelong Learning's idea of creating a partnership may be to go around saying the sort of stuff that she has been saying, but it is just not working. Today, she will find that the chief executive of the Association of Colleges has made that clear in a very strong speech. The point is to build a partnership, but to improve it the Minister has to get people on the Government's side in the first place, and she is patently not doing that.
It is too early to get a sense of how much all the colleges welcome the Green Paper. They do welcome some things, as I shall go on to say, but they have not given an unequivocal welcome—that would never happen. At the moment, for them to be willing to listen to the Government, they must have some sense that the Government care about them and their sector, and the remarks made by the Minister for Lifelong Learning are not helping in that regard.
Yesterday I met John Harwood, the chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council. We wish the council well in its role, into which it is now settling. It has a variety of issues to resolve, from teething troubles to the fact the performance will be patchy from area to area. We would want it to stand up for the further education sector.
I shall take the Minister back to a remark that he made following an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) in relation to the 14 to 19 curriculum and its funding. The Minister said that there were no plans for the LSC to take over funding for 14 to 19-year-olds. I assume that that is absolutely firm. Is he prepared to reiterate that that will not happen? If not, perhaps the Minister for School Standards would like to revisit that point in responding to the debate.
My third point on the other things that need to be considered before the curriculum can be adequately delivered relates to the concerns about the budget. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) may have some more concerns about public expenditure when we get to Budget day. Where has education slipped to in the pecking order? We have had two hints. The first is the continued delay in the review of student finance. Again, some of the remarks made by the Minister for Lifelong Learning have been designed to suggest that there will not be very much new money for students or universities.
While we are about it, can we finally have a definition of higher education? Again, the Under-Secretary said that the target was that 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds should have had some form of higher education experience by 2010. Is he aware that, since 25 October last year, we have been asking his colleagues to define
486
the term "higher education experience"? Six months later, we still do not have one. People cannot have a target unless they know what it relates to.
Mr. Willis: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that the answer to that question, which I have also asked, was published in Hansard today.
Alistair Burt: Ah, well. I think that that was helpful—thanks. Was the answer the result of an opinion poll taken by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues? We can rely on it, can we?
Mr. Willis: May I help the hon. Gentleman? The response is not helpful, but it is interesting.
Alistair Burt: The confusion among those on the Opposition Benches is an indication of the confusion caused by the Government in not providing an adequate answer to that question for six months. There are 190 specialists in the Department for Education and Skills dedicated to higher education. Since 25 October last year, we have not yet had a definitive answer. Even the answer published today has confused the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Willis: I do not understand it.
Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman does not understand it, and he understands education very well. So, it is back to the drawing board for all 190 of those educational specialists, and perhaps in six months' time we will have an answer.
The other sign that education is slipping down the agenda is perhaps the attack on further education, lowering expectations in that sector. If education, education, education has slipped down the list of the Chancellor's priorities, it will be enormously disappointing to people in that sector, and perhaps we should be prepared for bad times just around the corner.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Alistair Burt: Of course; a comment on the Budget would be welcome.
Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman would welcome such a comment, but the Treasury certainly would not welcome it if I were to make it. Is he aware of the recent statement made by the former chief inspector of schools to the effect that the problem with the previous Conservative Government's education policies was that they did not give them early enough the importance that they deserved? Does not that contrast sharply with the massive amounts of extra investment that this Government have already put into education and skills during our first five years in office?
Alistair Burt: I am thrilled that the hon. Gentleman has read Chris Woodhead's book and is now prepared to quote it extensively. If he has been converted to what the former chief executive of Ofsted says, we would be delighted. Perhaps he will also comment on the remarks made by Chris Woodhead on page 85 of his book:
"These are problems that could be solved. In fact, as everyone knows the Government has chosen to make them worse."

487
The hon. Gentleman may want to quote selectively from Chris Woodhead's book, but we have probably got rather more in our armoury than he has.
I should like to consider the Green Paper in detail, having put on record the things that need to be done to ensure that the curriculum is properly delivered. None of us would seek to quibble with the vision and aims expressed in the Green Paper. It states that the
"first challenge is to build an education system in which every young person and every parent has confidence."
That is perfectly proper. It also states:
"Secondly, we must ensure that no young person is denied the chance of a decent education.
Thirdly, we must reap the skills benefits of an education system that matches the needs of the knowledge economy.
And fourthly, we must promote education with character."
That is absolutely right. There is no reason why any hon. Member should take issue with that, but the difficulty is how to translate things into practical answers.
I welcome the attention that is being paid to flexibility. I also certainly welcome the effort being made to ensure that proper support, advice and guidance is given to young people, especially at the age of 14. When youngsters become that bit older and enter higher education, a key factor for those who do not complete their courses is that they have not had adequate information or preparation before they start them. So anything that can be done to help at an early stage is good, especially for those from non-traditional higher education backgrounds whom we all seek to encourage most.
The three main proposals in the Green Paper are, first, a more flexible curriculum that is more responsive to students' individual needs; secondly, to promote world-class technical and vocational education, which offers a positive choice and high standards and is not a second-class fallback; and, thirdly, the new matriculation diploma, to which all young people can aspire at the age of 19. All those are useful aspirations, but, alas, too many questions go begging.
The GCSE will be downgraded for academic pupils, but upgraded for less academic ones. Is it therefore a useful exam, or not? Languages will be upgraded in primary schools, but downgraded in secondary schools. Are foreign languages essential, or not? The curriculum is supposed to be more flexible to enable every child to achieve, but more exams are loaded on to 18-year-olds. Therefore, what should have been a set of radical proposals to reform vocational education and ensure that the brightest pupils are stretched, alas turns out to be too much of a hotch-potch of half-baked ideas.
First, let us consider the flexible curriculum. The Green Paper states that young people should be able to develop at a pace consistent with their abilities. In particular, it advocates greater flexibility to accelerate learning in key stage 3 and give able students the opportunity to take their GCSEs early or to drop them altogether in some subjects and begin the AS programmes early. The problem is that most of the flexibility comes from taking away the need to carry on with a language post-14. Languages will therefore not be compulsory.
The problem with that is that we already lag way behind our European competitors on language skills. Barely 25 per cent. of people in this country can speak a foreign language. I suspect that that is a self-assessment
488
that we would all make with our pidgin 0-level French, and it shows that the depth of difficulties in relation to foreign languages is rather greater. Most of our European competitors have compulsory language teaching until the age of 18. Why should we not?
Charlotte Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman had ever tried to teach an unwilling 14 or 15-year-old a language when they were struggling with a range of other subjects, he would understand that it is vital not to force languages on them, but to ensure that they are enthused and excited by languages in primary school at seven or, indeed, earlier.
Alistair Burt: Two points come to mind. Does the hon. Lady apply that criterion to those who are unwilling to do maths, English or the like? Secondly, if youngsters are to be encouraged in primary school to feel that languages are appropriate, but suddenly find aged 14 that the Government do not consider them to be appropriate, where are the Government setting their sights?
Plenty of others have commented with great concern about languages being dropped. On 15 February, the Nuffield languages inquiry said:
"The Government has sent out the message loud and clear to young people—and to those who run their schools and teach in them—that language learning is a frill, an optional extra to education."
It believes that the plan
"would have a seriously damaging effect on national competitiveness and on the overall education levels of our children."
The Association of Colleges, in its submission on the curriculum, said:
"The removing of modern languages from the core is a retrograde step in relation to the future employability of young people in the global economy of the 21 st century. Industry is already reporting losing business because there are insufficient employees able to communicate with foreign buyers. It is arguable whether introducing modern languages into Primary School will engender the motivation to pursue languages beyond the age of 14."
That does not even consider where the teachers are to come from. Accordingly, this may well not close a skills gap, but create a new one.
To rub salt into this particular wound, there are far too many life skills that are no longer compulsory components of the curriculum. Employers do not complain that their candidates do not have a clear enough vision of their future career path or that their health education is poor; they complain that the candidates do not have good enough key skills and basic general knowledge. This element of the Green Paper, therefore, would see valuable skills dropped for non-key skills that should be learned elsewhere in the family and the community.
The Under-Secretary said that there would be an entitlement for students to take a foreign language if they wished and that schools would be obliged to provide the teaching. What happens if one pupil in the whole school wants to take French?
Mr. Ivan Lewis indicated dissent.
Alistair Burt: Is the Under-Secretary suggesting that a school would not be obliged to teach that pupil but that somewhere in the local area someone would be found to do it? Is it the latter?
Mr. Lewis: It is quite straightforward. The concept of collaboration between schools, colleges and training

489
providers within an area would mean that the school had responsibility to ensure that that young person would have access to the teaching of a modern foreign language, whether in that institution or a neighbouring one.
Alistair Burt: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but again my response is that if collaboration is to be the order of the day and he is looking for collaboration with the further education sector, he had better make sure that things are levelled up in that sector. Otherwise, he will not find the collaboration that he is looking for.
The proposals for dropping GCSEs are vague. It is not clear which topics students could drop and which they could take early. It is clear that the proposals will downgrade the GCSE. If the brightest pupils are no longer taking the same exams as their less bright contemporaries, the latter will not feel that their qualifications are as valuable as when all students took GCSEs as their main key stage 4 examination. It removes the gold standard status from the GCSE and is an admission that GCSEs are now too easy. If that is the case, let us reform the GCSE.
Consequently these proposals are likely to create a form of exam apartheid, especially as in practice it is likely to be difficult to move between the two streams. The decision, therefore, to take all GCSEs or some GCSEs and AS-levels at the age of 14 will have a huge effect on future life chances. This may encourage some pupils to take AS-levels when it is inappropriate to do so and may encourage some schools to push their pupils to do AS-levels so that they move higher up the league table.
There is also a question mark over the overall appropriateness of the AS-level for GCSE students. Contrary to common belief, AS-levels are not a lower standard than A-levels; they are intended to be half an A-level course at A-level standard. Therefore, it is important to ask whether even a very bright 14-year-old would be able to take a course and an exam designed to be taken by a 17-year-old. It seems that the AS-level is being used by the Government to plug a gap in their policy, but it is not an appropriate plug.
I now come to modern apprenticeships and vocational training. The debate on vocational training is an important one for the country now, as it has been for almost 100 years. We perpetually seem to get this wrong in terms of attitude and the like. When we visit those involved in teaching a vocational subject, we do not get any sense from them that their pupils have less self-esteem or that there is less esteem attached to the course. This is something that we struggle with. I sometimes feel that those with an academic background fall over themselves to create or perpetuate the gap for some reason. The way they go on talking about the divide and the problems of esteem in vocational education sometimes adds to the difficulties.
There is no difference in the worth of an individual, no matter what course they take. The demand that is made of us is to do the very best with all our talents to the best of our ability. Those talents may best be fulfilled in academic or vocational courses, and now increasingly in hybrids between the two—that is what it is all about. We will do all we can to assist the Under-Secretary in this. I remember coming to the House many years ago and talking to employers who said that they were sick of the
490
fact that they could not get enough young people with basic skills and craft skills. They felt then that there was a problem in Britain in relation to that issue. It has been clouded by class and terminology for far too long. We will give every assistance we can to help deal with that, but whether these proposals are necessarily the right ones is another matter. On the general issue, we want to be very supportive.
I am pleased that the Under-Secretary paid tribute to the scheme for modern apprenticeships which we introduced. Although the Green Paper does not give a great deal of detail on this, the idea is that pupils who intend to pursue a modern apprenticeship will be able to study predominantly vocational courses until they are 16. The Green Paper says that the Department for Education and Skills will be working with the Learning and Skills Council to ensure that modern apprenticeships are of a high enough standard and will provide students with employable skills.
There is already in the proposals a compulsory work-related learning component, and the Green Paper reaffirms its existence for all pupils in the future. I draw the Under-Secretary's attention to the Association of Learning Providers, which wrote to me shortly after the Green Paper was published, and wished to participate. It says that the key to making sure that modern apprenticeships and relationships with the workplace go well is to give sufficient choice to employers and learners to make sure that the schemes are the right ones. It goes on:
"The new national framework should be sufficiently flexible to allow employers and learners choice. It should also permit innovation on the part of private and voluntary learning providers in devising programmes that meet the needs of different industry sectors and approaches to learning."
I will send the letter to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will find it helpful.
The problems are as follows. There is a danger that businesses will not be adequately consulted either on the content of the vocational qualifications or during the creation of modern apprenticeships. The Under-Secretary must make sure that this does not happen. It is not clear how the Learning and Skills Council will interact with the vocational training that is available for the under-16s. That is a real problem if under-16s go to further education colleges in order to take some of their vocational GCSE courses.
The general idea on work-related learning is fine, but there is no structural or compulsory element to the proposals. The Under-Secretary has said that this would happen and would be a must. That must be firmed up in the Paper because unless there is structural change, it is unlikely that this will work.
I share with the Under-Secretary a sense that perhaps the matriculation diploma will not necessarily go into the Oxford English Dictionary with as much ease as a "Delia" did. It will not trip off all our tongues, so we should find some other name, perhaps one relating to graduation. The whole concept of graduating from high school has become popular with youngsters who see it portrayed in films from the United States where it is part of the culture. Perhaps some sort of graduation diploma, providing that it is not confused with anything further up the education scale, might be right. Let us have a think about it.
There is a problem, however. The proposals for the diploma are vague. For example, they do not state whether other activities, such as citizenship education and sport,

491
will definitely be included in the assessment. The diploma will over-simplify the current examinations system. The suggestion is that employers, further education colleges and universities cannot tell the difference between pupils' achievements. For example, students with five A* grades at GCSE will get the same intermediate grade as those with five C grades, yet employers and further education colleges will not view them in the same way. John Bangs, the head of the National Union of Teachers education department, summed it up best when he said:
"It is difficult to see why a separate certificate is needed for those with higher grades. It is not beyond the wit of the universities to develop their own means of distinguishing between highfliers without undermining A levels for other pupils."
The diploma also attempts falsely to compare different skills, such as an achievement in English with an aptitude for woodwork with being a good football player. Including other non-academic/vocational subjects in the assessment creates problems. How will we assess non-academic and vocational achievements? How will we deal with the fact that a student who has one A and two B grades at A-level, an AS-level at any grade and a qualification in citizenship will be awarded the top higher diploma, while a student with just four A grades at A-level will get only the lower advanced diploma? That does not make sense.
The Green Paper sets out many good intentions. However, the main aspects on which the Minister will concentrate to deliver the aims are seriously flawed. Unless those are dealt with, the aims will not be achieved. We draw the Government's attention to those difficulties. There is much devil in the detail, but we, too, want the central aims delivered. The fundamentals are in place. However, unless the difficulties in teaching and schools, the disparity in further education and the budgetary problems are properly dealt with by the Secretary of State and her team, none of those aspirations will be delivered. We give full notice that as much as we support some of the principles behind the aims, we will also examine the flaws carefully in order to ensure that the delivery matches some of the words that the Government use, at least at some stage in their term in office.
3.52 pm
Ann Taylor: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). I know him best from his days as MP for Bury, North and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, that is how we still think of him. On that basis, I am sure that we all join him in wishing Bury football club well in its current difficulties. I am not sure whether it does either of us any good when I say that the last football match I saw him at was a Bolton Wanderers game. The match was good, so it was obviously not last week.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives want the central aims of the Green Paper delivered. However, I doubted that when I listened to him. It will always be the case that the devil is in the detail, but we are debating a Green Paper, not the details of legislation. It is important to concentrate on the general direction in which we want education to go for this age group. I welcome the debate and the fact that we are concentrating more attention on 14 to 19-year-olds.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Government have delivered a great deal in terms of educational improvement in the past few years. Much of that is
492
reflected in the improved performances in many schools. The schools achievement awards are out tomorrow, and I look forward to writing to the successful schools in my constituency. There have been many successful initiatives, and many of them are interrelated. We should not forget that.
At the beginning of the week, I read some comments by right-wing so-called researchers who said that we should dump pre-school education because it does not do children any good. The Government's work on pre-school education has laid the foundation for the teenagers of the future so that they get far more out of education and achieve even more than they do now. It is important to realise that those facts are related so that we have an overall approach to education.
It is right to focus on this group of teenagers, partly because the Government have done much to move in the right direction in so many other aspects of education, and partly because there are difficulties with the education of those young people. In addition to issues covered by the Green Paper, the Minister should bear it in mind that those parts of the country with a middle-school system still experience some difficulties. In that system, young people of 14 take key stage 3 exams when they have only been in the school for a short time. That problem has not been mentioned so far, and it complicates an already complicated situation. It will have to be taken on board when further details of our approach for the age group are worked out.
The Green Paper says:
"We must build a flexible system around the needs and aspirations of individual pupils".
No one could disagree with that. However, it is important that that aspiration on the part of the Government is put in the right context. We need a flexible system, but we do not want a fragmented system. We have to get away from the categorisation that has given sound opportunities to some in the age group, but not to others. There have been so many tiers and layers that it has often been difficult for those advising young people, as well as the young people themselves, to know which route to take. Should they go for intermediate GNVQs, GCSEs, AS-levels or modern apprenticeships? Should they go to a sixth form college, an FE college or stay in their own college? The choices are almost bewildering. In some geographical areas, that makes it difficult for everyone involved.
We are lacking the framework to encompass all that we offer. Although I absolutely believe that we need flexibility, it needs to be within a coherent structure. It must offer all young people—not just the academic few or those who are deemed suitable for vocational education—more choice than they have at present. However, it must also give value to those opportunities that are not properly valued now.
The Green Paper refers to meeting the needs of young people, but who decides what those needs are? How do we inform young people and ensure that they get advice and support? The situation on the ground is patchy. In some areas, it is very good; in others, it is not. The same is true of aspirations. We have to improve young people's aspirations and stretch all pupils, but are we sure that we have the right mechanisms in place?
I do not want to go through the whole Green Paper, but not enough has been made of one critical consideration. The document refers to girls' achievements and records.

493
It also mentions motivation. However, the lack of motivation on the part of young people is one of the key problems in education. We need to place an even greater emphasis on that and probably carry out more research. More people need to be interested in motivation, especially what makes it tail off.
There is academic work on that. A few years ago, the department of education at Keele university charted the dips in performance, in interest and in attendance—the critical points in the education of girls and boys. The dips were not parallel, but the elementary work of examining what is happening and then considering why, can help to improve our knowledge of how to motivate young people and how to keep them interested in education. There are some very good teachers around, many of whom are good individual motivators, but we still have to do more to understand what triggers motivation and what keeps people in the system and interested. Flexibility in the system will help, but there are other steps that we must take.
I want to discuss another matter that the Green Paper touched on, but not sufficiently—ensuring that young people, especially this age group, learn how to learn. They need to become individual learners, as opposed to being taught a skill or how to pass an exam, which, although critically important, is not the be all and end all for this age group. All young people need to develop that skill because they will have to change direction throughout their lives, and if they can crack learning as a process at that age it will stay with them for ever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, wondered what young people might think about the Green Paper. I commend the Minister for producing a separate document, including a questionnaire, that is aimed at young people. It is a simple guide, but none the worse for that. There is always the danger that such documents may sound patronising, and we can always find examples of the odd phrase that is not quite right. As the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said, young people will not be queueing up to discuss the matriculation diploma—although some might come up with other names that would be unmentionable in the House—but they may have ideas about it.
It is worth the Minister giving some time, thought and effort to ensuring that young people respond to the guide. He should particularly target this year's A-level takers, because they are the cohort that first had to do key stage 1 exams and tests, key stage 2, AS-level, and so on. Those young people have had experience of just about every change that has been introduced in education, so it is important to seek their views. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows one 18-year-old from whom he can expect to hear about the matter.
I want to say a word about AS-levels, partly as the parent of someone who took them. There was much criticism of AS-levels, including talk about overload. In fact, if young people are interested in the subjects that they are taking, they do not necessarily regard the work as overload. It is important to motivate young people and to ensure that courses are tailored to those who take them. We should aim for the broader-based education that many people have talked about for a long time, but has not often been delivered.
494
The Green Paper makes proposals on GCSEs and the curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds. It suggests that the curriculum should include core subjects—English, maths, science and information and communications technology—and, within those, citizenship, religious education, sex and health education, physical education and work-related learning. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire questioned whether the proposals were right and were what employers wanted. It would be hard to think of dropping subjects such as physical education or work-related learning from the list, because they are key ingredients in the education that all young people need.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's concern about foreign languages being no longer compulsory post-14, however—although that may be wishful thinking on my part. I can easily imagine the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins)—the difficulty of teaching youngsters who are not wholly motivated towards education. If such youngsters have to study yet another subject that they find tedious, boring and not especially relevant, that could turn some of them off education.
Perhaps the answer is that there should be a presumption that people will study foreign languages without making it compulsory although that, too, could give rise to difficulties. If we introduced foreign languages at an earlier stage, young people might be less inclined to be turned off in the way that has been suggested.
Mr. Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems of learning foreign languages is that so many young people have not mastered our own language very well? Improving young people's literacy in our own language would be of tremendous assistance when they learn a foreign language.
Ann Taylor: I am sure that is the case. I am also sure that the money that we are investing in pre-school education—helping young children to articulate their feelings, getting them interested in more than watching television by encouraging them to play with other children and become aware of books through reading or having stories read to them—will better prepare children for primary education. The literacy hour is already having an impact. The benefits are cumulative and will give us the scope—if we can find the teachers—to teach foreign languages at an earlier stage.
My main concern about the suggested subjects relates to a point made on page 5 of the guide where young people are advised that they would be able to follow
"other courses including some linked directly to the skills and knowledge needed for specific jobs or careers".
That is fine, but we need to consider the status of the "other courses" or we shall be in danger of creating yet another divide of the type that has dogged British education for far too long.
I have two questions for my ministerial colleagues on vocational GCSEs, which we have already discussed. The guide includes quite a lot of material about them and is encouraging as to their introduction and success. It lists a range of vocational subjects that will be available from September 2002: applied art and design, applied business,

495
engineering, health and social care and so on. Some other relevant subjects could and should have been included. I do not understand why subjects such as plumbing, electrical work or car maintenance were excluded. Many of the young people whom we are trying to target already have an interest in those subjects, so studying them would be extremely relevant and might actually switch those young people back on to education and motivate them in future.
Ministers may reply that individual schools cannot cover all those subjects. However, schools cover all the conventional subjects so perhaps they should consider including other subjects. If they cannot, we could and should—and will soon have to—encourage greater co-operation between groups of local secondary schools. That is something of a hobby horse of mine. Co-operation could be undertaken through a consortium or a looser co-operative. There is great scope for that, especially given the specialist schools status that many schools are achieving. Such a partnership approach could offer a wider range of subjects. That is one way of making sure that specialist schools do not have a divisive impact on their locality. If they are knitted into working with other schools in the area, they can offer more collectively than they could individually.
Charlotte Atkins: My right hon. Friend spoke about co-operation between schools. Does she think that such co-operation should extend to further education and sixth form colleges?
Ann Taylor: Absolutely. I make no distinction there. Fourteen-year-olds who want to study certain courses, such as car maintenance, need to be able to go wherever those courses are on offer. Networking and collaboration is bound to strengthen the totality of the education provision in any one area.
My second question for the Minister about vocational GCSEs is very simple. Why are we so intent on giving them a different label? Why are we so intent on calling them vocational GCSEs? Why cannot we simply call them GCSEs? That point may seem very trivial.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: I reassure my right hon. Friend that what were known as vocational GCSEs have become GCSEs in vocational subjects. Ministers have insisted that we will be introducing new GCSEs from September. They will not be labelled "vocational", as we regard that as unnecessary.
Ann Taylor: I hope that that is the case. We should not say that we are offering GCSEs in vocational subjects because we do not say that we are offering GCSEs in academic subjects. We should just say that we are offering GCSEs in various subjects which are all of equal worth. It is critical that they are all of equal worth.
Will the Minister consider reinforcing the point about equal worth by introducing a credit accumulation system, so that the matriculation diploma to which he referred can be given, at its different levels, for whatever combination of points, subjects and experiences is deemed necessary? If we ensured that every subject at GCSE—whether it was history, health and social care, geography or car maintenance—was worth the same number of points in a credit accumulation system that formed part of
496
matriculation, we would reinforce parity of esteem, which has so often been lacking in the past. That is important if we are to motivate young people.
In the FE sector, and in education more generally, there are problems concerning who will teach all the extra subjects. The Minister and the hon. Member for North"East Bedfordshire touched on that problem when they mentioned pay and conditions in the FE sector. A more important problem is the fact that when the FE sector was incorporated and it underwent the changes introduced by the previous Conservative Government, many valuable courses were dropped because they were expensive to run. Many colleges dropped the same courses, so we lost the talents of certain categories of lecturers and teachers. We may have to make an effort to bring some of them back and to ensure that they can make a contribution. If we are to have new courses, it is important that the curriculum and the quality of teaching are right from the start. If we do not get that right, the new GCSEs will be off to a poor start, and it may be difficult to recover from that.
I support the concept of a matriculation diploma, although I suggest that we offer a prize for whoever comes up with the best name for it because none of us wants to call it that. I am not sure, however, whether a matriculation diploma is the entire answer. The document says that Ministers are considering an alternative to it, presumably for the youngsters who do not reach the threshold. At the moment, many people would be excluded from having a matriculation diploma because they do not get five A to C grades. We can expect more youngsters to hit that target in future, but some will not. The existing record of achievement could be developed so that we do not need to invent yet another diploma.
I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind that, at the moment, some of the youngsters who do not meet the threshold of five A to C grades never get the opportunity to catch up: once they are a failure, they are always a failure. Some are able to pick up another grade when they go on to other types of education, but some are not. If we are to have partnership arrangements, I hope that the Minister will consider making provision for those youngsters who might repeat year 11 successfully with a tailored course.
In a town such as Dewsbury, young people could, without suffering any stigma, take their GCSEs in the same school, a neighbouring institution or an FE college, where they would be supported and brought up to the threshold. There is scope for action there. The document concentrates on fast tracking, but we must consider those who need a bit of help, not least because of the variation in the maturity of people at that age.
On fast tracking to stretch the brightest pupils, I do not think that this is the major problem for this age group, although it is bad if children get bored at school at any level. I have no objections to giving an A* grade for a mark of 90 or higher at A-level, when an A is given for 80 or above, but I do not think that it is a big deal. I ask the Minister whether it is right to put even more pressure on young people. I am not sure why fast tracking is being proposed. I have read that it is because universities want more help in sorting out the highest of the high-fliers. I think that universities should be happy with people who achieve A grades, rather than trying to tweak every point out of them. University interviews and attitudes towards students also come into it. However, I could talk about that at length, so I had better not start.

497
I know that some schools encourage youngsters not to take GCSEs. I am not sure that that is always a good idea. It is good that youngsters know what level they have reached, and very often they do not want to be excluded from what their peer group is doing. There are other ways of ensuring that we stretch them without the risk of isolating them from the majority of their year group.
Mr. Brady: The right hon. Lady is making a very good speech and I am listening with great interest. Is she concerned, as I am, that if we take the brightest, most able children out of GCSEs, we may not achieve the parity of esteem for the vocational subjects that we would all like to see?
Ann Taylor: Yes, that is part of the problem, but not the primary part. Whether or not a child takes a GCSE early very much depends on the maturity of the child and the subject. It is much easier for 14-year-olds to take GCSE maths than it is for them to take GCSE English. They can accelerate more easily in a narrow subject such as maths; they need a degree of maturity to do themselves justice in an English course.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about getting brighter children to do GCSEs. I was not going to make this point, but most of the schools that miss out GCSEs are private schools. Their pupils have the confidence to see them through, but most young people want to work with their peer group. Some want to be stretched, and some will not be able to stand the pace, so flexibility is required. Time pressures might not be so severe under a system of credit accumulation in which credits are picked up as a student goes along, and credits achieved early are just as valuable as those achieved late.
I have been speaking for a long time, but I want to make a couple more points, the first of which relates to support networks. It is important that every institution, be it school, sixth form or further education college, has in place the right network to support and advise young people. The Green Paper mentions the presence of the careers service and Connexions in schools and colleges, but although that is important, it is not enough. The document appears to expect too much from the Connexions service; perhaps more attention should be given to helping schools and colleges to advise and mentor young people and help them to make decisions about their future.
Finally, let me say a few words about the institutions in which young people are taught and how we measure their success. The way in which exams are used to measure success should be revisited. Many youngsters from my constituency go to a sixth form college in Huddersfield, Greenhead college, which I know well. Its former head, Dr. Kevin Conway, and his colleagues devised a system of assessment of the college and of individual courses that I believe points the way forward for the assessment of educational institutions. Many sixth form colleges evidently agree, because most now use the system of value-added assessment for internal purposes and when considering how to improve what they offer young people.
The system does not merely take into account raw scores, but considers the ability of the intake based on GCSE grades at 16 then assesses the value added by the
498
time that final results are in. That is done college by college and subject by subject, but it can be done pupil by pupil to determine whether a pupil is being well served or is missing out, whether it is worth taking an additional exam after AS-level, and whether it is worth resitting an exam if the pupil does not do well at 18.
I commend that work, which is supported by the local learning and skills council, to Ministers. I am sure that they are aware of that more sophisticated technique, which I believe is far better than comparing colleges and schools using simple league tables based on raw examination results. I hope that it will become the way forward for all education institutions.
The Green Paper gives a good start to the debate that must now take place on the future of 14 to 19 education. I am sorry that the Conservative spokesman got sidetracked into political points, because we should discuss the issue constructively. There is much meat in the Green Paper, which points the way forward; we can discuss the details later. I believe that the document offers more opportunities to our young people—opportunities for which they are ready and which they deserve—and I commend it to the House.
4.24 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), whose comments were thoughtful and careful. I wish I had a Bury connection—I have been desperately trying to think of a way to draw together with the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis). Alas, I can think of no connection other than the fact that as a youngster I played at Gigg lane against Bury schoolboys and against the Bury team that played against Burnley in one of the junior leagues. I hope that that connection is sufficient to enable me to join the Bury club. I thought that the first diploma to be offered might be the Bury diploma, which would receive a lot of support—albeit not among those who live in Manchester.
I apologise for slightly misleading the House earlier. A question was asked about the definition of higher education—here I apologise to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. It was originally asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on behalf of the Liberal Democrat education team, and the answer was published this week. I shall read it out for the benefit of those hon. Members who are interested. It says:
"The purposes of higher education are: to provide high quality teaching to a widening body of students; to undertake research and scholarship which competes with the best in the world; to transfer knowledge and understanding to the economy and the wider community for the benefit of all; and to sustain a culture which underpins our democracy and encourages critical thinking."—[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 112W.]
So there we have it.
Alistair Burt: Does the hon. Gentleman share my bemusement at the fact that after six months the question, "What is the definition of higher education for the purposes of the Government's target of 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds being in higher education or having had the higher education experience by 2010?" has still not been answered?
Mr. Willis: I recognise—[Interruption.] That is a new definition coming in, which is somewhat confusing.

499
The fact that it took six months for the combined talents in the Department to come up with it is slightly worrying, but we have it now and the House can rest easy in the knowledge.
I applaud the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for allowing this debate on the Green Paper "14–19: extending opportunities, raising standards" to go ahead. It is the first time since I became a Member of Parliament in 1997 that an education Green Paper has been debated. If this is a new way of working, it is to be commended, and I congratulate Ministers on it.
Like the right hon. Member for Dewsbury, I support the idea of engaging young people in the debate. Although we could all criticise the publication that is to be distributed among young people, it is a commendable effort by the Department and reveals an approach that I urge all Departments to adopt. The more we engage young people in broader social policy, the more chance we have of engaging them in the major political debates and in the community.
The Minister might well correct me on this point, but it strikes me as sad that the document does not fully address one of the greatest problems of exclusion among young people—the fact that black, Afro-Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Pakistani youngsters are far more likely not to continue their education, far more likely to be excluded, and far more likely not to engage in the education process. It is interesting that many members of those communities make a real effort to return to education later in life. When considering the responses to the Green Paper, I urge the Under-Secretary to think about those communities in particular and to engage them in the debate.
My party will respond positively to the Secretary of State's challenge. We urge all those with influence in the education world, be it political or otherwise, to engage appropriately. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made it clear that we have failed in this area in the past, and this is a good opportunity for us to succeed.
I assure the Minister that, although some of my comments may be critical, they are meant to be helpful. I am sure that he and the Minister for School Standards will take them as such.
There can be little dissent in the House about supporting the challenges laid down by the Secretary of State in her introduction to the Green Paper or the aims set out in chapter 1.4. The outcomes in chapter 1.29—higher levels of participation; a commitment by all to lifelong learning; increased employability; more rounded students; a reduction in truancy; and a greatly improved system of 14 to 19 education and training—are all worthy. Indeed, they are so worthy that I expected motherhood and apple pie and an acceptance of creationism to complete the list. However, I shall not go into that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because that is for another day.
I can say in all sincerity that I applaud the vision of a coherent 14 to 19 key stage, but it is sad that, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire rightly said, the report has missed some of the hard issues that were so courageously identified in "Bridging the Gap", in the Moser report, in the national skills taskforce reports and in successive annual reports from the Office for Standards in Education and the Further Education Funding Council about our schools and colleges.
500
The Green Paper is ultra cautious and the proposals it contains are far from coherent. To be blunt, I believe that since 1944 our education system has served the majority of young people aged 14 to 19 pretty well under Governments of any political persuasion. The raising of the school leaving age, the post-Robbins expansion in higher education, the advent of comprehensive education and the reforms of the late 1980s, including the introduction of the national curriculum and local management of schools, have considerably enhanced the life chances of many of our young people.
However, that is not what the Green Paper is principally trying to address. It is supposed to be addressing the life chances of the 5 per cent. of our young people who gain no GCSEs, the 50 per cent. who do not achieve five good GCSEs and the 15 per cent. who are not in any form of education or training by the age of 18. I want to concentrate on those areas.
Throughout the Green Paper, mention is made of the fact that it is supposed to address the chronic skills shortage that threatens to leave the United Kingdom floundering in an ever more competitive global marketplace. Some 20 per cent. of adults lack functional literacy and numeracy, 36 per cent. have lower than level 2 skills compared with 27 per cent. in France and 17 per cent. in Germany. The estimated cost to employers of low skills in our economy is £10 billion a year, and social exclusion through low wages, lack of satisfaction and lack of opportunity creates a vicious circle of social and economic deprivation for individual workers. The Green Paper does not fully address those problems.
John Mann: I have listened to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that there is a lack of research in certain areas to quantify the broad statements that he is making, especially in relation to the coalfields? In coalfield areas between 1944 and the present time, young people in many schools have been described as pit fodder. There is a lack of information on the section of the community who have been badly represented and are lumped into the grand category of underperformers.
Mr. Willis: With respect, I do not quite know what point the hon. Gentleman is making, other than to support my comments. The reality is that most of the indices of educational and training performance or access to training show that, up to level 3, we significantly underperform compared with our European competitors and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development averages. That is the point I was making. It does not matter whether these young people are in the coalfields of Yorkshire, the former steel areas of the north-east or the rural areas of Cornwall, if they are underachieving and not fulfilling their potential, that is an issue for the House and for the Green Paper.
John Mann: Will my hon. Friend give way again?
Mr. Willis: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman calls me his hon. Friend, and I shall give way.
John Mann: I am agreeing with his points about underperformance. Does he agree that it is precisely that breakdown by specific areas that is lacking? In the coalfields in particular, the tremendous underachievement and lack of aspiration has not been recognised. I have

501
tabled 30 parliamentary questions on this issue in the past two weeks, but all the answers give the same broadbrush categorisation and cannot give specific figures for the coalfields. A breakdown of key areas of the community is essential in tackling underachievement and lack of aspiration.
Mr. Willis: I did not want to belittle the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. I thought that he was supporting my comments. I totally agree with him. When the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and I sat for many happy hours considering the Learning and Skills Bill, we knew that that would be one of the objectives of the Learning and Skills Council, especially the regional councils. They would do the research that the hon. Gentleman wants. [Interruption.] The Minister, who is noted for his courtesy, says from a sedentary position that it is a bit early. I would like to know when the Learning and Skills Council will deliver on anything, let alone on this key area. Frankly, I am fed up with constantly hearing the excuse that it is too early. This is a vital issue, and we cannot plan for skills shortages unless we have the data that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) rightly referred to, and I thank him for that.
It is precisely because of the skills shortages, which have been identified by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that I am surprised that in her introduction to the Green Paper the Secretary of State does not mention training. Not once in the introduction is that word mentioned, yet the person who wrote chapter 1—it may well have been the Minister—obviously recognised the importance of training, because it is included as a key aim and a key outcome. It says that the Government aim to achieve
"a greatly improved 14–19 system of education and training which is of world-class standard and of which we can be proud."
My criticism is that the Green Paper does not reflect training needs.
I understand the Secretary of State's caution about vocational education and training. She is right when she says that she wants to wage a war on vocational snobbery. However, that requires more than indignant words: it needs an understanding of the problem, courage and huge commitment, especially in resources. Skoda did not turn round the image of its cars by indignant outpouring. It did so by making its product affordable, desirable and of high quality. There is nothing wrong with espousing the concept of vocational training provided that the product we deliver to our young people is desirable, affordable and of high quality.
Mr. Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: I shall give way, provided that the hon. Gentleman does not drive a Skoda.
Mr. Hopkins: As I come from Luton, I drive a Vauxhall. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this problem seems to have been cracked on the continent, particularly in Germany, where vocational qualifications seem to have equal status with other forms of educational qualification?
Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. That is clearly the case, and not just in
502
Germany. I visited Holland, where vocational education, especially that from 14 to 19, has a parity of esteem with what people in this country would describe as academic education. In Scandinavia, one finds exactly the same: vocational education is regarded as an alternative way of delivering education and training, not as an inferior or superior system. What is patently wrong with our vocational system is that, all too often, it appears to be second best and sub-standard. That is why we have real difficulty in turning young people on in that way.
That is not a new problem. I began teaching in 1963—I know that that is a long time ago—in a secondary modern school in Leeds. In the same year, the Newsom report was published, which some hon. Members will remember. It was appropriately named "Half our Future". I wondered whether the Green Paper would be called "The Other Half of our Future". The Newsom report stated:
"all schools should provide a choice of programmes including a range of courses broadly related to the occupational interest for pupils in the fourth and fifth years of a five year course".
The outcome of that report and Government policy from 1963 onwards was remarkable for its lack of success. It singularly failed to deliver for the youngsters who were identified by Newsom as requiring an alternative curriculum at that time. It was unsuccessful because, in Newsom's words, it aimed to reflect the "reality" of working-class adult life.
A huge message must be received by the Under-Secretary and his colleagues before they bring the White Paper back to the House. We must never return to the days when we had a pseudo class-ridden education system. To compliment the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the 1988 reforms were aimed at doing exactly the opposite—they tried to establish a middle-class education system for all, with middle-class values. I do not say that in a derogatory way; that was the aspiration. Before we throw that out, we must be sure that we have something better to put in its place. We must not, therefore, make the same mistake. Instead, we must aim to create a world-class training culture beginning at 14.
Vocational GCSEs may broaden the existing curriculum. I accept totally the point made by the right hon. Member for Dewsbury that we have got into the habit of calling them vocational GCSEs, and I do so purely as a way of picking up from the Green Paper. Will they capture the imagination of a target group of young people who know that they are unlikely to fare better in assessment terms than they do now? Vocational GCSEs are not the whole answer. If we are to introduce parity with GCSE qualifications, we might, by definition, make some marginal inroads into the 50 per cent. who do not get 5 A to Cs. However, let us not pretend, other than by dropping the standard, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire seemed to indicate, that that will address the issue.
The key training initiative in the Green Paper is the modern apprenticeship. It appears, however, that the advice from the Secretary of State's advisory committee is being ignored. Sir John Cassels, in his report, "The Way to Work", found that apprenticeships were too peripheral to education and training. He reported that young people do not choose them, parents do not value them as a worthwhile route, careers advisers see them as a last resort, and, what is more, 93 per cent. of Britain's

503
employers are not engaged with modern apprenticeships at all, yet that is the big idea for the training programme in the Green Paper.
The Under-Secretary would also accept that, when inspection was introduced in 1988, it highlighted huge problems of weak initial assessment, poor induction, poor tackling of key skills, a hit-and-miss approach to off-the-job training, and poor monitoring. To be fair, I also accept that, since inspection has been introduced, those standards have risen. The reality, however, is that modern apprenticeships may be a good idea for a small number of young people but are not the mass panacea that is required if we are to meet some of the huge training needs of our students. I therefore urge the Under-Secretary, as it is not apparent in the Green Paper, to put employers at the centre of the training agenda. If he does not do that, and focuses purely on delivery by schools and colleges, he will fail and he will have missed the boat.
I offer the Under-Secretary the concept of chartered institutes on the lines of traditional guilds, which could be given the responsibility for developing training programmes at prescribed levels. The Government could ensure that chartered status means a right of access to higher education, and allow employers to have direct access to funding on a level playing field with other providers. We cannot hope to win the support of employers if they are not equal partners. Without their endorsement, work-related education and training will never succeed.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the replacement of the national training organisations with the sector skills councils will make a significant contribution towards improving those relationships? Does he also accept that the key to making this work in local communities is for educational institutions and small and medium-sized enterprises in particular to have much closer relationships than in the past; and that mentoring is making a significant contribution towards that? Does he also accept that, in terms of the modern apprenticeship, the very reason for establishing the Cassels commission was to tackle the issues that he has identified? We have agreed to practically all Sir John Cassels' recommendations.
Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his intervention and for the passionate way in which he responded to those accusations. I totally agree with him about breaking down the NTOs into sector-related and—as I would call them—chartered institutes. We must engage consumers, too. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury talked about having a plumbing GCSE, and I agree that we must give our trades the kind of esteem that we give other areas of the curriculum. Giving chartered status to tradesmen engenders confidence in the consumer, too, so that can he a win-win situation.
The key to the success of the whole of the Government's programme on 14 to 19 education is empowerment of individual students. We applaud the concept of an individual learning plan for each student. We do so because it was in our 2001 manifesto. We are therefore delighted that the Under-Secretary has picked up yet another good idea. I am pretty sure that when he and his colleagues are in my constituency, spending huge amounts of money, they will talk of nothing else.
504
Young people must be empowered to move from institution to institution. I include employers and private providers in that provision. The needs of young people, and not of providers, must be paramount. However, students must be supported by access to concessionary travel and education maintenance allowances. Those in work must also have the right to time off for study. The objectives will not be achieved if students do not have the necessary support mechanisms.
It is no good offering greater choice and diversity to people in rural Devon or rural north Yorkshire. The infrastructure must be put in place to allow them to take advantage of diversity. It is no good claiming that education maintenance allowances work if they are not extended to students throughout the country.
Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is very important that pilot schemes cover rural as well as urban areas, to determine how students make choices. He is also right to say that matters such as transport are very important in rural areas.
Mr. Willis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Students aged between 14 and 19 must have access to independent and individual careers education and guidance. At the moment, that is in very short supply.
I have no problems with the Government's policy with regard to the Connexions service. It started by trying to help those students who most needed support. They were identified as low achievers who would probably drop out of the system otherwise. However, the idea that bright youngsters who might get more than five GCSEs at grades A to C do not need individual guidance or support is wrong.
We must get away from the proposition that only schools can supply that guidance. In the past, schools have often used their influence to draw students into the programmes offered on those schools' menus. We must offer young people a menu involving a variety of institutions and employers, and that means that each student must also have access to individual advice.
The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire spoke about providers, and especially about further education colleges. I do not often agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but I do on this occasion. When the Minister for School Standards responds to the debate, will he register an objection to the appalling comment made by the Minister for Lifelong Learning, which was repeated on the BBC programme "Newsbeat" on 7 March? She said:
"If you are a learner in a further education college, you have a 50-50 chance of coming out of that college having achieved what you set out to do, and that is not good enough."
Was the Minister for Lifelong Learning speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister, or was she simply barking mad on that day? There is no evidence to back up that appalling slur on further education colleges. She must know that 68 colleges in this country have been inspected so far, and that only three have been judged inadequate. The inspectors found that 92 per cent. of teaching was satisfactory or better, that 93 per cent. of curriculum grades achieved were satisfactory or better, and that 58 per cent. of those grades were good or outstanding.

505
We should celebrate our colleges, not denigrate them. We should not tell students not to go to them because they might end up with nothing. [Interruption.] The devil is in the detail, and I see that the Minister for Lifelong Learning has just entered the Chamber. I shall repeat what I have just said for her benefit. I can tell her that I asked the Minister for School Standards, when he winds up, to deal with her remarks of 7 March, in which she claimed that 50 per cent. of students were likely to leave college without achieving what they went to college to achieve.
In 2000–2001, 85 per cent. of youngsters who entered FE colleges achieved the qualifications that they entered college to achieve. That huge achievement rate is to the credit of our colleges.
If all that interests the Government is the number of students who enter further education, embarking on full-time courses—if that is the Government's vision, and how we are to measure success—the whole thing will fail: it will be an absolute waste of time. I applaud the student who enters an institution and, after one term, says "This is not for me" and thinks about where to go from there. I applaud the student who, after six months, drops out because of family arrangements or financial problems, and returns to college later. Are we to denigrate the college because a student falls on hard times—because, for instance, a young mum becomes pregnant again? That is what the Minister is saying. We must have a flexible system, because ultimately flexibility is the key.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West made a point about the funding and organisation of education for those aged 14 and above, to which the Minister responded very abruptly. Indeed, she dismissed it out of hand, which is a pity. At present the education of 14 to 16-year-olds is funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and benefits from an additional grant from the Department for Education and Skills. Under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, however, learning and skills councils can fund their education, and under the new Education Bill they can also fund employers. Learning and skills councils also fund 16 to 19-year-olds in schools, and in further education colleges there are 73 different funding streams. It is sad that Ministers are saying that all that can be dismissed, and does not really matter.
Let us consider the case of a student who spends some time in a school, some time in a college and some time in a workplace. Let us consider the bureaucratic paperchase involved in the attempt to audit the situation—to establish where the money comes from, and to whom it goes. That must not happen.
As my party has not made a firm decision in this regard, I will speak openly to the Minister. We were very supportive of the regional agenda, but the Government should not dismiss the idea of a single structure for 14 to 19-year-olds out of hand. It is surely a matter for discussion, regardless of whether the learning and skills legislation is the right vehicle.
I am delighted that the Minister accepts that the issues of GCSE and the 16-plus barrier must be examined. I respect the view of some Conservative Members that GCSE in its present form should be retained and that all students should take it, full stop. However, I do not agree: I think that the examination has outlived its usefulness as
506
a universal qualification for those aged 16-plus. It might well be used as a staging post if schools or colleges wanted that, but at present it constitutes a genuine barrier.
David Hargreaves, the former chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, has made some important comments about GCSE. He says that in the case of many students it is an irrelevance, and that Government and indeed educators should stop always looking for age-related examinations and start looking for examinations to be taken by students when they are ready to take them.
The right hon. Member for Dewsbury referred to the unit-accreditation system. I think it is entirely right for the sector we are discussing: we must constantly accredit young people's achievements throughout the process.
I accept that we must have national norms. Perhaps we shall have a Bury certificate or diploma, or a Barking certificate—but that joke was made earlier, and it fell flat even then. Such a certificate is an interesting proposition, and one that we will seriously consider. We must not return to the idea that we can liberate the framework for 14 to 19-year-olds, while retaining a barrier that says schools are failing unless students meet the Government's target for five A to C grades. That is a major issue that the Government must address.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Given the consensus that a far more individual-based learning programme is in the interests of the system and of young people, does the hon. Gentleman agree that GCSEs will still be appropriate for many young people? Does it remain his party's policy that GCSEs should be abolished?
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman should read again my north of England speech, a copy of which I kindly gave him. What my party and I object to is the universalist approach whereby all students should take GCSEs at 16. If an institution decides to examine literacy and numeracy to the national standards through GCSE english and mathematics at age 14 or 17, that is a matter of agreement between the student and institution concerned.
I urge the Minister to avoid getting bogged down. If we want to liberate the process, we cannot at the same time argue that we must judge schools and ensure that they keep to their task through the principle of five GCSEs at grade A to C for 16-year-olds. The Minister should not turn his back on the idea of scrapping league tables for 16-year-olds, and of finding different ways to evaluate student progress and what schools, colleges and other providers do.
Mr. Lewis: I accept that we need to refine the way in which we measure performance, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if our reforms for 14 to 19-year-olds are to work, the issue is not the scrapping of league tables? I suspect that the speech to which he refers contains an element of spin. Is it his party's policy that GCSEs should be abolished?
Mr. Willis: Other Members would probably rather speak than hear us bandy words about. I made it absolutely clear in my north of England speech that the universal application of GCSEs has had its day, but I have no problem with a school's wanting to use GCSEs as part of its process.

507
Before the Minister gets too excited, I should explain what happens in some of the schools that I have visited. In year 11, students in those schools spend two to three weeks before Christmas preparing for their mock GCSEs. In the run-up to Easter, they spend another three or four weeks in preparation. They have a further four weeks' study leave, and then they spend three weeks sitting their GCSEs. That is some 13 weeks in total. After that, they have nine weeks off. If the Minister is condoning that amount of lost educational opportunity, he must say so. I want us to use that time in a much more productive and valuable way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I tell the House that the first four speeches have taken 139 minutes, with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) clocking up the longest innings so far? To my mind, that represents self-indulgence. There are 11 hon. Members trying to take part in a debate that can now last only about 90 minutes. I ask for rather more restraint on their part if I am to satisfy as many as possible.
5.4 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard: It is almost a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). We last debated together in a television studio, when we were on opposite sides of the argument. I agreed with much of the sentiment behind his speech.
On Shakers' credentials, I was a regular supporter at Gigg Lane years before any of the Front Benchers, and, I suspect, before my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor).
The ages between 14 and 19 are when most young people decide which route to follow of the many available. Some will follow an academic route from secondary school to higher education, some will go to further education and some will leave school at 16 and go to work, or a combination of the two. That time is the gateway to their future. My constituency has excellent secondary schools, all with full rolls and highly successful sixth forms. Indeed, three of my schools came top in the performance league tables.
We have an ongoing problem with a shortage of school places, as a result of which some students have to travel outside the town to secure a secondary school place. Each year, the county consults on how to resolve the problem. One year, the villages to the north are selected and the next the villages to the south, so the problem is batted about. This year, the villages to the north have been selected, with the Tory county council deciding that Sandringham school, which is bang in the middle of my constituency, should be allocated to Harpenden, which is—incredibly—five miles away. That beggars belief, and I have written to the Secretary of State to seek advice. I also presented a petition to Parliament last night, asking that that crazy scheme be overruled.
All the sixth forms are highly successful, offering a range of academic and vocational courses. We also have a good FE college that provides a huge range of academic, vocational and recreational courses. All the post-16
508
providers work together in consortiums to ensure that the range, level and quality of arrangements for our students are first class.
A cause for concern is the change in the funding arrangements, whereby the Learning and Skills Council has taken over responsibility from the local education authority. Our secondary schools are especially worried about the continued funding of their sixth forms. Over the years, a gap has opened up between the funding per pupil for sixth forms and for FE colleges. The worry is that a levelling down will occur, which would seriously jeopardise the continuing viability of our successful sixth forms.
St. Albans has benefited from much capital expenditure over the past few years, including a new roof on Nicholas Breakspear school, a new gymnasium at Loreto school, a new sports centre at Marlborough school and new science facilities at Beaumont school. I could go on and on. Only this morning, the Under-Secretary with responsibility for early years and school standards opened a nursery centre of excellence—one of only 50 in the country—in my constituency. Many millions of pounds have been spent.
Extra revenue has also been made available, in one form or another, to all our schools. By far the most popular form is the one-off sums—typically £50,000 for a secondary school—that the Chancellor has announced periodically. Those sums are not ring-fenced and can generally be used by schools to meet their own priorities. It is rumoured that later this week some more money will be available for teachers as part of the school achievement award.
Some of our secondary schools were shut last week when the National Union of Teachers staged a one-day strike. I have total sympathy with and understanding of teachers' real concern, although I have my doubts about their method of drawing attention to it. However, I have stood on picket lines myself in years gone by.
Teachers deserve to be treated the same as other professionals. It costs a teacher the same as a police officer to live in an expensive area. Teachers in my area receive a £750 cost of living allowance, whereas police officers receive two and a half times that amount.
I wish to address the subject of apprenticeships. We are acutely short of plumbers, electricians, carpenters and others with light skills. Young people do not seem to be attracted to those highly skilled and highly paid trades. That shortage is seriously undermining our local and regional economy. One of the reasons for the shortage is that those skills are less valued than computing or business studies skills. Each skill is of equal value and we need brain surgeons and plumbers—and more of the latter. When water is pouring through the ceiling, I know which I would prefer to be on hand.
It is imperative that we actively promote the concept of vocational skills. I recently met the Federation of Master Builders, which shares my concern. It proposes an innovative idea whereby young people start their apprenticeships in year 11. We all know of young people who see little value in continuing their studies in year 11 but who might be happy to begin their transition into work while still at school.
Another scheme is run at Feltham young offenders centre. One of the training arms of Ford motor company has set up a pilot scheme to train young offenders to become motor mechanics. The scheme has been working

509
since October with, I am told, 20 young offenders taking part. Once they have finished their sentence, they will complete their apprenticeship in a Ford garage in their area.
That seems a fantastic scheme. It is a great credit both to Ford and the prison authorities. My guess is that those young people will grow in confidence and self-esteem as a direct result of that initiative, will end up with a marketable skill and will resume their role as a productive member of society.
I pay tribute to Tony Bartlett, who retires today after being head teacher at Marlborough school in my constituency for the past 18 years. He is an educator to his fingertips, an inspirational leader who has transformed a failing school. It is now full—it has a full sixth-form—and is immensely popular. His retirement is a loss to education. He is one of the best men I know and I wish him well. I commend the Green Paper.
5.10 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: My contribution will be equally brief, given the number of hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate.
My perception of education at the moment is that there is a crisis. When I visit schools, two things clearly emerge. The first is the amount of bureaucracy—the circulars to schools from the Department for Education and Skills, and the amount of time it takes teachers and head teachers to read them. The second is the shortage of teachers.
A total of 300,000 qualified teachers under the age of 60 are no longer in education. In 2001—in this era of acute teacher shortage—83,400 people who held teaching certificates had never used them. The number of teacher vacancies has risen in England and Wales. In 2001, it rose to 5,079, up nearly 60 per cent. on the 2,977 vacancies in 2000. Therefore, many of my schools are struggling to deliver core subjects in the curriculum.
I recently visited Poole high school, which has a problem with mathematics teachers. The problem is not unique to Poole high school; it affects many schools throughout the country. The school has a number of classes with no maths teachers; pupils are simply being supervised. The situation is made a lot worse by the fact that the Government are funding more advisers, the pay scales for whom are leading more teachers to leave schools; Poole local education authority has lost six experienced teachers. I am not sure that there are the means of delivering many of the Green Paper's lofty aspirations.
I welcome a number of things in the Green Paper. We clearly have a chronic skills shortage throughout the United Kingdom, and to tackle it a much broader range of skills will have to be delivered. Three quarters of 16 to 18-year-olds in England were either in education or in training at the end of 2000, which is below European, OECD and G7 levels. If we are to retain a world-class economy and be not the fourth largest economy in the world but the third largest, we must produce a lot more people with a greater range of skills.
I welcome the teaching of citizenship, which is long overdue and necessary. Problems arise when we create pathways whereby people have to go to more than one
510
institution. The difficulty in rural areas is that people are not going to have the same choices as those in urban areas. When I was on the education committee in my former life as a local councillor, the question of people having to travel between institutions tended to loom large.
As the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) said, advice for pupils will be remarkably important. The Green Paper says that there will be little additional burden on teachers, that there may be more training and that there will be implications for employing more teachers, but I do not think that it says enough about that. Although it sets out the vision, as it were, it asks lots of very wide questions, as the Minister acknowledged in his reply to my intervention. When we get the consultation about where we are heading, we will have to decide how to execute policy. With a shortage of teachers, it will be very difficult to execute a policy over the next few years. That is my principal point.
My next point is on funding. One of Dorset's disadvantages is that it is in the south-west of the country and does not get the area cost adjustment. Poole borough council suffers grievously from not receiving the area cost adjustment. There are gaps—about £200 per pupil in the resources that Poole and Hampshire receive—affecting almost all age groups. It will be difficult to deliver good-quality education. The area cost adjustment is worth 6.2 per cent. extra to our neighbour in Hampshire. If that were available to Poole, the local education authority would receive an extra £3.482 million a year. During my five years as an MP, Poole has been deprived of about £17.5 million of education provision for its pupils.
When the Government decided to remove post-16 funding and introduce learning and skills councils, they institutionalised the area cost adjustment within those funding arrangements. Many schools in my area are suffering from a shortage of teachers and of resources. They work hard and produce good results in the national league tables, but it is not easy without full support. Delivery in Poole will therefore require greater emphasis on securing the requisite teachers, and better and fairer funding for our local schools, which we are not receiving.
The document has important implications for teacher supply and teacher work load, and more should have been said about them if we want the strategy to succeed.
Those are my major points. In order to give other hon. Members a chance to contribute to the debate, I shall conclude.
5.16 pm
Gillian Merron: I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Green Paper on "extending opportunities, raising standards". Let me say straight away that the title should include an additional element about "developing aspirations". I refer not just to the aspirations of young people, but to those of their families, who have a crucial role in developing potential.
Those involved in education in my constituency generally welcome the Green Paper, particularly its tone, intention and direction. Any criticisms have been constructive and should help to inform the Government in their efforts to help 14 to 19-year-olds to reach their potential. The Government's long-term commitment to education, particularly the concept of education for life, is especially welcome. Any age is the right age to develop one's education.

511
The Green Paper is all about seeing young people as whole people who have individual differences, strengths, weaknesses and talents. The reference to ensuring high-quality advice and guidance, to which several hon. Members have referred, is also important. If young people are to make the right choices at 14 and then get to wherever they want to go, we have to help them. That applies particularly to young people with special needs, who have an untapped wealth of potential that we should help them to fulfil. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) mentioned that we need expertise, time and the right people in place to support 14 to 19-year-olds and help them decide where they want to go.
I want to make three main points relating to collaboration or partnership, vocational development and encouraging a wider range of young people to set their sights on getting to university.
Last week, at Yarborough school in Lincoln, I saw in action a good example of the intent of the main proposals in the Green Paper—an enterprise activity. A number of 15-year-old students who had been specially selected and had agreed to participate were looking for a niche for their talents; they found it in work that took place over two days, sponsored and supported by Stamford Homes. Teams of young people worked together to seek planning permission for, build, market and sell homes in Lincoln. They were even required to fill in planning application forms, for which they have my greatest admiration. They also earned the admiration of the planning officer at Lincoln City council, who was impressed by their work.
The activity involved team building, communication, self-confidence, conflict resolution, presentation and marketing skills, development of business acumen and the ability to use maths and English, to name just a few skills. That is the sort of activity to which the Green Paper refers. I asked the young people involved whether it had made a difference and whether they might consider staying on at school. As we all know, unless young people stay on beyond 16, they might never consider university. Their answer was yes, because they could see a niche in their school for their talents and skills. I commend Yarborough school and Mr. Legg, the head teacher, and his team, for seeing the possibility of working with a company such as Stamford Homes to offer young people such an opportunity.
The school is also developing incubator units for young people who want to start a business. We have nothing similar in the locality, and we need to be able to provide support and facilities if we are to encourage young people to consider going into business.
As we head towards April's Budget, it is interesting to note that an independent review by the chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Howard Davies, which was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, recommends that business people should go into the classroom and discuss careers and enterprise with pupils. Mr. Davies urges the Government to allocate many millions of pounds to the programme, which, as he rightly points out, would offer pupils a grounding in finance and the economy. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will consider that in his budgetary considerations.
Let me give an example of collaboration and partnership with industry that is taking place in my constituency. As several hon. Members have said,
512
industry and business are vital to the Green Paper's success. Alstom Power, a company that makes gas turbines in my constituency, has taken up the challenge. At its conference centre in Lincoln, it hosted the national launch of the science and engineering ambassadors scheme. The idea is to send ambassadors to schools to spread the word that engineering and science-based careers are exciting, worth while and should be considered. Fifteen young Alstom engineers have agreed to tell young people about the opportunities available if they work hard at subjects such as science, engineering, technology and maths. As Alstom currently has 30 science and technology vacancies, it obviously benefits that company and others to encourage would-be engineers to train and appreciate the advantages of that. Mark Papworth, the managing director, said that he would like to see young people
"flow through the education pipeline directly into businesses such as ours".
There is a place for them, and the Green Paper has to make that happen.
The science and engineering ambassadors scheme is a model for good practice, and I hope that Ministers will promote it. The City of Lincoln community college, a school that is bidding to become a specialist engineering college with the support of Alstom Power, believes that we must quash the myth that engineering is a dirty and undesirable industry in which to work. Barbara Peck, the head teacher, has said that students have limited pictures of engineering and science, fixing on stereotypes and a history of redundancies. That sets the wrong tone when it comes to persuading more people into engineering. I hope that the science and engineering ambassadors scheme, in which role models say "I've done it, it's worth doing", will bring more young people into engineering.
To widen participation it is important not only to meet the Government's target of having 50 per cent. of young people go into higher education, but to consider who those people are. The Green Paper offers us a way to do that. The figure for those who apply to university from Lincoln is barely half the national average. In certain wards—Abbey, Boultham and Park—participation in higher education is less than a third of the national average. Clearly, a problem exists to be addressed in my constituency, and elsewhere.
The key to widening participation is early intervention. Many people would say that 14 is too late, and I hope that Ministers will consider that. Connexions, further education colleges and universities must be able to engage young people at 14. Not all schools allow access, but I was pleased to accompany my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning to the university of Lincoln to see a widening participation scheme in action. As part of a scheme involving local schools, young people were invited to the university to experience what it might be like.
The university should be congratulated for working with 11 associate schools, including the City of Lincoln community college and Ancaster high school. The Green Paper should encourage such good practice. Associate schools sign up with the university so that it can offer them academic advice, technical and other resource advice, opportunities for staff development and focused open days. Ex-pupils who are now university of Lincoln students can go back to their schools to promote the idea of going into higher education.

513
Key to the process is the making of early conditional offers to individual students who, for a variety of reasons, need to be encouraged to think about going to university. I asked some of the young people whether anyone from their villages had ever been to university. The answer was no, and that they had never thought about it. Having visited the university, however, they could see that it was possible. That is the kind of work that the Green Paper needs to encourage.
On vocational development, the Green Paper proposes that all young people should undertake some work-related learning. We could all learn something from that. Recently, I was shadowed by Caroline Bray, a student from Lincoln Christ's Hospital school, who wanted to find out what it is like to be a Member of Parliament—if anyone wants to know, they had better ask her. I learned a lot from her work placement, not least because she asked the questions that we rarely have time to ask ourselves. If business and industry encourage and support work placements, it is not only the young people who will benefit—the firms will benefit too—and those young people may be able to see their future role, whether as Members of Parliament, entrepreneurs, managers or whatever.
As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, the vocational option should not be seen as a second option; it should be seen as a positive choice which can feed much into specialist schools. There are some exciting possibilities and I am not sure that they have been fully considered. Perhaps the Green Paper could encourage the combination of subjects, as is done in universities. Science and engineering could be put together, as could history and the heritage industry and foreign languages and tourism. That policy could contribute to a move away from vocational work being seen as second class which it is far from being.
I am interested in the new award at 19, possibly to be called a matriculation diploma, as it would raise aspirations and would better prepare young people for working life. They would participate in activities related to active citizenship, work-based learning and wider interests. That part of the Green Paper interests me because I believe that to succeed in the world these days one needs to be more than merely academic; one needs to be a grounded person who has a real understanding of what life is about. I hope that the new award at 19 will focus on that.
To gain success and the achievements set out in the Green Paper, we need to challenge certain perceptions. We talked about the need to challenge the notion that vocational courses are inferior to academic courses; they are not. It is important to promote the schemes that I described, which are supported by companies such as Alstom, as well as the associate schools programme at the university of Lincoln and to support new specialist schools.
Finance is another area that concerns me, and those concerns were endorsed when I met a group of students at the university of Lincoln to discuss positive ideas for student financial support. I realised that their perception of the level of repayments on loans was far in excess of the reality. That is important because if we want to encourage young people to stay on at school so that they
514
can go to university, they must know what the reality is. Those students were not aware that six out of 10 students in Lincoln pay no fees or that a graduate has to earn more than £10,000 before any repayment on their loan is required. Indeed, a graduate earning £11,000 a year would be repaying £90 a year.
As was endorsed in my discussions at the Bishop Grosseteste teacher training college in Lincoln, a number of potential students and their families are put off staying on at school in order to go into higher education because they are frightened of debt. If the fear of debt is preventing people from fulfilling their potential, we have two problems—the problem of actual debt and the even bigger problem of not understanding the true picture. We have a job of work to get the true information across so that people are not unnecessarily worried.
On education maintenance allowances, North Lincolnshire college and the Lincolnshire LEA certainly consider that there is a need for them nationally, and they would like their scope to be extended.
I very much welcome the Green Paper; it gives us a very strong basis on which to work. Education, as we all know, is the key that unlocks the door. It gives choices that people may be denied, possibly because of their backgrounds, and it opens minds. I believe that education is a great leveller upwards. We should raise expectations, not lower them.
The Green Paper allows us to envisage a plan not only for individuals and their families, but for industry, the education system and the country. It is time that we removed artificial ceilings on aspirations, and we, as a Government, have a responsibility to do so. I commend the Green Paper to the House because I believe that, by extending opportunity and raising standards and aspirations, it will take us along the right road.
5.36 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I read the Green Paper with interest, but I saw little on special needs training and teaching for children aged 14 to 19. I tried to find out whether there was an audit of special needs teachers and trainers in the United Kingdom, but there does not seem to be; nor could I find out how many teachers are special needs trained. When I talked to people at the Dyslexia Institute, which is by far the largest special needs training body in the country, they said they could stream children aged 5 to 6, but by the time those children become 14—or young adults—they can do little because by then the education system has almost failed them.
I wonder whether the Government would consider the American system. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were reading wars in America, believe it or not, and a debate in Congress on how children would be taught to read from an early age to when they left college at 19. Congress passed the Reading Excellence Act and gave $110 million for 10 years' research into longevity and convergence—in other words, how reading will be affected in future. America is therefore almost at the forefront of special needs teaching in the world.
In the United Kingdom, there has been three years' research into literacy on behalf of all children and there is only enough money to evaluate 250 children. Unfortunately, because of the amount of money given to the researchers, they have had to lower the age from 14—which they wanted to use—to seven and a half.

515
The money was given by the Department for Education and Skills, the lottery and, interestingly enough, W. H. Smith. Together, those three bodies gave £500,000 to examine that very complicated and difficult subject. However, as I have said, there is nothing about that in the Green Paper.
I also wonder whether the Minister is aware that the Dyslexia Institute is directly helping children aged 14 to 19 who are on remand or bail. Instead of excluding them from the education system or not allowing them to take part because they have been stigmatised in the eyes of society, the institute is trying to help with their education because a lot of those people have special needs problems. They can then return to mainstream education, so that they can read, write and articulate themselves, as we can, and be given the chance to go forward and get jobs or start apprenticeship schemes. That issue needs to be considered because, again, nothing in the Green Paper addresses it.
I also considered the school census, which I mentioned in a debate two days ago. The Government want to include in the schools census children's names, addresses and postcodes, on which I have a particular view, but I wonder whether there is a chance to include special needs training. If no one keeps such records and considers the issue in the longer term, people will not be able to carry out certain academic research and we will not be privy to it. Surely one way of doing that is to include that information in the schools census, so that education departments, research establishments and other organisations have a chance to evaluate what special needs training those young adults will require, not only now but 10 to 20 years from now.
The legal ramifications are interesting. In America people have taken the American Government to court for failing them in education. Under the convention on human rights that we have enshrined in our legislation, will we have the same problem, at least potentially, whereby we have not developed a child's ability as far as we could because we have failed in special needs? I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
The Minister could consider helping the Dyslexia Institute. It has 360 staff, most of whom are teachers and virtually all part-time on a low wage. It is trying to pioneer distance learning for as many people as possible throughout the United Kingdom. It covers the whole United Kingdom. In that way it can deal with problems without somebody having to get to a certain location, unlike the Learning and Skills Council. People can log on at a library or some further education centre to continue study on, for example, the three Rs. The institute is looking for some help from the Government. I see nothing about this in the Green Paper, yet this is the very age group that needs help now.
A slight problem arises with the devolved countries of Wales and Scotland. The Scottish education system is different from ours and faces a problem getting enough specialists through the system to teach in Scottish schools. The situation in Wales is better because the system is the same as in England. Again, would the Minister look at that?
This country is the undisputed leader in this type of education within Europe. We are leading the way, which is marvellous, but can we keep the momentum? The Dyslexia Institute is exporting its expertise to European countries in an effort to take education forward. An hon.
516
Member made an interesting point about language training. Any dyslexic will find English and other languages difficult. If we can encourage other countries to take part in language training, surely it will be of benefit to us all.
Last year the Dyslexia Institute looked at 3,048 young adults and children across 145 outposts and 94 extra outposts to try to make sure that all young people regardless of age have a chance of being seen by a specialist if they feel that they need help. It is also working to look at 7,200 psychological assessments. Special needs covers not just the inability to interface in mainstream schools, but help at other levels. I am not saying that any part of the community is better or worse than another; I am just saying that people need to be assessed at that level. The fact that the institute with the small amount of resources at its disposal is looking at 7,200 people a year shows that there is a problem at this level.
In summary, I ask the Minister to look into this for the future because there are ways to address it. Research has been done in America and is being done here, but it needs a commitment from Government to look ahead. Since 1970 when dyslexia, dyspraxia and other conditions were discovered, all Governments have failed to address the problem through a lack of financial commitment. I ask the Government to give a commitment in the Green Paper or in future legislation that they will provide funding or look into funding, either through county councils, specific educational trusts, universities or other organisations, to help these children as they cannot help themselves. Direct intervention is needed by Parliament to put money into education departments across the United Kingdom. This is a United Kingdom problem; it is not specific to any one area. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board and will not let our children down. In this area we all fail our children.
5.44 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I must declare an interest in that I am vice-chair of governors at Luton sixth form college. I have been associated with the college for nearly two decades. It was the first sixth form college, is one of the largest and has a tremendous record of success in educating young people. There is also a first-class college of further education, Barnfield college, in my constituency. We have heard much about further education colleges and their successes. I taught A-levels in various subjects, so I have some experience.
When I was teaching in the 1970s, I noticed that the enormous difference between those studying A-levels and those studying other subjects was one of social class. In our college, we tried to educate A-level students and others, such as day-release students doing manual courses, in the same classes, at least in liberal studies. That is where those social divisions really showed up. Our educational problems have been complicated by social divisions. I am glad to say that they are reducing, but I fear that if we are not careful, those social divisions will re-emerge and become strengthened by the fragmentation of our education system, particularly at secondary level.
I worry about some of the Government's initiatives on specialist schools. The parental choice approach to secondary schools is also causing problems of social class. That will undermine not just the comprehensive system,

517
but our success in bringing those who have not achieved so highly up to the standards of which they are capable—standards that we want them to reach.
Widening participation means considering those who are at the bottom end of educational achievement, not those at the top. Fragmenting the system and introducing specialist schools is to do what we have always done: considering the top end, rather than the bottom. Those of us who had the good fortune to go to university and who had a fairly pressured, rigorous secondary education have had all the advantages, and we must ensure that the rest of the population—the two thirds, or three quarters, who never had them—have them in future, especially those in the bottom two or three deciles.
Luton sixth form college has many successes. At the moment, 60 per cent. of its students are from ethnic minorities. Every year, 500 ethnic minority students, mainly from the Asian communities, obtain A-levels and go on, mostly into higher education. In terms of integrating into society people who have come from the far-flung fields of Pakistan and Bangladesh, from the Indian communities and the West Indies, Luton sixth form college is doing a tremendous job at every level. However, it has its problems.
The Sixth Form Colleges Employers' Forum Ltd. recently published a document called "In a Class of their Own". I know that it has been passed on to the Minister, who has kindly written back saying what a good document it is. All hon. Members should get hold of a copy, and I draw attention to the last page, which states that if we doubled the number of sixth form colleges, we would transform education in this country.
The sixth form college is a very efficient way of educating people. Such colleges take students who have lower abilities. The value-added factor for marginal ability students is tremendous in sixth form colleges. That is because they have optimum-sized classes. Very small classes do not work, neither do very large ones. The optimum class size of sixth form colleges really does work. In addition, a variety of teachers teach the same subject. That leads not to competition between the teachers, but to a variety of approaches, which leads to best practice from different teachers. Students who have particular strengths can tune their subjects carefully because they have the maximum possible subject choice owing to the large number of parallel classes. That cannot be done in small school sixth forms.
I went to a small school sixth form, so I know that they do a good job in many ways, but they are limiting. Sixth form colleges provide all the advantages of variety, which helps students to play to their strengths. They will not be tied to particular groups of subjects because that is all that is taught in the school.
Chris Grayling: Doubling the number of sixth form colleges, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would effectively remove school sixth forms. Surely he realises that many pupils and parents value school sixth forms and want to retain them.
Mr. Hopkins: I believe that one London borough has replaced its school sixth forms with a sixth form college. That can be particularly effective in densely populated
518
urban areas. If one can explain to parents that a sixth form college will make their children perform better and get better results, most will accept it. On the other hand, I appreciate that sensitive problems are sometimes involved. People who know great schools that they have been through and loved can find it upsetting and threatening to see them change.
For our education system to be successful, we must consider what works, and sixth form colleges, like colleges in general, work. In Luton, we have state high schools for 11 to 16-year-olds, one Catholic high school for 11 to 18-year-olds, the sixth form college and a big further education college. That works in an area where a high proportion of parents are from non-traditional backgrounds. Many are from ethnic minorities and some come from extremely poor backgrounds, but their children do well because our system works. Rather than having theories that favour a certain system, such as allowing small schools to develop their sixth forms, let us do some research to find out what works.
Mr. Mark Francois: A powerful principle in this matter is that of choice. We should allow parents, and indeed students, to choose of their own volition which is the better option—a local sixth form college or a sixth form in a school. We should not take them down one route and reduce their choice by abolishing sixth forms and putting everyone into sixth form colleges.
Mr. Hopkins: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the situation in Luton, where the great majority of people want their youngsters to go to the sixth form college because it is a good college and they know that they will do well. That is fine, but if one does as the hon. Gentleman suggests and allows free choice, banding out into social classes will recur. That does not help education.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: local choices can be important, and the hon. Gentleman is giving a local illustration. However, does he agree that another solution is for sixth forms to work together, co-operating rather than competing to allow for a certain range of subjects to he taught at certain schools? In an urban area, that could enable a young person who has not matured sufficiently to stay in their own community school for at least several days a week.
Mr. Hopkins: I entirely accept the hon. Lady's point, but it goes at least halfway, if not further, towards what I am advocating: collaboration to achieve economies of scale and a sufficient variety of subjects for students to choose to suit their needs and talents. Sixth forms in some schools could specialise in certain subjects and have more students, more teachers and optimal class sizes. The hon. Lady makes a fair suggestion, and it would not lead to the problem of disrupting schools and upsetting people who are attached to their schools. However, sixth form colleges should at least be given a fair crack of the whip.
My final point concerns the serious funding gap between sixth form colleges and schools. Sixth form college teachers are paid less than school sixth form teachers, and the funding per pupil that colleges receive is about one third below that received by schools. They are not treated well, yet they do a fantastic job. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), who has

519
left the Chamber, referred to the danger of funding for school sixth forms being levelled down to equal that of colleges. I ask Ministers to honour our commitment to sixth form colleges by pressing the Treasury to level up the funding so they are treated as fairly as schools. In time, we will move towards education provision by sixth form colleges, and the sooner we do so the better.
5.54 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban: I want to focus my comments principally on the Green Paper, which deals with "extending opportunities, raising standards". It contains much that we can all support. I particularly welcome the possibility for pupils to fast track on their exams, but we must bear in mind the central importance of GCSEs and the risk that if we leave GCSEs to less able pupils, there may be a problem with parity of esteem. I am also pleased to see the emphasis on high-quality vocational education. It is important that when we offer children a vocational route, the education that they receive is of a high quality, and I shall turn to aspects of that in a moment.
The introduction to the Green Paper refers to the need to
"engage those young people who have traditionally been alienated and disaffected from school."
The objective to meet the needs of those pupils is absolutely right, and I share the aspiration in the Green Paper to have a more flexible curriculum to re-engage those children. There is a distinct logic in the idea that to attract children into school and keep their attention, we must make sure that we match their aspirations with the choices on offer in the curriculum. Having said that, I have a major concern about the implications of introducing flexibility to the curriculum. I refer in particular to the proposal in the Green Paper to make the taking of a modern foreign language in the 14 to 19 age group, and especially the 14 to 16 age group, voluntary.
The importance of foreign languages must be apparent to those of us who have worked in multinational companies. We realise the extent to which we, as a nation, are at a disadvantage compared with our colleagues in France, Germany, Italy and countries further afield because of our inability to grasp the basics of a modern foreign language. We are sending out a very perverse message to our European neighbours and to our children if we encourage children to take foreign languages in primary school, but tell them at 14 that languages are an option that can be dismissed. It is the educational equivalent of that Victorian headline, "Fog in the channel. Europe cut off'. It reinforces the impression that so many people in Europe have of us being an isolated nation rather than one that takes part in the full range of cultural links that are possible if people speak a foreign language.
It is now possible for schools to disapply the element of the national curriculum that requires children to take a modern foreign language. According to the Green Paper, a third of schools take advantage of that for 5 per cent. of pupils. The opportunity to do that is widened by the Education Bill which, under powers of innovation and autonomy, will allow children to disapply specific parts of the curriculum. We can create space in the curriculum for additional vocational topics without telling pupils that a foreign language is entirely optional.
I turn now to the quality of vocational education. We need to be clear that we are not shunting low achievers and those who are disaffected or bored into poor-quality
520
vocational education. That message would demonstrate that there was no parity of esteem between vocational and academic subjects.
In setting the curriculum for vocational GCSEs, we need to make sure that we fully engage local business communities and talk to organisations such as the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation. Their comments should be reflected in the content of the curriculum, so that employers recognise and accept it, and when they are confronted with students who come from school or college with vocational GCSEs, they will know that the value of those qualifications is equal to that of physics, French, English or maths. They will also know what skills and attainments children have acquired by studying vocational GCSEs. If we fail to achieve that comparability in the minds of employers, we will not meet the aspiration of achieving parity of esteem for vocational and academic GCSEs.
To achieve employers' acceptance of vocational qualifications, we must ensure that the teaching of the subjects is skilled. The Government talk about choice, diversity and partnership in the provision of vocational education, so I hope that they will take into account the vast number of private companies that already provide good-quality vocational education to people who are in work, and consider the talents that such companies have that can be harnessed in the schools sector. I especially welcome the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that chartered institutes become the providers of some of the vocational qualifications. As a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, I recognise its ability to provide continued professional education both through its membership and district societies, and by employing the services of professional firms and other organisations.
Organisational issues surround the creation of the 14 to 19 age group. My constituency contains five 11 to 16 schools and one further education college. I am not sure how schools will accommodate what will in effect be three levels of attainment for those in years 10 and 11: foundation GCSEs, higher GCSEs and perhaps hothousing children to AS-levels. Although there is much talk of partnership, organisation and arrangements between schools and FE colleges, I wonder whether bussing children from school to school to meet their entitlement to access to the humanities, modern languages and other subjects is the right approach.
I wonder whether we are heading back to having three tiers of schooling: primary school, middle school, and secondary school—with the sixth form that many people want in their local communities—covering 14 to 19-year-olds. We might decide that the way to achieve the high-quality vocational education we seek is to stop having schools with specific specialties such as engineering, science or the arts, and instead set up specialist schools simply to provide vocational education, perhaps centred on FE colleges.
Although I have covered the main points I wanted to make, I have one final comment. Too often in education, we have seen headlines today, but no delivery tomorrow. If we set aspirations for high-quality vocational education for disaffected children within our school system, we must ensure that the Government deliver on their objectives.
6.3 pm
Charlotte Atkins: I welcome the Green Paper. For too long, we expected the one size fits all structure to meet the needs of all pupils; it did not, so pupils often voted with their feet and left after 16. We have that problem in north Staffordshire, where too many young people decide not to stay on post-16. Only three of every four 16 to 18-year-olds were in education at the end of 2000. That record will not ensure that Britain closes the gap between it and its European competitors in the provision of skills.
I am pleased that the Green Paper is broad enough to tackle high-fliers as well. They often feel constrained by what is on offer in terms of the range of subjects, the ability to take exams early, and the flexibility to enable them, for example, to attend lectures at the local university. Why should they not be able to do so? However, I am not totally convinced about the new tier of achievement at A-levels if it is only so that universities can single out the best pupils. Our universities should look for more than A-level results; they should follow their American counterparts and consider a far broader range of abilities. They should seek evidence that students are doing things other than A-levels and that they have that extra spark, rather than look for more of the same, or the best of the same.
The problem for high-fliers is that timetables often do not allow them to take the range of subjects that they want to study. For instance, they are often not able to take maths and further maths. We should ensure that high-fliers and others have access to high-quality, vocational courses. That is the way to raise the status of those courses.
High-fliers who want to take a large number of exams cannot do so because there is only a short time to fit them all in—perhaps only three weeks. I hope that the practice of taking exams early will become much more common than it is at present. Some schools refuse to do that.
Some people see the proposals on language learning as downgrading language skills, because they are not included as core compulsory subjects. I disagree. Trying to motivate 14-year-olds who do not think that languages are for them is like hitting one's head against a brick wall. It is important not to cajole them, but to inspire them by starting much earlier.
I am delighted about the commitment that by 2012 all primary school children should be entitled to study languages. I would much rather it were sooner, but I realise that we have to build capacity in our primary schools to achieve that. I believe that extending and revitalising the language assistant programme will help, primarily because primary schools will not be teaching grammar, but will enthuse children to develop oral language skills. We should also look to our universities, which have overseas students and language students who could work with pupils in our primary schools. That might not only enthuse pupils, but could also encourage students to take up a teaching career. We could do with them in our primary and secondary schools.
Many primary schools, especially in the most deprived areas, have breakfast clubs. Why do we not use those to enable children to speak a foreign language once a week? Why not have a French café where children could ask for their cereal or croissant and use their language skills. We must show that language is fun and has a practical
522
purpose. Kids who do not go abroad for their holidays need to know that speaking a foreign language is a practical skill. I would also welcome summer schools, when a whole day could be spent pretending to be in France using French.
Mr. Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Charlotte Atkins: I am sorry, I shall not give way as other Members want to speak.
Children at primary school level do not have the inhibitions that older students have when experimenting with languages. Information and communications technology is a great boon to language teaching. Westwood high school in Leek has a fantastic language laboratory, which was paid for by Britannia mutual building society. Students can learn and work independently, and teachers can listen to their efforts without them being aware that their attempts at pronouncing French, German or Spanish are being overheard by the teacher. That is a great way to build students' confidence.
There is a great shortage of linguists in north Staffordshire, so I am pleased that we will be promoting specialist language colleges, and that there will be 200 by 2005. However, I am concerned because my local schools, which I have been pressing for specialist language status, say that there are hurdles to becoming specialist language schools. Perhaps the Minister will address that problem in his closing remarks.
I would like a much broader range of languages to be taught, not just the standard German and French. I am surprised that Spanish is not offered more often, given the huge markets in Spanish speaking countries in South and Latin America.
I was very concerned when I read in Overseas Trade magazine that, in February, ambassadors from Germany, France, Italy and Spain had issued a joint plea for language teaching in England to be improved. Clearly, we must do that. As the German ambassador to London said:
"You are selling in European and global markets—but you are hardly ever able to speak the languages of your markets."
That demonstrates that we are missing opportunities to export and build our businesses abroad.
I was very pleased that the Green Paper drew attention to the work of my local further education college. The collaboration between Leek college and Meadows special school has greatly improved the employment opportunities of young people with learning disabilities. The Honeycomb project offers young people not only craft and vocationally-based opportunities, but social and emotional development opportunities, including hair and beauty, self-presentation, art, use of the college multi-gym and ICT activities. The heart of the project is a furniture recycling and wood manufacturing business—pupils experience a real work environment in which they make a full contribution to the business. Leek college has always had a good reputation for working with young people with special needs. I am delighted that the Green Paper has given that national recognition.
I welcome the introduction of quality vocational GCSEs and their focus on pupils of all abilities. They have the potential to excite young people, especially those who are turned off by the mainstream curriculum. A large proportion of students do not fit neatly into the route from

523
GCSEs to A-levels or the route from NVQs straight into the workplace. It is important to cater for those students. The principal of Stoke-on-Trent college, Graham Moore, raised with me a valid concern: the difficulty that schools may have in making vocational GCSEs sufficiently practical and in not having equipment available. NVQ students have always had to be assessed in the workplace, which has been increasingly difficult on courses such as construction and catering, as small firms do not have the necessary range and quality of training experience. Vocational GCSEs must not suffer from the same problems.
Although I accept that the funding gap for students in further education and schools may cause difficulties, it is important that schools work closely with colleges to provide a real range and choice of courses. Students will then be able to exploit the facilities in FE colleges. That is already happening in Leek. Leek college and Leek high school are sharing their skills and facilities to provide the best possible outcome for students in the college and the school. Under the previous Conservative Government, colleges were encouraged to compete and to embrace market forces, which did no help colleges. I am therefore pleased that that approach has been rejected in north Staffordshire. We have developed a concordat whereby all four local colleges work together—and try not to compete head to head—to provide, between them, the courses that are required locally.
We must also be realistic about how quickly we can get vocational GCSEs off the ground. Of course we want to introduce them quickly, and some will be introduced by September 2002. The major influx of those courses, however, will occur towards 2005. It is important to get them absolutely right and to ensure that more schools are ready to deliver a broader curriculum. Schools and colleges must deliver real choice for their pupils.
Provision must be for boys and girls. We hear a lot about the under-achievement of boys, but let us not forget that there is still a real gender divide in science and ICT. The situation in chemistry is better, but three times more boys than girls achieved passes at physics A-level in 2000.
In the crucial ICT sector, where we have such shortages, about 24,000 girls achieved A* to C grades in GCSE computer studies in 2001, compared with 32,000 boys. In the same year, about 4,000 girls achieved an A-level in computer science, compared with 13,000 boys. It is clear that girls are not engaging in ICT in the same numbers as boys. I fear that the expectation persists in some areas that boys will take to computers, and that girls will not.
The situation in the workplace is even worse. The number of people in ICT jobs has risen by more than 50 per cent., but the proportion of women in those jobs is falling—from 25 per cent. in 1995, to 22 per cent. now. Women account for only 8 per cent. of the work force in software engineering. The success of girls in school should not blind us to the gender stereotyping that still persists.
Huge challenges lie ahead. The Green Paper will address many of them. We have made a huge and beneficial start.
6.16 pm
Chris Grayling: I shall be brief, as there is little time left. The Green Paper contains some good ideas, and some bad ones. That is typical of this Government, but the belief that improvement can be regulated underlies too many elements in the Green Paper.
The Government must be aware that teachers and head teachers are buried in initiatives already. They complain endlessly about the flow of initiatives. The Green Paper risks adding to the flow of new initiatives, ideas and changes, leading to less stability in our schools, and giving heads and teachers less time to sort out the initiatives with which they are dealing already.
The Government therefore must be very cautious about how they proceed with these proposals. It is very important that any change adds value to the present system, and does not attempt to turn it upside down, as that would merely make matters still more difficult for the hard-pressed teachers to whom I and my colleagues speak every week. Again and again, they refer us back to the problems that they face with work load, with initiatives, and with the requirements laid on them by central Government.
I have two points to make about the Green Paper. The first has to do with the proposals for examinations. Much earlier, we heard about the Liberal Democrats' proposals for GCSEs. I am profoundly worried by the Green Paper's proposal that some pupils should abandon GCSEs, for a very straightforward reason.
The Green Paper refers—rightly—to the need to create a vocational route in our education system that is an "equally valued pathway". I believe that we will not generate such a pathway by tinkering with our exam systems. Creating a system in which many pupils—probably the brighter ones—do not take GCSEs but move straight to AS-levels and A-levels would take us back 20 years, to the time when we had a system of O-levels and CSEs.
In effect, that would lead to the creation of a second-class exam system for pupils perceived to be less able. We must not allow that to happen. From my own childhood, I remember that a stigma was attached to pupils who took CSEs rather than O-levels. The introduction of a single examination system at 16 was a positive step towards removing that divide. I should hate to see that divide restored because of the introduction of a system that allowed some pupils to fast-track into the A-level syllabus and ignore GCSEs. The result would be that a huge question mark would hang over the heads of those who did take GCSEs, and the implication would be that they were second class.
My second point has to do with sixth forms. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) spoke about the role of sixth form colleges. However, the Government make a virtue of the need for teachers working with pupils in the 11 to 16 age group to prepare those pupils for what they will encounter in the curriculum for 14 to 19-year olds. The danger of fragmentation of education by the removal of sixth forms is very great. It worries me that, despite all the assurances we have heard from Ministers, sixth forms are suffering financially as a result of the transition to LSC funding.
Schools in my constituency are suffering in that way. Last week my county council in Surrey discussed a scheme to rebalance sixth-form funding. As a result of

525
the LSC formula imposed by the Department, schools are losing out or gaining in a very haphazard fashion. They will, I know, seek the Department's support for the rebalancing of the system and the formulae. I hope that the Department will provide that support.
The Green Paper contains much to be welcomed, and many aspirations that all Members share. There are pitfalls, however, and the biggest is this: we must not impose on heads and other teachers, or indeed on college lecturers and principals, more change that would turn their lives upside down in the wake of the changes of the past few years. The steps we take must be careful and measured, and must secure the stability of our system rather than destabilising it at what is a very difficult time for schools and colleges throughout the country.
6.21 pm
Mr. Chris Mole: I applaud the quality of today's debate, and thank the Government for initiating it.
Life is often difficult for young people between 14 and 19. They experience too many hormonally driven distractions: they have to decide what to wear on a Friday or Saturday night, for instance. We have to square the circle, as a society. As those young people make their decisions, we must decide how to meet the needs and wishes of individual students without making them feel that they have been on a rollercoaster through education and straight into work, while also recognising that we must meet the skill needs of national and local economies.
My constituency certainly lacks the skills that are needed to support its growing knowledge economy. We have a shortage of both software developers and computer network technicians. That tells us something about the two levels of skill that we need from those emerging from the education and training system. My point is that there must be a balanced approach that respects the needs of the individual while meeting overall needs. I welcome the existence of that balanced approach in the thrust of the Green Paper.
Too many of our young people are still disengaged from their education. All too often, their parents may have had an unfortunate school experience and may therefore not have the aspirations for their children that we might have for ours—and, indeed, for theirs. I commend the focus on "drivers for change" and the raising of standards in the Green Paper. I particularly welcome its focus on beacon schools, a number of which can be found in my constituency. Such schools provide an incentive for improvement and continuous development, similar to the incentive provided by other mechanisms such as "Investors in People" and charter marks.
One issue that is, perhaps, underplayed in the Green Paper is the role of beacon local education authorities. They are mentioned, but to no significant extent. My constituency contains an LEA that provides support for schools. Suffolk county council was identified by the Government as a beacon council for its work in partnership with schools: it was a constructive LEA, working with schools in difficulty. It gained its status because it had a clear vision about support for schools, consistent criteria for the triggering of early intervention, flexible support systems and effective statistical models. By those means it sustained a good "family" of LEA schools. There were never any grant-maintained schools in the area.
526
Much progress has already been made, as the results show. Suffolk has achieved a faster improvement than other counties in terms of the percentage of pupils achieving five or more grades between A* and C. In 1997, 47.4 per cent. achieved such grades; by 1999, that figure had risen to 53.5 per cent. I commend the Labour-led county council's current policy and performance plan, which establishes a target of 60 per cent. during the life of the current council, towards 2005. LEAs can play a positive and essential role in negotiating with schools, and in cajoling and encouraging them to achieve those targets.
The target of five A* to C GCSEs covers some 50 per cent. of young people's achievement. There is a long statistical tail behind that, and I am glad to see that the Green Paper refers to the number who achieved just one GCSE, and to those who achieved A* to G qualifications. Those targets are equally important. We must also remember the care system targets as set out in the quality protects management action plans, which were developed by social care services and education departments.
I therefore welcome the intention to raise the value of vocational qualifications and to introduce flexibility into the curriculum. That is the way to re-engage disaffected young people. As others have said, the effective use of work experience has a positive role to play, and in that regard I draw the House's attention to the young people whom I met at a print works in West Flanders, who were experiencing Europe as a potential world of work opportunities.
As the Green Paper makes clear, mechanisms exist to enable young people to stay on in higher education, and on that point I leave the House with a final thought. When I first entered politics as a councillor in the late 1980s, under a Tory council and a Tory Government, only 28 per cent. of young people in Suffolk stayed on in post-16 education; now, about 70 per cent. stay on. In Ipswich, new sixth-form schools have been built, and partnership sixth-form schools such as Coplestone and Holywells high school have been established. I therefore welcome the broad thrust of the Green Paper, and I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my points.
6.27 pm
Mr. Mark Francois: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. Like many newly elected Members, I have spent some time visiting schools in my constituency. I have visited primary and secondary schools, and some further education colleges in the local area, but my odyssey is by no means complete. By and large, I have been very impressed by what I have seen, but I have also encountered some concerns in my discussions with teachers. I undertook to raise them in the House, if possible, so in the context of the debate I shall attempt to keep my word.
One concern was pay, especially in relation to housing costs. Obviously, that is a particular problem in London and the south-east, including Essex. There is also the issue of disruption in the classroom, which has been touched on. Suffice it to say that most teachers join the profession to teach children, not to act as police officers. Many teachers want firmer action to be taken against disruptive pupils. Although there have been some recent changes in policy in that regard, most teachers to whom I spoke think that there is further to go.
The principal issue that I want to discuss on those teachers' behalf—it arose time and again—is the burden of paperwork. In December 2001 alone, secondary

527
schools received some 510 pages of instructions from the Department for Education and Skills. At a rate of two minutes per page, it would take 17 hours to digest those instructions from the centre. To that must be added the considerable amount of paperwork that individual teachers have to cope with in their own right—not least in respect of performance-related pay.
Many teachers have complained to me about what they call the Sunday evening syndrome—[Iinterruption]—which I should like to explain to the Minister if she would pay me just a moment's attention. Teachers have to sit down in the middle of Sunday afternoon and spend hours filling in paperwork, so that they are up straight, as it were, for their return to work on Monday morning. A large proportion of their weekend is given up to bureaucracy simply so that they can go to work on Monday and begin their job as normal. Teachers find that intensely irritating and I would like to think that the Government would be prepared to do something about it. It was best summed up to me by one teacher who said:
"I know how to teach. Why do I need to spend hours filling in forms so that someone I have never met can second guess everything I'm doing—just let me get on with it."
Too many teachers are leaving the profession and 40 per cent. of final-year students never even make it into the classroom. The point was made to me that it is not just about pay, although that is clearly an issue; and it is not just about discipline, although that is clearly an issue too. Much of the problem is the bureaucracy. It is persuading teachers to leave the profession, taking with them skills that their potential students can ill afford to lose. Teachers in my constituency want to teach. They want less bureaucracy, not more. I promised to make a plea on their behalf, and I hope that I have done that. I just hope that the Minister will listen to it.
My final point concerns post-16 education and the funding of sixth forms. Essex county council was given several guarantees by Ministers that no school would be worse off as a result of the transition to funding from the learning and skills council. It is my understanding from the county council that because of the complexities and vagaries of the funding formula, when the mathematics are eventually worked out, many schools with sixth forms are materially worse off. In that sense, Ministers have not honoured their commitment. I invite them to reconsider the formula to see whether something can be done. To take Ministers at their word, it may be that they did not realise the implications of what they were doing. Perhaps they could now right that wrong.
6.32 pm
John Mann: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for squeezing me into this debate. I have only one point to make. I have a plethora of documents on education, both Government and party political, from the 1940s onwards and I am familiar with them all. But one factor is missing from every single one—the coalfields. The inner cities get a lot of attention and a lot of literature is devoted to them. There is no question that poverty in the inner cities is far greater in reality than poverty in the coalfields. However, what the coalfields have, more than any other area, is a poverty of aspiration and expectation.
That poverty of expectation was there throughout the last century and it remains to this day. In the mining villages, boys were expected to leave school at 15—a bit
528
later it was 16—and work down the pit until they retired at 64 or 65, unless they had an accident and faced early retirement. Girls were expected to marry one of the boys and stay at home or, in more enlightened days, work in a textile factory to earn additional money, and then retire. The one thing that was not needed was high educational attainment.
The big difference between the 1940s, the 1950s and now is the behavioural questions. The behavioural problems in schools nowadays are not the same as those that existed then, because fathers sorted out any problems underground in the pit. The pits, by and large, are not there any more. That is a fact and that is how society now operates.
The biggest problem that I see in my surgery is literacy. Scores of retired miners cannot fill in the compensation forms for pneumoconiosis because they do not have the necessary literacy skills. Many of them have not sent the forms in yet because they are terrified of getting them wrong. There are queues at the citizens advice bureaux, which are filling in forms for people who cannot spell. That is still a major problem.
There is another big problem. Those kids all went to the secondary modern schools. In the pit areas, especially our pit area—the Dukeries—old barns on farms are being converted. Old manor houses have sold off land for middle-class housing. In those villages, primary schools are often attaining 100 per cent. in terms of Government standards. At the secondary schools, kids from existing or former pit villages have still got a low level of aspiration and low results. Those factors mesh together and disguise the problem.
We need three things. First, the Government's biggest achievement has been to start to sort out primary schools. Higher expectation and more money have made the biggest impact in my area—far more impact than any other scheme. Secondly, 14 to 16-year-olds have been lost before, but that is where it really hits homes. People talk about teaching kids French, German or Spanish; in some of the schools, we would like the kids to attend classes in the first place, learning and getting leadership and management skills, which they can use in the world of work. Therefore, I applaud the initiatives.
The final and crucial thing is that we should not run down what the Government are doing. On capital spending on schools, I will tell the House what I want. Bids are in from my area at the moment; I know that the Minister cannot comment. We have put in for every secondary school in every mining area to be rebuilt. Imagine the impact it would have on the aspirations of young people, their parents and grandparents if it was announced next week that every secondary school in the mining villages would be rebuilt as new. That is what I would call delivery.
I would welcome such an announcement next week. If we do not get it next week, we will keep pressing. That is what I mean by delivery. That coalfield perspective is crucial. That lack of aspiration and expectation is crucial. I salute this team of Ministers. I believe that they are the first in 50 years to recognise the difference of the coalfields and the importance of aspiration. More of it please.
6.37 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: It is a pleasure to respond to what has been an excellent short debate. It is also a pleasure—I am sure that the Minister would agree—to have a debate on this important aspect of education. The difficulty has been to fit in all those on both sides of the House who wanted to speak, which has been a pleasure to see. It has been a pleasure to listen to the contributions.
There have been too many contributions to go through all of them in detail but I will mention a few. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) made an excellent speech. She referred to the importance of pre-school education, and the importance of flexibility but not fragmentation in education. She also referred to the almost bewildering choice of qualifications and groups in education, which is an important concern. She was clearly wasted in the Whips Office. We are pleased to hear what she has to say now that she is a free woman again.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) accused the Government of peddling motherhood and apple pie—and a bit of creationism as well. He talked about the lessons from Skoda and how the esteem of vocational training can be improved only through quality and not through rebadging, which is a valid point. His speech was not so much a Skoda as a stretch limousine, but we will forgive him that, since we have grown used to it.
The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, was worried about the threat to successful sixth forms, a concern that many hon. Members on both sides share. He was concerned that the Learning and Skills Council may pursue the route of levelling down funding, rather than levelling it up, a point that was raised by other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) spoke about the crisis of bureaucracy, the shortage of teachers, and the chronic skills shortage. He spoke about the problems of teaching the same children in a variety of institutions, particularly in rural areas where travel can be a difficulty. He referred to the iniquities of funding which affect hon. Members on both sides of the House and various constituencies in much the same way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) made an important contribution, referring to the importance of special needs and the teaching of reading. He paid a particular and welcome tribute to the work of the Dyslexia Institute.
The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) voiced concern about the possible fragmentation of the education system and the dangers of a more socially divisive form of education. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) voiced his strong concern about the future of language teaching if the Green Paper proposals were to come into being. He also spoke about the importance of real quality in vocation education and the difficulties caused by bringing in early AS-levels in 11 to 16 schools, something that may be compounded by the uncertainty about the funding arrangements and structures, about which we heard more today from the Under-Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), in a brief but cogent intervention, said that teachers were already buried under initiatives from
530
the Government and referred to the danger of tinkering with the exam system, as set out in the Green Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) mentioned the burden of paperwork and spoke tellingly of the Sunday evening syndrome that affects teachers in his constituency.
The Under-Secretary talked about the Bury connection, and went on to say that he hoped there would be no political knockabout in the debate. Unfortunately, I was led to fear for his short-term memory, because he immediately went on to attack the previous Government on the basis of spurious figures that he claimed about education funding, passing over the fact that the last Government spent a higher percentage of the nation's wealth on education than the Labour Administration from 1997 did. He went on to blame the recent widening of the gap between high and low achievement on the previous Government: again skating over the fact that it is happening now under this Government and is not attributable to the Government who went before.
The Under-Secretary spoke about the group of young people who have been put off education by the content of the curriculum. That is a concern that Members on both sides take seriously and recognise must be dealt with. He spoke about a cycle of failure and about social problems. He also mentioned language teaching and made it clear that schools must offer languages, even if no one takes them. What is the percentage reduction in those taking languages post-14? What in practice will be the effect of what is being set out?
In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the Under-Secretary made it clear that he thought that schools might be statutorily required to offer the teaching of modern languages, but that it might be provided by another institution; schools did not need to offer it within their own institution. Rapidly, this commitment—such as it was—is becoming a meaningless pledge.
If languages are not taught in the institution where the pupil studies but are offered elsewhere, what are the implications for travel costs? How will they be met? What are the implications for disadvantaged pupils, for whom the difficulty may be greater? What are the implications in rural areas, where it may be difficult to move from one institution to another? Is it not less likely that people will take languages in the 14 to 19 period of their education if they have to go elsewhere to do so?
We heard about modern apprenticeships and the matriculation diploma. We are concerned that the future planning of 14 to 19 education appears to be something of a black hole in the Government's thinking. It is not clear whether the Government wish the area planning of education to be executed by learning and skills councils, local education authorities or some other body. Having said that they are not intending to move funding or planning to the learning and skills councils, the Government must make clear where exactly they want that funding and planning to take place and what the implications will be.
The Under-Secretary pledged that we would have not necessarily the publication of the responses to the Green Paper but "a representative summary" of responses. That gave cause for concern to all Members who have experienced the Government's tendency to publish only those pieces of information that appear favourable,

531
and not always an open and honest sample of what they have received. The Government say that they want to raise the status of vocational education, an objective that we all share. However, they seem to want to do so by downgrading the GCSE still further, which gives real cause for concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire expressed several concerns on behalf of the further education sector, concerns which grow stronger daily. I know from constituency experience and conversations that I have had how angry people in that sector are, especially at the recent remarks of the Minister for Lifelong Learning. On reflection, she may want to retract those remarks and make it clear that good work is being done in that sector and great achievements are being made.
My hon. Friend also asked for a definition of a higher education experience, for which he has been waiting for six months. There seems to be no sign of such a definition.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), kindly drew attention to the recent literary work of the former chief inspector of schools and invited us to quote from it. I wish that I had more time to quote those views about the Government—the book contains some wonderful quotes. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties are already digging into it. [Interruption.] The Minister for Lifelong Learning says that she has not bothered, but perhaps she should. I offer her this quote:
"The Government should stop flailing around inventing new recruitment wheezes. It should stop wasting public money on what must be a hugely expensive advertising campaign…Deal with disruptive children. Cut the paperwork and the distractions. Reform the approach to pay. Action on these fronts would, at very least, ease the current crisis."
We are grateful to the Under-Secretary for drawing attention to the former chief inspector's comments. They do not necessarily paint a flattering picture of the Government's achievements to date.
In the Green Paper, there is a huge shift away from the Government's mantra when they first arrived on the scene in 1997, claiming that they were about standards, not structures. The Green Paper presages massive structural change. Its objectives are common to both sides of the House, but there are real fears about the approach. Esteem for vocational education will rise with standards in vocational education. That will not happen if the Government proceed with a policy to allow vocational GCSEs for the less able while early AS-levels are provided for the brightest pupils. Pupils in such circumstances—those who are most able to cope with the exam overload—will be spared it. Those who are stretched to cope with GCSEs at 16, AS-levels at 17 and A-levels at 18 will still have to face the overload that currently damages the breadth of their experiences in the curriculum and outside it.
There is an inherent contradiction in the Government's policy on languages. To say that they want more at primary level, fewer at secondary level and more for adults is absurd. Now that we have had confirmation that languages need not be offered in all schools, the concern is even stronger.
The Green Paper risks taking us round in circles. We envisage far more bureaucracy and confusion for qualifications and the planning and funding of 14 to 19
532
education. It does nothing to lift the threat to their future that sixth forms already feel. It risks devaluing vocational qualifications and accelerating the demise of GCSEs. We shall support the Government in seeking better vocational education, parity of esteem for vocational education and greater flexibility. However, I hope that the Minister for School Standards will accept that the debate has flagged up real concerns on both sides of the House about the Government's approach, and I hope that he will take them seriously.
6.49 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have had an interesting debate. The House has been right to focus its attention on our important proposals for education for those aged 14 to 19. There has been a great deal of progress in education over the past five years, with dramatic improvements in primary schools as the literacy and numeracy strategy has been successful in raising standards.
This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in a speech to Demos how we shall apply those lessons to the middle years, for 11 to 14-year-olds, and we are starting to see evidence of improvements. Some 50 per cent. of teenagers achieved five good GCSEs last summer, a year ahead of our target date. In addition, we received a positive assessment, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Pisa study, of our 15-year-olds. That international comparison was published just before Christmas. Extra investment has also borne fruit in our schools.
That said, it is certainly the case that many challenges remain. In particular, those challenges come at ages 14 to 19. Too many people drop out of education much too early. In 1998, there were fewer 17-year-olds in education in Britain than in all other OECD countries except Turkey, Mexico and Greece. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) rightly drew attention to our poor performance by comparison with other countries on level 3 qualifications. We must do better, and we will.
There are other challenges. The Pisa study drew attention to our high overall achievement, but also pointed out that the gap between those who do and do not do well in Britain is a big one in international terms. We need to close that gap and to fire the imaginations of many more of those who lose their enthusiasm for education much too early. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) gave an interesting example from Yarborough school of how that is being done around enterprise. We need more examples of that kind.
We need to address skills shortages and to raise the skills of those entering the work force in order to boost productivity and promote economic growth. We need to ensure that we meet the needs of those likely to struggle at GCSE while also stretching and challenging those whom we expect to do well at A-level. The Green Paper will allow us to address all those challenges.
I welcome the consensus about the need for more opportunities for high-quality vocational options, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has just said. We need to meet demand from young people and employers. We shall offer eight new GCSEs in vocational subjects from September, and several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), said that we shall need additional

533
subjects. I agree with that, and we look forward to offering more subjects from 2004. It is important to make the point that those examinations will be rigorous. They are not a soft option, and they will attract academically able young people. They will develop important skills that employers will prize.
We cannot realistically offer these new options, however, if we also insist that every pupil does everything that the national curriculum currently requires. That is the reason for a more flexible curriculum at 14 to 16. The core compulsory subjects will be restricted to those essential for progression—maths, english, science, and information and craft technology.
Points have been made about modern and foreign languages, particularly by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) in his characteristically courteous contribution, by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury in her impressive and wide-ranging speech. We fully recognise the importance of modern foreign languages. That is why we propose a statutory entitlement to them for all pupils at 14 to 16. That will mean that those subjects will continue to be available to those who want them.
We have a poor record of teaching and learning modern foreign languages, and the hon. Member for Fareham told us that one third of schools are currently disapplying the national curriculum requirement. I am not sure whether that is right, but the Green Paper makes it clear that the requirement for MFL is disapplied for about 32,000 pupils, which is a large number. If that is so, why should we pretend that there is an effective compulsory requirement at present? Why require people to go through the cumbersome disapplication procedure if it is in their best interests to do something other than MFL?
Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: Given the time, I had better press on. I will give way in a moment if I am able, but I started rather late.
We are committed to tackling the long-standing problems. We do not think that the answer is to force reluctant, uninterested and potentially disruptive 14-year-olds to study languages. However, we do want to get young people interested in learning a language at an early age—my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) made this point—and to provide them with the opportunity to continue with that interest throughout life. We made that proposal in a pamphlet published on the same day as the Green Paper, which set out our ambition for all primary school children to have an entitlement to study languages within 10 years and for there to be at least 200 specialist language colleges by 2005.
All that means that young people will have significant choices to make at 14—more significant than they would have had to make in the past. I agree with those who have pointed out that we need to ensure that they will have the advice and support to choose wisely, with their parents and teachers.
We are building up modern apprenticeships, with targets for many more young people to take them up and a national framework that defines the basic standards and
534
will strengthen the relationship between employer and apprentice. Of course, apprenticeships almost entirely disappeared during the 1980s. The fact is that we need to be investing in the skills of young people at the workplace. The system of foundation and advanced modern apprenticeships is allowing us as a nation to do that once again.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said a good deal on that subject and I thank him for the welcome he gave to the vision and to a number of the specific proposals in the Green Paper—the learning plan, for example. He suggested that our proposals for modern apprenticeships were too small scale. I do not think that that is the case. We have set a target of, I think, 28 per cent. of young people going into such apprenticeships by 2004. It is a substantial programme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to involve employers very closely in the design. We are doing so with the sector skills councils, and as the proposals come to fruition, he will see that the high ambitions that he rightly set out will be met.
An important point that goes to the heart of the discussion is that we need to switch the focus of attention from what young people achieve by the age of 16 to all that they will achieve by the age of 19, whether they have been at school, in a college or earning a wage. GCSEs at 16 are a staging post in secondary education, not a finishing post. I do not believe that what we are proposing amounts to downgrading GCSEs, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire suggested, nor do I agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that they should be downgraded. They are not the end of secondary education, however. That is the importance of the matriculation diploma at age 19 as a target for every young person to aim for throughout their teenage years, signifying recognition for their achievements, whether they have been pursuing academic or vocational options, or a mixture of the two.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in opening the debate, we also want the diploma to recognise wider interests—citizenship, volunteering and wider activities. I am one of those who think that there is some merit in the name "matriculation diploma"—[Interruption.] If we had had to put that to the vote this afternoon, I might have found myself in something of a minority. One reason why I think that it has some merit is that people will be able to matriculate. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire was talking of the benefits of graduation and I agree that there are some benefits. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on one matter—I think he said that having different levels of the diploma might be unhelpful. I was recently in the United States looking into graduation. I was struck by the fact that it is often at different levels in US high schools. I was at a school where there were three levels.
This has been an interesting debate and it has been very useful from our point of view in helping us to make decisions on the basis of our proposals. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made some important points about rural issues. That is why the Green Paper draws attention to the need for pathfinders in rural areas. I was also interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) about the Dyslexia Institute, which is not an organisation with which I am familiar. I would certainly be interested to know more. A number of my hon. Friends also made important and useful points.

535
We have set out today our plans for a coherent 14 to 19 phase of education. We want to get away from the fragmentation to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred at the beginning of the debate. This week, I launched at Canary wharf the first of 56—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Noisy Neighbours
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
7 pm
Bob Russell: I wish to dedicate this debate to the memory of the late Spike Milligan, who was the patron of the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign, predecessor to the Noise Network and a great supporter of the UK Noise Association, which was formed in 1999 as the umbrella organisation for various groups involved in the battle to combat noise. Over the years, Spike attended many events in the Jubilee Room to meet Members of Parliament and highlight noise issues with them. I am told that he had a personal dislike for piped music and noisy neighbours.
The UK Noise Association, which receives a grant from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, campaigns—perhaps too quietly, for I wish it were better known—to reduce noise in our everyday lives and to silence, or at least quieten, the cacophony of noises that disrupt what we would like to think is civilised living. The noise fighters can hardly shout from the roof tops, so I shall speak up for them this evening.
I also wish to place on record the excellent work of Mrs. Val Weedon, who formed the Noise Network as a result of her experiences with a particularly annoying noisy neighbour and who has subsequently been awarded an MBE for her unstinting work in seeking to reduce and eliminate noise. She is secretary of the UK Noise Association.
A noise is a noise is a noise. Noise annoys, but it can do more than annoy; it is increasingly causing more and more people considerable distress, ill health and, in some cases, it ends in death—the victims take their own lives because they cannot put up with things any longer, or they take the law into their own hands and kill the perpetrator. It is estimated that every 10 weeks, on average, someone dies as a result of neighbour-noise conflict.
The negative impact of noise in society is recognised by the Government, and I welcome the publication late last year—five days before Christmas—of a consultation paper from the air and environmental quality division of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Unacceptable noise is not just an urban issue, for I suspect that an early morning crowing cockerel may not be everybody's idea of a welcoming dawn chorus; it is a sound that country folk should accept as being part of rural life, whereas it would not be at all popular in an urban setting. I use that illustration to make the point that what is an unacceptable noise for one person can be perfectly acceptable to another. It is a question of common sense and fairness. Thudding heavy-metal music is unbearable at any time—unless people like it. In my opinion, it is a form of non-physical thuggery for someone to inflict it on others, particularly during the traditional quiet hours of night and Sunday afternoons.
I understand that the consultation period for DEFRA's proposals entitled "Towards a National Ambient Noise Strategy" ended on 15 March. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to state when the findings will be published and when he expects new measures to be taken to remove unacceptable noise from our lives. However, although I welcome the consultation paper, I must register

537
my strong disappointment that measures to deal with noisy neighbours are specifically excluded. Having devoted a whole chapter to what is headed "Neighbour Noise", its introduction states:
"This consultation paper has as its remit ambient noise—noise from transportation and industry—and thus explicitly excludes consideration of neighbour noise."
If we are being asked to accept that the Government are serious about tackling the problems caused by the growing number of antisocial noisy neighbours, that is clearly a wasted opportunity. I shall return later to what chapter 3 says.
According to the UK Noise Network, quoting a study by the University of Sheffield, our towns and cities are 10 times noisier than a decade ago. It is said that a fifth of the European Union's residents suffer a noise problem.
In its publication "Noise and Liveability", the UK Noise Association states:
"Noise can be much more than just an irritant. It can damage people's health and education and blight their lives."
It also states that noise tends to be more of a problem for poor people, who often live in noisy areas and do not have the opportunity to move away.
Noise comes in so many different ways—obvious examples are from road traffic, flight paths and railway lines, but there are many others. Tonight, however, in the limited time available, I shall concentrate only on the noise nuisances caused by neighbours—hence the title of my debate.
I am told that the Government have issued a leaflet entitled "Bothered by Noise?", in which they advise residents what action is open to them if they suffer from noisy neighbours. Will the Minister inform me when that leaflet was last updated and where the public can obtain copies?
I understand that later this year the EU Commission will issue a noise directive. I am not sure whether this has prompted the UK Government to publish their consultation paper, but in any event both moves are welcomed provided, of course, that we see immediate and positive action.
I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us good news—that there will be action, and that the Government are determined to reduce noise and where possible eliminate it completely. If the Government could introduce "Silence is golden" measures, that would be an opportunity for us to give three hearty cheers of approval. Yes, there is a place for noise, such as a standing ovation, which is unlikely tonight, musical delights, such as the last night of the Proms, and spontaneous loud cheering such as I witnessed three times on Saturday when Colchester United beat Queens Park Rangers 3–1.
Noise has its place, but that place is not transferring noise from one domestic dwelling to another or many others, or to their gardens. As the Prime Minister said on 24 April last year:
"We need an improved local quality of life."
I am sure that he was not talking about his immediate next door neighbours but was making a generalisation.
538
In support of the Prime Minister, I should again like to quote from what the UK Noise Association has told me:
"It is quite simple. Noise blights the quality of life of millions of people. Liveable communities will not be created across the country if the UK remains as noisy as it is today."
If there is one thing worse than a noisy neighbour it is a neighbour who is deliberately noisy—someone who gets perverted pleasure from inflicting misery on others by deliberate acts of noise aggravation that he or she pursues with callous zeal. This can take the form of loud music at all hours of the day and night, early morning do-it-yourself builders who think that banging and electric drills are all right, binge parties that last for hours, and running up and down carpetless floors and stairs. Unattended barking dogs are also a major cause of concern. There are many other examples of noisy neighbour behaviour. "Love thy neighbour as thyself' is sadly so often lacking in 21st century Britain.
It seems that the 24-hour lifestyle that this country is increasingly witnessing has regrettably not seen some active participants realising that they must adapt their behaviour accordingly. What may be acceptable during normal hours is often totally unacceptable to the rest of society in the early hours.
I am sure that all Members can recount tales of woe and misery raised with them by anguished constituents who are at their wit's end. Examples I have in Colchester include a young man with an electric guitar who slept by day and played his guitar by night, ruining the sleep of the family next door. This ended only after months of distress when the council's environmental noise people confiscated his equipment and he was taken to court. Some may feel that a punch on the nose would have been more effective, but it would be wrong of me to support such direct action.
Another example is the couple living in an upstairs flat who felt that removing the carpet, as some form of fashion statement I believe, and constantly walking over the bare floorboards in heavy shoes was acceptable. The noise for the elderly lady living below was intolerable and she was forced to leave her home for days at a time to get peace and quiet elsewhere.
There have been numerous occasions involving loud music at all hours of the day and night, with open windows allowing the high volume sound to annoy the immediate neighbourhood.
We are told that there are powers to deal with such antisocial elements in society. Are they working? Are they strong enough? How effective are they? Evidence suggests that they are inadequate, and even when the powers-that-be get involved the process is time-consuming and slow. What are the Government going to do about it?
Mr. Colin Daines, environmental control manager for Colchester borough council tells me:
"Whilst legal controls may be improving, the derisory fines imposed by magistrates for the noise and other environmental offences that we do take to court, do not seem to reflect the seriousness of the problems and the major effects they can have on those who are suffering them. We do try to educate our local JPs but any assistance from `above' eg via the Home Office would be welcomed."
Chapter 3 of DEFRA's document says that neighbour noise is not part of the consultation. It outlines a catalogue of measures, which, if they are to be believed,

539
will provide a framework to ensure that England is a green and pleasant land, where at all times neighbour quietly speaks peace unto neighbour, where the only noises to be heard are the twittering of song birds and the joyous laughter of small children playing—and over there we can see pigs flying past. The world is not like that, and the consultation paper is wrong to con us into thinking that there is adequate legislation—let alone an enthusiasm from local authorities, the police and other agencies—to deal with noisy neighbours. The theory is tine; the reality is somewhat different.
In explaining why neighbour noise does not form part of recent noise strategy consultation, the consultation paper states:
"Neighbour and local neighbourhood noise is a major source of disturbance to many people and can have a significant impact on quality of life and the local environment. This chapter summarises the legislation available to local authorities and others to deal with neighbour noise. It outlines the positive actions being taken to provide local authorities and others with effective powers to address complaints about neighbour noise and to raise the general awareness of the impact that the generation of noise can have on others."
The legislation is clearly not working. Noise complaints are increasing, certainly in my constituency if my postbag and advice bureau are a good guide. The Acts of Parliament that we are told
"provide powers to address neighbourhood noise"
are: the Environmental Protection Act 1990, part III; the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993; the Noise Act 1996; and the Control of Pollution Act 1974, part III. I am advised that a consultation is under way to seek views on whether, and in what way, the Noise Act should be reviewed. There is compelling evidence that something must be done.
An indication of how seriously noise is regarded as an issue by the Government is reflected in the statement in the DEFRA consultation paper that the Noise Forum—yes, there is such a body—
"meets twice a year and provides an opportunity for the exchange of information and views between those affected by noise and those who have a responsibility for dealing with it."
Twice a year? I hope the Minister will agree that meeting twice a year is hardly an acknowledgement that tackling noise is high on the agenda.
It is not just noisy neighbours, however, who are to blame. The design of buildings, particularly flats and homes in multiple occupation, needs to be addressed. In total, an estimated 2.5 million homes in this country have bad sound insulation. The UK Noise Association published an excellent brochure last Friday week entitled "A Sound Solution". I am advised copies have been posted to every MP. It sets out a strategy to minimise noise nuisance in housing by using better sound insulation. I invite the Minister to support the aim of making our nation's homes quieter by design and construction, and that applies to new-build as well as the existing housing stock.
The National Housing Federation, which represents around 1,400 not-for-profit housing organisations that own or manage about 1.7 million homes in England, tells me that there is a need for all agencies to work together on individual cases to agree enforcement action, to provide support for those at risk and to intervene to help people address their behaviour. It says:
"People displaying noisy and anti-social behaviour can cause a great deal of distress to their neighbours. We support our members taking swift and appropriate enforcement action to deal with proven anti-social behaviour, such as racism, harassment and drug dealing."
540
That is fine for housing associations and local authority tenants, but we need to consider all cases of noisy neighbours. It not just tenants who are bad neighbours. Indeed, the two specific constituency cases that I highlighted involved owner-occupiers.
The future does not sound good. Mr. Richard Mills, secretary general of the National Society for Clean Air, commenting on the Government's draft national ambient noise strategy, said:
"There is a clear opportunity now to develop, for the first time in the UK, a coherent and strategic approach to the control of ambient noise. These proposals simply fail to meet the challenge.
As things stand, nothing will prevent the noise climate in the UK getting worse for at least another five years, when all momentum will have been lost.
Ministers promised us a strategy to tackle noise. Sadly, it's all quiet on the policy front."
It is clear that legislation is not deterring noisy neighbours. It must be improved so that immediate action can be taken. If we can have neighbourhood wardens issuing on-the-spot fines for owners of dogs that foul the pavement and for louts who drop litter, why cannot we have noise wardens with the power to take immediate action against those generating unacceptable levels of noise?
I invite the Minister to accept the recommendation of the UK Noise Association urging that more resources should be allocated by local authorities to provide a higher quality service with the employment of dedicated noise officers. Current experience throughout the country is that the level of service provided by local councils is variable.
The Government support the European convention on human rights, article 8 of which establishes the right of respect for
"privacy, family life and home".
Article 1 of protocol 1 establishes a right
"to the peaceful enjoyment of your possessions and protection of property".
The human rights of the victims of noisy neighbours are being infringed. The Government have a legal obligation to ensure that legislation is adequate. The Government may not have been entirely silent on the question of noisy neighbours, but they need to do a lot more to tackle one of the great social miseries of modern times.
7.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing this debate and on the robust and not too noisy way in which he made his case.
The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue and I assure him that the Government take it seriously. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who was unable to attend the debate, has been actively seeking ways to improve the quality of life for local people. We realise that noisy neighbours are a quality of life issue, and the Government acknowledge that quality of life is an indicator against which we measure our policies—and we do so. That relates to issues such as litter, graffiti, dog fouling and, of course, noisy neighbours.
I have considerable sympathy with people who endure intrusive noise as a consequence of the inconsiderate actions of their neighbours. The hon. Gentleman gave some examples from his constituents—I have nothing but sympathy for those people.

541
Noise is something that affects us all. We all make it in one way or another and many of us suffer because of our different perceptions about certain noisy situations. The hon. Gentleman fairly pointed out that what some people regard as a nuisance, others do not. That can cause difficulty. Despite that, there are clearly situations where noise is wholly unacceptable.
Our ambient noise strategy relates to an important commitment in the rural White Paper. There will be consultation about what should be included in the strategy and how it will be applied, and we shall take the responses into account. Ambient noise refers to background noise; that is not the same as neighbour noise where there can be great variability. As the hon. Gentleman noted, there is a difference.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there were several Acts relating to noise. They include the Environmental Protection Act 1990, amended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, which contain powers for the investigation of complaints about noise. Local councils have the duty to investigate complaints of noise from premises—land and buildings—vehicles, machinery or equipment in the street. Those duties are described in a popular departmental booklet, "Bothered by Noise? There's no need to suffer". I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that I can provide him with a copy at the end of the debate. He will then be fully up to date with the Government's position on noise.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about proper design standards. We should take into account the need to minimise noise in everyday living. That is a fair point.
Dealing with noise is the responsibility of local authority environmental health officers. They can serve abatement notices on the person responsible and, in certain cases, the owner of the property. The notice may require that the noise be stopped altogether, or limited in level or to certain times of the day. Specific works may also be stipulated. That should enable the noise nuisance to be abated, and failure to comply with the terms of the noise abatement notice can result in heavy fines.
In the circumstances, and in the light of recruitment problems, I consider that, overall, environmental health officers do an excellent job in both investigating and taking action against the instigators of noise.
As constituency MPs, we are all familiar with the problem. We know that in many cases people who are accused of making noise often hotly deny it. That is one of the reasons that evidence must be collected by the environmental health officer. However, that cannot be done overnight—it takes some time. Often, people have to fill in log sheets, and devices that record noise are placed in properties. When a matter is disputed, evidence is necessary for a successful prosecution, so there may be delays in dealing with complaints. However, environmental health departments do a good job.
The noise complaint figures announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment last December show that, almost always, informal action, by directly confronting the person responsible or through the use of mediation, can resolve neighbour disputes without the need for the local authority to use enforcement measures, either through the use of abatement notices or
542
taking action through the courts. Inevitably, of course, the odd local authority is not as responsive as it might be. However, the Government's best value inspection service will help to identify and encourage improvements in services where they are needed.
I understand that Colchester borough council's environmental health department provides a round-the-clock service to deal with noise complaints, which is good because not all councils do that. In addition, the council has been awarded beacon status for its work in maintaining a quality environment, and it is to be congratulated on that. In fact, Colchester was one of only five councils that applied for that status and were successful, which is a tribute to it.
Bob Russell: It is Liberal Democrat led.
Mr. Morley: I understood that it was a hung council, but I give praise where praise is due.
I realise, of course, that going round to see one's neighbour does not always produce results. I saw a report concerning an incident in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in which someone was attacked by their neighbour in a noise dispute.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the consultation that is taking place. I accept that the Noise Act 1996, which introduced a night noise offence, has not been entirely successful. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced the outcome of a review of the Act in line with a parliamentary commitment to do so which was made on 20 December 2001. We aim to ensure that local authorities can use the Act fully by seeking changes, which will mean that they will have more control over the level of resources which they need to commit to dealing with noise complaints at night. We are currently looking at ways of making the existing powers less prescriptive and non-adoptive. That would make the night noise offence more widely available for use by local authorities when dealing with night noise complaints. Local authorities will welcome that development. I understand that Colchester borough council, among others, has not yet adopted the Act. That is one of the reasons for our consultation on potential changes.
We have acknowledged the need to raise awareness of noise by sponsoring the very successful noise action day, which has become an annual event and will be held on Wednesday 22 May this year. That is co-ordinated by the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection, which works with local authorities, schools, mediation groups and citizens advice bureaux to help to educate the public about the problems that can be encountered and the solutions that can be used. It does no harm to draw attention to these issues because people sometimes cause noise nuisance unintentionally, and a little thought and awareness can solve the problem.
We will soon be announcing the outcome of the three pieces of research that have been mentioned. The purpose of the noise attitudes survey is to ascertain the attitudes of the public to various types of noise as it affects them in their homes and the surrounding neighbourhood. The survey is a follow-up to a similar one carried out in 1991. It utilises two questionnaires and will enable a direct assessment to be made of changes in attitudes.
A parallel national noise incidence survey is also being carried out to determine the noise climate through measurements. The results of that will be compared to a

543
similar survey conducted in 1990–91 to determine whether there have been major changes to trends in the noise climate. We need to take those issues into account, and they will influence our response. Both those studies represent the largest of their kind undertaken in the UK. Both studies have been extended to cover Scotland and Northern Ireland, and taken together their results will inform the debate about how noise impacts on our communities and how the public respond to it.
In addition, we have commissioned research to help us to understand how other EU states deal with noise complaints and what effective procedures are used to resolve any noise problems identified. We want to establish what good practice is used which may be applicable in this country.
544
The hon. Member for Colchester has raised a serious issue thoughtfully and comprehensively. I hope that my response shows that we as a Government take it seriously and that we are trying to deal with it through a range of actions. Local council environmental health officers, supported by the police, are on the front line. I pay tribute to their thorough work, which is often carried out in difficult circumstances, but is often highly successful. We intend to give them the tools and the powers they need to do that job, and we are consulting on the best means of doing so. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will take into account the points he has made tonight in future considerations.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions
[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration, Session 2000–01, HC 61, and the Government's response thereto, Session 2001–02, HC 464.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pearson.]
2.30 pm
Tony Wright: I am delighted to introduce this debate on ministerial accountability and parliamentary questions, a subject that should be of wide interest to Members across the House. The debate is based on the Select Committee's second report of 2000–01, which we published in January 2001, and its fourth report of 2001–02, which was published in December 2001 and contains the Government's response.
I shall outline the background to the report, and therefore to today's debate. In the mid-1990s, our predecessor, the Public Service Committee, of which I was privileged to be a member, produced a major report on ministerial accountability and responsibility that was connected with the Scott inquiry. It resulted in the House's 1996 resolution on ministerial accountability, which is now in the ministerial code—an important statement on the responsibilities of Ministers to the House.
That report proposed also that the Table Office should provide a memorandum each year listing the questions that had been blocked by Ministers—that is, not answered—and that when questions were blocked, Ministers should cite the appropriate provisions of the code of access to Government information in their refusal to answer. We said then that the Committee would monitor that system.
The report that we are discussing today is the latest annual report on parliamentary questions and answers, based on a memorandum supplied to us by the Table Office. When we receive such a memorandum, we ask all Departments about their blocked questions. Unfortunately, the replies are extraordinarily slow in coming forward—so slow that the report on the 1998–99 Session could not be produced until January 2001. That delay continues. For example, in May 2001, Departments were asked for information on blocked questions relating to the 1999–2000 Session, but the final reply to our inquiries, which happened to be from the Department of Health, was not received until this week—some 10 months on. It will therefore be a couple of months before we can report to the House on that year.
On the report that we are discussing today, we decided to go beyond our precise remit on blocked questions to explore part answers—Ministers choosing
138WH
to answer those bits of a question that they want to answer and not answering bits that they do not like. That practice has caused Members some difficulty, so we thought it appropriate to extend our questioning to cover that area. We wrote to all Members to ask for their experience of the partial answering of questions, and we are grateful for the replies that we received, some of which are reproduced in our report.
I shall briefly identify the central points raised in the report and say what has resulted from it. We note the continuing failure of Departments to refer to the code of practice in not answering questions, the starting point for our interest. When we brought the matter to the Government's attention through the report, they agreed to re-issue the guidance to officials on drafting answers to parliamentary questions, which clearly states that part answers are unacceptable. We argued further in relation to disproportionate-cost refusals, with which we are all familiar, that any available information should be provided, even if disproportionate cost is given as the reason for preventing a full answer from being given. On that point, the Government again agreed to revise the guidance.
We also proposed that when material is put in the Library in response to a parliamentary question, the Member who asked it should receive the information at the same time. The Government agreed and reminded Departments that it is courteous to provide such information. We deplore part answering questions and recommend that stringent checks be carried out to ensure that it does not happen. In response, the Government restated their commitment to giving full and accurate answers and said that if Members remain dissatisfied, they should raise the issue with the appropriate Ministers.
All that is background, and I shall now talk about general aspects of parliamentary questions. We know that parliamentary questions are a vital instrument in the hands of Members of Parliament. In fact, written questions are probably the most vital instrument of sustained accountability that Members of Parliament have. They are also very much a part of the continuing struggle between Parliament and the Executive and between the Government and the Opposition.
There is a nice story about Lloyd George motoring in the mountains of north Wales. He lost his way and asked a passer-by where he was. The passer-by replied, "You are in a motor car." Lloyd George subsequently commented that that was the perfect answer to a parliamentary question, as it was true, brief and told him absolutely nothing that he did not already know.
I referred to the Scott inquiry as part of the background to the Committee's work. Sir Michael Quinlan, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence from 1988 to 1992, gave an interesting paper to that inquiry, where much argument centred on whether Ministers had given proper, full and accurate answers to Members of Parliament about the supply of arms. Sir Michael's paper related to the practice of civil servants in drafting answers to parliamentary questions, and he said that seeking and giving information in Parliament was
"in a certain sense analogous to a game … in the sense that it is a competitive activity conducted, within rules, largely for a purpose different from that of its apparent form."

139WH
That means that the form is to bring information to the public domain, but that the prime purpose is, for the questioner, to give the Government a hard time and, for the Government, to avoid being given a hard time. He continued:
"The Opposition will seek to extract information which they can use to portray the Government in a bad light; and they will … feel free thereafter to exploit the information, if necessary selectively and tendentiously, to that end. The Government for its part will be reluctant to disclose information of a kind, or in a form, that will help the Opposition to do so."
That is a useful reminder of the context—the game within which everything goes on.
In the last Session, 16,716 written parliamentary questions were tabled; I am told that they cost £121 each. Members use that device in a variety of ways, and in different quantities. I note from the Order Paper that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is much in evidence as a particularly assiduous asker of parliamentary questions—he tabled 144 on Monday 18 March, no less than 42 per cent. of those submitted. At £121 each, his questions on that day alone cost £17,424. I have told him that I would refer to his record this afternoon.
My curiosity was so stimulated by those statistics that I looked further and pulled up the record for the current Session. The hon. Gentleman has asked 2,619 questions, 6 per cent. of the total, at a cost of £316,899. I am sure that they are worth every penny and that the electors of Buckingham would not swap them for policemen on the streets or nurses in their hospitals.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham would not have to ask so many questions if his original questions received straight answers?
Tony Wright: That is a fine point, but my only quibble is that on Monday alone the hon. Gentleman asked every Department what crèche facilities they provide and what is the cost of criminal damage to their buildings. Perhaps I do not understand the implications, but those do not seem to be pressing issues. I am not making a value judgment; I am reporting the facts to bring context to a discussion on parliamentary questions. However, those are formidable sums and it is incumbent on us all to use that money wisely. If taxes have to rise in the Budget to pay the bill, I am sure that the hon. Member for Buckingham will be the first to applaud.
Mr. Greg Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is the shadow Chief Secretary? When the Budget is announced, he and the shadow Chancellor will have to make an instant critique of the Chancellor's announcements. Many of those questions go to the heart of Government spending.
Tony Wright: I have no doubt that knowing about crèche facilities and the cost of criminal damage will be integral to the Budget critique advanced by the hon. Member for Buckingham. I look forward to that, as it will be a most interesting speech.
140WH
Parliamentary questions are a key instrument of accountability, which is why they provided a focus for the Committee. We are not concerned with the general arrangement for questions and answers, as that is not our territory but that of the Procedure Committee, whose current inquiry is studying
"the extent to which the current system of parliamentary questions contributes to effective scrutiny".
We are interested not in the general issues but in accountability—that is very much part of the Committee's concerns.
Many hon. Members have come to regard us as an avenue for complaint about unsatisfactory answers. Indeed, we seem to be a general repository for all complaints about questions. In a way, that is flattering, but we have gone beyond questions and become associated with correspondence. Some hon. Members think that the Committee is the place to bring their complaints when they receive delayed or unsatisfactory correspondence.
We are not a standing complaints channel—I should emphasise that that is not our role—but we keep an eye on developments relevant to the work in which we are engaged. For example, in November 2001, the parliamentary ombudsman, who comes under our purview, upheld a complaint from the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about a Home Office refusal to release information to him through a parliamentary question. The Home Office had cited exemptions under the code, but when the ombudsman found that those did not apply, it refused to comply with the ruling. That is an unprecedented action for a Minister to take.
Another example is an early-day motion tabled in February by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), expressing concern about the time taken to answer parliamentary questions. In addition, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) took a survey, which he kindly sent me, identifying what he believes to be the increasing use of commercial confidentiality as a reason to block answers.
Finally, earlier this month, the Secretary of State for Health replied to concerns about delays in answering parliamentary questions with the statement that there has been
"systematic falsification in recording the handling of parliamentary questions in the Department's parliamentary section."—[Official Report, 5 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 192W.]
That is clearly a serious matter, which has caused an official to be suspended and an inquiry to be set up. Those examples show the need for continuing vigilance and continuous pressure on Ministers and Departments to ensure that a vital instrument of parliamentary accountability is protected as it should be.
Mr. Speaker made a statement to the House on 28 November 2001, reminding Ministers of their obligations in relation to parliamentary questions. He also directed complainants to the inquiry being undertaken by the Procedure Committee and directed hon. Members to us—that is, the Public Administration Committee. He said that
"Members aggrieved at a ministerial refusal to answer might get in touch with the Committee Chairman".—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 971.]
We have received several complaints since that statement, but many raise questions that go beyond our narrow territory, on which we based the survey and report that we compiled.

141WH
In case anyone thinks that I am not afflicted by the problem, I should mention my attempt to ask a question of the Prime Minister a few weeks ago. I wanted to know whether the 1975 agreement made under Harold Wilson that those in the Government could differ in the context of a referendum campaign might apply now. That is a straightforward question. On 25 January, I asked whether the Prime Minister planned
"to follow the precedent of the 1975 referendum on membership of the Common Market in respect of the Government's agreement to differ in a referendum on membership of the single European currency".
The answer was:
"I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the hon. Member for Buckingham".—[Official Report, 28 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 25W.]
Inevitably, the hon. Member for Buckingham reappears in our proceedings.
I looked the answer up, but it has nothing to do with my question. The hon. Member for Buckingham asked the Chancellor to
"make a statement on the proposed date for a referendum on euro entry."—[Official Report, 2 November 2001; Vol. 373, c. 883W.]
The Economic Secretary's answer is about the five tests—I shall not bore hon. Members with it—but there is no mention of what I asked about.
I took the liberty of asking the Prime Minister again, on 14 February, if he would
"explain the connection between the question to him of 25 January and his answer of 28 January."
The reply states:
"I referred my hon. Friend to an answer which sets out the Government policy on the euro."—[Official Report, 25 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 701W.]
That put us back where we started. Mr. Speaker's statement suggested that aggrieved Members could get in touch with the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee. Armed with that fact, I immediately contacted myself about the matter, but I did not know what further action to take.
I hope that the House feels that our annual reports perform a valuable function on its behalf, in relation to ministerial accountability. There may now be a case for Parliament to find a mechanism, perhaps one involving the Committee, to take up Members' dissatisfaction with answers that they receive. I invite the Procedure Committee to think on that during its current inquiry.
2.52 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Chairman of the Committee, on his comments and on the vigilance that he exercises daily on behalf of so many right hon. and hon. Members. I was interested to hear him refer specifically to the blocking of a reasonable question that he put to the Prime Minister, as I want to draw attention to my experience of trying to ask the Prime Minister a straightforward question in the past month.
The issue goes straight to the heart of our parliamentary democracy, and also relates to the fourth and fifth principles of public life set out by Lord Nolan, which have been adopted in the ministerial code. Those principles deal with accountability and openness. The principle of accountability is:
142WH
"Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office."
The principle of openness is:
"Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands".
For the purposes of the debate, the seventh principle of public life is also relevant. On leadership, it states:
"Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and"—
I emphasise—
"example."
That brings me straight to the role of the Prime Minister. He issues the ministerial code and commends it to his ministerial colleagues. In his foreword, he says that he
"will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the Code. Ministers will find it a useful source of guidance and reference as they undertake their official duties in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety."
As the Prime Minister recognises, the first part of the ministerial code follows the terms of the March 1997 House of Commons resolution on ministerial accountability. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, that resolution is crucial. In his important statement to the House on 28 November 2001, Mr. Speaker said:
"The House's legitimate expectations are contained in the 1997 resolution on ministerial responsibility. It is the duty of a Speaker to do what can properly be done from the Chair in support of the resolution. It is the duty of Ministers to act in the spirit of the resolution."
He quoted the resolution:
"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the Government's code of practice on access to Government information."
He also emphasised that hon. Members should persist when faced with unsatisfactory replies:
"One pointed question can, in my experience, achieve more than 20 vague ones."—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 971.]
I do not disagree, but I should tell hon. Members of my experience during the past month in seeking to extract from the Prime Minister a straightforward answer on a particular matter.
Hon. Members will recall that the Prime Minister told the House that he regularly corresponds with the Heads of State and Prime Ministers of other countries about the award of contracts to companies with British interests. That is all part of the Mittal affair, as it has come to be known. Hon. Members on both sides of the House followed up that statement by asking the Prime Minister more questions. I asked him
"on how many occasions in the past two years he has written to the (a) Head of State and (b) Prime Minister of a foreign Government about the award of contracts to companies with British interests."
He responded:
"I refer … to the answer I gave the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 14 February 2002, Official Report, columns 610–11W."—[Official Report, 25 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 701W.]

143WH
In an echo of what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase told us, I looked up the Prime Minister's 14 February answer and it turned out to be the original answer on which I was seeking further information.
The Prime Minister said on that occasion:
"There was nothing extraordinary about my letter to the Romanian Government. I have written regularly to other leaders concerning contracts in which there is a British commercial interest. I have also lobbied fellow leaders in person and over the telephone on behalf of British business."—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 611W.]
That was no answer to the question that I asked, so I asked another. Each answer apparently costs £121, but the cost cannot be blamed on me—it arises directly from the Prime Minister's refusal to answer the original question.
I asked the Prime Minister
"under what provision of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information he has declined to say on how many occasions in the past two years he has written to foreign Governments about the award of contracts to companies with British interests."
That relates to the report's point about the desirability of Ministers, and the Prime Minister in particular, citing the relevant part of the code when they decline to give information that is requested in a question.
I also put a more straightforward subsidiary question, in the belief that there would be no question of the information not being available. I asked the Prime Minister
"on how many occasions in the past two years he has written to the Prime Minister of Romania".
Even those with the most elementary filing system know the answer to such a question, and one would not think it embarrassing for the Prime Minister to reply. However, he said:
"I have nothing further to add to my previous answer for the reasons I explained. It is not normal practice to release letters from the Prime Minister to another Head of Government under exemption 1(b) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Exemption 13 of the Code also applies with regard to commercial confidentiality."—[Official Report, 28 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 1450W.]
For those who do not have it in front of them, exemption 1(b) relates to behaviour that would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs.
Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in evidence to the Committee, the Ministry of Defence and the Prime Minister quoted the code correctly? The Committee praised their use of the code, although certain other Ministers were not using it.
Mr. Chope: I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what the hon. Gentleman says. I hope that he, likewise, will not doubt the accuracy of my recent experience of trying to ask the Prime Minister a straightforward question.
I had not asked the Prime Minister to release the letters; I was merely asking about the number of occasions on which he had written, in order to test his earlier statement that he had written regularly.
144WH
Following Mr. Speaker's advice, I asked four more pursuant questions, which I shall repeat in summary to emphasise my dissatisfaction.
The first question was whether information is available on the number of occasions the Prime Minister has written to the Prime Minister of Romania in the past two years about the award of contracts to companies. Obviously, if the information is not available, it is reasonable not to give an answer about it. The second question asked how disclosure of the number of occasions on which he has written to the Prime Minister of Romania will harm the conduct of international relations or affairs. The third and fourth questions asked for the same information concerning the wider issue of the number of occasions in the past two years that the Prime Minister had written to foreign governments in general about the award of contracts to companies with British interests.
Those were obviously a testing set of questions for the Prime Minister, because on 5 March I received a holding reply. However, on 6 March I received a substantive reply, which I shall quote in full:
"I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Thursday 28 February".—[Official Report, 6 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 344W.]
One does not need a first-class brain to realise that the Prime Minister is not complying with his own ministerial code. Most seriously, he is failing in the duty of leadership and example, as set out in the seventh principle of public life; he is ignoring Mr. Speaker's clear ruling on 28 November, and insulting him to boot.
Following Mr. Speaker's advice, I went to the Table Office to find out how I could get the information that I sought. I was advised that I had pushed things as far as I could and there was no further avenue open to me, other than raising the matter in open debate in the hope that I would be able to shame the Prime Minister into giving me the information. I am increasingly angry at the arrogance and insolence of the Prime Minister.
I tabled four more questions, the first of which asked:
"what consideration he gives to the application of the Ministerial Code of July 2001 paragraph 1(iv), when answering written parliamentary questions."
The Prime Minister responded as follows:
"Paragraph 1 of the Ministerial Code sets out Ministers' responsibilities in relation to Parliament and the public."
I asked:
"how many breaches of the ministerial code there have been since July 2001?"
It seems to me that the Prime Minister himself is in serial breach of the code and is a recidivist. His answer was:
"Section 1 of the Ministerial Code makes it clear that Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct in Parliament. It also sets out Ministers' responsibilities in relation to alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code."—[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 1W.]
That leaves us with a situation in which the Prime Minister refuses to give information about the number of breaches of the ministerial code, refuses to take any responsibility for Ministers who breach the code—and, indeed, himself refuses to answer the simplest of parliamentary questions, in flagrant breach of the code.

145WH
On 22 November, the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan):
"The Ministerial Code is my guidance to my Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold the highest standards. I decide the content of the Ministerial Code."—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 470W.]
I hope that hon. Members will accept that the buck does indeed stop with the Prime Minister. However, because he shows such contempt for his own code, it is hardly surprising that other Ministers also show such contempt for it. The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has admitted giving inaccurate information outside Parliament in connection with the Sixsmith and Jo Moore affair. Incredibly, although the ministerial code requires the giving of accurate and truthful information to Parliament, it does not extend that principle to the giving of information outside Parliament.
In order to clear up that conundrum, I asked a question of the Prime Minister. I asked whether he would extend outside Parliament the principles of ministerial conduct set out in the code on the giving of accurate and truthful information. Even that straightforward question was not answered in a straightforward and factual way. He purported to reply by stating:
"Paragraph 1 of the Ministerial Code sets out Ministers' responsibilities in relation to Parliament and the public."—
We knew that. I was asking whether he would extend the principles of ministerial conduct to include the giving of accurate and truthful information outside Parliament as well as inside.
I asked the Prime Minister another question. I asked why Ministers' responsibilities in relation to the public do not include giving accurate and truthful information outside Parliament another straightforward question. Again, the Prime Minister refused to answer. Instead, he stated:
"Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct in Parliament."—[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 1–2W.]
Norman Baker: My experience echoes that of the hon. Gentleman. Some of my questions—to various Ministers, but particularly to the Prime Minister—have been unanswered. There seem to be no sanctions against those who refuse to answer. Indeed, when it comes to accountability, some Ministers increasingly treat Members of Parliament with contempt. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one solution could be for Mr. Speaker to have to the power to ask for those questions to be answered at the end of Question Time at 3.30 pm by the Minister who refused to answer properly in writing?
Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I was about to ask whether we can do anything about what is happening. The Prime Minister and his wife are both lawyers, and they know very well that when going through law exams, studies of jurisprudence and so on, one learns the principle that there is no point in having a command without a sanction. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
Self-regulation by the Prime Minister and Ministers is manifestly not working. The Press Council has the power to police the voluntary code that the press adopt
146WH
in relation its conduct. In my view, Mr. Speaker needs to be invested with much greater power to enforce the code, particularly the provisions fundamental to ensuring that the House can fulfil its constitutional role of holding the Government to account.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that one sanction could be public ridicule at the end of Question Time. That might be one way forward, but the number of questions for written answer will always be far in excess of what can be managed at Question Time. Of course, if the Prime Minister were prepared to comply with his own code, the problem would not exist. It seems to me that the Prime Minister is becoming increasingly arrogant—it is almost an art form. He seems to have decided, out of stubbornness and just to demonstrate how arrogant he is, that he will not give reasonable information to Members of Parliament. He attends only 3 per cent. of votes in the House, and now he is not even prepared to stoop so low as to deign to answer hon. Members' questions.
A previous Question Time practice is relevant to the report that we are discussing. Those who had a burning question to ask would, if they were lucky enough to have the chance to ask an oral question, give the Prime Minister advance notice of it. People now give him advance notice of their oral questions, but he takes no notice of it, ignores the point that they have made and gives a superficial brush-off as a response. That is just not good enough. It is in the interests of Government and Opposition Back Benchers alike to ensure that something is done. At the moment, the ministerial code is not worth the paper it is written on.
The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, talks about vigilance and pressure, and I applaud the vigilance and pressure that he is exercising on this issue, but the evidence that I have—I have quoted just one recent example—shows that we are not getting far. That is grinding the House into a situation in which MPs have to table pursuant questions to every answer, because the answers do not respond to the questions.
I presume that the Government hope that our proceedings today will receive little publicity because the business has been relegated to this forum on the same day as major statements on Zimbabwe and foxhunting in the House. I hope that all hon. Members who are not members of the Executive will prove the Government wrong and expose the contempt in which we are obviously held by the Prime Minister and his increasingly overbearing Government. I hope that this will be the beginning of something, rather than just another debate.
We need commands, and to reinforce them, a police force that can identify failures to comply. We also need some sanctions. I hope that the Committee will introduce some ideas about sanctions in the near future, so that we do not spend the rest of this Parliament being fobbed off as I was recently by the Prime Minister.
3.11 pm
Brian White: With a debate such as this, we can either take it seriously or indulge in party political knockabout of the sort that we have just heard. It is regrettable that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who was making a

147WH
serious point, allowed his speech to degenerate into a personal attack on the Prime Minister. There are some serious points that the Minister needs to answer at the end of the debate, and I hope that we shall be able to tackle some of them.
The report tries to draw out some of those points. The Chairman of the Committee said that the Committee's work went beyond previous reports and looked into some wider issues, including next steps agencies and the fact that parliamentary questions are passed to the chief executives of agencies to answer. Those answers are often included in Hansard, where the full reply of the chief executive is printed, but in relation to the private finance initiative and public-private partnerships, answers are less forthcoming, particularly from chief executives of agencies. That also applies to devolved institutions, as well as to regional development agencies and similar bodies—but I shall not stray into that territory.
The Government must consider how they should provide the information that Members seek. As joined-up government begins to take effect and the Government's modernising agenda moves forward, there are instances of initiatives—sure start is one example—that are overseen by two different Ministers, and that will happen increasingly. One of the problems in tabling a parliamentary question is that one is often referred from one Department to another. The Government must come up with a way of dealing with such cross-departmental questions, rather than hon. Members having to table about 20 different questions, one to each Department, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has had to do. That is one way of doing it, but the Government could find a way of dealing with cross-departmental questions more effectively.
Some bodies, such as the performance and innovation unit and the office of public services reform, technically report to the Prime Minister but also come within the Cabinet Office. How should parliamentary questions about them be answered? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that question, because there is a real problem about whether one should ask the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Office about the operational effectiveness of those units.
Then there are regulators, whose role has an independent element. There is a real tension in trying to obtain information when the Government have one policy but the independent regulator takes a totally different view. How should one obtain information in those circumstances?
One of the most frustrating sorts of answer is when the Minister says that he will write to the Member, and a copy of the letter is placed in the Library. That is fine for the hon. Member concerned, but not for the rest of us. There should be a place in Hansard to print letters that are sent to the Library, so that the rest of us can see the answers. That issue needs to be taken forward.
The layout of questions and answers in Hansard could also be clearer. The Table Office has a role to play in reconciling information about questions, when they are replied to and the time taken to reply. The problems to
148WH
which the Chairman of the Committee referred would not arise if the Table Office provided the House with those statistics—perhaps quarterly.
The way in which we table questions is rather outdated, and the sooner we move to electronic tabling, the better. I, for one, am frustrated. When Ministers reply to hon. Members' questions and letters, they still send a hard copy by snail mail, rather than using e-mail. The sooner they take on board the need for change, the better. There are honourable exceptions, but they are still in the minority.
The most frustrating practice on which the Committee commented was that of giving partial answers. I was particularly interested in the evidence from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said that he had obtained through his Select Committee information that he had failed to obtain in answer to a parliamentary question. The Government should consider that. If information exists, it should be provided in answer to parliamentary questions. Several Select Committees use such questions to obtain answers for their inquiries, yet hon. Members must often use the Select Committees to obtain answers.
I was also interested in the evidence from the Minister responsible for small businesses, who referred to his experience with the
"very poor civil service drafting of answers. This did not really improve over the course of the year and I found that my private office and I still had a lot to do—mainly incorporating background information into the answer. Frankly the culture of hoarding information seems to be endemic".
That reflects the frustration expressed by the hon. Member for Christchurch. The hoarding of information is endemic, and a loosening of the reins would prevent a lot of frustration.
I was also interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), who was told by a Minister that information about particular funds was not available. When he approached the European Commission, it told him that the funds were available and asked why the Minister had not applied for them. When he asked the Minister why he was not applying for the funds, the Minister went ballistic, because he had not been given the information. There is an issue about Ministers being given the information to enable them to answer questions, just as there is an issue about Ministers giving partial answers.
Finally, the report contains some real pointers to the way forward. The Government have accepted some of its recommendations, but the real test will be whether they are implemented. We must regularly remind Ministers of the need to do that, and the key is to have the statistics available. If we have the statistics and build on the report, much of the frustration over parliamentary questions will be dissipated.
3.19 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) and his Committee. I am glad to see that several members of that Committee are present, because the House has set them an ongoing task.

149WH
The situation is deteriorating, as I have seen over 10 years, and from my previous experience. The way in which the civil service, and Ministers, have learned the lessons of the anecdote about Lloyd George is a great tribute to their ingenuity, but it has done nothing for open government.
Reference has already been made to Mr. Speaker's statement, so I shall not repeat it all. Clearly, its most important element was when he said:
"It is the duty of Ministers to act in the spirit of the resolution."
The spirit is important, as well as the letter.
Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman said that he felt that in his experience, the problem had become worse. I accept that he has much more experience in the House than I do, but I have with me the statistics for the percentage of questions blocked and so on. Does he have statistical evidence, as opposed to a feeling in his water, that the problem has worsened?
Mr. Tyler: I do not have statistical evidence with me, but I shall give a few examples of how I feel that the situation has deteriorated since 1992—not only since 1997, if that comforts the hon. Gentleman. The comparison between the situation when I returned to the House in 1992 and that in 1974—old history, I accept—is interesting, and does not do credit to the reputation of an impartial civil service.
I was about to quote Mr. Speaker's statement again. He said:
"when Ministers refuse to answer questions, they are expected to indicate in their reply why they have refused by reference to the Government's code".—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 971.]
That is clearly not the standard practice. Ministers will go all round the houses rather than admit why they have not given a straight answer to a straight question. The Committee's fourth report stated:
"The Committee and its predecessors have for several years monitored the performance of government departments in answering Parliamentary Questions. We regard openness and accuracy in answering Questions as a crucial element in ministerial accountability".
The Chairman of the Committee said something similar earlier. We all accept that written questions provide a key instrument of parliamentary scrutiny, one that it is the responsibility of every Member of the House to try to enforce and strengthen. We have precious few such weapons, and it is extremely important in holding the Executive to account.
Even in the weasel words of the Government's response to the report, there is the statement:
"The Government is committed to providing prompt and accurate answers to Parliamentary Questions. The normal procedure remains to answer Questions as soon as possible after they are tabled, and therefore in date order."
I emphasise that. The response continues:
"Inevitably, some questions cover similar ground. On occasion, it is more helpful to answer a later but more wide-ranging question and to refer an earlier question to that answer."
That rather begs the question, more helpful to whom? I will come to a specific example in which what happened was "more helpful" to the Government's party interest rather than to the institution of Parliament.
150WH
I want to deal with four specific categories of ways in which the Government seek to undermine the integrity of the questioning process. I also want to draw attention to two serious and recent examples of clear disregard for the recommendations of the Select Committee and the Government's response to it. The first relates to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for answer on 26 February. The Table Office changed the wording of the original question without warning his office, but as that is not normally the custom of the Table Office, it may have been an aberration. The question read:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government will make a decision on funding to fire authorities in England and Wales for the additional costs of emergency planning following the events of 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement." —[Official Report, 27 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 1370W.]
On the morning of 27 February—the day after an answer was expected the Department's press office put out its news release No. 2002/0072, headed, "Fire service to get £53 million in new funding", as an answer to a parliamentary question asked by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), a Government Back Bencher, rather than an answer to the Liberal Democrat who had asked the question. The question tabled by the hon. Member for South Ribble had not even appeared in the Order Book or in Hansard. It was a put-up job.
On the same day, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath received an answer to his parliamentary question, No. 37886, which was word for word the same as the press release answering the Labour Member's question. After my hon. Friend's office rang the Department's press office, a copy was faxed to it. That listed the Labour Member's parliamentary question as No. 39514—1,628 questions later than that of my hon. Friend. The obvious conclusion is that a convenient Back-Bench Government Member had been found to whom credit could be given for having asked the question.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I am sorry to distract my hon. Friend, but my mind is racing. I wonder who was responsible for the press release—it came from a Department that has had a few other problems with press releases.
Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend is becoming more cynical than me, even after my long period in the House. I would not like to speculate; clearly the people in the press office are an ingenious and inventive lot. The Order Book for Friday 1 March, which contained the written answers for Wednesday 27 February as the first of two parts, did not include that answer. The second part, which was published a week later, on 8 March, did give it—an intriguing coincidence, and in direct contravention of the advice given by the Committee and by the Speaker, and acknowledged by the Government.
Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman's real concern the fact that others are trying to claim credit for his party's ideas—a trick that the Liberal party uses up and down the country?
Mr. Tyler: That is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman, who is usually very fair. I hope that, as a member of the

151WH
Committee, he takes a dispassionate view of the problem. If he does not take that issue seriously, he should wait until I come to the others.
A second example concerns an attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) to put a question to Ministers. She tabled a question on 8 February, but it was effectively sabotaged, again by a Government Back Bencher, whose question was tabled four days later in much milder terms than the substantial and detailed answer would suggest. My hon. Friend asked the Deputy Prime Minister, first,
"when his Department expects to publish departmental targets for the appointment of women to public bodies for (a) 2001–4 and (b) 2002–5",
secondly,
"what percentage of those appointed to public bodies are women; and when will the next set of figures be released;"
and thirdly,
"what assessment his Department has made of progress by Departments towards their 1998 to 2001 targets for the appointment of women to public bodies."
One would think that those were fairly non-controversial questions. Why not a straight answer? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office replied:
"I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate)."
The hon. Member for Dartford had asked a completely different question, some days after my hon. Friend. He had asked the Deputy Prime Minister:
"when the Government will publish the next edition of "Public Bodies" and the annual publication setting out the targets for increasing diversity in public appointments; and if he will make a statement."—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 564–65W.]
In both cases, there was an attempt to set up a patsy planted question in order to avoid having to answer a substantial one, and a congenial Government Back Bencher asked a question that could be put to good use. Again, the Government made a specific announcement but refused to acknowledge who had asked the question.
The next way in which the Government play fast and loose with the questioning system is blocking. The experience of my colleagues in the Liberal Democrat shadow Treasury team has serious implications for everybody in this place. Having had a series of questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) regarding the euro unhelpfully answered by the Treasury, they pursued another route. On 20 October 2000 a member of staff sent a letter to the Treasury asking, under the code of conduct on access to public information, for:
"a list of any studies that they had commissioned or undertaken on the impact of the Euro on competition or trade in the United Kingdom or the Euro zone since May 1997",
On 6 March, after four months, the request was denied, with the Treasury citing various exemptions to the code. A complaint was sent to the Treasury and a reply was received after three months—we all know that the Department is terribly busy. Again, the request for the information was denied, but at that late stage, the Treasury recommended to the inquirer that any further complaint be directed to the parliamentary ombudsman.
152WH
The complaint was taken up, and after a lengthy investigation the parliamentary ombudsman concluded:
"While I criticised the Treasury for aspects of the way in which they handled Mr H's request for information … I saw no reason why the Treasury should not reveal that they have not commissioned any external studies on the impact of the Euro on competition and trade since the publication of the Currie report on July 1997. I regard the Treasury's willingness to agree to that recommendation as a satisfactory outcome to a partially justified complaint."
The implication is clear: an ordinary member of the public using the code can get some decent information out of the Treasury, while you and I, Mr. Olner, and other hon. Members, cannot get that information. That is outrageous, because we are the representatives of the public. We are being denied information that ordinary members of the public have a right to expect. I hope that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) will take that complaint seriously.
Even more illuminating, perhaps, are the revelations that followed a detailed request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell to the Treasury under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 for all information pertaining to him, such as mail, notes, internal letters, briefings, e-mails and so on. His request elicited some extraordinary facts about the workings of the Whitehall machine. Extracts from the documents supplied to my hon. Friend include examples of e-mails and internal memos between anonymous and supposedly impartial servants of Whitehall that speculate on the reasons for questions being asked, rather than providing the information requested.
One such communication says:
"Matthew Taylor is a tricky customer and he's not asking this just to help the government beat the opposition round the head."
That was written by a civil servant—not, I take it, a special adviser or a Minister. Another sentence runs:
"We do not know why Mr Taylor has asked this question."
Why should they speculate about that, when it is not the business of civil servants to do so?
There is then an exchange on a neat way in which to block a question. The civil servant writes:
"I have gone for a narrow and perdantic interpretation of Taylor's question, which makes the answer pretty short and easy."
I should say, in parenthesis, that that may have been written by a special adviser, because pedantic was spelled with an "r" after the "e", so I do not think that anyone who passed the civil service exams could have written it. Again, that is a deliberate attempt to set the Minister up to block a question. It is not even a political decision; the decision was made within the Department.
By this time, something about the process may have been getting to the individual concerned. I do not think that the following sort of comment, which shows evident annoyance at a line of questioning, should be permitted in a Government Department. The civil servant says:
"Tyler"
sorry, that was a Freudian slip. He says:
"Taylor is at it again, I'm afraid".
That is inappropriate comment from the civil servant, and it appears on the records of a Department of State in Whitehall.

153WH
Interestingly, as soon as The Sunday Times drew attention to the revelations about that extraordinary attitude, the Treasury advised other Departments to destroy such personal records and remove all comments forthwith. This is Enron time—"Let's put it all through the shredder," they said. That is not how we expect the British civil service to operate. Such an attempt to undermine the whole purpose of the data protection legislation is despicable. Even worse is the evidence that career civil servants are being subverted into the political mindset; that is damaging and dangerous, and all hon. Members should be worried on that score. They are servants not of Ministers or of the governing party but of the public. They belong to all of us, and we pay for them.
I have other examples of the ways in which the sort of advice that I have described has been taken.
Mr. Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues that should give us all cause for concern. I want to ensure that he does not unintentionally mislead the Committee by seeing shadows on the wall where they do not exist. Often, when a Minister is given a draft reply to peruse, the civil servant will properly give what he thinks is the reason behind the question, particularly if there has been a constituency tragedy, if it follows an earlier line of questioning from before the Minister was in post. That is a legitimate way for the civil service to behave.
Mr. Tyler: I entirely agree. However, I have a whole series of similar examples to those that I have cited, and they do not fall into the category that the hon. Gentleman rightly describes as proper briefing, which is done to ensure that Ministers give appropriate answers.
I shall move on to the next series of complaints—about delays—that some of my hon. Friends have been trying to get sorted out. On 14 February 2002 my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) tabled an early-day motion whose first line was:
"That this House notes that the length of time taken by Ministers in the Department of Health to answer parliamentary questions far exceeds the accepted convention of one week."
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase, the Chairman of the Select Committee, has already referred to what happened next. It was shown that since the 2001 general election as many as 1,000 unanswered parliamentary questions from the Department of Health were still hanging around.
On 20 February, the Department had the following statement printed in The Daily Telegraph:
"Department of Health ministers take very seriously their duty of accountability to Parliament in all its forms, including the prompt and helpful provision of replies to Members' questions; it is unfortunate that this commitment to quality can on occasion result in a reply taking longer than one would like."
That is an understatement.
On 5 March it came to light that a civil servant had been suspended after an inquiry had revealed that false information was being sent out by the Department of Health. The Secretary of State for Health said at the time that evidence had been found of what appeared to be the "systematic falsification" of the handling of
154WH
parliamentary questions. Why did it take so long to discover that?
It is extraordinary that the great Departments of State have no built-in mechanism to check that nothing had happened during those nine months. It reminds me of the rogue traders in the big banks, and the fact that it had not been spotted meant that nobody was in a position to monitor or undertake an internal audit. The Secretary of State for Health was quoted on the BBC as saying that the falsification that had taken place meant that officials and Ministers were wrongly led to believe that Members had received replies to their questions when they had not. There is a big question mark about the efficacy of the system. It needs to be examined carefully.
Others have referred to the fact that commercial confidentiality and disproportionate cost are often used as an excuse for not answering questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has been a dogged terrier in trying to establish precisely how and why those excuses are used. What is so extraordinary—he may want to comment on this if he catches your eye, Mr. Olner—is not only that those excuses are used increasingly frequently, but that Ministers do not always know how often they are used.
The proportion of questions blocked in 2000–01 outstripped even the number of secrets in the Tories' last year in power. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East implied, that might to some extent be the result of more arm's-length government—agencies, privatisations and all that nonsense. That raises other important questions, and I hope that the House will return to them, but it is an ironic twist that most Departments refuse to reveal how many questions they block on the ground of commercial confidentiality. What nonsense.
Although a manual search through Hansard to collect the data to make a graph took slightly over four hours, even with careful double-checking, many Departments claimed that to do the same would still incur "disproportionate cost". One wonders precisely who they are paying to do the job. Perhaps it is the Ministers themselves, because it works out at about £140 an hour. The Home Office was one of the few Departments to answer the question in full. Interestingly, from 1997 onwards there was a steady rise; it was not a dramatic number, but at least the Departments could quantify it.
The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions provided figures only for the period since the general election, despite the fact that the Department for Education and Skills, whose function also changed in part, seemed able to supply information going back to 1996. Only two Departments, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, responded to the recommendation of the Select Committee. The Committee stated:
"We recommend that when Departments are considering refusing to answer a question on grounds of 'disproportionate cost' there should be a presumption that any of the requested information which is readily available should be given."
That still does not seem to have sunk in.

155WH
Until we have effective freedom of information legislation, such an excuse is pathetic. I have some experience of this. I asked the then Minister of Agriculture in April 2000:
"what meetings have been held between United States Government officials and his Department in (a) the USA and (b) the UK in the last 12 months, indicating the dates and locations of the meetings and the subjects discussed."
He replied:
"There have been frequent meetings between United States Government officials and MAFF officials over the last 12 months covering a range of bilateral and multilateral issues. Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost." —[Official Report, 13 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 270W.]
The cost would not have been disproportionate because, with a little help from my American friends, all that information was available from the Department of Agriculture in Washington. Every single meeting, all those who had taken part and precisely what subjects had been discussed was available. Citizens of the United States have a right to information that is denied to us, despite the fact that the Government said that they would introduce effective freedom of information legislation. We await that with interest.
Other speakers have referred to the difficulty of finding an enforcement mechanism to ensure that recommendations from the Select Committee, Mr. Speaker and the code are adhered to. I do not know the answer, but we must seriously address the issue, and I hope that the Committee will take it up. It occurs to me that the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may provide one route, and that his office may act as the examining body, but either the Committee or the Speaker should take a more proactive role.
I believe that hon. Members throughout the House find the present situation unsatisfactory. Although we are grateful to the Select Committee for its regular reports, it will not be sufficient to report on abuses; we must deal with them. That means that we need an undertaking from the Chairman—I hope that he will take this seriously—that his investigations will range further, not only into what has gone wrong, but to see how things can be put right. In the meantime, the Minister must examine the reputation of his Government. I am sure that he is proud to be a member of a Government who set out to be a more open and transparent Administration than their predecessors, but on the basis of the evidence that we have heard this afternoon, he and his Government are failing abysmally.
3.42 pm
Kevin Brennan: I was interested in the anecdote with a Welsh theme told earlier by the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), about Lloyd George and the motor car. I have had a similar experience when making my nightly phone call to my eight-year-old daughter. I often make the mistake of asking her what she is doing, and she says, "I'm talking to you on the phone." That is another
156WH
example of a perfect answer, which, according to Lloyd George's dictum, is true, brief and tells one nothing that one does not already know.
Although hon. Members may have attempted to, I do not believe that anyone has made a political case in today's debate that it is the Government's active policy to be difficult about answering parliamentary questions. There are problems, which I shall come to, but a case has been made—not a new case—that there is a culture in public administration and the civil service in the UK, for whose work I have much admiration, especially having started to serve on the Select Committee, of withholding information. I would like that culture to be broken. Although it is important that we debate such matters—the Select Committee's work is important— that culture exists in public administration.
I do not think that there is a political case for saying that the Government are deliberately being more difficult than their predecessors about releasing information. On the contrary, an Act dealing with freedom of information has been passed, although it has not come into force. It may not go as far as some, including myself, would like, but it is nevertheless a major improvement on the situation that prevailed in the 1990s and 1980s. We should recognise that and give the Government credit.
We should, therefore, take a balanced approach and make fair criticisms. We all have to make our political points, but we must recognise that the Government have made efforts to be accountable. I realise that, as a new Member, I come to this issue with a less experienced eye than others, but I also come to it with a fresh eye. I like to think that I am a free-range style of politician, rather than a battery-farmed one. I like to ask my own questions, not planted ones. I am prepared to hold the Executive to account and to ask difficult questions, even though I am a Government Back Bencher.
I am, however, also prepared to be realistic, and I see that Ministers must be allowed to do their jobs. When I read the Order Paper, I am sometimes reminded of the saying "The greatest fool can ask more questions than the wisest man can answer"—unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, I am not referring to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). When I look through the Order Paper, it sometimes occurs to me that Departments must devote huge amounts of time and resources to answering questions. Some Departments are asked hundreds of questions, and Ministers give answers. It is obvious that civil servants draft them and that Ministers go through them. Some Ministers, however, have hundreds of the things in their boxes and must read them before they can be published. We must accept that some of the rates that have been quoted for blocked questions are too high, as the Committee noted. That needs to be studied. In none of the Departments that are listed in the information available to me, however, does more than a couple of percentage points of questions fall into that category. I accept that there are other ways of blocking questions, although there is, of course, impartial information, too. There is, however, no evidence of a political culture of deliberately blocking answers.
Mr. Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that on 18 March, the Prime Minister refused to answer a basic

157WH
question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who asked
"to whom complaints about breaches of the Ministerial Code should be made"?—[Official Report, 18 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 2W.]
Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as a deliberate refusal and as blocking, or did the Prime Minister have some other motive?
Kevin Brennan: My first reaction is that I am surprised that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) bothered to ask such a question. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister is responsible for the ministerial code of conduct. I should have thought that that was obvious, but I may be wrong about that.
Mr. Chope: To put it on the record, I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in assuming, as I did, that the Prime Minister is prepared to take responsibility for other Ministers' breaches of the ministerial code.
Kevin Brennan: In fairness, I said nothing about him being prepared to take responsibility; I said that, in my view, he was responsible for the code, as things stand. No doubt we can return to that.
Tony Wright: I intervene only because I regret the partisan way in which the debate is developing. This Government and this Prime Minister have been the first to accept the recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that we change the wording of the ministerial code to make it clear that the buck stops with the Prime Minister. The issue is quite straightforward.
Kevin Brennan: As always. I am grateful to my vastly experienced and very able colleague who chairs the Public Administration Committee for having made that absolutely clear.
To an extent, hon. Members sometimes abuse the privilege of asking parliamentary questions. If we received some of those questions from constituents, we might categorise them as vexatious complainants. It is the legitimate role of parliamentarians to scrutinise the work of the Government, and that of Opposition parties to find out what Government policy is about, to hold the Government to account, to probe them and to get to the truth.
Perhaps some hon. Members suffer a little from league table-it is—it is a problem throughout public administration. Because people's voting records and the number of questions that they ask are published in newspapers, hon. Members are sometimes criticised because they have not asked 250 questions. They might have asked two brilliant and important ones, but league table-itis comes into play and they are criticised in their local press. I have seen evidence of that syndrome influencing the behaviour of parliamentarians. I do not have the statistics here, but I should be interested to see whether the number of questions that have been asked in the last 30 years has grown.
However, there are justified criticisms—some of which have been made today—about the way in which Departments handle and answer questions. The Committee, before I joined it, raised many such matters
158WH
and received responses from the Government. The occasions that worry me are those on which the Government do not follow the course that they have agreed. For example, with regard to the code of practice on access to Government information, they have agreed that when they answer questions and refuse to give information, they should refer to the part of the code that is relevant to that refusal. I am concerned that there are occasions on which the Government give the reason of disproportionate cost but do not make available such information as can be supplied without incurring disproportionate costs. The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) that information given in response to a parliamentary question should not just be placed in the Library but should be published in Hansard is a good and helpful one.
I am also concerned about the fact that there have been difficulties in the Department of Health. However, rather than emphasise, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) did, that it took time for the problem to be discovered, it would be fairer to give credit to the Government for the fact that it was discovered and that steps have been taken to put it right. It is symptomatic of the pressure on civil servants as a result of parliamentary questions that they should have given their boss false statistics showing that questions had been answered within the time limits. We must look realistically at civil servants' work loads and not merely try to score political points against the Government on account of such problems. It was an administration failure, not a political conspiracy. That is the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence.
Just to demonstrate that I am a free-range, not battery-farmed, politician, on my way to the debate I picked up an envelope from the Letter Board in the Members' Lobby. I do not know what it contains, but it says on the outside "Immediate, by hand, parliamentary questions". With your permission, Mr. Olner, I shall open it and we shall find out at random whether the Government are answering questions effectively.
I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what
"steps she is taking to promote knowledge transfer between the university sector and British industry".
She has answered:
"The Government's two White Papers, 'Excellence and Opportunity', published in July 2000, and 'Opportunity for All', published in February 2001, set out our science and innovation policy for the 21st century, and include a comprehensive range of measures to help promote knowledge transfer between the university sector and British Industry. We are making excellent progress.
We are considering, as part of the Government's spending review, how to further develop these initiatives to build on universities' potential as drivers of growth in the knowledge economy."
That might be parliamentary scrutiny at its best.
Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman share with us when he tabled that question, the date that it was intended to be answered and whether it was answered on time?
Kevin Brennan: I can. I will confess that it is a slight cheat, in that it was an oral question that I tabled for

159WH
answer today, and that is the written response. I did not know what was in the envelope before I opened it, and I am satisfied with the answer that I was given.
3.55 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I want to speak briefly, as there is a danger of the debate becoming a catalogue of misdeeds that loses sight of the overall picture.
Since I came to the House a short time ago, I have found the process of written questions to be an elaborate game. We are limited to considering the quality of the answers today, but the process is important, As a new Member, I found it daunting when I entered the Table Office to see my questions all changed in pencil. I have been a teacher for more than 20 years, and did not like that much. On one occasion, I asked why the staff did not use a red pen, and even that joke did not strike home.
If a Member is reasonably intelligent, he knows what questions he wants to ask and the overall rules about what can and cannot be done. I do not see why it is necessary to interfere with one's language, if one wants to ask a straightforward question. Clearly the questions fall into different categories. I am not sure whether there has been any analysis of those categories, but that would be interesting. In my first few months, I asked questions in total innocence, simply to obtain information for constituents who had come to my surgeries.
For example, we are trying to site a children's hospice in Poole, so an early question of mine simply asked the Secretary of State for Health
"what Government funding is available nationally for (a) hospices and (b) children's hospices."—[Official Report, 11 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 818W.]
I tabled it on 10 July, but it was not answered until 11 March. That is especially tragic, given that there was no guile behind the question. The charity on behalf of which I asked that serious question was still looking for the answer.
I want to reflect on the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), which was that there should be a built-in mechanism. It seems incredible that a question could get lost for that length of time. It was not entirely lost, because I was concerned about the problem and made queries about it, even though I had no staff. I was told to ring the Department of Health, which I dutifully did in October or November. I have a feeling that that might have produced a holding reply, but I have not tracked it as efficiently as I might have done. However, the question is not a one-off case. There will always be instances like it, but there were rather a lot of them, and there was nothing devious in my questioning.
I return to the point that one must understand the rules of the game. The question was changed, although it was straightforward, but we do not always get the answers that we want, even when we receive them on time, and then we are led to table further questions. A mountain of questions builds up simply because we are not given the answers that we want in the first place. The number of questions must create an enormous burden. It is difficult to see the purpose of some of them,
160WH
although some of them may be really clever. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) obviously has his own purposes for asking his questions. and I would probably not immediately recognise his overall objective.
Norman Baker: For the record, I do not think that I have asked the most questions; that is the achievement of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
Mrs. Brooke: I think that we have that fact about the hon. Member for Buckingham on record now.
I was referring more to the category of questions and the game playing that they involve. Perhaps the Select Committee could examine the pattern of questioning—retrospectively, as I should not like to embarrass hon. Members—and do some casework questions on an individual basis to ascertain their purpose, if hon. Members would consent to be honest about that. Given that hon. Members are calling for Ministers to be open, one might appeal for a similar openness from them during a study on questions. It is too airy-fairy simply to choose examples from here, there and everywhere: we need to examine the systematic reasoning behind the questions and to exert some control on the overall level of questions.
Tony Wright: I am slightly alarmed by the hon. Lady's proposal to demand of the hon. Member for Buckingham, for example, why he is moved to ask the questions that he asks and in such numbers. She is recommending an inquiry that we are not equipped to handle. In fact, I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would come this afternoon and assist us with our inquiries, but I suspect that he is detained in the Table Office.
Mrs. Brooke: I was thinking of sampling questions some time after they had been asked and making some inquiries. I suppose that, statistically, we would be bound to pick out a question asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham in that process. People would choose to give the answers that they wanted, but we could simply pull out the straightforward constituents' questions, because all hon. Members would own up to and identify them. Even by default and by occasional sampling, we could extract some interesting information. We might make some progress if we had more information.
I once tried to get an answer from the Prime Minister, and did not do terribly well. That was a bit unfortunate, because I was mindful of the rules of the Select Committee. I wanted to ask a question that had arisen from the evidence that we were examining and, because I did not want to break any rules, I phrased the question carefully. When I received a nonsense answer back, I decided that it would not do and wrote a letter, the answer to which took a further three months and was still no real answer to the question. That is a frustrating situation, but one does not always have time to follow such things through.
Another example of the same problem, which in retrospect is amusing, relates to the massive redundancies at Marconi that occurred shortly after I became an MP. As one would expect, I tabled a lot of

161WH
questions and received a draft answer from the local officials. I did not know how these things worked at the time, but I can tell hon. Members that I have never had an answer through the parliamentary system. I shall not waste civil servants' time by chasing it up now, however. That is another example of how we might decide not to bother with something because we are sensible enough to realise that time has moved on. However, it suggests that quite a few errors are made around this place.
I welcome everything that was said in the report and the Government response, which was very robust. The words were fine, as were all the promises, but I do not think that we would be making all the statements that hon. Members are making today if those promises were being enacted. In this great game, I am coming round to the suggestion that we need an enforcer of the rules. I do not envisage anything draconian, but we are all playing the game and the rules seem to have changed. The unwritten rules and what is happening now are not satisfactory to everyone. I hope that we can move forward and make the right noises. We need an enforcer and we must return to the beginning and examine the whole process of tabling questions, including the way in which they may be phrased, how they are submitted and the responsibility on Members' not to waste public money, which is important.
4.5 pm
Mr. John Lyons: I thank the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), for introducing the debate. It is important to discuss the matter and to make progress. Central to parliamentary democracy is open government, accountability and general openness between Ministers and Members of Parliament. We have heard a number of contributions about the ministerial code. All related to important issues that are central to the debate and that underpin our democracy. However, we must maintain a balance and ensure that we have proper discussion as we make progress. It is infantile to use this issue to attack the Prime Minister and other Ministers. That does not take us forward.
My hon. Friend described the background from the mid-1990s to the resolution in the House in 1996, the development of the ministerial code, the annual report on questions and accountability and the Government's response in December 2000, which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) described as robust. I shall not go as far as that. It is a good and promising response, but it does not go far enough. It is not clear enough or firm enough. I shall give some examples. The response refers to a recommendation to Departments when they are
"considering refusing to answer a question on the grounds of `disproportionate cost'".
We should not be recommending anything; we should be instructing them on what should be done. Similarly, when information is deposited in the Library in response to a parliamentary question it is recommended that
"a copy of it should always be supplied to the Member."
That should not be a recommendation; there should be a clear instruction that that should happen. That lays the basis for much of what we want to do.
162WH
The document concludes:
"We hope that following the intervention of the Cabinet Secretary and the Minister there will be improvements in departmental responses."
We should ensure that civil servants are instructed to abide by all the recommendations. There should be no question of picking and choosing and only a clear, across-the-board instruction will suffice. That would make a qualitative difference. There have been failures and difficulties and we must insist that they are rectified at the earliest opportunity so that in the coming months we can say with satisfaction, "The debate has brought about certain changes and the improvements that we all wanted." We can still do that.
The NHS and Ministers' response to questions about Departments were mentioned. Clearly, there was falsification in the Department of Health with regard to the answering of parliamentary questions. That sometimes happens. In a written answer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health stated:
"Ministers and officials within the Department are fully committed to supporting the system of accountability to Parliament which underpins our democracy. We aim to provide timely and accurate responses to parliamentary questions. There has been a serious failure in honouring that commitment which I deeply regret."—[Official Report, 5 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 192W.]
It is good that the problem has been recorded, but we need to ensure that it does not reoccur in the Department of Health, and that it certainly does not surface in any other Department. A checking system should ensure that answers are dealt with properly and that Members of Parliament feel satisfied and comfortable.
The 144 questions that were tabled by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and answered in a particular period were referred to earlier. We also heard that, from June 2001, 2,619 questions were asked at a cost of £316,000. Some will say that that is good because it shows seriousness and assiduity, but my view is that such questioning undermines the system. The system is being treated with contempt because there is clearly no need for that amount of questioning of any Minister or Department. We were told that those questions were about trying to develop a critique of Government spending, but can one not wait until Budget day to hear the economic analysis instead of asking about créches and damage to property in Departments? Such questions are nonsense and undermine the system and all who want a scheme that will secure proper answers for us at the end of the day.
Mr. Greg Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, in discharging our duties as Members of Parliament, we have to make a subjective judgment about how we best do our job? I am rather alarmed by the line that his argument is taking. Does he feel that there should be a statutory limit on the number of questions that an Opposition Member is allowed to ask?
Mr. Lyons: I am not making that point—there should be no restriction—and I am certainly not making my point with reference to the Opposition. Every Member of Parliament should work on the basis that the system would break down if we were all to repeat that level of questioning. It would be nonsense if we were all to do

163WH
that. We want the system to work effectively, we want people to give proper answers and we want the answers to be given in a proper time scale. As I have said, however, if every single Member were to work in that way, the system would collapse. That would undermine our fight and the arguments for improving it. We want to make it more effective, so that we have greater confidence in it.
There are, will be, and have been circumstances in which the argument about commercial confidentiality can be used, but it can be used only for a certain time. It has a sell-by date and it cannot last for ever. On private prisons, for instance, many people are hiding behind the issue of the cost of not only building such prisons, but maintaining them. That is unfair and we need to challenge such an approach because it does not provide a genuine reason for withholding information.
There are clearly serial questioners and in some cases there is almost the stalking of Ministers, and that is all about trying to score points. As I have said, the argument is not about how we can attack the Prime Minister. If that alone would improve the system, I would be happy to use that argument seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That, however, is not the answer. The answer is that, when we receive a response from the Government, even if we feel that it has not gone far enough, we should use it as a foundation from which to build. If we do that, we will start to have genuine and real improvements with which we will feel comfortable.
4.13 pm
Norman Baker: I apologise for being slightly late because I was covering the hunting statement in the House for my colleagues. I also apologise to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) for missing some of his contribution. I am pleased that he is Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, because he seems to be a principled, committed democrat who is doing a good job. I am sorry if those comments are unhelpful to him.
We have heard the powerful argument that the system is not working as well as it might do. We have heard it from my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and from Labour Back Benchers, who all outlined in their own inimitable ways different faults with the system as it is presently constituted. I hope that the Government will take the comments that have been made hitherto, and indeed my comments, in a spirit of constructive criticism and not see them as the blunderbuss approach that is very easy to adopt if one chooses to do so.
My starting point is about securing the accountability of Parliament and Ministers, irrespective of the Government in charge. I would make the same point were a Conservative Government in power; indeed, I hope that I would make the same points if we had a Liberal Democrat Government. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are welcome to remember that. In due course—soon, I hope—they will have a chance to see whether that is the case. I suspect that I will still be on the Back Benches, as I am now.
It is important for democracy that the Executive are held to account. None of us must lose sight of that, particularly Ministers because it is easy for them to do
164WH
so. They are busy people; they have a manifesto that they want to fulfil; they have commitments that they hold to dearly; they want to make the country a better place; and they want to use politics to achieve that aim. The last thing that they want is the nuisance, as they see it, of Back Benchers from their own or other parties asking impertinent questions that slow them down and divert them from what they want to do. However, questions and holding Ministers to account are key parts of our role in this place. We must have an opportunity to drag out the information from the Government that they do not want to disclose.
Of course, all Governments in all countries want to hide information. That is the way that the system works, but it works properly only if those who are not part of the Government can elicit information. The question is not whether the Government are behaving properly but whether the system enables others to hold them to account properly.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I agree totally with the hon. Gentleman, but he needs to go further. If Members ask a question but do not get an answer, we have no recourse to anyone. Does he agree that perhaps we need a more stringent way of holding civil servants to account?
Norman Baker: I agree that we need a method of getting the answers to which we are entitled. That is the crucial point of the debate. I hope that the Public Administration Committee will consider the matter.
The Procedure Committee has considered the practicalities of tabling questions—recently, I gave evidence to it, as have other hon. Members—and it is producing a helpful report. Clearly, procedures could be improved; for example, by the electronic tabling of questions. Oral questions are tabled so far in advance that, when they are asked, they may be out of date. One need only look down the list of Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions. They bear no relation to international events of the previous seven days so, to the outside world, they seem completely mad. At the most recent Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions—for the first time for a long time—the questions were topical, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
Another issue is whether we should be able to hold the Government to account through questions during the recess. Some Ministers may groan; that would mean having more and more questions at a time when they want to be on holiday. If something happens in the outside world when the House is sitting, we can have a statement from the Minister at 3.30 pm and within hours of the event. However, if something happens on 1 August, we have to wait until 15 October, or whenever, to raise the issue in any way other than by letter to a Minister. That is completely absurd. We need to deal with lack of accountability through the summer recess, in particular. I welcome the proposals from the Leader of the House, which will go some way to dealing with that by changing the recess dates. That will not entirely deal with the matter, but it will help.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) made a point about information that is now outside direct Government control. We must deal

165WH
with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who regularly asks questions about the London underground as part of his duties, gets far more detailed answers about that aspect of public transport than about Connex South Eastern or one of the privatised companies. We are told that certain questions are a matter for them, as they are private companies. Nevertheless, the public at large regard them as public services. The public make no distinction between underground and overground lines. They want to know—and should be able to find out—what is going on. We need to find a way of getting information about the privatised industries that people regard as public services into Hansard, the House of Commons Library and the public domain generally in a more effective way.
The most difficult and potentially most political issue—I hope that the Minister accepts that I am not trying to make a political point—is the quality of the answers that come back. That concerns me most. It applies not only to this Government, but to previous ones, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) pointed out.
When I was a researcher in this place in the late 1980s, I saw a question from a Labour Member to the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher. She was obviously annoying the Member by using the excuse of disproportionate cost to avoid answering questions, so the Member tabled a question that asked on how many occasions in the past 12 months the Prime Minister had replied that a question could be answered only at disproportionate cost. The answer that was returned stated that that could be answered only at disproportionate cost—if one looks hard enough, one can find irony and humour in No. 10. Thus, the blocking of questions and the giving of deliberately evasive answers has not occurred just under this Government.
The openness of Departments varies. Some Ministers are good and straight at answering questions. For instance, I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary who has always been—in his present capacity and in his previous capacity as Home Secretary—absolutely straight. If hon. Members ask him a question, they get an answer, no matter how inconvenient it might be. That is the way it should be. I know that he puts particular stress on that. The same cannot be said of other Ministers, and I do not know whether that is their fault or because of the civil servants or the culture in the Department—I do not know enough about Departments' inner workings. However, there is a discrepancy between Departments on how questions are answered.
I have become known—erroneously—for tabling the greatest number of questions, but that honour belongs to others. If hon. Members set out, with a league table in mind, to ask a certain number of questions, they are mad. That would be completely pointless. Is tabling more questions than anyone else the best thing that a Member can do? I do not believe that a single Member has that intention, and I certainly do not. I have no idea how many questions I have tabled in the past, or during the last Session—it does not bother me.
I should add that there is no advantage to be had from being top of the table because someone in No. 10 or elsewhere simply talks to a friendly journalist and says, "How about running a story saying that this MP is costing us lots of money?" I know from journalists that that has happened, so there is no point the Minister
166WH
denying it should he subsequently try to do so. It is not my intention to be at the top of the table; I shall leave that to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
Much has been said about the hon. Member for Buckingham, but he is not here. In his defence, I shall say that he is entitled to pursue his parliamentary objectives in the same way as any other Member. He is entitled to interpret the mandate from his electorate in the manner in which he sees fit. Hon. Members are held to account by the media, which scrutinise this place, by their colleagues, who are aware of their activities, and—most of all—by their electorate. If the electorate conclude that Members have misused this place, Members will pay for it at the ballot box.
Kevin Brennan: I do not think that anyone argues for a limit on the number of questions that Members can ask. However, is it not right and reasonable to draw attention to the fact that, had all Back Benchers followed the precedent set by, for example, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the cost, according to official calculations, would have been £120 million over the past few years?
Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman may draw that point to the public's attention in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Buckingham, others hon. Members and I shall defend ourselves robustly, and say why questions have been tabled.
I am always slightly suspicious about figures for the cost of questions. I am not aware that civil servants have been taken on to answer questions, or that any would have been sacked had not so many questions been asked. Questions may have redistributed civil servants' time from the Executive to Parliament, which might be a good thing. They may also bring out information that the Government do not want brought out, which could also be a good thing.
The alleged cost of questions varies each time the issue is raised. It is never the same from one debate to the next, and goes up and down like a yo-yo, so the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) is not entirely realistic. The Procedure Committee has considered the issue of the number of questions—it was discussed during the sitting in which I gave evidence. Someone may have suggested limiting the number of questions.
I would be prepared to accept something along the lines suggested if—a very big "if"—alternative mechanisms were in place to allow hon. Members to hold the Government to account properly. The reason why some of us spend time tabling parliamentary questions is not for the love of it, or that they are the best weapon that we can find, but they are one of the few weapons that we have in the House to hold the Executive to account. That is why parliamentary questions are so important and why we are discussing them this afternoon. It is also, no doubt, why the Public Administration Committee has examined the matter. Questions are one of the few weapons that we have.
We do not have the freedom of information culture that other countries have. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall referred to an incident relating to agriculture, and how open the United States is compared with the United Kingdom. I am always

167WH
hearing from Ministers—and, indeed, Conservative Members—how we should look to the US for good examples of policing and so forth. Let us follow this example as well, and have US-style freedom of information in the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the Government for the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but it does not go far enough and the exemptions are drawn too widely. It remains to be seen how the Act will be interpreted in due course.
If we place restrictions on parliamentary questions, we must have alternative means in place. That means strengthening freedom of information above all else. We must have a different culture that encourages citizens to embrace freedom of information and data protection. We must also give more powers to Select Committees to strengthen their role. The Prime Minister should make a statement in Parliament once a year that is open to question about his activities. A range of things could be done to improve accountability in the House.
Extra accountability would not simply benefit the Opposition and Labour Back Benchers, but the Government themselves. The Government might benefit even if information came out that they did not want to release. For example, I asked a range of parliamentary questions about the dome to the then Minister without Portfolio among others. The answers were characterised by a lack of information. Information was deliberately not supplied, which was irregular and improper. Moreover, had the information to the questions that I asked back in 1997 and 1998 been supplied, someone in the Government might have noticed that the dome was going to be a bit of a fiasco. They might have pulled the plug before the whole thing went pear-shaped—to mix my metaphors wildly.
Mr. Tyler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Ministers should be the first to read answers on some occasions. Otherwise, if the question is not put squarely and is not properly answered, the relevant information is not available to them. Does that not answer the point made by those who worry about the cost of questions? If Ministers knew precisely what was going on, the amount that could be saved through good government would far exceed the most extravagant estimate of the cost of answering questions.
Norman Baker: My hon. Friend is right. If one multiplies the number of question asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham by 100, the cost of questions would still be dwarfed by the cost of the dome, which cost £832 million. If some of my questions about the dome had been answered, I might have saved public money. It was a fiasco that could have been avoided.
Cover-up is not good for government. It does not help. People such as me perform a public service and help the Government every day of the week by asking questions to elicit information that could help them. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said, the civil service does not give Ministers the information that they should he given.
Back Benchers and other hon. Members are not unreasonable about parliamentary questions. On one occasion in the past couple of weeks, the Home Office
168WH
telephoned me to ask me to withdraw a question—for good reasons that would be improper to go into. It was helpful to the Government pursuant to their duties for that question not to be asked or answered. The situation was explained to me, and I was happy not to pursue the question. Members of Parliament are reasonable if we are given reasons for particular behaviour.
Mr. Greg Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the correct way for a Minister to proceed? Instead of asking the Member privately to withdraw the question, perhaps under the Chatham house rule, sometimes the question is either blocked or a non-answer is given. The example that he just quoted should be best practice.
Norman Baker: I agree, and I again note the difference between Departments. The Home Office has always been pretty straight with me on its parliamentary answers, which not only is proper, but commands respect from Members of Parliament. We are much more willing to co-operate with Departments when we are treated properly. The converse is when some Departments and Ministers treat us like rubbish, which does not encourage us to do anything but pursue those Departments more actively. I do not want to make a party political point, but I am sorry to say that the answers from the Prime Minister are thinner and more evasive than they tend to be from most Ministers. I am sorry about that, and I wish that he would examine his answers and realise that being more open is more helpful all round.
The Prime Minister has a culture of using people outside the ministerial circle for key activities. For example, he has Lord Levy acting as a duplicate Foreign Secretary. That is the Prime Minister's choice, and no one will deny that, if he wants to appoint Lord Levy to roam around the world, it is a matter for him. However, as far as I am aware, Lord Levy has never spoken in the House of Lords on foreign affairs, and whenever anyone asks the Prime Minister about him, we are met with a portcullis coming down and an absolute refusal to answer questions. What is this guy doing? He may be doing a valuable job and complementing the Foreign Secretary's work perfectly, but I do not know because we are not told. Why are we not told? How can the Prime Minister appoint someone to a key position and then, effectively, refuse to answer questions about him? That is not right.
There is also the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, who, the last time I checked, was on more Cabinet Committees than any other Minister. Again, that is fine. He may be a very intelligent and useful person, and I believe that he is more committed than many Ministers to subjects such as freedom of information. However, it is difficult to find out what he does. He is a key figure in Government, so why can we not know what he does?
The Minister will no doubt groan or smirk if I mention Lord Birt, but this is a serious point. The Prime Minister has appointed someone as transport supremo, but no one is entirely clear about his job. Not even the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, under the redoubtable chairmanship of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), can find out.

169WH
I will not bore the Minister by reading out a huge list of questions of which he is well aware, but I remind him that on 22 January, I tabled several questions to elicit information on the nature of Lord Birt's activities. I did not question the nature of his advice, as I am happy to accept that that is private and up to the individual, but asked basic questions such as how many times he has met Ministers, how many hours a week he works, what he has claimed in out-of-pocket expenses, to whom he reports and for what period he has been appointed to form a strategy unit. Those are not intrusive questions to reveal confidentialities that will rock the Government, but run-of-the-mill stuff. Apart from telling me the last time that Lord Birt travelled by train, which was the answer to one of about 10 questions, we were told nothing. The only thing we know is that he is involved in blue-skies thinking, whatever that may be. We also had an Adjournment debate on the subject, to which the Minister replied. I repeated the questions on that occasion, and, as Hansard shows, the questions were not answered then either.
The Minister may think that I am wasting Government time talking about Lord Birt. He may think that that is not relevant, but it is my right as a Member of Parliament to hold the Government to account in the way that I believe is most appropriate. I will hang or fall by that. It is the Minister's job to answer questions, not to decide that he can avoid answering them, which is what has happened in this case. Clearly, given the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall and the hon. Member for Christchurch, it has happened on other occasions.
It is proper, necessary and just that Members' questions are answered. If Members are treated with respect, they will not abuse the system. However, failing to answer questions elicits further questions. Those who failed to answer questions in the first place, or who failed to put into the public domain information that should be there, are therefore responsible for the plethora of questions tabled, not the Members who are doing their job and trying to hold the Government to account.
I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to a point that several hon. Members raised today. There is a need for an independent right of appeal, or other mechanism, to elicit an answer from a Minister who has not answered the question and who cannot provide a reasonable excuse, or reason—the word "excuse" is pejorative—under the ministerial code of conduct. Under those circumstances, Ministers should be obliged to answer questions. I do not know exactly how that can be done but, when I intervened on the hon. Member for Christchurch, I suggested that, in extreme circumstances, the Minister should be brought to the House and made to answer the question orally.
There may be less dramatic methods of achieving the same end, but we cannot have a situation in the House where Ministers feel, as one or two of them do, that they do not have to answer questions and that no sanction will be applied against them if they do not. We are in that situation today. The only avenue that works is the code of conduct, but that might mean a four-month delay followed by another three-month delay, with the result that we receive information a year later. That is completely unacceptable. Mr. Speaker issued guidance that could not be clearer, but it will work only if there is
170WH
good will on all sides. I am sorry to say that it will not work if there is a determination to block a question or an answer.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that there needs to be a mechanism for ensuring that answers are given to questions that are properly asked and when there is no reason not to answer them. If he does not do so, I hope that the Public Administration Committee will take it upon itself to find such a mechanism.
4.37 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: First, I pay tribute to the Select Committee for all its hard work and effort in producing the report. Unfortunately, most Select Committee work is unglamorous and unreported. However, it is essential to the parliamentary process of scrutiny. On behalf of the Opposition, I want to place on record our thanks to all Members of all parties who serve on that Committee.
Most of the contributions today contained an anecdote, so perhaps mine should not be an exception. There is a story, which may be apocryphal, of an elderly Conservative knight of the shires who sought re-election that may have been one election too many. He had to face a public meeting, in which he realised that things were not going his way. In an attempt to impress the audience, he said, "I will have you know that on your behalf I have asked no fewer than 150 parliamentary questions in the last year," to which a voice from the back of the hall shouted, "Ignorant bastard," at which point he felt that he had started to lose his audience's attention.
We should accept that there will always be some dissatisfaction with ministerial replies. The motive behind most questions is not merely a quest for information, but an attempt to influence the direction of policy or an endeavour to embarrass a Minister where a policy is perceived to have failed. If it is an attempt to influence a Minister, most Ministers are not for budging, or at least not until their civil servants suggest it. Their answer therefore tends to pour cold water on the questioner's idea, even if they later adopt it. If it is an endeavour to embarrass a Minister, the knee-jerk protectiveness of the Department will usually seek to ensure that the parliamentary reply reveals as little as possible. Even if the question is straightforward and merely seeks to elicit information, some Ministers will still issue an obtuse reply, which is to be regretted.
I accept, in all fairness, that that practice is not confined to the present Administration. Some years ago, when Tim Renton—now Lord Renton of Mount Harry—was the Minister for the Civil Service under the Conservative Government, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked
"how many civil servants in employment at the latest date are (a) men or (b) women."
The Minister replied:
"All of them."—[Official Report, 3 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 20.]
It was an amusing riposte, but it was not an answer. I am with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Since then, things have got worse, not better.
I accept that the general guidance issued to civil servants about the answering of parliamentary questions stresses that Departments should be as open

171WH
as possible. However, that guidance is not entirely unequivocal because it says that any information given should be as concise as possible. Civil servants still make presumptions about the content of a ministerial answer, which is that the Minister wishes to, and should, reveal as little as possible.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan)—he is not here at the moment—got right to the nub of the problem. Despite the current codes and the published guidance, there is still alive and well in Whitehall a culture of secrecy. That is the main problem. I am not a recent convert to openness. When I was a Minister before the 1997 general election, I frequently altered the terse draft replies that were placed in my red box for me to approve. I redrafted them regularly to give as much information as I felt was necessary to answer the question properly. I am more than disappointed to say that such practice does not seem to have caught on.
In my early days as a Minister, I was taken aback by the civil service approach. When I altered the first draft answer, someone in my private office said, "Minister, surely you do not want to give that reply. He is a member of the Opposition." The civil servants were not being malevolent. I do not think that they were members of the Conservative party being party political. They see what happens in the parliamentary arena, when Ministers are often put on the rack for some temporary policy difficulty, and they think that they are being helpful. They were surprised that I believed that we must fully answer the question, irrespective of whether the person who asked it was a Conservative, a Liberal Democrat or a member of the Labour party.
Mr. Tyler: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that, in its present format, an unanswered oral question—which becomes a written question—gives not only the name of the Member of Parliament and his or her constituency, but his or her party? That is a new development and relates precisely to his point.
Mr. Knight: I confirm that that is a new development. It never happened during 1996–97 or previously. I am forced to ask why it is felt necessary to give an hon. Member's party.
I have first-hand experience of civil servants in the Department realising that 1 wanted to be more open than perhaps they had assumed and then drafting what I regarded as better answers. My argument is that the Minister must take the lead to make that happen, a point made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) when he was complimentary about how the Foreign Secretary was prepared to be more open than some other Ministers.
My argument is supported in the report of the Select Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) made a similar point. The hon. Member for The Wrekin told the Committee that he thought that there was a
"prevailing culture within many sectors of the civil service which leads them routinely to withhold information".
I fully endorse that argument. That is what is happening and what is wrong with the system. All of the report makes interesting reading, but some of it is damning in its assessment of what the Government are doing.
172WH
The response tabled by the Government is not entirely satisfactory, so I have a number of questions for the Minister. On page vi, paragraph d, the Committee says that it deplores
"the practice of leaving a question unanswered"
until another comes along, whereupon the latter is answered and the original questioner is referred to that. The hon. Member for North Cornwall was spot on about that. We know what goes on. The Minister answers a later, more helpful, planted question and the less helpful interrogatory question is ignored, with that Member being referred to the subsequent answer. I hope that the Government will think again on the matter. I am trying my best not to make a party political critique of what is wrong with the system. Certainly, I cannot remember doing that. The first question tabled is the one that should receive the substantive answer, and the later question may refer back to that answer. Will the Minister agree to reconsider the Government's response, although perhaps not today?
Paragraph e on pages vi and vii is a slightly more welcome response, but again it is not entirely satisfactory. There is an element of trying to fob us off with the comment that
"Ministers are accountable to Parliament".
We know that in reality there is no effective parliamentary or ministerial mechanism to review and adjudicate on inadequate or derisory answers. Ministers are not being judged on their performance in that regard. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) made a valid point on that matter, and I agree with her. I also agree with what the hon. Member for North Cornwall had to say. We need a better and more immediate way of bringing Ministers to book.
The Public Administration Committee works well, but by their very nature a Committee's deliberations take time. I thought before the debate, and am now more convinced than ever, that there is a case for having a scrutineer of parliamentary replies who monitors Ministers' adherence to the ministerial code. Ignoring the advice of that person would amount to a ministerial disciplinary offence. Perhaps the Cabinet Secretary should take a more proactive role, or perhaps we need a ministerial code tsar to take over that responsibility. The issue needs to be examined, and I hope that in its future deliberations the Committee will reflect on that matter.
Tony Wright: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says; it echoes what other hon. Members have said, and I flagged up the issue at the end of my remarks. The Committee has, in a different incarnation, recommended in another report on the ministerial code that there should be a mechanism for trying to enforce the code. Our view is that that would be beneficial to Government as well as to Parliament, and the emerging proposal for a mechanism to monitor the answering of parliamentary questions sits alongside that. We have to find a way of bringing them together.
Mr. Knight: I am grateful for that response. All power to the hon. Gentleman's Committee's elbow in pursuing the matter further.
We have had a constructive and interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) has asked me to give his apologies

173WH
because, as so often happens in matters of this sort, there are two debates in which he wanted to take part today. One is in the Commons proper and one here, so he was able to be with us for only one brief contribution.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) set the tone of the debate, and he is rightly gaining a reputation as something of a parliamentary terrier. The Select Committee is fortunate to have him as its Chairman. He is fearless in pursuing the matters that the Committee is examining and that is all that any of us can expect of a Select Committee Chairman. I congratulate him on what he is doing and support him in that. I hope that he long remains in the post.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made a powerful contribution. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) thought that it was a little party political, but my hon. Friend produced a damning indictment of how some Ministers, including the Prime Minister, avoid answering legitimate questions. I hope that the Minister will give us some cause to live in hope that there will be progress in the matter because effective action is necessary.
I hope that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East will not take it the wrong way when I say that I am disappointed to see him here, but only because Mrs. Marion Rix, his Conservative opponent at the last election, is a friend of mine. As long as he is willing to play a full role in examining the Government's failure properly to answer parliamentary questions on the Select Committee, I wish him well.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall said, rightly, that the situation is deteriorating. I do not know whether that is because of politicisation of the civil service or Ministers failing to give a lead, but my impression is that the number of parliamentary questions that are blocked or just not answered is much higher now than a decade ago.
I agreed with the assessment made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. There is a culture of secrecy in Whitehall and that is the biggest problem that must be addressed. If Ministers give a lead, most of the difficulties that have been laid bare in this debate will be properly addressed.
The hon. Member for Lewes said that some Ministers are losing sight of the fact that they are accountable to the House and he is right up to a point. I remember meeting President Ronald Reagan shortly after he left office and asked him what it was like being the most important and powerful politician in the world. I was touched by his response. He said that anyone who regards the job in that way will foul up and that he reminded himself daily when he was in the White House that he had only temporary custody of the office. That thought should be printed and put above the doors of all Ministers because they are servants of the House and should remember that they are accountable to the House.
I did not agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. He said that any Member who tables questions merely to get to the top of a league table is mad. Perhaps he will have a word with the Liberal Democrat parliamentary elections unit. In seats that it believes the Liberal Democrats can win it compares the number of questions asked by Liberal Democrats with
174WH
the number asked by candidates they are trying to defeat. Perhaps he should ask his party to follow his own advice.
The hon. Gentleman's point about Lord Birt was valid. Questioning what he is up to is difficult, not because he is an adviser, but because he is a Member of the other place. I sit on the Select Committee that is examining modernisation of the proceedings of the House and, with cross-party support, we may recommend abolition of that rule. It is ludicrous that we cannot question Ministers, and now ministerial advisers, who sit in the other place. We should have the right to question what they are doing with public money.
This ongoing debate is far from over. I hope that the Minister will give us some encouragement and assure us that improvements in the speed and quality of answers will be made and sustained, and that Ministers will be told, not encouraged but instructed, to lure their Departments away from their natural and long-held instincts of secrecy. Here in Parliament we are right not to be fobbed off with inadequate answers. If, as a result of the work of the Public Administration Committee, Ministers become more punctual, open, honest and accurate in their replies to hon. Members, not only will the House be grateful, but the cause of the democracy, which we all hold dear, will be properly served.
4.57 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): It is a pleasure to be able to respond to this debate so soon after its commencement. It is always a challenge for me as a new Minister to engage in the process of accountability, which is precisely the topic that we are talking about today. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), who in the process of holding me to account along with his parliamentary colleagues on the Public Administration Select Committee is spurring me on to ensure that I try my best to be held to account, on securing the debate.
Today's debate focuses on the fourth report, which was published in December, of the Public Administration Select Committee. It is a concise, pithy and pertinent report. It reiterated the Committee's annual monitoring ambition, asserted the importance of openness and accuracy and suggested a programme of taking evidence for a forthcoming report on the matter. The Government take the report seriously and recognise that Ministers have many responsibilities, the most important of which is to be held accountable by Parliament. That is, of course, a firm cornerstone at the foundation of our British constitutional system. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who spoke well and eloquently, indicated that there is not a grand conspiracy to thwart accountability or an attempt to weave a web of secrecy. There are genuine, earnest efforts to be as open and accountable as possible.
Having reviewed some of the evidence and statistics that form the background to the debate, I believe that high standards of accountability are being maintained and improved, and that great efforts are constantly being made throughout all Departments genuinely to strive to keep Parliament informed and served at all times.

175WH
It is worth reviewing the context of the debate by comparing Administrations. Today we have focused on parliamentary questions, but there are many other ways in which—as in the title of the debate—ministerial accountability takes place. Statements to Parliament on the Floor of the House of Commons are, for example, an important way in which to hold Ministers to account, particularly on issues of immediate, contemporaneous importance. In the last Parliament of the Major Administration, there was a statement roughly every 3.7 days. In our first Parliament, there was a statement every 2.3 days, and I believe that that increased frequency is partially a sign of the extra accountability to which the Government sought to lay themselves open.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made various allusions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I would like to remind him that the Prime Minister has been statistically more accountable to the House of Commons than previous Administrations. In the comparable period, my right hon. Friend has spent more time in the Chamber answering questions and making statements than his predecessor.
There are other ways, outside the framework of parliamentary questions, for Ministers to be held accountable. Correspondence, the good old-fashioned letter or I presume as we move into the technical age the e-mail, between Members of Parliament, as well as members of the public, and Ministers, is such an example. All Departments have a target of 20 working days or fewer in which to respond to Members' correspondence. In 2000, the last full year for which we have managed to account, 64 per cent. of correspondence was replied to within departmental targets, a gradual improvement of 4 per cent. on the figure for the year before. We have tried to publish stronger guidance for Departments on handling correspondence from Members, which is something that I have constantly tried to push with my ministerial colleagues. Correspondence is an important means of exchanging views as well as of obtaining information. We are currently collecting data for the 2001 annual report on the matter.
Brian White: In giving evidence this morning to the Public Administration Committee, the ombudsman said that cutting the money available for keeping records was one of the easier cuts for Departments to make when they try to achieve efficiency savings. Will the Minister assure us that sufficient money is being made available for keeping records relating to parliamentary questions?
Mr. Leslie: It is a rare opportunity to be able to make a budget representation relating to good old-fashioned administration archiving and data collection, which is an important task, although unfashionable. As a Minister at the Cabinet Office, where such work is the bread and butter of our activity, I shall pass on that representation. In fact, from 1999 to 2000, there was a significant increase in the volume of correspondence to the Cabinet Office. We respond to 88 per cent. of correspondence within 15 working days, an increase of 3 per cent. on the previous year.
176WH
In general, Parliament can hold Ministers to account in several other ways, including oral questions, private notice questions and Second Reading debates, the pattern and frequency of which in this Administration follows a similar trend to that of previous Administrations. The Library produces useful sessional digests of figures, which are worth consulting for more detailed statistics. With such a massive turnover of business in our Parliament, as in any organisation, errors are bound to occur from time to time. These are obviously to be regretted, but also to be acknowledged and corrected.
We have focused today on parliamentary questions and I am tempted to say that there is more to life, in terms of ministerial accountability, than parliamentary questions alone. Questions and answers are integral to the accountability process, but they are not the only way in which Members may request information from the Government. The White Paper process and the Select Committee system offer other means.
I am informed that, in this Session—and since 1997—the average number of parliamentary questions tabled on each sitting day by Members has doubled. I accept that there is always room for greater efficiency but we are endeavouring, honestly and openly, to meet our obligations to Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) talked about parliamentary questions that are referred to chief executives of agencies. Much of that process has been prompted by the next-steps review. Many such questions are now printed in Hansard, unless they are bulky, in which case they are placed in the Library. We must remain vigilant on these matters to ensure that the lines of accountability relating to new systems of administration are as clear as possible.
There is much to be said for today's debate and for the opportunity to take an in-depth look at the efficacy of written and oral parliamentary questions, measured against the objectives of those hon. Members who ask the questions. Many questions are tabled in a genuine attempt to elicit information for the benefit of constituents, but might I be wrong to think that some questions are influenced by more partisan considerations?
Norman Baker: That is an interesting point. I hope that the Minister will not say that the quality of the answer depends on an interpretation of whether the question is partisan or seeks information for a constituent.
Mr. Leslie: Certainly not. I am suggesting that, considering the vast turnover of parliamentary questions, Ministers need to bear in mind that we must strive to fulfil our provision of answers as quickly and efficiently as possible, and to be helpful and genuinely informative on all questions, especially those on constituency cases that need to be resolved.
Members can write directly to Ministers. However, as Mr. Speaker said in his statement:
"One pointed question can … achieve more than 20 vague ones".—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 971.]
Accuracy is important in the answers that we give as Ministers. The Cabinet Secretary has revised the

177WH
guidance for drafting officials to stress the need for timely and accurate replies.
Many Members have highlighted examples of when parliamentary questions and answers have not disclosed information because they were subject to exemptions in the code of practice on access to Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase referred to that, as did the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for Lewes and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). As responsible Members, we must recognise that some exemptions must be made on, for example, issues of national security and potential harm to the nation should information be disclosed. Also, there must be exemptions on answers that might harm international relations or prejudice the course of justice, and even on matters relating to personnel records and privacy of the individual, as well as on some commercial confidentiality issues when the competitive position of third parties could be harmed. The harm test is well embedded in the code of practice on access to Government information. That initiative began in 1993, and Governments have sought to place many parliamentary questions in that context since.
I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Lewes that the Scottish Parliament operates on a similar exemption-based system, so the matter is not simply party political. Liberal Democrat Ministers may sometimes use exemptions for answers in a similar way.
Norman Baker: I am content that there are exemptions. For the reasons that the Minister has given, such as national security, no one could doubt that information should be with held on occasion. However, the question in my mind, and perhaps in those of other hon. Members, is about information that we do not believe is covered by exemptions but is still not forthcoming.
Mr. Leslie: I accept that there are always bound to be questions about the interpretation of the code's application.
I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch. He vociferously insisted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was remiss and that he dreadfully misbehaved by not disclosing information and by invoking exemptions under the code. My understanding is that when the hon. Member for Christchurch was a Minister with, I think, responsibility for transport, he refused or declined to answer a question in March 1992 on the ground of commercial confidence.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the Prime Minister on the exemption for international relations, but I understand that he would not answer a question in November 1991 because it was not an accepted convention to release information that was passed between the Government and the European Commission. Politely and with great respect, I say that he should look to his own activities before throwing stones at the Prime Minister.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me that it is 10 years since I did the same job as he does now, that of trying to answer questions. He has not said that, at any stage, I prayed in aid a code or
178WH
exemptions when I should not have done so, or prayed in aid a code or exemptions when I should have done so. How, however, can a question about the number of letters that the Prime Minister has sent to the Romanian Prime Minister in the past two years be subject to any of the exemptions to which the Minister referred? Surely, it is subject to none of them, and the Prime Minister has not answered the question because he finds it embarrassing.
Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman was himself asked a question about correspondence between Ministers and the European Commission, which he declined to answer because it would apparently have harmed international relations. I suppose that there was no code of conduct on access to Government information during the hon. Gentleman's tenure in office. I would not say that that was a virtue; rather, it was a pity.
Mr. Chope: I have asked the Prime Minister how a question about the number of letters that he has sent to the Romanian Prime Minister in the past two years would damage international relations, but he has declined to answer. Surely that also is unreasonable.
Mr. Leslie: There comes a point when one must ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The answer that the hon. Gentleman received is fairly self-explanatory. I recommend that he read Hansard from 1991 and 1992 before pursuing the matter much further.
Tony Wright: Those points go to the heart of the report and reflect its central recommendation. I think that we are getting a little confused. Surely the central issue is whether Ministers should be obliged to cite exemptions when they do not answer questions. I cannot think of instances where that would not apply, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us whether there are any. The Committee said that that practice should apply universally, and I should like the Minister to say that it should, too. That is what we recommended, and I think that the Government have said that they are in favour of it. If the practice does not apply universally, we shall get into all kinds of trouble, as we have seen from the instances about which we have heard. Some Members have had to go to the commissioner to obtain answers that they could not receive through parliamentary questions. It is, therefore, important that we get this right.
Mr. Leslie: The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration certainly has a role to play in monitoring the invocation of the code of practice on access to Government information. As we know, the code will be overtaken when the Freedom of Information Act 2002 is implemented. My hon. Friend is perhaps suggesting that reference should be made to particular exemptions in cases where the code is to be invoked, and I want to consider that suggestion in much more detail. It would be useful to have more information and for the Select Committee on Public Administration to consider the matter further.
The point remains, however, that there is a reason why we have a code of practice on access to Government

179WH
information. On many occasions, Ministers must make a judgment. They have the information and must consider whether harm will be incurred if answers are given. Ultimately, they are accountable for their decisions to Parliament. They can be held to account not only through written parliamentary questions, through a variety of methods and on the Floor of the House. Parliament has the ultimate sanction.
Norman Baker: Will the Minister explain what harm is done by telling us how many days a week Lord Birt works and under what element of the code of conduct that information is withheld?
Mr. Leslie: It is so tempting to return to the debate on an issue that we enjoyed so much only a matter of weeks ago. I set out my views at great length. Lord Birt is not a Minister, but I, as the Minister responsible, came here to account for the matter.
We have revised the guidance for officials on drafting answers to parliamentary questions. It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful answers to Parliament. Correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity is also extremely important. A refusal to provide information should take place only when disclosure is not in the public interest, in accordance with the relevant statutes and the code of practice.
We approach every question predisposed to give relevant and full information, but as concisely as possible and in accordance with guidance on disproportionate costs. That aspect was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall. What constitutes disproportionate cost is a matter of judgment, because there are not bottomless pools of resources. This Administration have revised the guidance details to refine and clarify matters about disproportionate costs; we want also to stress that any information that is readily available should be provided if at all possible.
Mr. Tyler: I read with great care the guidance given to officials on drafting answers to parliamentary questions, dated November 2001. Does the Minister accept that the examples that other hon. Members and I have given have all arisen since November? Will he give an undertaking that the guidance will be updated again in the light of any slippages in the way in which Departments have responded to advice, given the examples that he has heard from Members of various parties this afternoon?
Mr. Leslie: We keep our guidance under review. We must rely on Ministers in each Department to make judgments about disproportionate costs, as it would be unfeasible for such matters to be adjudicated wholly from one Department. I shall certainly examine the references and examples, many of which I found interesting, in respect of the application of disproportionate cost.
Mr. Tyler: I am not referring to disproportionate cost, which is only one item in the guidance. I was saying that
180WH
the examples cited this afternoon relate to problems referred to in the guidance, and that the guidance is clearly not being met.
Mr. Leslie: Without being able to go into the detail of every example, I shall consider them in more detail.
Tony Wright: A lack of clarity at this point will not help us in the long term. I can be genuinely helpful to the Minister in pointing out that the Government have already agreed to do what I am asking him to do—that is, to cite the exemption that applies when there is a refusal to provide information. They should cite either the exemption or the statue that overrides the code. The choice is between one or the other. I cannot see any difficulty in doing that and, indeed, I thought that the Government had agreed to do it.
Mr. Leslie: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. I am tempted to read through the Government reply until I reach the particular phrase that he mentions. All that I can do is commend to hon. Members the report and response. I shall study it again myself with great interest.
Mr. Chope: Does the Minister agree with Mr. Speaker's statement on 28 November? The statement suggests that
"when Ministers refuse to answer questions, they are expected to indicate in their reply why they have refused by reference to the Government's code."—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 971.]
Mr. Leslie: Of course I agree with Mr. Speaker's statement, and would not seek to do anything but agree with it.
I understand that the House is considering a number of changes to the mechanisms for the tabling and answering of parliamentary questions, and that the Procedure Committee—among other aspects of parliamentary practice—is considering the extent to which the current system contributes to effective parliamentary scrutiny. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) asked about the wording of questions, the timing of publications and answering of parliamentary questions, the notice period for questions and whether it should be shorter and the process of the named day parliamentary question, which involves 48.8 per cent. of questions. The hon. Member for Lewes referred to what would happen during a recess. I understand that that is another issue that is being considered by the Procedure Committee—we are fortunate to have its distinguished Chairman here.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting. All the matters that he has described are being considered by the Procedure Committee. Its report, which will be radical, progressive, reforming and helpful to the House of Commons, will be published in mid-June.
Mr. Leslie: What a useful opportunity to demonstrate how the House of Commons can work at its most effective. These are ultimately matters for the House to consider and decide upon. I also commend the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton

181WH
Keynes, North-East about the use of modern technology in processing parliamentary questions. If I can facilitate that representation here, I shall have done something useful.
Mr. Greg Knight: The Minister is very generous in giving way. Does he accept that one of the problems that has been identified today is not so much the updating of the code but the upholding of it? Which member of the Executive does he advise us to communicate with when a continuing breach occurs?
Mr. Leslie: The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, under whose jurisdiction the application of the code of practice on access to Government information falls, is the ultimate authority on the use of the code in respect of parliamentary questions. However, Ministers are ultimately accountable to Parliament. If Members wish to censure Ministers for their behaviour, there are several ways in which that can be done. I note that none has been used under this Administration.
I was looking forward to debating these matters with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It is a great pity that he has not been able to attend. Unfortunately, I did not give advance notice that I wanted to discuss them, so it would not be appropriate for me to correct the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase regarding the 4,494 questions tabled by the hon. Member for Buckingham since the 2001 general election at an average cost of £123 each, totalling £552,762—about £78 per hour. However, it would be entirely appropriate to discuss with the hon. Member for Lewes, who is present, the number of parliamentary questions that he has asked since the 1997 general election—3,899, a snip at a price of £479,577, which is probably enough to run a small primary school. In light of the statement by Mr. Speaker yesterday, I might ask whether every one of those was tabled in person, but I would not be so unkind.
Ministers are held accountable by the Prime Minister, under the ministerial code of conduct, particularly in respect of parliamentary accountability, and paragraphs 27 and onwards go into much more detail. Most important announcements of policy should of course be made first to Parliament. In important or sensitive cases, Ministers should give careful consideration to the desirability of making an oral statement rather than giving a written answer. Propriety, timings and consultations should all be at the top of a Minister's agenda as set out in the ministerial code. It has been published, and I recommend that all hon. Members peruse it.
Transparency and openness are the underlying themes of today's debate. I firmly believe that many of the measures taken by the Government to open our
182WH
processes and to expose the machinery of government to daylight have been relatively successful. Work still has to be done, but I believe that we are taking firm steps forward in enforcing the code of practice on access to Government information made under the Freedom of Information Act 2002, with a statutory right of access from 2005. I understand that publications will be available from September this year. In the light of comments about new technology, we should not neglect departmental websites and other electronic means of voluntarily promoting access to news and policy information for the public and for Members of Parliament. Those are all important ways of making Government more accessible.
In the last Parliament, and under a Labour Government, we saw the establishment of the Modernisation Select Committee. It is now pressing for improvements and refinements to be made to our accountability processes. Recent recommendations are being considered on the work of Select Committees, and a number of changes and improvements have been made since 1997. For example, the European Scrutiny Committee allows Select Committees to sit together.
Pre-legislative scrutiny has not been mentioned today, but it should not be neglected. The Government have sought to increase the use of that in-depth accountability mechanism. Since 1997, 10 draft Bills have been given pre-legislative scrutiny by parliamentary Committees. We aim to produce better Bills, but that requires more effort.
We should not debate ministerial accountability without talking about Westminster Hall itself. It was an innovation explicitly devised to broaden accountability and the amount of time available for detailed parliamentary debate. It evolved from recommendations made by the Modernisation Select Committee in 1998. It gives Back Benchers much more debating time, and in theory it extends our proceedings to give a more consensus-based approach. Westminster Hall has more than doubled the opportunity for Adjournment debates which, on two of every three Thursdays, are given to debating Select Committee reports.
Had Labour not been elected in 1997, we would not be spending these three long, long but productive hours discussing this matter today. Yes, we are striving to improve our processes, and much more effort always needs to be put into these matters, but I believe that the Government are putting Parliament first—and we are making every effort to support and enhance our democratic system.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Five o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down Volunteers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 936W, regarding the 1973 report prepared at Porton Down, on what dates the Ethics Committee overseeing the human experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment scrutinised this experiment; and if he will place in the Library copies of the papers of the committee which relate to the discussion of this experiment. [43477]

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

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down in 1985 entitled "Pyridostigmine pre-treatment and neuromuscular transmission in man—a study using single fibre electromyography". [43445]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes. This technical note reports preliminary results and analysis. The full results and final conclusions of the work in which Service volunteers who had been exposed to a low dose of Sarin and monitored over a number of years using single fibre electromyography have already been published entitled: "Single fibre electromyographic changes in man after organophosphate exposure" (Human and Experimental Toxicology 1996, 15, 367–75).

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of the common and chemical names of the vesicants which have been tested on Service volunteers at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down during the Service volunteer programme; and if he will list the numbers of Service volunteers who were tested with each of these vesicants. [43452]

  Dr. Moonie
  At present there are no definitive figures detailing the numbers of Service volunteers who have been exposed to vesicant agents or all the agents which were used. However, it is believed that some 8,000 individuals have participated in studies which have involved the use of the following two vesicants:Sulphur mustard; chemical name 2–2'-di(chloroethyl) sulphide
  Lewisite; chemical name 2-chlorovinyl dichloroarsine.

  In addition, a small number of volunteers may have been exposed to the following two vesicants during the Service volunteer programme:
  Phosgene oxime; chemical name dichloroformoxime
  Nitrogen mustard; chemical name 2–2'-2"-tri(chloroethyl)amine.

  Test and Evaluation Centres
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the BUTEC and Rona test and evaluation ranges, and if he will make a statement. [44428]

  Dr. Moonie
  The BUTEC and Rona ranges are Ministry of Defence facilities operated by QinetiQ under contract to MOD. They provide a comprehensive range of test and evaluation facilities, for which the MOD has a continuing requirement.

  Munitions
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the quality difference between shells manufactured in(a) the USA and (b) the UK by BAE Systems. [43392]

  Dr. Moonie
  All munitions, irrespective of the country of manufacture, must meet the Department's same high quality requirements and rigorous safety standards before entering service with the UK armed forces.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what means he plans to apply benchmark prices to munitions. [43394]

  Dr. Moonie
  Benchmarking is already an integral part of the Framework Partnering Agreement (FPA) between Royal Ordnance Defence (ROD) and the MOD. A specific Benchmarking Working Group, comprising both MOD and ROD staff, has been established within the FPA and currently uses two techniques to monitor benchmarking. These techniques are comparative analysis and performance analysis.

  Explosives
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long-term security of supply for explosives is defined in the Framework Partnering Agreement between his Department and ROD. [43396]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Department entered into a Framework Partnering Agreement with Royal Ordnance Defence in 1999. Long-term security of supply is not specifically defined within the agreement; however, both parties are committed to a long-term relationship and continuous dialogue on matters of mutual interest, including security of supply.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much explosive used by his Department was bought from the USA in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [43393]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the last 12 months, the Ministry of Defence has not bought explosive substances from the USA.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the ROD Framework Partners Agreement includes the plant in Bridgwater; [43399]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2002, Official Report, column 656W, on explosives, which plants controlled by BAe are (a) included and (b) not included in the Framework Partnering Agreement between his Department and ROD. [43427]
  445W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Royal Ordnance Defence (ROD) facility at Radway Green is explicitly included in the Framework Partnering Agreement because of the organisational structure of the Company. Beyond this, individual ROD facilities are not specifically included or excluded from the Agreement.

  Depleted Uranium
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the training exercises that have

  Year and frequency

  Formation training (non-firming exercises)

  Formation/unit

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Extended period operational training

  HQ Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Exercise Eagles Eye

  16 Air Assault Brigade

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Exercise Eagles Strike

  Queens Own Yeomanry

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Operational training

  5 Airbourne Brigade

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Exercise Northern Lights

  3 Royal Marines Commando

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Exercise Swift Hawk

  5 Army Air Corps

  0

  0

  8

  4

  1

  Exercise Executive Stretch

  107 Brigade

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  Individual training

  Infantry Training Centre Catterick

  2

  6

  11

  7

  2

  Exercise Deep George

  1 Reconnaissance Brigade

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Field firing

  39 Regiment Royal Artillery

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Field firing

  32 Regiment Royal Artillery

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Field firing

  101 Regiment Royal Artillery

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Field firing

  9 Royal Irish Regiment

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Field firing

  A Company Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Field firing

  3 Squadron Royal Air Force

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Field firing

  A Company Black Watch

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  Officer Training Corp Glasgow

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  C Company Lowland Volunteer

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  Scottish Yeomanry

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  105 Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  4/5 Irish Rangers

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  27 Transport Regiment

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  245 Provost Company

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  Campbell College

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  4/5 Royal Irish

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  Royal Ghurka Rifles

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  24 Field Ambulance

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  3 Royal Highland Fusiliers

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  152 Field Ambulance

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  Scottish Transport Regiment

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  9 Royal Irish Regiment

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  162 Squadron Royal Corps of Transport

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  United States Navy SEALs

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  101 Regiment Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  52 Lowland Regiment

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  204 Field Ambulance

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Non-firing exercises

  Royal Marines Reserves Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Non-firing exercises

  Officer Training Corps (Northumbrian)

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Eskmeals is not used in support of training activities for any of the three services. The site is owned by the Ministry of Defence and operated by QinetiQ who provide test and evaluation services in support of the UK armed forces on a variety of medium to heavy calibre weapon systems.

  MOD Land (Access)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the changes necessary to open up his Department's land to disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [44639]

  Dr. Moonie
  A pilot audit was undertaken using the BT millennium miles scheme that led to the upgrading of a track and path to improve wheelchair access, and more are planned. New paths have been constructed at
  446W
  taken place on the Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright training areas over the last five years and the regiments that have been involved. [43424]

  Dr. Moonie
  The training exercises (broken down by type of training) that have taken place on Kirkcudbright training area within the last five years, and the formations or units that have been involved are shown in the table:

  Sennybridge, including one that will permit wheelchair access. This, together with paths at Lulworth, and Elstead Common, Longmoor, is promoted as "Easy-going Trails" in the fourth edition of "Walks on MOD Lands" and in the "Access" section of the DE website.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the public annually used the public access areas on his Department's land in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [44638]

  Dr. Moonie
  No comprehensive surveys have been carried out to establish the numbers of visitors who access the defence estate, However, in January 2002, as a first step in meeting the targets set by the estate strategy "In Trust and on Trust" (published in June 2000), pilot visitors surveys were carried out at the Aldershot training
  447W
  area and Willsworthy Ranges. These provided promising results, but need to be developed further before they are used elsewhere at suitable Ministry of Defence sites.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment has been made of public access to his Department's land; and if he will make a statement. [44637]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is a presumption in favour of access to the defence estate wherever this is compatible with operational and military training uses, public safety, security, conservation, and the interests of Ministry of Defence's tenants. This policy was set out in 2000 in the estate strategy "In Trust and on Trust" together with a number of objectives in respect of access and recreation.

  A number of pilot studies have been carried out in furtherance of those objectives: at Willsworthy Ranges and Aldershot training area on visitor numbers, and two at Lulworth, on path conditions and applying the BT millennium miles scheme. This led to the upgrading of tracks at Lulworth to improve wheelchair access. Similar studies will be carried out elsewhere. A fourth edition of the booklet "Walks on MOD Lands", was published and the updated "Access" section of the defence estates website went live in November 2001.

  These initiatives have been developed in conjunction with a variety of external stakeholders, and reflect the Ministry of Defence's continuing commitment to improving public access to the defence estate.

  MOD Housing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken to ensure that complaints from service personnel and their families about the suitability or condition of his Department's housing is investigated and dealt with, what targets the DHE has in dealing with complaints; what the level of achieving these targets was in the last year; what steps are being taken to improve the complaints procedure; and if he will make a statement. [44967]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) has a formal procedure for investigating and resolving complaints about Service Families Accommodation (SFA), which is publicised in the Occupants Handbook. A copy is available in each family quarter. The current targets are to acknowledge written complaints within one working day and to send a full response within 10 working days.

  In the first nine months of the current reporting year, which started on 1 April 2001, the DHE responded to 95 per cent. of all written complaints within the target times. Complaints procedures are currently under review as part of the development of DHE's customer care strategy.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many cases of suspected property fraud in the provision of his Department's housing have been taken to court in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [43006]

  (2) what incentives have been provided for private companies to (a) detect and (b) report fraud in his Department's housing; and if he will make a statement; [42980]
  448W
  (3) what assets have been frozen in suspected property fraud cases in the provision of his Department's housing in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [42981]

  (4) how many cases of suspected property fraud in the provision of MOD housing have been successfully prosecuted in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [45442]

  Dr. Moonie
  No cases of suspected fraud relating to the provision of housing by the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) have gone to court since 1997. However, a case of property fraud has been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice, with a view to criminal prosecution. Two additional cases of suspected fraud have been referred to the Defence Fraud Analysis Unit (DFAU) for investigation and may come to court in the future.

  No incentives are paid to private companies to detect and report suspected fraud. The Ministry of Defence has a policy of zero tolerance to fraud and this is impressed upon contractors. Companies are expected to produce their own anti-fraud policy statement when tendering for contracts.

  To date, for the period beginning 1997, the MOD police have no record of any assets having been frozen in suspected property fraud cases associated with the provision of accommodation by the Department.

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military officers are expected to be present at the Queen's Golden Jubilee festivities; of that number, how many will be there for the purpose of(a) protection/security, (b) marching in the parade and (c) performing music; and if he will make a statement. [44583]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am withholding details of protection or security operations in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. A Golden Jubilee Festival is due to take place in central London on the afternoon of the 4 June 2002 at which the armed forces will play an appropriate part. However the details are still being finalised with the organisers.

  Israel
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for which MOD contracts Israeli companies are bidding as(a) prime contractors and (b) as teaming partners; and in the case of the latter, with which companies they are teamed. [45185]

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

  Service Personnel Memorial
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the memorial to service personnel killed since the Second World War; and if he will make a statement. [44480]

  Mr. Hoon
  Pursuant to the answer I gave on 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 313W, I regret that a paragraph was omitted from the answer in error. The

  449W
  answer should have included the following paragraph. Those members of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Merchant Navy who were killed in conflict zones while in direct support of the armed forces will also be included on the memorial.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if submissions are being made by the House of Commons Commission to the review being carried out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the future appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and related matters; and if he will make a statement. [44996]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The House of Commons Commission has been invited to contribute to the inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and will do so.

PRIME MINISTER

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on energy costs incurred by his office in each of the last 10 years. [42446]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 19 March 2002,Official Report, columns 267–68W.

  Local Elections
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice has been given to civil servants on the conduct of Government business during the forthcoming elections to local councils on 2 May. [46033]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have issued guidance to civil servants on the principles which they should observe in relation to the conduct of Government business in the period before the forthcoming elections.

  The guidance stressed that civil servants should conduct themselves in accordance with the Civil Service Code and is based on the need to maintain the political impartiality of the civil service and the need to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes.

  The guidance will come into force on 11 April.

  Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library of the House, and are also available from the Vote Office.

  Surveillance Commissioners
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an announcement about the appointment and reappointment of surveillance commissioners under Part III of the Police Act 1997. [46090]

  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with Section 91 of the Police Act 1997, after consultation with the Scottish Ministers, I have agreed to appoint and re-appoint 450W
  the following surveillance commissioners to assist Sir Andrew Leggatt, the chief surveillance commissioner. There are three commissioners for England and Wales, two for Scotland and one for Northern Ireland. However, the remit of each commissioner covers the whole of the United Kingdom so that any commissioner can act in jurisdictions other than his own.

  I have appointed from 1 November 2001, as a commissioner the Right hon. Lord Sutherland, who served as a judge of the Court of Session from 1985 to 2001, for a period of three years.

  I have also re-appointed as commissioners:

  Sir Charles McCullough who was appointed as surveillance commissioner in 1998 and is re-appointed for a further three years from 1 November 2001. He served as a High Court judge of the Queen's Bench Division from 1981 to 1998;

  The right hon. Sir Michael Hutchison who was appointed as surveillance commissioner in 1998 and is re-appointed for a further three years from 1 November 2001. He served as a Lord Justice of Appeal from 1995 to 1999;

  Lord Bonomy who was appointed as surveillance commissioner in 1998 and is re-appointed for a further three years from 1 November 2001. He has been a judge of the Court of Session since 1997;

  The right hon. Sir John MacDermott who was appointed as surveillance commissioner in 1998 and is re-appointed, 1 November 2001, until 1 October 2003.

  The commissioners are appointed under the provisions of Part III of the Police Act 1997. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 extended the commissioners remit. Since the authorisation of intrusive surveillance operations forms a key component of the Government's response to serious and organised crime, I attach considerable importance to these appointments and I am delighted that the commissioners have accepted their appointments. In conjunction with Sir Andrew Leggatt, their substantial judicial experience, particularly of the criminal justice system, will provide independent oversight of surveillance operations, which although operationally important, must also be subject to stringent safeguards.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on plans for celebrating the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen's accession to the throne. [46091]

  The Prime Minister
  I announced on 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 205W, the programme of visits and other events throughout the United Kingdom from May to August this year, which will be undertaken by Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, to mark the Golden Jubilee.

  I am, therefore, pleased to be able to announce further details of the programme of Jubilee visits to the London boroughs which they will carry out during the summer of this year. Although the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will not be able to visit every borough, their itinerary will enable them to meet as many Londoners as possible.
  451W
  The programme is as follows:

  East London
  9 May—The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will visit Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest. The Queen will also visit Barking and Dagenham.

  North London
  6 June—The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will visit Barnet, Brent and Haringey.

  West London
  25 June—The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will visit Bushy Park, Gunnersbury Park, Hillingdon and Kingston-upon-Thames.

  South London
  4 July—The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will visit Croydon, Crystal Palace and Lewisham.

  These details, together with further information about other confirmed Golden Jubilee celebrations and events can be found on the searchable calendar of events on the official Golden Jubilee website at http://www.goldenjubilee.gov.uk/. The British Monarchy website at http://www.royal.gov.uk/ also has details of the Queen's programme and other royal engagements. These will be updated throughout the year as confirmation of events is received.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Deals
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has to stop bribery and corruption in arms deals involving UK firms. [42855]

  Nigel Griffiths
  This Government are not prepared to treat corruption as a necessary part of doing business, whether the deal involves arms or not.

  Social Enterprise
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she intends to take to assist social entrepreneurs. [42858]

  Mr. Alexander
  A range of measures to support and develop social enterprises, and the people who work in them, will be included in the Social Enterprise Strategy I intend to publish after Easter.

  Construction
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the construction industry. [42859]

  Ms Hewitt
  Government and industry are taking forward three policy initiatives designed to increase the overall productivity and competitiveness of the UK construction industry.

  First, Rethinking Construction. In partnership with the industry we are using demonstration projects, case studies and best practice dissemination to prove the business case for change and to provide practical means by which companies can improve their productivity and competitiveness and clients can demand products that actually enhance their own performance. We have agreed to continue the initiative until April 2004.
  452W
  Second, my Department supports a substantial programme of construction-related innovation and research. Sir John Fairclough, a former Government chief scientist, has recently conducted a review for us of how we should best provide that support in the future. The report establishes an excellent framework for improving the effectiveness of construction research. We are consulting the industry on how we can work with them to take forward the recommendations.

  Finally, the Quality Mark Scheme, which will enable builders to demonstrate their competence and to distinguish themselves from their less reputable rivals. The scheme will be rolled out across the country over a three to four year period.

  These three closely connected initiatives are being taken forward against a backdrop of continuing work with the industry to understand the various issues it faces, especially in relation to wider Government policy, to ensure we develop polices and regulations that recognise the competitiveness issues in the industry while meeting Government's broader objectives on the environment, safety and so on.

  Paid Leave
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy on entitlement to payment for bank holidays. [42862]

  Alan Johnson
  Entitlement to time off on bank holidays depends on an employee's contract of employment. However, under the Working Time Regulations, employees are entitled to a minimum of four weeks' leave per year with pay. They may use part of this entitlement to take time off on bank holidays, subject to their employer's agreement.

  Scott Report
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will implement the recommendations of the Scott report on export licensing. [42863]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Bill responds to the Scott report's key recommendations that the existing export control should be replaced with legislation that:

  Sets restrictions on the Government's power to control exports;

  Gives Parliament the power to scrutinise orders introduced under export control legislation.

  In addition the Bill gives the Government important new powers to control trafficking and brokering in arms, and the transfer of sensitive technology by intangible means.

  Lord Scott has welcomed the Bill, commenting that "for the first time in some 50 years there are proposals for export controls which will have constitutional and democratic respectability." (Lord Scott made this comment during the Bill's Second Readings in the House of Lords—Hansard, 8 January column 482).

  Knowledge Transfer
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to promote knowledge transfer between the university sector and British industry. [42864]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's two White Papers, "Excellence and Opportunity", published in July 2000, and "Opportunity for All", published in February 2001, set out our science and innovation policy for the 2P' century, and include a comprehensive range of measures to help promote knowledge transfer between the university sector and British industry. We are making excellent progress.

  We are considering, as part of the Government's spending review, how to further develop these initiatives to build on universities' potential as drivers of growth in the knowledge economy.

  Steel Industry
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to help the Welsh steel industry. [42865]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department and the National Assembly for Wales work closely with the steel industry to provide support to improve the sector's competitiveness. The Welsh Assembly co-ordinates the All-Wales Steel Task Force with the aim of promoting the industry as well as dealing with the consequences of restructuring.

  My Department has supported a number of industry-led initiatives which benefit companies in Wales and elsewhere in the UK. The Metals Industry Competitive Enterprise (MICE) aims to introduce lean manufacturing techniques throughout the sector. Welsh companies are among those who have already taken advantage of this important initiative. In February I announced funding for the new National Metals Technology Centre (NAMTEC) which I hope will play an important role in ensuring the UK metals industry as a whole remains a world leader in innovation.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the British steel industry. [42873]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK steel industry has experienced difficult trading conditions in recent years and many jobs have been lost through restructuring and cost cutting. However, the industry has an excellent productivity record, produces a wide range of high quality products and has a well trained work force helping it compete against international competition at home and overseas. We are determined to stand by the industry in combating the recent unjustified US action to impose prohibitive import tariffs.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were employed in the UK steel industry in each of the last 20 years. [44777]
  454W
  Ms Hewitt
  The number of people employed in the UK steel industry in each of the last 20 years was:

  1Thousand

  1982

  74.5

  1983

  63.7

  1984

  61.9

  1985

  59.0

  1986

  55.9

  1987

  54.9

  1988

  55.1

  1989

  53.8

  1990

  50.8

  1991

  45.1

  1992

  40.8

  1993

  39.2

  1994

  38.1

  1995

  37.9

  1996

  36.5

  1997

  35.2

  1998

  32.5

  1999

  28.9

  2000

  25.5

  2001

  222.0

  1 Number employed at end of year on European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) iron and steel activities.

  2 Estimated.

  Source:

  The Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  Post Office Network
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to publicise the services available at local post offices. [42867]

  Mr. Alexander
  This is an operational matter for Consignia.

  I have however been informed by Post Office Ltd. that extensive marketing and advertising are undertaken to raise awareness of new and existing products offered through the post office network.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received on the rural postal network. [43846]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member for the Vale of York to my answer on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 69W.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to maintain the network of sub-post offices in urban neighbourhoods. [42872]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the hon. Member for Hertsmere earlier today.

  Broadband
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what she is doing to increase use of broadband technology. [42869]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government strategy to drive broadband rollout and take up was set out in the UK Online annual report published in December 2001.
  455W
  The report includes a number of actions to stimulate demand, by making it easier to access broadband services, and stimulating the demand and supply of new broadband content and applications.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many homes and businesses have a broadband connection. [42874]

  Mr. Alexander
  Oftel's broadband brief published in February 2002 reported that there were over 146,000 ADSL end-users and 196,000 cable modem end-users. Take-up is growing rapidly, with a growth of over 500 per cent. over the last year.

  Menswear Exports
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to raise with the WTO the tariff on exports of menswear from the United Kingdom to the United States; and if she will make a statement. [42870]

  Ms Hewitt
  This issue will be addressed as part of the market access negotiations within the WTO Doha Development.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received following the publication of the energy report by the performance and innovation unit on clean coal technology; and if she will make a statement. [42871]

  Ms Hewitt
  To date we have received no representations following the publication of my Department's review on Government support for cleaner coal technology demonstration plant.

  Trade Sanctions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has, in coordination with European partners, for targeted trade sanctions on US products. [42875]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government fully support the European Commission's request for consultations with the US, including seeking compensation for the damage to EU trade by the US measures. We will await the outcome of these consultations before reaching any final view on other responses to the US measures.

  Philippines
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her statement of 15 November 2001,Official Report, column 1000, on the WTO, what progress has been made in consultations with the Philippines on trade issues in relation to Mindanao. [42876]

  Ms Hewitt
  Although the Government do not have a bilateral aid programme with the Philippines, the Philippines does receive considerable support from other donors and from multilateral organisations, including the World bank and the Asian Development bank, both of which receive funds from the Government. These multilateral resources should enable the Government of 456W
  the Philippines to tackle poverty and achieve faster growth, provided that a sound policy environment can be maintained.

  If the Mindanao train project is sound and requires concessional resources, multilateral finance should be available.

  Vibration White Finger
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the decision to set a deadline on new claims to the compensation scheme for current and ex-miners suffering from vibration white finger. [42877]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of new claims registered under the scheme is declining and this has led to reduced opening times for many testing centres. The Department is keen to ensure that existing claims are assessed and settled as soon as possible. In consultation with the Claimants' Solicitors Group the Department has agreed a cut-off date of 31 October 2002. This has been advertised in local and national press.

  Once the scheme is closed, claims may still be accepted by solicitors and processed as personal injury claims.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received about the cost impact of the climate change levy on the competitive position of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. [42878]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has received a number of representations from business about the climate change levy.

  The Government are keeping in touch with business on the levy to monitor initial experience with its operation. Primary responsibility for the levy lies with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Environmental Policies
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she takes to integrate environmental concerns into her Department's policies. [42879]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI's aim is to ensure that environmental concerns are brought into the mainstream of the Department's policy-making and operational management, within the wider context of promoting sustainable development.

  The effectiveness of DTI's procedures for environmental screening and appraisal of policies were reviewed last year by a member of the Foresight Environmental Appraisal Task Force and the Department's internal audit. New guidelines are being finalised which will be published on DTI's website.

  DTI's Estates and Facilities Management Directorate run an environmental managements system accredited to ISO 14001 covering DTI's HQ Buildings. It incorporates monitoring, control and regular audits to ensure the continued effectiveness of the system and to track progress towards targets.

  Science
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy on British science. [42868]

  Ms Hewitt
  Our policy is to ensure that we continue to maintain and develop a world class science and engineering base for the UK, and take steps to ensure that it makes the greatest possible contribution towards economic growth, productivity, sustainable development and improved quality of life.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on shipbuilding. [42860]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department continues to work closely with the shipbuilding industry to assist it in its efforts to improve its international competitiveness, employment and training.

  Nigel Devereux
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the responsibility has been of Mr. Nigel Devereux during his secondment to her Department; what policy formulation Mr. Nigel Devereux has been involved in; and if she will make a statement. [43687]

  Ms Hewitt
  Mr. Nigel Devereux has held the position of Head, Downstream Oil since May 2000 in which role he deals with issues relating to the refining and marketing of petroleum products, including the formulation of policy in these areas.

  All secondments into the Department are undertaken within the principles of the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code and are subject to formal contractual arrangements covering detailed terms including issues of conflict of interest.

  Labelling
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations there are to ensure that retail products are labelled to indicate if animal experimentation had taken place in the production process. [43997]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: Animal testing is only carried out in the UK where it is necessary to ensure the health and safety of consumers i.e. before a new pharmaceutical product is placed on the market. Even in these cases some of the world's most stringent requirements for laboratory animal welfare and licensing must be fully complied with.

  The UK does not test finished cosmetic products or their ingredients on animals and has not done so since 1998. The Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996, which implement the European Cosmetics Directive have a voluntary measure which allows claims about animal testing to be made if a manufacturer so chooses. There are no other regulations on product labelling with regard to animal testing.
  458W
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to update labelling laws on animal testing to ensure consumers can make informed purchasing decisions. [43971]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have no such plans.

  Under the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996 manufacturers may refer to testing on animals in the labelling but any reference must state clearly whether the tests carried out involved the cosmetic product itself or its ingredients.

  Government Technology Policy
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out the Government's policy on(a) nanotechnology, (b) biotechnology and (c) manufacturing industry; and if she will make a statement. [43579]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: (a) Nanotechnology—This Government recognises that nanotechnology has the potential to transform the UK industry base. We are focusing on strengthening the research base through new collaborative programme in our leading universities. Our current spend through the Research Councils on nanotechnology is worth over £30 million a year.

  We are also encouraging industry to use this investment to underpin its own research. We particularly wish to see dynamic new firms being spun out from the research base through the use of the £100 million support for seed capital funds, entrepreneurship and incubation that we have made available to the universities and public sector research establishments.

  (b) Biotechnology—The Government's policy on biotechnology is to maintain the UK as the leader in Europe in biotechnology by maximising the potential for commercial developments arising from the UK's excellence in the science base and promoting a supportive regulatory and fiscal environment in the EU and UK, such that the UK is seen as the best place in Europe for:

  (i) biotechnology enterprises to start up, operate and grow; and

  (ii) inward investment in biotechnology.

  (c) Manufacturing—The Government's policy on manufacturing industry is to ensure its future competitiveness and productivity through the stable macro-economic environment we have established, together with our policies to encourage investment, to promote enterprise, innovation, and knowledge transfer, to raise skills, and to provide an effective and competitive framework.

  Claims Direct
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement as to her Department's inquiries into the(a) flotation and (b) collapse of Claims Direct. [41166]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has powers to conduct confidential inquiries into companies and these are exercised when there is good reason to do so in the public interest. The Department does not comment on the
  459W
  affairs of companies that are or have been the subject of inquiries under the Companies Acts. However Claims Direct Plc issued a press notice on 23 July 2001 confirming that it was providing information to the DTI under Section 447 of the Companies Act 1985.

  The Department does not know of any reason to suggest Claims Direct Plc has "collapsed".

  Export Licensing
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account she takes of sustainable development issues in export licensing. [42861]

  Nigel Griffiths
  All relevant export licence applications are considered on a case by case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. This includes the compatibility of the arms exports with the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country, taking into account the desirability that states should achieve their legitimate needs of security and defence with the least diversion for armaments of human and economic resources.

  Unsolicited Faxes
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research she has undertaken on systems which allow people to opt out of receiving unsolicited faxes; and if she will make a statement. [42856]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We consulted widely about this when we were considering how to implement the Telecommunications Data Protection and Privacy Directive in 1999.

  No-one may send an unsolicited fax for direct marketing purposes to an individual subscriber without the subscriber's prior consent. Nor may anyone send such a fax to corporate subscribers if they have registered with the Fax Preference Service, or if they have told the direct marketer not to send them any further faxes. These regulations are enforced by the information commissioner.

  EC State Aid Rules
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which schemes submitted to Advantage West Midlands in the last 12 months have been ruled ineligible as a result of EC state aid rules; [43487]

  (2) what recent representations she has received in respect of EC state aid rules. [43486]

  Alan Johnson
  No projects have been ruled ineligible on state aid grounds alone. Some have given rise to state aid concerns which require them either to be amended so that they do not constitute aid or so that they fell within the block exemption regulations. Other schemes, or their UK funding streams, may need to be or are being notified to the commission so that their compatibility with the EC treaty can be determined. I have received representations from Members of Parliament and businesses about the state aid rules. It is important that the rules are respected but also that they should not inhibit unnecessarily regeneration of urban centres.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Ministerial Duties
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Minister what proportion of her time she spends in each week on matters relating exclusively to women; and if she will make a statement. [42885]

  Ms Hewitt
  My roles as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women are inextricably linked, since women are almost half the workforce, account for a third of new business start-ups and make the majority of decisions as consumers. As Minister for Women I concentrate on issues of work: life balance, narrowing the gender pay gap and women's entrepreneurship, working closely with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office.

  Science and Engineering
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Minister what steps she is taking to encourage women to take up careers in science and engineering. [42886]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are raising awareness of the opportunities for women through promotional material such as SPARK magazine, ambassador and role model campaigns and by encouraging girls to try for themselves science, engineering and IT in several ways: computer clubs, the WISE Campaign Outlook programme and endorsing the "take our daughters to work" day on 25 April. We are also looking at DTI schemes to ensure that they do not inadvertently exclude women who want to return to science and engineering careers.

  Flexible Working
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Minister if she will make a statement on the impact of flexibility at work on productivity growth in Britain. [42887]

  Ms Hewitt
  Greater flexibility at work can boost productivity by enabling employees to balance work and family responsibilities, thus improving recruitment, retention and motivation and reducing absenteeism. More flexible working hours also enable the business to meet customers needs more effectively, for instance through longer opening hours.

  Equal Pay
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Minister what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act 1970. [42888]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Equal Pay Act had a significant impact in reducing the pay gap from 37 per cent. in 1975 to 18 per cent. today. It has been effective in providing legal protection against pay discrimination but also in challenging the culture of undervaluing women.

  We are taking forward action to tackle the complex underlying factors behind the pay gap including promoting a voluntary approach to pay reviews among employers through the Castle Awards and with the help of the Fair Pay Champions, carrying out pay audits in Government Departments, and taking forward recommendations from the Kingsmill Review.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Minister for Women what research her Department is undertaking on the gap between men and women's pay. [42881]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Women and Equality Unit published a comprehensive report called "The Gender Pay Gap" on 5 December 2001. It found that the key causes of the gender pay gap were: women having less work experience and lower levels of qualifications; part-time work; differences in travel patterns; and occupational and workplace segregation.

  International Women's Day
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister what representations she has received about celebrating International Women's Day. [42889]

  Ms Hewitt
  On International Women's Day I spoke at a conference and exhibition in Leicester which was attended by women from the many different communities across the city.

  I also received invitations from the London borough of Waltham Forest and the UK Association for the UN Development Fund for Women.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office marked the occasion by announcing the Castle Awards which will reward employers work in tackling equal pay issues and help narrow the gender pay gap.

  Mothers (Return to Work)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister for Women what assessment she has made of the obstacles preventing those mothers who want to return to work from doing so. [42882]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have identified a number of obstacles which may deter mothers who want to return to work, including the difficulties of balancing work and family life, access to child care facilities, difficulties making work pay, skills becoming out of date and lack of confidence. We are promoting a range of measures to tackle these issues.

SCOTLAND

  Access to Government Information
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests have so far been received in 2001–02 for information in accordance with the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [24780]

  Mrs. Liddell
  For the period 31 January 2001 to 28 February 2002 seven requests have been received for information in accordance with the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Memorandum of Understanding
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the resource implications in 2001–02 of the Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary agreements. [24777]
  462W
  Mrs. Liddell
  There are no separately identifiable costs relating to the Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary agreements. Any work would be carried out by staff as part of their normal duties and I would expect the costs to be small.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the expenditure of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title in each year since 1997. [26983]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date, expenditure on newspaper advertising was as shown in the following table:

  Period/newspaper

  Expenditure (£)

  1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Sun (Scotland)

  3,643.00

  Aberdeen Press and Journal

  3,290.00

  Dundee Courier

  3,277.00

  Scotsman

  3,290.00

  Daily Record

  7,403.00

  Herald

  4,113.00

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  Sun (Scotland)

  7,520.00

  Sunday Herald

  6,630.00

  Aberdeen Press and Journal

  15,002.00

  Daily Record

  15,040.00

  Dundee Courier

  17,434.00

  Scotsman

  17,146.00

  Herald

  18,753.00

  Scotland on Sunday

  12,859.00

  News of the World

  4,759.00

  Sunday Mail

  11,104.00

  Sunday Post

  7,465.00

  Sunday Times

  12,521.00

  1 April 2001 to 31 January 2002

  Sunday Herald

  2,143.00

  Aberdeen Press and Journal

  13,886.00

  Daily Record

  31,080.00

  Sun (Scotland)

  1,487.00

  Dundee Courier

  17,420.00

  Scotsman

  14,781.00

  Herald

  20,487.00

  Scotland on Sunday

  4,286.00

  Sunday Mail

  7,050.00

  Sunday Post

  4,976.00

  Scottish Farmer

  1,555.00

  Campbeltown Courier

  117.00

  Lloyds List

  552.00

  Ballymena Times

  162.00

  Most of the advertising costs relate to electoral registration publicity and information on postal voting.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the instances in which her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32024]
  463W
  Mrs. Liddell
  In the financial year 2000–01 my Department received 3,716 invoices in respect of goods and services and 3,709 (99.7 per cent.) were paid within 30 days.

  Departmental Rebranding
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost was of rebranding her Department following its name change after devolution. [31960]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Costs of £2,140 were incurred for changes to signage at Scotland Office buildings in Edinburgh and London and there were minor additional costs for stationery items.

  IT Contracts
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total expenditure of her Department on IT systems and support in each year from May 1997 to date; how many IT contracts have been let in each of those years; of the other main contracting party in each of those contracts, how many have been

  Title

  Circulation

  Cost (£)

  Purpose

  1999–2000

  Assessment of the Voter Education Campaign for the Scottish Parliament

  Scotland Office Website and available to purchase from the Stationery Office

  18,950

  Commissioned to assess the effectiveness of the Voter Education campaign for the Scottish Parliament elections in 1999

  1999–2000

  The Scotland Office Departmental Report

  Published on the Scotland Office website and presented to Parliament

  2,000

  This is published jointly and presented to parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It explains the Department's aims, objectives and gives details of expenditure plans.

  1999–2000

  The Scotland Office Resource Accounts

  Laid in Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland

  150

  These accounts report expenditure by the Department in resource terms.

  2000–01

  The Scotland Office Departmental Report

  Published on the Scotland Office website and presented to Parliament

  2,200

  This is published jointly and presented to parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It explains the Department's aims and objectives and gives details of expenditure plans.

  2000–01

  The Scotland Office Resource Accounts

  Laid in Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland

  2,300

  These accounts report expenditure by the Department in resource terms.

  Title

  Circulation

  Cost (£)

  Purpose

  2000–01

  Comparisons of Motoring Taxation Costs Across Europe— report by Colin Buchanan and Partners

  Published on the Scotland Office website and placed in the House of Commons Library.

  4,500

  This report provides a breakdown of costs for Scotland and the Scottish Highlands and Islands to allow a comparison of these specific areas with other parts of the EEA.

  2000–01

  Scotland Office Charter

  Published on the Scotland Office website and printed copies are available on request.

  125

  Sets out the Department's commitment to providing high quality and efficient services in line with the Service First Initiative.

  2000–01

  Scotland Office Winter Supplementary Estimate

  Presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty.

  2,200

  This is the official request to parliament for additional resources.

  2001–02

  Friends of Scotland

  Copies circulated to a wide range of individuals and groups

  4,171

  To publicise the Friends of Scotland Initiative which seeks to promote the image of a modern, outward-looking Scotland and harness the goodwill that exists towards Scotland.

  2001–02

  The Size of the Scottish Parliament—A Consultation

  MPs and MEPs for Scottish constituencies. MSPs, the Scottish Executive, the Electoral Commission, DTLR and groups representing civic Scotland. Also available on the department's website

  1,007

  To consult as widely as possible on whether the number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament should be reduced in line with the current provision of the Scotland Act, or whether the link between Westminster and Holyrood constituencies should be broken.

  464W
  (a) companies whose registered office is in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland and (b) foreign companies; and what are the names of the companies falling within category (a). [33671]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The Department's IT systems and support is provided by the Scottish Executive. Costs were as follows:

  1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000: £63,046

  2000–01: £188,594

  2001–02 (to date): £142,174.

  The Scotland Office has let no IT contracts during this period.

  Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the publications issued by her Department in each of the last four years; and what the(a) circulation, (b) cost and (c) purpose of each was. [34198]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since then, the Department has issued the following publications:

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost to her Department was for accountancy services in each of the last four years. [34171]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Accountancy services to the Department are provided by the Scottish Executive, as required, and detailed costs are not available. The Scotland Office has not used external accountancy services.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list, for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, the amount spent(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad by (i) her Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) its non-departmental public bodies on (1) providing mobile telephone equipment, including handsets and other associated equipment, (2) telephone calls made using such equipment and (3) telephone calls made using privately owned mobile telephones but subsequently reclaimed by (x) Ministers and (y) staff. [34405]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is not held in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State of Scoland 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, indicatin 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. [34487]

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

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [34295]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the effect of the Working Time Directive on her Department's employees; how many employees are working in excess of 48 hours per week; what steps she is taking to reduce this number; and if she will make a statement. [35895]
  466W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The standard terms and conditions of service for staff in the Scotland Office fall within the limits set by the working time regulations. At present I have no staff who have opted to sign a waiver disapplying the 48 hour limit. Persistent working in excess of 48 hours per week would be discouraged and my Department advocates flexible working patterns in line with the Government's work-life balance policies.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 407W, on fair trade goods, if she will review during Fair Trade Fortnight the amount of fairly traded goods used in her Department. [35454]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department did not participate directly in Fair Trade Fortnight. The Government are contributing through the Department for International Development, which is providing £120,000 to the Fair Trade Foundation over three years (2001–2003) in support of its efforts to target new groups through its annual Fair Trade Fortnight campaigns. When the opportunity arises, fair trade goods are used.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Third World
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government are taking to help eradicate(a) debt and (b) child poverty in the third world. [43932]

  Clare Short
  The UK has played a major role in tackling the unsustainable debt burden of the poorest countries. We led the way in securing the revision of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, which was agreed in September 1999. Up to US$100 billion debt could be written off for the 42 HIPC countries. So far, 26 countries have qualified for this exceptional relief. These countries will receive more than US$60 billion worth of debt relief, reducing their debts by more than two-thirds on average. We hope that more countries will qualify for debt relief but substantial further progress will be difficult, as many of the remaining HIPC countries are either affected by conflict or have severe governance problems.

  The UK goes further than is required under the HIPC Initiative and provides 100 per cent. relief on its bilateral debts to countries once they qualify, and holds any debt repayments 'in trust' in the meantime. The Government have already cancelled their aid debts to all the poorest countries, not just HIPC. The UK is also the second largest contributor (US$306 million) to the HIPC Trust Fund to help international financial institutions meet their share of HIPC costs.

  We seek to reduce the poverty of children, which causes suffering to today's children and jeopardises the well-being of future generations, by working to address the cause of poverty and deprivation in the families and communities in which they live. Support for children's rights to basic health care, education, nutrition, shelter, protection from violence and abusive labour, along with sustainable livelihoods for their parents, is central to our work towards the millennium development goals.
  467W
  We are working to energise the international system to achieve the goals. The goals include the target of, by 2015, lifting 1 billion people out of abject poverty, universal primary schooling, and reducing under-five child mortality by two thirds.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government are taking to persuade the World bank to change loans to heavily indebted poorer countries to grants. [43933]

  Clare Short
  We are firmly opposed to any suggestion that World bank highly concessional loans should be converted to grants. The International Development Association (IDA) of the World bank provides very concessional loans which are paid back over 40 years with a 10 year grace period and low service charge. Such loans are highly effective in helping countries to reduce poverty and are complemented by grant resources provided by other agencies. Any move to change IDA loans to grants would undermine the effectiveness of IDA and its future financi1al integrity.

  Pakistan
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid her Department has provided to Pakistan in the current financial year; and what she plans to allocate in the next financial year. [45864]

  Clare Short
  By the end of the financial year, 31 March 2002, my Department will have provided £20 million of budget support to Pakistan. Next year, I plan to allocate £40 million. This is a slight change from the planned disbursement I announced to Parliament last December, and reflects the pattern of resource availability in my Department. Our overall commitment to provide £105 million financial aid over three years remains unchanged.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department is in a position to make an assessment about the likely humanitarian impact of military action against Iraq before any military action is taken; and if she will make such a study prior to military action. [44299]

  Clare Short
  No decisions have been taken on any military action against Iraq.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which organisations have provided her Department with reports on the current humanitarian situation inside Iraq. [44298]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has access to reports on the current humanitarian situation from a number of agencies working in both northern and central/southern Iraq. These include the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the World Health Organisation (WHO), as well as a number of NGOs.

  Cluster Bombs
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 13 March 2002 ref. 40655 on cluster bombs, what estimates she has received from UNMAS on the number of(a) cluster bombs used and (b) unexploded bomblets located at the sites where cluster bombs were used in Afghanistan. [44391]

  Clare Short
  UNMAS estimate that 1,152 Cluster Bomb Units have been used in Afghanistan. (b) UNMAS estimate that there are up to 14,000 unexploded bomblets as a result. The accuracy of this estimate cannot be confirmed until more clearance work is undertaken and/or actual weapons used and target information is received from the Coalition.

  Mine Clearance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the organisations to which the Government have given money for the purposes of mine clearance in 2001–02, specifying the amount given in each case. [43876]

  Clare Short
  The table gives the figures requested.

  Estimated final outturn 2001–02

  Organisation

  £

  The HALO Trust (bilateral)

  1,150,000

  Mines Advisory Group (MAG) (bilateral)

  1,000,000

  United Nations Mine Action Service (UNIMAS)

  5,000,000

  UNICEF (Mines Awareness)

  500,000

  International Trust Fund for De-mining—Bosnia

  500,000

  Organisation of American States (Nicaragua de-mining)

  189,000

  BACTEC de-mining (Kosovo)

  15,000

  DSL (Kosovo)

  750,000

  ELS (Kosovo)

  22,000

  QinetiQ

  100,000

  UNDP

  2,100,000

  Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian De-mining (GICHD)

  1,000,000

  Cranfield Mine Action

  221,000

  Landmine Monitor

  30,000

  DISARMCO (Research and Development)

  61,000

  ERA (Research and Development)

  117,000

  12,605,000

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what Government expenditure was on humanitarian mine clearance in 2001–02, broken down by country. [43877]

  Clare Short
  Estimated Government expenditure for 2001–02 on mine action programmes by country is indicated in the following table:

  Country

  Amount (£)

  Afghanistan

  3,150,000

  Eritrea

  694,540

  Nicaragua

  189,000

  Cambodia

  1,000,000

  Northern Iraq

  206,137

  Jordan

  197,402

  Laos

  300,000

  Georgia

  500,000

  Bosnia

  500,000

  Croatia

  326,529

  Kosovo

  2,000,000

  Global contribution to UNMAS and UNDP

  2,600,000

  469W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent by the Government on(a) humanitarian mine clearance, (b) commercial mine clearance, (d) military initiative mine clearance, (d) mine awareness, (e) victim assistance and (f) research and development for mine clearance in 2001–02. [43878]

  Clare Short
  Estimated disbursements for 2001–02 are as follows:

  £ million

  2001–02

  (1) Humanitarian Mine Clearance

  110.2

  (2) Mines Awareness

  0.5

  (3) Research and Development

  1.3

  1 Also includes some integrated mine awareness activities. As programmes are often integrated separate costs of awareness are not available. Specific mine awareness activities are undertaken with UNICEF as shown at item two.

  United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government(a) have taken and (b) plans to take to respond to the Action Plan of the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries. [44360]

  Clare Short
  The Government are working to implement the action plan of the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries in a variety of ways both through out bilateral programmes and our multilateral work. Over the past four years, we have increased the proportion of aid allocated to least developed countries, as a proportion of our bilateral country resources, from 33 per cent. to 45 per cent.

  We are supporting the Commonwealth Secretariat's Trade and Investment Access Facility to deliver a range of activities designed to strengthen the capacity of least developed Commonwealth countries to address trade issues. We also continue to work with multilateral organisations including the United Nations and the European Commission to ensure that the momentum generated by the third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, on key issues such as trade, aid untying and financial issues is maintained in follow-on international conferences. These include the current Financing for Development conference in Monterey (18–22 March) and the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.

  We consider it important to see the third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries as part of an on-going process of developing a partnership for poverty eradication between developing countries, including least developed countries, and the international community. We will therefore continue to work with our partners to build on the positive achievements made on recent initiatives such as the European Union's "Everything But Arms" agreement and the Development
  470W
  Assistance Committee's recommendations on untying, both of which were strongly supported by the UK, to ensure that least developed countries can achieve sustained economic growth and development.

  St. Helena
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Government of St. Helena; and if she will make a statement. [43865]

  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has had no recent discussions with the Government of St. Helena. DFID officials do have regular contact and last met members of St. Helena's Executive and Legislative Council earlier this month during their visit to the UK to discuss air access.

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid was given to St. Helena in each of the last six years for which figures are available. [43870]

  Clare Short
  Expenditure figures for UK development assistance to St. Helena in each of the last six years for which figures are available were:

  £ million

  Total DFID programme

  1995–96

  9,267

  1996–97

  7,990

  1997–98

  8,765

  1998–99

  8,805

  1999–2000

  9,362

  2000–01

  10,116

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress towards the construction of an airfield on St. Helena. [43871]

  Clare Short
  A "Comparative Study of Air and Sea Access" was published last July. A copy of the report was placed in the House of Commons Library. It identified various options, which have since been under consideration by the St. Helena Government. As part of that process, the views of the islanders have been sought. The outcome has been a majority preference in favour of possible air access in future, as an alternative to replacing St. Helena's dedicated passenger and supply ship. Island representatives have recently visited the UK to discuss air access and will be reporting their discussions to the St. Helena Government at the beginning of April.

  Territorial Forces
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many members of staff of her Department are members of the Territorial forces; and if she has a strategy to encourage members of staff to become members of the Territorial forces. [44070]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. We have no particular plans to encourage members of staff to become members of the Territorial forces.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many members of staff at her Department are Justices of the Peace; and if she has a strategy for her Department to encourage members of staff to become Justices of the Peace. [44553]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. We have no particular plans to encourage members of staff to become Justices of the Peace.

  Staff (Locally Elected Representatives)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many members of staff at her Department are locally elected democratic representatives; and if she has a strategy for her Department to encourage members of staff to become locally elected democratic representatives. [44542]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. We have no particular plans to encourage members of staff to become locally elected democratic representatives.

  Tanzania
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she was informed of the application for an export licence for the sale of an air defence system to Tanzania. [39830]

  Clare Short
  [pursuant to her reply, 8 March 2002, c.684W]: I apologise for the error contained in my reply. The answer should have read:
  The applications were first drawn to my attention in October 2000, not October 2001.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Ethnic Community Religious Groups
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what discussions he has had with the Church Commissioners about possible financial assistance to ethnic community religious groups in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [43942]

  Mr. Bell
  My hon. Friend will know from my answer of 30 November 2001 that in 2000—the latest year for which audited figures are available—the Commissioners made available £160 million to support the work of the Church of England, including a share to support the stipends of the serving ministry, targeted particularly on areas of need and opportunity. Within the Church of England there are many parishes with ethnic community religious groups that the Church seeks to serve.

  The Church of England cultivates its connection with minority faith communities through its Inter Faith Concerns Group and has also contributed financially to the work of the Inner Cities Religious Council.

  The Commissioners do not have a remit for Wales.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Courts Martial
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are serving prison sentences imposed by courts martial; and which prisons they are held in. [41363]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional data show that on 31 January 2002 27 prisoners were serving prison sentences imposed by courts martial.

  Prisoners sentenced by courts martial

  Prison name

  Male

  Female

  Acklington

  1

  —

  Aylesbury

  1

  —

  Blundestone

  3

  —

  Chelmsford

  2

  —

  Deerbolt

  1

  —

  Drake Hall

  —

  1

  Guys Marsh

  2

  —

  High point

  —

  1

  Hollesley Bay

  1

  —

  Holme House

  1

  —

  Kirklevington

  1

  —

  North Sea Camp

  1

  —

  Stocken

  1

  —

  Stoke Heath

  1

  —

  Wakefield

  1

  —

  Wayland

  3

  —

  Wealstun

  2

  —

  Wymott

  3

  —

  Entitlement Cards
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work on development of an entitlement card, other than for asylum seekers, is being conducted in his Department; and what measures have been adopted to co-ordinate this work with the Department of Social Security. [40863]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: A small unit has been established in my Department to draft the consultation paper which I announced on 5 February 2002 and to manage the consultation exercise. Some of the detailed work on how a scheme might operate is being undertaken in partnership by the United Kingdom Passport Service and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  My officials are working closely with colleagues in a number of Government Departments including the Department for Work and Pensions which is represented on a group of senior officials chaired by the Cabinet Office which has overseen the work at official level.

  Fees
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which fees his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies collect; how much has been raised or is anticipated will be raised from each of these fees from 1998–99 to 2004–05; which of these fees count as negative expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [41312]
  473W
  Angela Eagle
  The fees collected by the Home Department are summarised in the table. All of the fees are classified as negative expenditure within the

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Animal licence fees

  960

  943

  1,058

  1,061

  1,518

  1,844

  2,029

  Animal licence fees Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts (CFER)— not negative DEL

  1,440

  1,415

  1,587

  1,591

  2,277

  2,767

  3,043

  Passport fees

  57,000

  88,053

  123,287

  119,900

  131,000

  135,200

  140,500

  Passport fees (CFER)—not negative DEL

  32,000

  18,000

  11,000

  17,000

  28,000

  45,000

  45,000

  Drugs licence fees

  494

  555

  558

  512

  512

  512

  512

  Subject access office fees

  890

  1,228

  1,599

  1,952

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  Receipts from non-statutory inspections

  169

  134

  73

  63

  173

  173

  173

  Training course Fees (including Crime Reduction College)

  1,984

  2,203

  1,870

  5,259

  5,259

  5,259

  5,259

  Police National Computer fees

  0

  0

  17,774

  17,774

  18,550

  18,550

  18,550

  Firearms licences for museums CFER—not negative DEL

  4

  147

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Criminal Records Bureau fees

  0

  0

  0

  3,392

  63,249

  77,245

  117,276

  Citizenship fees

  6,408

  6,419

  9,580

  13,812

  15,408

  17,813

  19,013

  Right of abode fees

  57

  63

  105

  120

  87

  87

  87

  Travel document fees

  0

  338

  2,031

  2,387

  2,387

  2,387

  2,387

  Immigration Service Commissioner fees

  0

  0

  0

  277

  250

  250

  240

  Retail Crime
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what support his Department has given to the British Retail Consortium to(a) establish and (b) manage retail crime partnership; and what contribution his Department makes to the British Retail Consortium annual retail crime survey for England and Wales; [39863]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the number of meetings he has had with representatives of the retail industry to discuss retail crime prevention in the last 12 months; [39864]

  (3) what studies have been made of the effects of retail crime partnerships on crime reduction; and if he will publish a list of the locations of retail crime partnerships in the UK. [39865]

  Mr. Denham
  My hon. Friend (Mr. Ainsworth) addressed the launch of the British Retail Consortium annual crime survey on 27 June 2001. I also visited a number of retailers in the St. Leonards areas of Hastings on 6 February 2002 when the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas scheme was launched.

  Home Office officials are in regular contact with several retail representative bodies to discuss a range of issues, including retail crime prevention. Home Office Ministers and officials will continue to hold meetings with retail representatives such as the British Retail Consortium to ensure that their concerns are heard and understood by Government.

  My Department has supported the work undertaken to establish partnerships by funding development work by a consultant for the past two years. This has resulted in the production of a definitive guide on how to establish and run a retail crime partnership, and we have encouraged retailers and other stakeholders in main shopping centre areas to establish partnerships to tackle retail and related
  474W
  Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL),unless otherwise shown.

  crime. We are aware of the following retail crime partnerships currently in existence in England and Wales and registered with Business Crime Check.

  Acocks Green Shopping Centre (SC)

  Aintree

  Andover

  Barnstaple

  Barrow

  Bath

  Bedford

  Birkenhead

  Birmingham

  Bitterne

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Bluewater SC

  Bognor Regis

  Bolton

  Bootle

  Boscombe

  Bournemouth

  Bradford

  Brent Cross SC

  Bridlington

  Brighton

  Bristol Broadmead

  Bromley

  Burnley

  Burton-On-Trent

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Buxton

  Caernarfon

  Cardiff

  Carlisle

  Cheltenham

  Chester

  Chesterfield

  Clacton

  Clapham

  475W

  Coventry

  Crawley

  Cribbs Causeway

  Crosby Village

  Croydon

  Darlington

  Dewsbury

  Durham

  Eastleigh

  Epsom

  Evesham

  Exeter

  Fareham

  Folkestone

  Fosse Park SC

  Gloucester

  Gravesend

  Great Yarmouth

  Grimsby/Cleethorpes

  Guildford

  Hanley

  Harbourne

  Harlow

  Hastings

  Hatfield

  Haywards Heath

  Hemel Hempstead

  Hereford

  Hexham

  Holloway

  Hounslow

  Huyton Village

  Ipswich

  Keighley

  Kendal

  Kensington, Liverpool

  Kettering

  Kidderminster

  Kirby

  Leamington Spa

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lewisham

  Lincoln

  Liscard SC

  Littlehampton

  Liverpool

  Llandudno

  Lowestoft

  Luton

  Lymington

  Maidenhead

  Maidstone

  Manchester

  Margate

  Market Watch, Liverpool

  Meadowhall SC

  Merry Hill

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Metro Centre, Newcastle

  476W

  Middlesbrough

  Milton Keynes

  Neath/Port Talbot

  Nelson

  Newbury

  Newcastle

  Newport, Isle of Wight

  Newton Abbott

  Northampton

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Nuneaton

  Orpington

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Pontefract

  Portsmouth

  Prescot/Fairfield

  Preston

  Redcar

  Redditch

  Rhyl

  Richmond

  Ringwood

  Romford

  Rugby

  Rugeley

  Salisbury

  Scarborough

  Sheffield

  Shipley

  Shoreham

  Shrewsbury

  Sittingbourne

  Skegness

  Slough

  Solihull

  Southport

  Southsea

  Stevenage

  Stockport

  Stockton

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Stratford-upon-Avon

  Sutton

  Sutton in Ashfield

  Swansea

  Swindon

  Taunton

  Telford

  Trafford Centre

  Tunbridge Wells

  Uxbridge

  Wallington

  Walsall

  Waltham Cross

  Walthamstow

  Walton

  Wandsworth

  Warrington

  477W

  Watford

  Welwyn Garden City

  Westminster

  Weston-Super-Mare

  Wimborne

  Winchester

  Windsor

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

  Wood Green

  Woolwich

  Worcester

  Workington

  Wrexham.

  There are other locations where partnerships are known to exist or are being developed but these are not registered with Business Crime Check. I am not aware of any specific studies on the effects of retail crime partnerships on crime reduction

  The annual retail crime survey carried out independently by the British Retail Consortium and my Department is not involved in its production.

  Lancet Inquiry
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider referring the issues raised by the Lancet inquiry back to the Crown Prosecution Service. [36516]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 February 2002]: This is a matter for Cleveland Police.

  Burglar Alarms
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to co-operate with the private security industry to reduce the number of false burglar alarm call outs in England and Wales. [37429]

  Mr. Denham
  The principal link for the security industry in the matter of false alarm calls is the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) through their Research and Development Committee. Home Office involvement includes an alarm technology programme which aims to define new ways in which the police service uses alarm systems to tackle burglary and volume crime. In addition, the Police Scientific Development Branch of the Home Office has published a number of papers on the subject and will carry out a study into false alarms in partnership with ACPO. This will investigate the causes of false alarms and highlight the need for best practice throughout the security industry. In the meantime Police Scientific Development Branch will continue work on alarm verification, expanding it to include all of the latest types of sensor devices and audio and imaging techniques.

  Active Community Unit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives are planned for the constituency of Buckingham funded by the Active Community Unit; and what target he has for involvement in volunteering of residents in the constituency. [43285]
  478W
  Angela Eagle
  The Active Community Unit is not currently funding any projects based in the constituency of Buckingham. However the Unit funds a wide range of national voluntary and community sector organisations which benefit every area of England.

  The Active Community Unit aims to achieve a step change in people's voluntary involvement in their communities. We want to encourage and enable more people to volunteer. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Blair) has laid down a challenge to one million more people getting involved in their communities, and the Home Office is committed to making significant progress towards this goal by 2004. This figure is not broken down by constituency.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rent will be paid for the premises of the Criminal Records Bureau in Shannon Court, Liverpool [21705]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: I understand that the rent payable by Capita, the private sector partner in the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) programme, for the Shannon court premises is £1,015,000.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Prison Service will implement the recommendations of the Independent Review Body concerning pay for operational managers, prison officers and related grades. [40714]

  Beverley Hughes
  The report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) on the pay of governing governors and operational managers, prison officers and related grades in England and Wales in 2002 was published on 30 January 2002 and copies placed in the Library.

  The PSPRB has recommended a basic rise of 6 per cent. over a 15 month period. This is a significant award which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) has decided will be implemented in full. The locality allowances to Prison Service staff in eligible areas in London and the south-east will be increased immediately by the full amount recommended, with effect from 1 January 2002. The general award will be paid in two steps, 3.5 per cent. backdated to 1 January 2002; the remainder in January 2003.

  The key recommendations are:
  a 6 per cent. increase to basic pay rates over the 15 month period covered by the report;
  rates of local pay allowance paid to staff in London and parts of the south-east will be increased with effect from 1 January 2002 by:

  £500 to £3,500 per annum for the top rate

  £400 to £2,300 per annum for the middle rate

  £200 to £1,000 per annum for the lower rate.

  Current arrangements for the performance pay of operational managers will remain unchanged. Various special allowances will be raised in line with the basic award.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to deal with the rise in the prison population. [45391]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Halliday review of the sentencing framework has given us a unique opportunity to examine what we should do to prevent, tackle and punish offending behaviour. The recent rise in the prison population suggests that sentences are not currently being targeted as effectively as they could be. Prisons are focusing on housing more and more prisoners for whom it is not demonstrably the right option. The Government is currently considering how to take the sentencing reforms forward with a view to publishing our conclusions in a White Paper to be published in the Spring. Whatever the population pressures, the Government is uncompromising in its response to serious and dangerous offenders. Where there is a need to protect the public, this should take place in a secure environment. Communities must be protected from such offenders.

  As part of this I am very keen to look imaginatively at alternatives to full time custody, and in particular would like to explore options for piloting intermittent custody and introducing a new suspended sentence (custody minus). These sentences, alongside the tougher and more flexible community sentences we already have, as well as those being proposed, will give sentencers the confidence to explore alternatives to short custodial sentences. Easing pressure on the shorter-term population will enable the Prison Service to focus on providing longer term prisoners with the regimes, training and programmes they need to correct their offending behaviour.

  Home detention curfew (HDC) is a key resettlement tool which gives us the opportunity to monitor an offender during their transition back into the community. It is also a useful tool in helping us manage the prison population by reducing over-crowding at the same time as improving the resettlement and rehabilitation opportunities for less serious offenders. From the beginning of May prisoners serving sentences of between three months and under 12 months, with the exception of those convicted of violent or drugs offences within the previous three years, and prisoners who have any history of sexual offending, will be released on home detention curfew for the latter part of their sentence unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. All offenders not statutorily excluded will be subject to a risk assessment and released on HDC only where it is safe to do so. Under the HDC scheme released prisoners serve the remainder of their custody period at home under electronic curfew usually from 7pm to 7am. At any one time we expect that this measure will remove up to 1,350 prisoners from prison accommodation, in addition to the 1,800 who are already on the scheme. The impact of these arrangements and any further extensions of the HDC scheme will be kept under close review.

  Yarl's Wood
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Lloyds Syndicate 962 D. J. Pye is acting for the Home Office in relation to a claim for compensation for damage following the incidents at Yarl's Wood Remand Centre on 14 and 15 February. [38778]

  Angela Eagle
  Insurance in respect of the Yarl's Wood Removal Centre and any claims arising from it is the responsibility of Group 4 Amey Immigration Ltd. In 480W
  accordance with the contract for the management and operation of the centre. The insurance provisions are in the joint name of the Home Office and the contractor.

  Bedfordshire Police Authority
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure the Bedfordshire Police Authority will not suffer a loss to its budget in the event of a successful claim against it by loss adjusters. [38779]

  Mr. Denham
  Any claim would be against the Bedfordshire Police Authority. Whether the authority is liable for compensation will depend on the circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the Government's position clear in respect of any claims against the Bedfordshire police by the insurers for compensation in his statement of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 445 and at columns 450–51. We will work with the police to protect their interests and those of the people they serve in Bedfordshire.

  Police Complaints
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if an investigator independent of the Metropolitan police has been appointed to investigate complaints by members of the public against officers below the rank of commander in Operation Helios; [39363]

  (2) what complaints by (a) members of the public and (b) others against police officers involved in the Operation Helios investigation of (i) Superintendent Ali Dizaei and (ii) Chief Inspector Leroy Logan have been recorded in accordance with police discipline regulations; [39358]

  (3) how many police officers involved in Operation Helios have formally been given regulation 9 notices specifying the nature of complaints against them. [39359]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that, in light of the on-going proceedings involving Superintendent Ali Dizaei, the views of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have been sought. The issue of complaints will be a matter for consideration in the disclosure process within the criminal proceedings.

  As the relevance and admissibility of these matters may well be an issue at the trial it is the view of the CPS, which has been accepted by the Commissioner, that to disclose information at this time would risk possible prejudice to the trial process.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 57W, on private medical insurance, what plans (a) Norfolk, (b) Thames Valley, (c) Hertfordshire and (d) Bedfordshire police authorities have to make private medical insurance available to their staff; what assessment his Department has made of the potential effects on police officer availability of such plans; and if he will make a statement. [37190]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: None of these police forces make private medical insurance available to police officers and support staff.
  481W
  We are currently developing an occupational health strategy for the police service which will encourage measures which will help to reduce sickness absence rates and increase police officer availability.

  Best Value
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what police forces are the subject of best value assessments. [39235]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: All police authorities in England and Wales are defined as best value authorities under the Local Government Act 1999. This requires them to secure continuous improvement in the way their functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

  Police Community Consultative Groups
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines he has issued on the appointment of chairmen of police community consultative groups; [39234]

  (2) how many chairmen of police community consultative groups (a) are and (b) are planned to be nominated from (i) the relevant police authority and (ii) non-police members of PCCGs. [39236]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Section 96 of the Police Act 1996 places a duty on police authorities to make arrangements for obtaining views of people in the force area about matters concerning the policing of the area.

  The Act does not specify that this duty should be fulfilled through the establishment of police/community consultative groups which have no formal status set out in statute, and whose constitution and membership is not governed by any binding directives or guidance. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) has issued no specific guidelines on the way in which the chairs of any such groups should be appointed. Information about them is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  In its report published in December 2001, the Community Cohesion Review Team, chaired by Ted Cantle and set up following the disturbances in the north of England last summer, recommended that a good practice guide to community consultation should be developed, and that work is being taken forward.

  Sexual Abuse Investigations
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the definition is of trawling, in relation to sex abuse cases; and what research has been done by the HMIC to ascertain the effectiveness of the trawling process. [35957]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer to a letter sent by my predecessor (Mr. Clarke) in February of last year which addressed this subject.

  The term "trawling" has been used by critics of the police to describe the process by which police investigations into serious allegations of historical sexual abuse in children's homes and other institutions trace
  482W
  potential witnesses. As such, it is not for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to provide a definition of a term he considers unhelpful and pejorative and is not normally used by the police.

  The process referred to by the term is an investigative method which involves sampling from an often long list of potential witnesses who may have information that can be used to corroborate or rebut an allegation of sexual abuse which may have taken place a considerable time beforehand. Due to the very complex nature of these investigations, witness evidence is often paramount due to the lack of forensic and other evidence after the passage of time since the alleged offences.

  The Code of Practice issued under Part II of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 sets out general responsibilities for officers conducting investigations into allegations that a crime has been committed. Under the code, police officers conducting an investigation should pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect. The practice referred to is established practice as the best use of police resources in eliciting information to assist an investigation.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) undertook a thematic inspection into child protection in 1999 and is currently taking a major part in an inspection of safeguards for children's welfare led by the Social Services Inspectorate. HMIC also routinely conduct detailed force inspections, which include arrangements for child abuse and major crime investigations. None of these has, thus far, thrown doubt over the quality of investigation into institutional child abuse allegations; nor has any evidence to support concerns into the sampling of historic institutional child abuse allegations been brought to the attention of HMIC or the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many court cases have been determined without a jury since the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 came into force. [41367]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Information relating to the outcome of cases under the Act began to be collated centrally from 1 January 2002. Information about cases completed in 2002 will not be published until the autumn of next year.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice is available to probation areas on changing their domestic violence services from established perpetrator programmes with central partner support services in favour of the Duluth Pathfinder. [42662]

  Beverley Hughes
  Until a nationally accredited programme is available we will not be advising areas to change to a centrally determined programme.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded by each police authority in England and Wales in each category of crime for each year since 1997. [37903]
  483W
  Mr. Denham
  The requested data have been published in table 2.5 in the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 editions of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales", which are available in the Library. It should be noted that 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. Numbers of recorded crimes after this date are therefore not directly comparable with previous years.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of emergency police call-outs in the last 12 months for which figures are available were to road traffic accidents, broken down by police authority; and what estimate he has made of the saving to police authorities which a(a) 5 per cent., (b) 10 per cent. and (c) 20 per cent. reduction in road traffic accidents represents. [37462]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 February 2002]: In 2000–01 there were 668,549 calls to the police in England and Wales that related to road traffic crashes. These accounted for 3.8 per cent. of the total number of nearly 17.5 millions calls. Data are not available by police force area, and there is no central record of the number of traffic incidents attended by the police as the result of calls or of how many police attended on any occasion.

  The latest information on the value of road accident prevention is given in "Highways Economics Note No 1", published by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, in October 2001. This estimates that the total reduction in police costs if all road traffic accidents in 2000 could have been prevented would have been approximately £30 million.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Press Office
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what this year's budget is for his Department's(a) press office and (b) Directorate of Communication; [41997]

  (2) what the establishment level is of his Department's press office; and for how many months that level has been achieved since June 2001; [41989]

  (3) how many staff there are within his Department's press office. [41990]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Resource allocations for 2001–2002 are as follows:

  £ million

  (a)

  Press Office

  2,487

  (b)

  Directorate of Communication

  5.842

  Within these resource allocations, the press office has an indicative establishment provision for 35 posts. Since June 2001, the press office has averaged 4.5 vacant posts per month.
  484W
  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 19 March 2002, Official Report, column 220W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the vacancies in his Department's press office. [40107]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given above to questions 41997, 41989, and 41990.

  International Travel
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much his Department spent on international travel in 2000–01. [41681]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department spent £1,868,846 on international travel from April 2000 to end of March 2001.

  Communications Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the annual budget for communications activities, including press, public relations, marketing and internal communications, was for his Department for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [39908]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Annual expenditure in the years requested was as follows:

  £ million

  Director of Communication administration expenditure 1

  Departmental external publicity and marketing expenditure

  Total

  1997–98

  6.3

  12.5

  18.8

  1998–99

  7.0

  11.2

  18.2

  1999–2000

  6.5

  20.4

  26.9

  2000–01

  6.3

  25.7

  32.0

  2001–022

  5.8

  20.2

  26.0

  1 Excluding external publicity

  2 Latest forecast

  Passenger Cars
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's proposal to consult on piloting a comparative, colour-coded label for passenger cars. [45714]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have today published a consultation paper on piloting a comparative label for passenger cars. The consultation sets out the Government's proposals on a possible new form of label, which would be based on the environmental performance categories used in the Graduated Vehicle Excise Duty system. We believe this would make an effective label, consistent with and reinforced by the environmental message given through the new taxation regimes. The proposal at this stage is to begin piloting a comparative label later this year, with a view to making any further decision following that pilot. Any proposal to make the label mandatory, would be subject to further consultation. I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Library.

  Access to Information
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to amend the rules regulating the provision of access to information by local authorities. [46163]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have today laid before the House two statutory instruments: the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Amendment Regulations 2002 and the Local Authorities (Access to Meetings and Documents) (Period of Notice) (England) Order 2002.

  Our aim in modernising local government is to make local decision-making more accountable. We have listened very carefully to the responses we received to the consultation on access to information in local government which we launched in April 2001. We believe it is right that local people should have earlier warning of the important decisions that local authorities take and of the meetings where these decisions take place. In line with this the statutory instruments will have the effect of increasing the notice period authorities have to give of such decisions or such meetings from three to five days.

  This reform will encourage greater participation by local people in the democratic process. Decisions that local authorities take will benefit from the transparency that public debate brings. Decision-making will be brought closer to those affected by those decisions.

  Our consultation also asked views on two other issues—proposals to revise the definition of "exempt" information given by Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and the framing of guidance on financial thresholds for key executive decisions.

  We currently have no plans to make changes to the definition of exempt information, but we will consult further in the planned review of the access to information regime, planned for summer 2002.

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Gross administration costs

  DTLR (railways directorate)

  2.1

  2.5

  2.6

  2.7

  2.7

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF)1

  8

  7

  8

  11

  14

  Strategic Rail Authority (SRA)2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR)

  8

  8

  8

  12

  13

  Total staff costs

  British Railways Board1

  762

  102

  85

  77

  69

  Notes:

  1. The 2000–01 figures for OPRAF and BRB cover the 10 months to 31 January 2001.

  2. Staff costs for the two months to 31 March 2001. Taken from table 4, page 92 of the SRA annual report 2000–01.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he or his Department have had with the Rail Regulator on the structure and funding of the successor company to Railtrack in administration. [43638]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: The successor for Railtrack is a matter for the administrator.
  486W
  We announced in the local government White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership Quality Public Services", published in December 2001, that local authorities were best placed to define what constitutes a key decision.

  Rail Strikes (Disabled People)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure full access of people with disabilities to transport facilities during industrial action by staff of train operators. [422161]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: On 6 February the Strategic Rail Authority published its revised Code of Practice, "Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers". All licensed operators on the national rail network are required to review their Disabled Peoples Protection Policies to reflect the revised code. The code requires that any buses or other substitute transport arranged on a pre-planned basis must be accessible to disabled people and the SRA will expect that to be reflected in the revised policies which the operators put forward for approval.

  Railways
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the public sector administration cost associated with the rail sector was in each of the last five years. [44988]

  Mr. Byers
  The table shows the gross administration costs of the railways related public sector bodies and the total staff costs of the British Railways Board (BRB) over each of the last five years.

  On 1 February 2001 the SRA legally assumed all the functions of OPRAF, most of the residual functions of the BRB and some functions of the DTLR railways directorate and of the ORR. The SRA administration figure includes staff costs for the British Transport Police that were previously paid by the BRB and for the Rail Passenger Councils that were previously paid by the ORR.

  Bidders need to put forward their proposals on structure and funding to him.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what powers Railtrack plc has while in administration, to be involved in any bid for another company, or part of another company; [44207]

  (2) while it remains in administration, under what powers money could be provided to Railtrack plc by

  487W
  (a) the Secretary of State, (b) the Office of the Rail Regulator, (c) the Strategic Rail Authority or (d) other financier, for the purchase of another company or part of another company including Global Crossing UK. [44208]

  Mr. Byers
  Copies of the loan agreement were placed in the House Library on 17 October 2001. The loan provides sufficient funding to continue on a 'business as usual' basis during the administration period, before the loan is replaced through commercial debt. Under the terms of the loan agreement, Railtrack plc cannot enter into any contract or obligation requiring expenditure or the undertaking of a liability in excess of £10 million without my prior written consent.

  The Rail Regulator has no power to provide funding to Railtrack plc for the purchase of assets outside of the regulatory framework.

  Section 211 of the Transport Act 2000 provides powers for the Strategic Rail Authority to provide financial assistance to secure the provision of railways services or assets. This function must only be exercised in the manner outlined in section 207 of the Act.

  Finance raised through other sources is a matter for the administrator.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that companies bidding for Railtrack pay equal bid costs. [44801]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the respective bidders.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how he will ensure that Ernst and Young obtain the best deal for Railtrack shareholders. [44799]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the administrator.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that private companies have an equal opportunity to bid for Railtrack. [44798]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The bidding process is a matter for the administrator. For its part, the Government have taken steps to ensure both that all potential bidders are aware of the principal issues my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would consider in exercising his powers in respect of any transfer scheme proposed by the administrator and that the bid based on the concept of a company limited by guarantee is not unfairly advantaged in terms of access to information from Government.

  Details were given in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedlin (Mr. Coaker) on 31 October 2001, Official Report, columns 669–71W and in my reply to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Grayling) on 25 February 2002, Official Report, columns 790–91W.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who is paying the bidding costs of the company limited by guarantee for Railtrack. [44800]
  488W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Grayling) on 12 February 2002,Official Report, column 214W.

  Global Crossing
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what representations he has received from Railtrack plc or its administrators with regards to the possible purchase of the whole of Global Crossing UK or part of it by(a) Railtrack plc on its own, (b) a bid involving Railtrack plc or (c) other companies or bodies; [44204]

  (2) what assessment he has made as to the possibility of establishing a special purchase vehicle for the purpose of purchasing, or being involved in any purchase of, Global Crossing UK or part of it; and if he will make a statement; [44210]

  (3) what powers the SRA has to purchase or be involved in the purchase of Global rossing UK or part of it; and if he will make a statement; [44209]

  (4) what representations he has received from the Health and Safety Executive with regard to the possible purchase of Global Crossing UK, or any part of it, by (a) Railtrack plc (b) the SRA and (c) other company, either on their own or as part of a joint bid; [44211]

  (5) what assessment he has made as to the possibility of Railtrack plc, while in administration, purchasing or being involved in the purchase of Global Crossing UK or part of it; and if he will make a statement; [44206]

  (6) what representations he has received from SRA with regards to the possible purchase of the whole or part of Global Crossing UK by (a) the SRA on its own, (b) a bid involving the SRA or (c) other companies or bodies. [44205]

  Mr. Byers
  No representations have been received from the Health and Safety Executive, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), or Railtrack or its administrators on this subject. I have not made any assessment of either the use of a special purpose vehicle for purchasing any part of Global Crossing UK or of Railtrack in administration doing so. Section 211 of the Transport Act 2000 sets out the SRA's powers in relation to the provision of railway services and assets.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the current IT system was implemented into the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. [44973]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current Maritime and Coastguard Agency's (MCA) IT system was implemented in June 2000.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason there is not a central database of Maritime and Coastguard Agency registered vessels in the UK. [44972]
  489W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has a central database of vessels registered in the UK. It is managed by the agency's Registry of Shipping and Seamen (RSS) in Cardiff and is one of the oldest and most prestigious shipping registers in the world.

  The agency is implementing an information integration programme that will allow staff to view, simultaneously, related information about UK registered vessels from other sources as well as the RSS, making more effective use of the information at the agency's disposal.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how long it has taken to install the current IT system into the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. [44980]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The current Maritime and Coastguard Agency's (MCA) IT system was installed during May and June 2000.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost was of implementing the most recent IT system into the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; and which outside organisations advised its implementation and helped introduce the system. [44979]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency's (MCA) current IT system was procured using Government competitive tendering procedures. A five-year contract was awarded to BT at a total cost of approximately £2.8 million. BT advised on installation and the introduction of the system.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many non-UK owned, UK registered vessels were inspected by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in each of the last five years; from which countries they came; and what categories of vessels were inspected. [44981]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency's (MCA) database for recording ship inspections does not have sufficiently comprehensive details on vessel ownership to provide this information.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many vessels are registered with each Maritime and Coastguard Agency office in the UK. [44971]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) manages the UK Shipping Register at its Register of Shipping and Seamen (RSS) office in Cardiff. The Register is being computerised in a process that will continue into 2003. The number of merchant and fishing vessels recorded on the Register at the end of February 2002 was:

  Number

  Merchant1

  3,789

  Fishing1

  7,059

  1 Vessels

  490W
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what systems are in place for port authorities to provide the Maritime and Coastguard Agency with information concerning vessels entering each port in the UK. [44974]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A variety of arrangements are place for each Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) Marine Office to obtain information from port authorities on vessels entering each port in the UK. The Agency is working with port authorities to ensure that information received is timely and consistent.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to implement the proposals outlined in the 19 report from the Committee on Public Accounts on Ship Surveys and Inspections (HC608), that inspectors check of all areas of ships inspected; and what plans he has to install all the data concerning vessel inspections into a central database. [44975]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are actively considering the recommendations set out in the Committee's 19th Report and will prepare a formal response in accordance with the usual procedures and timetables.

  Multi-modal Studies
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has considered the recommendations of the North West Regional Assembly following completion of the South East Manchester Multi Modal Study; and if he will make a statement. [45713]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have today written to the Leader of the North West Regional Assembly and a copy of this letter has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The South East Manchester Multi Modal Study was commissioned by the Government as part of their 10-year Plan for Transport. The study looked at ways to improve all forms of transport in the area to reduce congestion, make roads safer and modernise public transport services.

  I have today written to the North West Regional Assembly and agreed to:
  the provisional acceptance of the Alderley Edge bypass
  the provisional acceptance for a £35 million Quality Bus Corridor to improve bus services in South East Manchester
  provide an extra £7,445 million for Greater Manchester and £1.5 million for Cheshire to spend in 2002–03 on improvements to include:

  Improvements to bus and rail facilities

  Improved signing, management and maintenance of the road network to improve journey reliability

  More facilities for cyclists and pedestrians

  Better management of freight

  Investment to support urban regeneration

  ask the Highways Agency to draw up plans to improve the M60/M67/A57Denton interchange.

  491W
  invite the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive and local authorities to continue the detailed development of other schemes, which will include:

  A6 bypass

  Poynton bypass

  A555 MALRW (Manchester Airport Link Road West)

  Possible Metrolink Extensions

  ask the Strategic Rail Authority to continue to work with Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority and local authorities to develop detailed assessments of the benefits of expanding the rail system and explore funding through existing mechanisms.
  invite local authorities to develop transport change proposals, including:
  A campaign to encourage the use of public transport
  A strict enforcement of Land Use Policy to promote development decisions which reduce car dependency
  Urban regeneration that maximises the attractiveness and potential of existing centres as places of employment, retail and leisure opportunities to reduce car dependency and promote social inclusion.

  An announcement on a further extension of the Metrolink System to Stockport will be made as soon as possible.

  The outputs of the study will be balanced across transport modes and across the South East Manchester area. The most deprived neighbourhoods and more affluent car owning neighbourhoods are all set to benefit from the additional transport investment involved. Improvements are designed to help reduce road congestion and accidents; increase rail use by up to 50 per cent. in peak periods and 100 per cent. off peak; increase bus use by 8 per cent. in peak periods and 30 per cent. in off peak periods and increase use of the Metrolink. I am also pleased to say that proposals for encouraging the use of public transport and improving air quality through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions have also been welcomed by environmental groups.

  I welcome the solutions proposed by the study. It is an excellent example of how multi-modal transport solutions can be devised to address complex and deep seated transport problems. We have seen that a wholly roads based solution would have added to, rather than alleviated, the long-term traffic problems in the area. Instead the study has identified a balanced strategy which will deal with congestion problems for motorists, but which does so by investing across all modes of transport and in a sustainable way.

  Slot Allocations
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to review the European Union rules on slot allocation and protection; and if he will consider changing the PSO criteria to take more account of vulnerable geographically isolated rural locations. [45139]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A proposal by the European Commission to amend EC Regulation 95–93 which sets out the rules for allocating airport slots was published last year. This is currently being discussed by member states. The UK Government has consulted with interested parties and is currently developing its strategy with regard to the Commission's proposals. Any changes to the rules for imposing public service obligations will need to be agreed at the European level.

  Planning
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government will be issuing a White Paper on Planning. [44726]

  Ms Keeble
  The consultation period for the Planning Green paper closed on Monday 18 March. To date this department has received around 13,000 representations. Following careful consideration of these responses the Government intends to make a policy statement on the planning system before the summer Parliamentary recess.

  Social Landlords
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to engage social landlords in tackling antisocial behaviour. [46092]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department will publish a consultation paper shortly.

  Council Housing
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the changes to Government methodology for calculating empty or vacant council housing since 1997. [44987]

  Mr. Byers
  Local authorities are asked each year via annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns to give the number of their own dwellings that are vacant at 1 April, whether they are within the authorities area or not. For 1 April 2001, rather than explicitly asking for their vacant dwellings outside their area, this figure was obtained by subtracting the number of their vacant dwellings in their area from the total number of their vacant dwellings.

  There have been no other changes.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many households there were in bed and breakfast accommodation arranged by local authorities under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts, for each English region and for Wales, in the first quarter of 1997 and the last quarter of 2001. [44986]

  Mr. Byers
  Information reported by local authorities in England on the number of households accommodated in bed and breakfast hotels under statutory homelessness provisions on 31 March 1997 and 31 December 2001 is presented.

  National information on the number of households in various types of temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfast, is provided in a quarterly Statistical Release published by the Department; corresponding information at local authority and regional level is set out in associated Supplementary Tables. Copies covering recent quarters are available in the Library, and also via the Department's website. The latest editions, published on 14 March, present statistics up to the end of December 2001.

  I recently announced a new commitment to ensure that by March 2004 no family with children will be placed in B&B other than in an emergency. This was accompanied

  493W
  by changes in housing benefit subsidies to make leasing self-contained temporary accommodation more cost-effective, and an additional £35 million from DTLR to help local authorities find alternatives to B&B.

  Homeless households resident in bed and breakfast accommodation 1

  As at 31 March 1997

  As at 31 December 2001

  North East

  80

  60

  North West

  150

  120

  Yorkshire

  60

  210

  East Midland

  40

  80

  West Midland

  60

  230

  Eastern

  90

  460

  London

  2,830

  8,700

  South East

  550

  1,270

  South West

  230

  990

  England

  4,100

  12,110

  1 Includes households accommodated pending completion of initial inquiries by the local authority, and a small number of households found to be intentionally homeless for whom accommodation has been provided for a limited period.

  Source:

  DTLR P1(E) housing activity return (quarterly)

  For corresponding information about Welsh authorities, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average cost of placing a family in bed and breakfast accommodation is; and what the total cost was in each of the last 10 years. [44714]

  Ms Keeble
  Information reported to the Department by local authorities about expenditure on accommodation provided under homelessness legislation does not identify average unit costs. Latest available information is published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) in their report "Homelessness Statistics 1999–2000 Actuals". Based on information supplied by local authorities in England, the average gross weekly charge (before deduction of any rent rebate) per B&B unit during 1999–2000 was £276.92.

  Total estimated expenditure by local authorities in each of the past 10 years, based on information supplied to CIPFA, was as follows:

  Local authority expenditure on bed and breakfast provision: England

  Gross

  Net

  1990–91

  135,695,391

  80,624,379

  1991–92

  144,496,027

  73,219,805

  1992–93

  117,012,354

  49,095,854

  1993–94

  65,675,858

  21,233,760

  1994–95

  50,691,885

  16,573,119

  1995–96

  55,775,348

  19,592,951

  1996–97

  51,190,208

  17,483,026

  1997–98

  56,689,680

  24,075,766

  1998–99

  117,837,868

  53,840,470

  1999–2000

  151,651,900

  70,804,741

  2000–01

  1—

  1—

  1 Not yet available

  494W
  Notes:

  1. B&B accommodation includes privately owned or managed hotels/guest houses with some shared facilities, but excludes hotel annexes of self-contained accommodation where meals are not provided.

  2. Expenditure excludes any apportionment of central or departmental administration.

  3. Net expenditure takes into account income arising from charges to clients, and housing benefit subsidy.

  Source:

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Homelessness Statistics—"Actuals" annual reports

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced a new commitment to ensure that by March 2004 no family with children will be placed in B&B other than in an emergency. This was accompanied by changes in housing benefit subsidies to make leasing self-contained temporary accommodation more cost-effective, and an additional £35 million from DTLR to help local authorities find alternatives to B&B.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regulatory Impact Assessment Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to reply to the National Audit Office report entitled "Better Regulation: Making Good Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments". [43101]

  Mr. Leslie
  Officials are continuing discussions with the National Audit Office about progressing recommendations in their report ("Better Regulation: Making Good Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments"). The Public Accounts Committee heard evidence on the National Audit Office Report on 26 November 2001. When the Public Accounts Committee's report and recommendations are published the Government will subsequently respond by Treasury Minute in the normal way.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the Public Service Agreement targets which have been revised and those which have been introduced since the publication of the 2001 departmental report. [43253]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  There has been only one agreed change or revision to the Cabinet Office's public service agreement targets as listed in the Cabinet Office 2001 departmental report "Cabinet Office—The Government Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 Cm5119".

  The service delivery agreement target number 8 which covered 'securing successful delivery of the Government's anti-drugs strategy and targets' was transferred along with UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit to the Home Office as a result of the post-election machinery of Government changes.

  A copy of "Cabinet Office—The Government Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 Cm5119" is held in the House of Commons Library and is available via the Cabinet Office website.
  495W
  The Cabinet Office departmental report for 2002 which will be published before the summer recess will also detail the Department's performance against its agreed public service agreement targets.

  Departmental Benchmarking
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's response is to the recommendation of the NAO report on modern policy making that ongoing benchmarking of Departments should be undertaken. [43113]

  Mr. Leslie
  Benchmarking is a powerful tool to support performance improvement, which can be applied in a wide range of ways. One approach is to compare the performance of an organisation against an ideal, in order to identify areas for improvement. This approach has been adopted for he Departmental Change Programme, being developed by the Office of Public Services Reform in the Cabinet Office. Departments will be reviewed against a model of high performance, which includes a module on policy making, to inform he generation and implementation of an integrated change programme.

  Centre for Management and Policy Studies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff are employed in the Centre for Management and Policy Studies; what their roles are; and what liaison they undertake with other Departments. [43118]

  Mr. Leslie
  366 staff are employed in the Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS). This figure includes 261 staff from the Civil Service College which ceased to be an executive agency on 1 April 2000 and now is a directorate of CMPS.

  The staff in CMPS work with other units in the Cabinet Office and Departments to help government to learn better, ensure that the civil service is cultivating the right skills and culture for effective delivery, and promote new ways of developing and delivering policy through the sharing of knowledge and evidence from here and abroad.

  CMPS is also the largest single provider of open training programmes for Government.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on energy costs incurred by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42447]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 268W.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what legal costs have been incurred by his Department in each of the last four years. [34291]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Estimated legal costs incurred by the Department over the last four years can be broken down as follows.
  496W

  £000

  1997–98

  43

  1998–99

  53

  1999–2000

  69

  2000–01

  1 173

  1 This includes expenditure of £111,500 incurred for residual HMSO liabilities, Security Facilities Division restructuring costs and Cross Cutting CMF—contractual work for the Government 'Gateway' project.

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by his Department in each of the last four years. [38924]

  Mr. Leslie
  For the financial year 2001–02, Eurest (formally known as Sutcliffe Catering) provide departmental in-house canteen services at an estimated cost of £161,000. In-house canteen costs for previous financial years are not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The expenditure figure of £161,000 does not include expenditure undertaken by the Centre for Management and Policy Studies, the Government Office for the Regions and the Central Office of Information as this information is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  European Union Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to his Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying(a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39120]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The Women and Equality Unit in the Cabinet Office has been responsible for implementing the Burden of Proof Directive (EC Directive 97/80/EC). However, the relevant statutory instrument, which came into force on 12 October 2001, was laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women, who has overall responsibility for women and equality issues.

  Directive 97/80/BC has effect in UK law by Council Directive 98/52/BC and is implemented in the UK through the Sex Discrimination (Indirect Discrimination And Burden of Proof) Regulations 2001. Its aim is to ensure that any measures implementing the principle of equal treatment are made more effective, thereby providing victims of sex discrimination with effective access to justice. The directive also defines the concept of indirect discrimination.

  We do not hold cost information in the form requested in part (b) of the question and that information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Departments are required to produce regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) for all proposals, including those originating in European legislation, likely to impose significant costs on business, charities or voluntary organisations. DTI prepared an RIA for the regulations in

  497W
  question, which showed the cost to an employer who is not discriminating should be nil. A copy of the RIA has been placed in the House Libraries.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41061]

  Mr. Leslie
  Estimated expenditure on hotel accommodation incurred by departmental staff while on official business since 1997 is as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1997–98

  132

  1998–99

  122

  1999–2000

  172

  2000–01

  206

  The Department is responsible for meeting the subsistence costs for staff who necessarily incur expenses while away from their office on official business. All hotel accommodation expenditure incurred meets the value for money criteria as set out in Chapter 9 of the Cabinet Office Management Code.

  The rise in hotel accommodation expenditure is mainly a result of the Cabinet Office's widening span of responsibilities in recent years. There has been a corresponding rise in necessary travel on official business by an increased staff resource. See following table:

  Year

  Percentage increase in staff numbers 1

  April 1997 to April 1998

  3.4

  April 1998 to April 1999

  47.0

  April 1999 to April 2000

  12.0

  April 2000 to April 2001

  5.0

  1 Agencies staff numbers excluded

  The increases in staff numbers have been in existing units whose roles have expanded and in new management units that have been introduced through new Government initiatives. In particular the increase between April 1998 and April 1999 is due to expansion of existing policy units such as the Social Exclusion Unit and Performance and Innovation Unit; and the transfer of units to the Cabinet Office such as the Women's Unit and the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will conduct a new tendering process for(a) advice on the shape of a new ILA scheme and (b) delivery of a new ILA scheme. [40317]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: I confirmed to the House on 6 November 2002 that there will be a replacement for the ILA programme. We are currently using Segal Quince Wickstead to conduct a stakeholder consultation exercise seeking views on the shape and delivery mechanism of the new scheme. The
  498W
  new scheme will build on the strengths of the ILA and take into account the findings of the current consultation exercise which are due in early April. In relation to the delivery of the new scheme we are currently considering a number of options. We will announce our plans in due course.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who her Department's advisers were on the establishment of the ILA; and what advice they gave on the need for validation on accreditation of learning providers. [37536]

  John Healey
  The Department appointed KPMG Consulting to assist in the design and development of the national framework of individual learning accounts. KPMG sought a range of views from stakeholders, including learning providers, to help inform the policy-making process of the Department.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints about ILA money being illicitly drawn down were passed by Capita to her Department for investigation in each month since January 2000; how many of those investigations have been completed in each month; and how many of her staff worked on the investigation of complaints. [37538]

  John Healey
  The individual learning account national framework was launched in September 2000. Prior to the national framework launch, each Training and Enterprise Council had responsibility for the operational nature of the programme in their area. The Department does not hold complaint information during this period.

  Between 4 September 2000 and 31 January 2002, the Individual Learning Account Centre received some 18,000 complaints, many stemming from issues relating to the operational policy of the programme. Of this number, some 8,000 complaints involved potential abuse of the programme and were referred by Capita to the Department for investigation. Included in the 8,000 are some 5,900 complaints received relating to money taken from an ILA account without the individual's knowledge or consent.

  No monthly breakdown relating to complaints requiring investigation is available from commencement of the programme. All allegations about money being illicitly drawn down are followed up by the Department and where evidence of potential fraud is found the complaint is passed to the Department's Special Investigation Unit for further investigation and referral to the police if appropriate. One investigation has been completed. Currently, there are 37 staff involved in work relating to investigations.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints involving potential fraud in the ILA scheme were received by her Department in each month since January 2000; and how many investigations of those complaints were(a) undertaken and (b) completed in each month. [37540]

  John Healey
  On the number of complaints received involving potential fraud in the ILA scheme, I refer to my answer given to Parliamentary Question 37538. All serious complaints are subject to follow-up and where evidence of potential fraud is found the complaint is passed to the Department's Special Investigation Unit
  499W
  (SIU). The SIU are currently dealing with 105 registered learning providers against whom 3804 complaints have been received. One further case was completed in February 2002. The table gives the information requested on investigations.

  Cases logged

  November 2000

  1

  July 2001

  5

  August 2001

  9

  October 2001

  2

  November 2001

  30

  December 2001

  6

  January 2002

  31

  February 2002

  19

  March 2002

  3

  Total

  106

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints about the quality of ILA learning providers were received by her Department in each month since January 2000; and how many investigations of those complaints were(a) undertaken and (b) completed in each month. [37539]

  John Healey
  Information specific to the quality of learning is not collected separately. As at 31 January 2002, 517 complaints had been recorded, expressing dissatisfaction with learning providers and a further 47 relating to general learning provider issues. During the early months of the programme complaints were few and as such, no complaint categorisation system was put in place. The figures quoted are as a result of a system introduced in March 2001.

  Complaints received about the quality of learning in themselves do not result in an investigation. Investigations are put in place to deal with potential abuses of the programme.

  Public-Private Partnerships (Consultants)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total external spending by her Department was on public-private partnership consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PPP consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement. [43201]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 634W. The only Private Finance Initiative with which my Department is involved is a Public Private Partnership to deliver the Connexions Card. Therefore the same figures apply. In addition, since 25 January, my Department has spent an additional £56,183.03 on public private partnership consultants. This equates to one full-time equivalent, and consisted of 49 billed consultancy days, at an average cost per consultant of £1,146.59. We have again used four consultancy firms.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many employees in(a) her Department and (b) her Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if she will make a statement. [32317]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 6 February 2002): The Civil Service Management Code specifically precludes the provision of private medical insurance as a part of any structured remuneration package for civil servants. Consequently, private medical insurance is not a feature of the Department for Education and Skills' (DfES') terms and conditions of employment.

  The employees of DfES' non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are not civil servants. Four of DIES' NDPBs—the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI), Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) and Learning and Skills Council (LSC)—offer private medical insurance to some employees.

  Neither the CITB nor ECITB are publicly funded. The ALI and LSC are both obliged to offer private medical insurance to some employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations. The total number of employees covered and the annual costs of private medical insurance provision since 1997–98 is as follows:

  Year

  Employees

  Cost (£000)

  1997–19981

  8

  6.7

  1998–19991

  9

  9.0

  1999–20001

  8

  8.5

  2000–2001 1

  9

  9.4

  2001–20022

  1,215

  514.0

  1 CITB and ECITB.

  ALI and LSC. Figures for the CITB and ECITB are not yet available.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional support is given to local education authorities to meet the costs resulting from the requirement to educate the children of asylum seekers. [44488]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Local education authorities receive financial support, through the Education Standard Spending Assessment, for the cost of educating children of asylum seekers in the same way that it does for all pupils on school rolls. The Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant, part of the Department's Standards Fund, is available to help schools address the needs of minority ethnic pupils at risk of underachievement and support pupils, including children of asylum seekers, for whom English is an additional language. All LEAs are eligible for this funding, which in this financial year is providing around £154 million of support.

  In addition, in 2000–01, £1.5 million was made available to support the education costs of the children of asylum seekers dispersed to Home Office designated "cluster areas". This funding was rolled forward into this financial year and increased to £2,377,000.

  Congestion Charging
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools, broken down by(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special, are within the congestion charge zone in London. [44372]

  Mr. Timms
  There will be 40 maintained nursery/primary schools, nine maintained secondary schools and five maintained special schools within the proposed congestion charge zone in London.

  These figures are estimated using postcode details of schools and the proposed central zone described in the Transport for London Street Management website on 18 March 2002.

  School Accidents
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many(a) deaths and (b) serious accidents have occurred in practical lessons in schools in England in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement; [44719]

  (2) what guidelines exist on class sizes for practical lessons in schools. [44720]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department does not collect information on deaths and serious accidents in practical lessons in schools.

  Sizes of practical groups and pupil-teacher ratios are matters for local education authorities and schools. They should take account of assessments of potential hazards;

  £000

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  New DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non-voted

  DEL

  Of which: Voted

  Non-Voted

  RfR 1

  -210

  17,014,918

  6,675,052

  10,339,866

  2,820,374

  1,851,123

  969,251

  RfR 3

  0

  125,833

  125,833

  0

  80,470

  80,470

  0

  RfR 4

  0

  98,073

  98,073

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total change

  -210

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ofsted

  0

  152,019

  152,019

  0

  12,581

  12,581

  0

  The DfES Spring Supplementary Estimate included a transfer of provision from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) for Neighbourhood Surveys. It was subsequently discovered that this transfer was not included by DTLR in their Spring Supplementary or in their parliamentary answer announcing changes to their DEL.

  The administration costs limits remain unchanged as follows:

  Original

  £000

  DfES (RfR1)

  219,730

  Sure Start (RfR3)

  3,890

  Children and Young People's Unit (RfR4)

  2,491

  Ofsted

  27,095

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 502W
  the ages, abilities, aptitudes and any special educational needs of the pupils; and relevant safety regulations. My Department's "Area Guidelines for Schools" (Building Bulletin 82), published in 1996, carries recommendations for classroom area/pupil space. Further recommendations can also be found in the Department's "Design and Technology Accommodation in Secondary Schools" (Building Bulletin 81), "Art Accommodation in Secondary Schools" (Building Bulletin 89), "Guide to Safe Practice in Art and Design" (1995), and "Safety in Science Education" (1996). The Association for Science Education has published guidance, and advice is also available on request from the Consortium of Local Education Authorities for the Provision of Science Services.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 607–08W, what changes have since been made to the departmental expenditure limit. [45865]

  Estelle Morris
  The Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), including the Office for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools (OFSTED), which has a separate Estimate, has been decreased by £210,000 from £20,304,478,000 to £20,304,268,000.

  The impact of this reduction on the resources element of the DEL is set out in the following table:

  22 January 2002, Official Report, columns 818–19W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against her Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by her Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if she will make a statement. [41506]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 18 March 2002]: My Department has not undertaken any criminal proceedings for cases of theft since I May 1997.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further steps she is taking to combat the rise of bovine tuberculosis. [43980]
  503W
  Mr. Morley
  On 31 January movement restrictions were placed on cattle herds which had missed a six or 12-month TB test after the lifting of movement restrictions, in annually tested parishes. This measure was introduced in response to a veterinary risk assessment which has shown that herds undergoing these kinds of tests have historically had the greatest risk of bovine TB infection. In addition the backlog of TB tests that have arisen during the foot and mouth outbreak are being prioritised and where possible extra resources are being diverted to carry out this work.

  Foot and Mouth
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what non-domesticated animals other than brown rats have been implicated in the spread of foot and mouth; and what steps were taken to destroy them on infected farms. [39490]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no direct evidence that wildlife contributed to the spread of foot and mouth last year, either as mechanical carriers, or through contracting and carrying the virus. Pest control activities on infected premises and farms considered to be dangerous contacts was limited to baiting for rats.

  National Forest
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether a conclusion has been reached on the review of the National Forest Company. [46215]

  Mr. Morley
  The quinquennial review of the National Forest company has been completed. It has concluded that the company, a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, should continue to be responsible for delivering the National forest Strategy which is contributing strongly to the government's sustainable development agenda. Since its creation in 1995 the Company has for example achieved an expansion of woodland cover in the National Forest area, covering 200 square miles in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire, from 6 per cent. to 12 per cent. Detailed changes to the company's operations will be made in order to maximise effective delivery and value for money. A full report of the review is available at www.defra.gov.uk.

  Fish Quotas
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 27 February 2002,Official Report, European Standing Committee A, column 25, whether the levy for the over-quota fish was paid to the producers' organisations whose members were recently prosecuted in Plymouth; whether the Department has undertaken the correct checks to ensure that the relevant procedure has been followed, pursuant to the requirements laid down in the Council Regulations governing the operations of producers' organisations; and whether correct procedures have been followed to ensure that these organisations are protected should the Commission carry out external checks. [44101]
  504W
  Mr. Morley
  From evidence we have in the form of sales notes, it appears that levy was paid to the South Western Fish Producers' Organisation on the landings both declared and undeclared. In the first instance, any remedial action regarding such levy payments is a matter for the PO.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what information she collects on changes in farmgate and supermarket prices; and if she will make a statement; [43834]

  (2) if she will list the monthly changes over the last 24 months of (a) the farmgate price and (b) the supermarket price of a 35 lb lamb. [43835]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: Information on farmgate prices is collected from a variety of sources including my Department's own surveys of milk and egg processors, DEFRA Agricultural Market Reports, the Home Grown Cereals Authority, the British Potato Council and the Meat and Livestock Commission.

  Price indices based on these data are published monthly as "Agricultural Price Indices, United Kingdom".

  Retail prices are estimated from data on expenditure and volume of purchases as collected in the Expenditure and Food Survey (formerly the National Food Survey). These data are not published monthly as the sample size is insufficient. Approximate prices for selected commodities can be estimated from expenditure and consumption data that are published in the quarterly Statistics News Release. Annual average prices are given in the annual report on the survey (NFS 2000 is the latest).

  Monthly movements in retail prices for food, as with other items, are best monitored by reference to the Retail Price Index published by the Office for National Statistics.

  Information for the API for sheep and the RPI for home-killed lamb for the period January 2000 to December 2001 is given in the following table in terms of three-month moving averages. Agricultural producer prices were 7 per cent. lower at the end of the period than at the beginning while retail prices were 2.8 per cent. higher.

  Retail prices lag several months behind producer price movements and show less volatility.

  All foods as purchased by consumers will differ to some extent from the ex-farm commodity. Meat as retailed will have been de-boned, cut, trimmed of most fat and packaged. These additional processes affect the validity of a direct comparison between the consumer and farmgate prices.

  Producer and retail price indices: sheep and home-killed lamb 1

  Date

  Agricultural producer prices 2

  Retail prices 3

  2000

  January

  100.0

  100.0

  February

  108.3

  103.9

  March

  115.0

  107.0

  April

  115.1

  109.4

  May

  110.8

  110.6

  June

  102.0

  109.3

  July

  94.2

  105.9

  505W

  Producer and retail price indices: sheep and home-killed lamb 1

  Date

  Agricultural producer prices2

  Retail prices3

  August

  89.4

  102.9

  September

  88.0

  100.9

  October

  88.6

  100.6

  November

  91.8

  100.2

  December

  103.2

  101.4

  2001

  January

  115.9

  104.3

  February

  115.7

  109.4

  March

  112.7

  112.7

  April

  105.7

  114.8

  May

  107.9

  114.6

  June

  98.6

  113.1

  July

  90.0

  108.9

  August

  82.1

  105.4

  September

  79.0

  103.4

  October

  83.6

  102.9

  November

  93.0

  102.8

  December

  —

  —

  1 3-month moving averages (December 1999-February 2000=100)

  2 DEFRA: Agricultural Price Indices, United Kingdom (www.defra.gov.uk)

  3 ONS: Consumer Price Indices (www.statistics.gov.uk)

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Accountancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the contracts agreed by her Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42097]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to the hon. Member for Bath (Don Foster) on 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1116W and to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) on 15 March 2002, Official Report, columns 1279–80W.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many members of staff at her Department are justices of the peace; and if she has a strategy for her Department to encourage members of staff to become justices of the peace. [44546]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department keeps no central records of the number of staff who are justices of the peace. Staff involved in magisterial duties are granted up to 18 days special leave with pay each year.

  Regeneration Schemes (English Heritage)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) which English Heritage supported regeneration schemes have(a) applied for EC state aid, (b) been successful and (c) been refused in the last 12 months; [43513]

  (2) if she will make a statement on EU state aid rules and English Heritage-supported projects. [43514]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: English Heritage's main historic buildings, monuments, parks and gardens programme, which supports the repair of
  506W
  individual buildings, parks and gardens, was notified to the European Commission as possible state aid in July 2001. We are awaiting the Commission's assessment of the programme's compatibility with the EC Treaty. Grants to individual enterprises from English Heritage's Heritage Economic Regeneration schemes do not require notification as they are compatible with the de minimis block exemption regulation.

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much money has been received in the form of donations to fund the Golden Jubilee events in each of the past three years; and if she will make a statement; [44578]

  (2) if she will list (a) the donors sponsoring the Golden Jubilee events and (b) the amount of money each donor has contributed in each of the past three years; and if she will make a statement. [44579]

  Tessa Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 265W. These are matters for Lord Sterling, who started fundraising last summer and has so far raised over £4.5 million.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the groups expected to march in the Golden Jubilee procession on 4 June; and if she will make a statement. [44591]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Queen's Golden Jubilee Weekend Trust, chaired by Lord Sterling, announced the details on 13 March 2002.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans have been made for cleaning up after major Golden Jubilee events; and if she will make a statement. [44581]

  Tessa Jowell
  For events taking place in the Royal Parks during the Jubilee Weekend of 1 to 4 June, cleaning up will be the responsibility of the event organisers and the Royal Parks Agency. For events in Westminster and the City of London, responsibility will fall to Westminster city council or the Corporation of London as appropriate.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many visitors are expected to attend the(a) fireworks display on 3 June, (b) ceremonial procession from Buckingham Palace on 4 June, (c) Golden Jubilee Festival in the Mall on 4 June and (d) Queen's balcony appearance at Buckingham Palace on 4 June; and if she will make a statement. [44566]

  Tessa Jowell
  Previous experience of similar events shows that it is impossible accurately to predict the numbers that will attend, but many tens of thousands are expected.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps have been taken to encourage neighbourhood street parties to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and if she will make a statement. [44586]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Golden Jubilee Office distributed 20,000 Golden Jubilee Celebrations Toolkits to councils, Citizens' Advice Bureaux, libraries, a wide range of organisations across England, Scotland and Wales and the media. A further 13,500 copies have subsequently been requested and demand continues to be high.
  507W
  The Celebrations Toolkit is also available to be downloaded from the official Golden Jubilee website (www.goldenjubilee.gov.uk).

  In addition, representatives from Buckingham Palace and the Golden Jubilee Office are delivering joint briefings across the United Kingdom. To date, they have briefed over 1,200 organisations. More briefings are planned.

  On 6 March, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions issued guidance to local authorities in England about their powers to close roads for events such as street parties and suggesting ways of ensuring that undue burdens are not placed on event organisers. This was announced in a joint press release from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to commission statues in commemoration of the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and if she will make a statement. [44567]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government have no plans to commission statues to mark the Queen's Golden Jubilee. The Government are working closely with Buckingham Palace to facilitate the celebrations in a way that embraces the six themes for the Jubilee: celebration; giving thanks; service; involving the whole community; looking forward as well as back; and the Commonwealth, while adhering to Her Majesty's wish that there should be no undue expenditure from public funds. It is for local communities to decide how they wish to celebrate the Jubilee.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 986W, on the Golden Jubilee, what the objectives are of each initiative for the celebrations; if she will outline the project plans; how many people are working on each of these initiatives and plans; and if she will make a statement. [44565]

  Tessa Jowell
  The objective of each of the 61 initiatives that are being delivered through 12 project plans is to facilitate the celebrations for the Queen's Golden Jubilee in a way that embraces the six themes for the Jubilee: celebration; giving thanks; service; involving the whole community; looking forward as well as back; and the Commonwealth, while adhering to Her Majesty's wish that there should be no undue expenditure from public funds. It is for local communities to decide how they wish to celebrate the Jubilee.

  Some of the initiatives have yet to be announced and I will, therefore, write to the hon. Member outlining them in due course.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer from the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 622W, on the Golden Jubilee, what plans she has to apply for a special grant for exceptional additional costs which could not be met from within existing budgets for the Queen's Golden Jubilee and for how much; and if she will make a statement. [44562]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have no such plans.
  508W
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the Department has spent on the Queen's Jubilee in each of the past three years; how the money was allocated; and if she will make a statement. [44589]

  Tessa Jowell
  No DCMS expenditure was incurred before 2001–02 for which £4.017 million was transferred to my Department by the Home Office from their existing vote.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1156W, ref. 41453, what the definition is of employment with the 999 emergency services for the purpose of eligibility for the award of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal. [44253]

  Tessa Jowell
  To be eligible for the medal, emergency personnel must have completed five years' service on 6 February 2002 with one of the '999' emergency services which include the police, ambulance and fire services, the Coastguard, mountain rescue and the RNLI.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reasons prison officers will not be awarded the Golden Jubilee Medal. [44421]

  Tessa Jowell
  The medal is being issued to members of the armed forces and Royal Fleet Auxiliary and to the '999' emergency services. As the Prison Service is not an emergency service, prison officers will not be eligible for the medal.

  BBC News 24
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the terms of reference will be for the review of BBC News 24. [45863]

  Tessa Jowell
  The independent review of News 24 which I have asked Richard Lambert, formerly editor of the Financial Times, to conduct will have the following terms of reference:

  The independent reviewer shall:
  consider whether, in delivering its News 24 service, the BBC is acting in accordance with the facts and assurances upon which approval to proceed with the service was given;
  have regard, in reaching any conclusions, to:

  (a) the BBC's own report on the performance of News 24 and to any subsequent evidence provided by the Corporation; and

  (b) views submitted by any other interested parties in response to the BBC's report;

  submit a report to the Secretary of State, in publishable form, by the end of June 2002, setting out his conclusions and, if appropriate, making any recommendations he believes necessary to ensure that News 24 is operated in line with the original approval.

  I am today placing on my Department's website, www.culture.gov.uk, the BBC's own report on the operation of News 24: this sets out the basis on which the service was approved. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Richard Lambert is writing to a range of organisations who may wish to comment to him. I would encourage all those with an interest to contribute their views.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will estimate the number of households(a) entitled to and (b) receiving the free TV licence for the over-75s in each year since its introduction. [43365]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: The Government introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over on 1 November 2000. An estimated 3.4 million households previously paying the full licence fee are now entitled to a free licence. Three million free licences were issued in the financial year 2000–01. 3.2 million free licences were issued between April and December 2001 and the forecast take-up of the concession for the year as a whole is 99 per cent. In addition, approximately 500,000 people living in residential homes and sheltered housing, who previously qualified for the £5 Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary fee, now receive their licence free of charge; we believe this represents the great majority of those eligible, though precise figures are not available.

  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioner households in Paisley, North are benefiting from free television licences for the over-75s. [43930]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers the free television licence scheme for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 3,800 people aged 75 or over in the Paisley, North constituency.

  Communications Bill
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish the Communications Bill. [43330]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government intends to publish the draft Communications Bill around the end of April.

  Art Market
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of the impact of(a) resale artists' rights, (b) taxation and (c) EU regulations on the European and UK art markets. [43052]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest Government assessment on artists' resale rights was contained in Explanatory Memorandum 5665/01, of 1 March 2001. The EU Directive of artists' resale rights will not be implemented in the UK until 1 January 2006 and the implementation process will include updating of this assessment.

  No other assessments of the art market have been made.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received concerning the impact of taxation and EU regulations on the European and UK art markets; and if she will make a statement. [43051]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.
  510W
  The Department has received no representations about the impact of taxation and EU regulations on the European and UK art markets since negotiations on the artists' resale rights in 2001. The Government's response to these representations was covered in Explanatory Memorandum 5665/01, of 1 March 2001.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate her Department has made of the size of the UK's share of the international art market in each of the last five years. [43053]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has made no such estimates.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Councils of the Commonwealth. [46034]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made earlier today in the House.

  India (Ian Stillman)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the UK high commissioner for India met the Stillman family during their recent stay in Delhi to discuss the case of Ian Stillman. [44807]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our high commissioner in New Delhi did not meet Ian Stillman's family during their recent visit. However, Mr. Stillman's family did meet senior officials at the high commission on 1 March and 5 March 2002.

  We are doing all we can to assist Mr. Stillman's family. My noble Friend Baroness Amos met Mr. Stillman's sister on 5 February 2002 to discuss the case. The Head of our consular division in London also met Mr. Stillman's family on 14 January 2002 and 14 May 2001.

  Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements his Department has made to celebrate(a) St. Patrick's Day, (b) St. George's Day, (c) St. Andrew's Day and (d) Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and how his Department celebrated St. David's Day. [42303]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: There were no special arrangements made for St. David's Day or St. Patrick's Day. Neither are there special arrangements being made to celebrate St. George's Day and St. Andrew's Day.

  The FCO is sponsoring the tour of The Queen's Golden Jubilee Baton through 23 Commonwealth countries. It left London on Monday 11 March, Commonwealth Day, and will return to the UK on 5 June. Our missions overseas

  511W
  will arrange events and encourage publicity to support the Baton's passage, supported by local Commonwealth Games associations and the British Council.

  Additionally, there will be eight open days from April to October when the FCO will be open to view by members of the public. It is one of the "String of Pearls" historic public buildings that will be open to the public, along the banks of the Thames in central London.

  We have issued general guidance to all our missions overseas on the celebrations of the Golden Jubilee. Many of our embassies and high commissions will use the occasion to enhance their annual Queen's birthday party. Missions will also hold additional events using publicity materials specifically prepared for the Jubilee in the FCO, taking into account The Queen's desire that there should be no undue expenditure from public funds.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the official visits 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; [38194]

  (2) if he will list the official visits 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. [38156]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet office on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 421W.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42577]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In line with the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit Report "Winning the Generation Game", the FCO has examined its retirement ages. As a result, clerical and support staff are now able to work until 65 and junior and middle managers to 63.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost is to public funds in each case. [39080]

  Mr. MacShane
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  External Contracts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which non-accounting and 512W
  non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with (a) his Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years.[38747]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  European Union Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to his Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying(a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39116]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department has been required to implement the working time directive. The regulations give workers rights relating to total hours worked, breaks between days worked and over a working week or fortnight, and a meal break during the working day. This directive has been implemented at no cost to public funds, as it is part of both line manager and personnel responsibilities. There has been no cost to business.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what the cost has been of criminal damage to his Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44847]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No such damage has been reported during the period mentioned.

  Crèche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what crèche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [44868]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department has no crèche facilities.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council (1) if he will list the public service agreement targets which have been revised and those which have been introduced since the publication of the 2001 departmental report; [43249]

  (2) which public service agreement targets scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date.[44821]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Like other small Departments, the Privy Council Office is not required to have a public service agreement.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many cases have been brought against his Department under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost in(a) legal fees to defend cases and (b) compensation payments. [45070]
  513W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  No cases have been brought against my Department under the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what his Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42576]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department is planning to review its policies and procedures to integrate age discrimination and has a commitment that there should be no unfair treatment of staff on the basis of age. The Privy Council Office has implemented the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit report 'Winning the Generation Game' in particular that permanent staff can stay on up to the age of 65 subject to operational requirements.

  My Department currently employs two staff who are beyond retirement age: bot are fee paid and employed for their skills and to meet the needs of the department. My Department has also taken advantage of the New Deal for Over-50s.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on energy costs incurred by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42448]

  House of Commons

  Session

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Government Bills considered—floor

  53

  31

  40

  26

  Time taken debating

  781 hrs 53 mins

  396 hrs 38 mins

  565 hrs 5 mins

  243 hrs 35 mins

  Average time per Bill

  14 hrs 45 mins

  12 hrs 48 mins

  14 hrs 8 mins

  9 hrs 22 mins

  Government Bills considered—Standing Committee

  31

  26

  37

  17

  Sittings (Standing Committee)

  228

  207

  341

  121

  Average sittings per Bill

  7.35

  7.96

  9.22

  7.12

  House of Lords

  Session

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Government Bills considered on floor

  50

  29

  42

  27

  Time taken debating

  806 hrs 54 mins

  622 hrs 48 mins

  791 hrs 33 mins

  223 hrs 38 mins

  Average time per Bill

  16 hrs 8 mins

  21 hrs 28 mins

  18 hrs 51 mins

  8 hrs 17 mins

  Government Bills considered in Grand Committee

  6

  4

  9

  2

  Time taken debating

  35 hrs 29 mins

  21 hrs 30 mins

  19 hrs 47 mins

  36 hrs 54 mins

  Average time per Bill

  5 hrs 55 mins

  5 hrs 23 mins

  2 hrs 12 mins

  18 hrs 27 mins

  1 Supplied by the Journal Office in the Lords and Commons.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Publicity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General 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. [39094]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 4 March 2002): In my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, there have been no publicity or advertising campaigns in each of the last four years.
  514W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  Energy costs for my Department are as follows:

  2000–01—£11,818.04

  2001–02 (costs to date)—£9,436.70.

  Figures for the other years requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  My Department monitors weather conditions when deciding whether to switch the heating on or off and has reduced its gas consumption by 10 per cent. for 2001 as stated in our service delivery agreement.

  Government Bills
  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 March 2002, c. 706W]: I regret to say that there was an error in that I had understood the times given for consideration of Bills in the Lords to include time spent in Grand Committee, which they did not. I give a corrected version' of the entire answer as follows, which I hope will be for the convenience of Members.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service has not run any publicity or advertising campaigns in each of the last four years.

  Details of the publicity costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last four years were provided in my reply to PQ number 36156.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has not been involved in any specific publicity and advertising campaigns over the last four years. However, the

  515W
  Department does incur advertising and publicity costs in its normal course of business. Details of these costs over the last four years were given in my reply to PQ number 36156.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has not run any publicity or advertising campaigns in each of the last four years. Details of the publicity costs incurred by the Serious Fraud Office in each of the last four years were provided in my reply to PQ number 36156.

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many appointments to public bodies have been made through her Department(a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42156]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers has not made any appointments to public bodies (a) from April 2000 to March 2001 or (b) since March 2001.

  In those Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service has not made any appointments to public bodies (a) from April 2000 to March 2001 or (b) since 31 March 2001.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has not made any appointments to public bodies (a) from April 2000 to March 2001 or (b) since 31 March 2001.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has not made any appointments to public bodies (a) from April 2000 to March 2001 or (b) since 31 March 2001.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to her Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying(a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39129]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers has not been responsible for the implementation of any EU directives or regulations in the last four years.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service has not been responsible for the implementation of any EU directives or regulations in the last four years.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has not been responsible for the implementation of any EU directives or regulations in the last four years. Members of the
  516W
  Department have however assisted in the implementation of directives and regulations which are the responsibility of the Departments they advise.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has not been responsible for the implementation of any EU directives or regulations in the last four years.

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General 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. [38930]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers does not provide an in-house canteen, or other catering services for staff.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service has one in-house canteen, which is located at its headquarters building in London. The service is contracted out to a commercial firm, following a competitive tender. The annual cost to the CPS of this facility during the last four years has been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  42,182

  1998–99

  56,527

  1999–2000

  49,193

  2000–01

  57,865

  Costs are reviewed by regular contract management meetings with the contractor and by competitive tender.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department does not have an in-house staff canteen. The total amounts spent on catering services for hospitality, training and meeting refreshments in each of the last four years were are follows:

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  £4,263.19 in 1998–99

  £6,537.34 in 1999–2000

  £6,041.71 in 2000–01

  £5,376.63 in 2001–02 (to date).

  Government Property Lawyers

  £84.73 in 1998–99

  £7.62 in 1999–2000

  £0 in 2000–01

  £0 in 2001–02 (to date)

  Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  £0 in 1998–99

  £0 in 1999–2000

  £0 in 2000–01

  £1,461.35 in 2001–02 (to date).

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office does not provide an in-house canteen, or other catering services.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make it her policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in her Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40440]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: In relation to my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible, section 8 paragraph 8.2.1 of the civil service management code requires Departments and agencies to ensure that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel in the circumstances, taking into account any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities.

  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers is fully committed to ensuring that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel commensurate with meeting operational needs.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service's travel and Subsistence policy already makes it clear that official travel should always be conducted in the most effective and economic manner and normally by public transport.

  The main principles of the Crown Prosecution Service's travel and subsistence policy are:
  No reimbursement is appropriate when no extra expense is incurred;
  All official journeys must be necessary, duly authorised, and undertaken in the most economical manner consistent with the efficient conduct of official business;
  Payment from public funds will normally be based on the cost of the journey by the most economical route and the most reasonable mode of conveyance;
  The Department may refuse claims for unreasonable expenses, or expenses which could have been avoided if the journey had been better planned.

  The Crown Prosecution Service grants entitlement to first class travel to all staff at Level C, Pay Bank C2/ Level B, Pay Band B3 and above. This entitlement is a contractual right that forms part of the terms and conditions of service for those Crown Prosecution Service staff members. On a number of occasions, the Department has considered the removal of this right but has withdrawn from that approach because of the cost associated with a buy-out of the contractual right.

  Furthermore, staff entitled to standard class travel only, may be allowed to travel first class in the following circumstances:
  When required to travel overnight;
  When necessarily travelling with a civil servant entitled to first class travel or a non-civil servant travelling first class;
  When the Department is satisfied that it is not practicable for the member of staff to obtain a seat in standard class.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  It is departmental policy in the Treasury solicitor's Department that all staff, regardless of grade, must have full regard to the need for economy in travelling and must always consider using standard class on trains. Only more senior staff may travel using first class, though junior staff may accompany them if they need to work together during the journey.
  518W
  Serious Fraud Office

  It is departmental policy in the Serious Fraud Office that all staff, regardless of grade, must have full regard to the need for economy in travelling and must always travel standard class unless they can obtain better prices for first class travel, or there are compelling reasons not to travel standard class.

  Department of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the size is of the annual caseload of the Department of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in each tier of court in the last year for which figures are available; and what her estimate is of the annual caseload based on the full implementation of proposals relating to the office set out in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. [44451]

  The Solicitor-General
  In 2001 the numbers of persons appearing per tier of court in Northern Ireland in proceedings prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland were as follows:

  Court

  Number of cases

  Magistrates court

  4,664

  Crown court

  753

  County court appeals

  776

  Court of appeal

  59

  Case stated

  4

  Judicial review

  6

  Information currently available from the Police Service of Northern Ireland estimates that a caseload of some 80,000 files per year will require to be considered by the Public Prosecution Service which is to be established under the terms of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.

TREASURY

  Internet Service Providers (VAT)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much VAT he estimates his announcement on 14 March means will not have to be paid by AOL; and how much VAT for identical services will have to be paid by(a) BT Open World and (b) Freeserve; [45009]

  (2) with reference to his announcement of 14 March concerning the VAT treatment of internet service providers, if he will place in the Library a list of the (a) consultations Customs and Excise and the Treasury made with UK ISPs, together with copies of the responses to the consultation and (b) meetings which Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and Treasury Ministers and officials had with persons employed by or on behalf of AOL. [45157]

  Mr. Boateng
  As part of their review of the VAT treatment of internet service packages, Customs sought input from a range of interested bodies, including major internet service providers. However, this process was not undertaken as a formal consultation exercise, and there are therefore no formal consultation responses available for publication. Customs are debarred by statute form disclosing details of individual taxpayers' or companies' affairs.

  Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the population of the travel to work areas covering(a) the Isle of Wight, (b) Bournemouth, (c) Southampton and (d) Portsmouth work outside their travel to work area. [45010]

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

  Letter from Mr. Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated 21 March 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about travel-to-work-areas. (45010)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of employment rates according to the travel-to-work-area (TTWA) in which people are resident. Although information about people's workplace is available from the LFS also, this could only be analysed by TTWA at disproportionate cost.

  Employment Statistics (St. Helens)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the work force in(a) St. Helens, South, (b) the St. Helens metropolitan

  Annual Employment Survey Rescaled (1996,1997); Annual Business Inquiry (1998–2000) ONS Crown copyright reserved [from Nomis on 20 March 2002] Analysis: Number of employees expressed as a percentage of employees in all industries Sex: persons

  Percentage

  Industry

  St. Helens. South

  St. Helens

  Merseyside

  Manchester

  North-west Government office region1

  England

  Industry: 15–37: Manufacturing

  1996

  26.8

  25.1

  14.8

  9.6

  20.3

  17.6

  1997

  22.0

  21.1

  15.1

  8.9

  20.0

  17.1

  1998

  23.9

  21.9

  14.1

  8.4

  19.2

  16.6

  1999

  22.2

  21.8

  13.7

  8.0

  18.3

  15.7

  2000

  19.0

  18.9

  13.2

  8.1

  17.8

  15.1

  Industry: 55: Hotels and restaurants

  1996

  5.6

  6.1

  5.6

  6.5

  6.3

  6.2

  1997

  8.3

  7.5

  6.1

  6.6

  6.7

  6.3

  1998

  7.7

  8.0

  7.1

  6.7

  6.8

  6.3

  1999

  6.8

  6.5

  6.1

  6.3

  6.5

  6.4

  2000

  5.0

  5.0

  5.0

  6.2

  6.5

  6.3

  Industry: 52: Retail trade, except of motor vehicles

  1996

  13.0

  12.3

  11.4

  8.7

  10.9

  10.4

  1997

  13.6

  13.2

  11.9

  8.8

  10.6

  10.3

  1998

  14.9

  15.0

  12.9

  9.4

  11.4

  10.8

  1999

  13.9

  15.2

  12.1

  8.7

  11.5

  10.7

  2000

  14.7

  15.3

  12.9

  9.2

  11.6

  10.8

  Industry: 65–67, 74: Finance and business services

  1996

  10.7

  9.0

  12.4

  20.1

  12.0

  14.9

  1997

  10.0

  8.4

  12.6

  22.1

  12.8

  15.3

  1998

  8.0

  7.0

  11.5

  21.2

  12.6

  15.3

  1999

  10.9

  9.0

  12.0

  21.6

  12.7

  15.4

  2000

  11.4

  9.0

  12.5

  22.1

  12.5

  15.8

  Industry: 72: Computing and related activities

  1996

  0.3

  0.3

  0.6

  0.7

  0.8

  1.3

  1997

  0.4

  0.5

  0.8

  1.1

  0.9

  1.4

  1998

  0.4

  0.4

  0.8

  1.0

  1.1

  1.6

  1999

  0.5

  0.6

  1.2

  1.2

  1.3

  1.9

  2000

  0.6

  0.6

  1.3

  1.7

  1.4

  2.1

  520W
  borough council area, (c) Merseyside, (d) Manchester, (e) the north-west, (f) other regional development area regions and (g) England in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999, (v) 2000 and (vi) 2001, were employed in (A) manufacturing, (B) hotel and catering, (C) retailing, (D) finance and business services, (E) IT, (F) wholesale and distribution, (G) construction and (H) other services. [44490]

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

  Letter from Mr. Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 21 March 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the percentage of the workforce in various industries and geographies. (44490)
  The available figures are for employee jobs and cover the years 1996 to 2000. Estimates are arranged according to the Standard Industrial Classification, 1992 (SIC92). SIC92 industries do not correspond exactly to those specified in the question and regional development areas are not available.
  I am placing an extract from the Nomis database that provides a close match for your requirement in the House of Commons library. You should note, however, that this does not cover the whole economy. The Nomis database is available to Members and is accessible by library staff.
  521W

  Annual Employment Survey Rescaled (1996,1997); Annual Business Inquiry (1998–2000) ONS Crown copyright reserved [from Nomis on 20 March 2002] Analysis: Number of employees expressed as a percentage of employees in all industries Sex: persons

  Percentage

  Industry

  St. Helens, South

  St. Helens

  Merseyside

  Manchester

  North-west Government office region 1

  England

  Industry: 51: Wholesale trade/commission trade, etc.

  1996

  3.3

  4.3

  3.5

  4.7

  4.5

  4.8

  1997

  3.3

  4.4

  4.0

  5.5

  4.8

  5.0

  1998

  3.2

  4.1

  3.2

  5.7

  4.8

  4.9

  1999

  3.4

  5.8

  3.7

  4.8

  4.7

  4.9

  2000

  3.7

  5.5

  3.8

  4.8

  4.7

  4.9

  Industry: 45: Construction

  1996

  4.2

  4.7

  3.2

  2.4

  3.8

  3.6

  1997

  6.3

  5.9

  3.8

  2.3

  4.4

  4.1

  1998

  5.8

  6.0

  4.0

  3.0

  4.5

  4.3

  1999

  6.1

  5.2

  3.2

  2.9

  4.4

  4.4

  2000

  7.9

  7.3

  5.0

  2.5

  4.8

  4.3

  Industry: 93: Other service activities

  1996

  1.4

  1.2

  1.0

  0.5

  1.0

  1.1

  1997

  1.2

  1.4

  1.1

  0.7

  1.1

  1.1

  1998

  1.6

  1.6

  1.2

  0.7

  1.0

  1.1

  1999

  1.6

  1.4

  1.0

  0.9

  1.2

  1.2

  2000

  1.6

  1.4

  1.1

  1.0

  1.2

  1.2

  1 Including Merseyside

  Notes:

  1. The percentages are based on aggregates from which agriculture class 0100 (1992 SIC) have been excluded.

  2. The numbers in the industry descriptions correspond to industries contained in the Standard Industrial Classification, 1992.

  Governor of the Bank of England
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date he intends to announce the appointment of the next Governor of the Bank of England; and if he will make a statement. [44404]

  Ruth Kelly
  The term of office of the current Governor of the Bank of England runs until June 2003. The appointment of the next Governor will be announced in good time to ensure a smooth transition.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits (Administration)
  Phil Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to improve the performance of local authorities in administering housing benefit and council tax benefit. [46218]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Improving the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit is a key part of our reform programme.

  We are today launching a set of comprehensive performance standards covering the full range of administration. For the first time local authorities will know exactly what it is we are expecting them to achieve. A copy of the product has been placed in the Library and this month two copies of the package will be sent to every English, Welsh and Scottish authority administering these benefits.

  Local authorities will now be able to undertake a comprehensive self-assessment against the standards, to determine how far they deliver these benefits effectively and securely.
  522W
  The standards cover seven functional areas and deliberately address the full range of administrative activity, not just speed, accuracy and security. They will provide a basis for measuring performance in administering housing benefit and council tax benefit, enabling local authorities to conduct a self-assessment to determine their own level of performance and to work in an environment of continuous improvement.

  In addition, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate will assess performance against these standards using an authority's self-assessment as part of the inspection process.

  The performance standards demonstrate our determination to improve the standard of housing benefit and council tax benefit administration, as part of our wider drive to reduce barriers to work, promote dignity and security in retirement and to protect the system against fraud and error.

  Benefit Fraud
  Phil Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the city of Salford council. [46217]

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

  The report finds the city of Salford council to be a poorly performing authority in almost all aspects of benefits administration and counter fraud activity.
  523W
  BFI reports finding evidence of good policies and procedures, but these were undermined by inadequate implementation or monitoring. For example, a benefit take-up policy existed but there was limited evidence of implementation.

  The report identifies a range of examples of poor administration. This includes an inadequate management checking regime, poor standards for verifying claims for benefit, and failure to process all new claims within 14 days of receiving all the necessary information.

  Procedures for dealing with changes to claimants' circumstances were found to be flawed and a failure to apply the law was likely to lead to over and underpayments of benefit.

  The council had no policy on overpayments. The lack of quality management information and a lack of managerial or supervisory involvement contribute to poor overpayment recovery. In March 2000 the council's recorded overpayment debt stood at almost £5 million and was rising year on year.

  While the city of Salford council had a positive counter fraud strategy and had provided officers with a good procedures manual, investigation quality was found to be inadequate. There was no control over investigations, nor over the workload of each investigator which was found to be excessive.

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

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

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council
  Phil Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Kirklees metropolitan council. [46216]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's second report on Kirklees metropolitan council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The BFI first inspected and published a report on the performance of Kirklees metropolitan council on 29 May 1999. It found that the council was performing poorly. Following publication of this first report, the council accepted the recommendations and drew up an action plan to improve performance. BFI's second report finds that Kirklees has largely failed to implement its own action plan and has not fully addressed any of the major recommendations included in the first BFI report. Inspectors consider that the council's performance in administering benefit and countering benefit fraud has got worse since the first inspection.

  Poor performance was identified in many areas of benefit administration. A failure to improve the verification of benefit claims; no improvement on previously slow processing times for new and renewal claims; a deterioration of procedure for dealing with the
  524W
  overpayment of benefit; and a lack of supervisory management were all reported by inspectors. At the time of the inspection there was a backlog of around 7,000 cases awaiting assessment and 65,000 documents awaiting filing.

  On counter fraud work, the report notes failures by the council to introduce and implement a counter fraud strategy and to introduce and implement a prosecution policy. There was also increased potential for internal fraud, fewer fraud staff and a lack of management within the counter fraud teams.

  The BFI considers that Kirklees metropolitan council's inadequate response to the findings of the first inspection casts grave doubts on its commitment to provide an efficient and secure benefits system.

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

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

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he plans to implement the recommendations on housing benefit reforms set out in the Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all". [32620]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have a three-stage strategy for reforming housing benefit and dealing with the legacy of neglect we have inherited. The first stage, which is now well under way, is to radically improve HB administration and bear down on fraud.

  The HB help team is working in partnership with local authorities to support them in improving the administration of HB. We are already seeing real improvements in administration as a result of the team's work and the on-going programme of inspections by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. We also want to help more authorities deliver a high standard of HB service by sharing good practice. We are developing a dedicated website to do so and we plan to make available shortly on CD a "toolkit" which the help team has developed.

  In April we will publish performance standards for the full range of HB administration. These standards offer local authorities practical guidance on effective and secure administration of benefit. Local authorities will be able to self-assess their performance against standards.

  We have already increased HB administration subsidy for the year 2001–02 to £166 million, in 2002–03 it will increase to £170 million and to £174 million in 2003–04. This three-year settlement provides local authorities with stability, enabling them to plan more effectively for the future administration of HB and council tax benefit.

  With the introduction of the pension credit, we are removing the need to reclaim HB every year for pensioners aged 65 and over. For those over 65, we will be making awards for five years. The HB income threshold will also be raised by the maximum amount of

  525W
  the pension credit savings reward, to an expected level of £113.80 for single pensioners in 2003 and we will treat pensioners' capital more generously.

  Introduced nationally from April 2002, our new anti-fraud incentive scheme, puts more emphasis on prevention of fraud, as well as its detection. And we are working to get an accurate and robust measurement of fraud in the system, through the HB reviews begun last April. In time we expect to gain sufficiently reliable information from the reviews of the level of loss in the system to be able to measure progress against an agreed target.

  The second stage, which is already beginning, is to restructure rents. This is an essential prerequisite to the third stage of reform, instituting fundamental changes to the structure of HB. Fundamental reform of HB has to be built on the platform of the first two stages if it is to succeed, as was clearly set out in the Housing Green Paper.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his Department. [41023]

  Maria Eagle
  Relocation expenses are available to DWP staff in the event of a compulsory and permanent transfer which necessitates a move of home. In determining whether these expenses are available to individual staff, alternative options such as local recruitment or redeployment are considered first to ensure that these transfers are cost effective.

  The financial assistance available would normally cover all necessary legal, removals and estate agents' costs. Assistance from a specialist relocation company in marketing homes is also available. On-going assistance may also be forthcoming if a member of staff relocates to a dearer housing, as determined by the use of Valuation Office data, resulting in increased housing costs. All new housing costs are closely compared to those at the original home to ensure that comparable property types are used. These expenses and controls are in line with the central guidance in section 8 of the Civil Service Management Code.

  Employment (Disabled People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) private companies, (b) charitable and voluntary and (c) public sector organisations based in the Buckingham constituency have adopted the two ticks symbol. [43296]

  Maria Eagle
  Employers who wish to apply for two ticks status are assessed by our disability employment advisers. The two ticks disability symbol helps employers show that they are committed to employing people with disabilities, and also helps people with disabilities to identify which employers have a positive attitude to their abilities.

  The information requested is in the table.
  526W

  Organisations in the Buckingham parliamentary constituency using the two ticks disability symbol

  Type of organisation

  Number

  Private sector companies

  4

  Charitable and voluntary organisations

  0

  Public sector organisations

  2

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 28W, on age discrimination, how much money has been allocated to the Age Positive Campaign; how many (a) companies, (b) academic institutions and (c) research or lobby organisations have signed up to the campaign; how many workers are employed by the companies that have signed up to the campaign; how many companies expect to sign up to the campaign; how he monitors organisations that have signed up to comply with the campaign; how many people are employed to monitor organisations that have signed to comply with the campaign; and how many companies have been removed from the Age Positive Campaign after being found to be not maintaining the campaign's code. [41842]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The Age Positive budget for 2001–02 is £1 million and is used to develop and promote the business case for non-ageist employment practices to all employers and individuals across Great Britain.

  Those who wish to actively support the Age Positive campaign do not formally sign up to it. They are encouraged to provide positive case studies and may apply to become age positive champions. To become an age positive champion, a potential applicant must submit strong evidence of commitment to age positive practice. Officials of this Department vet applications from potential champions.

  Organisations that do not have in place a wide enough range of age positive practices to be accepted as champions are still often able to provide useful case studies illustrating particular age positive aspects of their employment policies. Age positive champions play a vital role in the campaign. By promoting their own best practice and highlighting the practical business benefits of a mixed age workforce they encourage other employers and individuals to tackle age discrimination in the workplace. There are currently 32 age positive champions and around 50 case studies, although both figures are steadily increasing. The newest feature of the campaign is the age positive website www.agepositive.gov.uk

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will set out for each civil service grade within her(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies the (i) total number of staff employed, (ii) number aged (A) 16 to 25, (B) 26

  527W
  to 35, (C) 36 to 45, (D) 46 to 60 and (E) over the age of 60 years, (iii) number of registered disabled and (iv) number of ethnic minorities. [39151]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1072W.

  Solicitors
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will make a statement on the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors and its role in reviewing complaints against solicitors. [44393]

  Mr. Wills
  Solicitors are members of a self-regulating professional body, the Law Society. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) is a separate organisation set up by the Law Society to handle complaints against members. The Government have warned the OSS that failure to make significant improvements in performance could result in the powers to appoint a Legal Services Complaints Commissioner being activated.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to review the self-regulation of solicitors; and if he will make a statement. [44392]

  Mr. Wills
  The legal profession is independent of Government and as such it is the professional bodies which, in the first instance, are responsible for the regulation of their members. The Government have no current plans to alter this. However, we are aware of concerns about the standard of complaints handling by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS). For this reason, the Government have already taken reserve powers to impose standards for complaints handling on the legal professional bodies. These powers would allow for the establishment of a new post, the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner, whose function would be to set targets for the handling of complaints by failing bodies. The Lord Chancellor is considering the OSS's performance against targets and any decision about the appointment of the Commissioner will be made in due course.

HEALTH

  Nursing Home Residents
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his figure for self-financing residents of nursing homes in England and Wales was arrived at. [8333]

  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 to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department of health conducted a survey of nursing homes, via health authorities' registration departments, in June and July of last year to establish the number and location of those paying their nursing home fees from their own resources (self funders). The results of the survey are available on the Department's website
  528W
  at www.doh.gov.uk/jointunit/freenursingcare/index.htm. A total of 42,700 self-funders were identified through this survey.

  Lymphoedea
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the treatment in the NHS available to sufferers of lymphoedea. [9818]

  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 to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 192W.

  Treatment, and where it is delivered, will depend on whether the patient has primary or secondary lymphoedema. Health authorities, in partnership with primary care groups/trusts, have the responsibility for deciding what services to provide for their populations including those with lymphoedema. They are best placed to understand local health needs and commission services to meet them.

  Maternity Units
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the difference in morbidity rates between mothers who have given birth in midwife-led maternity units and those who have given birth in other types of maternity units; and if he will make a statement. [10014]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 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 to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 192W.

  The Department has not commissioned any such research.

  The Maternity and Neonatal Workforce Group is considering different models of care, including midwife-led units, in order to inform the maternity services section of the Children's National Service Framework.

  Psychiatric Nursing
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the fall in the number of community psychiatric nursing episodes from 1996–97 to 1999–2000. [12718]

  Jacqui Smith
  [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 factors underlying the fall in the number of community psychiatric nursing episodes from 1996–97 to 1999–2000 include the number of new professional community based roles; increase in the number of people with mental illness receiving first assessment and initial

  529W
  therapeutic interventions in primary care settings; and mental health service users and carers using NHS Direct and Walk-in Centres for advice and in a crisis.

  Adoption and Children Bill
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what and how many representations he has received from individuals and voluntary adoption agencies regarding his proposed changes of access to birth information records as set out in the Adoption and Children Bill. [19206]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 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.

  We have received many representations from individuals and organisations on access to information in relation to adoption and the provisions in the Adoption and Children Bill. As the hon. Member is aware, the Government have responded to the representations made to it and to the Special Standing Committee for the Bill by amending the provisions for access to birth record information.

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now intends to announce a decision on the proposed merger of the Stoke Mandeville Hospital and the South Buckinghamshire NHS trusts. [25504]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 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, column 192W.

  The merger of Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust and South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust has been proposed by the Trusts and Buckingamshire health authority. Ministers have agreed, in principle, that the public should be consulted on the proposal before any decision is made. The timing of the consultation is currently being finalised.

  Emergency Services (Midlothian)
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government are doing to deter callers from dialling for an ambulance when there is no emergency; and how many hoax calls were made in the Midlothian constituency from 1995 to date. [27179]

  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.
  530W
  NHS ambulance trusts in England continue to undertake work to inform their local population about appropriate use of emergency ambulance services.

  Ambulance services do not have to send an ambulance vehicle in response to 999 calls which do not require emergency care. Such calls will continue to receive a consistent and appropriate response based on national clinical standards. A fully crewed frontline ambulance will always be sent to life-threatening emergencies.

  Responsibilities for Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Delayed Discharges
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average time patients experiencing delayed discharges were delayed for each of the last three quarters. [27253]

  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.

  No information was collected centrally about the length of delay for patients with delayed discharge until the first quarter of 2001–02. The information on the breakdown in length of delay for patients of all ages in Q1 of 2001–02 has been placed in the Library. No information was collected centrally about the length of delay for patients with delayed discharge until the first quarter of 2001–02. The information on the breakdown in length of delay for patients of all ages in the first and second quarters of 2001–02 has been placed in the Library. For equivalent information for the third quarter I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 18 March 2002, Official Report, column 159W.

  Surgery (Cancellations)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average percentage of operations cancelled for non-clinical reasons as a proportion of admissions was in the last 12 months. [40049]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the number of patients whose operations are cancelled by hospitals for non-clinical reasons at the last minute are shown in the table.

  Year

  Cancellation as a percentage of elective admissions

  2001–02 Q2

  1.6

  2001–02 Q1

  1.6

  2000–01 Q4

  1.7

  2000–01 Q3

  1.4

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the number of(a) residential, (b) nursing and (c) dual registered homes

  531W
  beds that will be (i) available and (ii) required in the (A) private and (B) public sector in each of the next five years. [39441]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members, the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 12 March 2002, Official Report, column 1009W.

  The extra funding which we are making available to councils is designed to enable them to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the system to meet individual long-term care needs.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on which date he agreed to test new private finance initiative employment models; if he will set out the model of facilities employment which is being tested; and if he will identify the pilot sites where the model is under test. [40560]

  Mr. Hutton
  In December 2001 an agreement was reached with Unison, private sector contractors and the Department on the terms under which portering, domestic, catering, laundry and security at three private finance initiative pilots (Queen Mary's hospital Roehampton, Barking/Havering and Stoke Mandeville hospital) will continue. The pilots are for staff in these five facilities to retain all their national health service employment terms, but be managed by the private sector.

  Hospital Appointments
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital appointments were not attended in England in each of the last four years; and what measures are in place to reduce this number. [40462]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of patients who did not attend consultant out-patient appointments from 1997–98 to 2000–01 are given in the table. Information up to quarter 2 of 2001–02, is available on the Department website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Total number of did not attends (DNAs) at all consultant out-patient clinics, England, 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Year

  Total number

  2000–01

  5,954,819

  1999–2000

  5,882,510

  1998–99

  5,648,971

  1997–98

  5,629,429

  Note:

  Did Not Attends (DNAs) are counted for those patients who gave no advance warning for their non-attendance.

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH09

  The Department has introduced the national booked admissions programme to offer patients a pre-booked appointment and a choice of date and time that is suitable to them. Booking systems have proven to significantly reduce the number of patients who do not attend appointments.

  As stated in the NHS plan, by the end of 2005 all out-patient appointments will be pre-booked, allowing patients to book convenient appointment times. Since March 2001 every acute NHS trust has been offering
  532W
  booked appointments in at least two specialties or high volume procedures. £50 million was allocated to the national booked admissions programme in 2001–02.

  Foreign Referrals (Southampton University NHS Trust)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the scope of current pilot schemes for foreign referrals will be extended to include Southampton University NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [40794]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since rulings of the European Court of Justice in July last year it has been clear that national health service bodies, including health authorities, primary care trusts and acute trusts, may commission treatment for NHS patients overseas. However, given that commissioning treatment overseas involves a number of difficult clinical, quality and legal issues the Department has advised NHS bodies contemplating sending patients abroad to contact the pilot sites first to obtain the benefit of their experience.

  The pilot scheme for foreign referrals concludes next month. Further guidance on overseas treatment will be sent to the NHS, drawing on the experience of the pilot.

  We are exploring the possibility of a small number of NHS bodies putting in place arrangements to commission overseas care on behalf of the rest of the NHS in England.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to bring United Kingdom health spending into line with the EU average; and if he will make a statement. [40814]

  Mr. Hutton
  The European average for health spending has remained at between 7.9 and 8 per cent. of gross domestic product for a number of years. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated that, as long as the economy remains strong, we will reach the European Union average by 2005. Current spending plans will raise the level of United Kingdom total health expenditure to 7.6 per cent. of gross domestic product by 2003–04. Spending beyond this period will be decided in the coming spending review.

  A and E Safety Equipment
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health against what agents the(a) personal protective equipment and (b) decontamination shelters provided to hospital accident and emergency departments can protect. [40812]

  Mr. Hutton
  The chemical personal protective equipment (PPE) currently being made available to hospitals (and ambulance service staff) fully meets the NHS specification (NHSCPPE/2001) which was developed to ensure that health services personnel are protected during the decontamination of chemically contaminated casualties and able to provide life saving first aid during the decontamination process. The PPE has been tested against 15 liquid industrial chemicals in a standard test battery (ATSM F1001–99a) chosen to represent a broad range of liquid classes and properties. It has also been tested against a representative sample of chemical warfare agents.
  533W
  The purpose of the mobile decontamination facilities currently being made available to hospitals (and ambulance service staff) is to provide privacy and shelter for chemically contaminated casualties during the decontamination process. These facilities are not intended to provide protection against chemical agents for either health service personnel or the chemically contaminated casualty. Health service personnel will be protected by wearing PPE, while casualties will be given appropriate medical treatment once they have been decontaminated.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the provision of(a) personal protective equipment and (b) decontamination equipment to hospital accident and emergency departments has cost in each of the last three years [40811]

  Mr. Hutton
  A total of £150 million has been invested in the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Modernisation Programme in three waves since 1998. It is the biggest investment in A&E services since the start of the national health service. The final wave of funding was made available to the NHS in January 2001.

  The investment has provided various improvements to A&E services which include decontamination facilities. However, there is no complete breakdown in terms of cost as to specific details within a scheme.

  A £5 million capital allocation has been made in 2001–2002 to secure, through national contracts, the provision of mobile decontamination units and personal protective equipment (PPE).

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on treating chronic myeloid leukaemia with a combination of cytosine therapy and interphon alpha by health authority year by year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [41603]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available.

  Hospices
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his estimate is of the number of beds freed within the NHS by the transfer of patients to hospice care in the last 12 months; [41731]

  (2) how much of the money at present allocated for the treatment of terminal cancer patient care will be directed to hospices; and if he will make a statement. [41732]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the NHS Cancer Plan we pledged that the national health service contribution to the costs of specialist palliative care (including hospices) would increase by £50 million by 2004. 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. The level of funding voluntary hospices receive is a matter for local decision based on a strategic view of local palliative care services. We have required all cancer networks to develop costed strategic investment plans for palliative care, which will inform the wider NHS planning process through Health Improvement Programmes and Service and Financial Frameworks for 2002–3.
  534W
  Information on the number of beds freed within the NHS by the transfer of patients to hospice care is not available centrally. There are approximately 2,000 hospice beds in the voluntary sector and over 400 beds in the NHS in England. About 120,000 people die annually from cancer in England; approximately 50 per cent. of these die in hospital, 13 per cent. die in hospices and 25 per cent. die in their own homes.

  NHS Vacancies
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS vacancies there were for(a) medical and dental staff, (b) qualified nurses, (c) professions allied to medicine and (d) administration and estates staff in (i) England and (ii) each health authority in (A) each year since 1997, (B) 1979 and (C) 1992. [40068]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the waiting time for occupational therapy for arthritis sufferers at(a) the Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust, (b) the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust and (c) the Poole Hospital NHS Trust. [41691]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting time is from referral to first appointment with a consultant rheumatologist at(a) the Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust, (b) the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust and (c) the Poole Hospital NHS Trust. [41644]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Out-patient average (median) waiting times for rheumatology— December 2001

  Code/Trust name

  Average (median) waiting time (in weeks)

  RD3

  Poole Hospital NHS Trust

  6.10

  RDZ

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust

  6.33

  RHM

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  6.32

  Notes:

  1. The average waiting time is calculated as the median waiting time of those patients seen during the quarter for a first out-patient appointment in rheumatology specialty following GP referral.

  2. Data are for quarter ended December 2001.

  Source:

  QM08 waiting times return.

  Bladder Cancer
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what national guidelines exist to govern the procedures and follow up intervals for patients treated for primary cancer of the bladder; [41466]
  535W
  (2) what research he has conducted into the guidelines followed by other EU countries on the treatment of primary cancer of the bladder. [41465]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is commissioning a comprehensive package of guidance on cancer services covering all cancers which health authorities and NHS trusts will be expected to implement.

  NICE guidelines are based on the best available research evidence and expert professional advice. Research may be commissioned by NICE, or consist of existing material, including guidelines and best practice in other countries.

  NICE is expected to issue service guidance on urological cancer this summer.

  Redundancy Packages
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2002,Official Report, column 327W, on the costs of staff redundancy packages arising as a consequence of organisational change in the NHS, if he will make it his policy to collate details of these costs by region; and what data his Department collates on the costs of staff redundancy. [44086]

  Mr. Hutton
  In accordance with Her Majesty's Treasury financial reporting guidelines, information on provisions for premature retirement pensions are separately identified in the published annual accounts of 536W
  national health service trusts and health authorities. There are currently no plans to extend these reporting requirements or routinely collate data by region as this would unduly add to the administrative burden for the NHS.

  Free Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1138W, on free nursing care, what estimate he has made of the number of assessments a person in receipt of free nursing care will need in the time they are in a care home. [44676]

  Jacqui Smith
  Based on an average length of stay in a nursing home of 30 months, one would expect three to four reviews to be made following the initial assessments.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department intends to respond to the letter of 23 January from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (ref. PO 003020). [45141]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent on 21 March.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letter of 17 December 2001 from the hon. Member for North Shropshire on funding for the minor injuries unit at the RJ and AH Orthopaedic hospital, Gobonea. [44681]

  Yvette Cooper
  A reply was sent on 6 March.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Children's Fund
Baroness Andrewsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made on policy for the Children's Fund.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I am pleased to report that we are making good progress on the Children's Fund. The first wave of areas, which includes some of the most deprived communities in England, is beginning to implement increased and better co-ordinated services for children at risk of social exclusion. Second-wave areas have now submitted their proposals, and we are on course for the Children's Fund to reach all parts of England by 2003–04.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful Answer. It is good to know that the Children's Fund is beginning to reach the children at risk for whom it was intended.
My concern is that services for disadvantaged children must be carefully co-ordinated. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what contribution the Children's Fund is making to a more coherent provision. Is the Children and Young People's Unit beginning to make progress in joining up services?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Children and Young People's Unit is leading the development of an overarching strategy for children and young people. The unit has consulted widely on a document setting out, for the first time, our vision for all children in the country. The overarching strategy sets out that vision and the principles that, we believe, should apply to all government services. It proposes six key outcomes: health and well-being; achievement and enjoyment; participation and citizenship; protection; responsibility; and inclusion.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that children in the age range covered by the Children's Fund—5 to 13—and younger children are most vulnerable to physical abuse? How much of the Children's Fund has gone—and is intended to go—into parenting education, including the teaching of disciplining strategies other than physical abuse, so that the repetitive cycle of abuse can be broken?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the proposals for the Children's Fund are worked out by
1464
local partnerships, as the noble Baroness will know. As for the way in which the money is distributed, it is for local partnerships to come together and build on existing services to develop the strategies that are most applicable to their communities. I cannot give the noble Baroness details of a specific amount of money, but I can point her to the way in which partnerships are developing services to ensure that children are less vulnerable.
The process is geared towards protecting children, by recognising when children are about to be at risk and intervening with children and their families as early as possible, to make sure that they remain safe.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a great deal of the money—£450 million over three years— is being dissipated by the bureaucracy in the bidding process for securing money at local level? That £450 million is yet more money that is being held back at the centre and not going in at school level.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the figure that I have is £380 million, available over three years. That money is available to the partnerships, and those partnerships will involve the work that goes on in schools. I disagree with the noble Baroness's claim that the money is being used in a way other than being given to schools.
It is important that the money that is built into the services is used to bring together health, social care and education services. For the children concerned, it is crucial that we have integration, early intervention and early recognition. That is a fundamental part of what the Children's Fund is attempting to do. The money is reaching the partnerships; they are coming forward in three waves, and money has gone out, in order to ensure that we achieve the fund's objectives.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, can the Minister say what use is made of the Children's Fund by children with disabilities and their families? I am sure that she will agree that they are a particularly disadvantaged group.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am happy to do so. Children's Fund partnerships are required to carry out an analysis of the need for and gaps in preventive services for children in their area. It must focus on children who are at risk of social exclusion. I understand that a substantial number has identified children with disabilities as a particular priority group in the development of Children's Fund work. There are examples of that in Bristol, Bradford and Birmingham.
Among the services that are being developed are services that are designed to provide additional support directly in schools—that is also relevant to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch — as well as improving access to leisure and cultural activities, additional family support and information services.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I may have missed something, in which case I apologise, but can the

1465
Minister say how many partnerships are now in operation and how much money has, so far, been distributed to the partnerships or through them?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord has not missed anything; I had not given those figures. There are 40 partnerships in operation in the first wave. We plan to cover all local authority areas by 2003–04. The average allocation is about £1 million. The largest allocation has been given to Birmingham, which has received about £6 million.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether young people have been consulted, as part of the consultation process for partnerships?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, young people and children have been involved in several ways. Some partnerships have employed participation workers specifically to make sure that they work with children. Other ways have been developed, including fun days for children, festivals, theatre groups and music and talent shows. In some areas, young people are directly involved in steering groups. In some cases, young people have been included in the process of recruiting staff. Young people are involved in various ways.

Disruptive Pupils
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have reversed their previous policy of seeking to minimise the exclusion from school of disruptive pupils.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have not reversed our policy on exclusions. We no longer have targets for permanent exclusions, but our revised draft guidance restates that, in most cases, before excluding a pupil, a range of alternative strategies should have been tried. However, some incidents may be so serious that permanent exclusion may be appropriate for a first or one-off offence. The new guidance helps to ensure that a balanced approach is taken on this issue.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and am reassured by what she had to say. Does she agree that, at a time when there is concern about rising street crime, it is extremely important that we make sure that young people who are excluded from school—who often come from deeply disturbed backgrounds—are given the chance to have full-time schooling and are not just put into units where they are, perhaps, given only two or three hours' education a week?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree entirely. We must strike a balance between ensuring that children who can be educated in mainstream education are educated in that way and recognising that, for some children, that is impossible. From September, we will work towards the position in which full-time education will be provided for all children who are excluded. The most important part of the strategy, in many ways, is preventing children getting to the stage at which they are excluded.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister said that, in the autumn, we would be working towards a position where we would get all children who are excluded into full-time education. I thought that we had been working towards that for some years. Can she tell us what effective steps have already been taken and what proportion of excluded children are still free to roam the streets without supervision?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, let me make it clear that by September 2002 we expect all children who have been excluded to be in full-time education. We have made that commitment. We are working with local education authorities to ensure that they have the right kind of provision. Noble Lords will be aware that for some children the appropriate provision will be pupil referral units, with the anticipation that children will move back into full-time education. For others it may be simply a different school, with additional support. For yet others, it may the provision of other kinds of educational support. It is a broad range. I did not wish to give the impression that we have not arrived at that point, but rather that we are ensuring that we have in place the breadth of provision that is needed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree—from what I know of the noble Baroness, I am sure she will agree—that a particular problem with regard to disruption in the classroom is that occasioned by young people with autistic spectrum disorder? That very often results in disruption in the classroom. What is really needed is more screening and earlier intervention so that such children are not simply dubbed as disruptive and then left to the devices of a pupil referral unit.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. It is absolutely right and proper to ensure that children with special educational needs are identified early, that support is provided for them within the classroom and that the right kind of support is provided for teachers so that they understand the needs of such children. We also need to ensure that, by working together, those children can enjoy a happy and fulfilling life at school and thus are able to remain in mainstream schooling, where that is appropriate for them, throughout their education.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the most difficult problems, if not the most difficult problem, for teachers is that of dealing with disruptive children? It may well be—I am sure my noble friend will agree—that exclusion should be used in certain circumstances and for a certain time. Is any research being done and training given to overcome the increasingly difficult problem of dealing with disruptive children?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are very concerned about disruption in schools. Within the department I chair a group which is looking specifically at behavioural issues. We are working with colleagues across departments, particularly those in educational psychology and those from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Unit at the Department of Health, in order to achieve solutions.
It is worth saying to my noble friend that we are also interested in looking at those schools which have been very successful at ensuring that children are not excluded through working with, for example, learning support mentors and establishing learning support units on site. We are developing a range of strategies which will enable our children to be in mainstream schools, while also supporting our teachers, for whom this is a serious issue.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in view of recent press reports, has the Minister paid attention to what teachers have to face in the classroom when dealing with disruptive children? There are times when children need to be referred to pupil referral units, but I gather that the units in East London are small. I speak from anecdotal evidence, but I understand that in Hackney and Tower Hamlets, there are hardly any such units. How are teachers to deal with pupils who curse and defy them when all they can do is to refer them for counselling and so forth? Attention must be given to providing sufficient referral units, and after that of course bringing children back into the mainstream. Can the Minister tell the House what attention is being given to the provision of referral units?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions. We are ensuring that we have on the ground in local education authorities the right breadth of provision and support for students. Pupil referral units are an important part of that provision. We are ensuring, through the allocation of resources, that we do have in place the right level of support for young people.
However, this problem also concerns preventive measures in the classroom. It is about ensuring that our children receive the right kind of support and, I would argue, it is about parental involvement. We must ensure that parents work with schools, that they send the right messages to their young children about the role of schools, that they work with teachers and are seen to be supportive and respectful of schools.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that learning support units in schools, to which she referred in an earlier answer, often provide an easier route back into the mainstream after a temporary exclusion has been, it is hoped, successful? Can she tell the House a little about the balance between the two? Are learning support units always the first recourse, with exclusion units being the last recourse for children who cause disruption in the classroom?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's question depends partly on what resources a particular local education authority has put in place. We believe that learning support units are making a big difference and we are particularly interested in their work in inner-city schools. However, they are not yet in place everywhere and so they will not be available for every school.
However, decisions also depend on the reason for the exclusion. I think that noble Lords would agree that, wherever possible, we want those children who come out of mainstream education and into a unit to be able to return to school in due course. That also applies to special schools when considering behavioural issues in children. Among their criteria for success is the number of children they are able to reintegrate into mainstream education.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness has told us that the Government have abandoned a system of targets in relation to children excluded from school. Does the Minister agree that that system has proved totally unsuitable? In certain areas of activity, targets can be really very damaging to the work of professionals on the ground. Will she agree to bring to the attention of her right honourable friend that there are other areas in education where targets might well be damaging and, indeed, other areas in government, such as the National Health Service? It is only too easy to set targets and think that one is managing from the centre, but they can do a great deal of damage.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, noble Lords will know that I have been on the receiving end of many targets in the course of my professional life. I have to say that targets play an important role in ensuring not least that the Government do what they say they will do. Noble Lords in this House will certainly ensure that the Government report back on the targets they have set. Indeed, for many organisations, including schools and—if I may trespass into another area of public sector life—the health service, it is important that we set ourselves the right kind of targets. With regard to education, we are discussing here the one chance that young people have to receive a good education. I think that we should set targets for ourselves.

NHS: Latex-related Allergies
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasenasked Her Majesty's Government:
How much the National Health Service has paid out in early retirement costs and compensation payments for those forced to leave their jobs due to latex-related allergies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, information on the costs of early retirement or compensation payments due to specific medical conditions is not available centrally, although the extra cost of retirement through ill health in the NHS has been calculated at £60,000 per employee retired. Of the 4,482 staff who left the service on grounds of ill health during 2000–01, some 1.7 per cent were due to skin allergies, some of which may have been attributable to latex.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that many workers in the health service are extremely worried about latex allergies? It is not only a question of latex gloves, but also of the latex used in many other areas of a hospital. Does lie agree that, since alternative materials are available—for example, for latex gloves—it would be wise for hospitals to provide such alternatives for those workers who are worried about exposure to latex? To inform the House, I should say that latex can cause skin disease, but it can also trigger conditions such as asthma and other respiratory problems.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right to suggest that latex is a sensitiser and that it can pose some risk to NHS staff. However, that risk is posed to only a minority. I should also say to my noble friend that some of the alternatives to latex products also contain chemicals which can cause allergic reactions in both staff and patients. The European Commission working group on latex is confident that the current directive provides sufficient protection for patients and staff if it is fully and properly implemented. However, in the light of the Question put by my noble friend and the concerns that she has expressed, the Government are announcing today their intention to reissue guidance to the NHS, thus drawing employers' attention to the problem and to the alternatives to latex that are now available. The guidance stresses the need for staff and management to work together to assess the risks in each case.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister has talked about guidance, but what steps are being taken by the NHS to centrally source supplies of low-allergy products?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has recognised the need for some
1470
central action in the health service. A central purchasing agency making decisions at central government level provides the option for the NHS to enter individual contracts. Part of the role of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is to ensure that alternatives to latex products are made available.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that when the alternatives are available they will be offered also to patients' visitors? In cases where people are being barrier nursed, visitors have to put on gloves and aprons.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a very useful suggestion. It is one of the considerations that local employers should take into account when implementing the guidance that we issue to the NHS and in developing a risk assessment strategy.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister say what kinds of products contain latex? I always thought it existed in corsets.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know more about that than I do. Such products include surgical gloves, urological sheaths, and various instruments and products used within the health service.

Cash Machines in Rural Post Offices
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the reported proposal to impose a charge of £1.25 for the use of cash machines in rural post offices; and whether this proposal was discussed with Ministers at any stage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, Post Office Limited is undertaking a programme of cash machine installation with a view to installing 3,000 machines at post offices by the end of 2002. These machines are being provided as an additional service available at some post offices to enable customers to withdraw money from their bank accounts. Wherever possible, the Post Office seeks to arrange for cash machine transactions at post offices to be free of charge. However, in some locations it would not be financially viable to install a machine without a charge being made.
This programme is separate from arrangements for universal banking services, which will enable all those who wish to do so to continue to be able to collect their benefits in cash at post offices. Decisions relating to cash machines at post offices are a commercial matter for Post Office Limited.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, could the consideration of making charges for the use of cash

1471
machines in some post offices have been part of a transaction to sell off a major part of the Post Office— a transaction which has recently fallen through? Can the Minister tell the House whether or not there have been recent negotiations to sell off a major part of the Post Office to an overseas buyer? A "yes" or "no" answer will suffice.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the supplementary question is rather different from the Question on the Order Paper. I have heard of no such suggestion. If one looks at the financing of the rural postal network, not many people would be in the business of buying it.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some of our poorest citizens live in rural areas and that many of our rural post offices and sub-post offices are disappearing? If you are able to draw out only £10 or £20 at a time, £1.25 in charges is a substantial amount. Elderly and disabled people cannot always get to the nearest supermarket in order to benefit from cash-hack schemes.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I had hoped that I had made the point that this is an additional service. As is common across the whole of the commercial world, where there is a large through-put of people the service is provided free. But where it cannot be justified on that basis, charges are made. In such circumstances, part of the charge will go to the post master or postmistress. It is an additional service which can only add to customer facilities. In that sense, it is a commercial decision for the Post Office to take.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, notwithstanding the announcement that he made last year, to a fanfare of musical trumpets, of the subsidy proposals to help rural post offices, does the Minister accept that the deterioration in the rural post office network has continued rapidly since that announcement? Does he further accept that unless the Government's proposals are accelerated there will hardly be a rural postal network left?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the situation is not as the noble Lord suggests. There has been a slowing down of the closure of rural post offices, but we should not be too optimistic about that because special factors are involved. As to the question of subsidies, which arose from the PRU report, it was always made clear that they were to deal with the transitional arrangements until 2003 when ACT is due to come in.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does not the Minister think it slightly unfair that post offices which have a relatively large through-put will not need to charge anything, and yet post offices in the rural areas, which are more necessary but have fewer people to look after, will nevertheless charge? One would have thought that it is those people who should not be charged.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is an unfortunate fact of life that in many commercial
1472
transactions where there is a small through-put the charges are higher. This is a commercial facility provided by the Post Office. It is common across the country that where there is a small through-put for cash machines which are provided on, essentially, a convenience basis, charges have to be made. Otherwise, there would be no service at all.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords—
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is the turn of the government Benches.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, before I ask my question, I should like to place on record my delight that my noble friend has given an unequivocal answer to the suggestion that a part of the Post Office was going to be sold off to a foreign competitor. It was a rumour that was going around last weekend and I am delighted that he has been able to say that no such negotiations were known to him. I am also pleased that we have not yet heard the dreaded word "Consignia".
In view of the repeated assurances from the Government that people will be able to get their benefits paid in cash through the sub-post offices, especially in rural areas—it has been repeated many times —can my noble friend assure the House that in no way will people be advised when they go into their rural post offices that these machines are the means of getting their cash?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can give that assurance. We remain fully committed to meeting the Prime Minister's clear pledge that those who wish to do so will be able to continue to get their benefits in cash at post offices, in full and without charge.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Post Office operates universal postal charges throughout the whole country. Why can it not do the same with cash machines?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a long tradition of the universal postal service which is written into the latest Post Office Act. That states that a service will be provided across the country under a one-payment system. The provision of cash machines is an additional service which does not have to he provided under the universal postal obligation. It is a commercial transaction which will be operated on a commercial basis.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, is not the imposition of a charge of £1.25 for the use of cash machines a breach of the principle of providing a universal service to all users of the Post Office? This is

1473
bringing market forces to bear and breaking the fundamental principle of the service that the Post Office should provide to rural people.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Post Office has a universal service obligation in relation essentially to the mail service. That obligation does not extend to all services. I do not believe that it should. If extra services are provided, they are provided on a commercial basis. That is entirely in keeping with what has gone before.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister said that the supplementary question of my noble friend on the Front Bench was irrelevant to her Question. But the viability of the Post Office in the future is very relevant, and that is the point made by my noble friend. Can the Minister confirm unequivocally to the House that on which he has been congratulated by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke—that is, that there have been no negotiations whatever with a foreign company—for example, a Dutch company—in recent times that have failed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, I came to the House prepared to answer a Question about cash machines. I therefore did not ask or inquire about any negotiations which may or may not have taken place. If I am wrong, I shall obviously make it clear in a future communication to the noble Baroness. But, I repeat, I know of no negotiations which are taking place to sell the post office network, which I assume is the point of the question. I have no indication that any negotiations have ever taken place on that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I simply said that this may be part of a transaction to sell off the Post Office—which transaction has failed. That was the point that I made recently. I wanted to know whether the Minister could confirm that negotiations were going on to sell a majority share in the Post Office to a company overseas. That was my question.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said—which I thought was very clear given the extent of my knowledge on this subject. If it is a question of the financial viability of the rural post office network, this particular move can only help, because a part of the fee goes to the post offices themselves.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, does not the Minister know that the whole future of the Post Office is a very live issue and one which, I am sure, concerns all of us in this House? We had a debate on the future of Consignia some six weeks ago. At the end of the debate, because we ran out of time, I asked the Minister whether he would answer in writing the questions that had been raised. I then wrote to him, about three weeks ago. I have still not heard from him.
1474
Is it the case that the Minister does not know what is going on in the Post Office, as he has more or less said to my noble friend Lady Miller?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I apologise if answers to those questions have not been received. I shall immediately make certain that they are answered. However, if noble Lords opposite want to know what negotiations have taken place, or are going to take place, on Consignia, the proper approach would be to table a Question on that matter, and not focus on the subject of cash machines, which is a quite separate issue.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that has been made in another place on Zimbabwe. At a convenient moment after 5 p.m. my noble friend Lord Whitty will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that has been made in another place on hunting with dogs.

Education Bill
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Education Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 18,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 19 to 35,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 36 to 38,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 39 to 48,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 49 to 53,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 54 to 56,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 57 to 62,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 63 to 66,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 67 and 68,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 69 to 71,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 72 to 115,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 116 to 143,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 144 to 147,

1475

Schedule 13,

Clauses 148 to 150,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 151 to 180,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 181,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 182,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 183 to 188,

Schedule 18,

Clauses 189 to 192,

Schedule 19,

Clauses 193 to 199,

Schedule 20,

Clause 200 to 210,

Schedules 21 and 22.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, while warmly supporting the Motion, perhaps I may express the hope that, for years to come, it will be regarded by those who are responsible for compiling such Motions as a valuable precedent, because it puts into numerical order all the clauses and schedules of this vast Bill—numerical order being the order in which they should be discussed.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, who has many years of experience to support his remarks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Zimbabwe
3.33 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Zimbabwe which has been made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement on Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth.
"As the House will be aware, a Commonwealth 'troika' consisting of Presidents Mbeki of South Africa and Obasanjo of Nigeria and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia was authorised by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to review the outcome of the Zimbabwe elections in the light of the Commonwealth observers' report, and to decide on any action.
"The troika met in London on Tuesday. It had before it the final report of the Commonwealth observers group. This confirmed the findings of the preliminary report which I put before the House in my Statement last Thursday. The group concluded that,
"the conditions in Zimbabwe did not adequately allow for a free expression of will by the electors".
1476
"The troika accepted the conclusions in full and decided as a result to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth for one year with immediate effect. This issue will be revisited in 12 months' time, having regard to progress in Zimbabwe, based on the Commonwealth Harare principles and reports from the Commonwealth Secretary-General. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our appreciation to Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard and in expressing our full support for their conclusions.
"Three months ago, on 20th December, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, of which I was a member, concluded that Zimbabwe was in 'serious and persistent violation' of the Harare principles. It was my view at that stage that Zimbabwe should, then and there, be suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth. I made this case again at CM AG at the end of January, as did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at CHOGM itself in early March. As the situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated day by day since December, it follows that we believe that suspension now is fully justified.
"The Commonwealth depends above all on its moral authority, and on the force of the principles which it codified in Harare itself in 1991. That is why the decision was so important for the Commonwealth as a whole, as well as, of course, for Zimbabwe. And that moral authority is what gives this decision its force.
"I am in no doubt, from the way in which the Government of Zimbabwe had sought actively to divide the Commonwealth, that they were, and are, profoundly concerned about the international isolation which suspension signals. Tuesday's decision was, therefore, significant in many respects: above all, for the fact that leaders of two key African nations have taken a clear and definitive stand in defence of the Commonwealth's fundamental principles. They have also underlined Africa's commitment to the universal and indivisible principles of democracy and human rights.
"Suspension is one of the strongest measures the Commonwealth can impose. In the past, countries have only been suspended after the violent overthrow of their elected governments. Zimbabwe's suspension is, therefore, a new departure.
"Moreover, the Commonwealth's decision is in addition to the targeted sanctions which the European Union, the United States and now Switzerland have imposed against the leaders of ZANU-PF. EU Heads of Government also decided, at the European Council in Barcelona last weekend, to ask Foreign Ministers to look at options for further measures.
"What has happened in Zimbabwe is a tragedy, imposed on this once prosperous land by Robert Mugabe. Our commitment and that of the Commonwealth to the people of Zimbabwe remains

1477
as strong as ever. We have made it clear, since 1997, that the case for land reform in Zimbabwe is very strong, and that we were willing to provide considerable financial support to a land reform process that was transparent, lawful, and which gave priority to the needs of Zimbabweans in overcrowded communal lands. This was a position supported by the international community but rejected by the Mugabe regime.
"At Abuja, in early September last year, we agreed a pathway for Zimbabwe which would have allowed for a resumption of international aid, including from the United Kingdom, for a programme of sustainable land reform implemented in accordance with the rule of law. Respect for the rule of law, and a return to democratic principles and to sensible economic policies, is the only way back. We remain ready to do all we can to achieve this; and we will continue our programmes of assistance for humanitarian and HIV/AIDS projects. But I must tell the House that in the short term the prospects in Zimbabwe look bleak, underlined by the murders since the election of M DC activists and a commercial farmer, and the fact that the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has now formally been charged with treason.
"Today, it is all the more urgent that the Government of Zimbabwe commit themselves—as the leaders of the Commonwealth have called for — to healing the divisions in the country and taking the path of genuine reform and national reconciliation. We shall do all that we can to support Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo, and other African partners, in their efforts to bring stability back to Zimbabwe. This is what the people of Zimbabwe desperately need. Today, the whole of the democratic world supports them in this goal".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We fully share the welcome that she and the Foreign Secretary gave to the conclusions of the Commonwealth troika. We look on those conclusions with a feeling of relief, because if they had gone otherwise the future of the Commonwealth would have been threatened. This is a good moment in an otherwise dark scene. I also share the Minister's desire to pay tribute to Prime Minister Howard and Presidents Obasanjo and Mbeki for having the courage to reach those conclusions, which are said to be already of immense comfort to the brave people of Zimbabwe.
I am sure that the noble Baroness recognises that the conclusions come too late for the murdered farmer, Terry Ford, and for all the other victims of multiple murders. They come too late for all the farm workers who have been beaten to pulp, too late for the security guards who tried to defend the farms and too late for
1478
those Zimbabweans who may be dying of starvation. However, better late than never, I suppose. This is a positive move, without doubt.
Has the noble Baroness noticed that the US State Department, which usually moves very slowly, has already come out with a strong statement condemning the intimidation and underscoring the illegitimacy of the Mugabe regime? The Statement that we have just heard speaks of the need to do all that we can. Can we have an assurance that there will be real, positive and continuing efforts to form a coalition of democracies to maintain all possible pressures, including the targeted sanctions and other measures—of which we would like some indication of the nature—to ensure that the Mugabe regime remains under pressure until there is agreement for fresh and democratic elections and a new approach? Does she agree that any arrangement that ended up with some kind of sordid deal with Mr Mugabe and anything that legitimised him would be completely unsatisfactory and would continue to threaten the stability of the region?
What will be done about Mr Tsvangirai, who is mentioned in the Statement? He has now been threatened on trumped-up charges. Can something more be done to prevent this brave man being caught up in the vindictiveness of Mr Mugabe? Do the Government agree that the only discussions that there should be with Mugabe are about the arrangements necessary for new and democratic elections?
Does the noble Baroness agree that southern Africa will recover from its present dire straits only if justice returns and Mugabe goes? Can she explain how it is that, while Mr Mbeki has courageously supported the conclusions, the South African Parliament apparently recognises the legitimacy of Mr Mugabe, which is a fatal move? Does she recognise that the new African economic partnership—NePAD—will succeed only if the rule of law is properly and firmly restored in southern Africa?
Can the noble Baroness tell us about the status of our high commission in Harare now that we no longer recognise the legitimacy of the government there? There are brave public servants in our high commission who are doing valuable work. If we are to maintain the humanitarian aid to starving Zimbabweans that will be needed, presumably we shall reinforce the staff there. Will she confirm the status of the commission and whether we shall be enlarging it if we can so that it can help people in their dreadful plight?
Does the noble Baroness accept that before we do any of that, we need an honest government in Harare—which at the moment we have not got?
3.43 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Government for the Statement. I recognise that the British Government, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, have worked extremely hard on the issue and that we have limited influence over events in Zimbabwe. The older Members of this House may remember that in 1965 some members of my party

1479
were in favour of direct intervention in what was then Rhodesia to prevent a unilateral declaration of independence. I am not aware that any party in this country, even the Conservatives, now proposes such direct intervention. We have limited influence and we have to recognise the need to work with others multilaterally to bring what influence we can to bear. The Government have done well in that task. This is a good day for the Commonwealth. Despite the gloomy predictions from the Conservatives in both Houses of the impending dissolution of the Commonwealth, that prospect is clearly past for the time being.
How active a role is it intended that the Commonwealth, and in particular the troika, will retain over the coming months as a watching brief, in view of continuing developments in Zimbabwe? In particular, what contingency plans are we making against the prospect of a further deterioration of the Zimbabwean economy in the coming months, with the likelihood of a spillover of refugees into neighbouring countries? That clearly threatens to destabilise the weak economies of southern Africa as a whole. It therefore seems extremely important to work with the neighbours, particularly Mozambique and South Africa, on limiting the damage to the region and, whenever possible, to provide food and aid. We all recognise that we have to contain a possible further collapse of the Zimbabwean economy. In that context, using the Commonwealth and our other multilateral relations, we should continue to promote good governance as the path to development in Africa, in particular through the New Partnership for Africa's Development.
I have one small partisan point to make. I hope that Anglo-Saxon interventions in promoting good governance in Africa will have an element of humility. A strong comment was made by the US Administration against the idea of fixing elections rather than allowing full democracy. I am conscious that there is sometimes a tendency in this country to demand that other countries should have clear democracies that represent the will of a majority of the people. We do not have that in this country, so perhaps we should be a little more delicate in how we promote standards of democracy higher than our own.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their responses. Of course, like the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I fully support the views of the troika. That was clear from my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Lord then said that it came too late for many of the victims of the violence in Zimbabwe. I hope that he does not think that statements in themselves would have stopped the murderous intent of the regime in Zimbabwe. He cannot really believe that more statements would have been enough. Goodness knows, many Statements were made from this Dispatch Box and in another place about the contempt felt for some of the acts of the Zimbabwean
1480
Government. To imply that statements in themselves stop murderous intent is not fully to appreciate the position.
I agree that the statement made by the US State Department is very welcome. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord that honest government in Zimbabwe must be the first priority. As my noble friend has said on many occasions from this Dispatch Box, we must not forget that we are dealing with a sovereign government in Zimbabwe and that we do not have the ability simply to say what should be done there and expect that it will happen as night follows day.
As both noble Lords have said, we must look to what can happen next. The EU heads of government instructed Foreign Ministers last weekend to consider further what measures can be taken in Zimbabwe, including possible further sanctions. The United States Government, with whom we are in close touch, have said that they will increase sanctions. The Government of New Zealand have said that they are considering imposing sanctions. The Government of Switzerland have already imposed sanctions, which bring them into line with EU sanctions.
As the Commonwealth troika conclusions made clear, Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo are working hard on a programme of reconciliation. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be working to ensure that we give what support we can to Zimbabwe, but, touching on some of the economic questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, we shall also look to the IMF and the World Bank to deny the current Zimbabwe regime access to financial support. I am sure that the House would expect no less in terms of sanctions. Given events not so much in the elections but in the run-up to the elections, Mugabe has to be denied what would normally have been his right.
I do not think that we should be in any doubt about this: it is going to be a very long haul indeed. President Mugabe, as he has demonstrated all too clearly, is determined to cling to power for as long as he can. I hope that I have indicated some of the ways in which Her Majesty's Government are working with others to ensure that that is for as short a time as possible.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his comments not only about my right honourable friends in another place but about my colleague in this House, Lady Amos. I wish that she had had the pleasure of making this Statement today. I believe that her endeavour in so many ways—working tirelessly not only in the multilateral forums, one of which she is attending today, in Monterrey, but with many leaders in Africa—has been a key element in bringing us to where we are today. I acknowledge that fully, and I hope that the House will join me in that acknowledgement.
We have to examine what can be done to distinguish the regime in Zimbabwe from the people of Zimbabwe. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, Zimbabwe's economic position is appalling: unemployment is currently 60 per cent;

1481
inflation is 112 per cent; 35 per cent of the adult population are suffering from HIV/AIDS; and 63 per cent of the population are below the poverty line. All that is occurring in a country that was once a hallmark for prosperity in Africa.
The suspension of technical aid is one of the sanctions attending Zimbabwe's suspension from the councils of the Commonwealth. That does not involve the suspension of aid which might help in the restoration of democracy. The Commonwealth has drawn that distinction in determining how the suspension will work. It is therefore very much to be hoped that the money for the restoration of democracy will continue to be provided.
As for the arrest and charging of Mr Tsvangirai, Mr Tsvangirai is now out on bail. We can, however, do only a limited amount in a sovereign state. Although we can monitor events, comment, and bring pressure to bear, as we have already done, the Government of Zimbabwe are continuing to harass leaders of the opposition. They must face the consequences of so doing.
As for the status of our mission in Harare, the mission remains, and there is no question of withdrawing any of our diplomats. Some 40,000 British citizens are in Zimbabwe and they will need the protection of our mission there more than ever. I hope that all noble Lords send them a strong message of support from this House for the sterling work they are doing.
3.53 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in welcoming the Statement from the Foreign Secretary, and particularly the fact that it has restored the Commonwealth's credibility. I should like particularly to commend its call for the,
"Government of Zimbabwe to commit themselves to healing the divisions in the country and taking the path of genuine reform and national reconciliation".
In that regard, can the Minister outline what measures the troika and Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage a government of national unity in Zimbabwe?
I also commend the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. I should, however, like to make one slight alteration to an answer which she gave me in reply to a question I asked her on Tuesday, when I contended that the South African observer mission's report had been politically rigged. The noble Baroness said:
"the South African parliamentary observers team has dropped its conclusion that the elections were substantially free and fair".—[Official Report, 19/03/02; col. 1230.]
That is not the case. The South African observers mission has not dropped its contentions, but President Mbeki has dropped certain comments on his website.
I also revert to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who asked how the Government of Zimbabwe can heal the division when the MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, and the MDC secretary-general, Welshman Ncube, have been
1482
formally charged with treason. Moreover, in South Africa, the ANC secretary-general has recently described Morgan Tsvangirai's arrest and charging as "part of the healing process". Surely that is extremely worrying.
Finally, will the Minister outline what action is being taken to alleviate the severe food shortage, the prospect of mass starvation, and the refugee flight to South Africa which is likely to ensue if the situation is exacerbated?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. He is quite right. There are enormous problems in achieving genuine reform—particularly national reconciliation and a government of national unity—when it is so painfully evident that the current government do not want to be a party to anything of the sort, and when they—as the noble Lord rightly reminded us—have not only arrested but charged Morgan Tsvangirai and Welshman Ncube. That is why it is so important that the troika has agreed that work on these issues should be taken forward by Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo.
I agree with the noble Lord that, immediately after the election in Zimbabwe, there was some confusion about what was thought by a very small number of people to have been a fair election. When the more substantial reports were properly examined, it was decided that that was not really the case. I remind him of the statement made by the SADC parliamentary forum observer on 13th March:
"The climate of insecurity obtaining in Zimbabwe since the 2000 parliamentary elections was such that the electoral process could not be said to adequately comply with the Norms and Standards for Elections in the SADC region".
I think that that is an extremely reassuring statement.
I fully take the noble Lord's point that we must now be very vigilant. The issue of what is to happen to those arrested and charged with treason—although, as I said, they are out on bail—is another reason for maintaining the full strength of our diplomatic mission in Zimbabwe. We shall be looking for regular reports on those issues.
The food shortages are causing great worry and concern. Donors are already providing supplementary feeding through the NGOs. Our own Department for International Development has given £4 million of assistance to some 300,000 people. Additionally, last month, DfID made a £6 million contribution to the UN DP's humanitarian assistance and recovery programme for Zimbabwe. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be keeping that issue under constant review.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I join those who have congratulated the Government on the part they have played in bringing about the troika's decision to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. However, no one who is a friend of Zimbabwe takes any pleasure from the suspension as it marks a very serious situation. Does my noble friend agree that the attacks on the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions and on trade unionists trying to exercise

1483
a legitimate right to strike concerns everyone, and that the clearly contrived charges brought against the MDC leaders do not help the situation? Does she also, however, agree that sanctions are not the magic bullet which will suddenly transform Zimbabwe from its currently parlous state into a world democracy? Should we not also recall the other part of the troika's statement—that it and the Commonwealth need to remain engaged with Zimbabwe?
The Opposition spokesman seemed to suggest that in no circumstances should we have any contact with anyone in the Zimbabwe Government. Taking that view to its logical conclusion, should he not be advocating withdrawing Britain's mission, unpalatable as that may be? My noble friend has said that the opposite action is required. Can my noble friend assure the House that, as well as the sanctions which have to be applied, every possible means and method of discussion and dialogue will be used to bring about a resolution as early as possible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend draws an important and valuable distinction when he refers to suspending our contacts at an official level with the Government of Zimbabwe while at the same time trying to have proper discussions with those with whom we can do business there. If it is possible in future to have discussions with those in the Mugabe regime who are willing to talk in terms of reconciliation for the future, that would be valuable.
I agree strongly with my noble friend's remarks regarding the violent attacks on trade unions. The NGO figures suggest that about 73 per cent of the perpetrators of violence appear to be affiliated to ZANU-PF, and 16 per cent are police officers, which is extremely worrying. As your Lordships may know, between 1st January and 28th February this year, 31 people were killed in politically-motivated attacks. Nearly all of those were black Zimbabweans. As we have seen, three members of the MDC have been murdered since the election and one commercial farmer tragically lost his life.
My noble friend is right. Sanctions are never a magic bullet, but they signify an important measure of outrage and disgust about what has happened in Zimbabwe. It is worth noting what suspension from the councils of the Commonwealth will mean. It means that there will be no participation by the Government of Zimbabwe in intergovernmental meetings, but it does not deprive the people of Zimbabwe of cultural and sporting activities which may be organised by the Commonwealth.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it was enormously fortunate and right that the Government increased the number of Commonwealth observers? We have seen what a happy result that gave. However, there is a lesson to be learnt. I entirely share—as we all do—the Minister's admiration for what the mission in Zimbabwe is doing. I hope that we shall not only leave it in place but greatly increase it. The only thing we can do, which no
1484
sovereign government can refuse, is to observe and report and be seen to be doing so, particularly now that the laws against the media are being further tightened.
I hope that it will be possible for there to be an element of observation from the high commission of the dispensing of our humanitarian aid, for instance, so that it is not taken over by ZANU-PF and used to reward its people. My other point is that I hope that we shall persuade the rest of the EU to stay and report. I was rather concerned to see that the Danish mission is withdrawing. The one thing that can be done is to stay and report and be seen to do so.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps in turn I may thank the noble Baroness for her timely intervention on the subject of Commonwealth observers. Your Lordships may remember that, as always, she was forthright in pointing out some of the shortcomings in the number of Commonwealth observers. I was delighted that the Government were able to increase the numbers significantly. I agree that we should keep the numbers in our mission in Zimbabwe under constant review. It is enormously important that their role in observing what is happening on the ground is maintained. The noble Baroness spoke about how aid might be used in a way not intended by the donors. We shall have to keep that in mind, as I am sure my noble friend Lady Amos would agree.
The noble Baroness is right. We should try to persuade others not to withdraw their mission. She will know that withdrawing a mission is a potent signal of disapprobation that governments use to indicate the depth of their anger about what has happened within a country. I understand the motivation of our Danish friends in acting as they have. However, my own view is that we should like to see many of our colleagues who value the principles of democracy and humanitarian assistance stay on the ground. That will strengthen those who are able to give honest reports about what is happening in Zimbabwe.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, we should not underestimate the horrors which have occurred in Zimbabwe. However, should we not look ahead on a wider basis to consider how the atmosphere might be changed for the better in the whole of southern Africa? Is not the main and most urgent problem facing all the SADC countries that of economic reconstruction so that they can play their part as a whole in the New Partnership for Africa's Development? As that will require substantial changes in policy, not least in Zimbabwe under whatever government, will it not require outstanding leadership? Is there not an outstanding leader available in southern Africa—I hope that he is available—in the form of Nelson Mandela? Would the Government, with our European allies, consider whether that is a thought which might be pursued?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, will know that the NePAD initiative is designed to help southern Africa, both in

1485
terms of resources and expertise, to achieve much-needed economic reconstruction. An element of that will be that those who receive such aid and resources should embrace not only the spirit and instruments of democracy but everything that is implied by civil government and the rule of law. In a nutshell, that is what is being negotiated. I am sure that my noble friend will pursue that agenda in her discussions in Monterrey today. Leadership is an important and extremely potent factor in making such an initiative work. A number of individuals in southern African may be able to contribute to that. Given the enormously high esteem in which he is rightly held, not only on the continent of Africa but throughout the world, I am sure that the blessing of Nelson Mandela would prove enormously important to the initiative and its chances of success. However, more than one or two leaders will be needed to ensure that the initiative is a real success.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, as someone who was Commonwealth Secretary during the period of UDI, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister, echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Wallace, that the role of Her Majesty's Government in this difficult relationship with Zimbabwe is best played with a degree of humility about the past. Is the Minister aware how much the success of the troika will be welcomed in deciding to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth for one year? That will allow other members of the Commonwealth to take a more high-profile role in dealing which such problems, while behind the scenes, and maintaining our own mission there, we play a less prominent role. The Zimbabwe problem is a Commonwealth problem of great importance, but it is one for the Commonwealth as a whole. The more Her Majesty's Government play their role with some delicacy and a low profile, the more successful the outcome may be.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is an enormous amount of wisdom in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I hope that the Government have been seen to be firm in their resolve. My noble friend and my right honourable friends have done their best to work behind the scenes to secure the objective about which we have been clear. As the Statement indicated, we have been working for suspension from the councils of the Commonwealth for a matter of months. The noble Lord is right. This cannot be seen to be a one-country show.
As the Statement indicated, it was clear early on in the discussions that the Zimbabwean Government would do everything that they could to make this an issue between the white Commonwealth—those predominantly from the European-based nations—and those from the African-based nations. That would have been an extremely damaging development had it had any success. But it was not successful, which is exactly the point. The value of the troika was that President Obasanjo and President Mbeki both have great wisdom and experience. It will now be extraordinarily difficult for Mr Mugabe to claim that
1486
it was some sort of conspiracy led by the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom took no part in the troika. We are also extremely grateful for the part played by Prime Minister Howard.
It is right to ensure that this is not seen as the United Kingdom being out alone on the issue. We have a special relationship with Zimbabwe. We have a historical relationship and 40,000 of our citizens live in that country. We have particular responsibilities, which none of us want to set on one side. Having said that, we have constantly made it clear that this is a matter for the whole Commonwealth. I am delighted that the Commonwealth has acknowledged that and that it will be working in the next year to try to bring the Government of Zimbabwe to a more sensible course of action.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness has done well to remind us that there are 40,000 British citizens still living in Zimbabwe. We also know from experience that Mr Mugabe and his party are spiteful. In the event of their taking out their spite on those 40,000 British citizens, are there contingency plans to make sure that they will be rescued and defended?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is a contingency plan, but I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that there is a similar contingency plan for many other countries. As many of your Lordships will know, we have a warden network around the country to enable us to maintain good communications with the resident British community. I assure your Lordships that that civil contingency plan is reviewed and updated regularly.
The responsibility for ensuring law and order in Zimbabwe cannot be shouldered by the British mission in Zimbabwe. The responsibility lies full square on the Zimbabwean Government's shoulders. I should not want anything that I have said about civil contingency plans— important though they are—to be thought in any way to be relieving the authorities of that country of their obligation to look after all citizens, irrespective of their nationality or where they live. I hope that that message will be firmly understood.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said, how can the Government ensure that any financial support given to restore democracy in Zimbabwe is used for that purpose and does not go towards lining the pockets of the present government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in countries where we have had the problem of the possibility of governments diverting aid funds from the legitimate purpose for which they were sent and using them for illegitimate purposes we have channelled funds through non-governmental organisations. I am sure that that issue is under review by my colleagues in the Department for International Development. It is another of the functions of our

1487
extremely hard-working mission on the ground, and others, to ensure that such matters are kept fully up to date.
I am sure that none of your Lordships would wish to imply that we should not send much-needed aid for food. As I tried to explain, the levels of hunger and food shortages are enormously difficult problems in Zimbabwe. It is right to send what aid we can to ensure that democracy, fragile as it is, has a chance to flourish and that civil life has a chance to grow as well. We try to do what we can through the NGOs but we also keep very close observance on the ground about what happens to our funds.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Local Health Boards]:
Lord Roberts of Conwymoved Amendment No. 76:
Page 7, line 17, after "is" insert "issued,"
The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to the remaining amendments in this group.
The proposal that there should be local health hoards in place of the existing health authorities in Wales is controversial for a number of reasons. Amendment No. 76 proposes that there should be consultation before an order establishing a board is issued by the National Assembly for Wales. There is already provision for consultation in the event of variation or revocation of a local health board order. In our view, prior consultation is essential before boards are established.
If the boards are to be coterminous with local authorities, there will be more of them than the present five area health authorities. There could be as many as 22—one for each local authority. I should have thought that the Assembly would seek to avoid such proliferation if only for reasons of economy in terms of staff and resources. There will obviously have to be consultation with the existing health authorities, local authorities and health trusts before the final geographical map of health boards is decided. It is important that the map is the best that can be devised and that it is satisfactory to all concerned.
I can recall the reorganisation of local government in the early 1990s when the present 22 unitary authorities were established. Indeed, I can remember the previous reorganisation in the 1970s. My enduring
1488
memory of both is the difficulty that we had in getting proposals accepted and boundaries agreed. These new proposed health boards will prove just as contentious when the Assembly gets down to the business of deciding the precise localities that they are to serve. People are naturally very sensitive about such issues.
There is a further complication that not all the boards will have the same functions. They will have a variegated pattern of functions and responsibilities. Some will have major hospitals within their areas, and others will not. Again there will be considerable scope for argument and the Assembly would be well advised to consult before the pattern is imposed which, I dare say, will happen.
Many people in Wales, both within the National Health Service and outside it, have grave doubts about the practicability of the new system. For it to have the smallest chance to succeed, there must be extensive consultation with all the parties involved. We would be foolish not to provide for it in statute, especially when the Bill already provides for consultation in the event of variation or revocation of an LHB order.
The Minister may say that of course there will be consultation before an LHB order is issued and that we can take that for granted. I do not think that that is an adequate reply to the argument. Without the amendment we shall be storing up trouble for the Assembly and for the National Health Service in Wales.
Amendment No. 77 is a probing amendment. It seeks to find out how the Assembly proposes to direct the local health boards at national level. In other words, who precisely in the Assembly is to issue directions? Presumably they will be authorised by the Minister in the Assembly on the advice of the NHS directorate. We should like to know more about that top structure.
I imagine that there will be an infinite variety of directions related to different aspects of the NHS. Some will be purely local and apply only to a particular hoard or boards; others will be national in scope. As we have said before, the NHS in Wales will clearly need an all-Wales dimension, which is currently not defined in the Bill. It is very important that we have some idea as to what that all-Wales structure will be. We debated this point last Thursday when we considered the new clauses proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
I had ministerial responsibility for the NHS in Wales between 1979 and 1983. That was a period, II am glad to say, of extensive new hospital building and innovative strategies such as our mental handicap strategy which pioneered the transfer of people with learning difficulties from hospital into the community. We did not have a regional health authority in Wales; the regional authority was the Welsh Office and its Ministers. So I have some idea about the enormous range of NHS activity in Wales even 20 years ago.
It is quite clear that the thrust of the Welsh provisions in the Bill is to devolve responsibility to local health boards, but it is also clear that there will have to be some central direction in order to ensure a

1489
degree of uniformity and fairness all round. It is therefore necessary, as I have said, for us to know what kind of structure the NHS will have at Assembly and ministerial level.
I referred a few moments ago to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who introduced new clauses asking for a national health agency for Wales. The noble Baroness not only enjoys an international reputation, but she has a high reputation in Wales as vice-dean of the University of Wales College of Medicine and as honorary professor of palliative medicine. In short, she knows the NHS in Wales. She knows the scene very well indeed.
Last week the noble Baroness told us of the concerns expressed at the conference of Welsh local medical committees as recently as last Wednesday. She said:
"They cannot take on the huge number of functions about to be devolved to them".—[Official Report, 14/3/02; col. 994.]
She went on to say that GPs wanted a primary care directorate, but that is now in doubt. What is proposed are six directorates for renewal, policy, finance, quality, human resources and facilities—all six presumably overarched by the existing NHS directorate.
As the noble Baroness hinted in the debate last week, there is a threat of fragmentation here and, I would add, an incoherent, possibly conflicting guidance to local heath boards from the various directorates. I hope that further consideration will be given to the single primary care directorate and the significant body that the local medical committees want,
"to handle contractor services to protect both professional interests and those of patients".—[Official Report, 14/3/02; col. 994.]
With regard to secondary and tertiary care, it is proposed to strengthen the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales, to commission tertiary care and advise, guide and facilitate the commissioning of secondary care. But the remit is still being worked out, as the noble Baroness told us. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, confirmed that the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales is to be given an enhanced role. But that is as far as we got in learning about the national structure.
So what can we make of that? The structure of the NHS in Wales is being built from the bottom up. That makes sense, provided that the builders know how the structure is to be completed. The foundations have to match the superstructure, and vice versa. That is where the current problem lies. There seems to be no clear idea as to what the final structure will look like or how it will work. Any help that the Minister can give on this matter will be most welcome.
Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 are different in character from previous amendments but still deal with local health boards. I have tabled Amendment No. 90 to seek clarification on certain aspects of local health board expenditure. My understanding is that they will have very little income, other than the allocations given to them by the Assembly. Such
1490
allocations will be the major part of their revenue. Clause 10(9) defines general Part 2 expenditure under the Act. That means expenditure in connection with the council for the regulation of health care professionals, and appeals. My amendment deletes subsection (2) of Clause 10(9) which excludes four kinds of expenditure that may clearly be incurred by local health boards; otherwise they would not be specified for inclusion in the way that they are. This subsection must be read in conjunction with new Sections 97H and 97G which deal with resource limits of local health boards and their financial duties. Subsection (2) of new Section 97H states that,
"no account shall be taken of — general Part 2 expenditure",
as defined by a board in carrying out its duty not to exceed its expenditure limits.
My first question is: why is Part 2 expenditure open ended? Is it demand led? It does not say much for the Assembly's sense of priorities that regulatory expenditure is open ended.
Secondly, why are there the four specific exclusions from the definition? They are a mixed bag. I hope that the Minister will comment on each. I am particularly interested in Clause 10(6)(b), which refers to,
"remuneration referable to the cost of drugs".
What does that specific exclusion mean in practice? Does it mean the perpetuation of postcode prescribing in Wales; that certain drugs will be available under one board but not another, depending on whether it has the resources and the will to provide them?
Finally, who, if not the local health board, will pay for these excluded items? I am bound to say that the whole of the resource and expenditure situation of local health boards is complex, to say the least, in the Bill.
Amendment No. 91 seeks to introduce the principle of equity into the National Assembly's annual apportionment of remuneration for the cost of drugs. Drugs expenditure is clearly no longer demand led and open ended. There is no commitment here on the part of the Assembly to meet a local health board's drugs bill in its entirety and whatever it may be. Indeed, under Clause 10(9), new paragraph 6C(4) states explicitly that the Assembly will exercise its discretion in paying for drugs ordered by a board on its own account. That seems a shot across the bow for boards that respectfully follow clinical judgment in drug prescribing. The same applies to primary care trusts in England.
I hope that I have properly understood the financial provisions and that the Minister will be able to answer some of my queries. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Those of us who are particularly interested in the workings of devolution are bound to be interested in this part of the Bill, which establishes for the first time an arrangement set up by Westminster in Wales—upon which the National Assembly will make many decisions and within which framework it will operate.

1491
There are many provisions in the Bill for secondary legislation. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, examined that aspect of the Bill with care and on the whole—as the Minister knows—the Committee is satisfied with the way in which the secondary legislation is arranged. It seems to have been well drafted.
The Bill allows the Assembly enormous freedom to make the arrangements to which my noble friend referred in the way that it wants and which suits Wales. Far be it from me even to imagine the scene, because I have not seen the Assembly in action, but it should be having an interesting time.
Westminster must decide what should be on the face of the Bill and what should not—and what consultation should be set out by Westminster. Defining the board areas is obviously important. My noble friend made a good point when he said that there must be consultation before orders are made, not just the varying of orders afterwards. Amendment No. 76 probably has a lot going for it. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's response.
The clause about which I believe many of your Lordships are doubtful emanates from the arrangements for England and Wales—as does much of the pattern of the Welsh clauses. We must be sure that the pattern that is right for England is right for Wales.
The clauses in question imply that the Assembly will have enormous freedom to spend money on the health service in Wales in the way that it wants. How will the Government fix the Assembly's block grant in relation to health? I do not know whether my noble friend disagrees but that seems so open ended that it might be difficult to do. We need to know whether there is any basis for knowing the overall sum within which the Assembly will have to operate.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for his generous comments about me. I appreciate them enormously and feel humbled by them.
After last week's debate, I wanted to feel in tune with the views of general practitioners across Wales in relation to the proposed arrangements, so I attended a joint meeting of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the General Practitioners Committee of the British Medical Association in Wales. The turnout was so great that the room booked for the meeting was too small—which reflected a surprising concern among GPs about the changes that they are facing.
I shall not reiterate the whole meeting, which lasted two and a half hours, but there was resounding concern that the new local health boards would have great difficulty coping with the workload that they are expected to take on and the speed. The new general practitioners' contract, which is currently being negotiated, aims at attracting back into the profession groups who are currently not working—particularly young women—through family-friendly policies, which are to be welcomed.
1492
There is concern that the different arrangements for local health boards will present them with great difficulties in commissioning secondary care. There is concern in the secondary care sector that some of the arrangements could precipitate a destabilising crisis.
Concern is felt among patients about the loss of collective memory among those who administer community health services, particularly primary care. They have often provided a safeguard and acted as a point of detection when problems have arisen. I do not want to overplay the problems but one patient said to me at the weekend, "The NHS is working very well in Wales. Why does everybody knock it and need to rearrange it?" The overwhelming experience of patients is that they are getting a much improved service.
At the meeting that I attended, it was estimated that there would be only two senior administrative managers who really understood the ins and outs of primary care as it has existed. Much work has been done on setting standards across Wales and it will be important to ensure uniform measurement of services against standards.
Equity is absolutely crucial. It is crucially important that there is no return to the feeling of rationing by postcode. Patients feel that they are being rationed even when they are not and lose confidence in the service. It is not uncommon for patients to ask me whether the failure to offer them a particular form of treatment is because the NHS cannot afford it. When I point out to patients that the treatment was not offered because it would not do them any good—otherwise, they would certainly have been offered it—they often look surprised. Then they comment to the person next to them that they might get extra treatment if they paid for it. There is a perception of rationing even though that may not be true, so it is important that equity is firmly embedded in any new arrangements.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This has been an important debate and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. Because of her interest in devolution, we spent many hours debating not only the Bill establishing the Assembly but also that which established the Scottish Parliament. No one appreciates more than the noble Baroness that many things have changed.
As to Amendment No. 76, it is precisely because of the changes in responsibility and accountability that we are not able to accept that amendment. It is for the National Assembly to consider such matters as part of its devolved function. The only practical effect of Amendment No. 76 would be to fetter the devolved powers granted under the Government of Wales Act 1998. I am sure that no one wants to unravel the devolution settlement.
I hope that I shall give the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, are seeking by saying that the clause has been drafted to reflect the full and open consultation that the Assembly has already undertaken on the establishment of local health boards. In addition to

1493
consultation, the secondary legislation necessary to implement local health boards will also pass through the Assembly's scrutiny procedure before it is made, thus allowing Assembly Members an opportunity to comment further on it.
Imposing a further consultation requirement would seriously delay implementation of local health boards, which are a key feature of the strategy for reform of the NHS in Wales voted for by the Assembly. That would frustrate the intentions of the democratically elected devolved administration which, under the devolution settlement, is responsible for such policy matters.
Amendment No. 77 is again a matter for the National Assembly to consider as part of its devolved function. Its only practical effect would be to fetter the devolved powers granted under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and prevent the National Assembly from giving directions to local health boards as to how they should exercise any delegated powers—a function that the National Assembly will retain with regard to health authorities. The amendment is therefore prejudicial in relation to England, as the Secretary of State will retain various powers of direction over the equivalent English bodies.
Directions in relation to the conferring of functions on local health boards must be made in regulations, which will be subject to the secondary legislation scrutiny procedures of the Assembly. They will therefore not be issued directly by the Welsh Minister for Health and Social Services but made by the Assembly under its own processes.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. Proposed new Section 97F confers a general power on the National Assembly for Wales to determine the treatment of discretionary and non-discretionary expenditure in relation to local health boards. That power currently exists in respect of health authorities, and we intend to transfer it to local health boards. To remove the power would be most unhelpful and unjustified.
Schedule 12A to the Health Act 1999 provides the mechanism by which the National Assembly for Wales determines the treatment of discretionary and non-discretionary expenditure. It has always been for the National Assembly for Wales to decide on such treatment, subject to the usual constraints, as it is for the Secretary of State in England. Those powers must be exercised in accordance with the principles of administrative law. We therefore cannot agree to limit the powers of the National Assembly for Wales.
However, some specific reassurances were sought. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the strengthened Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales will support the local health boards with advice and guidance on commissioning, in addition to its role in commissioning tertiary and other specialised acute services—a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts.
In answer to the question about the post code lottery asked by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, clearer priorities are emerging through the plan
1494
implementation process. Priorities are increasingly delivered through national service frameworks that set clear minimum standards to be applied across Wales. Local health boards will be responsible for assessing the health needs of their populations and securing the range of services to meet those needs. The block vote is given to the Secretary of State for Wales. It is passed to the Assembly after allowing for his expenditure in running the Wales Office. The Assembly then decides how that funding is allocated across its functions. That is decided at a plenary session of the Assembly.
Local health board budgets will be prescribing budgets. They are currently dispensing at health authority level. Action is in hand to move towards a needs-based allocation. The report debated in plenary session of the Assembly last week determines that direction and was overwhelmingly accepted, I believe.
Finally, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, we intend commissioning partnerships between local health boards, local authorities and NHS trusts to be formed as collective organisations. They will have geographical proximity and common patient flows and we expect there to be between 10 and 12 such partnerships in Wales. A typical partnership could be composed of two local health boards, two local authorities and one NHS trust. Partnerships will not be viewed as organisations but mechanisms for effective commissioning.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, raised the issue of the number and role of local health boards. The boards will be coterminous with local authorities in Wales. Identified benefits include: enabling the development of new and better ways for the NHS to work with local government to implement the health and well-being agenda for Wales; facilitating the requirement for LHBs and local authorities to assess the health and well-being needs of their population; sharing a population focus to provide more flexible services; providing a shared focus to address the determinants of health, which span NHS and local government responsibilities; and providing more flexibility in the use of staff and resources and clear accountability to the local population between statutory bodies.
The 22 health boards proposed for Wales are a natural development from the 22 local health groups that already exist as sub-committees of the health authorities. Local health boards will pay for admitted Part 2 items. Contracts for primary care contractors will be held by the Assembly, but financial control and scrutiny will be exercised via the local health boards.
I hope that I have answered in some detail the points raised. I return to the fundamental point, which is that unfortunately the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, would undermine the devolution settlement agreed to by your Lordships.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness sit down, in relation to Amendment No. 76, she said a good deal about how times have changed and that the matter is up to the Assembly. We know that, but we must consider what Westminster has to do

1495
by way of constructing a framework within which the Assembly will work. Proposed new subsection (4) states:
"If any consultation requirements apply, they must be complied with before an LHB order is varied or revoked",
Why should that not apply when an order is issued, as my noble friend Lord Roberts suggested? The Minister made a somewhat specious argument.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sorry if the noble Baroness feels that the argument is specious. These matters are rightly for the Assembly to determine. Unlike that which established the Scottish Parliament, the settlement gives the National Assembly for Wales the power to develop its own instruments and orders in secondary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, presses us to accept that, as it were, a member of our family has reached the age of majority, but that we should still control the way in which he exercises his adult rights. The primary contractor contracts will be held by LHBs. I hope that that is an additional piece of information for the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that we are being extremely careful to ensure that during the passage of this legislation Members are kept informed about the degree to which consultation forms the ethos of the exercise of the Assembly's devolved powers.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: We are all grateful to the Minister for her comments. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for illuminating us on the feelings of GPs, particularly in Wales. I listened to her with great care. She talked about their concern, not only on this occasion but also last Thursday, as a result of their meetings. I know that such concerns about the formation of these boards are real in Wales.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that the Assembly must consult if an order is varied or revoked, because that is required here in primary legislation. But the Assembly does not have to consult when an order is issued, which is what the amendment seeks. There is a contradiction in the Minister's approach, which states that we ordain in primary legislation that when a local health board is varied or revoked, the order must be consulted on, but that there is no need for consultation before the first order is issued. The Minister says that consultation has taken place. I am sure that there has been endless talk within the NHS in Wales, but there is still a considerable degree of dissatisfaction among professionals there.
My experience of local health reorganisation and also local government reorganisation in Wales on more than one occasion is that public consultation is essential, otherwise discontent prevails and the system rails to work.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may help the noble Lord. Lord Roberts of Conwy, to recall, as I believe he knows, that I was involved as the leader of
1496
the Association of County Councils during the period of local government reorganisation in Wales. I was assured by the noble Lord's government when in office that everyone had been fully consulted. I feat that occasionally, irrespective of who carries out the consultation process, some of those consulted will never accept that it took place unless they obtain the results that they want. Sometimes there are conflicting demands and it becomes impossible for everyone's views to be met.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I accept that one cannot please everybody; one cannot please all the people all of the time, but we hope to please some people some of the time. That does not dispel the need for consultation. In such an area, where we are establishing totally new local health boards—22 in place of the existing five—there is a duty on the Assembly to ensure that the orders establishing the boards have been well and truly consulted on.
If there is no such consultation and ensuing satisfaction, the worst fears expressed within the NHS in Wales—that the system is impracticable—may be realised. We are not fettering the Assembly in any way as it is already obliged to consult if the order establishing an LHB is varied or revoked, as I pointed out. We will not fetter it additionally by inserting the word "issued". Perhaps the principle should have been established earlier, in new subsection (2), but it is here. It fits into that subsection.
We are still unclear about the top end of the NHS in Wales and how it will be constructed. We know a great deal about the lower end of the spectrum—the local health boards, and so on —but little about what is meant by the Assembly and the Minister and the form of organisation within the Assembly. I am not altogether happy with the Minister's answer and I shall test the Committee's opinion.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 76) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Byford, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Colwyn, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Astor of Hever, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Attlee, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B

Biffen, L.

Eden of Winion, L.

Blackwell, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L

Blaker, L.

Elton, L.

Blatch, B.

Emerton, B.

Brightman, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Freeman, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Burnham, L.

Geddes, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hanham, B.

1497

Hayhoe, L.

Noakes, B.

Henley, L.

Northesk, E.

Higgins, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

Palmer, L.

Holderness, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hooper, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Howe, E.

Rawlings, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rees, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L

Renton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Kimball, L.

Rotherwick, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Kingsland, L

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Selsdon, L.

Liverpool, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinfen, L.

Marlesford, L.

Tenby, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Trumpington, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Vivian, L.

Miller of Hendon, B

Wakeham, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wilcox, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ahmed, L.

Grocott, L.

Alli, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Andrews, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hayman, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bach, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Billingham, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hoyle, L.

Borne, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brennan, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brookman, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bruce of Donington, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Jay of Paddington, B.

Christopher, L.

Jordan, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lipsey, L.

Crawley, B.

McCarthy, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Davies of Oldham, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Desai, L.

Marsh, L.

Donoughue, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dubs, L.

Mitchell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Morgan, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Nicol, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Paul, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pendry, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Filkin, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gale, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Golding, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sawyer, L.

1498

Serota, B.

Weatherill, L.

Sewel, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Simon, V.

Whitaker, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Whitty, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Strange, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Turner of Camden, B.

Uddin, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.8 p.m.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hunting with Dogs
5.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Rural Affairs in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, our manifesto gave a commitment on hunting with hounds. We said:
'We will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view. We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue'.
"I have been given the responsibility of leading that enabling process.
"In reaching my decision on how to proceed, I have listened carefully to what has been said in the debates.
"The votes this week leave the two Houses diametrically opposed. Indeed I have rarely seen an issue where greater divisions exist. It is precisely for that reason that it is right to see how it can be resolved with as much agreement as possible.
"We want to respect all views but that has to start with respect for the strength with which the Commons made its views clear on Monday.
"I promise to engage with everyone who has an interest in this issue in order to make the legislation practical and robust. I promise to bring to the House of Commons a Bill that will deal with this issue effectively once and for all and make good law; and I earnestly hope that we can do so on the basis of as much common ground as possible.

1499
"I propose a process of consultation on the practical issues of detail with a wide variety of interested parties. This period will last no more than six months, including work on drafting a new Bill.
"But we promised in the manifesto that it will be resolved. Should there be no way through and should the new Bill be frustrated in its passage rather than scrutinised and improved, the Government could not properly stand in the way of the application of the Parliament Act, which again of course would be a matter for this House.
"So the Government would prefer for the Ball to proceed by debate and a search for common ground wherever possible, with conflict tempered by tolerance. If that process is frustrated and the Bill rejected, we would reintroduce the Bill as quickly as possible to this House. It will then be for this House and its procedures—and indeed for Mr Speaker—to determine whether the Parliament Act applies.
"However, the reason for re-engaging in a process to try to achieve wider agreement is precisely because we recognise that there are legitimate concerns in the countryside about pest control, about land management and about other practicalities and we want to address these issues in the Bill. These concerns were raised both in this House and in another place.
"Let me also reiterate our manifesto commitment that:
'We have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting'.
"And I also want to stress to everyone in the countryside that hunting is at the margins of the real debate about the priorities that we set out in the Rural White Paper. Those of ensuring that people in the countryside get access to good public services, proper investment, sound environmental policies and sustainable development.
"On the content of the Bill itself, I believe that some common ground can be achieved best by focusing on two general principles. The report by Lord Burns on hunting with dogs examined in great detail the principles of cruelty and utility. We propose to frame legislation that prohibits activity based on those two principles rather than simply setting out a list of activities to be banned.
"But the Burns report did not provide a route map. That is why further thought needs to be given in applying these principles and that is what I shall be looking at over the next few weeks.
"I am sure the House will have noted the very clear assurances I have given today about timing and outcome, as well as engagement which will involve those campaigning for a ban on hunting, and Members of this House, as well as those involved in land management.
"Inevitably, I recognise that this is a difficult issue, especially as we all know that there are pressing issues of legislation that also demand our attention on crime, health and education. We must deliver on our central promises to deliver reform and investment in our public services.
1500
"Mr Speaker, I ask the House to trust me to deliver and to join me in a process which is guaranteed to achieve an outcome as soon as possible. I look forward to engaging with colleagues on all sides of this House and in another place.
"The process I am setting out today will ensure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to resolve this issue during the lifetime of this Parliament".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.13 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier today.
We congratulate the Government on recognising the need to make good law and on their determination not to place restrictions on angling and shooting. I recommend the Government wholeheartedly on this point of good law because it is at the heart of the issue. As many of your Lordships commented during our debate, it would be wrong to distract our police forces, to whom I pay tribute for the job of stemming the rising tide of crime. This is one aspect of a wider issue. The Government's continuing determination to give a ban on hunting the highest priority when so much else is clamouring for attention is a disgrace.
The Statement requests this House to trust the Minister to deliver. Does this mean that the Prime Minister has given him carte blanche to achieve a solution? Although the Statement declares that the two Houses are diametrically opposed, will the Minister accept that on a free vote in this House and in another place earlier this week the two Houses declared themselves to be in favour of a middle way?
We do not accept that this is a black and white issue. It is a wide continuum, with many people sitting in the middle; and that fact tends to go overlooked. Is the Minister not willing to concede that the Statement he has given us today, while seeking views, also carries an uncanny unveiled threat that the Government will use the Parliament Act, and that even prior to us knowing what is going to be in the consultation document?
I turn now to the consultation period. Are these consultation papers ready? If not, how long will it be before they are issued? Mindful of Easter and the Jubilee celebrations coming, will there be time for the Minister to fulfil his promise to engage with everyone who has an interest in this issue?
Earlier this afternoon in another place the Minister seemed to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, had had his shout and that further interpretations by him of his report would not be considered. Are we to understand that the new round of consultation that is proposed will involve only those interests which have not already been expressed? Are we also to understand that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will have no further input into the definition of "cruelty" and of the other word used in the Statement, "utility". Can the Minister explain to the House a little more about what is meant by "utility"?

1501
I point out to the Minister that while the rural White Paper might be highly valued by the Government, as indeed they keep telling us, it was produced hack in November 2000. It has not even been debated in this House and its implementation seems to be entrusted to many of the regional development agencies. Those have only one rural member on each board. Is it any wonder that the Government have had to use the Statement to point out to us and to the wider world that hunting is not a central issue in the countryside?
While the Minister is pressing the issues for legislation referred to in the Statement we are still awaiting the Government's response to the Curry report and indeed to the reports that have been produced by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who I do not think is in his place today, on better regulation and on the response to the FMD prices in Cumbria. These are just a few. There are many other reports waiting in the wings.
Finally, I ask the Minister where the newspapers obtained their most authoritative articles published today in advance of the Statement, which rather suggests insider knowledge. Were there any briefings and did they take place before the Minister rose to speak in another place?
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I would not pretend to speak for all voices in my party because in my party too we have diametrically opposed views. However, following the Statement, which I am glad the Minister has been able to make this afternoon, we can be certain of one thing, which is that we are not entirely clear what it means.
Having said that, I welcome the fact that it makes clear that the Burns inquiry is to be taken seriously. I welcome also the fact that the Government, having commissioned an inquiry, are going to take notice of it. I would certainly interpret the cruelty and utility part as exploring the balance between pest control and sport. That is a very important balance which should be thoroughly explored.
I, too, should like to know more about the timescale for the consultation and also whether local views will be taken into account on a locality basis or a regional basis; and, if so, what bodies will be consulted locally. That is particularly important because of the practical issues—if the Government are thinking of restricting hunting to certain areas, for example, uplands. The over-use of those upland areas is a matter which bodies concerned with them will no doubt want to consider as well. It would be reassuring if the Minister could, at some stage, give us an indication of how the consultation document will dovetail into the recommendations made in the food and farming report. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, observed, we have not yet received any response to that report.
The economic and social aspects would be well addressed on a regional basis. There are also issues of compensation for those who will be put out of
1502
business, as was mentioned during the passage of the fur farming legislation in this House; and, indeed, as regards housing. I believe that the time-scale involved is most important. It means that we shall finally have definite answers. That is as crucial for rural areas that will be affected, as it is for those who would like to see a ban imposed.
Further, it is important to ensure that the sort of turn-out that we saw in this House last Tuesday will be repeated and exercised on other issues in the future. One way or another, it would be pleasant if the hunting debate could be put to bed once and for all in a satisfactory manner.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the response to the Statement and the questions that have been raised. I believe that some of those questions seemed to suggest that the way we do these things is slightly misleading. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, seemed to think that I have been empowered by the Prime Minister to carry through the process. However, I am the mere representative in this House of my right honourable friend Alun Michael who—thank goodness!—is the person who will have that responsibility. Nevertheless, I shall be responsible for processing the matter through this House.
In his Statement, my right honourable friend made it clear that he would wish to engage with Members of this House, those who expressed views in the debate in another place on Monday, and, more widely, with the interest groups involved. It is not a question of the views already expressed being taken as written, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. We shall facilitate the process so that anyone else who wishes to do so may participate in the consultation. I cannot give an answer on precisely when the consultation documentation will be produced, but, following the Easter Recess, we shall start engaging in the process of consultation.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I should point out that this matter needs to be very much separated from other consultations that will take place in terms of how we proceed with the Curry report, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also referred. The initial response to that report will be available shortly. However, as I have already indicated to the House, we wish to engage in a programme of regional discussion over the spring and summer. The final response to the report will be produced in the autumn, by which time we shall have the advantage—if I may put it that way—of finalising the spending review and other decisions of government. We are, therefore, aiming to produce a White Paper in the autumn.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made a few aspersions in relation to some reports in today's newspapers. I can assure the noble Baroness that there was no such briefing; indeed, when I left my department at 1 o'clock this lunch-time, the Statement had not been finalised. Therefore, it would be impossible for anyone to have received it before that time. I believe that we can ignore that aspect of the matter.

1503
However, the more important accusation that the noble Baroness made related to fact that, by this Statement, we are threatening further action. Everyone has known the potential constitutional position both on the previous, and on any new, legislation. The noble Baroness introduced the rather novel constitutional precept that I have heard repeated quite widely around the House over the past 48 hours; namely, that we would add up the scores of this House and those of another place. As noble Lords well know, that is not the way that the procedure works. Both Houses have to reach their conclusion, and it is to be hoped that we reach a conclusion that is at least acceptable, even if it is not entirely what either wants. However, if that process fails, the Government—or, more accurately, the House of Commons, as it will be on a free vote—would have the option of invoking the Parliament Act.
We believe that this issue has been around for long enough. We have had a sufficient number of debates on the subject, in which everyone has expressed his or her point of view. If, following the consultation—and, it is to be hoped, the taking on board of many of the points raised—the Bill then produced is adopted by the House of Commons, we are indicating that we would not stand in the way of the other place using the Parliament Act finally to resolve the issue, and thus meet our manifesto commitment that we would solve the matter in this Parliament.
Mention was made of the definition of "utility". Clearly, the prime reason for hunting tends to be pest control. However, there are other potential benefits from hunting, including economic considerations, that will need to be taken into the balance. The main concern among those who wish to promote a restriction or a ban on hunting is, of course, cruelty. When the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to "cruelty". I believe that he did so in the context that we already have a definition in existing legislation. The issue is whether the consideration of other factors means that the definition of the word has at least to be modified in the light of aspects of utility. We are not balancing one against the other, but we must also take issues of utility into account. That is the basis of the approach to drafting the new Bill.
The response to the Statement indicates that we still have a long way to go in the consultation process, in the re-engagement of the various parties—both parliamentary and otherwise—and in the drafting of the Bill. We have given an indication of the time-scale on which the Bill will be produced—namely, six months—and of the process that will ensue if, regrettably, we still end up in a deadlock. That is simply a statement as to the reality of the situation. I hope that we can move to more of a consensus on the issue. However, if we cannot, the use of the Parliament Act is, therefore, promised.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, it seems to me that the Minister has not fully understood the point made by my noble friend on the Front Bench about the leak of information. She was not suggesting that the
1504
contents of the Statement had been leaked: I believe that my noble friend was referring to the very detailed accounts to be found in several newspapers this morning. Such reports referred not to the Statement but to the Bill that will eventually be introduced. Is that not rather a serious matter?
When repeating the Statement, the noble Lord talked about certain principles and a process of consultation after which time a Bill will he produced. However, it is quite evident that someone connected with government has been reassuring those in favour of a total ban that their wishes—90 per cent according to one report—will be met. That reflects quite a different, divisive and belligerent approach, and, indeed, one quite contrary to what the Minister has been trying to convey to the House this afternoon. Can he clarify the position?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can assure the House that no Bill exists; nor does even the outline of such a Bill exist. However, all of these issues have been fairly well aired, and, in the light of the contrary decisions of the two Houses, they have been discussed widely in political and journalistic circles. I assure the House that there has been no decision on the nature of the Bill pending the consultation, and there has been no spelling out to journalists or anybody else what the nature of that Bill will he. My Statement today clearly indicated the process. Also, it is stating the obvious to say that we know where the House of Commons stands and we know what will be required to meet many of the present concerns in the House of Commons. We have a consultation period to undergo, during which we can perhaps establish more common ground on which a further Bill could be based. In any case, the position taken by the other place the other night would need to be translated into legislative terms and there are different ways of doing that.
So, in relation to belligerence, I am afraid that I have to make it clear to Members of this House that, at the end of the day, their votes cannot be added to those of the House of Commons and, if the normal process fails, the will of the House of Commons will prevail.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I welcome the early response from the Government. I also welcome the fact that, if a real debate does not take place, the Parliament Act will be used and the fact that due weight will be given to the views of the elected House. I hope that the spirit of libertarianism that was shown in the House the other day continues for a long time.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept the welcome from my noble friend. There will be different interpretations of precisely what he meant by his last sentence. No doubt, he will enlighten us.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister rightly said that it could not be guaranteed that the votes of this House would be counted equal to those of the House of Commons. However, he gave the House a pledge on behalf of his colleague. Mr Alun Michael—who, as he said, is in charge of the matter—

1505
that the views expressed in this House would be carefully considered before any decisions were taken. I am sure that the Minister gave that pledge in good faith, but it has been dishonoured by the Statement.
There is no secret about it. Anyone who has been around for any time in government or Parliament knows what the Statement means. The views of the House have not been taken into account, and that is the worst possible prelude. The Minister pleads for understanding, co-operation and proper consultation, when the first process of consultation—a proper debate in this House and a proper moment for the assessment of our views—has been so manifestly dishonoured.
The Statement was fairly opaque in places. On the second page, there are clear assurances about timing and outcome and that there will be engagement with those campaigning for a ban on hunting, Members of the House of Commons, Members of this House, and those involved in land management. There is no indication that there will be any engagement with those who happen to regard the policy—if the newspaper reports of it are accurate—as a disaster for many parts of the country. They would expect to be fully engaged in the process.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my right honourable friend made it clear that he would engage with all sides of the argument. The Statement refers to Members of the House of Commons and the view that they took. It was, after all, a Statement to the House of Commons, which has made its views clear, and the Minister is responsible to that House. It also said explicitly in the Statement that he would take into account views that had already been expressed here in the debate and views that might be expressed during the six-month period.
The Statement is not opaque. At least, it is no more opaque than many government Statements. It is fairly clear that the process of consultation will take place; that there will be an assessment of the views that are put to Alun Michael during that period; and that the Bill will be drafted in the light of those opinions. It is a political reality that the House of Commons has made its view clear, as of now. It is also clear that there will now be a period of reflection and consultation, before we produce the legislation. When we produce the legislation, it will go through the normal process. I hope that we can establish other principles and bases for that legislation. The only thing that is spelt out—it is blindingly obvious, not opaque—is that, at the end of the day, we think that the issue has gone on for too long and the Parliament Act might be invoked.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall take up the point made by—I was going to say, -my old friend", but that is not appropriate in this House—my old sparring partner, the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. Up to now, this has been a matter for a free vote, here and in another place. That was true of the previous Bill, in which there were three options. People were able to vote for what they wanted. It has also been true of the debates in this Parliament.
1506
Are the Government saying that they will introduce a government Bill that will represent their settled view, after the six months' consultation, and that they will do what they usually do with government Bills and apply the Whip, in this House and in another place? If that is not the case, what guarantee is there that the Bill that arrives in this House from another place will be the Government's Bill?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggests, we have made it explicit that, although the Government will produce the Bill, it will be the subject of a free vote in both Houses, as was the Private Member's Bill and as were the Motions debated this week. The principle of a free vote throughout Parliament still applies: Whips will not be applied on this side of the House or, I suspect, in other parties.
I hope that that clarifies the situation. Of course, the Bill that arrives here will be the House of Commons' Bill, which may not be the same as the original government Bill. That is stating the obvious.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the Minister's decision to have a period of reflection, rather than follow the line of a "virtual ban", which was apparently briefed overnight from somewhere to the newspapers. That is a positive move.
Following up what was said on the Benches opposite, I ask the Minister for a positive assurance that the final Bill, which will include the Government's decisions, will, in the search for common ground—a crucial part of the process and a good objective— include not only the views of this House as part of Parliament but those of the people in the countryside who will be most affected by a virtual ban, should the Government pursue that policy.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot predict the extent of support for the common ground that will emerge from the process. All I am saying is that it will be the objective of my right honourable friend to seek what common ground there is, before producing a Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government have accepted the principle that foxes must be controlled and seek to implement the principle that unnecessary cruelty should not be inflicted, with which one cannot quarrel. Can the Minister give an undertaking that no law will be passed that substitutes a more cruel or equally cruel method of control than fox hunting?
The Government said that they,
"could not properly stand in the way of the application of the Parliament Act",
if the new Bill were to be frustrated in its passage, rather than—I emphasise—"scrutinised and improved". Will the Minister undertake that, if the role of this House is restricted to scrutiny and improvement, the Government will properly stand in the way of the application of the Parliament Act?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said, the Bill will go through the normal process. If improvements are

1507
introduced in this House during that process and they are acceptable to the House of Commons, they will be accepted in the Bill. However, were there still to be deadlock, the situation that I described in relation to the Parliament Act would apply. If the question is whether it is worth while for this House to scrutinise and attempt to improve the Bill, the answer is that it is. That is part of the process of trying to reach as much common ground as we can through parliamentary and other processes.
I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Elton, a straight answer to his first question. After all, as my noble friend Lord Hoyle and others said, only about six per cent of the control of foxes is through hunting with hounds. There are subjective arguments about whether that is more or less cruel than other forms of controlling foxes. The question is whether that six per cent should continue to exist, be reduced or eliminated. The balance may well depend on the exact outcome and the exact law. I cannot give a clear assurance on that either way.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that some of us who are opposed to hunting are nevertheless concerned about the impact of a ban on the foot and fell packs in some of Britain's national parks. I refer in particular to the Lake District National Park where special conditions exist, most especially in the area of lambing. Can my noble friend give an assurance that during the course of the consultation, adequate regard will be given to those difficulties?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, local concerns will be taken fully into account during the consultation. I should have made that point clear in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, because she too asked whether local concerns would be taken into account. Although we may not put in place an entire structure of local consultation, we shall need to take into consideration the conditions and problems peculiar to certain parts of the country, including the Lake District.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, are the consultation documents ready for publication? If not, when will they be ready? Once they have been prepared, when will they be circulated?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret that I cannot give the noble Baroness answers to her questions. The documents are not ready; they are not even at an early stage of drafting. However, following the Easter break we shall he very much engaged in the process and documentation will form a part of that. Although the documents do not exist at present, they will do so very shortly. More than that, I cannot say.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in the Statement the Minister proclaimed that hunting is on the margins of the real debate about the priorities set out in the rural White Paper. While that may be true or partly true,
1508
will he accept that hunting is not by any means on the margins of the real debate about the growing threat to British traditions of individual freedom?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept that. Hunting is an issue which can cause great excitement on all sides of the argument and therefore its importance is exaggerated by those both for and against it. That is the case in all kinds of contexts, including those of human rights. I do not believe that whether or not we ban hunting has any serious implication for other aspects of life, whether rural or in our more general civic society. Views on hunting are minority opinions on both sides of the argument. although both sides believe that it is extremely important.
Baroness Golding: My Lords, can my noble friend say when the period of six months' consultation is to start? It was made clear in the other place that it was due to start now. However, if the consultat ion papers have not yet been sent out, or if they have not even been prepared, then when will the six-month period begin?
Can my noble friend also tell the House who, once the submissions have been made, is to consider them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the six-month period does indeed start now.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no inhibition on Members of your Lordships' House or on anyone outside this place with regard to expressing their views before they have received a particular document. This issue has been around for so long that it is not necessary to consult a document in order to express views.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has been a little disingenuous to the House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, order. This is the time allotted to Back Benchers for questions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it 'seems that the root problem for the other place is the fact that people enjoy hunting with hounds. Can the noble Lord assure the House that, should the three million anglers who go fishing begin to show the slightest sign of enjoyment, they too will he in trouble?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I share with the noble Baroness her incredulity that any enjoyment can be

1509
derived from angling. Nevertheless, we have made it absolutely clear that no such intention will be pursued in relation to shooting or angling.
Baroness Golding: My Lords, the Minister did not respond to my second question. Who will consider and prepare the legislation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is intended that the Government will consider the matter and produce the Bill. It will then go through the process that I have already described.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the Minister said that there will be no restriction on shooting, but day after day restrictions are being imposed by stealth. It is becoming harder than ever to acquire a shotgun certificate, in particular for young applicants. Ultimately shooting will be dramatically affected by such practices.
Can the Minister give me an assurance that he will speak to the government business managers of another place and say that we do not expect another place to guillotine the Committee stage, guillotine the proceedings on Report, guillotine the Third Reading and then send on to this House an absolute shambles of a Bill? We want to hold a proper, democratic debate so that each side is given a fair amount of time. In that way we shall be able to make progress in this House. However, that will not be achieved under the authoritarian attitude with which legislation is presently dealt with in another place.
Lord WhittyMy Lords, I would not dream of trying to instruct the business managers of another place. That has long been the tradition of this House. If the converse were the case, this House would rightly resent it.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain once more to the House why hunting with dogs should take precedence over all the other desperately pressing problems facing the country? Many people do not understand why hunting is so much more important.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that many Members of your Lordships' House find it difficult to understand this matter. Nonetheless, hunting has been a major political issue for over two decades in this country. It is time that it was resolved. In our manifesto, for which people voted rather overwhelmingly, we gave a commitment that the question would be resolved during this Parliament. We are therefore fulfilling our promise.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the request for trust put forward on the part of his colleagues has been made on rather shaky ground, given that both sides of the argument can claim to have been badly misled by the Government in their handling of this issue over the past four years? Does he
1510
further agree therefore that the period of consultation needs to be transparently fair, thus ensuring that no complaint can be made by either side about its ability to have its opinion heard, and so that there is no temptation to indulge in extra-parliamentary action? It is very important that Parliament should handle this issue—on which great emotions are felt on both sides—so that both opinions are assured that here, in Parliament, they have had a chance to state their case.
When I spoke in the debate the other day, I put forward a proposal to set up a pre-legislative Joint Select Committee. Whether that was effective, I do not know. However, some means must be found to ensure that the campaigning groups outside this place are given access in the most transparent manner before legislation is brought forward. At the moment, the Government's record on this is very shaky indeed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept the first or the last points put by the noble Lord. We have genuinely endeavoured to find a solution. I can assure him that the consultation process will certainly be transparent. It will be accessible to all the groups to which he referred, as it will be to all parliamentary opinion.
Lord Denham: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have had 20 minutes of questions on the Statement from Back Benchers, but I feel that the House would like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Denham, if he can keep his remarks fairly brief.
Lord Denham: My Lord, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. On a point of order, the noble Baroness stated that 20 minutes are allotted to Back Benchers. The first proceedings on a debate of this kind are taken by the Leaders of all sides, and responses are given to them. It is then the turn of Back Benchers for the following 20 minutes.
I should like to ask for clarification. I have never understood that it would be out of order, if a point arose during the time allotted to Back Benchers, for someone on the Front Bench who had spoken previously to rise to query a minor point? I had not realised that he or she would be out of order in so doing. Is that right or is that wrong? I should not like to make a point of order "on the hoof", so to speak. Perhaps we should consider whether or not this is wrong.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the basic answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is to be found in paragraph 4.81 of the Companion:
"The period of questions and answers which then follows for backbench Members should not exceed 20 minutes from the end of the minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen".

1511
That is the principle. I do not think that it deals particularly with the noble Lord's question because I do not believe that specific guidance can be found. What I try to do is to meet the wishes of the House as appropriate.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
5.50 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 9 [Funding of Local Health Boards]:
[Amendments Nos. 78 to 83 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Health and well-being strategies in Wales]:
Lord Roberts of Conwymoved Amendment No. 84:
Page 28, line 30, at end insert ", and indicate which authority is to take the lead in the formulation of such strategies"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 84 relates to Clause 22 and deals with health and well-being strategies. The concept of such strategies drawn up by local authorities and local health boards is attractive. We are all aware of the relationship between people's health and their physical and mental environment, and of the inevitable overlap between the health sphere and the sphere of local government.
There are some areas—I am thinking particularly of social services—where there is a close relationship which is to be found in all parts of Wales. The relationship may be particularly important where there is a high proportion of elderly people in the population, as in the retirement areas of North Wales. There are other areas, such as the valleys of South Wales, where the working environment and its legacy may still be an important determinant of people's health. I am sure that there are other areas where housing conditions are a primary concern. We still have a great deal of pre-1918 housing.
Health and well-being strategies are therefore likely to vary in their priorities in different parts of Wales. Obviously, they will also have much in common, such as health promotion, but my main concern is to establish through the amendment which body is to take the lead in drawing up such strategies.
The clause opens by laying a duty on both types of authority—local government and health authority—to act jointly in formulating and implementing strategies. But, as I am sure the noble Baroness will realise, the danger is that neither will get far without one or other taking the lead, depending on what is perceived to be the major problem of the area and whether it is clearly in the health field or a local government responsibility. The clause is silent on that point. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has raised an important aspect of the Bill in terms of the way in which the formulation of policies will occur within the local
1512
health boards. The effect of the amendment would undermine the principle of joint ownership of each health and well-being strategy and the partnership principles which underpin the NHS Plan in Wales.
The National Assembly will give advice in guidance about how the responsible bodies should work jointly to formulate and implement the strategy. In doing so, the National Assembly intends to leave as much as possible to local determination. Local partners, therefore, will determine the local arrangements.
It is the wish of those involved in developing the proposals in Wales that these partnerships will be across local government and the voluntary sector and, as the noble Lord recognised, develop in line with the circumstances prevailing in particular health board areas.
However, I am able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that should any problem arise where a particular health and well-being strategy was not being progressed under the joint requirements, the National Assembly would seek to work with the relevant authorities to find a solution. It could ultimately use direction-making powers were they to be necessary. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she will try to imagine the situation that will arise when this part of the Bill is implemented. I am sure that she is well placed to do so. Would it not be helpful to the Assembly if it was required to decide who was the lead authority? There could be a problem in this area, and all that my noble friend is suggesting is that the Assembly should be required to do that—naturally in consultation. To leave it out would be asking for trouble for the Assembly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I have failed to make clear the position which is being taken by the Assembly following detailed consultation. It is taking the view that it is not for the Assembly to direct who the lead authority should be but that that should develop at local level. The local partnership should bring in all parties to consider how best to develop the health and well-being strategy. The view that one authority must be the lead authority imposed by the Assembly is in conflict with the whole ethos of the development of the health service strategy in Wales.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I made the point simply to highlight the possibility that there could be difficulties so far as leadership was concerned in formulating these health and well-being strategies. She has reassured me. Indeed, I am reassured by the contents of the Bill because Clause 22(6)(b) refers to the fact that,
"The regulations may, in particular, make provision as to … steps which the responsible bodies must take before formulating the strategy".
I heard what the noble Baroness said about the fact that if there is difficulty the Assembly can step in, but it is quite clear—I do not think that she will dissent from

1513
what I said earlier—that the primary concerns of these strategies will vary as between different areas. It is important that that point is taken on board and that the Assembly, if necessary, can give guidance as to who should take the lead. Having been reassured by the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 85:
Page 28, line 46, at end insert—
"( ) the imposition of a duty on the responsible bodies to include steps to improve the eye health of, and the provision of eye care to, the public in the area."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 85, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 87 and 159. The Minister will note that this is my one foray into Welsh health matters. I do so only because of the importance of the issue of visual impairment. The amendments cover both England and Wales in different ways.
Clause 22 imposes a duty on local authorities and local health boards in Wales to formulate and implement a health and well-being strategy for their area. Amendment No. 85 would help to ensure that regulations made by the National Assembly for Wales could include provision for a duty to be imposed on both to include steps to improve the eye health of, and the provision of eye care to, the public in each area.
Amendment No. 87 is designed to ensure that any health improvement plan drawn up under the Health Act—I apologise if I have confused the Minister. There is a misprint in the amendment. The reference should be to the Health Act 1999, not the Health and Social Care Act 2001. The Bill should include a strategy,
"to improve the eye health of, and the provision of eye care to, the public in the area",
and, of course, that applies to England. These two amendments are promoted by the Improving Lives Coalition, which is composed of over 100 organisations in the field of visual impairment.
Why are the amendments necessary? Eye health is accorded low priority at primary care level and has not been a major feature of health improvement plans. Despite the prevalence figures, eye health has been accorded woefully little importance by primary care planners.
One of the reasons for this is that there is a mistaken assumption that visual impairment is a low incidence disability. That is not correct. Two million people in the UK are affected by uncorrectable sight loss; two-thirds of these have another disability or a serious health problem such as deafness, arthritis or diabetes. Currently, 90 per cent of blind or partially sighted people are aged 60 and over. One in five people over 75 has a sight problem. Within the next 30 years, about 40 per cent of the UK population will be aged 60 and over, which means that 2.5 million people will be living
1514
with a visual impairment. Over two-thirds of those who are eligible are not registered as blind or partially sighted.
There is strong evidence that adults in the UK are at risk of developing eye disease and other sight problems because they are not regularly having check-ups. Services have failed to pick up at least 1 million people with an eye condition which is either treatable or remediable, or which could be compensated for in some measure by rehabilitative services and equipment. Eight-five per cent of people over 65 who have cataracts and 75 per cent who have glaucoma have no contact with eye specialists. The number of overall sight tests since the extension of free eye tests to the over-60s has risen by only a small amount. People from certain ethnic backgrounds—for example, Afro-Caribbean and South Asian— are at greatly increased risk of glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. One in five school-age children have undetected poor sight. People on low incomes are unaware of the exemption categories and low-income concession scheme and are not having sufficient eye tests. Further evidence can be obtained from a recent report from the Patients Association which demonstrates the inadequate information and access to treatments for major causes of blindness and visual impairment.
The detection of eye disease and low vision happens at primary care level—critically, through the NHS sight test, which is also an eye health examination. But unless and until this matter is re-prioritised in local health strategies, and proper monitoring and targets are put in place for addressing under-identification and low take-up of services by at-risk groups, people will continue to lose their sight unnecessarily.
The cost to the NHS of failing to re-prioritise eye health at primary care level will be huge. The risk of hip fracture is doubled in people with poor and moderately impaired vision. The cost to the National Health Service of treating sight-related falls and injuries among older people is estimated at £221 million, as against £25 million for rehabilitation and prevention.
Amendment No. 159 seeks to insert a new clause setting up low vision committees. It would require,
"each local authority in England and Wales; and … each Primary Care Trust in England and local health board in Wales, jointly to establish and support a Low Vision Committee … for the purpose of co-ordinating multi-disciplinary low vision services for persons with low vision".
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that low vision services become more uniformly available and are better co-ordinated across England and Wales. Low vision affects nearly 2 million people. Low vision services are crucial for rehabilitation, the prevention of accidents and the amelioration of general health. They depend on effective, patient-centred, interdisciplinary working.
There is a nationally agreed framework in England and Wales respectively for the way in which the disciplines can work together to provide effective care for people who lose their sight. However, without statutory provision for low vision committees, services will remain extremely patchy and unco-ordinated.

1515
What is a low vision service? It is a rehabilitative process which provides a range of services for people with low vision to enable them to make use of their eyesight to achieve maximum potential. It involves assessing the person's visual function. It involves providing aid, such as hand and stand magnifiers, telescopes, spectacle mounted aids, task lights and so on. It involves addressing psychological and emotional needs and facilitating modification to the home, school or work environments.
Who provides these services? There are a huge range of practitioners involved in delivering them. Ophthalmologists undertake the clinical diagnosis; optometrists will be involved in low vision assessment, and often the provision of low vision aids. GPs need to be able to refer patients quickly. Rehabilitation workers and local societies for blind and partially sighted people provide advice, information, low vision aids and training. Other specialist practitioners need to be involved; for example, to deliver an effective children's low vision service. I could continue. There are a number of other professionals involved in the process.
Research by the RNIB has found that more than half of the low vision teams contain only one type of professional group. One team in 10 has no link with any other agency. The amendment specifies that the membership of low vision committees must include a range of professionals such as the ones I have mentioned.
Why is the amendment necessary? A lack of low vision services will mean more residential care and attendance costs for local authorities. Such a core rehabilitation service should be uniformly provided in the UK; but two out of every five potential service providers do not deliver any low vision services whatever, with some areas of the country left out altogether.
Challenging AMD in Europe, a report from the AMD Alliance UK published in September, indicated that the UK was among the worst of the countries surveyed in providing rehabilitation services to people with age-related macular degeneration—the leading cause of sight loss in the UK.
Current government initiatives relating to community equipment, pooling budgets and joint assessments—valuable though they are—will not make sufficient impact in this area because they are too generic and do not give a strong steer to PCTs and social services departments to prioritise low vision services. The National Assembly for Wales has begun to address the need for a low vision framework in Wales; but again, without any statutory requirement, services may be slow to develop.
Three years ago, a report was published by the Low Vision Services Consensus Group, chaired by the noble Lord. Lord Jenkin of Roding. I am delighted to see the noble Lord in his place. It involved all the voluntary and professional interests engaged in these issues. Its central recommendation was for low vision committees to be established in every local area. A similar report was subsequently issued in Wales.
1516
The then Health Secretary commended the report to primary care groups, hospital eye departments, social services and voluntary agencies. If the Government still agree with every agency in the visual impairment field that low vision committees provide the best means of ensuring an integrated model of service, they should accept the amendment and insist that such a provision is written into the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I completely agree with veverything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said—with the exception of his ever-generous reference to myself. I did not chair the committee that produced the recommendation, although I played some part in its being set up. Perhaps I may weary the Committee with just a couple of sentences of reminiscence.
I had been invited to join the council of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association in the late 1980s. That brought me into contact with a number of other national voluntary organisations for the blind and partially sighted. There was no machinery at all for trying to bring those bodies together, although many worked for the same ends. I set up and chaired for 10 years the visual handicap group, which consisted of those national voluntary bodies. We produced a report on better services for the visually handicapped, which was widely received and commented on favourably, not least by the Department of Health. We produced another report on the training of people to work with the blind and visually handicapped—an issue that had fallen through the wickerwork since the old blind workers disappeared with the Seebohm changes in social work.
We also produced a report on low vision—the subject of Amendment No. 159. To many of us—this is not meant to be a pun—it was an eye-opener to see how inadequate services were across the country for people with low vision. Many patients who were examined by an ophthalmologist were simply told, "I am afraid that there is nothing more that medicine can do for you. You are going blind. Have you got somebody to take you home?". As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, it is a terrible shock for a patient to be told that they have an irreversible condition—although many people would now argue that some conditions are not as irreversible as they were once thought to be.
We found that in many cases across the country there were virtually no services to pick up those people and make sure that they were given the help they needed. Some areas were lucky in having an effective voluntary organisation. A year or two after we produced our report, I was presiding over a meeting of the Wanstead and Woodford association for the blind and partially sighted. A consultant from Chelmsford told us what the Essex Voluntary Association for the Blind was doing. He spelt out almost exactly the contents of Amendment No. 159. That was being done in conjunction with the health authority and the local authorities. However, that situation was exceptional. I am not in the least surprised that the body that followed on from the visual handicap group—the

1517
body that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to—came to the conclusion that something more positive is now needed to ensure that there are services to pick up and help patients who are diagnosed as having low vision. Many of them are elderly, but not all.
I strongly support Amendment No. 159, because it seems to be the way ahead. I probably said when I was on the ministerial Bench that we already have a plethora of committees. I have some sympathy with that view, but I am convinced by the evidence that has been produced by Robin Birch and his Low Vision Services Consensus Group. The issue will be dealt with effectively only if every area has to have a low vision committee.
I am not wedded to the full details of Amendment No. 159. It is a brave start, but the issue needs to be discussed fully with Ministers and other bodies to ensure that the provision is effective and workable and not too expensive. However, it is clear beyond peradventure that there is a need for something. The amendment gives us a chance to express a view in support of that. I hope that we shall do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, those with a visual handicap have not been properly recognised in services. There are individual services such as sight tests and people can get glasses, but so much more needs to be done to allow those with low vision to be able to play their full role and develop their potential in the community and to allow old people to live independent lives. We need to address that. It is good that the amendment does so and I therefore warmly commend it.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: I have added my name to the amendments, which raise issues with far-reaching implications for the health service that I believe are of the highest importance for patients. I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin have said. It is difficult to overstate the extent to which eye disease and visual impairment impact on the lives of those so afflicted. As my noble friend has graphically described, to lose one's sight is a deeply traumatic event, which in many cases is a precursor to all kinds of misery, such as unemployment, state dependence and mental illness. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, informed us, many people in this country are affected by uncorrectable sight loss and the numbers are growing.
Much eye disease is treatable and preventable if caught early. However, compared with some other countries, we are not nearly as good as we should be in giving eye health appropriate priority at primary care level. Partly because the scale of the problem is not sufficiently appreciated, we tend not to be good enough at bringing information and help to those visually impaired people who need it.
1518
Information for the blind is not an add-on extra: it is an essential part of good quality care that can result directly in improved recovery from illness, the more effective use of health services and the avoidance of serious medical accidents.
In recent years, there has been what I can only call an abdication by some health authorities and trusts of services tailored specifically to the needs of the blind or partially sighted. In the face of that, it is difficult to have confidence that PCTs will be able to establish any more creditable track record without a bit of gentle prodding. If the relevant services are to improve, we need to ensure that there are people tasked specifically with making the right things happen at local level. Low vision services committees provide an ideal mechanism for taking that mission forward. As we have heard, those committees emerged out of the very useful work of the Low Vision Services Consensus Group three years ago, for which my noble friend Lord Jenkin deserves a great deal of personal credit. Since then they have been encouraged by grant funding from the Department of Health.
There are two elements to the rationale for those committees. One is to bring together all the key stakeholders in the delivery of services—doctors, ophthalmologists, social services, specialist workers, service users and others—so that everyone communicates properly. Without such grouping, there is inadequate co-ordination. The second might be called commissioning muscle. Users and voluntary organisations need to he assured that their voice will be heard and their needs will be fully taken into account by PCTs and local authorities when services are being planned. I am convinced that a statutory duty to establish and support those committees would make a huge difference to the current unsatisfactory pattern of services.
What about providing accessible information to the visually impaired? The work of charities such as the RNIB in monitoring the provision of such services goes largely unsung. It should not be up to voluntary organisations to shoulder the task on their own. It should be done at national level, preferably by CHI. Health authorities and trusts are on the whole very dilatory about identifying those in need and having proper procedures and training. We need national benchmarks.
For those reasons I urge the Government to take the amendments seriously. The Minister may say that these are essentially matters for local decision-making, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, the current mechanisms, such as pooling budgets, will not be enough on their own to do the trick, because they do not send out specific messages about the importance of low vision services.
I hope that the Minister will at least reflect on the amendments in a positive spirit before Report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been a very interesting debate. I think that we are all at one in wanting to ensure that good eye care services are available throughout the National Health Service. I

1519
am very much aware of the recent survey by the Patients Association which suggested that provision of ophthalmic services is variable across the country and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, eye care is not always seen as a priority by health authorities. I very much agree with the general sentiments that have been raised in this short debate.
I have problems, however, with the suggestion that primary legislation is the route we should take to improve services. I also have problems with the suggestion that we should single out eye care services above all others to include in primary care legislation. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is not with us today. In one sense, this debate seems to take us back to our earlier debate—which now seems a long time ago—on Clause I and the dilemma of developing policy and targets for the health service. The criticism in that debate was that the Government are setting the NHS too many targets, offering it too much guidance, and trying to constrain its functions and responsibilities in far too many ways. It is now being proposed that, in primary legislation, we should be very directional by telling the health service what it should do in particular spheres.
Noble Lords' reasons for wishing to do that are quite understandable. I am sure that all noble Lords wish to see improvement in eye care services. However, I am sure that noble Lords will also appreciate that the more we seek to constrain the work of the NHS, the more we shall have a problem of too many targets and too many priorities. It is a dilemma. I should therefore like to explain in a little detail the Government's work on eye care services, and then deal with the work on developing the eye committees which have been established in various parts of the country.
The Government's first action was to restore the free NHS eye test for everyone 60 and over, at a cost of £50 million annually. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, that group is most vulnerable to eye disease and stands to benefit most from regular eye examinations. In 1999–2000, there were more than 2 million extra NHS sight tests, following the extension of eligibility for free tests. We are also taking steps to improve cataract services and have allocated an extra £20 million over two years to fund the capital costs of 60 schemes to improve treatment facilities and reduce waiting times. We believe that this investment will considerably improve the standard of eye care and greatly improve the quality of life particularly of older people. I am also glad to report that the number of NHS consultants in ophthalmology has increased by about 4 per cent in each of the past four years and will increase, from the current level of 651, to 895 by 2010.
I therefore hope that noble Lords will accept that the Government are committed to ensuring that good standards of eye care are provided for the population. As I said, I am not at all convinced that this group of amendments would help to improve the position. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has corrected the amendment—which was new Clause 24—and that he intended to require that health improvement plans should include strategies for improving eye health and eye care services. That would
1520
require an amendment to Section 28 of the Health Act 1999, which places a duty on each health authority to prepare a plan that sets out a strategy to improve the health of those for whom they are responsible and the provision of healthcare to those people.
I stress that health improvement plans—HIMPs— are strategic documents. We believe that, as such, it would be inappropriate for them to contain a lot of detail on specific activity in the health system. Surely it should be for localities to decide how to meet the identified priorities. I also question whether prescribing from the centre what HIMPs should contain would be contrary to the underlying principles of shifting the balance of power to the local level. All noble Lords seemed to agree with those principles when we debated them 10 days ago.
The HIMP process has to work effectively. In future, local voluntary organisations, service users, carers and the public will have a greater role to play in the development of the HIMP. The Health and Social Care Act 2001 underpins the patient's and the public's involvement in the development of the HIM P. The Act places a duty on NHS bodies to involve patients and the public in the planning and development of services. We shall also eventually, although probably not tonight, debate the issue of patient forums which will be established for every trust. They will play a very valuable role in discovering what patients think about the quality of local services, monitoring quality from the patient's perspective, and working with the local trust to bring about improvements. That, too, will inform the local priority-setting and planning process.
The position in Wales is similar. In line with the principle of devolution, the National Assembly will determine the form and contents of health and wellbeing strategies. The National Assembly intends to give advice about how the responsible bodies will work jointly to formulate and implement the strategy. 'The Assembly will also determine how prescriptive the regulations and guidance should be. Where possible, however, we hope that local partners are able to determine arrangements according to local priorities.
New Clause 159 would require each primary care trust in England or local health board in Wales, and each local authority in both countries jointly, to establish a low vision committee for the area for which that primary care trust or local health board 'was established. As mentioned, a report in 1999 by a consensus group of organisations on the future of low vision services recommended the establishment of local vision committees for the purpose of ensuring that services in the UK are provided in accordance with the report's recommendations. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for his role in the establishment of that group. However, having seen him play a starring role last night in the parliamentary choir's performance of "Messiah", I realise that he has very many hidden talents.
The Secretary of State for Health commended that report to the NHS and local government. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, the department is contributing a grant of £120,000 over three years to

1521
provide an implementation officer from the voluntary sector to help in setting up local committees. Good progress is being made. My understanding is that, at the start of the year, 24 committees had been set up, and a number of others are under consideration. The noble Earl also suggested that some gentle prodding is needed. The implementation project is set to run for another 18 months. My view is that it would be inappropriate now to impose a requirement for primary care trusts and local authorities effectively to establish statutory low vision services committees. I think that it would make sense to allow the project to continue and for an evaluation of the committees' impact on service provision to be carried out by the implementation group at the end of that 18-month period.
I would also caution against an overly prescriptive approach. It may be possible to have a good, multi-disciplinary, low-vision service without a formal committee. In some areas the primary care trusts may not always cover the area that is sensible in terms of linking and providing low-vision services, and other models may emerge. Under the present arrangement, the committee is not in the ownership of one body, and that emphasises the essential joint working, which would be important for the successful functioning of any of those committees.
In the light of the debate tonight, the department will monitor what is happening and the progress by the implementation group. We already monitor the uptake of sight tests by eligible groups, and waiting lists. Sites that have been allocated funds for cataract improvement, for example, will also submit progress reports.
We are represented on the low-vision services implementation group, which receives progress reports on setting up local committees at its meetings two or three times a year. In addition, there is a requirement for the group to make six-monthly progress reports to the department. I assure noble Lords that the department will continue to take a close interest in the progress of the implementation project. I take the view that legislation is not the appropriate route down which we should go, but I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we take a keen interest. I accept that having made progress in the past two or three years, more progress needs to be made.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply which, in its latter parts, was positive and helpful. In one way it was the reverse of what I expected him to say. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their supportive comments. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was clearly so enthusiastic and such a major contributor to the group that the people who briefed me thought that he chaired it. I suspect that that was a sign of his influence on them. I took the point he made that we should not expect to replicate best practice in a voluntary sense; we need an engine to spread it in a more statutory way.
1522
I turn to the points made by the Minister on the health improvement plan. If we are not careful, as the Bill goes through the House the Minister will accuse all those who believe in having a pro-active set of national standards of being centralisers. I do not believe that the essence of devolution is to simply wriggle about and say, "I'm sorry; this is not really something we can legislate for or be prescriptive about". "Prescriptive" is a weasel word which has perhaps come back to haunt this side of the Chamber. In the past, we have accused the Government of being over-prescriptive. But there is a median way. The detailed implementation in a decentralised system is a matter for the local primary care trust and the people on the ground. However, when it comes to stating national standards as to how one produces a health improvement plan and what it can contain, one can be entirely strategic in those circumstances.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for giving way. I do not disagree with him when he says that it is right and, indeed, a duty for the Government to set the strategic framework in which HIMPs are developed. That is what we seek to do in the planning priorities guidance that we issue to the health service. That attempts to give a strong steer to the health service on the core priorities it needs to develop. I said earlier that Members of this place can raise a matter which they feel is important—we all agree that eye services are important—but the cumulative effect of treating every service with the same degree of priority would be to end up with a situation in which the health service is presented with 300 different priorities. As we have already discussed in our debates on Clause 1, that would mean ending up with a situation in which there are no priorities.
Lord Clement-Jones: I entirely accept that. I have read all the previous public health White Papers and Green Papers and know about the four key areas of government concentrations and so forth. The argument is not about setting priorities in those terms but about how many targets we set to try to get those priorities implemented. That is where some of the argument about micro-management is concerned. The setting of broad priorities for action is entirely satisfactory. Perhaps the essence of the argument today in terms of low-vision services is to try to push them higher up the agenda in the health service. That is an appropriate way to proceed. I detect that in the second half of his response the Minister accepted some of the argument in that respect.
Therefore, it is not inappropriate to consider that health improvement plans should address that issue. We believe that they should cover a wide range of matters. Expecting them to cover this matter without stating the way in which they should deal with it or the priority it should be accorded is perfectly proper and an entirely strategic way to approach the matter.
I turn to more positive ground. I believe that the Minister gave quite a lot of encouragement in response to the gentle prodding point raised by the noble Earl,

1523
Lord Howe. It would be inconsistent of those on this side of the House to expect PCTs, on top of all the other matters with which they have to deal—we have dealt with that in earlier parts of the Bill—to be over-prodded at this stage in terms of those services. However, I welcome the Minister's commitment that at the end of the 18-month evaluation period by the implementation group there will be a review to see how those services are developing, to see whether the voluntary approach has worked, and then to report hack. It is important that the six-monthly progress reports are published and that there is proper dialogue with all the groups to which I have previously referred. That is a fairly formidable coalition. It is highly significant that that has now been formed.
I take encouragement from the Minister. However, I believe that we may well need to return to the matter, depending on the evaluation that takes place after that period. We can always guarantee that there will be a health Bill passing through this place again. Even if we do not return to the matter on Report, we may well return to it in a future Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 86:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
"REPORT ON BODIES ACCOUNTABLE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare each year in relation to the bodies set out in subsection (2) a report dealing with the matters set out in subsection (3) and shall lay a copy before both Houses of Parliament.
(2) The bodies referred to in subsection (1) are any body—

(a) over which the Secretary of State has powers of appointment;

(b) for Which he provides the majority of its funding;

(c) which he may direct as to the conduct of its business,

but shall not include Health Authorities, NHS trusts or Primary Care Trusts.
(3) The report shall contain in relation to each of the bodies referred to in subsection (2)—

(a) its name;

(b) the nature of the Secretary of State's relationship with the body;

(c) details of the exercise of any of the Secretary of State's powers during the previous year;

(d) the amounts provided to the body;

(e) how the annual report and accounts of the body may be obtained; and

(f) the Secretary of State's opinion as to the continued need for the body or, if he is of the opinion that the body is no longer needed, how he plans to proceed."

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 86 inserts a new clause after Clause 22 dealing with the various bodies for which the Secretary of State has responsibility.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who I am sorry is not in his place, spoke about the Government suffering from "quangoitis" and being determined to convert the NHS into a 'quangocracy". It seems that the Government's
1524
instinctive reaction to any problem is to set up one or more new bodies. Since 1997 they have created a long list of bodies: the Human Genetics Commission; the Genetics and Insurance Committee; the NHS Information Authority; the Commission for Health Improvement; the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; the Health Development Agency; the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency; the NHS Logistics Authority; the General Social Care Council and its equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the National Care Standards Commission; and the National Patient Safety Agency. There are probably others which I have missed.
In this Bill alone we have a multitude of patients forums, far more than the CHCs which they will replace. We have the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and the council for the regulation of health care professionals. Since the Bill has been published, the Government have announced, in their response to the Bristol report, the setting up of a council for quality of healthcare. In January, the Chief Medical Officer announced a new national infection control and health protection agency. Only a week or so ago the Secretary of State announced a new board of patient choice trustees. There is no sign that the Government's zeal for new quangos is diminishing.
I am not seeking to debate the merits of any of those bodies individually. The amendment merely asks for an annual report setting out who the bodies are, their relationship with the Secretary of State, the money provided to them and where their annual report and accounts may be obtained. Importantly, the report should also give the Secretary of State's opinion as to the continued need for the body. If nothing else, it would be an opportunity for the Secretary of State to reflect on the size and nature of his quango empire. It would also give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to consider the issue too.
I am aware that much of this information is already available in other places, for example, in an annex to the Department of Health's explanatory plans and information on the Cabinet Office website. The aim of the amendment is to bring together all relevant information relating to the Department of Health once a year and, crucially, to ask the Secretary of State to give his views as to the continued need for the bodies. That, in turn, would approve the accountability of the Secretary of State for the bodies that he has created. I hope that the Minister is in favour of increased accountability and will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I support the amendment as it is an exceedingly good idea. I went to the launch of a new body last night. It was launched most eloquently by the Minister. It was to do with safety, but I cannot remember the full title.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is the National Patient Safety Agency.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: That is a most important issue and I am sure that the agency will grow. It would

1525
be useful to have a list of quangos, as it is useful to know how important they are. On matters such as the control of infections in hospitals, for example, we could see how they were doing and the progress on all sorts of issues such as food and so on. The amendment is an excellent idea which I hope the Government will support.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I cannot see the need for this information because it is already available. I was not sure whether the noble Baroness wanted more information, different information or more information in a different form.
I currently chair a non-departmental public body which is sponsored by the DCMS, and I am the former chair of a Department of Health-sponsored body—the GSCC. My experience is that NDPBs and all other bodies already produce huge amounts of information, all of which is available to the public. They are required by the Secretary of State to produce strategic plans, business plans, annual reviews and they must meet all kinds of performance targets, including administration costs.
Clearly they are responsible to Parliament through the Secretary of State. Their boards are appointed through open advertisements by an independent panel and then approved by the Secretary of State. In terms of justifying their continued need, I believe that adequate information structures and systems already exist. I am reluctant to see further requirements being imposed on them, so that they have to spend more time reporting than doing the job that they were set up to do.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree with the noble Baroness about that, but the point of the amendment is probably that it is very much easier to set up a quango than to close it. I do not know whether the noble Barones has ever chaired anything that the Secretary of State tried to close. I have, and the Secretary of State did not close it. It is really quite difficult to shut something down.
We cannot have an ever-expanding empire when some bodies have passed their sell-by date. Whether or not the amendment is the right way to do it, the point is that subsection (3)(f) would require the Secretary of State to say whether the body was still necessary and, if not, what he will do about it. He has to say it with the knowledge of Parliament because the matter will be laid before Parliament. That is the point of the amendment, and if some way could be found to keep that requirement, it would be very helpful. A mushrooming of quangos is not a good idea if some of them are no longer necessary.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clearly we do not want unnecessary quangos. I accept that, and it is important that all the activities of non-departmental bodies are kept under close review. If evidence arises that the job can be done better by other means, or that certain
1526
bodies are no longer required because life has moved on, I am all in favour of bringing their activities to an end.
The Government have looked at many non-departmental public bodies and have made changes. For example, we debated the proposals of the Chief Medical Officer on Monday on the surveillance and public health arena. It is proposed that one agency should be established in place of four existing agencies. There are other examples of the Government looking at rationalising non-departmental public bodies.
It is also significant that a number of the bodies to which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred—the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also mentioned the National Patient Safety Agency—carry out important functions in terms of national standard setting. I am thinking about NICE or the Commission for Health Improvement investigating the quality of services at local level, or the National Patient Safety Agency to which National Health Service organisations will report adverse events. From that reporting, we hope to learn ways of improving the quality and safety of healthcare services. Those are important matters that need to be dealt with.
I would also argue that, having established such national bodies, enabling us to develop national standards, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred in the previous amendment, we are then in a much better position to decentralise. We can allow, within that national framework setting, National Health Service organisations at local level to have a much greater ability to decide their own destiny. Throughout the Bill we shall continually debate the balance between national standard setting and local determination. I am convinced that the establishment of a number of agencies at national level will allow us to decentralise more decision-making to local level.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that openness about the roles and responsibilities of non-departmental public bodies is desirable in health, as across government generally. The Government's wish to promote increased accountability and openness for all quangos led to the publication of the measures in Quangos: Opening the Doors. Considerable progress has been made in this area in the past four years.
As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley suggested, there does not seem to be much point in publishing again, in another format, information about the Department's quangos that is already available from other sources. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned the Cabinet Office's annual publication, Public Bodies, which already contains the majority of information dealt with by the amendment, including that for all the Department of Health's non-departmental public bodies.
In addition, the bodies themselves publish their own annual reports, including on the Internet, which gives that much more detail than is contained in the Cabinet Office's publication. Ministers remain accountable to Parliament for non-departmental public bodies. That includes informing Parliament about decisions

1527
relating to the reviewing and abolition of such bodies. It is notable that the Select Committees of your Lordships' House and in another place frequently examine the performance of those non-departmental public bodies. They frequently call in the chair and chief executive of those bodies for what can only be described as fairly searching examination. In addition, if the Secretary of State were to issue any written directions to these bodies, that fact would be published in the department's annual report. We would expect that the bodies concerned would wish to make a similar statement in their own annual reports.
I am convinced from my own experience in dealing with a number of the bodies mentioned in the debate that each of those bodies is under no illusion that we consider it very important that they are open about their activities: that they constantly examine the work that they do; and that they are encouraged to ensure that reports about their activities are published and put into the public domain. On that basis, I do not think that the amendments, while I understand their thrust, are necessary.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that response. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for their support for the amendment.
In tabling the amendment I was trying to draw attention to the multiplicity of the created bodies. The Minister referred to the 2001 publication, Public Bodies. It shows that the Department of Health had at that time 69 bodies. The number is sure to have increased since then. The empire is growing. I understand and do not dispute that having certain kinds of agencies could lead to the ability to support further decentralisation. Indeed, at this stage I am not seeking to dispute the merits of any one of the bodies that I have mentioned or any one of the 69. My point was to draw attention to the increasing number of bodies and the increased use of non-departmental public bodies to undertake functions at the core of the Department of Health.
I am grateful to the Minister. I shall think carefully about what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 88:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
"NHS REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
In respect of registration of persons proposing to practise in the National Health Service, section 19(3)(a) of the Medical Act 1983 (c. 54) (full registration of persons by virtue of recognised overseas qualifications) shall apply as though the words "other than the United Kingdom" are omitted."
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 are quite closely related amendments. They spring from a perception of the minefield that any UK citizen who qualifies in a medical school abroad has to step through before he or she can practise in this country.
1528
Amendment No. 88 deals with the International English Language Testing System, the IELTS. Section 19(1)(b) of the Medical Act 1983 stipulates that an applicant for full and provisional registration must satisfy the registrar of the GMC,
"that he has the necessary knowledge of English".
IELTS was adopted as a means of assessing linguistic proficiency following a recommendation from a Department of Health working group. It assesses skills in reading, writing, speaking and listening to English. But nationals of the EEA member states, other than the United Kingdom and others with what are called "enforceable EC rights", are exempt from having to demonstrate proficiency in English as a result of amendments to the Medical Act 1983.
The GMC admits that it would prefer 10 test EEA nationals but it is illegal to do so because EU laws prevent discrimination against EU citizens on the basis of language. Therefore, the people who have to take the test are by and large any UK citizen who qualified outside the EEA and any non-EU citizen who qualified outside the UK. That means that someone who is British but has trained outside the EEA— loosely speaking the EU, but slightly wider—has to take an English language test. That is rather an absurd anomaly that our amendment seeks to get rid of.
It should be noted that there is actually no legal requirement for a Briton who has trained outside the EEA to take the language test. It was the GMC's decision to adopt the language test. It is not mentioned as such in the Medical Act. All that is legally required is for the GMC registrar to be satisfied that a test would be a waste of time and money. So it would be possible for the GMC in these circumstances to get rid of the IELTS requirement.
I do not know whether the Minister has had the opportunity to look at the table produced by the GMC of the tests that are required. The table covers both the PLAB and the IELTS tests. It is almost completely incomprehensible to a lay person. Therefore, we have this absurd situation which I have outlined. We also have the potentially problematic situation of art EU national—no matter where in the world he or she qualified—who speaks no English at all, starting a job in a British hospital without taking any kind of language assessment. It is not possible to get rid of this because of the EU anti-discrimination aspect, but at least we can get rid of the situation where a UK citizen has to take the test even though English is his first language. The amendment would change that situation so that UK citizens would not have to take the language test no matter where they trained.
I move to the second amendment and turn to the PLAB exam. I want to use the example of a medical school that is well known to many Members of the Committee. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, is in his place. I know that a number of noble Lords have connections with St George's University School of Medicine. I want to use it as an example of some of the problems that arise as a result of current requirements.
St George's University School of Medicine is 25 years old. This international school boasts an extremely high standard of education for medical

1529
students from the USA and from some 30 countries in the world. The standard of success of students can be measured by equating the results of the intermediate examinations which have to be undertaken by American students—currently, 70 per cent of students come from America—compared with USA standard schools. Last year, the results of the two examinations show that St George's has an equal if not improved pass rate in these relative exams. Basic sciences are taught on the islands of Grenada and St Vincent. Following that, students have an option of completing their clinical training either in the USA or in the UK.
What then follows for students who have qualified at St George's University and who then want to practise in the UK? They are able to come and practise in the UK in two ways. First, they must pass what is called the UEB examination. That examination is set and examined by the Society of Apothecaries. Hitherto students who wished to take the examination were assessed by certain UK universities. Having been signed off by the local dean as satisfactory, students were permitted to take this examination. Passing it gave the students registration with the GMC to work in the UK.
The second method of being able to practise in this country is taking and passing what is called the PLAB exam. That examination is set and examined by the GMC and consists of a theoretical and practical examination. In addition, all doctors applying for limited registration with the GMC must have obtained a satisfactory score, as I described earlier, in the academic modules of the IELTS.
The UEB examination in its present form will be changed dramatically. It will not, it now seems, be applicable to St George's students. All students from St George's have been told that in future they will have to take the IELTS and PLAB examinations in order to practise medicine in the UK.
So the spotlight then turns on to PLAB and the requirements for taking that exam. Older, traditional Commonwealth universities whose students have automatically received full registration in the UK include countries like South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, and the University of the West Indies. They were not required to take the PLAB exam. But the GMC has intimated that it wishes to discontinue with this so-called "elite" group of universities to level the playing field, so that overseas applicants who wish to work in this country will all have to take the PLAB examination.
It seems rather topsy-turvy to get rid of this group. One may not think that it is appropriate to have a specific elite group of universities drawn from a very narrow group of traditional universities, but we on these Benches, together with St George's University, feel that the standard of medicine as taught by the medical school at St George's is such that it is at least equal to this élite group.
Instead of disbanding that group as giving automatic exemption from PLABs, it should be increased so that a number of international medical
1530
schools with sufficiently high standards, as approved by the GMC, are able to gain full registration. The reason is that we have an acute shortage of doctors in this country. The Government are trying to increase the number of medical school places but that will take time. Meanwhile, 10,000 new GPs are needed and another 7,500 home-grown consultants by 2004—the Government's target. All that the Government are doing in recruiting consultants abroad will not plug the gap. To meet present contractual arrangements, an extra 3,500 physicians are needed at this moment— which does not include any consideration of the working time directive.
Along with other medical schools world-wide, St George's University School of Medicine has the capacity and expertise to train UK students who are unable to start training, perhaps because of a lack of available slots in the United Kingdom. It seems sensible to bring some order to the process whereby UK students do not have to take the IELTS and the PLAB if their medical school is of a sufficient standard. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments, perhaps discuss the subject with the GMC and look favourably on the principles involved. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I realise that the noble Lord was talking beyond the European Union but I recollect serving on an inquiry about an EU directive which determined that while member states may have to accept individuals working in a particular profession, they may set the standards required. The list of qualifications to which Amendment No. 89 refers would exist for that purpose. Speaking English is obviously a requirement for anyone working in this country. Did not the GMC bring that aspect into the consultation?
Lord Clement-Jones: The amendments are not directed at a UK citizen practising within the EU as regards PLAB but only as regards the IELTS.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: But presumably a European Union citizen practising in this country would be affected by that directive.
Lord Clement-Jones: The two amendments only relate to UK citizens, not to cross-border working by EU citizens outside the UK.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I apologise. I misunderstood.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: I support the noble Lord's two amendments. I declare an interest as a member of the academic board of St George's University.
The noble Lord clearly explained the intricacies of British graduates returning to this country from medical schools overseas. In the past, I have been associated with the University of the West Indies. Graduates from that university's medical schools on

1531
three islands can come to this country without let or hindrance in many ways. It is anomalous that graduates of a school in Grenada of equal quality cannot do so.
By virtue of the fact that we are short of medical graduates, one could at the stroke of a pen increase the number available and the number going for training. St George's is already set up. If the amendments were carried, it is likely that a greatly increased number of British graduates would take a medical degree at St George's University.
I remind the Committee that the medical programme at St George's is to take the pre-clinical and some of the para-clinical teaching in Grenada. Then the clinical students are farmed out to selected clinical departments in the United States and this country. There is of course a tendency for the United States students to go to the US and for the British students to come here. When graduation takes place, we have British graduates who have been trained at clinical level in British medical schools. Consequently, they are entirely familiar with medical issues, programmes and problems in this country. Such a development would certainly be convenient to the medical profession in terms of supplying well-trained graduates for our health service.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: I support the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Soulsby. I am confident that my noble friend the Minister is aware of concerns that the provision in question exists for one purpose only—to discriminate unfairly against individuals who obtain their medical degrees outside the so-called white Commonwealth. I understand that the GMC is concerned about that distinction at a time when we freely speak about globalisation. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will undertake to look again at that suspect wording because I understand that the GMC would like the distinction abolished.
Lord Filkin: The amendments raise interesting and important issues in the context of the NHS seeking to ensure an adequate number of trained professionals.
It has been recognised in statute for some years as right and necessary that the GMC should satisfy itself about the English language ability of a person who qualifies in medicine overseas. The only exception is our treaty obligation to our European partners to allow freedom of movement by EU nationals. That does not mean that a French doctor would be able to practise in the UK if his English language skills were poor. He would have a right to register with the GMC but it would still be perfectly possible for a health authority or health trust seeking to employ such a person to satisfy itself that he was suitable by having adequate fluency in English. We need not be fearful that the measure is leading to something grossly inappropriate.
To be fair to all who apply for registration, it is right that the GMC must have a rule of some kind and that it should have as few exceptions as possible. For example, the rule should apply also to people who are British citizens. One can imagine cases where a British
1532
citizen emigrated at a young age and may not have the facility in English needed to be a doctor in this country. The GMC wants to be as helpful as possible, both to be fair and because it appreciates the value to the UK of people with overseas qualifications who want to work here. While we do not think that the amendment is the right route, it may be helpful to get the GMC to reconsider how it satisfies itself under its obligations of English language ability. The standard test may not always be necessary, but that is a matter of GMC policy rather than law. I understand that the GMC will follow carefully today's debate and take from it lessons for consideration.
The new clause is also wrong to confine itself to people wanting to work in the NHS. There should be one standard for registration, regardless of a person's intended employment in health professions. So while I cannot support the amendment, II understand the sentiments that motivate it and hope that a solution can be found as I have suggested. If the Government were persuaded in future, in the light of fuller consideration by the GMC, that a change in the law was necessary, an order under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999 would provide an appropriate vehicle.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is correct to say that there is no legal requirement for a British citizen to take a language test. The Act requires that the registrar of the GMC is satisfied that applicants—including British citizens, unless they have EU rights—have the necessary knowledge of English. The test itself is not a requirement of the Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, raised the issue of the directive. We think that it is probably the directive on the mutual recognition of medical qualifications. No, it is not. We shall keep searching.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry for raising the matter without having checked it. I thought that it might be helpful to ensure that the Government had considered that in replying to the amendment. I am sorry if I have wasted the Committee's time.
Lord Filkin: We shall have a further opportunity to reflect on that and, if appropriate, give a subsequent answer. We will of course need to check the specific relevance to the issues we are discussing today.
Amendment No. 89 is also unnecessary. It would compel the GMC to maintain a list of recognised overseas qualifications. As the Committee will know, the GMC already does so and I am unaware of any case in which people seeking a registration or wanting to check a doctor's registration have had any difficulty getting the GMC to share the list with them.
However, this is a good point at which to say something about the substantive issue of recognised overseas qualifications, which several. Members of the Committee have raised. There have been concerns that provisions of the Medical Act 1983 discriminate unfairly against those who obtained their medical degrees outside the so-called white Commonwealth. My noble friend Lady Howells was clear on that point. The GMC would like that distinction abolished and,

1533
broadly speaking, we share its view. It proposes—and we support it—to abolish the status of recognised overseas qualification that degrees from 22 universities currently hold. Graduates from those universities will then be in the same position as those from the hundreds of other institutions world-wide whose medical courses are recognised by the World Health Organisation. They would have to demonstrate their competence at the point of registration—as do graduates from the United States or, say, India, currently.
The Government, in the light of the GMC's consideration, will use the next suitable Section 60 order to make the necessary amendments. Discussions with the GMC have already begun on that, and we plan to lay the order before Parliament later in 2002 after full consultation in the normal way.
Some important points were raised about St George's. My noble friend Lord Hunt recently met representatives of St George's Hospital and a group of hospital friends in the UK. He has asked departmental officials to consider the issues raised. He recognises the potential and quality of the medical education at St George's. While the Government's approach is not exactly the same as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in Amendment No. 89, we feel that it is an appropriate manner in which to proceed. It will ensure that there is no unfair discrimination and that suitably qualified medical people are able to practise in the UK. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether the provision includes doctors from South Africa.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I am fairly certain that the system that I described would apply to doctors from all around the world, and would therefore include those from South Africa.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his reply, which, as he said, was not entirely in line with what I want. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, for their support for the amendments. They seek to ensure that we make the best of a potential pool of properly qualified, well-trained graduates and that there is no discrimination in favour of white Commonwealth universities—a phrase used by both the Minister and the noble Baroness. It is important that we are not in the business of levelling down. That is where the current GMC proposals and what the Minister had to say are unsatisfactory.
I understand the issue about the IELTS. It may well be possible to persuade the GMC not to apply it to UK citizens. I take the Minister's point about it being up to hospital trusts to vet their doctors, but there is considerable pressure on trusts to take on doctors. If they are already registered on the basis that they have a somewhat rudimentary knowledge of English, it is
1534
difficult not to accept them. The essential check is on registration, and UK citizens are being required to take a language test at that point. That seems rather anomalous.
I agree with the Minister that it is perhaps not entirely appropriate to legislate on the matter, but he then went on to say that a change may be made by regulation under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999.
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord for giving way; perhaps I can remark on one or two points. First, British citizenship is not a guarantee of adequate fluency in English. Secondly, a health authority or trust would be grossly irresponsible if it sought to employ someone who did not appear to be sufficiently fluent to carry out his medical duties. There is no more to be said on that. They must act responsibly; they are public protectors. We should rest with comfort that those people treat those responsibilities seriously. Finally, after due consultation, the House will have an opportunity to consider any proposed order, as is right and proper.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that clarification. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we believe that hospital trusts have the appropriate mechanisms to vet those doctors who have been registered and apply to them for vacancies— in other words, that they are capable of assessing their language skills—why should that not apply to UK citizens as well? UK citizens are labouring under a disadvantage. If citizens of Italy or France do not have to take the IELTS and we rely on the hospital or trust to vet them, why cannot we do the same for UK citizens, who, percentage wise, have a far better chance of speaking English? The Minister has made my case in his intervention.
Secondly, the GMC may be barking up the wrong tree. I have had some discussions and I believe that the levelling-down point is important. To say that the concept of an elite group of white Commonwealth universities whose product is regarded as fulfilling the requirements and, ipso facto, does not have to take the PLAB exam is clearly discriminatory and therefore should be abolished seems to be going in the wrong direction. There should be a broader, more inclusive group of universities, such as St. George's, which I described, which qualify as far as the GMC is concerned and whose graduates are not required to take PLAB.
This is a minefield. We must recognise the quality and potential of individuals coming out of those universities. That would best be done by exempting them from the PLAB examination. The purpose of encouraging UK citizens to take up places at those high-quality universities is lost if there is the major disincentive of two hurdles to overcome: first, the IELTS, and secondly, the PLAB. I could quote examples of constituents of honourable friends in the other place, who have been offered jobs in hospitals but find that they are unable to find a place for a test. Therefore the hospitals lack their presence and in some

1535
cases such doctors may lose their jobs due to the bureaucracy of the exams and the shortage of time or place for them to sit them in order to qualify.
That is a significant disincentive for a young student considering where he is going to qualify and undergo his medical training. A good deal more discussion needs to take place. The passage of the Bill may not be the best place for it, but the airing of the subject today has been 'valuable. I thank the Minister for his consideration and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Expenditure of NHS bodies]:
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
"REGIONAL STRUCTURE
(1) If in any year the Department of Health has directors of health and social care who have regional responsibilities or if it has regional offices, regional directors or any other regional structure, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament each year a report containing the matters set out in subsection (2).
(2) The report shall contain—

(a) the names and qualifications of the relevant directors;

(b) the geographic regions covered by the relevant directors;

(c) a description of the functions, responsibilities and accountabilities of the relevant directors;

(d) the number of staff reporting to the relevant directors and details of the functions of those staff;

(e) details of the premises occupied by the relevant directors and their staff;

(f) the total cost of the work of the relevant directors and their staff;

(g) a description of the relationship between the relevant directors and the National Health Service trusts, Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities within their regions;

(h) a description of the relationship between the relevant directors and the Secretary of State;

(i) a description of the targets or objectives which have been set for the relevant directors and their staff for the year which is covered by the report;

(j) a description of the manner in which the relevant directors and their staff have conducted their functions during the year, including whether they have met the targets and objectives set for them; and

(k) a description of the targets or objectives which have been set for the relevant directors and their staff for the following year.

(3) In this section "relevant director" means a person who is designated a director of health and social care with regional responsibilities or a person who is in charge of a region, regional office or other part of a regional structure of the Department of Health."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to introduce art annual report on the activities of the new directors of health and social care and any other regional directors that exist or may exist in the future. In the days which some of us now refer to as "the good old days", there was a regional tier in the NHS. There were 14 regional health authorities with full boards
1536
and local accountability. For good reasons, that tier was largely removed in the 1990s, although many of the activities formerly carried out by the staff of the RHAs continued to be carried out under a new guise, with the staff becoming the eight regional offices of the NHS Executive, each led by a regional director.
Now the regional directors have disappeared, or are in the process of disappearing, and there are four directors of health and social care covering four areas of the country, although I understand that the regional offices will not disappear until March 2003.
Although not called "regional directors", these directors carry regional responsibilities. They are described on the Department of Health's website as being,
"4 Regional Directors (who) will provide a link between the Department of Health and the frontline NHS and social services".
That link is important and needs to he made transparent.
I know that on our first Committee day the Minister was at pains to say that the new directors of health and social care are not an extra tier in the NHS but are really a part of the NHS headquarters—a sort of headquarters in the country. Amendment No. 92 does not rest on whether that is a tier as such. It rests on the very existence of the posts which have a potentially significant role in how the NHS operates in practice.
The directors of health and social care have the potential for great influence within the NHS. They generally operate out of the public eye, but occasionally we get a glimpse of what they do. A recent example is a letter written by Mrs Carnall, the director with responsibility for the South, who told her health authorities and trusts that a projected £60 million overspend was "totally unacceptable" and that they must find "solutions". I ask the Minister in whose name the regional directors describe matters as "totally unacceptable"? We have to assume that they speak on the Secretary of State's behalf. That is why we need to see what they do and how they do it.
There is a description of the activities of the four directors in Shifting the Balance of Power, but it is difficult to see these activities providing much for the directors to do, let alone the 40 staff that each of them will have, and that number excludes staff who will work for the regional directors of public health. But "trouble shooting" is listed as one of the roles. Will the directors troubleshoot strategic health authorities, primary care trusts, NHS trusts, general practitioners, or all of those? What powers will they have'' How will they in practice carry out their tasks?
Many questions can legitimately be asked about the four directors. Amendment No. 92 seeks to put some basic facts into the public domain about the directors, their staff, what they do, how they do it and how much they cost. I see that information as shedding light into a corner of the Department of Health which has become obscure over the years. It will provide a good springboard for the Health Select Committee in another place to look at what the directors do and it

1537
may also provide an opportunity for your Lordships' House to debate the role and function of that part of the NHS.
But it is not only the relationship of the directors to the NHS that is important. The Local Government Association has expressed its support for the amendment as,
"one way of tackling the lack of clarity that currently exists in relation to the social care remit",
of the directors. It has welcomed the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the role and purpose of the four new health and social care directors and describe how they relate to the existing regional offices. I hope that he will also describe how and to whom they are accountable. I hope that he will welcome the increased knowledge of their work which would come about if the amendment were accepted. In the interests of transparency, I beg to move.
Lord Smith of Leigh: I share some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. However, she is looking in the wrong direction to some extent. We should be looking at the role regional authorities can play in England in managing matters themselves. The noble Baroness is right that those bodies could have influence in the regions. Health matters and decisions about spending affect local areas significantly. They affect employment, regeneration and other matters important to the regions. It is vital that regional health strategies meet the strategies of other bodies that affect the regions.
Regionalism in England is on the march. Regions are beginning to recognise what they are missing out on. A BBC opinion poll in my region of the North West today states that 72 per cent of people would welcome the setting up of devolution in England. In answering the question, I hope that my noble friend will assure us that once devolution for England is proposed in the forthcoming legislation, health in those areas will not be forgotten. Meanwhile, I hope that the health bodies will talk to their regional partners to make sure that the strategies line up.
Lord Clement-Jones: That was fighting talk from the Back Benches opposite. It is great to see such support for regionalism from the Government Benches. Sometimes one does not see quite the same level of enthusiasm from the Front Bench.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I shall pass on the issue of regional government, though I warm to the noble Baroness's sentimental look back at the good old days of regional health authorities. I am beginning to think she should form an annual dinner where we meet to celebrate the past successes of those wonderful organisations.
Of course, it was the previous government who removed the old regional authorities, set up regional offices and then kept this rather peculiar role and
1538
office of regional chairman to straddle alongside the regional offices, which frankly did not work. I note also that the previous government did not feel it necessary to put into place the kind of reporting mechanism which the noble Baroness is suggesting today.
I want to make it clear, as I did in our earlier debate, that these directorates of health and social care are headquarters directorates of the Department of Health. It would not be appropriate for them to be the subject of separate processes of annual reporting.
I know the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, disagrees with me about the significance of those directorates not being a separate tier of the NHS. But it is an extremely important issue. The four directorates of health and social care are members of the Department of Health's management board. They will between them have the main responsibility for working directly with the NHS and performance managing strategic health authorities.
That role will involve the oversight and development of health and social care, ensuring that local health and social care communities are developed in an integrated way to deliver modernised services and supporting the Chief Executive and the Chief Inspector of Social Services at the Department of Health in assessing the performance of the whole system. In public health, the director for health and social care will have a regional director of public health and public health team co-located with each government office. I have already made clear that the regional directors of public health will be jointly accountable to the directors of health and social care, and to the Chief Medical Officer. They will be managing, as part of a national programme, the appointment, development and succession of senior management staff. They will be supporting Ministers through casework, ministerial visits and local intelligence.
As the noble Baroness said, they will deal with troubleshooting. I am fairly clear what that means. It means getting involved when things look as though they are going wrong; banging heads together—as the noble Baroness will be aware, I am very keen on that—and dealing with issues as they arise within the region for which they are particularly responsible. In the first instance they play a major role in developing the new organisations, maintaining close involvement, whenever necessary, with strategic health authorities and focusing very clearly on performance management.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked a number of questions about the specifics of how it will all work, or at least her amendment seeks to adduce that information in the fullness of time. First, she is right that regional offices will not be formally wound up until March 2003, but the new directors start their work formally from April this year. The 12-month period is merely a transition to deal with any overlap. Obviously we want to avoid any duplication of effort between the regional offices and the new directors.

1539
In 2002–03 the running costs will amount to roughly £30 million rising to £34 million in the next two financial years. Clearly a number of matters have not yet been settled and I would not want to be held exactly to those figures.
The other point I would make is that those people are national directors. As I said, they have seats on the departmental hoard and we will expect them, alongside their regional responsibilities, to contribute to national work as well. It will be quite likely that a director of health and social care will also take on lead responsibility for national work as well. That reinforces my point that this is not an additional tier; these are merely senior officials of the Department of Health with specific responsibilities as part of their duties for a specific region in England. Accountability is quite clear. They will be accountable to the Chief Executive and Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health.
From what I have said, I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that it would be inappropriate to single out just four members of the management board of the Department of Health for special treatment in that way. I invite the noble Baroness therefore to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for his reply and for the information contained in it.
Perhaps I should say at the outset that, though I was grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, the amendment was not tabled with any zeal for regionalisation, as he might imagine. It was tabled with a zeal to understand the interface between the Department of Health and frontline NHS and social services, to use the language of the department's website.
I hear what the Minister said as to what will be happening. It will be interesting to see how it works out in practice, which is why the amendment was moved. I hear what he says about this not being a tier, though that is not important. What it encourages me to do is to look at the information available as to what all members of the Department of Health management hoard do; perhaps it should not be confined to these four directors of health and social care. More light perhaps needs to be shed on the workings of the management board in general. I should like to think about that further. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill begins again not before 8.37 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security Administration Act 1992 (Amendment) Order 2002
7.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this draft order is technical in nature so I shall be brief. It makes changes to the list of organisations that will be liable to provide information to the department and to local authorities for the purposes of combating benefit fraud. But it does not add any new categories of organisations to the list. It makes some changes to the definitions of organisations included, to bring them in line with current legislation, and it clears up some uncertainties and omissions from the original list, for the sake of clarity and the avoidance of doubt. An Explanatory Memorandum has been provided to assist your Lordships and I hope it has been of use.
The measures contained in this draft order are: first, to add the "Director of National Savings" to the list of those who may be required to provide information; secondly, to redefine banks and insurers so as to take account of recent changes brought about by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; thirdly, to add distributors of gas and electricity to the list of information providers.
I can quickly deal with each of those in turn. First, with regard to the Director of National Savings, it was always our intention that we should be able to obtain information about national savings products using these powers. We believed that by including "any bank" in the original list of information providers—Section 109B(2A) of the Social Security Administration Act as amended by the Social Security Fraud Act—we were also including national savings. However, while the definition of "bank"—in subsection (7) of Section 109B—mbraces the National Savings Bank, it does not extend to cover other national savings products such as premium bonds, national savings certificates, pensioner bonds, deposit bonds or capital bonds. Inserting a reference to the "Director of National Savings" in the list contained in Section 109B(2A) will enable authorised officers to obtain information about the full range of national savings products in line with our original policy intention.
Secondly, in terms of these regulations, the section on banks and insurers was also intended to be a purely technical change. We were aware at the time that the Social Security Fraud Bill was passing through its parliamentary stages, between December 2000 and May last year, that the coming into force of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the repeal of the Banking Act 1987 and the Insurance Companies Act 1982 would necessitate new definitions of "banks" and "insurers". This took place last year and the new definitions are a consequence of the coming into force of the 2000 Act. This is achieved in Article 2(b) and Article 3(a) and (b) of the draft order.

1541
The third push of these regulations concerns gas and electricity distributors. Over the past few months officials have been having meetings with those organisations affected by the new information gathering powers. In discussion with utility companies it has emerged that some clarification is needed. Following changes brought about by the Utilities Act 2000 there is now a clear demarcation in both the gas and electricity industries between companies who supply gas and electricity and companies who distribute these products. No one company can do both. For example, a distributor of electricity will carry electricity from the national grid to a particular property while a supplier will bill the householder for the electricity consumed.
While the fraud Act will allow for information to be obtained from a gas or electricity supply company, powers do not yet exist to require distribution companies to provide information as to the supplier to a particular household. The draft order provides for that to take place.
To conclude, we are making good progress in tackling fraud. Our latest figures show that in the two and a half years to March 2001 we have reduced the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 18 per cent, well ahead of the target we had expected to achieve by then. We expect this good progress to continue, but we need the tools to do the job, in particular access to information.
I repeat that these are technical, tidying up regulations. I shall do my best to answer questions. If not, I shall write to noble Lords. I commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as always, the noble Baroness has been helpful. We on this side of the House, like the Government, are against fraud. The noble Baroness and I spent many long hours improving the Social Security Fraud Act. It was certainly a great deal better when it went back to the Commons.
As she rightly points out, these proposals are essentially technical in nature and cover three main areas. I was puzzled at first as to why, since it was the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, we had not taken into account the changes which took place in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. There is no reason why one should not proceed by regulation but I was surprised that the same sdituation existed in relation to the Utilities Act 2000 and the electricity and gas distribution companies. The blame, if there is any, for what appears to be a failure to act, lies as much on this side of the House as on the other. We certainly need to tidy up the matter now.
With regard to banks and insurers, extension is clearly appropriate. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, this concerns a series of organisations where
1542
authorised persons—I gather about 175 of them—are able to obtain information on individuals, which may seek to confirm the firmly held belief by the department that someone is guilty of fraud. I have no points to make at all about banks.
So far as the electricity and gas distribution companies are concerned, the noble Baroness pointed out that the change in the structure means that the distribution companies would not be available, if that is the right expression, for inquiries to be made appropriately. Again, I see no problem with that; similarly as far as the Director of National Savings is concerned. The prospect of someone engaging in fraudulent activity by investing heavily in national savings seems to me a little unlikely. I suppose so far as premium bonds are concerned, to the extent that any gains are outwith the tax system altogether, that may prevent them from falling into the clutches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Inland Revenue.
I have only two other points to make. The boundary between the Department of Social Security and the Treasury gets more and more obscure—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Because we no longer have a Department of Social Security.
Lord Higgins: But, my Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, it seems to me much better title than "Work and Pensions" which sounds rather sordid. Anyway, all of this refers to the Social Security Administration Act which, if the department has disappeared totally, seems a little strange, but I leave that on one side.
I was saying that I have only two points to make. As the boundary gets more and more confused, am I right in thinking—I believe I am—that, for example, working families' tax credit is not caught by the provisions of the Social Security Fraud Act? Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us how it is to be dealt with.
In our debates on what became the Social Security Fraud Act we gave attention to the issue of credit rating agencies. I have become increasingly concerned about the way they operate. The noble Baroness will recall that it was agreed, rightly in my view on reflection, that the Government would not give information which it had to the credit rating agencies but would use credit rating agencies in the kind of inquiry we are discussing on the order.
My concern, reinforced by a recent article in Which? magazine, relates to the inaccuracy of the information which credit rating agencies provide and, more particularly, the delay in ensuring they give information only on the individual about whom the inquiry is made. At the moment they are still giving information on everyone else at the same address and all the other family members.
To the extent that both the noble Baroness and I were anxious to avoid fishing expeditions, we need to look carefully at the way in which these agencies operate and the action which is taken under the Social Security Fraud Act in making use of their services, no doubt paid for by the taxpayer.

1543
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. These are largely technical measures. We believe they will make the Act more effective and to that extent we support them.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear introduction to the order. Seeing all the regulations worried me at first. Reading through them, I discovered that it is merely a tidying up exercise and what the Minister said has certainly allayed any fears I had.
We have one or two slight moans about basic principles. The idea of needing more tax credits may make more fraud possible overall, but that is probably not a matter best discussed at this point. I am content with the explanation given by the Minister.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the response. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the Financial Services and Markets Act, I am not sure that I have an entirely persuasive answer but, with the help of my noble friend on my right, reinforced by help from my left, naturally on my left. I am told,—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am much more naturally on your right.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I carefully did not gloss that statement when I talked about my noble friend. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 did not come into force until after the Social Security Fraud Act was passed. It came into force fully on 1st December 2001. That is not an explanation about the drafting but the fact that they were running coterminously was, I suspect, part of the problem.
Obviously, tax credits are not benefits; they are credits. Therefore they do not come under the social security legislation. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has a different view about nomenclature here but, as a temporary member of the nomenklatura, I continue to insist that we are dealing with benefits here, not credits.
The noble Lord talked about credit rating agencies. He is right. He will know, I am sure, that in the last 18 months or so the regulation of these bodies has passed to what was the Data Protection Commissioner, now the Information Commissioner. I find that she herself has produced leaflets on complaints about credit reference file information and what should be done about it.
I do not know whether this is familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. She says that the most common complaints about credit reference files relate— it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is the recipient of all the complaints in that sense—to the amount of data which appears and particularly the fact that there may he information about a person other than the applicant for credit, the accuracy of the entry and the length of time for which the record appears to continue on the file. Therefore, the noble Lord's concerns are absolutely right.
1544
She goes on to specify there what must be done. She has already taken some enforcement action, and she shows how people may complain about the agency and not merely correct their information. I am very happy, if the noble Lord thinks this helpful, to make sure that such a leaflet is put into the Library of the House for general information. I think it is important to draw this to people's attention. I agree that it is a very serious matter.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Yes, I have been in telephone conversation with the office of the commissioner. It has been immensely helpful. If the Government are making use of this information, they should take it with a very considerable pinch of salt. My own experience recently, not necessarily personal but otherwise, is that much of the data is very poor indeed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept that entirely. The noble Lord will recall our discussions during the passage of the fraud legislation. I said, then that we would go to those agencies not only when we had found a discrepancy but also when we had strong grounds to believe that there was an irregularity that we wished, possibly, to clear up with the individual concerned—if he or she were the right person to give us the information. If not, we would consult other legitimate information providers. Therefore, we would only consult Experian, Equifax, or the like, in certain appropriate circumstances. That is only part of the range of materials we might need. Given the known unreliability in some cases of information received, I should be surprised if that was sufficient basis to do anything other than contribute to a jig-saw puzzle, if you like, of information.
The noble Lord is right to give us warnings in that respect. On the basis of what he said, I shall telephone the office tomorrow to see what information is held about me. We shall see whether my experience is the same as that of the noble Lord. Given those points, I hope that noble Lords will be content to pass the order tonight and thereby allow us to proceed on our way. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2002
7.52 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it has been suggested from the Opposition Front Bench that both this and the next order on the Order Paper should be debated at the same time. I am happy to agree to that proposal, if noble Lords are similarly content. I shall speak to both orders now. When debate on the first order is concluded, I propose to move the second order formally.

1545
I should, first, affirm that the provisions in the first order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
First, the order will reduce, from 11.9 to 11.8 per cent, the rate of secondary Class 1 contributions payable by all employers from April 2002 to recycle revenues arising from the introduction of the aggregates levy. It will thereby help to protect UK competitiveness.
Secondly, for the self-employed, it raises the small earnings exception below which, depending on the level of profits, they may claim exemption from Class 2 contributions. The exception will rise next April broadly in line with prices, from £3,955 to £4,025 a year. Given that the rate of Class 2 contributions for 2002–03 will remain at £2 a week, which is a reduction in real terms, it may be that many people will choose to pay the contributions in order to protect their benefit entitlement.
Staying with the self-employed, the draft order also sets the profits limits between which Class 4 contributions are paid. The lower limit at which contributions become due, and the upper limit, will increase broadly in line with inflation. The lower limit will rise in line with the income tax personal allowance, from £4,535 to £4,615 a year. At the other end of the scale, the upper profits limit will continue to match the upper earnings limit for employees, at £30,420 for 2002–03. This ensures that the self-employed pay Class 4 contributions on much the same range of earnings as employees liable to Class 1 contributions, and is an essential element in making the national insurance system fair for everyone.
Thirdly, the draft order deals with the weekly rate of voluntary Class 3 contributions, which help those with insufficient contribution records in any given tax year to make up a "qualifying year" for benefit purposes. The rate of Class 3 will rise next April by 10 pence to £6.85 a week, a standard re-rating in line with prices.
The review of contribution rates is accompanied by a report from the Government Actuary detailing the effects of the draft order, and the draft order up-rating benefits, laid by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on the National Insurance Fund. I am pleased to say that, for the fifth year in a row, there is no expectation that the fund will need a Treasury grant. Nevertheless, a prudent minimal provision is made in line with advice from the Government Actuary.
As happened last year, there is a single draft order for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a separate national insurance scheme from Great Britain, but the two schemes are closely co-ordinated and maintain parity of contribution rates. Following the transfer of policy, Northern Ireland's social security legislation was amended to enable the draft re-rating order to include corresponding measures for the Province.
I move now to the Tax Credits Up-rating Order 2002. Again, I confirm that the provisions in this order are compatible with the European Convention on
1546
Human Rights. The order increases the main rates and thresholds of working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit from 9th April this year by 1.71 per cent, in line with the increase in the Rossi index. In addition, as part of a package of more help for families with children with disabilities, it increases the disabled child tax credit and the enhanced disability tax credit for children within working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit by an extra £5 a week above indexation. These increases will boost the incomes of 1.3 million low income working families and disabled people who work.
Perhaps I may explain the provisions in a little more detail. The order increases the amount of credits for an adult, child, or young person, including the extra "30 hour" tax credit that a family receives when one earner works at least 30 hours a week, and the disabled and enhanced disability credits. These credits determine the maximum working families' tax credit or maximum disabled person's tax credit that the family or disabled person may receive.
The order also increases the income threshold for working families' tax credit and the thresholds for disabled person's tax credit. The thresholds—or "applicable amounts"—are the levels over and above which income begins to taper away the maximum award of the tax credits. The increases will provide a minimum income guarantee of £227 a week for a family with one child in receipt of working families' tax credit, £172 a week for a single person on disabled person's tax credit and £260 a week for a couple with one child on disabled person's tax credit. These figures are based on one earner in full-time work, working 35 hours a week and earning the national minimum wage.
The order ensures that the differentials between in-work tax credits and out-of-work benefits are maintained. It provides extra help, over and above indexation, for families with children with disabilities. It reflects this Government's commitment to encourage people into work, to make work pay, and to target extra support to those who need it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for his explanation of these two orders. It is helpful to take both orders together. As I said in the previous debate, a problem arises because of the extent to which the Treasury has taken over many of the former activities of what used to be called the Department of Social Security. As a result, there is now a considerable amount of overlap and confusion between the two departments.
We have before us an order that is a Treasury order—the draft Tax Credits Up-rating Order 2002— which uprates those benefits. Noble Lords on this side of the House certainly welcome the improvement made to the disabled person's tax credit and to the position of certain children and disabled adults, and so on. Indeed, that is certainly welcome. Of course, the

1547
noble Baroness and I debated a corresponding order on 17th March—I refer to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2002—which uprated a number of other benefits.
If we take those two lots of uprating together on, so to speak, the expenditure side, we must then consider what is happening on the income side. It seems to me that is the more interesting aspect of the matter. It is embodied in the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2002, which we are debating this evening. That covers the income side, rather than the expenditure side. I leave unanswered why it is that the order should be headed "Social Security", rather than "Work and Pensions" or why it is not the Work and Pensions (Contributions) and so on Order. That is a debating point that it would be rather sordid to raise.
There are important issues to be raised on the contributions side. Our debate on the matter on 7th March was wide-ranging, as is traditional. I do not propose to go anywhere near as wide this evening; I hope to keep within the confines of the matters raised by the order. I shall, however, make one point. There have been suggestions in the press in the past few days that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to increase national insurance contributions in order to fund increased expenditure on the National Health Service. I was rather surprised by that speculation—no doubt, it is speculation—because, as I understand it, national insurance contributions are nothing to do with the NHS, although they both originate in the Beveridge concepts. Perhaps, the Minister can confirm that.
On the contributions side, there is a report by the Government Actuary's Department. I find myself being increasingly suspicious of actuaries, particularly with regard to that report. We are told that it is based on the same assumptions as were made by the Chancellor in his pre-Budget statement, and it is apparent from the report that, as a result of the increases in benefits, to which I have already referred and which are partially covered by the other order, benefits will increase in the current year by £1,730 million. On the other hand, the re-rating order reduces the amount of revenue by £317 million in some areas and by £242 million in social security contributions. That is a total of £559 million. Expenditure has gone up by £1,730 million, and the contributions are going down by £559 million.
In a well worn phrase, the Minister described the fund as being at a reasonably prudent level. In fact, it is not. The actuary says that a reasonable working balance would be one sixth of annual expenditure. One sixth is a singularly inconvenient fraction if one wants to convert something into percentages. If we do convert them, we see that the balance for this year is, in fact, 52 per cent of benefit payments. The Minister says, "Oh well, it's a reasonably prudent balance at the moment", when the actuary regards it as one sixth and, in fact, it is over 50 per cent. That suggests that the balance is too high. Perhaps, the Minister might reasonably have recommended, had he been an actuary for a company pension scheme, that there
1548
should be a contributions holiday, preferably not for the Treasury but for those who contribute. I should declare my interest as chairman of a company pension scheme.
We seem to be accumulating more and more in the fund; so much that the Government Actuary's estimates are considerably out, when compared with what he said last year. The increase in the fund this year was, as he says in the report, substantial. He estimated that it would go up by £2.5 billion; it has gone up by nearly £5 billion. Not only is the balance, which is said to be prudent, way over what the actuary regards as prudent, but it has increased over the past year by nearly £5 billion. We are entitled to some explanation of why the contributions are being changed as they are, if that is the situation.
I have one or two other questions for the Minister about the Government Actuary's figures, on which the orders are based. On page 7 of the report, the actuary refers to an item that relates to what I have just said. The balance at the beginning of 2001–02 was £19,399 million, but, for 2002–03, it is £24,192 million. That confirms what I said.
Of particular interest are the questions raised in the Government Actuary's report and reflected in the orders about the state second pension. In paragraph 9 of page 5, the actuary says that the state second pension is, of course, about to come in in place of SERPS. The report says:
"The new accrual regime for the State Second Pension, which was introduced by the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, will come into force in April 2002. Earnings-related pension will accrue at 40% of earnings".
I shall not burden the House with the detail of what is said. However, the fact is that those accruals will go into the fund as such, without any distinction. The Government's declared intention is to switch from a situation in which 40 per cent of pensions are covered by the private sector and 60 per cent by the Government to the reverse situation. Perhaps, the time has come for the Government seriously to consider whether there is not a strong case for segregating the contributions that will be put into the state second pension, so that they are an identifiable fund.
There has been a mass of publicity in the past few days relating to the auditor's report and the rebates that are mentioned in it, suggesting that people ought to go back from a company system into the state second pension—or SERPS, at the moment. It is highly undesirable to have people switching back and forth between the state second pension and company pensions. It is because of the way in which the Government act in reaction to the Government Actuary's report that we find ourselves from year to year being unclear about whether the rebates are sufficient to push people in or out of the state second pension. A degree of stability would be desirable, as would a move to greater funding.
Those are my main points. I shall briefly ride my usual hobby horse. The whole of the Government Actuary's report is concerned with receipts and payments, not with the overall balance sheet of the fund. That still does not exist. I repeat my plea, which

1549
the Minister will have heard on several occasions, that it is high time that the Government Actuary was asked to estimate the liabilities of the fund. At the moment we have no clear idea of that. Given his previous commercial experience, I am sure that the Minister will agree that an operation which concerns itself only with receipts, payments and cash-flow and not with the balance sheet does not a give a clear indication to shareholders or, in this case, to taxpayers, of what is the actual underlying situation.
Having said that, although I have expressed some doubts with regard to the re-rating order, I certainly welcome the improvements in benefits on the other one.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the emphasis of my remarks will turn more to the second of the two orders, on which I have more distinct views. When it comes to national insurance orders, I always regard them as those addressing the tax that, in effect "dare not speak its name". When we change the figures, it is always important to bear very much in mind the general taxation position.
I am glad to say that we welcome the uprating of benefits. However, I have one query to put to the Minister about the general thinking behind the uprating. As a Treasury-based calculation, does it pay enough attention to general poverty rates and issues related to that?
Having made those few comments, we find nothing basically objectionable in the orders.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of these two orders. I shall try to respond to the points that have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, began by referring to speculation over recent days with regard to the rates and upper limits of national insurance contributions. Within a week of the Budget, the noble Lord will not expect me to make any comment on matters which are properly for the Budget, but he will be aware that ever since the election we have been consistent in our approach to these matters.
The noble Lord asked me a very interesting question about national insurance contributions and the National Health Service. It is a historical fact that part of the receipts from national insurance contributions goes to the National Health Service allocation. That figure this year is £7.3 billion. A comparable figure goes to the National Insurance Fund. I do not know how far back through the sands of time that division goes, but I rather like it as a concept. Indeed, I feel a little sentimental about it, just as I feel sentimental about the term "social security", which of course was originally Beveridge's phrase, but was changed to "national insurance" by post-war governments.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any of the money raised under the re-rating
1550
order before the House goes to the National Health Service? Does it appear at all in the Government Actuary's accounts?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is more complicated than that. A different proportion of each of the amounts goes to the National Health Service according to contribution rates. Again, I believe that there are historical rather than rational reasons for that, and thus there is no single figure. However, I have said that, broadly speaking, some £7 billion will go to the National Health Service allocation while, I think, a comparable figure will go into the National Insurance Fund. But it cannot be tied down to any particular contribution.
The noble Lord asked me about the balance on the National Insurance Fund and quoted from the report of the Government Actuary. Of course the figure of one-sixth of expenditure to which the Government Actuary refers is a minimum figure. The fact that the figure, at £24 billion—which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is quite correct to point out is substantially larger than that fraction—is the result of the fact that the balance on the fund is the difference between two very large figures indeed. Even what seems like the large figure of £24 billion is not such a large figure as all that. This is the fifth year that we have seen an increase in the balance of the fund. The point I wish to make here is that what we do about income and expenditure from the fund has to be consistent over a period of years.
If we were to over-react to a particular surplus in one year by allowing, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, a benefits or a tax holiday, that would be extremely dangerous. I do not believe that any government of the noble Lord's persuasion would want to do that either. We should remember that in 1993–94 there had to be a very substantial Treasury grant, which at that point in the economic cycle was not particularly appropriate.
The noble Lord also asked me about the state second pension and the case for an identifiable fund for it. He made the point that switching between the two schemes is undesirable. To an extent, I think that we have to admit that switching in and out of the state second pension, or in and out of its predecessor, SERPS, is to some extent inevitable if we have a situation such as that which pertains at the moment; that is, where the number of final salary schemes is reducing. If we see a much longer trend of people changing jobs a number of times during their working life and thus making final salary schemes less attractive, then clearly there will be more switching in and out. What we are much more concerned about is to ensure that, wherever it comes from, people should be making adequate provision for their pensions. The fact that those pensions might be made up from more than one source is not necessarily a bad thing.
The noble Lord's final question concerned the estimate of the liabilities of the fund. We are now just about within a week of moving over to resource accounting and the almost complete abandonment of cash accounting in the public accounts as the main

1551
measure. The point made by the noble Lord about having a balance sheet as well as an income and expenditure account is, to my mind, well made. It is one which I think should be brought up and deserves parliamentary time as we move towards the new method of public accounting.
Turning to the second order, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, whether we were using the correct index from the point of view of poverty. The point about using the Rossi index, which is RPI with certain housing costs excluded from it is, first, that it has been used for this purpose since 1983. There are advantages in consistency. Secondly, it maintains the differential between in-work and out-of-work provisions, as I hope I made clear when introducing the order. Different measures are used for different benefits and purposes in government.
Again, some of those measurements exist for historical reasons rather than for reasons which we could now rationally justify. For example, the fact that sometimes we take prospective RPI and sometimes past RPI is difficult to justify rationally, except on the basis of using a swing from one measure to another for base party political purposes. We are not doing that here.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits Up-rating Order 2002
8.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.37 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.20 to 8.37 p.m.]

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 11 [Duty of quality]:
Baroness Northovermoved Amendment No. 93:
Page 17, line 29, after "quality)" insert—
"( ) in subsection (1), after "or there is inserted "the Department of Health"; and"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was first proposed by my honourable friend Dr Evan Harris in another place. It seeks to include the Department of Health itself in the inspection process.
1552
The purpose of the amendment is simple. The danger is that CHI will spend its time inspecting the work of hospital and primary care trusts; but the trusts are simply doing what the department is asking of them.
Obviously, the Government must set priorities in the NHS. That is what they are elected to do, and they will be called to account at election time. But quite how their policy towards the health service is implemented depends a great deal on how the department itself operates.
If, as the Government claim, they do indeed manage to de-centralise, and also—as we seek—more proposals are brought directly to Parliament for approval, or if the NHS is put at arm's length from government, the role of the department might not be so critical. However, that is not the case—and will not be the case even if this Bill as drafted completes its passage. Therefore, the amendment explores the idea that it is also of key importance to patient care to see whether the actions of the Department of Health are also in the best interests of patients.
The Audit Commission has a remit over the Department of Health in terms of how resources are spent. So, for example, the Audit Commission has commented adversely on resources used to reduce waiting lists when these did not greatly assist in patient care. It was also argued by the Minister in the other place that CHI could comment on the commissioning procedure. But that is at a stage down the track from the Department of Health.
We in Parliament clearly have a key role to play in bringing the Government to account for actions within the Department of Health. But if it is indeed appropriate for the Audit Commission to assess whether the department is spending its resources wisely, then surely it is also worth considering having expert assessment of whether the Department of Health, in its priorities and procedures for running the health service, is actually acting at all times in the best interests of the patients.
It is often difficult to gain access to that information as parliamentarians. I point to a report in today's Guardian on the Commons Science and Technology Committee, investigating what is happening to resources for cancer. I have raised this matter previously, and sought Written Answers from the Minister last September. My question was: precisely what happens to money earmarked for cancer since so little of it seems to be reaching its intended target—this despite a government fanfare on the matter. The Guardian article quotes Gordon McVie, of Cancer Research UK, as wondering whether the money,
"has been absorbed like creosote into the fence post of the administration of the health service".
Quite so.
The Science and Technology Committee reports the difficulty of getting any information on this matter cut of the Department of Health. Clinicians on the ground dare say little, lest they offend against all the rules barring them from commenting. Surely there is a case for an inspection body having the right and the duty

1553
to go into the Department of Health to make its own investigations and recommendations. It might well say that the department had failed in the way that it had dispatched the money to protect it from marauding administrators trying to fill black holes. Or it could conclude that ring-fencing, when there were so many desperate needs in the health service, was inappropriate. Either way, its expert investigation and report would help to inform both parliamentarians—and indeed the electorate—who are supposed to be able to bring the Government to account.
I do not expect that the Minister will consider the amendment to be a very good idea; nor may those advising him. But while we seek ever more transparent and effective scrutiny procedures in the rest of the NHS, and of those working in the health professions, surely the Minister must also give consideration to such scrutiny closer to home. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I add my support to the amendment. I completely endorse everything that the noble Baroness has said. The odd thing about Section 18 of the Health Act 1999 is the narrowness of its compass. The duty of quality created in that section falls on health authorities, PCTs and NHS trusts. It is expressed as a duty,
"to put and keep in place arrangements for the purpose of monitoring and improving the quality of health care which it provides to individuals".
That section is one of the most important in the Act, yet something big appears to be missing from it. Like the noble Baroness, I am struck by the absence of any duty on the Department of Health or the NHS as a whole to promote quality in healthcare.
The Minister's reply is likely to be that the department as such does not deliver healthcare services. There are two rejoinders to that. One is that, while it may not deliver services at the front line, it is instrumental in providing those services—which is the term used in Section 18. I am thinking in particular of the public health role of the CMO. When we debated public health earlier this week, the Minister made it clear that the CMO was ultimately accountable within the body of the NHS for the effective delivery of the Government's public health policy. It seems strange that only lower down the NHS chain of command should a duty of quality be laid down. I might have expected a government amendment to this Bill creating a duty of quality on the NHS as a whole, including the Department of Health, accompanied by a power for the Secretary of State to devolve or delegate that duty to NHS bodies at the front line.
If the Department of Health has been exempted from the duty of quality because it does not commission healthcare services, the same could be said of strategic health authorities, but I take it that they, as successor bodies to health authorities, will be subject to the duty. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.
The second rejoinder to what I suspect the Minister will say is to point to the multitude of powers that will continue to reside with the Secretary of State,
1554
notwithstanding the devolutionist flavour of the Bill. Those powers include an ability to intervene directly in the affairs of PCTs, the power to impose targets on the health service, the power to dispense or withhold money according to how well or badly those targets have been met and so on. If there is no duty of quality on the Department of Health, as I read it the centre can legally direct PCTs and trusts in a manner that need take no account of the duty of quality, yet expect PCTs and trusts nevertheless to adhere to that duty. An obvious example springs to mind—the waiting list initiative. If such an initiative obliges PCTs and trusts to override clinical priorities so that those waiting longest, and not necessarily the sickest patients, are treated first, it is very difficult to see how PCTs and trusts can claim, while fulfilling that directive, to be improving the quality of healthcare that they provide.
The noble Baroness has pinpointed an interesting and potentially far-reaching anomaly in the Bill and in the 1999 Act. It will be illuminating to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have been rather surprised by the suggestion that quality is not at the forefront of all the department's thinking in its strategic leadership for the health service. That is why we have set up so many of the bodies that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to earlier, such as the National Patient Safety Agency and the Commission for Health Improvement and various other mechanisms. One of the Government's key aims, through the department, has been to improve the overall quality, safety and standard of services to the public.
Section 18 of the 1999 Act came up with the duty of quality to rectify an anomaly that had existed in the NHS for far too long. Although there were financial duties on NHS organisations, before 1999 Act there was no statutory duty on the NHS relating to the quality of the patient care that it provided. That is but one action that we have taken to improve quality generally in the health service. The department has set and implemented an integrated programme of measures to monitor and improve the quality of the healthcare provided by the NHS, as set out in A First Class Service in 1998, strengthened in the NHS Plan in 2000 and taken further still through the recent listening exercise involving patients and the public in healthcare. It is why we also established the quality taskforce in the department, under the co-chairmanship of the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Nursing Officer. Quality permeates all the department's thinking and policy development. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has debated waiting lists with me on a number of occasions. He will know that we have made it abundantly clear to the health service that, in meeting waiting list targets, clinical priorities must always come first.
On the duty of quality and the issues that the noble Baroness has raised, surely we need to go back to

1555
Section 1 of the 1977 Act, which in large part replicates the original 1946 Act, setting out the key aim of the health service. It states:
"It is the Secretary of State's duty to continue the promotion in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—

a) in the physical and mental health of the people of those countries, and

b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness,

and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services in accordance with this Act".
I emphasise the words "designed to secure improvement in". That is a broad description of what we are seeking to do, which entails within it issues to do with quality and everything else that is important to the development of the National Health Service.
As for Amendment No. 93, the risk seems to be that it would get in the way of the Department of Health's accountability, via Ministers, to Parliament on all aspects of securing healthcare for those who need it. My experience of the past three years is that Department of Health Ministers are very accountable to Parliament. When I think of the number of Parliamentary Questions answered daily, the number of debates in your Lordships' House, the vigour of the Select Committee hearings that I have attended, I am absolutely certain that Parliament has endless opportunities to hold Ministers to account and for Ministers to come to both Houses to explain their own performance.
Although of course I accept that parliamentary scrutiny of a publicly funded NHS is crucially important, I do not believe that the amendment as proposed would help that. I think that, in some ways, it would detract from ministerial accountability to Parliament. Surely our parliamentary democracy must rest on that direct line of accountability.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for that reply, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his very detailed support. The Minister's comments seemed to bear out some of what I was saying. He referred to the original 1946 Act and also to the 1977 Act, and yet, in the 1999 Act, it was felt necessary, despite that previous legislation, to establish a duty of quality. As the noble Earl pointed out, it is very striking that it includes health authorities, primary care trusts and so on, but does not include the Department of Health, which established the duty. It seems a trifle odd that the department should not be included.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The department's overriding responsibility was enshrined in the 1946 Act and confirmed in the 1977 Act. The duty of quality was established for NHS organisations because, as experience has shown, discussions in the boards of NHS organisations revolved primarily around management, finance and human resource issues but only very rarely touched on quality issues. Consequently, the specific duty of quality was introduced. In its reviews of clinical governance, CHI has focused particularly on the degree to which the
1556
boards of those NHS organisations have addressed clinical governance and quality issues. That is why NHS organisations were dealt with in that way.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for that comment. I should be very interested to see the agendas within the Department of Health, but I do not suppose that they are available. I also wonder whether they include items contributing to the quality debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I assure the noble Baroness that quality and patient safety issues are paramount in the many discussions held on the fourth floor of Richmond House. As I said, the Chief Nursing Officer and the Chief Medical Officer—who are very powerful individuals with very distinguished records on quality and safety—are leading our quality programmes. I can therefore assure the noble Baroness that quality is a full part of all our considerations in developing policy and managing performance in the NHS.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for that reply. I would not in any way wish to detract from what has been done in trying to introduce a duty of quality in other parts of the health service. If anything, as I said, I should like that duty to be extended. I shall read what the Minister had to say. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Northovermoved Amendment No. 94:
Page 17, line 31, at end insert "including the provision of accessible information for patients, and monitoring the provisions of health and safety legislation and infection control measures"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to ensure the provision of accessible information to patients and also the monitoring of health and safety legislation and infection control measures. All those elements are important to the quality of patient care. We should perhaps have dealt with them in separate amendments, but, if we had, it would have made the night even longer.
Clearly it is vitally important that information is accessible not only to parliamentarians but to patients. As we shall undoubtedly hear when we discuss patient complaints, things often go wrong because information is not available. Not only should patients be physically well treated, but their more general welfare should be addressed. Access to information is a part of that.
Health and safety regulations relate particularly to staff, and it is essential that they are properly addressed and assessed. The BMA has concluded, however, that, despite existing legislation and guidance, health and safety are still not universally guaranteed throughout the NHS. The NHS has a responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and various other regulations on the management of health and safety, to ensure the safety of all employees, contractors, and members of the

1557
public as patients and visitors. Each NHS trust and primary care trust has a statutory duty to provide an environment that is safe,
"as far as is reasonably practicable",
to use "the best practical means" to achieve its objectives, and to use
"the best available technology not entailing excessive cost".
I am rather concerned by those provisos.
As part of its inspection process, CHI would be in a prime position to observe whether premises, equipment, practices and procedures in each trust are sufficient to enable best clinical practice. It seems reasonable, therefore, that the Bill should be amended to ensure that that function is covered by CHI.
Although infection has—as Nightingale made clear—always been an issue, it has become a key one in recent years. However, post-antibiotics, there was certainly an optimism that infection was well and truly under control. That optimism has long since passed. Problems such as new variant CJD have introduced areas of concern. It is clearly essential that infection control is properly monitored. One issue which arose in dealing with the problem of disposable instruments, once it became evident that instruments could be a means of infection, was that many hospitals simply did not know which instruments had been used on whom. However, some did know. Clearly, one of CH l's functions should be to spread and encourage best practice. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I am delighted, once again, to support the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in this amendment. In reading Subsection 4 of Section 18 of the 1999 Act—again we are hampered by not having the wording fully in front of us—I cannot help thinking that much hinges on the meaning of the word "services". Healthcare is defined in that subsection as,
"services for or in connection with the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness".
The noble Baroness seeks to add to that definition,
"the provision of accessible information for patients".
I should have thought that, on a strict legal interpretation, that was a service, and that that part of the amendment is therefore unnecessary. If the emphasis is on the word "accessible", again, I should have thought that accessibility was bound up with the notion of quality. However, having uttered that caveat, I have much sympathy with the suggestion that those words should be included. It is not so very long ago that patients were expected to accept the treatment they were offered by doctors and be grateful for it. The idea of informing patients about the treatment they were receiving or might receive or about services that they could access was considered somewhat eccentric. So, despite any strict legal interpretations, I am in favour of making this provision explicit, if only as a means of recognising that we are trying to move away from paternalist medicine.
The next part of the amendment has an even stronger claim to our attention. Monitoring the provisions of health and safety legislation and
1558
infection control measures does not seem to me to be a service. However, it is an integral part of being a good employer, as the noble Baroness pointed out, and providing public health services in the broadest sense. As we were informed by the Minister on Monday, much of the monitoring function in the public health context will rest with the PCTs. My only faint worry here is that if we pursue the amendment to its logical end there would be a duty on PCTs and trusts to make arrangements to monitor the quality of monitoring. It is perhaps for discussion what we might understand that to mean.
While the duty of quality already extends to monitoring the quality of healthcare, the noble Baroness made a good point in drawing our attention to health and safety requirements—which surely do not constitute healthcare—and measures which might be in place to deliver the public health agenda, which again need not in all cases fall under the heading of healthcare.
9 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I support the amendment and, in so doing, ask the Minister who will be in overall charge of infectious control and send out the guidelines to our hospital trusts? With the increase of tuberculosis, it must be a health and safety issue to nurse someone in an open ward. I am sure that the Minister knows of the case of the young girl a few weeks ago who was diagnosed with pneumonia. She had tuberculosis: she was sent home and died. This is an important issue. Such infectious diseases are on the increase.
Can the Minister tell us the position regarding matrons? We were promised matrons. I believe that someone has been appointed in Birmingham. Matrons have much to do with cleanliness, which concerns the importance of the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise briefly to strongly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Northover. I do so firstly because of my connection with Cancer Bacup, which has a strong ethos of provision of information to cancer patients, not only by telephone, which is accessible, but through written printed information available in hospitals. It is important that hospitals ensure that such information is available. That seems to me to be a key function to allay some of the fears cancer patients have about the treatments they are undergoing. My second reason is to point out a number of issues which the Improving Lives coalition has brought to my attention in relation to those who are visually impaired.
There is a clear link between how well health services meet disabled people's requirement for accessible information and the quality of care offered to such groups. Indeed, failing to provide accessible test results or to ensure that patients have timely and accessible information about appointments or information leaflets about their condition can have a potentially devastating impact on the health of visually impaired patients and their ability to manage their own health effectively. It is their belief that the

1559
performance of the health service in that area is wholly inadequate. The existing duties under the Disability Discrimination Act to provide information about services in an accessible format do not appear to be biting.
A number of surveys have been carried out. One in 1997 by the RNIB demonstrated that less than half of the health authorities which answered the questionnaire had guidelines for meeting the health information needs of blind and partially-sighted people. An RNIB survey of over 200 visually impaired eye clinic patients found that six in seven people attending ophthalmic patients' outpatients' departments receive their appointment letter only in normal-size print. One in four people had to get someone else to read their appointment letter for them.
The latest research by the RNIB on accessible information should provide a severe jolt to all health service policy makers and practitioners. It found that more than one in five of the total adult population struggle to read labels and instructions on medicines or letters from their doctor. That rises to two in five of those who are 75 or over and to three in four people with sight problems.
The consequences of inaccessible health information can be severe. There are a number of cases of mixing up medication; taking the wrong drugs and missed appointments. Sometimes, patients are in the position of undergoing procedures or operations without accessible information explaining what will happen to them. On the other hand, the provision of accessible health information has been shown to result in more effective and appropriate use of health services, reduced stress, improved recovery of illness and operations and increased compliance with medication and treatment.
I believe that the case for the visually impaired is particularly strong. The health service is not responding adequately to their needs. It should not be left to charities to be responsible for monitoring provision in this area. We should not place the onus on individual disabled people to continually complain and threaten legal action under the DDA. For those reasons, I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Filkin: I agree with the objectives of most of those who have spoken on the amendment. However, I believe we have adequate statutory provisions in place to address them.
The department strongly recognises the importance of provision of accessible information for patients. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, put it clearly: moving away from a paternalistic service which doled out what professionals thought was appropriate to a much more informed dialogue with patients so that they understand what is happening and are able to participate in that process. That clearly is the goal of the health service to which we are strongly committed. We have taken steps to ensure that NHS bodies make such information widely available. We do not for one second imply that we are where we want to be in terms of fully realising that.
1560
On health and safety, we also recognise the importance of the NHS having in place both arrangements for, first, monitoring the provision of health and safety legislation and, secondly, measures for infection control. Enforcement of the provisions of health and safety legislation which are statutory requirements, is already carried out by the Health and Safety Executive in relation to the NHS. CHI is working to develop a memorandum of understanding with the Health and Safety Executive to further cooperation between the two bodies.
On infection control, the NHS Plan implementation programme makes it clear that hospitals must have effective systems in place to prevent and control hospital acquired infections. This is a core requirement underpinning the targets in the NHS Plan and the department has already taken a number of actions to ensure that these systems are in place. The national standards for hospital acquired infection (controls assurance standard) was revised in December 2001.
Hospital infection control guidelines were published in January 2000 and community infection control guidelines are currently under development. The first two quarters' data of the mandatory surveillance of MRSA were published for the department by the Public Health Laboratory Service in February this year as part of the development of a comprehensive National Health Service surveillance service.
The control of healthcare associated infections was recently highlighted in the Chief Medical Officer's strategy for combating infectious diseases, Getting Ahead of the Curve, and an action plan is currently being developed. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked who is in overall charge of infection issues. Clearly the Department of Health has the overall responsibility. On the distressing case of a nurse with TB in an open ward, the chief executive of every hoard in that situation is responsible to his board for achieving the appropriate quality and preventing infection in such circumstances.
The noble Baroness also raised the important issue of what is happening with modern matrons. A considerable number of them are in post. They are highly relevant to the issue of cleanliness and infection control, as the noble Baroness made clear, and there are positive signs that they are having a good effect. The Department of Health also conducts spot checks on cleanliness, which we believe are necessary.
Turning to monitoring and the improvement of infection more generally, Section 18 of the Health Act 1999 places a duty on those National Health Service organisations providing healthcare to individuals to put and keep in place arrangements for the purpose of monitoring and improving the quality of that healthcare.
The extension of the definition of "healthcare' in Section 18, by Clause 11, means that there will be a general duty on National Health Service bodies, pursuant to Section 18, to monitor and improve the quality of the patient environment. That implies a duty to have regard to the availability of information to patients. I concur with the noble Earl, Lord Howe,

1561
that services undoubtedly have to incorporate not just the provision of a technical product or service but the totality of the patient relationship that encompasses the dialogue of requests for information and understanding. One cannot deliver good services for any sector without that sort of relationship being in place. By reason of the extension of the definition, CHI will also clearly be able to comment on these matters in its reports, although enforcement of the health and safety legislation will be a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the extremely important issue of visual impairment. That is an example of the sort of issue on which we would expect and hope patient forums to focus. They would look at the quality of service provision, not just to the public generally but to those who need access to a different form of service from the standard service that is good enough for the vast majority. Those who are visually impaired are four-square within that definition. We very much hope that the patient forums will attend to those issues.
NHS Direct also has some relevance. It is by no means a total panacea, but it clearly helps those who are visually impaired to have access to high quality information and advice. As the Committee knows, the progress so far is not perfect, but the service is extremely highly valued by many members of the public. We want to take it further and make it better, which is of enormous relevance to the visually impaired.
Patient surveys are being undertaken in every acute trust, and we expect them to pick up on some of those issues of whether the particular disadvantages suffered by some people are being adequately met by the current services. As the clause already refers to the environment in which services are delivered in general terms, which includes having regard to the provision of information and any hazards or risks of infection, I suggest that the amendment to Clause 11 is not necessary and should be rejected.
The issue is not one of having more statutory definition, which is in place, but having the persistence, resolution and drive from the department, together with the commitment of managers, to make some of those goals that already have statutory effect commonplace and universal throughout the service.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for that sympathetic reply. I also thank other Members of the Committee who have participated in the debate.
Clearly more needs to be done to make information accessible. I am encouraged by the Minister about the direction in which the Government are heading. It also sounds encouraging that CHI will be doing more regarding health and safety.
One of my concerns about infection control is that there are various other bodies looking at the issue. With these new structures there is a danger that things may become fragmented. I hope very much that the Minister is right that with persistence and resolution
1562
the Government will move these matters forward. I shall read in Hansard what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Northovermoved Amendment No. 95:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
"INDEPENDENT HOSPITALS
The Secretary of State shall by regulations extend the functions of the Commission for Health Improvement set out in section 20 of the 1999 Act (functions of the commission) to any independent hospital as defined by section 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) (independent hospitals etc.)."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 95 seeks to include private hospitals in the same inspection system as the NHS. I declare an indirect interest as my husband, as well as being an NHS surgeon, is also in private practice at the London Clinic and the King Edward VII hospital.
I was astonished when I first discovered that private hospitals were not inspected in the same way as NHS hospitals. That is quite wrong. The case for bringing private acute care within the same inspection system as that for the NHS has long been argued by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. I should not be surprised if Members of the Committee thought that they would hear from him on this amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has also argued this case and the Chamber has approved the proposal. So this issue may be quite familiar to many noble Lords today.
From these Benches we welcomed CHI when it was set up in the Health Act 1999. However, we felt strongly that patients should receive the same high quality care wherever they were treated. Therefore, we felt that it was appropriate for CHI to inspect acute care in private as well as NHS hospitals.
In the Care Standards Bill 2000 we welcomed the regulation and inspection of social care, and private and voluntary healthcare premises. But we argued again that acute care in private hospitals should be inspected to the same level as in NHS hospitals.
Patients really do deserve the best possible protection, whether they are being treated in the NHS or the private sector. I noted earlier with great interest that the Minister, in relation to medical registration and training, stated that there should be the same entry requirements wherever a doctor intended to practise, whether private or NHS. The same principle should apply here.
The Commission for Health Improvement covers independent institutions where NHS patients are treated and private care within NHS hospitals, but not private care within private hospitals. We were concerned that neither of the earlier Bills gave the assurance that a duty of quality identical or similar to that required for the NHS was required for the independent sector. But it is only when things go wrong that people discover that that is so. When one thinks of some of the cases that have come up in recent years, it is clear that those being treated in the private

1563
sector thought that they were buying not simply a nice hotel room with its own telephone and TV but the consultant of their choice, backed up by an institution with the highest possible standards.
Many institutions have such high standards, but it remains highly inappropriate for them to be inspected as though they were nursing homes. There are over 200 hospitals in the private sector which comprise approximately 10,000 beds. There are some 800,000 treatments carried out by 17,000 doctors, most of whom also work in the NHS.
As I have mentioned, in the relevant health Bills in 1999 and 2000, noble Lords supported the proposal that independent hospitals should be brought within the scope of the regulations. In the end the point had to be conceded in the face of government opposition in the other place.
We believe that every patient deserves common minimum standards of care. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that minimum standards are maintained and seen to be maintained. We need consistency in those standards and consistency in enforcement.
The Government have argued in the past that the two healthcare systems under which NHS and private hospitals operate are different; that one is a managed system and the other is a regulated system. But inspection is to do with regulation. It must be right that the Government take appropriate measures to protect their citizens within the private sector and for that sector to come within the thorough inspection system that we have now come to expect, and welcome, within the NHS.
In January, Mr Milburn's response to the Kennedy report was that there would be a coming together and better co-ordination of NHS inspection systems; and that the CHI is to be strengthened and made more independent. Now is surely the time, if not before, to ensure that the private acute sector is properly brought within the same kind of inspection system as that which applies to the acute sector of the NHS. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: We fully support the intent of the amendment—as with the earlier amendment about merging the function of the National Care Standards Commission and the CHI. In Committee on 18th March, the Minister mentioned, in respect of the Care Standards Act 2000,
"bringing Section 9 into force".—[Official Report, 18/03/2002; col. 1203.]
I understand that that would bring the inspection of independent sector hospitals within the remit of the CHI. What precise effect would that have—and to what extent would it meet the excellent points made by the noble Baroness?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I, too, support the amendment. Patients can be at risk in a private hospital when they are in single rooms. In an NHS hospital, other patients are around. When a person gets into difficulty and there are no staff around—which often happens when there is a shortage, as there
1564
is now—patients help each other. My husband has been treated in NHS hospitals and in a private hospital. In the latter, he got a thrombosis in his leg and was discharged without a proper check-up, which could have been avoided. I feel strongly that minimum standards should apply in all hospitals.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have great sympathy with the broad thrust of the noble Baroness's arguments but it is a question of timing. The amendment is rather premature, in view of the amount of work that must be undertaken to take forward the rationalisation of inspection agencies at national level to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State referred following the Bristol inquiry report.
We made provision in the Care Standards Act 2000 for the CHI to exercise functions of the National Care Standards Commission in relation to the independent sector. The noble Baroness kindly reminded me of the debates on that subject. She will recall that, when we enacted the Bill, we considered it right that the regulation of private health care should be different from the arrangements for the independent review of NHS bodies by the CHI.
Life moves on and there have been considerable developments since we debated that point. The Bill gives the CHI a new function of inspection against published standards. That responsibility will extend to services for NHS patients wherever they are treated, including those provided by the independent sector. It is clear from Government action in the past few months that an increasing number of NHS patients are being treated in the independent sector. It is clear also that—particularly during the transitional period, as we try to build capacity in the NHS—we will continue to use the independent sector. While we are clear that private and voluntary health care must remain under a system of regulation or licensing, the time is right for the CHI to inspect independent hospitals on behalf of the National Care Standards Commission.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, reminded me that I made it clear on Monday night that we will bring Section 9 of the 2000 Act into force shortly and make regulations, so that the CHI may exercise the commission's function of inspection in relation to indpendent hospitals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked me to fill in some of the detail. Of course, we are still considering that and it will be contained in the regulations. However, essentially, the regulation of private healthcare institutions remains the responsibility of the National Care Standards Commission. We propose that the inspection function itself should be undertaken by the Commission for Health Improvement, but acting within the ambit of legislation that gives the overall responsibility to the National Care Standards Commission. It is a halfway house, as it were. We are trying to get as much consistency as possible in the inspections process, bearing in mind that the current legislative requirement is for the National Care Standards Commission to have the ultimate responsibility for private hospital regulation.

1565
I said that that is a transitional phase because, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear, we are seriously considering have to obtain closer working and, over time, organisational integration between CHI, the Social Services Inspectorate, the National Care Standards Commission and the Audit Commission so that health and social care services are subject to common standards, whether they are provided by public, private or voluntary sector organisations.
That is clearly an extensive piece of work to be undertaken during the next few months. That is why it would be premature to legislate in the Bill to bring together CHI and the National Care Standards Commission. As I said, we are bringing Section 9 into operation as a means of having as much consistency as possible between CHI and the National Care Standards Commission. I hope that I have made clear our intended direction of travel. Although I do not recommend that we accept the amendments, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we are going in the same direction, but that a considerable amount of work will need to be done.
Lord Clement-Jones: That is about as close to an apology for previous legislation that I have ever heard a Minister give. If the Minister wants to achieve such integration, will not further primary legislation be necessary?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I was simply seeking to suggest to the noble Lord that, since our debates a couple of years ago, life has moved on and there have been developments. The relationship of the National Health Service with the independent sector has evolved. For that reason, it is right to reconsider the issues.
I accept that primary legislation will be required at the end of the journey to integrate national inspection systems against common standards. It would be premature to legislate in the Bill, because much work needs to be undertaken.
Lord Clement-Jones: I have one further question. Will that be before the National Care Standards Commission is even formed and up and running?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is because we generously allowed such a long lead time to allow the commission to establish its work.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for his reply. We shall obviously share many more late nights here in future. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes, and Lady Masham of Ilton, for their support. I am intrigued and encouraged and shall have to read what the Minister said. To know that he is sympathetic to the amendment is obviously extremely nice. However, he says that it is premature to legislate at this point. Given that we are so busy setting up primary
1566
care trusts with all their duties, it strikes me as strange that the amendments should be regarded as premature while we rush ahead in other areas.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In his speech my right honourable friend did not confine himself to the National Care Standards Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement. He also referred specifically to the Audit Commission and the Social Services Inspectorate. The speech followed up our response to the Bristol inquiry.
These are complicated matters that need full consideration. Even if we wanted to wave a magic wand and say, "Yes, we'd love to legislate in this Bill", it would not be possible to bring forward carefully thought-out legislation at this stage.
Baroness Northover: It strikes me as ironic that it is fine to change the structure of the NHS fairly rapidly, which is a complicated thing to do, but in this area, where the lives of individual patients are affected, it is said to be premature to take action on the proper inspection of hospitals. That surprises me.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The proposals in the Bill arise from the NHS Plan and Shifting the Balance of Power. They have been given careful thought and consideration by the Government over a considerable period of time. My right honourable friend's speech only a few weeks ago arose directly from the recommendations of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy in the Bristol inquiry, which reported only a few months ago. That is why it is important that we have time to reflect on the best way to achieve integration between these different bodies.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I point out that in this Chamber, which may not be the fastest-moving place, a decision was taken in 1999 and 2000 to include private hospitals in the inspection system. It is a shame that it is taking a while.
I am encouraged by the Minister's comments. I hope that when the inspection is extended—it certainly sounds as if it will be—it will cover the whole of the private acute sector and not simply those parts in which the NHS is involved. It is important for citizens as a whole—for all patients—to know that they are safe in the institutions in which they are treated. I look forward to reading the Minister's comments in Hansard. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Further functions of the Commission for Health Improvement]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 96:
Page 18, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted "including co-ordinating visits to general practitioners, Primary Care Trusts or to NHS trusts with other bodies carrying out monitoring or inspections of those premises"."

1567
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to amend Section 20(2) of the Health Act 1999, which deals with the functions of the Commission for Health Improvement. The amendment would allow the regulations made under that subsection to include CHI taking into account the co-ordination of CHI's own visits with those of other bodies carrying out monitoring or inspecting the same premises. Trusts, OP surgeries and so on face a multitude of visits and inspections from various bodies in addition to CHI. There are visits by the Audit Commission, the Royal Colleges, CHCs and, if the Bill is passed, patient forums, and many other bodies, such as the Modernisation Agency.
My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil told us on the second Committee day that the multiplicity of inspections was described to him as,
"death by a thousand visits".—[Official Report, 18/3/02; col. 1203.]
The British Medical Association feels strongly about the issue and supports the amendment. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government intend to do anything to streamline the visits and relieve the burden on doctors, other health professionals and their staff.
The bottom line is that every minute spent on such visits is a minute not spent on patient care, and anything that can he done to minimise their impact will he welcomed. The amendment does not seek to cure the totality of the problem but seeks to co-ordinate visits which are focused on monitoring and inspection. It is a modest contribution to the problem and I hope that it will commend itself to the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover: I support this amendment. We all agree that CHI is a welcome creation doing a good job. However, given the duplication—no doubt other Members of the Committee will have a copy of the chart from the I3MA of the various ways in which doctors can be assessed, monitored, checked, revalidated and so forth—the complexity is obvious. We should do all we can to ensure that that duplication and that kind of complexity is made simpler.
Most of the visits made by those bodies are of course appropriate. But we can try to ensure that there is coordination and that inspections by the various organisations do not cause disruption. An interesting analogy was drawn in the other place where they talked of the digging up and re-digging up of roads. If we can simply co-ordinate the various bodies who have to dig up the roads, it would make more sense than endlessly having one digging up a road this week and another digging it up next week. On the basis therefore that we seek co-ordination of this kind of inspection, I support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: From my remarks on our intent to rationalise the inspection mechanism at national level, Members of the Committee will understand that I am sympathetic with the broad arguments of the noble Baroness in terms of a rationalisation of inspectorates at local level.
1568
I make two points. First, the reason why various organisations visit the NHS is to ensure that quality and safety—issues we have already debated—are paramount. One makes no apologies for the extension of those inspection agencies into primary care. However, I fully accept that there must be coordination and rationalisation, and that the burden put on busy people operating front-line services is as light as is possible consistent with a rigorous approach to safety and quality.
The Commission for Health Improvement is at the moment piloting its inspections of primary care trusts. Part of those inspections will involve visits to some individual GP surgeries. In the discussions that the department had with CHI we came to a mutual understanding that those visits will he light touch, for the very reason the noble Baroness put forward.
The CHI has also taken other steps to co-ordinate activity with relevant bodies. It has already agreed a draft statement of principles for consultation covering how it plans to improve co-ordination with the Audit Commission, including external audit, NHS internal audit, the Health and Safety Executive and the NHS Litigation Authority, including the clinical negligence scheme for trusts. CHI also has a memorandum of understanding with a number of relevant bodies including the commission, the Audit Commission, the Health Service Ombudsman, the General Medical Council, the UKCC, the National Clinical Assessment Authority and it is working to develop others, including the Health and Safety Executive. My understanding is that copies of those memoranda have already been placed in the Library.
Therefore the Commission for Health Improvement is well exercised of the need to ensure that there is co-ordination and to avoid duplication. We will encourage the commission to continue that good work, which is entirely consistent with what we seek to do at national level. We do not need the amendment as it is tabled. The Secretary of State already has the powers to encourage CHI to continue this process of co-ordination and I am satisfied, from my meetings with CHI, that it is fully cognisant of the need to move in the direction the noble Baroness suggested.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that. Would he just say how long CHI has been trying to coordinate its visits? I ask this because the complaints about the duplication of visits, the multiplicity of visits, and the serial visits, are of relatively recent origin. The source of this amendment was not some long-forgotten complaint; rather it relates to current complaints, in particular by the British Medical Association. Even if CHI has been doing it for some time, it has not been doing it very well; and that makes one think that perhaps an amendment is needed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Commission for Health Improvement has not been in existence for very long, so it is not surprising that there is, inevitably, a learning curve. One expects CHI to learn from some of the concerns that have been expressed. In recent discussions with officials in the department, I have

1569
discussed the particular issue of the piloting of the clinical governance reviews of primary care trusts where the issue of light-touch visits to GP surgeries has been raised. I am satisfied that CHI is fully cognisant of the need to try to rationalise these as much as possible.
The process is developing. It takes time to gain experience and for the inspection agencies to learn from that. I believe that learning is taking place. Noble Lords' comments tonight will certainly feed back to CHI and I think they will be very helpful.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble Lord for that, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her support for this amendment. I am not convinced that the words actually match up with actions on the ground, but I am sure that those who have been particularly concerned about this matter will look carefully at the Minister's words in Hansard, as indeed shall I. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Northovermoved Amendment No. 97:
Page 18, line 12, after "(2)", insert—
"(a) paragraphs (a) and (h) are omitted, and"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 97 seeks to delete two paragraphs of the Health Act 1999 in relation to powers held by the Secretary of State in regard to CHI.
As Professor Kennedy has said, it is essential that CHI,
"should be suitably structured so as to give it the necessary independence and authority",
to carry out its work. The paragraphs that we seek to delete from Section 20 of the 1999 Act are ones which allow the Secretary of State by regulation to make provision,
"as to the times at which, the cases in which, the manner in which, the persons in relation to which or the matters with respect to which any functions of the Commission are to be exercised … [and] as to the matters to be considered or taken into account in connection with the exercise of any functions of the Commission".
The Government say that they are making CHI more independent. If so, how does this fit with these lines? They give the Secretary of State power to restrict the ability of CHI to talk to the people to whom it needs to talk, to make investigations and reviews when it wants, and to consider cases as it wants. Nothing, and certainly not a Secretary of State, should threaten the remit, independence, scope and ability of CHI to make such investigations.
When my honourable friend Dr Evan Harris introduced this amendment in the other place, the Minister there argued that removing these provisions cut across the Secretary of State's ability to coordinate inspection. However, they do not look to me like a series of powers which ensure co-ordination and, drawn as widely as they are, there has to be a risk that they could be used to undermine the independence of CHI. I therefore flag up this amendment as indicative
1570
of the kind of area which must be addressed if CHI is to be, and to be seen to be, independent of the Secretary of State and not controlled by him. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: I rise to speak briefly in support of this amendment. To some extent it anticipates a later amendment dealing with the independence of CHI, and we fully support that direction of travel. Indeed, one might say, looking at Section 20 of the 1999 Act, that this amendment singles out paragraphs (a) and (b) but one might even extend it further and look at the whole of Section 20 to discover why a Secretary of State should keep any of the powers to direct CHI in such a detailed way if it is decided to give CHI more independence.
I do not know whether the Minister is going to say that the powers need to be kept in reserve and would be used only in exceptional cases. If he does say that, I think that we have to take it with a pinch of salt because the mere fact of the existence of such powers, whether or not they are used in a formal sense, subtly undermines the independence of such bodies. If a body knows that the Secretary of State can issue directions or make regulations telling it what to do, the mere existence of that power tends to induce compliance and reduce independence. We support the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I should state clearly to the Committee that we are very keen to enhance the independence of the Commission for Health Improvement. There is no reason for the Government to wish to inhibit that independence. The whole rigour of what we are seeking to achieve—namely, to drive up standards in the health service—depends to a great extent on the credibility of the commission and on the way it is regarded by both the public and those working in the health service.
There simply would not be any reason for the Government to wish to undermine the independence of the Commission for Health Improvement. When we debate Clause 14, Members of the Committee will discover that we are making moves to remove the requirement, for example, for the Secretary of State to consent to the appointment of CH l's chief executive, and the Secretary of State's direction-making power in respect of the terms under which the commission employs people. That is why we are providing for certain of CHI's functions in relation to the collection and analysis of data and performance assessment to be carried out by the Office for Information on Healthcare Performance.
At the same time, the performance ratings that we published last year will, this July, be jointly produced by the department and CHI. In July 2003, the performance ratings will be produced by the commission. We are most anxious that CHI should perform as rigorous a role as possible. There is no question of seeking to interfere in the inspection process that CHI undertakes. We have discussions with the commission about its workload because, from

1571
the department's point of view, we have been encouraging CHI to undertake as many inspections as is possible.
Regular meetings take place between the chair and the chief executive of CHI to enable us to engage in mutual discussion about its work and the issues that have arisen. The department's Ministers are most concerned to learn from CHI what it has discovered in the health service. I particularly commend the CHI reports that comment on how much clinical governance, for example, is ingrained within the work of boards, and, indeed, whether boards have information strategies. Many other issues are identified in CHI reports, and that information can then help the department in its performance management of the NHS.
I turn to the purpose of the amendment. It seems to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, sought to forecast what I would say in response. She is absolutely right in that respect. Ultimately, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the performance of the Commission for Health Improvement. In the very unlikely event that any serious problem should arise in the way that CHI performed its functions, or in its general operation, the Secretary of State must have a power of intervention. That is why the power is in the Bill. It is no different from many other non-departmental public bodies.
I can assure the Committee that that is why the power is there; it is not there to intervene and to dictate to CHI what should be mentioned in its reports. The power forms a necessary part of Ministers' accountability to Parliament. For that reason, I urge the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for his reply, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her support. I reiterate that we welcome CHI; indeed, we very much welcome the developments that have come in its wake. However, we should consider what might happen as we come up to an election, for example, or consider the case of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. For a while, an inspector's reports may be welcomed, but, later, he may be out in the cold. The first inspections may be considered useful, but if there are repeated poor reports on hospitals, as we approach a general election, the temptation for a Secretary of State who has some direct control over an institution such as CHI will be intense.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There are two safeguards against that. First, there is the integrity of the chairperson, chief executive and non-executive directors of the Commission for Health Improvement. Anyone who knows Dame Deirdre Hine, the chair of CHI, or Dr Peter Homa, the chief executive, would quickly come to the view that they are people of great integrity who would not bow to any influence of that kind.
Secondly, if powers of direction had to be issued, that would be in the public domain. I should have thought that that would create a much bigger noise than any adverse report by CHI on an NHS trust. CHI
1572
has already produced a considerable number of reports. Some are outstanding reports on hospitals. For instance, CHI produced a report on Addenbrooke's NHS Trust three or four weeks ago, which indicated that the hospital was outstanding in many ways. The reports on other hospitals have been disappointing and negative and have identified areas in which improvement must take place.
The purpose of setting up CHI was to have a rigorous, independent process that indicated to the public and to the NHS that we had a system that really got to grips with problems in the health service. It is inconceivable that Ministers would wish to interfere with that process.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for those comments. The Government certainly deserve credit for setting up CHI, given that no previous government did so. I am happy to give the Government that credit.
However, if we consider the model of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, we can see what may happen down the track. The Government might be relieved to see the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which really would remove CHI from the control of the Secretary of State and make it answerable to a Select. Committee of Parliament. If it were directly answerable to Parliament, there would be no temptation for the Secretary of State to exercise—or otherwise—any influence over CHI, should pressures arise down the track. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 98:
Page 18, line 15, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 98 is a probing amendment. It would remove subsection (5) of Clause 12.
At first sight, the clause is innocuous, simply requiring the Audit Commission to consult the Commission for Health Improvement on its programme of value for money studies in relation to the NHS. However, the Audit Commission is a fully independent body with statutory duties to carry out audit. In arriving at its programme, it consults many people and organisations, as one would expect a responsible public body to do. I hope that few would argue with the proposition that the Audit Commission is an effective and responsible public body.
Why do the Government feel that it is necessary for statute to prescribe whom the Audit Commission should consult? Do the Government feel that the Audit Commission is not doing its job properly? Will the Minister say what the Government's view is? Why is the Audit Commission treated differently from the National Audit Office? The National Audit Office is not required by statute to consult over its audit programme.
Such clauses raise concerns about other agendas. We know from the Government's response to the Bristol report, which has been quoted several times

1573
during our deliberations in Committee, that the Secretary of State does have an agenda with regard to the relationship between the Audit Commission and CHI, because he said that there needed to be closer working and, over time, organisational integration between CHI and, inter alia, the Audit Commission. That raises very serious issues about the integrity of public sector audit.
I ask the Minister to explain what are the Government's precise intentions in relation to the Audit Commission. I ask him also to say what is meant by "closer working" and when "organisational integration" might take place. Can he confirm that no changes are intended which would undermine the independence and effectiveness of the public audit function in relation to the NHS? I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The question of the intention of my right honourable friend since his speech concerning the integration of inspection functions has been made clear in my response to the amendment moved a short while ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I said then that I thought her amendment was premature because the detailed work that will have to be done to develop ideas about future integration has only just started. That is because the Bristol report is not old and we have had to consider our comments on the work programme that needs to follow. In a sense, therefore, I do not think that I can answer the questions raised by the noble Baroness because this is work in hand and we shall need to consider these matters very carefully.
However, I can say to the noble Baroness that of course I greatly respect the work of the Audit Commission. I have had long experience of dealing with the commission and reading its reports. I know of the benefits that it has brought. Equally, as noble Lords themselves have pointed out, and just as the noble Baroness argued earlier, I believe that we need to sort out inspections at local level and national level. We need to avoid duplication. The whole purpose of including the clause in the Bill was not in any way an attempt to restrict the independence or decision-making process of the Audit Commission, but rather merely to ensure that consideration would be made of CHI's work programme so that the organisations themselves could best consider how to avoid duplication and hold general discussions about their respective work programmes.
I should stress that there is no suggestion whatever that in doing this we are seeking to undermine the independence of the Audit Commission, which I agree is an extremely important facet of its work.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may pick up on a point just made by the Minister. I welcome what he has said about the Audit Commission because I am sure that he is aware that considerable value is put on the commission's value-for-money audits as a specific exercise, quite apart from any health aspect. It has that
1574
specialism. I believe that strong opposition would be brought to bear on any attempt to try to over-integrate in that respect.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: One thing that I have learned over the years is that the Audit Commission is a very powerful defender of its own interests. I am sure that in any discussions about its future role, it will be well able to put across its own point of view.
I should also have said to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that I understand that in the relevant section of the Audit Commission Act 1998, we are adding to the names of the Secretary of State for Health and the Comptroller and Auditor-General in relation to the National Audit Office. Given the importance of the Commission for Health Improvement in relation to inspections in the health service, I should have thought that it was appropriate to add CHI's name to that list.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not feel very much the wiser for it because I still do not quite understand why this particular consultation requirement needs to be put on to the face of the Bill. However, often when we urge the Minister to accept amendments which seek to make things clear, we receive a response which states in effect that of course the Government already do that and so it is irrelevant to put anything on to the face of the Bill. Here we are trying to take something off the face of the Bill in circumstances where a responsible Audit Commission would almost certainly consult, and yet we have the argument put back to us in a different way.
I am very surprised that the Secretary of State could have said what he did on 17th January in relation to the organisational integration between CHI and the Audit Commission, and yet here we are, two months later, and the Minister can give the Committee no details whatever. I find that surprising. I want to reflect further before Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaffmoved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 18, line 17, at end insert—
"(6) The Commission for Health Improvement shall present annually its report to the health joint select committee."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 98A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 114A. I should make it clear that I shall not be speaking to the other amendments in the group. They will be addressed in due order later in the Marshalled List.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It may help the Committee if I make it clear that the other amendments have been degrouped and that we are speaking only to Amendments Nos. 98A and 114A.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the Minister for that. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady

1575
Northover, for having set the scene for the amendment. The Minister referred to the report, Learning from Bristol. That report states:
"The NHS is quintessentially a statement of political values. Thus, it is inevitable and right that central government should seek to lay down the parameters of the NHS's activities, particularly in the realm of finance and priorities. But, once this is don, the systems for monitoring the extent to which it is meeting its stated aims must, in our view, be de-politicised, so as thereby to rekindle and maintain public confidence in the NHS".
It is this role that I wish to address.
I am grateful to the Minister for expanding on some of the increased freedom that CHI will experience. I understand that it will be able to appoint chief executives through the commission itself and that its reports are to be laid before Parliament. The Bill will enable CHI to undertake inspections, including where NHS services are provided from premises not directly owned by the NHS. The Minister has clearly outlined the need for CHI to be independent.
All the regulatory bodies concerned with the NFIS—which is a national service—must be answerable directly to Parliament. Other regulatory bodies—the professions' regulatory bodies—will be discussed in detail later.
I am suggesting that a parliamentary committee should be drawn from both Houses, ensuring representation from the four countries of the United Kingdom, and that such a committee shall never have a majority of members from one political party. In the event of a coalition of two parties, it would he important to ensure that it did not operate in such a way as to create a majority on the committee. Thus the committee would be politically neutral in terms of pressure prior to an election. It is anticipated that representatives of the government of the day would not constitute more than 40 per cent of the proposed health Joint Select Committee.
Such details are suggestions only at this stage; it is the principle that is of concern. Currently, there is no professional regulatory body for managers. May I preface my next remarks by stating that I work for an NHS trust with excellent management, which maintains an open dialogue with all staff at all grades. However, our recent debate involving research and teaching highlights the need for resources such as rooms, photocopying and IT facilities.
The CHI reports have been excellent. Like the Kennedy report, they have outlined that the state of the NHS is in the hands of managers, and good management is integral to clinical governance. I sincerely hope that the recommendations of the Kennedy report will be followed and that such regulatory bodies will be directly answerable to Parliament.
CHI inspects the service and recommends improvements. It must be free to exercise its functions with rigour. CHI must report to Parliament in such a way that it can be questioned—it should not simply lay a report before Parliament—and hence the idea of the committee.
1576
Amendment No. 114A seeks to ensure that the organisation referred to in the Bill as the "patients forum", which will have an important function in obtaining the views of NHS users, will also be answerable in such a way. The patients forum must seek the views of NHS users—be they patients, relatives or carers—and it must be allowed to be independent of service providers. I believe that it should have equal standing with the inspection roles of other inspection bodies. Therefore, it should be able to present its report to such a parliamentary committee. While the patients forums will be working with trusts, they must have the ability to be completely independent of the trusts, and of the government of the day.
Fortunately, the consultation processes that have taken place in Wales, which were outlined earlier in our debates, have been very effective in some areas. We are fortunate to have retained community health councils. I know that we are not to debate community health councils, but the report from such patients forums must have the high status and standing that we have been able to retain in community health councils in Wales. They have recently been involved in two important research projects —one with the Organ Retention Advisory Group, where they sought the views of the general public, and another where they have been working on the standards that patients and their relatives require from the health services in Wales. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover: I welcome the amendment. The Select Committees of the Houses of Parliament have already developed an important scrutiny role. They should in future develop that function further, acting on behalf of Parliament, and be able to specialise in particular areas and report to Parliament.
If CHI answered to a Select Committee such as that suggested in the amendment, the Minister would not need to worry about needing to protest that no undue control or influence is exerted over what all agree should be an independent body. Therefore, I strongly welcome this proposal.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an interesting debate about the accountability to Parliament of CHI and of the patients forums, on which we shall no doubt have an interesting discussion in some four weeks' time.
The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, seek to assume that Parliament would decide to create what is referred to as a health Joint Select Committee. Later, we shall debate also the group of amendments dealing with the council for the regulation of health care professionals in relation to this committee. What in effect the amendments would do would be to have the Commission for Health Improvement and patients forums present their annual reports to the Joint Select Committee.
The current position is that CHI makes an annual report on the exercise of its functions to the Secretary of State, like other non-departmental public bodies. But it is an important measure of its great

1577
independence that, under Clause 14(4), CHI will also in future be required to complete an annual report on the quality of services to NHS patients, which the Secretary of State will be under a duty to lay before Parliament. So, even if Parliament decided to set up a Joint Select Committee as proposed in the amendment, it would not add anything if CHI were to send its report there as well as to Parliament.
Equally, patients forums will make an annual report to the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, as well as to the Secretary of State. These reports will feed in to the commission's own annual report, which the Secretary of State will be under a duty to lay before Parliament.
I understand what the noble Baroness is getting at. However, we are in an extremely difficult position if we seek in the Bill to suggest how Parliament might establish Select Committees in the future. That is not the way in which Parliament operates, and it is not the way in which decisions are made about the agreement to set up Select Committees of either House or Joint Select Committees.
Of course, if Parliament decided to establish such a Select Committee, it would be the duty of NHS bodies to co-operate with it. That is what happens at the moment. For example, the Select Committee on Health is currently undertaking an inquiry into the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. I spent two and a half happy hours before the committee a week or so ago undergoing what might be described as effective scrutiny. There is nothing to prevent Parliament holding organisations such as the Commission for Health Improvement to account through its normal processes. Our aim in the Bill is to enhance the reporting of those organisations to Parliament. For that reason, while I certainly understand what the noble Baroness is getting at, I urge her to consider not pressing the amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply and for his generosity in understanding what I am getting at, as I am a novice to the parliamentary system. I am grateful for his explanation. I shall consider the issues further and may return to them later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 99:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"PUBLIC HEALTH FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT
The Commission for Health Improvement shall have such further functions as may be prescribed relating to the management, co-ordination, provision or quality of public health services for which prescribed NHS bodies, service providers, local authorities or other bodies have responsibility."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would extend the remit of the Commission for Health Improvement to public health. It would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe functions relating to the
1578
management, co-ordination, provision or quality of public health services, for which a wide range of bodies have responsibility.
CHI's functions under the Health Act 1999 are expressed in terms of healthcare, as are the amendments in the Bill. Notable by its absence from CHI's remit is public health, yet public health issues are as important as—some would say more important than—those involved in the delivery of healthcare.
The Committee has already debated the importance of public health in relation to the roles of the strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and regional directors of public health. It is fair to say that our debates on earlier amendments left a number of concerns hanging relating to whether those public health responsibilities would in practice be discharged effectively.
We know that the Government's intention is that PCTs will take the lead on health issues and that they will have a director of public health. We know that they will be encouraged to work in public health networks and that the directors of public health will come new to their responsibilities in PCTs from a variety of backgrounds, some medical and some non-medical.
It seems inevitable that the public health function of PCTs will need some strong oversight. CHI seems the obvious organisation to provide that. However, the amendment is not just about keeping an eye on PCTs and their new public health functions. We know that there are major public health issues to be grappled with. The amendment would give CHI, as an independent inspectorate, the responsibility for finding out what is being done on various public health issues to achieve public health aims, as well as disseminating best practice and reporting when not enough is being done.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment as one based on plain common sense. If he resists it, will he explain why public health must remain outside CHI's remit and what alternative arrangements would give the same oversight and rigour? I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Northover: I support the amendment. Several key issues are emerging as this Bill rolls along. Noble Lords are giving a guarded welcome to the notion of devolving resources and decision-making in the NHS, but there is enormous concern about the speed with which that is happening and whether PCTs are anywhere near being ready to take up their key tasks. There is increasing concern about matters that particularly require a national overview. Public health is one such matter.
Public health—like teaching and research, as we debated the other day—is too often likely to be squeezed out by what seem to be more pressing concerns. Devolution is one thing, but fragmentation is quite another. What we are hearing about the parcelling out of public health responsibilities to one lead official here and one there obviously causes

1579
concern; it is not a recipe for satisfactory coordination. Moreover, as has emerged too clearly from the Bristol inquiry, too little data are available in the health service to know what is happening where, and to know What has been happening where. The fact that public health is a key responsibility therefore has to be built into PCTs' remit.
Even then, however, the way in which PCTs exercise that responsibility will have to be carefully scrutinised. I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that that is where CHI may be able to assist. That is why it is being proposed that CHI's role should be extended to cover the monitoring, inspection, reporting, co-ordination, management and quality of public health. I therefore very much welcome the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: In supporting this amendment, I shall approach it from a slightly different angle: public health's importance, as we have discussed, to national defence. I know that Ministers have recently received many questions on smallpox vaccine. In the event of a sudden catastrophic epidemic of any sort, the public health services will be called on to he the plank on which catastrophic infections are controlled. The public health services co-ordinate, for example, the control of meningitis outbreaks.
The organisation of public health services is absolutely crucial in their ability to respond. I support the amendment because the organisation of such services must he in good order at all times so that they are not found wanting when called on in an emergency.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Public health covers so many important aspects. There is a strong feeling that PCTs will be overloaded, but everyone working in the National Health Service and social care should be helping with public health. I am sure that the Commission for Health Improvement can help improve public health as it goes about its work. It can look, encourage and report if not enough is being done. I hope that the Government will support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I agree that this is a very important matter, although, as the Committee will know, I am more optimistic than some noble Lords about the capability of primary care trusts to accept the very important public health role they are being given. The term "public health services" goes very wide and might include protection against communicable diseases or other hazards to health and health promotion. The ambit of the expression is not entirely clear because the term is not currently defined in the Health Act 1999.
Noble Lords will recall that on 10th January the Chief Medical Officer announced proposals for a health protection agency to streamline the services involved in the prevention and control of infectious diseases. This agency will provide an integrated approach to all aspects of health protection, including chemical and radiological hazards as well as infectious disease control. The agency will take over functions
1580
currently performed by the Public Health Laboratory Service, the National Radiological Protection Board, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, and the National Focus for Chemical Incidents. It will also assume responsibility for employing consultants in communicable disease control.
The new agency will work closely with regional and local services and the expert government advisory committees. It will also work with CHI where there are serious deficiencies in standards of infection control in hospitals, primary care or other health service premises. That will give us a great deal of confidence about the national arrangements and the integration of public health protection surveillance services, as well as infectious disease control, about which I know that noble Lords are anxious.
Alongside that we shall have robust performance management of the public health function throughout the National Health Service. From this April the regional directors of public health will design, develop and maintain public health networks. They will be responsible for the overall tackling of the root causes of ill-health inequalities through the health component across government policies. They will manage anti coordinate the health protection and emergency planning functions in their regions. The focus of the directors of health and social care performance management function will be to take a national overview of performance, negotiating performance agreements with strategic health authorities, holding strategic health authorities to account: for performance and supporting the development of individual organisations and the whole system to help them to deliver improvements to patients.
While not duplicating the work of directors of public health in primary care trusts or that of regional directors of public health, strategic health authorities will also have responsibility for performance management of public health action within primary care trusts and in hospital trusts. In future, we shall have a strong performance management system with clear performance management relationships corning down from the regional directors of public health, reporting to the directors of health and social care and to the Chief Medical Officer. That provides an effective way of ensuring that the public health function is properly integrated, managed and monitored.
However, I accept that the noble Baroness raised important issues in favour of giving recognition to the importance of public health service in the way that she suggested. I readily acknowledge that there are complex issues in terms of clarifying the range of public health services that might appropriately be brought within CHI's remit, the relationship between the bodies responsible for those services and those currently responsible for their inspection and regulation. I have already mentioned the creation of the new national agency.
The view that the Government take is that there are a number of important matters which need to be worked through over the next few months. While I

1581
cannot support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, I can assure the Committee that the Government are giving serious consideration to how the issues can best be taken forward and to the extent that CHI's remit needs to be revisited in these areas. I shall keep noble Lords fully informed on those matters.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that response. Indeed, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover, Lady Finlay and Lady Masham, for their contributions to the debate. I was encouraged at the end of the Minister's comments that this was being kept under review by the Government. It might seem churlish of me to say that what I heard before that perhaps was not so encouraging as it seemed to resist the notion of an independent inspectorate reporting in the successful mode that the noble Lord described earlier today in relation to its other responsibilities. We were trying to take that success and the ability to penetrate to other real issues and to spread that across.
It is not right to pursue the matter today. We shall think further on it in the light of what the Minister said about the Government's future action. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 100:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"PATIENT CHOICE
It shall he the duty of the Secretary of State in carrying out his functions under the 1977 Act to ensure that so far as it is reasonable for him to do so, persons who receive services under the 1977 Act are given a choice as to the time, manner and location of those services."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would insert a new clause after Clause 14 and would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that people receiving services in the National Health Service are given a choice as to time, manner and location of those services.
I shall quote from a recent speech, which states:
"The balance of power has to shift decisively in favour of the patient … Patients throughout the National Health Service, helped by their referring GP, will be able to make informed choices about how they are treated, when they are treated and by whom they are treated".
That could easily have been said by my honourable friend Dr Liam Fox, and it could also easily have been an extract from Working with Patients—the White Paper which heralded the National Health Service reforms of more than a decade ago. But no, it is an extract from a speech made by the Secretary of State for Health in January this year.
Only a few days ago, the Department of Health issued a document entitled, Extending Choice for Patients, which deals only with the rather modest extension of choice to long waiters for heart surgery; but it is a move in the right direction and we welcome it.
1582
Several noble Lords remarked on Second Reading and elsewhere that the Government's policies have moved on in several respects since they introduced the Bill. We think that it is unsatisfactory that when the Bill has completed its passage the National Health Service will still not have a definitive statutory framework representing current government policy. It is not satisfactory for the Government to announce a series of changes that are not reflected in the Bill.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that we have reservations about many of the Government's policies towards the National Health Service, but we think that this issue of patient choice is one thing that the Secretary of State has started to get right. We agree with it and we want to support him in his new conversion to our ideas by seeing a positive duty to achieve patient choice in the National Health Service legislation.
The Secretary of State said that patient choice would be achieved within four years and I do not believe that that is inconsistent with the wording of the new clause, which refers to,
"so far as it is reasonable for him to do so".
If the Government would prefer a more definite commencement period, I am sure that the new clause could be amended to that effect. I hope that the Government will welcome the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I warm to the habit of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, of referring to speeches made by my right honourable friend. I am glad that she finds them so interesting.
The question of patient choice is extremely important. Any vision of a modern National Health Service would need to involve patient choice. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred earlier to information that helps patients to make informed choices. We all agree with that, but I do not think that it would be appropriate to put the matter on a statutory basis. It is much more a question of policy to be decided by the Secretary of State. We have signalled that greater choice is very much a part of what we seek to do.
By 2005 all patients will be able to choose the date, time and place of their treatment. One of the must-do targets set out in the National Health Service plan is that by the end of 2005, all patients will be able to seek treatment at a time that suits them. That is a clear and public commitment. Through the additional resources that we are making available to the National Health Service for the next year, we are demonstrating our commitment by piloting patient choice from July. At that time, patients with coronary heart disease will be able to benefit from patient choice. When a patient has been on an in-patient waiting list for coronary heart disease treatment for more than six months, he or she will be offered swifter treatment in a different National Health Service hospital, or in the private sector, or in another EU country. We are looking to extend the pilots across other specialisms and in different areas. It

1583
is important for the patients who will benefit from that pilot, but it will also be a valuable learning experience in terms of where we need to get to by 2005.
As part of our proposals for patient choice, we have made it clear that patients should be able to choose where they are treated. Patients and their doctors will be able to consider a range of options. That might be at the local NHS hospital or at diagnostic and treatment centres or in the private sector or overseas. We want patients to be able to compare different waiting times in different hospitals and across different specialties. We want GPs and referring consultants to be able to book appointments online.
That surely is, as I have said, the vision of a modern health service. I do not think that it is appropriate to place on the statute hook in primary legislation the wording that the noble Baroness has suggested. At the end of the day it falls to government Ministers in their accountability to Parliament to decide on the National Health Service. That is what we have done. I have made it clear that patient choice is a priority. I have no doubt that we shall deliver on that. But it is very much a matter for Ministers to make those decisions and in turn to he accountable to Parliament for so doing.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for those comments. I am perplexed. I had understood him to be moving in the direction of patient choice—that is what he outlined to us—hut he said that somehow having the duty of patient choice was not appropriate. I did not hear why it was not appropriate, other than it was something to do with policy decided by the Secretary of State.
The Government show a great lack of commitment to the principle of patient choice, if' that is something that the Secretary of State wishes to keep to himself and to prioritise or de-prioritise from time to time. In the light of those comments, we should rightly be skeptical of the Government's apparent conversion to patient choice. I want to think about the matter further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 101:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"Targets for patients
(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to achieve the following targets for patients—

(a) no patient should wait more than 48 hours for an appointment to sec a general practitioner,

(b) no patient should wait longer than thirteen weeks from the time of referral from a general practitioner for a First appointment to be seen as an out-patient.

(c) no patient should wait longer than six months from the time that he is first seen as an out-patient for the procedure or other treatment decided upon,

(d) no patient should wait longer than one hour after arrival at an accident and emergency unit or similar unit before being seen by a doctor or a qualified nurse practitioner, and

1584

(e) no patient should wait longer than four hours for admittance to a hospital from an accident and emergency or similar unit after a decision has been made that he should be admitted to a hospital.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order define how the targets set out in subsection (1) are to be measured.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order add to the targets set out in subsection (1) or alter those targets so that shorter times are specified.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order set targets for shorter times than set out in subsection (1) for defined categories of patients or services.
(5) An order made under subsections (3) and (4) shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 101, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102 to 104.
The amendments are important because they deal with patients' experience of the NHS throughout the times that they have to wait at various points in the system. The amendments focus on the areas of patient experience which the Government believe to be important, because they included them in the NHS Plan.
Amendment No. 101 introduces a new clause which sets up the basic framework of targets for patients. It provides that the Secretary of State has a duty to achieve some basic waiting time targets for patients: namely, not having to wait more than 48 hours to see a GP, 13 weeks for an outpatients appointment, six months for an inpatient or other treatment. more than a hour in accident and emergency before being seen or waiting more than four hours for admittance from accident and emergency.
Those are largely the targets which were spelt out in the NHS Plan. The plan referred to a "war on waiting". These targets in the light of our current experience of the NHS might well seem ambitious. However, if one looks to the experience of other European countries the acceptable times are much shorter than the times that we have included. So these are not perhaps very ambitious targets.
Regardless of whether or not the targets are ambitious, it is far from clear whether those set out in the NHS Plan will be achieved. Last year the Audit Commission reported on accident and emergency performance. It noted that waiting times had got worse since 1996.
Professor John Yates, recently writing in the Health Service Journal, noted that some of the waiting time data are showing some worrying trends. One of his conclusions was that the rate of sustained waiting time reductions needed to deliver the targets has never been achieved in the past, with the implication that the targets are likely to be missed.
Patients need to know that these minimum standards will move from aspiration to reality. That is why the proposed clause lays the responsibility on the shoulders of the Secretary of State. It allows him to introduce additional targets and set shorter targets. It is not the Government's intention, I imagine, that the targets in the plan are desirable end states.

1585
Simply placing a duty on the Secretary of State to achieve a target says nothing about what should happen if he fails. Amendment No. 102 requires the Secretary of State to set up compensation arrangements. Patients want to be treated, not compensated for non-treatment—but some form of compensation, which it is left to the Secretary of State to make by order, should concentrate the minds of service deliverers and make it clear to patients that it is their right to receive treatment within certain minimum periods.
The compensation scheme would take effect in 2004, except for the 13-week and six-month targets, which are given a date in 2003. I am sure that the Minister will say that those deadlines are tough compared with the 2005 of the NHS Plan but I doubt that dates alone will be the sticking point with these amendments.
The Secretary of State cannot be expected personally to achieve patient targets so Amendment No. 103 allows him to delegate the duties and compensation scheme to primary care trusts, NHS trusts or strategic health authorities.
It is no exaggeration to say that patients have been let down by the Government who have promised much but delivered little. The amendments put patients at the heart of the Government's responsibilities to the NHS. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am surprised that the noble Baroness should say that the Government have delivered little. I invite the Committee to consider the huge increase in capacity and in the number of medical training places; the 30,000 extra nurses working in the health service; the development of services such as NHS Direct; and the development of a new safety and quality culture. Much has been achieved and we are indebted to NHS staff for their hard work.
I share the noble Baroness's desire to see waiting time targets achieved and we are determined that they will be. That is best done by the setting of targets and effective performance management rather than by laying down limits and targets in statute law. In the NHS those matters have always been the responsibility of Ministers to determine and that will continue—which is why the NHS Plan clearly sets out the maximum waiting time targets that we expect to be delivered.
By the end of March this year, the maximum waiting time for a first outpatient appointment will reduce from more than six months to an absolute of six months. The maximum wait for inpatient treatment will be cut from 18 months to 15 months. Maximum waiting times will continue to fall on a staged basis each year. By 2003, the maximum wait for a first outpatient appointment will be five months; by 2004, four months; and by 2005, three months.
1586
Similarly, for inpatient treatment the maximum wait will be 12 months by 2003, nine months by 2004, and six months by 2005.
Subject to other NHS Plan targets for increasing capacity, the Government's eventual aim is to reduce the maximum waiting time for all stages of treatment to three months by 2008.
The latest figures for the end of January show that many trusts are on the way to meeting the initial targets that we set. We will continue to press the health service to do everything it can to increase its capacity and to get more doctors, more beds into use and more facilities, with increasing use of the independent sector where it can provide greater capacity. All those efforts are being made by the health service to deliver on the waiting time targets.
The question arises of whether it is appropriate to put a compensation scheme for patients on the face on the Bill. I do not believe that that is the appropriate way forward. It would be wholly a departure in the enactment of health service legislation. I note that when the Conservative Party developed the Patient's Charter, it never proposed that failure to meet Patient's Charter targets should be placed in a statutory framework. If it had, it would have cost an awful lot of money.
Meeting targets is best left to the performance management system of the health service. I am confident that the NHS will deliver on those targets. We as a Government will ensure that the NHS has the resources in terms of training places, money and facilities. I hope that on consideration the noble Baroness will agree that her amendment is not appropriate.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. He began by parading some successes of the NHS, as I would have expected. But the plain fact is that non-elective activity reduced last year and the number waiting more than 13 weeks rose by 27 per cent in the first nine months of this financial year. Things are not all moving in the direction of success.
The Minister again says that the amendment is not appropriate. We are told to leave things to performance management, but I put it to the Minister that that is an internal perspective, whereas the amendment would put patients at the centre by firmly rooting a duty to deliver things for them, not considering internal management processes. I feel, as I did about the previous amendment, that the Government have a lot of rhetoric about wanting to meet targets. They have a whole structure based on the plan and its implementation. But when we ask them to put a little more commitment behind that in the form of a statutory commitment, we are told that that is inappropriate.
I am disappointed. I shall reflect further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 104 not moved.]
Lord Filkin: Now may be a convenient moment to end our consideration of the Bill in Committee today. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
1588
House resumed.

Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Employment Bill
Thursday, 21st March 2002.
The Committee met at four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee to speak standing and that there are no Divisions in Grand Committee. If there is a Division on the Floor of the House, we shall adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Rotherwick: Today the Government are to make a Statement in the House on hunting with dogs. It is the result of the debate on Tuesday in your Lordships' House on hunting, which culminated in more than 400 Peers voting. The large number of Peers voting indicates the importance of the debate.
It would seem important that all noble Lords should have an opportunity of listening to this significant Statement, which has so much bearing on this nation and those who work in the countryside. It would be crass, in my opinion, to refuse to adjourn the Grand Committee in the light of the importance of this Statement.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Although normally I would he happy to agree with a requirement to adjourn by Members of the Committee on the other side, I cannot agree that the Committee should be adjourned for a Statement on the Floor of the House on hunting.
The Employment Bill is a measure of considerable concern to many thousands of workers. My noble friends and I have spent a good deal of time upon it and my noble friend Lord Wedderburn in particular has worked very hard on it.
I therefore could not support the request for an adjournment. We need all the time available to discuss the Bill. I believe that that is also the position of my noble friends.
Lord McCarthy: That is certainly my position.
Lord Sharman: I rise to support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. It seems to me that the issue does not relate to the importance of the Bill: we all agree that it is a very important Bill.
On Tuesday, more than 400 Peers voted on the subject to which the Statement relates. The amount of media coverage further confirms it as an important matter. I would like the opportunity to listen to that Statement. We have already had four days in
CWH 264
Committee on the Bill and are scheduled to have more days next week. It is not a case of giving the Bill less time.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I take on board what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. However, we were initially given three clays in Grand Committee. We were then given an extra day and we are now being given two more. Our debate is not being guillotined in any way. In any event, I very much doubt that the two additional clays we have been given next week will complete the Bill. We probably would have to have some more time after Easter.
The idea that we are suggesting that we shorten debate on the Bill in order to hear something else is not correct. But that is all. As far as I am concerned, my noble friends Lord Rotherwick and Lady O'Caithan will go downstairs to listen to the Statement. I shall be sad not to, but that is a fact of life if noble Lords opposite feel unable to agree.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): We on this side regard it as a matter of principle that one should always try to accommodate people in these circumstances. However, I believe that establishing a precedent that Grand Committees are brought to a halt if Members consider that Statements or other business taking place in Parliament is of more interest to them would be a very unfortunate one to set. Therefore, we on this side would want to oppose the application.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I understand exactly what the Minister is saying. It is not a question of establishing a precedent. The fact remains that when a Statement is made in the Chamber, the current business is suspended to allow it to be made. I understand exactly that that occurs because no other space is available, but that is the precedent: when there is a Statement, the current business is suspended so that noble Lords can hear the Statement. I believe that many Members of the Committee opposite, like many of us, did not wish to deal with the Bill in Grand Committee. We would rather have dealt with it on the Floor of the House, in which case we would have had no problem with hearing the Statement. We were pushed into that, as it were. I do not know about Members opposite, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is not looking in my direction, but I suspect that, with the amount of work that he has done, he would prefer to be discussing the Bill in the Chamber. However, we have made our point; it will be reported in Hansard. I think it is most unfortunate.
Lord Rotherwick: I do not wish to push this too far but the precedent has already been set. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, brought the proceedings to a halt at an earlier point in order to go down to the Chamber for a Statement. So this has already happened. It was convenient for the government side

CWH 265
to bring a halt to these proceedings. However, when we wish to do similar, it is not perceived as convenient. I would just make that point.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Anyone can move to adjourn the Committee but, just as an amendment, that Motion cannot be voted on and can be agreed only if totally unopposed. Some noble Lords could leave and the quorum of a Committee is three. Therefore, if three noble Lords are still here, including the Chairman, the Committee can carry on, but obviously those who leave the Committee will miss their amendments.
Lord McCarthy: Of course, the business in the Chamber has to be suspended to hear a Statement; otherwise, the Statement could not be heard. The Chamber does not have an option. However, we have an option. The fact that we accepted what I considered a rather bad precedent when we adjourned the Committee the other day does not mean to say that it should be set in stone. I believe that we should continue with the Bill. If we do so, perhaps we shall finish the Committee stage in the two days that have been allocated next week.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Let us see what happens when we come to it. I have explained the position and it is up to the Committee to decide what to do.
Schedule 2 [Statutory dispute resolution procedures]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 124A:
Page 66, line 19, at end insert—
"PART 4FAIRNESS
14 Nothing in the provisions contained in this Schedule shall affect the operation of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (general)."
The noble Lord said: I only say that I am sorry we see this matter differently from Members opposite but we must push on.
Amendment No. 124A is virtually undeniable in its wisdom because it rests upon the statement of my noble and learned friend yesterday when he said in relation to Schedule 2,
"The statutory procedures seek to set out a minimum requirement that employers (in relation to dismissal) and employees (in relation to grievance) have to go through. It is not intended to affect in any way at all the principles that govern reasonableness".— [Official Report, 20/03/02; col. CWH 201.]
It may be that it is not intended to affect them, but there is a widespread doubt shared by a large number of people, including people very experienced in the law to be applied in employment tribunals, that there could be some effect upon the principles as to unfair dismissal and reasonableness which we have tried to summarise by referring to Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. I could give the Committee many examples of communications but my noble and learned friend may know that we have received a large number of communications which express this worry, let us say.
CWH 266
If my noble and learned friend is saying that everybody who has formed such a doubt is so wrongheaded that, if they pleaded such a point, it would be struck out, he takes upon himself a very high burden of proof. I repeat, if they ever mention such a point in pleadings, they will be struck out. Then, of course, there is no reason to insert a provision which, in one sense, is no more than a provision for the avoidance of doubt. If, however, he does not take that burden upon himself, if he is saying that everybody else is so wrongheaded that they would be, as it were, struck out, and if he accepts that it is possible that he may be wrong at the margins at least and that there could be a possible doubt about the matter, it is in the interests of the principles that he pressed upon us so strongly earlier in relation to Schedule 2—namely, the principles of certainty and clarity and of leaving nothing to be litigated that could be avoided—he should at least consider the wisdom of the amendment. It says what he said; that is, that nothing in Schedule 2 is to affect the principles of reasonableness of cases that go to a tribunal hearing.
Of course, we pointed out to the Minister that Schedule 2 is part of the apparatus that may stop cases getting to a tribunal hearing, but he did not like our arguments on that point and insisted that that was so. The amendment accepts what he said and it would build what he said into the Bill—it does no more and no less than that. I hope that my noble and learned friend will therefore accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support my noble friend—the amendment also appears in my name. It would be to the benefit of everybody, in a sense, if Section 98, which is clearly headed "Fairness" in the Employment Rights Act 1996. was restated in this Bill.
On a number of occasions during discussion of the Bill, we have said that there is a widespread view which repeatedly appears in the press and often from people who are normally very well informed. That widespread view is that this section and these parts of the Bill are intended to be obstacles to workers who seek to enforce their rights.
The Minister has informed us on a number of occasions that that is not so—that that is not the Government's intention. One way of asserting that it is not would be to refer to the relevant part of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which sets out very clearly the reasons that are regarded as fair and which an employer has to show before an employee can be dismissed. Section 98 states that a reason falls within its provisions,
"if it … relates to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do",
or if it,
"relates to the conduct of the employee … is that the employee was redundant, or … is that the employee could not continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (either on his part or on that of his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under an enactment".

CWH 267
That is a very clear statement, which is headed "Fairness", Our amendment would also import the word "fairness" into the Bill. It would be a good idea if the Government were to think seriously about accepting this amendment.
4.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The amendment seeks to ensure that the statutory procedures have no effect on the operation of Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has said. That section sets out the general tests to be applied by a tribunal in determining whether an employee has been unfairly dismissed.
As has been stated on a number of occasions in the course of the passage of the Bill, the inter-relationship between the statutory procedures and unfair dismissal is covered explicitly in Clause 34. There is no need to go over the same ground in relation to the schedule. That would unnecessarily complicate the procedures and introduce inappropriate legal language into the procedures which, as I have said on a number of occasions already, the language seeks to avoid—it tries to be clear.
The amendment is also unacceptable in another sense because it confuses the effect of Clause 34. It seems to ignore the fact that Clause 34 in fact introduces significant changes to unfair dismissal law relating to the statutory procedures that favour the employee. In particular, the clause makes it automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee if the relevant statutory procedure has not been followed. It is an important change, as has been acknowledged. It is brought about by introducing new Section 98A into the Employment Rights Act 1996. The proposed new section in the amendment makes a cross-reference to existing Section 98, but ignores new Section 98A altogether.
The amendment is unnecessary because, in direct response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, the statute is sufficiently clear to deal with all the points that he made. It would make it more difficult to understand the schedule and it would make the law more complicated, as would many of the amendments that have been suggested by my noble friend. It would create confusion about the effects of Clause 34 and it could possibly undermine the additional protections given to employees by new Section 98A.
I hope that in the light of my remarks, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I intervene to make it clear that the amendment does not appear with my name is because they did not put it on. It is not that I do not agree with it in any way.
I turn to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on a very modest little amendment. That amendment sought to put on to the face of the Bill that there should be an
CWH 268
investigation to establish the facts. We were, therefore, gratified when the Minister of State, though turning down our amendment, made this very generous statement:
"The statutory procedures seek to set out a minimum requirement that employers (in relation to dismissal) and employees (in relation to grievance) have to go through. It is not intended to affect in any way at all the principles that govern reasonableness. As I made clear on Monday afternoon, if there is not an investigation, in virtually every case, the test would make the business unfair".— [Official Report, 20/3/02; col. CWH 201.]
However, his generous statement was in fact a more profound and more general statement.
Our amendment seeks this time to build on what the Minister has actually said. I do not believe that anyone would find it confusing; they would learn from it 'what they might not be certain of if they simply read the Bill; that is, that you could not use the minimum procedure in order to get round the way that the criteria between fairness and unfairness and reasonableness, and so on, had been built up on the basis of the other Employment Rights Act and the decisions of tribunals. I do not see any way that anybody would be confused if the very words of the Minister were in effect included as the basis of this statement.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thornton will not accept even the spirit of the amendment, although most of his objections were based on its form. As for it being legalistic and therefore not appropriate to Schedule 2, I will make a plea to my noble and learned friend. I plead with him not use this word "legalistic" because nobody is sure what it means. It is rather like "gross negligence", which is negligence with the addition of a vituperative epithet. "Legalistic" is "legal" with a few letters at the end to make it sound nasty.
There is much that is legal in Schedule 2. It refers to the test of conduct, characteristic or other circumstances in regard to what is to be alleged in regard to an employee's misconduct or breach of his obligations. That statement is taken straight out of Section 98 and will be interpreted by a court or tribunal quite properly by reference to the legal source from which it comes.
Similarly, almost every other phrase in Schedule 2 is couched quite properly in legal language, and so we drew up our amendment in proper legal language. Quite why the Minister thinks that it refers to Section 98A, or has somehow omitted to notice Section 98A which is introduced by Clause 34, I cannot for the life of me understand. It has nothing to do with Section 98A; it says it is to do with Section 98. I thought the Minister was going to criticise the amendment because it should have been moved in relation to Clause 29 and not to Schedule 2. That is a defect in the amendment and on Report we shall no doubt cure it by tabling a similar amendment to Clause 29, if, after reflection, we conclude that we should do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Contracts of Employment]:
[Amendment No. 125 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 126:
Page 35, line 33, leave out", and not inconsistent with,".
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 126, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 127. The amendments take us into Clause 30, which, as Members of the Committee well know, provides the mechanism for placing the statutory procedures of Schedule 2 into the individual contracts. The clause begins in a nice, unambiguous way by saying that they shall have effect notwithstanding existing agreements to the contrary. That is then reversed—I believe that in drafting terms it is a little cumbrous—by allowing the continuation of agreements,
"not inconsistent with, the requirements of the statutory procedure".
Therefore, the statutory procedure has effect irrespective of what anybody has. However, that is not really the case because if something is not inconsistent with the statutory procedures, that is all right.
We consider the word "inconsistent" to be rather ambiguous. In what way would the requirement be inconsistent? We prefer to make it clear that we want the requirement to be consistent only in one way; that is, not more painful to employees. In other words, we want an agreement which is more favourable to employees. We want an improvement in the dispute procedure. That is difficult to imagine, although I suppose that it is just possible to imagine many existing procedures which are less favourable than the statutory procedures as most will be rather better and certainly more comprehensive. We are saying "Well, they can stand: if they are not less favourable, they can stand". In other words, we are saying that there is an inconsistency, conflict or ambiguity which would make us prefer the word "favourable" to "inconsistent".
Obviously if one says that—it is not the only example but the most obvious example of what one means—one is referring to any procedure based upon the ACAS code. Although we have done so before, it is worth again trying to bring to the attention of the Government and the Committee the differences between the existing ACAS code—many codes and procedures are better than the ACAS code—and the statutory procedures.
As I believe I have said before, the key to the ACAS code is a paragraph, which is not very long, setting out the 11 essential features of dispute procedures. I calculate that approximately five of those are not in the statutory procedure. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether they are inconsistent with the statutory procedure. Might it be argued that that is the case?
The first is in many ways the most important. If I were allowed to put one thing into the statutory procedures I might consider this one. However, my colleagues might not agree, and I do not believe that
CWH 270
the Government would consider it for a moment. It would be the specification and limitation on the management's right to decide discipline; that is, the principle that not everybody can sack. Not everyone in a company or organisation can be allowed to sack people. There must he a specification so that we know who has the right to dismiss. There is nothing about that in the statutory procedure but it is, of course, in the ACAS procedure.
Secondly, and almost as important. is the principle which is observed in most procedures that I know of; that is, the relevance of the past record of the individual worker. One asks questions about the employee such as; is this the first thing that he did; does he have nine years of exemplary conduct; is this the first offence to come to light; and, if it is, has he received an informal, formal or final warning? If it is the final warning and if the worker commits the offence persistently, then dismissal may well be the appropriate penalty. One will not find any reference to the past record of conduct. Anyone who takes the procedure seriously and says, "That's all they're getting out of me" will say that anybody can sack on the first offence. Certainly, there is nothing in the Act that suggests that that involves rather bad industrial relations. I will not go into the utility of the suspension alternative, which we have debated. Most decent procedures do something about suspension. We have tried to add to the Bill the need for investigation, examination, explanation but nobody has considered that.
I turn to the special case of gross dismissal. One of the most novel things that the Government have done is to say that where there is gross misconduct justifying dismissal, there needs to be a shortened and simplified procedure. We have asked them to justify that but they have never really done so. I do not know of a precedent. The most complicated, difficult and ambiguous set of circumstances are involved. My noble friend does not even like the phrase, "gross misconduct but it is used in industry. Most people who use it appreciate that if they are going to sack somebody on the basis of gross misconduct. they had better investigate, take their time, look at the case in an independent way, may be bring some third party in and use suspension. There is nothing whatever in the stated procedure—the statutory procedure.
It is worth saying, at the risk of delaying the Committee, that behind all this—behind the differences between the ACAS procedure and many other procedures and the statutory procedure—is nothing less than the philosophy of the treatment of workers. It is not an accident that the idea of a statutory procedure—the essential elements of the statutory procedure—comes from the employers. Discipline is seen as something that can he done by anybody. Discipline does not have to be consistent; it does not have to be based on your past record; and it does not have to be placed on anything else but an exercise of managerial prerogatives. That is the philosophy. The alternative is that discipline could be consistent, that it should fit itself to the individual and that as far as possible it should be remedial and

CWH 271
constructive. This is the philosophy of personnel management, not the philosophy of managerial prerogatives.
We say, therefore, that the approach is not an accident. If the Government are not to line themselves up completely behind the philosophy that regards discipline as something that only management is entitled to do and does not have to justify the use of—if you want to get discipline justified you have to go to a tribunal, because that is the only way you can get it justified—we say that they ought to be prepared to make this significant but small change to Clause 30. In place of "inconsistent with" we should have,
"less favourable to the employees".
I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: These amendments seek to ensure that any agreed procedures must always be at least as "favourable" to the employee as the statutory procedures. Thus, the contractual or voluntary procedures can be entirely different, provided that they are at least as favourable. The existing wording of the subsection ensures that the contractual procedures must be "not inconsistent" with the statutory procedures. Both formulations are plainly seeking to achieve a similar objective, so this is purely a drafting issue. I believe that the existing wording is to be preferred. I recognise that the intention behind the amendments is to allow employers and employees a greater degree of flexibility in their choice of contractually binding procedures. However, there are problems with the amendments. Deciding whether a procedure operating in a significantly different way from a statutory procedure was or was not as favourable would be a difficult and largely subjective exercise. It would also be difficult to predict the outcome. These amendments introduce a lack of clarity and I believe they can only be undesirable here, if what one is after is clarity. Our test is significantly less subjective and ensures that the contractual procedures must be consistent with the statutory procedures, while allowing the flexibility for the procedures to contain more stages or set out more detailed requirements. I admit this test too involves an element of judgment but I believe that in practice it would be easier to apply. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am interested in that comment by my noble and learned friend. It seems to me that he is in two difficulties. He says that judging whether something is not less favourable to an employee is far too uncertain, it lacks clarity and is subjective. My noble friend touched on one of the two answers to that; namely, that it is also a matter of judgment whether something is inconsistent with something else; it is not necessarily obvious. Of course, there is a judgment to be formed on both applications.
However, that which is not less favourable to the employee than a particular term or condition of employment has appeared in our employment law on
CWH 272
previous occasions. I do not know what precedent my noble and learned friend wishes to cite to show that it was so hopelessly uncertain and lacking in clarity that it could not be applied. It is applied time and again. In Section 185 of the consolidation Act 1992 we come across terms and conditions of employment in an award which must not he ousted by subsequent terms and conditions other than if they are an improvement upon those terms and conditions. That formula is not very different from terms and conditions that are not less favourable. There is nothing in the argument that Amendment No. 127 is so uncertain that it could not he applied.
My noble and learned friend even appears to accept the argument that the procedures put forward and operated in a place of work by an employer could possibly he less than the statutory procedures in Schedule 2. Perhaps he will give me an example of a procedure less than the modified procedures, for example, which he believes would he a fair procedure for an employer to operate. My noble and learned friend indicates that he did not say that.
If the employer should not introduce procedures which are worse—I use the word "worse" generally—than Schedule 2 then there is nothing wrong with the formula which states that they should be not less favourable to the employee. They should be as good for the worker as the Schedule 2 procedures, which are, heaven knows, bad enough, especially in the modified procedures, and they must not be worse than the dreadfully unfair procedures that the Government are implying into every contract of employment. That is the sense of Amendment No. 127. I hope that it will he printed in Hansard that instead of the words "not inconsistent with" there should be the words "which is not less favourable to the employee". Nothing could be more just and reasonable than that.
Lord McCarthy: I want to raise one point with the Minister. He intervened during my noble friend's comments and said, if I have this right, that lie believed that there could be procedures which could not he worse. He was then asked to give an example and he said he did not say that. Hansard will tell us what he said.
However, I believe that the real question is whether the Minister can cite a procedure which would he inconsistent with the statutory procedures. I cannot think of one. If he cannot think of a procedure which is inconsistent, then the phrase means nothing.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: One example would be not having to send a letter. This argument, which is absolutely riveting, has been on the issue of whether we should use the words "not inconsistent with" or "not less favourable to the employee". It is an important argument on which time should be spent, and both sides know what the issues are.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may withdraw the amendment and say a few words. I do not mind the Minister saying that the amendments lack clarity: I do not mind him saying that they are subjective; and I do not mind him saying that they are designed to help

CWH 273
employees—of course, they are. However, at one stage he said that they were in fact doing the same thing. That is just nonsense. The fact is that we want a lot more put in. Most people would accept—I think the Minister would accept this—for example, that to have different stages in a procedure is a significant change and that to have specification of the use of a suspension is an additional change. That is why the CBI does not want these things included.
We may not be clear and we may not be objective, but we are different. To say that what we want put on the face of the Bill is the same as what the Government have done is not only inconsistent with saying that we are trying to benefit employees but is also complete nonsense. I do not mind the Minister saying we are silly but he should not say we are the same. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 128:
Page 35, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) The employer shall explain to the employee in writing the effect of the requirement imposed by any relevant procedure under subsection (1) and the obligation of the employee shall be limited to an obligation to comply with the requirements of either—

(a) the relevant statutory procedures, or

(b) the relevant statutory procedures as explained to him in writing by his employer where that explanation describes steps more beneficial to, or less onerous upon, the employee."

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 128 which is on a rather similar point. Clause 30, which we are now discussing, says in subsection (1) that:
"Every contract of employment shall have effect to require the employer and employee to comply, in relation to any matter to which a statutory procedure applies, with the requirements of the procedure.
If obligations are imposed upon an employee, the employee should really be informed about them. One of the reasons for the amendment is that we want the employer to explain in writing to the employee—I stress the words "in writing"—
"the effect of the requirement imposed by any relevant procedure under subsection (1) and the obligation of the employee shall be limited to an obligation to comply with the requirements of either—
(a) the relevant statutory procedures, or"—
and then we go a little further and say—
"(b) the relevant statutory procedures as explained to him in writing by his employer where that explanation describes steps more beneficial to, or less onerous upon, the employee".
In other words, we accept that there are many instances—and people have written to me about this—where existing procedures are actually better and more beneficial to an employee. A number of people have written to say that they have read about the new Bill but that they are rather better off as they are.
CWH 274
The object of the amendment is to make sure that an employee shall be told of his obligations as regards the relevant procedure and also as regards any procedures that have been freely negotiated and accepted by both sides in the particular enterprise concerned.
I hope the Government will agree that this is quite obviously a necessary amendment. If people are going to accept obligations, they must know what those obligations are and they must have those obligations in writing. It seems to me it would be entirely legitimate for the Bill to require the employer to explain that matter to the employee. I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the Minister responds, may I say that I do not think this is a sensible amendment; in fact, I totally oppose it? This would put a huge burden on small businesses. There are many small businesses employing people—in fact, most businesses are small businesses. I read very carefully what the amendment says. It says that the employer will explain in writing the effect of this matter. However, there will be many cases where the employer himself may not understand it very well. There used to be a concept that everybody understood what the law meant, or was presumed to know what the law meant.
If this measure is absolutely necessary, then I am sure ACAS must have a budget to deal with it. Posters or leaflets could be placed in employment offices and so on. However, it is absolutely ludicrous to say that the burden should fall upon the employer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am on the side of my noble friend Lady Turner in this. My only problem in relation to the amendment is that it is unnecessary because the obligation already exists.
The noble Baroness's Amendment No. 128 seeks to impose a requirement on employers to inform employees about the existence of the statutory procedures or of their contractual procedures where they are
"more beneficial to, or less onerous upon, the employee".
Put aside the fact that we might have a complaint about the uncertainty of the last hit of that phrase, as occurred with Amendment No. 127. As I say, the principle is right but the measure is unnecessary. Under Section 3 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, employers must include details of their disciplinary and grievance procedures, where they are operated, in the "note" included in the statement of employment particulars. Clause 36 of this Bill removes the existing small firms exemption in Section 3—so it will apply to employers of all sizes.
Clause 30 ensures that the statutory procedures will be incorporated into contracts as an implied term where employers do not already operate more elaborate procedures. This means that all employers and all employees will henceforward have disciplinary and grievance procedures. By the same token, employers will therefore be required to inform all employees about these procedures in the note in the written statement. We have thereby ensured that employees will be made aware of the application of the

CWH 275
statutory procedures. In the light of that explanation, which I hope my noble friend will agree exactly delivers the purpose of the amendment, I hope that she might feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I wonder whether my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton would pause for a moment on Section 3 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on which he relies. Section 3(1)(a) says that the employer shall include in what he gives the employee a note,
"specifying any disciplinary rules applicable to the employee"—
that was the bit that I understood my noble and learned friend to rely upon—
"or referring the employee to the provisions of a document specifying such rules which is reasonably accessible to the employee".
So the employer does not actually have to set out the disciplinary rules. His note can say, "You are governed by Schedule 2 of the Employment Act 2002". In fact, many notes do refer to other documents. For example, they refer to works' rules and very frequently they refer to procedures which are in other documents.
I hesitate to complicate my noble and learned friend's notes but this matter relates also to Amendment No. 192. I wonder whether he will be resisting our Amendment No. 192 because that says that the employer must set out an explanation of the relevant statutory procedures. If my noble and learned friend does not want to comment on it now, we will come to it, but it links up.
As the Minister said before, this is a very important introduction, a novel legal introduction, into the contract of employment and into the employment relationship. We wonder whether it is sufficient that the employer should be allowed simply to refer to the provisions of the 2002 Act which is reasonably accessible to the employee. He does not want to be what he calls "legal" or "legalistic", but the employee has to go off and read the Act, and look at Schedule 2 if that is what the note says.
I do not think that is sufficient. It is certainly not true to say that what we say in this amendment is the equivalent of Section 3. We have very carefully not adopted the option of Section 3 of just referring to any other document that the employee then has to go off and read.
I am sure that my noble and learned friend will agree that this amendment is not the same as Section 3, and perhaps would at any rate give it a little further consideration.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Let me respond The effect of Section 3 is as my noble friend read it. It means one has to give a note or refer to a document which is reasonably accessible to the employee.
The purpose of Section 3 of the other Act is plainly intended to ensure that the employee has a note or reasonable access to the description of the procedure, which is the purpose I believe my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden had in her amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his response to the amendment and I am very pleased that he accepts in principle what we have to say. As for the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, I have to say to her that she has her usual concern for small businesses, but I am sure that there will be plenty of information available once the Bill becomes an Act, to enable small businesses to cope with any new requirements that emerge as a result of the legislation. I do not think that we need bother too much about the burden on businesses, which I do not think will be extremely onerous.
As to what we will do with the amendment, I would like to read in Hansard what the Minister has said because of a very interesting point raised by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 130:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
"TERMINATION OF CONTRACT AND NON-COMPLETION OF STATUTORY PROCEDURES
Where a dismissal falls within section 97(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (effective date of termination; termination without notice), the effective due of termination shall not take effect before any applicable statutory procedure has been completed."
The noble Lord said: Amendment. No. 130 raises a point which I think has not been addressed in the debates on the Bill so far. A large number of legal consequences and consequences in life are dependent upon what is the moment at which a contract of employment terminates.
The amendment seeks to address a problem which is consequent upon the insertion into the contract of employment, as statutorily implied terms, of the procedures in Schedule 2. Indeed, Government spokesmen have made much of the fact that both sides to the employment contract will now have the advantages. That is as they see it because they do not accept any of the comments on Schedule 2 that its procedures are unfair in various ways. They see the Bill as providing the advantage—and they are right if it solves a single dispute at the work place level, but at what cost?—of having these procedures as the implied obligations of the contract on both sides. The employer must operate his disciplinary procedures in accordance with Schedule 2. The employee must operate the grievance procedures in Schedule 2. They become an inherent part of the employment relationship based on the contract.
If that is so, normal principle would suggest that the employment contract should be worked through before anyone can arbitrarily bring it to an end. It will be most inconsistent—to use the Minister's word on the previous amendment—to suggest that the employer and employee cannot oust the procedures by

CWH 277
agreement while allowing the employer to oust the procedures before the employee has had the benefit of them in terms of his own dismissal.
On that basis, one could have moved an amendment to suggest that no dismissal should actually reach the effective date of termination—that is in the legal sense—until the procedures have been exhausted. If these are so beneficial at the place of work as the Government seem to think, we really ought to have them worked through, not just before anyone goes to a tribunal but before the employment relationship is shattered.
In fact, our amendment does not go as far as that. Our amendment concentrates on those parts of the dismissal scenario which fall within Section 97(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. When a dismissal is terminated on notice, the effective date of termination is normally the date on which the notice expires. However, under Section 97(1)(b) dealing with summary dismissals, the normal view—and I say "normal view" because there is a doubt here—is that the employer can rupture the employment relationship at the moment of a summary dismissal. I am sorry to detain Members of Committee about that point but there are a number present who will not appreciate what the doubt is.
The doubt is that under the old law of master and servant, the summary dismissal of an employee, or the summary dismissal of a servant, took effect there and then. There has, however, eventuated a development of contract law that the termination of a contract does not come about in face of a breach on the other side, except it be accepted or elected to accept by the other party.
There is a whole string of cases on that to which I wish to refer. The most convenient way to refer to them would be to cite a passage in the recent case of Cerberus Software Ltd v Rowley. In spelling it out, Members of the Committee will remember that I try to help Hansard as we do not have a shorthand writer. The case verges on the sticks of legal principle. Lord Justice Sedley in the Court of Appeal ([2001] IRLR 165) —it is not in the Library but I have managed to obtain a copy and I am sure the Minister does not have it—said this:
"In contract law generally, an unaccepted repudiation may be, as Asquith LJ said it was (Howard v Picklbrd Tool Co Ltd [1951] 1KB 417, 421), a thing writ in water; but in the case of a summary dismissal the conventional wisdom is that it is carved in stone (Sanders v Ernest Neale Ltd [1974] IRLR 236), since an employee cannot make his employer give him work any more than his employer can compel him to work. There is in consequence a longstanding and formally unresolved debate as to whether the contract of employment should be regarded as a legal exception to the general rule. But the useful discussion of the 'automatic' and 'elective' theories of job termination in Deakin and Morris, Labour Law"—
and he cites the passage,
"includes this telling passage at pp.417–418: 'There is also support for the elective theory from the point of view of authority. It was accepted by a majority of the Court of Appeal in Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council [1980] IRLR 321 and was approved after extensive analyses at first instance in Thomas Marshall (Exports) Ltd v Guinle [1978] IRLR 174 and Dietman v Brent London Borough Council [1987] IRLR 259.
CWH 278
Numerous decisions in which employees have been granted declarations or injunctions to prevent employers acting in breach of disciplinary procedures also depend on the application of the elective theory'.".
I pause to say that this is directly in point as regards procedures. He goes on:
"'including the decision of the House of Lords in McClelland v Northern Ireland General Health Services Board [1957] 1 WLR 594; it is not clear if or how far these decisions constitute some kind of exceptional category. In Rigby v Ferodo Ltd [1987] IRLR 516, the House of Lords declined to decide the matter, in a case not directly concerned with dismissal but with a cut in wages imposed, in breach of contract, by the employer. However, Lord Oliver said: 'I entirely fail to see how the continuance of the primary contractual obligation can be made to depend on the subjective desire of the contract-breaker and I do not understand what is meant by the injured party having no alternative but to accept the breach … I can see no reason in law or in logic why, leaving aside for the moment the extreme case of outright dismissal or [on the other side] walk-out, a contract of employment should be on any different footing from any other contract…
Lord Justice Sedley goes on to say:
"Despite this, the application of the elective theory continues to be controversial, and it is unfortunate that the House of Lords did not choose to clarify the law when it could arguably have done so in Rigby v Ferodo Ltd. More recently, in Boyo v Lambeth London Borough Council [1995] IRLR 50, a unanimous Court of Appeal took the opportunity to cast fresh doubt on the elective theory, while at the same time feeling bound to apply the majority ruling in the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal, Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council. Gunton, according to the Court in Boyo, had produced law distinctly lacking in rhyme and reason, and was not to be preferred, in principle, to the judgment of Sir John Donaldson P, the president in Sanders v Ernest A Neal [1974] IRLR 236 laying out the case for the automatic theory. Given such dicta, the future of the elective theory can hardly be regarded as assured".
It is important to understand the present position which that represents, because it is a mess. Therefore, in pursuit of the principles which the noble and learned Lord has put before us—namely, of pursuing certainty and clarity—that uncertainty, which will give rise to new litigation and even greater litigation under Schedule 2 even than the present position, really should be cured. It should be cured in favour of the principle that is put into legislation. Indeed, it is the Government's choice to put these procedures in Schedule 2 into the contract of employment by law. That is curious because they could have done so by regulation. They did not have to mention the contract of employment and it would have been a simpler Bill if they had not done so.
They may well have been right to do so because today statute is implying more terms into contracts and, if they take Schedule 2 so seriously—overlooking its unfairness—I can understand why they did it. However, if they do so, they should recognise the fact that these procedures should be completed before at least a summary dismissal—possibly any dismissal but our amendment says "a summary dismissal"—is effective and before its effective date of termination is in law expressed in the simple fact. What is the simple fact? The simple fact is that the worker is losing his job.

CWH 279
If this amendment is resisted, he can lose his job with summary dismissal and with consequences not merely—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Would the noble Lord come to the end of his sentence quickly?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am so sorry. I was saying with the consequences not merely upon the contract of employment and his wages but also, as my noble friend Lady Turner said the other day, upon his social security provision—a matter on which she may well wish to expand to the Committee on this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: A Division has been called. The Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes until 5.8 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended_ for a Division in the House from 4.58 to 5.8 p.m.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Before continuing discussions of Amendment No. 130, I have to advise the Committee that the Chief Reporter has asked me to announce that unfortunately Westminster Sound, due to a technical fault, did not record the opening speeches concerning the Statement on hunting. I will therefore, with the agreement of Members of the Committee, read back into the record the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, regarding the procedural position: "Anyone can move to adjourn the Committee but, just as an amendment, that Motion cannot be voted on and can be agreed only if totally unopposed".
The Committee may now continue discussion on Amendment No. 130.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Is it working now?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am advised that the answer to the noble Lord's question is yes.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This amendment seeks to provide that where an employee is dismissed without notice, the "effective date of termination" shall not take effect until the applicable statutory procedure has been completed. The effective date of termination is used in a number of places in the unfair dismissal provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and determines, for example, whether the employee has sufficient continuous employment to claim unfair dismissal and the date from which the time limit for making a claim runs. It is an important date.
We have already discussed gross misconduct in relation to the amendments tabled to Schedule 2 and how the procedures will apply in such cases. Where the full procedure is used, employers should not in any event dismiss until the meeting required by step 2 has taken place.
The amendment in practice is presumably aimed at the case where we intend that the modified procedure should apply; that is, where the employer dismisses more or less instantly, probably for what he believes to
CWH 280
be gross misconduct, without giving notice. It would artificially divorce the "effective date of termination" in such cases from the time when the dismissal really takes place. It will not have the result that the dismissal is made unfair if it would otherwise be fair. However, it would, if I understand it correctly, benefit some employees at the margins by securing that they have the necessary continuous employment to claim unfair dismissal when they would not otherwise do so. I have to say that the uncertainty generated by this amendment seems a high price to pay for that small benefit to a marginal number of employees.
However, the thrust of the argument of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn is that there is uncertainty of a legal sort. He read to us an extract from the Cerherus case, which indicates that there is a doubt in the law about whether one needs to accept a repudiatory breach of a contract of employment by an employer, where one is an employee, to bring the contract to an end. That uncertainty in law, he says, means that you should bring clarity to the issue by specifying that the effective date of termination should be once the statutory procedure is completed.
In effect, that would separate the legal date of the termination of a contract from the effective date of termination in the law which, in itself, would bring additional uncertainties. Where one is dealing with summary or instant dismissal, in practice I here is very rarely a difficulty about when the contract came to an end. I therefore do not think that the uncertainty which my noble friend identifies is as had in practice as to justify what would be a quite significant change in the law. If the intention is to prevent dismissal without notice, the amendment does not succeed in that aim in any event.
On the basis, however, that it does succeed, I can only say that we have no intention of going beyond what is in the procedures and providing that the effective date of termination will be delayed until the procedure has been completed or of preventing all dismissals without notice. Our intention is not to prevent summary dismissals but to ensure that, where a dismissal takes place, suitable internal procedures are followed. In our view, different procedures are suitable where a dismissal is instant.
So far as the drafting of the amendment is concerned, as I read it, it says there is no effective date of termination before any applicable statutory procedure has been completed. This would mean that the employer could prevent there ever being an effective date of termination, thereby preventing the employee ever getting to an industrial tribunal, which cannot be the intention of my noble friend.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I was struck by my noble and learned friend's first description of the effects of the amendment; namely, that it affects matters such as continuous employment. He said that its effect would bring a small benefit to a marginal number of workers. What an unthinkable

CWH 281
consequence! If that is so—I adopt for the moment the hypothesis that his description is correct—I am not ashamed to move such an amendment.
As my noble and learned friend explained, there are workers whose jobs are being destroyed by summary dismissal. He did not even bother to say it had to be lawful summary dismissal because, of course, the old master and servant rule treats summary dismissal as the end of the job. If that is his understanding of the law, despite the uncertainty in the case law—if the Government are suggesting to us and advising us that the rule is in summary dismissal as it was in the old master and servant cases and as it was repeated in Sanders v Neale—we have to listen very seriously to that.
It is no surprise in the light of that advice that the amendment would bring a small benefit to a marginal number of workers. If I were to exercise judgment on the proposition of the noble and learned Lord, I would think that perhaps the number would be more than marginal and there could be cases where the benefit was more than small. As for the idea that the amendment would stop a case from getting to employment tribunal. I think, with great respect, that that is quite fanciful because, where the job has purportedly been destroyed by an employer who will not go through the procedure, the employee could sue in the county court, quite apart from the tribunal and recover his wages until the end—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Is my noble friend saying that that would destroy the unfair dismissal claim?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I do not believe that it would destroy the unfair dismissal claim, but I do not want to prolong the argument on that. I am saying that the employer would still have a remedy and he would be advised he had a remedy—if my noble and learned friend were to advise him, his advice would be that he had a remedy. It is playing about with things to suggest that that is an objection to the amendment. It really will not do to tell me that that would improve the position of workers on their continuity of employment, which is absolutely fundamental to their position at work, that it would preserve their job because the effective termination would be postponed and that these very important procedures would have that great protective effect, whether a marginal number or a large number is involved, but that it cannot be made clear in the Bill that it will have that effect. "We will imply it in your contract", say the Government or the CBI or whoever it was who first thought up this dreadful schedule and this dreadful Bill in this particular part. "We shall put it in your contract, but don't think you can come along to us and make it clear on the face of the Bill that the small benefit that it might bring you will really get to you. You're just a marginal number of workers".
The philosophy of the Bill, which has been promoted under the guise of helping industrial relations, is in fact going to help neither that marginal number of workers nor—I tell the Government about this sincerely—will it help industrial relations because
CWH 282
people will rumble it. Someone who is summarily dismissed is going to say, "Well what about this procedure? Why should I be thrown out on the street and thrown to the social security office, where the employer is going to inform the social security authorities that I was dismissed for misconduct. which I deny? It's no good that. I shall have benefits withdrawn from me if I'm dismissed for misconduct. What about this procedure?" "Oh no", say the Government, "Your date of termination of your employment must be immediate. We can't wait for our procedures. That might bring you a small benefit". If that is not the reason, what other reason is there? It is not that the employee cannot get to a tribunal. Here we have the Government saying, "This amendment is preposterous because it will stop a tribunal claim". They were out to stop 40,000 tribunal claims; that is the object of the Bill. My noble and learned friend shakes his head, but if he looks at the Government's response to consultation, he will see that it is stated four times that the effect of the Bill will be—with a time lag possibly of one year—the reduction of employment tribunal cases by 30,000 to 40,000. They also set out the millions of pounds that will be saved. He really cannot shake his head when I mention this inconvenient fact.
This is a most serious step by the Government. Workers will blame their employers unless their unions bring to their minds the effect of a misconduct, summary dismissal, without necessary investigation. We are not now into the question of whether the tribunal finds it unfair. We are dealing with the procedure and the procedure can take place without investigation. Sometimes my noble friends and I forget that we must remind people what happened yesterday. Yesterday it was made absolutely clear that the Government would not insert into the modified procedure the principle of prior investigation. They refused and, therefore, the employer can dismiss summarily for misconduct without investigation. He need not—indeed, no one need—complete or initiate the procedures because they are no good to the employee; his job is finished and he is out on the street.
I doubt that my noble and learned friend was smiling at what I said, but something amused him. I am not amused, and I do not believe that my noble friends—both those who put their name to the amendment and those who did not—will be amused either. This is a most serious matter. At present the law is obscure, although the Government have expressed the view, through my noble and learned friend, that the principle of Sanders v Ernest A Neale Ltd applies and that Lord Justice Sedley is wrong in saying that the position is obscure and uncertain.
That is a most important statement which no doubt we shall have to consider. It will no doubt be cited in relevant cases as the Government's intention behind the Bill on this matter. First, they want Sanders v Ernest A Neale Ltd to apply; secondly, they do not want to agree to an amendment which would cure the uncertainty; and, thirdly, they do not want to cure the uncertainty in a manner which they fully admit would bring a small benefit to workers.

CWH 283
I do not understand why Ministers cannot simply say to us, "We shall take it away and look at it". Were it not my own Government, I would say that it was arrogant. On many occasions in the 1980s I said that propositions that were put to us were arrogant. When Ministers rejected the existence of some causes of action which were in all the books, I said that that was arrogant.
On this occasion, were it not my own Government, I believe I should have to say that it was arrogant to say, "Yes, it is an uncertainty, but we are curing it because Sanders v Ernest A Neale Ltd applies. If you had your way, you would cure the uncertainty which perhaps you say exists, and it would bring a small benefit to workers". No other reason has been given for not at least dealing with the obscurities of when the effective date of termination of contracts of employment and dismissals arises.
No doubt the Court of Appeal will one day be presented with this record. I am grateful to the Deputy Chairman of Committees for making it clear that the recording machine has not broken down again. This record will show just how clearly the Government are committed to every single line of the Bill. It is not only cast in stone; it will be a millstone around their necks unless they go away and reconsider the matter. It will be a gravestone to industrial relations in some areas because workers will know that the Government could not give them a small benefit and, as a result, they are marginalised and out on the street.
I can do nothing except beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that the Government will consider the matter on Report, and I hope that at that stage we shall be able to present them with a more acceptable amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 131, and before reverting to the statement that I made at the resumption of this session of the Grand Committee with reference to the breakdown of the recording, I have received a request from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. The recording equipment was also not working when she made her request, as I understand it, at the beginning of this afternoon. On consideration and after consultation, it would seem fair and reasonable—I hope that the Committee will agree—that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, should be allowed to repeat the request that she made but restrict herself only to repeating that request without discussion thereon.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am grateful to the Deputy Chairman for allowing me to speak. I am afraid that I do not remember what I said. I do not make speeches and remember them. Therefore, if my speech was not recorded, it was not recorded. I simply want to take the opportunity to say, once again, a few words on that issue.
I feel quite upset. Noble Lords opposite will know that many of us did not want to be in Grand Committee but wanted to be in the Chamber
CWH 284
downstairs. Had we been, there would have been no question that we would have had an opportunity of listening to the Statement and participating in the debate on it if we wished. As it was, we were made to come here. I understand perfectly well that this Grand Committee will always adjourn when there is a vote—we recently did so. I am sorry that I was not back in time to hear what the Deputy Chairman of Committees said. I also understood that if there was anything of a serious nature, that would be taken into account. I believe that a Statement of this kind, with so many having voted on Tuesday, is a serious matter.
I want to make another point. My noble friend commented on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who said that there is no such precedent. When the Minister—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Razzall—had to participate in a Statement, we adjourned without any problems for a while in order for them to do that.
I turn to the comments yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, about the fact that we do not have a shorthand writer here. We pointed out the difficulties of that. We are in a difficult position. I shall sit down soon—I understand the wish of the Deputy Chairman of Committees not to have any further discussion— but Members opposite will know what they said. I think that they were concerned not to waste time because so many of them had taken a lot of trouble with this Bill. I would not like anyone to think that we criticise anyone for the time taken. However long anything has taken, that is how long it has taken, and we have sat here. Fine; that is what democracy is. I say to them, "You are entitled to do work and go through your amendments in whatever way you wish". We appreciate that. The time spent attending the Statement would not have been time lost to the Committee because we still would have gone through everything.
I just want to place on the record the fact that I am very upset that my wish was not granted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I appreciate that the Deputy Chairman of Committees wanted no discussion of the matter. However, it is necessary for me to say a word on behalf of the Government Whips, if not the usual channels. Clearly, the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about adjourning the Committee, will have to be resolved. I undertake to ensure that the usual channels will take note of what she has just said.
Secondly, on the question of the breakdown of recording: that is extremely serious and we shall have to look into the question of back-up recording facilities. That will have to be done urgently.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The statements of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are on the record. I call Amendment No. 131.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 131:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
"NON-BREACH OF CONTRACT
In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52), after section 238A there is inserted—
"238B NON-BREACH OF CONTRACT
A stoppage of work by an employee in the course of industrial action which is protected action within the meaning of section 238A(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)) Act 1992, shall not constitute a breach of his contract of employment.""
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 262A and 264, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall. All three amendments are about the problem of the dismissal of those who take part in strike action. My noble friend, I think, agrees that it would be quicker for the Committee to understand the meaning and thrust of the amendments if Amendment No. 262A were moved first, with the leave of the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I would then move Amendment No. 131. which will make it absolutely clear how and why we are doing this. With the leave of the Deputy Chairman of Committees, I ask that that amendment, which is grouped with Amendment No. 131, be moved first. I will then move—or, at least, speak to—Amendment No. 131 and explain how it is different.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It is not possible to move Amendment No. 262A—I assume that is the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is referring—before Amendment No. 131. The procedure is that Amendment No. 131 must either now be moved or withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Very well. I apologise for trying to improve our procedures.
Both of these amendments—all three amendments in the group—concern a problem which, some people suggest, is a problem of the past and not of the present. However, events of the past two years—indeed, in view of the situation in Wales, events of the past two weeks—have shown that this is a matter with which there is considerable concern. It involves workers being dismissed from their jobs by reason of taking part in industrial action, even where that industrial action is protected on the part of the liability of the trade union by reason of there having been a ballot, proper notice and other procedures under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It is important, especially because we are coming at the matter this way round, that I speak to the amendment carefully and make it clear why I have put it on the Marshalled List and why it comes about now in addition to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Lea. I have found by experience over many decades that making the sort of proposal that is in both amendments leads to misunderstanding—it frequently leads to misrepresentation—particularly because of the insular debate that takes place in the United Kingdom, although the matter would not raise an
CWH 286
eyebrow across the Channel in most jurisdictions—indeed, in all jurisdictions—of Western Europe. Let me explain.
When a worker takes part in collective industrial action, in the eye of a large number of international standards, which I shall cite in a moment, and of every civilised national jurisdiction of law except the United Kingdom, the person does not break his contract of employment. The reason for that is that a right to take part in collective action is regarded internationally and in most national systems as a basic human right. That is a human right that is effective collectively but which inheres in the individual worker. It is a human right that has been recognised at the international level but never in the United Kingdom. The reason it is not recognised in the United Kingdom is that since 1906 our law has proceeded upon the basis that it is adequate to promote the protection of those who organise strike action or those who induce strike action—that provision was inserted into the Act of 1906 by that great Liberal statesman Sir Charles Dilke.
The difference, of course, between protecting the inducement or organisation for strike action and the action itself in the worker is that, if the trade union or the organisers are protected in a trade dispute as in the United Kingdom, the worker is not; it remains a breach of his contract of employment. In a trade dispute in an action in tort, if all the conditions are satisfied—they are many and complicated today—if there has been a ballot, if there has been adequate notice and if the action is in furtherance of a trade dispute, the union or its officials who organise the action may be protected, but the worker remains in breach of contract. Such a consequence seems obvious to the English mind. It is not obvious to the French mind, the German mind, the Italian mind or, indeed, any other legal mind in Western Europe. What happens in those systems?
Where workers collectively take part in industrial action as defined by the national system—definitions do change—"What is a strike?" is a favourite area for writing in the vast literature on this subject, which I am sure is all known to the Government. What a strike is is a difficult issue about which lawyers argue—usually passing like ships in the night—since what appears to the Italian mind to be a strike may not appear so to the French mind. The British mind tends to pass both of them because they include almost all industrial action within the compass of these rules.
The other systems suspend the contract of employment in relation to strike action. The French principle, introduced into the Code du Travail, is that,
"a strike does not break the contract of employment unless the employee is guilty of serious misconduct".
Perhaps my noble and learned friend will be pleased to see the word "misconduct" in a legal provision. Of course, here it is interpreted to mean, in Article 521. action which is not within the normal course of industrial action. A striker cannot break up the works and then say, "Oh well, it's not a breach of my contract of employment or other fault because I did it in a

CWH 287
strike". However, in itself, the strike does not break the contract of employment; the contract of employment is suspended.
It will be an objection to the amendment that we do not say what is to happen, having said that it should not be a breach of contract. It will of course be necessary, if the spirit of the amendment is accepted, to say what happened with regard to the contract of employment in a protected strike. The amendment—I break off to remind the Committee—speaks of a stoppage of work in the course of industrial action which is protected within Section 238A of the 1992 Act. It would be necessary to introduce a provision whereby the contract of employment was suspended. And it would be necessary to provide, as other systems do, that during a strike wages should not be payable and that the employee should not be obliged to carry out the terms of the contract, and so on. Of course, further provisions will be needed.
However, I am emboldened to introduce this issue as a probing matter of principle because in another place on 12th February the Minister, Mr Johnson, said, first. that a review would take place of this whole matter. Then he said:
"The review will include an examination of the law on the dismissal of strikers. We are committed to introducing any resulting legislation within the lifetime of this Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/02; col. 155.]
Therefore, it is on the agenda. It is true that it will come in in a review, but it is time that the debate began. As my noble friend Lord Lea will also explain in a slightly different amendment, the Bill raises the issue fairly and squarely before Parliament, and it is time that Parliament began to debate it.
It is time that Parliament began to debate the matter, in particular, because the principle that the right to strike is a right and should not amount to a breach of the individual worker's contract of employment is recognised in a variety of international standards. It is recognised in the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; it is recognised in the Council of Europe's Social Charter; and it is recognised in the International Labour Organisation Convention on Freedom of Association 1948, Convention No. 87.
The bodies in the ILO, such as the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee of Experts and the governing body, have always held, since decades past,
"that one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests as guaranteed by the Convention",
is the right to strike. All except the United Kingdom have adopted the Social Charter of 1989, which affirms:
"The right to resort to collective action in the event of a conflict of interest shall include the right to strike".
The Charter of Fundamental Rights 2000 of the European Union, Article 28, affirms:
"Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective
CWH 288
agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action".
It is true that that includes the phrase "in accordance with national laws and practices", but a right which is given by the charter in accordance with national laws and practices, is not, most people believe, intended to be abolished by national laws and practices as it is abolished at the moment in the law of the United Kingdom.
The Council of Europe Social Charter has been interpreted, it is true, as not including certain limited forms of industrial action. It means a complete cessation of work, and that is why we have used the phrase "stoppage of work" in the amendment.
It is also true to say—and this is a most serious issue for the Government—that the matter has been considered by the Council of Europe's experts and governing authorities and especially many, many times by the International Labour Organisation's committee of experts and its governing body. The United Kingdom has been condemned by both bodies in respect of its failure to observe the fundamental principle of the right to strike. Indeed, I refer to a recent article in the International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and industrial Relations for 2002, one of many journals in the scholarly literature which have again and again tried to bring this matter to the attention of the authorities.
Professor Tonia Novitz and Dr Paul Germanotta write at page 75 in spring 2002 as follows:
"UK defiance in the face of international criticism would seem to flow from two complementary and inter-related factors. The first is the limited status of international conventions under UK law: there are no means by which to seek the enforcement of ILO Conventions and the European Social Charter in the national courts.
The second is the perception that economic dictates must take precedence over international obligations. This can he attributed to the pressures that UK governments have felt to attract and maintain international investment".
They there refer to some of the excuses given by some people for not observing our international obligations.
The French system is clear. The Italian constitution has the strongest right to strike known in western Europe. The German basic law has been interpreted from the beginning as including a right to strike in the proper sense. Furthermore, as my friend, Professor Giugni, has written—and I translate the Latin which he used—a right to strike means that you do not cause legal injury to anyone when you exercise the right. You may do if you go outside it or do something extra, but by exercising a right, you cannot be said to cause legal injury to others for which you can be made liable in the courts.
That scarcely does justice to a voluminous literature, and a vast number of calls upon the Government which have been ignored by both administrations. The worst replies to the ILO and to the European Social Charter were made in the 1980s, which can only be described as quite arrogant refusals to look at our international obligations. In the last decade, there has hardly been a better response from the present Government, I am ashamed to say.

CWH 289
The breach of the contract of employment in Britain, as the Donovan report recognised in one passage, will normally result from industrial action. It is very rare that industrial action does not break the contract of employment. In fact, most people believe that the only occasion in which that can eventuate is where workers take collective action to avoid voluntary overtime, since they are not obliged to work the overtime. Other than that, it is almost impossible to find such a case.
That this has remained for so long is quite astonishing. What I hope to obtain from the Government from this probing amendment is an assurance that they will look carefully at the need to observe our international obligations, of which we have been in breach for so long, and that we will institute if not a right as good as that in the Italian or German constitutions, at any rate something better than total absence of a right for individual workers in the present case. As I said, it is a very practical matter. There have recently been cases where workers have been dismissed and deprived of the rights which the 1999 Act tried to give them with regard to unfair dismissal in Wales by reason of the employer instituting a lock-out.
How did that arise? It arose in respect of the amendment to which my noble friend Lord Lea will speak; namely, that we amended the law of unfair dismissal—of which I have not spoken at all—to say that in the first eight weeks of an industrial action, if it were protected under the rules of our ballots and the like, workers would be protected by reason of the application of the rules concerned with unfair dismissal. My noble friend will forgive me addressing his amendment before he has moved it but I want to explain why we put our amendment down and did not support his.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: Carry on.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I know that the TUC has given some support to the form in which he puts it but I do not have to agree with the exact legal formulation of a proposal, even though the spirit of the two amendments is common.
The problem with my noble friend's amendment, which does away with the eight weeks and protects strikers in regard to unfair dismissal without limit of time, is not only the difficulties that that may give rise to in itself but the fact that it will leave those strikers in breach of contract of employment. By not grasping that central nettle, the protection in regard to unfair dismissal will leave them in a highly ambiguous situation.
I understand the argument that employers have put forward that such an amendment would protect workers who go on strike—protected strike and lawful strike as far as the union is concerned. Those who join in that will be protected against unfair dismissal but they will still be in breach of contract of employment.
CWH 290
It is, as it were, to close that logical gap that the principle, which is inherent in our Amendment No. 131, says that the breach of contract should be cured. If that could be done, there would be no objection to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lea. I would join with him in his Amendment No. 262A once that logical gap was closed. It is with that quite inadequate presentation to the Committee of what is involved in this very important. central issue of labour law and labour relations that I beg leave to move.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 262A in echoing my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. There are unique features of the history of the right to strike in Britain. Indeed, we do not find there is a right to strike. We find that there is protection in the 1906 Act, as he has said, against inducement to breach of contract of employment in consultation or in furtherance of a trade dispute and so forth. That is the line that we have all been brought up to understand. But, of course, it runs into all the difficulties to which my noble friend has referred when it comes to unfair dismissal.
One of the things that can be said and no doubt will be said is, "Well, this sort of thing may be true in theory but it does not really happen in practice, does it?". Perhaps I may remind the Committee about the specific case to which my noble friend has referred.
Friction Dynamics is a company in the Caernarfon area. There has been a year long dispute which involves the whole community in that area. Indeed, April is the first anniversary of this dispute. It has not received a great deal of press attention but it certainly is exercising people in that area very considerably. It exemplifies the inadequacies of our employment law. We were pleased to hear Alan Johnson say in the other place that this matter will he reviewed and that action following that review will be taken in the life of this Parliament.
Let me say what happened in this dispute. It involves 87 workers who were sacked by their employer after taking part in a lawful strike. By the way, it is worth reminding ourselves that we now have a very restricted right to strike in a number of other respects in addition to what has been mentioned. I refer to the ballot etc. However, this is a lawful dispute and they were on strike. The industrial action was called by the Transport and General Workers Union, in which I declare an interest as a member of that union, following the serious deterioration in working conditions at the plant, including the proposed removal of statutory health and safety rights, reductions in holiday allowances and changes in shift patterns.
Following the strike, the workers returned to find that they had been locked out of the factory, placed on an enforced holiday and 50 temporary staff had been recruited to fill their places. After eight weeks of stalemate the workers were given an ultimatum to return to work or face dismissal. They were sacked. Members of the Committee will agree that this raises the question in a rather acute form and the example proves it is not theoretical. If it is unfair to dismiss an

CWH 291
employee for taking part in a lawful strike during the first eight weeks of a dispute, why is it not equally unfair for the remainder of the strike? The fact is—and we know the history—that eight weeks is an arbitrary figure. It has nothing, on any obvious reasoning, to do with fairness or to do with equity or common sense.
One is conscious it can be argued that this whole matter is not really the territory of the Bill. I have to say I was sympathetic to that argument and, until recently, I was very sympathetic to it. However, the more we have gone into the whole question of unfair dismissal in the previous two or three Sittings, the more it has led me to think we should table this measure even though it entails, as I am advised by the Public Bill Office of the House of Lords—although, oddly enough, that did not seem to be the view of the Public Bill Office in the House of Commons—a change in the Long Title, hence Amendment No. 264. I am certainly on a learning curve on esoteric matters such as that. However, it is important to emphasise that the right to strike in this country is an indirect right to strike. In no other European country is there such a restriction on the length of a strike as we have in this eight week rule. I am not even sure that we can find it in any other part of the world, but I have not done my research sufficiently to do a total dragnet.
The amendment is a probing amendment and the Government have indicated that a great debate has to take place on the matter. I trust that it will not simply be a case of splitting the difference between eight weeks, 10 weeks and 12 weeks. The time has come when we could take a more logical view of where the right to strike fits into our legal structure than has previously been the case. It is in that spirit that I speak to the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: These three amendments draw us into a debate about the effectiveness of the protections against dismissal for taking certain types of industrial action, which were introduced in the Employment Relations Act 1999.
As my noble friends Lord Wedderburn of Charlton and Lord Lea of Crondall have said, the issue has come to prominence again because of the dismissal of a group of employees at Friction Dynamics last year. I refer to proceedings that raise the legal issues arising out of that dispute.
This matter was debated at length during the Report stage in the other place. Important undertakings were made in that debate. They are worth mentioning again. The Government believe that the Bill is not the right place to change the law on the dismissal of people taking industrial action. This law has been in place for a relatively short time—in fact since April 2000. The Government fully understand the difficulties experienced by the sacked workers at Friction Dynamics. However, it would be wrong in our view to change the law on the basis of one, unresolved case.
That said, the Government are committed to undertake a review of the Employment Relations Act. We will I begin the review in May or June this year. The Government will include within the review an examination of the Act's provisions on the dismissal of
CWH 292
strikers. We will consult in full on the issues, in the course of that consultation dealing with the point made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, who will be free to raise the issues of convention obligations. This should give us a far better basis on which to assess the law's effects.
This is an important undertaking given by my honourable friend Mr Alan Johnson in another place. Should the review contain recommendations to change the law in this or other areas, the Government have committed themselves to come forward with the necessary legislation in the life of this Parliament. In that context, these amendments are premature.
Amendment No. 131 would in effect make it unfair to dismiss any person taking protected industrial action because it would remove the main grounds for dismissal; namely, that the striker has broken his contract of employment.
This is a very radical step. It would in principle overturn long established law on the effect of industrial action on contracts of employment that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton set out in full for us. It would make it considerably more difficult for employers to protect what they would regard as their legitimate business interests during prolonged periods of industrial action. It is therefore not an approach that readily commends itself to the Government, but again I refer to the review.
Amendments Nos. 262A and 264 also seek to make it unfair in all cases for the employer to sack those taking protected industrial action. As my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall said, it achieves this end directly by introducing a new clause into the Bill which would remove parts of Section 238A of the 1992 Act which currently qualify the protection against dismissal in these circumstances. The Government have similar concerns to those referred to in relation to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. We have similar concerns about this amendment; namely, that it is premature and probably goes too far.
The text of 238A was inserted by the Employment Relations Act 1999. It was introduced following prolonged and difficult but productive talks with interested parties. Yes, it is possible to say where something is the result of long, difficult and productive talks, it does not measure up to what either side would regard as equitable and fair, but that is the nature of things that come out of long, productive and difficult talks. It represents a compromise that was acceptable to employers and unions at that time. The amendments would unpick that carefully constructed compromise. If a new settlement on this issue is to be reached, we need to involve all parties in deciding which way we should go. As I have stated, the forthcoming review of the Employment Relations Act is the correct place to engage other parties in this exercise.
In light of my remarks, I invite my noble friend Lord Wedderburn to withdraw his amendment and, when the time comes, the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, not to move his amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Of course, I am not surprised that the Government did not fall into raptures and accept even the probing spirit of all these amendments. However, I am a little disappointed by the terms in which the Government have addressed themselves to the problem at this early stage. It may not be the right place, in their view, in the Bill.
The problems, in my submission, are not based on a law that has been the law for a short time. Law on breach of contract, if one can transpose it into earlier language of status and property, has been the law since the Statute of Labours 1351. There has been a long time to think about it and a long time to get employers to see what French, German and Italian employers seem able to see. They did not all see it at one point—they have of course resisted it. In the different histories of the industrial legal systems of these countries, employers resisted the application of international human rights to labour relations, but it is not an issue in those countries now. Why are English employers—British employers—thought to be so deficient in common understanding of international human rights that they could not possibly accept what employers elsewhere accept?
Of course, there is a surrounding panorama of legal provisions which deal—for example, in France—with replacement workers. That is a very relevant point of the dispute—the astonishing and outrageous treatment of workers—to which my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall referred. There was a case in Wales recently in which replacement workers were used and then the workforce was dismissed after waiting for eight weeks. It is remarkable that British employers still engage in that sort of activity. It happens elsewhere, I have to admit, but when it happens the breach of law is immediately apparent.
Here it seems—although no doubt there will be further consultation on the legal position of this dispute—that it is something that the Government, at the moment at any rate, are happy that they can get away with. The approach in my amendment, said my noble and learned friend—I apprehend I have him right—is not one that readily commends itself to the Government. That will not be good news in Brussels in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It will not be good news in Geneva for the International Labour Organisation, which is fed up with the way in which the United Kingdom Government constantly defy the most basic principles of the Convention on Freedom of Association. It will not be good news to British workers or to British trade unions, which have to cope. They are the people who have to cope with the mess that is caused by this absurd antediluvian, stone-like attitude to international human rights in regard to collective action. I appreciate that there is more protection than there was. In 1999, the Government made a step forward both in regard to recognition and to unfair dismissal. It is a small, teetering little step that does not address the fact that this country is virtually alone in Europe—not, of course, in Latin America—by being in breach of the most fundamental principle of the International Labour Organisation. When the
CWH 294
review comes, I hope that it will commend itself to the Government to face that very simple fact and to do something about it. This is an early stage. We have put the matter on the agenda. We give notice to the Government that we expect better of a Labour government than merely to look at such principles and have them not commended to themselves at an early stage. Let them keep an open mind on whether they should observe those standards, which are internationally applicable. At the present stage, there is nothing more to be done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Non-completion of statutory procedure: adjustment of awards]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 132:
Page 36, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) The non-completion of a statutory procedure shall not be attributable to a failure by the employee by reason only that he fails to take a step at a time after the date of termination of his contract of employment, unless it appears to an employment tribunal just and equitable to determine otherwise."
The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 31, which raises the question of the non-completion of statutory procedures with the sanction of the adjustment of awards of compensation if an employee does not complete the steps that he is obliged to take. This is a simple little amendment that addresses problems that occur in real life. The employee may not have sent a letter because he was ill. Yet he may have been treated outrageously and deserve a case and a remedy in the tribunal. His family may have been ill. His wife may have left him. His wife may have come back and caused equal problems! All sorts of difficulties may arise in life and the worker may find himself in a situation in which it is just and equitable to say that he can be forgiven for not taking the bureaucratic step that is required of him before he has access to the portals of judgment in an employment tribunal and before his award is then to be cut down under Clause 31.
The amendment simply states, if it appears to an employment tribunal just and equitable, a failure to take the step that is necessary after the date of termination of his contract of employment is not to be regarded as attributable to a failure on his part. He may have lost his job, his contract of employment may be terminated, he may be in family difficulties or suffering other problems of a real kind that are personal. Although he has a remedy, he can suffer massive cuts in the compensation that is his due. This is a simple little amendment to give the tribunal a discretion. Tribunals are very good at exercising discretion. Employers do not, I think, complain—this is rather important in terms of the opposition to some of our amendments. Employers complain that too many cases get to tribunals. We have already suggested that the statistics on that do not bear out any rational case. But as I understand it, employers have not complained overall about the exercise of discretion by tribunals—at any rate, not in the more sensible

CWH 295
literature of which I am aware. Giving the tribunal a little more discretion would not do a great deal of harm here.
If my noble and learned friend says we have got the words wrong in the amendment, or it does not quite apply in the right area, then no doubt he will take it away and look at it. We desperately await the words, "We'll take this away and look at it". We do not hear them very often. I hope we will not get a stony refusal to the spirit of this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: With some diffidence, I rise to support the noble Lord in his amendment. I rise with some diffidence because I have noticed that when I support amendments from the Opposition side, they do not get very far. On the other hand, when I oppose the amendments that come from that side, it seems that the Government then agree with them. I therefore feel somewhat diffident in supporting the noble Lord's amendment, but I very much do so.
Lord McCarthy: I merely want to say that this is the beginning of a whole series of attempts to mitigate the consequences, as we see it, of the non-completion of the statutory procedure. The Government may well decide that they do not like this attempt, but there are many more. This is one of a series of amendments which are all designed in some way or another to mitigate the full consequences for workers of the non-completion of the statutory procedures, some affecting dispute procedures and some affecting grievances.
It may well be that the Government want to say, for the usual set reasons, that they cannot accept this amendment. However, I hope they will not take an equally obscurantist, tough and, as my noble friend says, stone-like defence to all the attempts. There is, after all, a statement or two from the Minister in another place, in which he says he will tell us about all kinds of cases where people will not be involved and where they will not have to complete the procedure or, if they do not proceed to apply part of the procedure, they may find their way to the tribunal. There is therefore some escape and one of the ways of escape is to accept this amendment. I hope the Government will give us the right answer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clause 31 is designed to encourage the parties to an employment-related dispute to use the statutory procedures set out in Schedule 2. It does so, as my noble friend has indicated, by providing for any award made to be adjusted where an employer or employee does not use them.
This is not about deterring claims from going to tribunals but merely about ensuring that parties use in-house procedures first, so making complaint to a tribunal unnecessary where the dispute is resolved satisfactorily. Surely, that must be sensible for all concerned—after all, few people relish appearing at a tribunal.
There will inevitably have to be some exceptions to the proposition that statutory procedures will have to be used and completed. Members of the Committee
CWH 296
will be aware that those who have suffered harassment at the hands of the line manager who will be dealing with a grievance will understandably not be keen to take that grievance forward. Or if they raise a grievance about something and are harassed while attempting to use the procedure, it would be unreasonable to expect them to continue to use it. Regulations which will be made will cover this and other instances.
However, with these limited exceptions, employees and former employees will be expected to have used the statutory procedures or else be subject to the adjustment provisions. Therefore, someone who has been dismissed will normally be expected to have complied with and completed the appropriate procedure, as instigated by his employer, whether full or modified, which applies in his particular case. Regulations made under Clause 31(5) will specify the circumstances in which the procedures contained in Schedule 2 will apply. For example, it was said in the other place that we envisage that the modified procedure will apply to former employees. Where the employer does not instigate the procedure or does not follow it, the employee will normally have his award adjusted upwards.
Because we wish to encourage as wide a use of the procedures as possible, I cannot accept this amendment, which seeks to exclude former employees from having to comply further with the procedures, except where the tribunal determines otherwise.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: Have I got the Minister right? He has said something very similar to something which the Minister in another place said. He said that they were going to exclude certain categories. One of the categories was an allegation of harassment. I have no desire to say anything which would lead the Government to take an allegation of harassment out and say that it must be completed. However, there is a kind of inconsistency. The regulations do not appear on the face of the Bill, but anything based on them are general exclusions. But they are allegations; we do not know whether they are factual or not. Anybody can allege anything.
I could allege harassment and one might examine it and discover that I was not harassed at all and that I did all the harassing. It is an allegation. The Government are prepared to exclude allegations, but we are not talking about an allegation. We are saying in the amendment that there has been evidence. The tribunal comes to the view that in fact there is some case for considering the point. Why can the Government not accept it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have just been saying that that is the same question again.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton feels he has answered that. Very well.
There are two real problems about my noble and learned friend's reply. The Secretary of State is going to make regulations that will tell us all about this. All

CWH 297
the problems we have raised are going to be dealt with in regulations. Our first objection to that is that we should have some indication on the face of the Bill in order to be able to discuss Clause 31. Clause 31 says that the employee's award will be reduced in certain circumstances.
Let me be more clear. Where a statutory procedure is not completed before proceedings have begun, Clause 31 (2)(c) provides:
"the non-completion of the statutory procedure was wholly or mainly attributable to failure by the employee—

(i)to comply with a requirement of the procedure, or

(ii) to exercise a right of appeal under it

it [the tribunal] must, subject to subsection (4), reduce any award which it makes to the employee by 10 per cent, and may, if it considers it just and equitable in all the circumstances to do so, reduce it by a further amount…up to 50 per cent".
It has a discretion, but only a discretion one way; it can make it worse and worse and worse for the employee who has not exercised all his rights of appeal or completed all the procedures. I will not repeat that we regard those as unfair; I take it to be an assumption in anybody's mind that our case is that these are unfair procedures in a variety of ways. They are also rather uncertain. Let us put that aside for the moment and carry that assumption. Furthermore, if the employee does not exercise all his rights of appeal, the employment tribunal has the discretion.
All this amendment asks for is that the employment tribunal should have another discretion in its favour. The words in the Bill are "just and equitable". This is a very modest amendment and applies only when the employee's contract of employment has been terminated. The poor man and woman are out there without work. They are unable to complete the first requirement of the procedure or perhaps to exercise their right of appeal, and the tribunal says, "Well, there were special circumstances here; it was just and equitable in our view that they should be relieved of that, and the words "wholly" or "mainly" attributable to the failure of that employee should be understood to include the discretion in such hard circumstances that they are not to be penalised".
I cannot for the life of me see what is unreasonable about that, and yet we are not even to have the matter reconsidered. There is no expression of sentiment for the worker in such a circumstance. It is as though I was debating this with Mr Balfour, not my Labour Government. I do not think that we would have received such a hard response to all these amendments in 1901. It really will not do to tell us that there is nothing in this point. I appreciate that my noble and learned friend hinted that he considered the amendment to be rather too narrowly drawn since it applies to cases after the date of termination of contract. We could look at that issue again. We could look at the whole wording again, but surely the spirit of it is reasonable. I am left with no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 133 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 134:
Page 37, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment and it will become more clear when we reach Schedules 3 and 4. As the Bill stands under Clause 31, the list of jurisdictions—that is, the list of the type of case to which this penalty provision applies—is set out in Schedule 3. When we come to deal with Schedule 3, we shall want to test each and every case in that schedule against, first, justice, secondly, common sense and, thirdly, our European obligations. I can speak to that only when we come to Schedules 3 and 4, which are now grouped together.
This provision tells us that the Secretary of State can add any other jurisdiction to the list in the schedule. That is why it is a little difficult to debate this matter before we reach Schedules 3 and 4. However, in our view, Schedule 3 is sufficient. If the Government believe that they will introduce some other employment protection right to which their Schedule 2 procedures will apply, they had better tell us what they think that might be. That is not an unreasonable request. There are things on the horizon. If they introduce employment rights in respect of age discrimination, will they apply the procedures to that? If they introduce other European directives which are on the horizon and implement them, will this provision apply to those so that the Government can add all future employment rights jurisdictions to the list of penalties? No doubt they will add the provision to Schedule 4 as well in respect of prevention of access to justice in the employment tribunals.
Therefore, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State does not have the power, by regulation, to add a jurisdiction to the list in the schedule. When some new employment right is created, at whatever level, the Secretary of State should come to Parliament and propose, subject to amendment, in full debate that he wishes to increase his vast powers in this respect.
This provision represents another example of the power by regulation or order to add, in Clause 31, to the disadvantages to workers. It may be said that it is possible that disadvantages will also arise for employers under Clause 31. Theoretically at least. that is true, and I would not favour the Secretary of State having power to add a jurisdiction to the list to disadvantage employers further either. That matter should be fully argued. At this stage of the introduction of the new procedures and all the uncertainties that go with them. I cannot see that new jurisdictions—new employment rights—should be added to a list by a regulation which, as a matter of reality, will not be discussed properly and, more importantly, will not be open to amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rotherwick: As we have already heard, the amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State

CWH 299
adding of her tribunals to the jurisdiction of the Act. As Members of the Committee know, we are opposed to the extent to which the Government constantly add to the amount of secondary legislation, as distinct from primary legislation. No doubt the Minister will justify the use of secondary legislation in adding to the already formidable list of tribunals in Section 3 by saying that it will assist if new tribunals are set up in the future by new legislation. However, it only requires a stroke of the draftsman's pen to say in the new Act that Clause 31 and Schedule 3 of the Employment Act 2002 will apply to this new Act. Therefore, on the principle that we wish to encourage more primary legislation and less secondary legislation, I must apologise at this stage to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. As my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon said, every time we support an amendment, the Government do not give way but when we disagree with one, they go away and think about it. Therefore, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn: we are going to support this one.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As ever, the fatal hand of the Tories shrivels the amendment. The amendment seeks to remove the power to add jurisdictions. As it stands, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has said, Schedule 3 contains the main jurisdictions under which tribunal claims arise. We would want to assess how this clause works in relation to those jurisdictions before deciding whether to add or remove jurisdictions. If difficulties arise with particular jurisdictions, we may wish to remove them. If a new jurisdiction—this involves the case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn—is given to tribunals, we may wish to consider adding it to Schedule 3.
I see no sense in removing the power to add jurisdictions, which may be eminently suitable for inclusion in Schedule 3, as the amendment seeks to do. That is why the power is there. What did the Delegated Powers Committee think of it? It thought that it was sensible and proportionate. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for explaining the Government's position but we have not sought to get rid of the Secretary of State's power to remove jurisdictions from the list. What we have objected to is the power by regulation or order to add jurisdictions to the list.
If I caught my noble and learned friend's words correctly, he said at some stage—I think that I am quoting—"We may wish to consider adding a jurisdiction". I have no objection to their wishing to consider it; what I object to is their being able to do so by regulation. They can consider what they like but I object to them having the power to do that by regulation. They should argue their case properly and bring it to the Floor of the House and let it be amended.
As a matter of fact, the amendment point is particularly strong in this regard because we shall have exceptions under any of these jurisdictions.
CWH 300
Harassment cases will be excluded perhaps not from all jurisdictions, perhaps in regard to sex discrimination cases, race discrimination and possibly unfair dismissal. We do not know; we have not seen the regulations, although now we have been assured in earlier sittings that we will all get 30 days' notice of them. We look forward to that. There are problems about certain jurisdictions under the Tax Credits Act. If a new Act is produced and jurisdiction is to be added to the list, it may be that there will be exceptions to cases under the new Act which are not to come within the purview of Clause 31 or, indeed, by parallel, the purview of Clause 33 and Schedule 4, which is a parallel case. So the case for regulation here is peculiarly weak. The case for saying, "We may wish to consider adding it", is peculiarly Tudor and peculiarly Henry VIII. It involves saying, "When I want to add, I shall add and you can't amend it. You can't move an amendment to my adding a jurisdiction to say that women workers who are harassed or other workers who are treated in a particular way do not fall within these penalties or this prohibition of access to justice".
This is a serious point; it is a matter not just of machinery but of how governments ought to behave. Labour governments in the past have not always demanded vast powers of regulation in Bills that go way beyond what they say at the time that they are going to use. My noble and learned friend will not even take this amendment away; he just rejects it again. Our amendments are just rejected; they are not even to be considered further. We shall consider the matter further before Report and see whether t would be right to put to the House the issue of deciding whether it should have the competence to consider and amend the detail of a new jurisdiction—a new set of penalties—which will he put upon working people in regard to Clause 33. At the moment, there is nothing more I can do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Tribunal jurisdictions to it hick section 31 applies]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 135:
Page 66, leave out lines 22 to 26.
The noble Lord said: This is a somewhat complicated group of amendments. Amendments Nos. 135 to 141 are grouped—they concern Schedule 3. But Amendments Nos. 171 to 178 are grouped with them, and they concern Schedule 4. Unless I am mistaken, the same considerations arise in respect of both schedules, although they apply to slightly different parts of the Bill.
Schedule 3 applies by defining the jurisdictions, as we have just appreciated, to which Clause 31 is applicable; that is, cases in which compensation awards can be reduced—or, indeed, in some cases, increased—where there has been non-completion of statutory procedures. I interpose the remark—almost

CWH 301
a footnote, but it is important in relation to what has already passed—that in the case of the employee, it is said that he must exercise all his rights of appeal. The burden on the employer in Clause 31 is much smaller and his non-completion may be much smaller.
On the other hand, Schedule 4 is of course the definition schedule for the scope of Clause 33. Clause 33 says that an employee shall not be allowed to present a complaint to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction to which that section applies if he has not completed a requirement in the relevant statutory procedures. Schedule 4 defines the scope of the range of Clause 33.
These are very serious and central parts of the mechanisms of the Bill. To what may these penalties and prohibitions on access to justice apply? I preface my remarks by pointing out that if I had to choose, I should say that Schedule 4 was more important than Schedule 3 because Schedule 4 can give rise to a prohibition on access to justice. Schedule 3 is bad enough but at least it can only give rise to reductions or increases of penalties.
To what is this set of penalties and prohibitions to apply? I invite Members of the Committee to look at the list—it may be easier to look at page 66 of the Bill than at the amendments because the amendments have to refer to a page and line number in every case. We can see the list more easily on page 66. This is the range of employment protection rights—a list of modern protection rights—across the board. First, it refers to cases on equal pay. You can lose the right to go to the tribunal if you do not do what is required under that provision. I add that this is a place where the right of the employee—the equality clause—is introduced by the 1970 Act into the contract of employment. It is interesting that the Government have used the same formula in this case.
That is the first matter—equal pay cases. Secondly, I refer to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and to cases where, under Section 63. a complainant who alleges sex discrimination can go to the tribunal. A penalty could apply or they can be stopped under Schedule 4 and Clause 33. Yet we are now told that exceptions are going to be introduced. Therefore, anyone who looked at the Bill would be misled unless they looked also at the regulations that are coming on the exceptions. In a future amendment we shall be arguing—my noble friend will move the amendment. I think—that some indication should be given on the face of the Bill of the areas in which this schedule and Schedule 4 will not apply. The Government cannot just leave the matter to regulations. They must tell people that there will be areas where, as the Minister said in another place, the provision will not apply even if they want to put the precise detail into regulations. I refer to Section 54 of the Race Relations Act 1976 and discrimination on the grounds of race.
I now turn to something different—Section 146 of the 1992 Act. This is not simply a matter of a right to bring an action in a tribunal and to get compensation by reason of a breach of the section. That is another section which gives a person a right to be a member of
CWH 302
a trades union and a right to carry on trades union activities. This section deals with so-called detriment. Detriment, as I have said in a previous debate, is a polite name for victimisation. This is a case where a worker complains that he has been wrongly treated and deterred,
"from being or seeking to become a member of an independent trade union",
or deterred,
"from taking part in the activities of an independent trade union"
by reason that he suffered victimisation, or, in the words of the statute,
"by reason of the imposition of a detriment".
This is someone who has been victimised, yet he has to send a little letter, or a copy of it. saying, "Please, Mr Employer, don't victimise me any more. I want to go to the employment tribunal". And his compensation will be reduced if he does not exercise all rights of appeal, it seems. There is a whole list of jurisdictions here in the two schedules which deal not just with a substantive right to go to the tribunal in terms of the right itself, but the right to go to the tribunal to complain that detriment, or victimisation, has been applied to the employee in respect of the sections involved.
I now turn to Section 8 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A disabled worker who has been discriminated against has to complete his procedures. He has to send a little letter and say, "Oh dear, I've got a grievance," or, more importantly, "Oh dear, Mr Employer, you have discriminated against me in the employment field", otherwise he cannot go near a tribunal. It is an extraordinary list.
Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is a little different. This concerns cases where the employer has not paid the proper wages and has made an unauthorised deduction, as the statute makes clear. We have moved an amendment to suggest that while on the Government's own logic they will make the employee engage in completion of necessary procedures for one deduction, where the case falls under subsection (3) of the section—which is the case where there have been several, or a series, as the section puts it, of deductions from wages—the worker should be allowed to go straight to the tribunal and should not be subject to penalty. That is a rather different amendment but we have considered each of these separately. On the Government's own logic, they may be able to say that Section 23 cases should come within the purview of their rules but, where there has been a series of wage deductions, it is surely not reasonable to make their rules apply in quite the same way.
Section 48 is a most astonishing inclusion. I have to deal carefully with Section 48 because we have moved an amendment that goes to its heart. Section 48 gives the employee the right to complain to an employment tribunal on the grounds that he suffered a detrimentvictimisation—in contravention of Sections 44, 45, 46, 47, 47A or 47C of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

CWH 303
The list, in fact, under Section 48, is very long indeed, and these are victimisation cases. What are all those sections about?
The fourth one is about health and safety. I am sorry if the noble Baroness opposite does not think I should explain this, but the Bill has all this detail buried away within it and it is necessary to bring it out and put it on the record. Section 44 concerns the case where an employee has been subjected to a detriment—he has been victimized—when he is a representative or other worker concerned with activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety at work—a most important function. He comes along and says, "I've been victimised because I tried to enforce my right to see that the health and safety provisions were put into effect". He is made subject to the procedure and he is made subject to the possibility of penalty.
Section 45, which we deliberately did not cover in our amendment, is about betting workers and Sunday workers in shops. We thought that in that case there might be a possible reasonableness as regards making them take these steps. But Section 45A introduces even greater difficulties. It is concerned with the following. I quote from Section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996:
"(1) A worker has the right not to he subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker—
(a) refused…to comply with a requirement which the employer imposed…in contravention of the Working Time Regulations 1998".
A number of problems arise here. First, this is a victimisation case. I hope the noble and learned Lord will reply to the point as to why on earth special provisions should be put in, penalising and blocking the rights, subject to their unfair procedures, of workers who have been subjected to detriment. It is as though someone has just gone through all the statutes, looked through all the cases where you could get to a tribunal and said, "Let's knock that one out as well". It is extraordinary and, in this case as in other cases, doubly extraordinary.
I join my comments on that problem with the last one in the list on page 67 of Schedule 3 and page 68 of Schedule 4; that is, Regulation 32 of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999. Again, this is a case of detriment where the worker has been victimised for pursuing rights under the European Works Councils Directive, which we have put into these regulations. Where the rights in these schedules rest upon European directives, it is more than doubtful whether the Government can be justified in subjecting them to special penalties and special prohibitions. Every directive requires that the nation state which is a member of the Union should implement the directives in its national system and provide appropriate and effective remedies for their breach—even more, one would be quite clear, effective and appropriate remedies for detriment suffered by the worker in his attempt to enforce the European standard.
CWH 304
I am more concerned with what the standard is than whether it is European, but there is legally a special feature in regard to European-based standards. The directive requires that they should be enforceable by effective and appropriate procedures and remedies. It is not simply my doubt but the doubt of a number of people whether something like the trans-national information consultation provisions, as they rest on that basis, could possibly lawfully, in European eyes, be subjected to these special provisions where the worker has been victimised for trying to enforce his rights that derive from a European level.
Going back to the foot of page 66, we see that these provisions are to apply to unfair dismissal. Much of what we have said about Schedule 2 in its application to unfair dismissal cases can be referred to in this debate. Simply to apply it to unfair dismissal without amendment of Schedule 2, we have already argued, is unreasonable.
At the top of page 67, using Schedule 3 as our agenda, we see that the next case is a case of redundancy payments. Where the worker does not complete those special procedures, his right under Section 163 to go to the tribunal in respect of any right to a redundancy payment, or a complaint about the amount of a redundancy payment, is to be specially dealt with.
There are many who regard this as the most important of the cases where Clauses 31 and 33 are objectionable. There are complicated arguments about the amounts of redundancy payments, especially under Clause 31, and this is a commonsense problem. Is it really necessary to impose these new hurdles upon a claim to a redundancy payment on the assumption that otherwise the worker's right to that amount is as he claims it to be?
Then we have the National Minimum Wage Act and, in addition, a worker who suffered detriment for daring to claim the wage. As a matter of fact. curiously enough, the national minimum wage is also a case where the right can inhere in the contract of employment. But at this level of Schedules 3 and 4, it is not perhaps centrally as important as it is in the Bill.
Under Section 24, however,
"A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that he has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of Section 23".
Section 23 deals with a case where an employer has acted, or deliberately failed to act, on the ground that,
"any action…taken, or…proposed to be taken, by or on behalf of the worker with a view to enforcing"
his right to the minimum wage; or where
"the employer was prosecuted for an offence"
under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, led to the worker being victimised in the ways that happen sometimes—not that often, but bad employers do such things. I cannot see what the logic is in subjecting the new penalties and the new prohibitions not just to the right to claim the national minimum wage but to the right to complain about the detriment caused by victimisation. The way the Government have constructed this list is quite extraordinary. Schedules

CWH 305
are not debated much in Parliament. More is the pity because one can understand Clauses 31 and 33 only in the light of Schedules 3 and 4.
We then come to the Tax Credits Act 1999. I was astonished to see that mentioned because I must admit that either I did not know or I had forgotten that a worker who is victimised on the ground that he has tried to enforce his benefit or right under the Tax Credits Act also has a right to complain to the employment tribunal. I do not know why that poor worker—literally, in this sense—is subjected to these new rules.
The next entry, and the equivalent in Scotland, is the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. This raises an important point because, of course, the special penalties and the special prohibitions of Clauses 31 and 33 can apply to cases in the employment tribunals. Only fairly recently the employment tribunals had a concurrent jurisdiction with the county courts and the High Court in breach of contract cases.
Therefore, the special prohibitions and the special penalties will apply here to employment tribunal cases, but they will not apply to precisely the same cause of action in the county court or the High Court. I mean precisely the same facts and precisely the same complaint: one in the employment tribunal, to which this will apply, and one in the ordinary courts, to which it will not apply. Quite why the Government want to increase the number of cases in the county courts and allow full recompense and compensation there but not allow it in the employment tribunals baffles me.
Finally, I turn to Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It states.
"A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that his employer—
(a) has refused to permit him to exercise any right he has under—",
and then it sets out a list. There appears a whole series of basic regulations to the working time provisions, and, secondly, where the employer—
"has failed to pay him the whole or any part of any amount due to him under [the working time] regulations".
This is a straight breach of regulations. It is not a detriment case. It is a straightforward right to go to the tribunal and claim that the working time regulations have been broken. Of course, the point also arises here—and I should have mentioned it before—that in so far as this is based upon a directive of which we have managed to contract ourselves out of a great deal—a situation which I hope will rapidly come to an end—it is more than questionable whether it is possible, under the provisions of what the Luxembourg Court will enforce as European law, that these limitations on the rights under Section 30 to enforce the working time regulations will be acceptable.
No doubt the Government will have prepared a case and I expect they will say that it is only objectionable when one destroys the right and not when one limits it. In reality, when one limits the right to the extent that Clause 33 can limit it and prohibits any access to the
CWH 306
tribunal, one is coming very close to destroying the right altogether. Also, the imposition of penalties on what one can recover obviously has a deterrent effect and is arguably not an effective and appropriate remedy for the enforcement of these European provisions.
I apologise for going through each and every provision in these schedules, but when one goes through them, one sees what Clause 31 and, more particularly, Clause 33 really amount to. They are an onslaught not merely upon basic employment protection rights, and a question not merely against European standards, which we are obliged to impose and to have effectively remedied, but also in several cases they are penalties and prohibitions against the enforcement by a worker who suffered victimisation for trying to enforce his rights. What is the sense of that? "Oh", the Government may say, "because he must send a letter to the employer". Who is this employer by hypothesis in every case in which the word "detriment" appears? He is by hypothesis an employer who has—in the allegation of the employee—imposed victimisation on the employee that that employee wishes to have remedied and compensated. What on earth are the Government doing giving special barriers to the enforcement of remedies against detriment and victimisation? What justification is there in Clause 31 for saying that a worker who has been victimised must go through all the levels of appeal before he can get full compensation? The more one looks at Schedules 3 and 4, the more doubtful one becomes about aspects of all the items that are inserted within them.
It would not he much of a Bill if we just abolished Schedules 3 and 4 because Clauses 31 and 33 would become otiose. As a matter of fact, it is one reason why we left in betting workers and Sunday shop workers, because we are not destroying the whole of Schedules 3 and 4. It is a little unfair on betting workers and Sunday shop workers but, nevertheless, we have not moved their exclusion.
I look forward to hearing what my noble and learned friend can say against each and every one of those items. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That was a very helpful and comprehensive moving of the amendment because a number of clear strands and principles emerged. I hope that I can help the Committee with them. Before I do so, I shall put in context what the Bill does.
Clause 31, as it currently is, states that if you have not gone through the procedures, the tribunal must, subject to subsection (4), reduce any award which it makes to the employee by 10 per cent and may, if it considers it just and equitable in all the circumstances to do so, reduce it by a further amount. So, with regard to Clause 31, the consequence of being one of the jurisdictions in which the whole procedure has not been completed is that the award must be reduced by 10 per cent and may be reduced, if it is just and equitable, by a further amount. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn says, even that 10 per cent is subject

CWH 307
to another exception in subsection (4). The duty under subsection (2) or (3) to make a reduction or increase of 10 per cent does not apply if there are exceptional circumstances which would make a reduction or increase of that percentage unjust or inequitable, in which case the tribunal may make no reduction or increase, or a reduction or increase of such lesser percentage as it considers just and equitable. So there are those provisions in Clause 31.
Clause 33, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has very fairly said, requires the employee, before he can make a complaint, to go through step I of the grievance procedure, which is to send a letter raising the grievance. In certain circumstances, the writing of a letter itself would be quite unreasonable to ask the employee to do.
An example where that can be suggested, as has been raised before, is someone who has been bullied because of their gender, their race, because they have raised a national minimum wage claim, or because they have raised a health and safety at work claim. If they are people who would be reluctant to raise the grievance because the offender, the bully, is the person to whom they would have to raise the complaint, then, of course, it would be wrong in those circumstances to bar them from the tribunal. That is understandable and we intend that regulations be made under Clause 31 to provide for exemptions from the need to complete procedures in these and other special circumstances. There may, for example, be some difficulties for people with particular disabilities. We shall have to consider that when we make the regulations. However, in the vast majority of cases I see no reason why Clause 31 should not apply to grievances taken up under these jurisdictions. There will be many cases where, for example, one is alleging discrimination on grounds of race and gender, of trade union membership, of raising health and safety at work complaints or the minimum wage, where the person to whom one raises the complaint is not the person against whom the complaint is being made. There will be cases of detriment because of, for example, raising a national minimum wage issue, where the grievance procedure does not require the complaint to be made to the person who is alleged in the examples given by my noble friend to be the person who is bullying the victim. Is there any reason in those circumstances why a letter should not be written before the complaint is made under these jurisdictions? It is difficult to see why not. The purpose of these particular clauses is to encourage employees and employers to seek to resolve disputes without resort to tribunals or courts. We believe that this provision promotes that.
Of course, we must take care to ensure that people who legitimately would not want to write a letter because of fear, bullying, harassment or other misconduct by an employer should not have to do so. We will seek to do all we can to ensure that. We will be happy to discuss it with my noble friends to ensure that it can be done. Remember that in relation to Clause 33 writing a letter to raise a grievance is not a bad thing to do, particularly when that procedure can, for
CWH 308
example, get the issue pushed up to another level of management. That was referred to by my noble friend Lord Gladwin of Clee in relation to an earlier amendment.
It is not a bad proposition and it does not have the consequences that my noble friend, in his submission, suggested. The only case that my noble friend really posited was the bully and in those circumstances we will make provision. The fact that an assertion of detriment is made does not mean that such an issue cannot be resolved in certain circumstances.
Another issue to which my noble friend referred was redundancy payments. As far as this is concerned, he was absolutely right to say that they often give rise to complicated disputes, issues or misunderstandings between parties. The employee has a legal right to his redundancy payment, as specified by law or by a collective agreement. That does not mean that it is not sensible to write and raise the issue about redundancy to see if it can be resolved. Our intention in these particular jurisdictions is not to allow bullying and harassment to prevent claims being made. It is to seek to encourage resolution of disputes by internal procedures. Our regulations will seek to ensure that the proper distinction is made: not to punish somebody who reasonably did not raise I he matter through the grievance procedure—which we think will be the exception, not the normal case; on the other hand, we should make sure that where it can be raised it should be.
All the points made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton fall into the category of "You shouldn't have to and it's not fair to do so". I have dealt with all of them. There is no point in going through each of the individual jurisdictions and I am not going to do so. Every one of them fell within one of the points that I have just made.
We have listened very carefully and will discuss very fully with my noble friend and anyone else the details that he would like to see in the regulations to ensure—he rightly referred to this—justice in relation to those who should not be required to write a letter before they have the right to go to a tribunal. However, I do not think that if one sat down and went through it, we would disagree very much.
7 p.m.
7 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry about that. I think I disagree very profoundly with my noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton about much of this. I am not sure whether he referred to cases of detriment or victimisation. He referred to cases of bullying.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Could I help? I was meaning to refer to the health and safety and minimum wage cases where there is provision for one not to he victimised. My noble friend called it "detriment"—that that is what it is called in the statute—and I meant to refer to those detriment cases.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate what my noble and learned friend says. I can only say that the

CWH 309
matter is here in the schedules. Cases of victimisation and detriment are put squarely within the new rules on penalties and prohibitions, and I do not see how regulations will take them out. Perhaps if someone is very badly victimised, the regulation will let them go in some special cases. Frankly, I do not agree that normal rights should be given only in very bad, bullying victimisation.
I believe that, in any case, one should have normal rights if one is victimised for trying to enforce one's basic employment protection rights. If a person tries to do that, he may be deprived of overtime, he may not be promoted or he may be victimised in some other way at his place of work. Why on earth should special rules apply to a person's ability to go to a tribunal and say, "That's not fair"? Some workers will say, "I'm not going near that employer again. Look what he did to me last week. Why shouldn't I go to the tribunal and say, 'That's not right'?" By hypothesis, let us assume that the worker is correct in his allegation. What is wrong with enforcing the right not to be victimised, but without special penalties and without special prohibitions?
With the greatest respect, I shall read very carefully what my noble and learned friend said. I do not believe that the defence of Schedules 3 and 4 is particularly effective. He said not one word about the European situation. I do not know whether the Government are remaining silent on that because, once again, they are confident that they will not be judged badly in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, but I wonder whether that is so. My noble and learned Lord said nothing whatever about the European dimension. Perhaps we are trying to take that issue off the agenda these days.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It was entirely my fault for not referring to the European dimension. We shall of course consider the issue of compliance with European law, but we are perfectly confident that we are complying with it.
However, I believe that this matter goes back to the essential point that I made at the beginning—that is, whether the obligation comes from European law or domestic law, the principle should be the same. If there is a good reason why one should not write a letter—for example, if one is being harassed or bullied—that would be dealt with in regulations. If not, then we do not see the justification. We are also saying that in every one of those detriment cases it would not be the case that there was a good reason for writing a letter.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I see. Therefore, if someone were badly bullied, it would be unsatisfactory for a penalty to be placed on him by the employer if he tried to enforce his European rights, implemented into our law, but not if he were bullied just a little. People will read this and will ask what it means. They will go to an adviser and ask what this is about. The adviser will say, "I cannot tell you that until we have the regulations". He would be able to say, "I might be able to obtain a draft 30 days before the regulations come in". But he will then read Hansard and will charge an
CWH 310
extra fee for that. He will say, "The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, says that if you are bullied a little bit, then you are subject to all these penalties and prohibitions. If you are very badly bullied, then you may not be. But I cannot be sure until I see the regulations".
That is not at all satisfactory. These are shoddy legislative proposals. It is not good enough for citizens of the country to be subject to schedules of this kind concerning important limitations on their access to justice. There is nothing that we can do about it this evening. I am not sure what we can do this evening, but at present the best that I can do is beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 136 to 141 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Consequential adjustment of time limits]:
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 142:
Page 37, line 17, after "State" insert ", after consultation with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service,".
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 142, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 143 to 145. We now reach Clause 32, which makes provision for the Secretary of State, in relation to jurisdiction listed in Schedules 3 and 4, which we have just been discussing, by regulations to make provision about the time limit for beginning proceedings in respect of a claim concerning a matter to which a statutory procedure applies. Our amendment stipulates that the Secretary of State should exercise this power after consultation with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. This is important because ACAS is the body which has the expertise and experience in this matter. We are dealing with the imposition of time limits and the imposition of time limits within which a claimant may make a claim is a matter of some concern to that individual.
We are suggesting that it would be right to say that the time limit should not be less than three months. The employee concerned may be distraught by what has happened. He or she may need assistance and advice. For a member of a union, that would present no difficulty but many employees covered by this legislation will, as we know, be working in firms where there is no union and they may not at first know where to go for advice.
We have a workforce that is increasingly multiethnic. There may be language difficulties and such people tend to be very vulnerable. Although one can say, as a former union official, that everyone ought to belong to a union, nevertheless that is not always realistic. There is a duty upon politicians, in my view, to do what they can to protect vulnerable people. Our amendment provides that as regards the time limit, that should not be less than three months. That is referred to in paragraph 2 of Clause 32. We want "not less than three months" inserted there.
In tabling Amendment No. 145, we believe that there should be provision for the exercise of a discretion by the tribunal to extend the time for

CWH 311
beginning proceedings. That is sensible because, again, the tribunal will have the experience of dealing with such cases and such people. I believe that it can be trusted to exercise discretion in a reasonable way.
We believe that these suggestions are sensible. We hope that they are regarded as constructive by the Government. We are intending, as I and my noble friends have stressed throughout our discussion of the Bill, to be as constructive as possible and I hope that the Minister will agree that this is such an amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: To the extent that these two amendments seek to prescribe in the Act itself the time limit for the commencement of proceedings, we certainly sympathise with that idea. However, what we find unacceptable is that the limit should be not less than three months, only because this would entitle the Secretary of State to prescribe any limit of any length—even years and even something outside the normal period prescribed by the statute of limitations for ordinary civil claims. We believe that the limit should be relatively short because of the difficulty of remembering the sequence of events in what would be an intensely personal dispute. I regret, therefore, that we would not support the amendment as it stands. However, if it were to come back in a different form at a later stage, with an upper limit of a reasonably short length, we would certainly be willing to reconsider the matter.
In the last group of amendments, the Minister mentioned that he would listen to his noble friends. Then he said, "or other friends". He did not say he would listen to Members of the Committee. I say that only because, as I said before, I have some diffidence in supporting in case it does some harm to what are clearly very good amendments, or could be very good amendments.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Indeed, I was so carried away with the warm and comradely spirits of the Committee that I regarded everybody in the room as friends. I should have said "Members of the Committee. I specifically referred to my real friends over here, in parliamentary terms, but I meant all Members of the Committee.
Perhaps I may deal with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and make absolutely clear from the outset that we regard these as constructive suggestions. If and in so far as there is a disagreement, it is not about the principle; it is simply about the drafting issues.
First, there will be a thorough consultation exercise before any regulations are made. Those people who will be consulted will, of course, include ACAS but I do not see any need for consultation with ACAS to be spelt out on the face of the Bill. The regulations will be concerned with the adjustment of time limits in relation to those jurisdictions listed in the Schedules 3 and 4. The aim is to ensure that the parties have a
CWH 312
reasonable time to complete the statutory procedures before a complaint has to be made to an employment tribunal.
I can assure the noble Baroness and all Members of the Committee that the time limit for beginning proceedings in respect of a claim to which a statutory procedure applies will not be less than three months.
I would also draw the attention of Members of the Committee to a statement made in the Government's response to the consultation. It said that it is intended to extend the time limits for applying to a tribunal by three months where a claim has been submitted, or where procedures have been started but not completed, within the existing time limits for presenting claims. There will be further extensions of up to two months if both parties want this. All this was reiterated in committee in the other place.
The regulations will also make it clear, picking up the third point made by the noble Baroness, that it will be the tribunals which will exercise the discretion for extending time limits mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of this clause. I thoroughly endorse the point made by the noble Baroness that, of course, the tribunals are particularly well placed to exercise that discretion.
The precise details of the regulations have yet to be worked out but I hope I have said enough to allay concerns of the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, did I hear him to say that extensions beyond three months will only he allowed up to two months more?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I said that the time limit for beginning proceedings will be not less than three months. It is intended to extend the time limits for applying to a tribunal by three months. Where a claim has been submitted or where proceedings have started but have not been completed within the existing time limits, there will be further extensions of up to two months if both parties want this.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his response. I am glad to learn that the principles in the amendment are accepted and that the intention is that this will all appear in regulation. I still believe that it will be very much better if we had something on the face of the Bill, because this has been the standpoint of myself and my noble friends throughout our discussions. However, I am grateful for what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, what I am being told from behind me is that there can be a series of two months' extensions. So you can come back to the tribunal and in the tribunal's discretion it can extend further. That would be in its discretion even when one party is opposed—but only by agreement.
Baroness O'Cathain: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, does that mean that it could go on and on and on? There would be a huge problem for both the employee and for the employer if something were dragged on ad infinitum.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The extension may be granted only with the agreement of both parties and in the exercise of discretion by the tribunal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 143 to 145 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 146:
Transpose Clause 32 to after Clause 33.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to swap the order of Clauses 32 and 33. Following our amendments to Clause 33 in the other place, it is clear that the clause should now come before Clause 32. Clause 33 deals with presentation of complaints to tribunals and it makes sense for this to come before Clause 32, which is about consequential changes to time limits for making complaints to tribunals. Further, Clause 32 refers in a consequential way to Schedule 4 but it is Clause 33 that introduces that schedule. I hope that Members of the Committee will feel able to agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I hope my noble and learned friend will not mind if we go on referring to Clause 33. At Report, any references to Clause 33 will have to be carefully explained, of course, which will take a lot longer. It is a pity that this sort of jiggery-pokery has to go on. I quite see the logic of it, but Clause 33 is Clause 33. It has a bad reputation that will stick with it no matter what number it is given. However, I understand him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Complaints about grievances]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 146A:
Page 37, line 34, at end insert ", and
(c) the necessary condition is satisfied"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 147A. Amendment No. 149ZA has been grouped with these two amendments. It is the view of my noble friends and myself that this is inappropriate. I have to give notice that Amendment No. 149ZA will, in accordance with the usual principles, be moved separately.
Amendment No. 146A is concerned with Clause 33—I almost said, "The notorious Clause 33". Clause 33 applies to all those jurisdictions in Schedule 4 that we looked at and which caused a certain amount of
CWH 314
doubt in the minds of some Members of the Committee. In all those jurisdictions and all the cases of victimisation and the rest of it, Clause 33 says:
"An employee shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction if"—
two conditions are satisfied. The first is that the matter concerns paragraphs (6) or (9) in Schedule 2; that is, setting out a grievance and sending a copy to the employer in writing or—I apprehend when we come to look at the Bill again—sending it or a copy, I hope, to the employer in writing.
Amendment No. 146A would add a third condition. I will not rehearse again the many cases in which we think it quite unreasonable that even that step should be required of many workers—it may be reasonable in some cases—but to present it as an absolute rule and then say one will allow a few workers not to be caught by it in regulations, seems to us quite wrong.
The general rule should be the addition of our third condition. We have said that the third condition—and I quote from Amendment No. 147A—
"is satisfied where in the case of a grievance connected with—

(a) a dismissal or threatened dismissal, or

(b) a detriment or threatened detriment that has been or may be suffered by the employee,

the employer has given to the employee an assurance that he has conducted an appropriate investigation into the case and has supplied to the employee a summary in writing of the steps he has taken in that regard and, where reasonably practicable, in a case falling within paragraph (a)"—
I interpose that that is a case of dismissal or threatened dismissal in connection with which the grievance has arisen—
"of the reasons why the lesser step of a warning or a suspension is not appropriate".
Everything that has been said by the Government in response to our request that the concept of investigation be built into Schedule 2—the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, also moved amendments in the same respect—is irrelevant to this amendment. The Government case previously was that the present law concerning the decision of cases in a tribunal still includes the requirement of an investigation by the employer, certainly where there has been a dismissal and in other cases of detriment as well. It might well be unreasonable of an employer to take disciplinary steps against an employee without proper investigation. It will go to reasonableness.
Neither we nor the Law Society like the idea of prohibiting access to justice. The Law Society gave us a brief in which it said that Clause 33 really should be struck out of the Bill. It is of the opinion that, given the Government's premises, Clause 31 would suit it very well and would be enough and that Clause 33 is unnecessary. But given that the Government wish to introduce some prohibition on access to justice, at this stage—I underline that—of affairs, an employee could only, even on the Government's hypothesis, be reasonably excluded from the doors of the tribunal where, in face of a threatened or actual detriment or dismissal, about which he wishes to raise, or in connection with which he wishes to raise, his

CWH 315
grievance, where the employer has assured him that what has been done, or what is about to be done, has been done on the basis of proper investigation.
I see the case, although I would want to look at it very carefully, but, where an employee has been given an assurance of that kind, I can understand that it is arguable to say, "This has all been looked at with great care, and the following are the things you have done that I do not like and that I am going to impose a detriment for". If they receive such an assurance, it is arguable that he should take a step in a statutory grievance procedure, perhaps, and the tribunal should say, "No, unless you do that, we will not hear you, because we have seen the assurance of the employer".
Someone will raise a problem with that. It will be said, "Will they see the assurance from the employer?". First, they can see it if they put a little box on their new prescribed form under Clause 25. "Have you been assured by your employer that he has investigated the case—yes or no?"
Secondly, in another place, the Minister, my honourable friend Mr Johnson, said that the tribunal would know whether the employee was prohibited from presenting a case either from the ET1 form for the presentation or the communication of a complaint, or from the employer's response on ET3. In other words, the Minister in another place accepted that the tribunal would need to see some of the circumstances before it knew whether or not the employee was allowed to present a complaint, in the words of Clause 33. If the Minister tells me that that is not so, I can only ask him how on earth the employment tribunal is to know whether it is receiving a complaint which is prohibited from being presented.
Of course my noble friend Lord McCarthy will want to ask many more questions about the form, because it is via the form that we suspect the Government will allow the tribunal to find out, by new questions on the form about whether he has taken certain steps or not. If it is going to do that, then it can add another question although, as the president of the Employment Tribunals Service has said, these forms are likely to get pretty complicated and become something of a nightmare if a bureaucratic hand adds questions to them.
But this is an assurance that a worker who is to be prevented from having a day in the tribunal to enforce his rights is entitled to have. He is entitled to have at least the assurance that the case has been properly investigated. He is entitled to an assurance that he will not be given a small warning or a small suspension because the facts of the offence which he is alleged to have committed are those in the document or the communication which the employer has made available to him. Where reasonably practicable—we have attempted to be more than reasonable in the words of the amendment—he is entitled to be told the reasons why those lesser steps are not to be taken against him.
The amendment is moved on the basis that the Government's hypothesis is right: that the Government need Clause 33—which we dispute—and
CWH 316
that it is right to enforce against workers' generally, whatever the small number of exceptions. We have been told that the exceptions will be Limited to a small number of cases. We object to the prohibition of access to tribunals. However, if those objections are to be overridden, workers must at least be confident that the Government do not intend to cut applications to tribunals by 40,000 cases by the imposition of unfair rules.
The distrust, which is widespread, could be somewhat assuaged by the inclusion of a rule of this kind—these are words which my noble and learned friend may wish to criticise—setting out that a worker should be assured that a great deal has been done to ensure that he has a case to answer and should therefore go into procedure. It is a good trade union principle that, if there is a case to answer, one goes into procedure, but if a person does not have the assurance to know that there is a case to answer, he will feel hard done by and he will be right. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This matter involves a degree of complication that is very difficult to follow. My noble friend is saying that we should accept the hypothesis—which I do not—that, if one is an employee, one must first write a letter before going to the tribunal. Let us add another condition that, before the employee can go to the tribunal, not only does he have to write a letter to his employer but his employer must, by one means or another, assure the employee that the grievance raised has been properly investigated. That is what the amendment states; that is how it was introduced. It concerns a level of obstruction which is hardly worth addressing. One ends up with the situation in which the employer, simply by saying that he has not investigated and by not giving the assurance sought by my noble friend, can prevent the employee ever going to the tribunal. That is plainly not what my noble friend intends. Therefore, perhaps he would explain how it works.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I thought that I had explained, but my explanation was plainly inadequate. I shall read it. This is not about the assurance of the employer operating in the way he described; it operates in the following way. At present the clause states that the employee is prohibited from presenting a complaint to the tribunal unless the two conditions are satisfied. The first step relates to the grievance procedure, and he has not completed that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: He must send the letter.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: He must complete— I quote the clause,
"the requirement in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 has not been complied with".
Therefore, he should send a letter. He has not clone that. We say that if he has not sent the letter, he is still allowed to go to the tribunal. That is what the amendment states. It is not quite what my noble and learned friend understood it to mean. He was quoting

CWH 317
the mis-type where I inserted the word "not" in the wrong place in my first draft, which he seems to have obtained. But it is not what is printed. He is not allowed to go to the tribunal where the necessary condition is satisfied. The necessary condition is satisfied if the employer has given him this most important assurance. He is entitled to know when he is stopped from going to the tribunal that the matter has been properly investigated. There is nothing complicated about that. It is very simple. I am baffled that someone with the experience and learning of my noble and learned friend should find this simple amendment complicated or difficult in any way. I shall read it again. It states:
"The necessary condition is satisfied"—
that is to say, when he is prevented from going to the tribunal in these cases of dismissal, detriment and grievance—
"where…the employer has given to the employee an assurance that he has conducted an appropriate investigation",
and so on. That is not at all what my noble and learned friend said. I shall read Hansard with interest as I may have misheard him but it is not at all what I thought he said. This is not fiendishly complicated. It says to the employer, "If you want to join in the abolition of the 40,000 cases and you want to stop the employee going to a tribunal, then you assure your workers that you conduct proper investigations into your cases of detriment and dismissal". What is wrong with that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is fine and very clearly put. The amendment says that you must give that assurance in relation to the letter that has been sent. But I accept what my noble friend says. All that we are saying in our procedure is that one has to write a letter raising the matter before. Presumably, it is not a grievance that has to be raised in writing. I am not quite sure how one identifies the grievance. In his amendment my noble friend has done it by reference to the letter at the first stage in the procedure. However, apparently we can ignore that now. It is just some unidentified grievance, saying that an assurance has to be given in relation to the case that a proper investigation has taken place. If, again, that is the proposal that he makes, again, it would appear that the employer can prevent the employee going to the tribunal, because what the employee wants is the ability to go to the tribunal. What the procedure involves is simply saying, before you do that, subject to the exceptions, you should write a letter.
Lord McCarthy: No. The amendment provides that you can go to the tribunal without the letter in the good old-fashioned way, unless the employer does something as well as you. What you have to do is write a letter; and what the employer has to do is to do what we are saying in Amendment No. 147A. It becomes, in a sense, a kind of parity. If the employer will not do it, he cannot stop you going; you go.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I see. The amendment therefore provides that, if the letter has not been sent, the employee can say, "I don't need to send the letter unless the employer gives the assurance that he has properly investigated the matter".
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Yes.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand now and I apologise. It was entirely my fault for not understanding until it was explained so clearly by my noble friend. With respect, that is an unnecessary degree of complication. I do not really think that my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn believe that it is an appropriate degree; and they are saying sotto voce that they do not believe it is an appropriate degree of complication. It is a sort of— I am not quite sure what it is. We just have to address the question: are we right or are we wrong in requiring this letter in the first place? We think that we are, subject to those exceptions. I do not believe it really throws much light on the issue by this if, which we deny, you require this letter, there should be this procedure as well. It does not really advance the debate one jot.
Lord McCarthy: At least it completes the debate properly at half-past seven. The noble and learned Lord has used every reason to reject our amendments except that we do not believe what we say. So now he has completed it. there is nothing left.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I can assure my noble and learned friend that we believe every word that we say. I made it quite clear. I moved the amendment on the basis of the Government's own hypotheses. They want a letter to be sent. I want this to be even-handed. This amendment introduces an even-handedness. I feel as though I am in "My Fair Lady" and want to say, "By Jove, he's got it!". He has suddenly understood the effects of the amendment.
My noble and learned friend now understands that an employer cannot stop an employee going to a tribunal. However, he can stop the employee going to a tribunal if he does not give the assurance, and so it is even-handed. It is not very complicated. He thinks if he introduces a degree of complication which is in the Bill, it baffles the lay mind. This would not. If the only objection to the proposal is that it is not to be an assurance in writing, I will happily by manuscript amend the amendment to include a written assurance rather than one that is not written. That puts an extra burden on the employer.
I was very gentle in my burdens on the employer. It is just an assurance, and if that is what the noble and learned Lord objects to, I hope he will understand that we can bring it back on Report and move it as a written assurance.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Let the whole House hear it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Yes, indeed, my noble and learned friend is quite right. However, since the debate has been prolonged on the basis that my noble and learned friend did not appreciate the effect of the amendment, he cannot expect me to say other than that we shall consider bringing it back in a better form on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
CWH 320
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: For a variety of reasons, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Monday next at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at eighteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman
  Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman
  Surveillance Commissioners
  Surveillance Commissioners
  Civil Servants: Guidance on Conduct of Government Business before Elections
  Civil Servants: Guidance on Conduct of Government Business before Elections
  Golden Jubilee Celebrations
  Golden Jubilee Celebrations
  Yugoslavia: Assistance with Refugees
  Yugoslavia: Assistance with Refugees
  Colonel David de Vinatea
  Colonel David de Vinatea
  Foreign Policy Work by Non-public Bodies: Government Grants
  Foreign Policy Work by Non-public Bodies: Government Grants
  Universal Postal Service
  Universal Postal Service
  Gulf War Veterans: Khamisiyah Demolitions
  Gulf War Veterans: Khamisiyah Demolitions
  MoD Budget
  MoD Budget
  Royal Armoured Corps Regiments and Infantry Battalions: Replacement of B Vehicles
  Royal Armoured Corps Regiments and Infantry Battalions: Replacement of B Vehicles
  Challenger 2 Battle Tanks
  Challenger 2 Battle Tanks
  Historic Ships: Heritage Lottery Funding
  Historic Ships: Heritage Lottery Funding
  Historiic Urban Parks: Heritage Lottery Funding
  Historiic Urban Parks: Heritage Lottery Funding
  Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art: Arts Council Allocations
  Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art: Arts Council Allocations
  BBC News 24: Review
  BBC News 24: Review
  Zimbabwe: Targeted Sanctions
  Zimbabwe: Targeted Sanctions
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia
  Children Missing from Care
  Children Missing from Care
  NHS National Standards of Cleanliness
  NHS National Standards of Cleanliness
  NHS Hospitals: "Hotel Charges"
  NHS Hospitals: "Hotel Charges"
  Court Attendance: Assistance with Costs
  Court Attendance: Assistance with Costs
  Camborne Emergency Drain
  Camborne Emergency Drain
  Paper and Board Recycling
  Paper and Board Recycling
  Environment Agency: Financial, Management and Policy Review
  Environment Agency: Financial, Management and Policy Review