Sitting of 7 May 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
3.30 pm

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

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. James Plaskitt: What changes he plans to make to the system for auditing spending by NHS trusts. [52772]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): All NHS trusts are currently subject to an annual external audit of their financial statements by independent auditors appointed by the Audit Commission. That will not change, although a new commission for health care audit and inspection will be created from the current functions performed by the Commission for Health Improvement, the value-for-money studies of the Audit Commission and the private sector health care work of the National Care Standards Commission. I expect the new commission to be in place, so that it can audit NHS performance, by 2003–04.
    Mr. Plaskitt: How will my right hon. Friend strike the right balance between ensuring that everyone who uses
    2
    NHS services can see the benefits of increased investment, and not impeding professional choice or adding unnecessary bureaucratic burdens?
    Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend suggests, if people are putting more money into the national health service, it is important that they see what they are getting out of it. The truth is that, at the moment, we have a fairly bureaucratic and fragmented system of inspection. That system has evolved in the past few years, but because it is fragmented it weakens inspection. We have an opportunity to combine in a new, strengthened system the integrity and independence of all the various organisations that contribute to regulation not just of the NHS but of the private sector. That system will make the issue of where the money goes and how performance is improving much more transparent to the public.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the Secretary of State accept that Mrs. Drew, a constituent of mine, would welcome a thorough audit as soon as possible of the spending of Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS trust? On 19 April, she was interviewed by the oncology department consultant in the hospital's new unit, which was opened in February. Unfortunately, she was informed that she has cancer; she was also told that she must be treated at North Middlesex hospital, in Edmonton. Although the new unit at Chase Farm is fully equipped to provide her treatment, there is no funding, and North Middlesex hospital is the only alternative to provide her six-month treatment. When such mismanagement is revealed, how can she have faith in the Government's claim that they are providing services for patients?
    Mr. Milburn: I have every sympathy with the plight of the hon. Lady's constituent, and if she cares to write to me, I shall look into the matter. However, she might be aware of the horns of the dilemma that she and her hon. Friends now face. She says that she wants more investment, but she voted against it a fortnight ago.

    3
    She cannot have her cake and eat it. Does the national health service need more investment, or not? Our answer is yes; what is hers?
    Dr. Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend will know that the vast majority of hospitals have excellent accounting arrangements and offer exceptional value for money for the NHS system. Some, however, have been unable to meet the Government's strict requirements, and have had to be franchised. How is the franchising process progressing, and when will the Dartford and Gravesham acute trust, in particular, receive some news on when the process is likely to be completed?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is aware of the good work being carried out in his local hospital, as well as some past problems with its management and organisation. As he says, a franchising process is under way, and I hope to finalise it before too long. In all parts of the national health service, it is very important that, where there are persistent problems with performance, poor management and lack of organisation, they be dealt with. Every part of the NHS deserves the best management because, as he knows, good management makes a huge difference.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unfortunate that, although the audits tell us that money is being properly and legally spent, they offer no guidance on issues of policy? For example, how much extra does the provision of agency nurses, rather than ordinary ones, cost the health service? How much does the existence of hospices save the health service, given that 72 per cent. of the money comes from voluntary donations? Given that the NHS is not a profit-making organisation but a public body, should not the audit provide wider interpretations of what is happening, where money is being spent, how it could be saved, and the ways in which it has not been saved?
    Mr. Milburn: That is precisely the idea behind our proposed new audit arrangements. Obviously, the new commission for health care audit and inspection will require legislation, and that will be a matter for debate in the House. The idea is that, for the first time, one organisation will be responsible for examining clinical standards throughout the health service; for considering performance issues, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) rightly described as important; and for considering where NHS money is actually spent—the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. The public, who put money into the national health service, will therefore know where it is going and the results that accrue from it.
    Paddy Tipping: Does the Secretary of State accept that any strengthened and reformed audit system should look at strengths as well as weaknesses? Will the new system be used to promote success, using the staff and the trusts that develop good and modern practices?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He knows as well as I do of the many examples of good practice in the NHS. Part of the function of the existing Audit Commission and Commission for Health
    4
    Improvement, to which I pay tribute today, has been to highlight good practice as well as poor practice, so that others can learn from that. That will also be part of the new commission's function. We need to ensure that all parts of the NHS, and every patient, have high standards of treatment and care, and that taxpayers are assured that they are getting a good deal from the extra money going to the NHS.

    Cottage Hospitals
    Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the future of cottage hospitals. [52773]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Cottage hospitals continue to make an important contribution to the delivery of the NHS plan by providing care closer to home. We expect them to be key players in meeting our target of introducing an additional 5,000 intermediate care beds by 2004.
    Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for the Minister's answer, which is typically feisty in support of cottage hospitals. The 5,000 beds may make a small dent in the 50,000 care home beds that have been lost since the Government came to power. The Minister will know that the future of the cottage hospital in Burntwood is in considerable doubt. Indeed, I wrote to the Minister of State on 24 January on that point, but he still has not replied to me. As for Lichfield, the Minister will know that on 15 May the Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth primary care trust will recommend the building of a new hospital in Lichfield. Will that new hospital be funded by a private finance initiative, which the local people and the primary care trust do not want?
    Ms Blears: As the hon. Gentleman knows, extensive local discussion has taken place about re-providing excellent facilities for his constituents. The proposals are for a new community hospital with 52 in-patient beds, rehabilitation facilities, out-patient, diagnostics and X-ray equipment, a pharmacy, a minor injuries unit, a renal satellite dialysis unit and, I hope, a maternity unit—all under Labour. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the hospital will be funded by a PFI or by traditional procurement. He wants the money and the investment, so I am pleased that on his website he said that the Budget was good for the NHS. If that is the case, why did he not vote for it?
    Jim Knight: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the future of the cottage hospital in Swanage is secured, following the opening of a day surgery unit there in the past 12 months. However, the lack of decent, affordable public transport for patients and visitors—especially from rural areas—to that hospital remains a problem. What steps are her Department and others taking to improve that situation?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right. Providing care closer to home means that patients and their families need to be able to reach facilities as quickly as possible. We have a project that is examining transport across the board to see how we can get people to out-patient and diagnostic appointments. Perhaps we need a revolution, with

    5
    consultants going to the patients rather than it always being the other way round. My hon. Friend makes an important point and we are on the case.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: I support the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for cottage hospitals and their funding. Is the Minister aware that the Congleton and District War Memorial hospital was funded by subscriptions from people who paid a penny a week from their wages, that we have fought closure on more than one occasion, that the services at that much valued local facility have changed over the years and that local people want it to continue? Will she give her support to the health authority for the hospital to continue to provide services for all local people?
    Ms Blears: I am delighted that the hon. Lady's constituents treasure and value that hospital, which is part of their NHS. It is important that we have a wide variety of services, including acute trusts and local cottage hospitals. As the NHS develops, so the role of cottage hospitals will become more important in providing recuperative care, day surgery facilities and a range of new ways of delivering services. That is why the new investment is important, together with the reforms, so that the hospitals continue to have a vibrant role to play. I am not aware of the specific details about Congleton, but I shall respond to the hon. Lady in writing. However, she must recognise that for her hospital to be maintained, she has to approve the extra investment going into the service.

    Mental Health Services (Birmingham)
    Lynne Jones: If he will make a statement about funding for child and adolescent mental health services in Birmingham. [52774]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): In the past three years, we have invested some £85 million across the national health service and local authorities for child and adolescent mental health services.
    Birmingham has received significant investment for those services during that time and has been allocated £549,000 from the West Midlands modernisation fund to develop an acute assessment unit due to open later this year.
    Lynne Jones: May I thank my hon. Friend for the substantial increase in the resources that are now coming through for this vital service for children? Does she agree that it is not just funding that is a constraint but the desperate shortage of psychiatrists and other therapists? Furthermore, as my inquiries into the service provided by the Children's Trust in Birmingham seem to indicate, management is poor and protocols inconsistent. When the Commission for Health Improvement visits the trust in the near future, will my hon. Friend ask it to pay particular attention to those matters, especially in relation to the suspension of one consultant psychiatrist? She was able to manage her work load and keep waiting lists down so that the children did not languish on waiting lists for up to two years, as is the case for children in my
    6
    constituency. Might I add that that is not the first suspension by the Children's Trust that has caused me concern?
    Jacqui Smith: I agree that we need to address the issue in several ways. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a challenge in recruiting and retaining the skilled staff that we need to provide child and adolescent mental health services. There is also a challenge, as she suggested, particularly in Birmingham, in managing resources effectively. Work is under way to build on the four new primary care trusts as localities for delivering child and adolescent mental health services.
    Finally, we must also consider other examples. Solihull, near my hon. Friend's constituency, is reorganising the way in which it offers child and adolescent mental health services and considering in particular tier one, early intervention and ways in which other professionals can be used to help support children and families who have mental health problems. In that way, we can deliver a better service for my hon. Friend's constituents and throughout the country.
    Sir Michael Spicer: What are the plans for the provision of secure units in Birmingham and elsewhere for severely mentally disabled and ill people, many of whom end up, quite wrongly, in prison?
    Jacqui Smith: As I suggested in my first answer, the regional specialist commissioning group has allocated £549,000 from the West Midlands specialist modernisation fund to develop an acute assessment unit at the Park View clinic in Moseley, Birmingham, which is due to open later this year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, with young offenders, it is also important to ensure better joint working between youth offending teams and the child and adolescent mental health services. In addition, we are investing in mental health services in prisons and for young offenders so that they receive the treatment that they need when in prison in a way that has not happened previously.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Minister also recognise that many young people with mental health problems never reach the health service? Often, in constituencies like mine, their problems arise from traumatic experiences overseas from which they have fled, and they report their concerns in schools. What work is my hon. Friend doing with the education service to ensure proper care for children and adolescents with mental health problems such as those?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is crucial that we work across the agencies in a better way than we have done previously. First, we shall include in the national health service framework for children work on standards to improve child and adolescent mental health services. We have recently worked with colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills on promoting mental health in early years and school settings. We are working with it on its programme on improving behaviour. In addition, we are funding, and will continue to fund, innovation projects that look particularly at how to get professionals such as health visitors, teachers and primary care workers working

    7
    together earlier so that we prevent the escalation of some of the mental health problems that my hon. Friend has outlined.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: In Birmingham, child psychiatrists do not have the nurses that they need—they are able to treat only emergencies. The waiting time for seeing a patient on the list is 18 months. At a time when the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office are making announcements about the problem of disaffected youngsters, will the Minister explain what the Department of Health is doing about adolescents and children with mental health problems? Given that children and adolescents form 20 per cent. of the population, why does only 5 per cent. of the mental health budget go to services for them? Why do places such as Birmingham spend so much less than elsewhere? Is it not time that the Government dealt with the problem of child and adolescent mental health instead of cutting the money as they did last year? Last year, £10 million allocated for mental health was chopped out of the budget and sent off to other priorities. Is it not time that those services were given the priority that they deserve?
    Jacqui Smith: In fact, the out-turn figures for 2001 suggest that, for child and adolescent mental health services, Birmingham was the second highest spending authority in the west midlands. Of course, the authority was able to spend that money because of the extra £85 million invested in child and adolescent mental health services by the Government. This year, there are plans to increase services in Birmingham: better services for 16 to 18-year-olds and better services for early intervention, so that the whole of Birmingham is covered. Once again, Opposition Members are willing to whinge about money, but they are not willing to vote for it.

    Adoption
    Ms Meg Munn: What his policy is on extending the right to adopt to unmarried couples; and if he will make a statement on the technical and practical problems in incorporating such a right into the Adoption and Children Bill. [52775]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The Government's objective is to increase the number of children who have the opportunity, through adoption, to grow up as part of a loving, stable and permanent family. On Second Reading of the Adoption and Children Bill, I told the House that I believed that there should be a debate on adoption by unmarried couples. Since then, there has been a wide-ranging debate and during the passage of the Bill we have received many representations on the issue.
    I understand that, last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) tabled amendments to the Bill to allow, for the first time, unmarried couples to apply—as couples—to adopt children. Given the different views on the issue on both sides of the House, and after carefully considering the representations that we received, the Government have decided to make consideration of my hon. Friend's amendments subject to a free vote in this place. Should
    8
    they be passed, it is my intention to table further amendments in the other place to deal with any legal and technical implications.
    Ms Munn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I am delighted to hear that the issue will be subject to a free vote. The proposal has support on both sides of the House and is likely to increase the number of adopters for the many children in care who need permanent families. Should the amendments be accepted—as I hope they will be—will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a rigorous process so that the needs of the child are always paramount, rather than the needs or wishes of the adopters?
    Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's assessment. Indeed, it is important that we understand, when considering the issue and the amendments—which I personally support—that they are simply about widening the pool of potential adoptive parents so that more vulnerable children, rather than being stuck in the care system, have the chance of the stable family life that adoption can bring. If the amendments are passed, it will be for adoption agencies and, ultimately, the courts to decide who is suitable to adopt. No one has a right to adopt. There is a rigorous assessment process and it would not change if the amendments were passed. Indeed, under one of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, a couple wanting to become adoptive parents will have to prove not only that they can provide a loving family environment but also that they have formed a long-term, stable relationship. In the end, that assessment process will not be a matter for politicians—still less for Parliament—to determine; it will be for the courts to decide what is in the best interests of the child.
    Dr. Evan Harris: The Secretary of State will know that the new clause tabled in my name and in the names of many colleagues on both sides of the House is similar to the newly tabled amendments of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I welcome a free vote as progress on the Government not giving their view on the matter. British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, which represents a coalition of relevant bodies in the interests of children, also recognises that concession. Having said that, does the Secretary of State agree that it is unfortunate that he has not been able to give full Government support for something that he accepts is in the best interests of children and provides for equality in this area? Liberal Democrats look forward to a time when there will be an opportunity to expand the number of people who can adopt children into suitable homes.
    Mr. Milburn: I am grateful—at least I think I am—for the hon. Gentleman's support. Let us remember that, during the passage of the Bill, we established a Special Standing Committee to look in depth at those issues and to take evidence from a variety of quarters. What the hon. Gentleman recognises, and what I recognise, is that there are many different views on this issue. Given the

    9
    sensitivities of the issue and the fact that there are many different views, it seems appropriate to have a free vote as the right way forward.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today and thank him and the Minister of State for listening to the representations made from both sides of the House on this issue? Does he accept that the welfare principle—the duty to secure the best interests of the child—has been at the heart of the success of the Children Act 1989? Does he agree that our difficulty with the Adoption and Children Bill as drafted is that children's best interests would not be secured if those interests would be furthered by their being adopted by an unmarried couple?
    Mr. Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks. I am grateful to him for his consistent support on the issue and for the help that he has given to many organisations in taking forward their views on it. There is a simple principle here: it is not about extending the right to adopt to anybody, but about extending the right of more children to be adopted. Surely, if we can do that, and if we can make it easier for more children to be adopted, to form part of a stable, loving family environment, that is precisely the right thing to do. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel able to lend their support to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: The whole House will acknowledge that we should congratulate all adults who step forward wishing to adopt children, which must be a better option than the alternatives. In saying—rightly so—that the interests of the child are paramount, will the Secretary of State confirm that the stable, loving environment about which he talks must, in every situation, include a mother and a father? Will he confirm that that is the kind of stable couple that he has in mind?
    Mr. Milburn: The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield refer to two-sex couples and same-sex couples. He is aware that, under current adoption law, it is perfectly possible not just for married couples to adopt but for single people, regardless of their sexual orientation, to adopt. In the end, my view is that the question of who is suitable to adopt is a matter for the courts to determine.
    The fundamental principle that should always be uppermost in all our minds is whatever is in the best interests of the child. I do not believe that it is in the best interests of children to remain stuck in the care system. Despite the best efforts of foster carers or people working in local authorities or in the private or voluntary sector, far too many children do not get the best chance in life because they are stuck in the care system. It seems right and proper to me, at least, that we should make sure that not just some children but every child in our country has the best start in life. To do that, every child should have the opportunity of growing up in a stable family environment.
    Jonathan Shaw: We have only one opportunity in a generation to implement adoption law, and the last time was 1976. Children have waited too long, so it is vital that we get the legislation
    10
    right. We must also remember that 19 out of the 20 professional and voluntary agencies that gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee supported the amendments that I tabled in Committee and that have subsequently been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). May I also praise the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), for her excellent work in taking the Bill through Committee?
    Can the Secretary of State give any indication when the Bill is likely to come back to the House? Agencies are keen to move on, and not least of them is Medway council, which was recently offered beacon status for its work on adoption. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be keen to praise it, but can he give us a date for when the Bill will return to the House?
    Mr. Milburn: It will be for the business managers to agree when the Bill should come back to the House on Report. Obviously, the amendments will be dealt with then.
    My hon. Friend is right. Many representations on the issue have been made from inside and outside the House. Many Members on both sides of the House have signed an early-day motion, and Ministers have received many representations. The Special Standing Committee heard evidence from a variety of organisations and all right hon. and hon. Members have received letters supporting the general approach that will extend the pool of potential adoptive parents. Among them were organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardos, NCH Action for Children, the National Children's Bureau, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the Law Society and the Family Law Bar Association.
    Inevitably, there will be debates on this issue, and rightly so. It is a sensitive matter that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get right. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will consider the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and give them a fair wind.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Given the House's concern for the well-being of children, we want to ensure that we get the legislation right. However, has the Secretary of State been made aware of recent figures that show that, when a child comes along, there is a higher degree of breakdown in relationships among people who cohabit? We must therefore be careful that children who have already suffered one trauma do not suffer another.
    Mr. Milburn: I understand that and the hon. Gentleman's views on the issue. I am also very familiar with the statistics. When the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to consider the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, he will see that they amend the Bill so that couples wishing to go forward as potential adoptive parents will have to demonstrate that they have formed an enduring, long-term relationship. However, that is not a matter for me or the hon. Gentleman to determine; it must be a matter for the courts to decide. If we can make it easier for more children to be adopted, that surely must be the right thing to do.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: How many people were waiting 13 weeks or more to see a consultant on (a) 31 March 2002 and (b) 31 March 1997. [52776]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): On 31 March 1997, there were 247,488 patients waiting 13 weeks or more for a first out-patient appointment. The figures for 31 March 2002 will be published shortly.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that somewhat inadequate reply. Can he give me the figures for my local hospital, the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King's Lynn? Will he join me in congratulating all the staff at that hospital on the superb work that they do in serving the local community? They do an excellent job. However, is he aware that there are serious shortages of radiographers and radiologists, which means that people wait far too long for CAT and MRI scans? Serious nursing shortages are also building up, so what guarantees can he give my constituents that the extra money promised for the health service will solve local problems?
    Mr. Hutton: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to keep the investment coming through to the national health service, but he and his hon. Friends have some explaining to do. They come here and talk about the need for extra investment but, when they are given the opportunity to vote for those resources to go the NHS, they vote against the increase. He should go away and rehearse his lines.
    I accept that, overall, patients wait too long for out-patient appointments. That is as true in the hon. Gentleman's hospital as it is in hospitals in my constituency. I am glad to say that after many years of both in-patient and out-patient figures rising, they are now coming down sharply. He will have to wait until later this month for the latest figures, however, and I hope that he will be encouraged by them. It is important that the investment keeps coming through. That is the way to tackle the capacity problems that are a result of 30 years of underinvestment in the NHS. We have a plan for doing that; he is opposed to it.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that there has been a marked improvement in waiting times to see consultants in my region of Yorkshire and Humber? However, as one talks to hospital administrators, it is emerging that one of the side effects of the Coleman recommendations on training and on the continuous training of surgeons is the significant and growing number of surgeons who are suspended. Will my right hon. Friend look into that to see whether it is a national problem, because there is real concern in the Yorkshire region about it?
    Mr. Hutton: I am not familiar with the problem that my hon. Friend raises. I will certainly look into it, however, and I am sure that he, like me, welcomes the progress on reducing waiting times in Yorkshire.
    Mr. John Redwood: The reason I voted against the tax on jobs was that I did not believe that the
    12
    money would get through to pay for the nurses, doctors and extra beds that we clearly need at the Royal Berkshire hospital in my area or, for that matter, anywhere else in the country with a similar problem. If the Minister wishes to change my mind, will he promise us that the number of nurses, doctors and extra beds that the Royal Berkshire says it needs will be met immediately from the new money, so that we can clear the waiting list? Does he agree that the waiting list is far too long and that people are waiting too long in pain? Is he not really saying that he has no intention of appointing those nurses and doctors in the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Hutton: I can only assume that the right hon. Gentleman is being ironic. He asks me to commit investment next year, but he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have just voted against such increases. He has no credibility in making that point in that way. I strongly believe that, in addition to the investment, we need to reform the way in which we organise and deliver health care, and that will be part of our approach. I honestly believe that the right hon. Gentleman needs to go away and think about his position more carefully than he has done since the Budget was published.
    Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more progress would be made in cutting waiting times if we ensured that consultants who are trained by the NHS and paid full-time by the NHS actually worked full-time for the service? What progress is being made on reforming consultants' contracts to ensure that that happens?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree that it is right to follow the principle that those who make the greatest commitment to the NHS should get the greatest reward. We published our proposals, as my hon. Friend will be aware, to reform key elements of consultants' contracts in February of last year. Those negotiations are under way. We are making good progress in general and I hope that they will he concluded in the near future.
    Tim Loughton: Do the figures that the Minister gave include the hidden waiting lists? Will he confirm the figure in the "Not the waiting list" report in The Sunday Times last weekend—that at least 250,000 people who are waiting for tests to determine the type of surgery or other treatment that they need are excluded from the Government's published figures? Does he think it legitimate for senior NHS executives to warn hospitals against "overstatement of waiting lists" and to order chief executives to keep certain people who are waiting for diagnostic tests off those lists? Given the National Audit Office exposé of hospitals fiddling waiting times last year and now this, why should anyone believe any figures produced by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. Hutton: The figures are reliable. The hon. Gentleman is doing a disservice to the NHS by claiming anything else. The figures that he relies on to make his point about access to diagnostic testing and so on are collected in the same way as his party collected figures when it left office in 1997. There has been no change whatsoever in the collection of that data.

    13
    The hon. Gentleman and I may agree on one thing, however: it is important that we increase access to important diagnostic treatments and, in particular, to therapeutic treatments. That is why the NHS cancer plan includes, for the first time, an important commitment to reduce the waiting time for treatment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support that.

    Cancelled Operations
    Mr. John Baron: How many cancelled operations there were in the last year. [52777]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): In 2000–01, the last full year for which data are available, there were 77,818 operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons when the patient was due to be admitted for treatment.
    Mr. Baron: I thank the Minister for that response. Given that there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of cancelled operations since 1997, what estimate have the Government made of both the cost to local government and the effect on council tax of their latest policy of fining councils for bed blocking in hospitals?
    Yvette Cooper: Clearly, too many people are having their operations cancelled, but the most recent quarterly figures show that the number of cancellations is dropping and progress is being made. It is right that social services departments support the reductions in NHS delayed discharges, and that is exactly why they are getting a substantial increase in their resources—way above the increases that they got under Conservative Governments.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend make the connection between delayed discharges, cancelled operations and the fact that, in my constituency, Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire county council is still spending only 85 per cent. of its standard spending assessment on services for elderly people?
    Yvette Cooper: Obviously local councils that are not making the right decisions on delayed discharges will have to take responsibility for those decisions. That is why we are effecting reforms, as part of the Budget package. This is about investment and reform: investment that the Conservatives have decided to vote against, and reform that is essential to provide everyone with the incentive to improve NHS care.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Minister expect that when the Government have increased the proportion of national income spent on health in England to the levels already prevailing in France and Scotland, the number of cancelled operations, waiting lists and other indicators of health performance will have reached French levels or Scottish levels?
    Yvette Cooper: Waiting times and cancellations are already falling. Substantial improvements are already being made throughout the NHS as a result of the extra investment. The right hon. Gentleman really must join his party in making a decision on this. Do the Conservatives want the extra investment to go into the NHS to bring down waiting times and improve services for NHS
    14
    patients throughout the country, or not? They have said that they want to see the improvements, but they will not back the investment that we need.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: May I support the Minister's efforts to reduce delayed discharges as a way of reducing cancellations? I draw her attention to the single most effective measure that is being taken in Milton Keynes to deal with delayed discharges, which is a single social care assessment protocol agreed by social services and the NHS. May I urge her to try to make sure that a national social care assessment protocol is agreed, so that all social services and NHS personnel throughout the country can work more effectively to reduce delayed discharges?
    Yvette Cooper: Yes, and I can also say that considerable work is being done throughout the country to improve the co-ordination between social services and the NHS. That is part of a broader modernisation programme, including an £8.5 million programme by the modernisation agency to cut cancelled operations.
    Sandra Gidley: The Minister will be aware that if an operation is cancelled at the last minute, it should take place within a month, but for 21 per cent. of patients that does not happen. Is the Minister happy with that state of affairs? If not, what is she going to do about it?
    Yvette Cooper: That target was introduced on 1 April, and it will be addressed as part of the performance management framework throughout the NHS, including the work of strategic health authorities.
    Mr. David Kidney: Given South Staffordshire's success in reducing the number of cancelled operations and cutting waiting times for cataract operations by using modernisation fund money to establish a cataract surgical unit, will my hon. Friend support places such as South Staffordshire in establishing orthopaedic surgical units to enable similar success in cutting the number of cancelled operations and reducing waiting times for hip and other joint replacements?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right; changing the way in which services are provided can make a substantial difference, particularly in the separation of emergency care from elective care, which is exactly why we are supporting a substantial number of new diagnostic and treatment centres that are being developed and invested in across the country.
    Dr. Liam Fox: But those appalling figures for cancelled operations are not the whole story, are they? What does the Minister say to the trust which advises that
    "if there is doubt as to whether admissions can be accommodated the following day, the cancellation should occur the day before",
    as
    "this will enable the Trust to deliver our target of NIL same day cancellations"?

    15
    Ministers have already been caught fiddling waiting list figures; how many cancelled operations are being hidden by that disgraceful tactic?
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is nonsense. The figures have not been changed; the latest quarterly figures show that the number of cancellations is falling. It is important, however, that we carry on making progress. The hon. Gentleman has to decide whether he wants to support additional investment for the extra beds needed to bring the number of cancellations down; the extra capacity that is needed; and the extra doctors that are needed. Or does he want simply to carry on cutting, as the previous Administration did?
    Dr. Fox: Even by this Government's standards on evasive answers, that was fairly appalling. Let me give the Minister another problem and offer her a second chance. Given that bed blocking is one of the major causes of cancelled operations and that the Government's policy is to fine local authorities that have bed blocking in their areas, will she confirm not only that that will cost about £400 million, which will be passed on to the council tax payer, but that it will offer the ultimate perverse incentive? GPs in areas where there is bed blocking will realise that the best way to get patients into a local nursing home is to admit them to hospital, which will increase pressure on hospitals, worsen bed blocking and increase the number of cancelled operations. Will the Minister admit that that is the craziest of all the Government's insane policies on health, and will she stop doing damage now before it gets even worse?
    Yvette Cooper: No; clearly there is an issue about delayed discharges, but the proportion of older people waiting to be discharged has fallen in the past few years. Additional investment is going in, and it is right that it should continue to do so, which is why the Budget included proposals for an extra 6 per cent. in real terms for social services, compared with less than 0.5 per cent. under the Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman has to explain how he expects councils to tackle the issue of delayed discharges with the level of funding provided by the Tories, who year after year managed less than 0.5 per cent., which is pathetic. The hon. Gentleman's party is unable to fund the NHS or social services.

    National Insurance
    Mr. David Amess: What estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of the increase in national insurance contributions announced in the Budget. [52778]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I estimate that the changes to employers' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will cost the NHS about £200 million in 2003–04.
    Mr. Amess: I still think that we will have to scrutinise that figure carefully. Will the Secretary of State provide an estimate of the increase in national insurance contributions for senior house officers, ward sisters and consultants as a proportion of their average take-home
    16
    pay? Will he explain carefully to the House of Commons how the increase will help recruitment and retention in the NHS?
    Mr. Milburn: I have never yet met a member of staff in the health service who does not believe that the NHS needs more investment; the only people I have met who believe that are Opposition Members. I do not know whether or not the hon. Gentleman is mathematically challenged, but even if the NHS has to make £200 million worth of extra national insurance contributions, it is worth remembering that in the same financial year it will get an extra £5,500 million. Our party supported and voted for that, but the hon. Gentleman's party opposed it.
    Derek Twigg: The message from my constituents is clear: they want a massive injection of extra funding in the health service, particularly in my area, where there are a lot of health inequalities. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree to look at their concern that the extra money be spent well and efficiently and that the whole service should be better managed, particularly by getting management structures in place. Are the Tories not putting up a smokescreen to try to hide their policy of privatisation, not public funding?
    Mr. Milburn: I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents, like most people in this country, want to see an expanded national health service. They want more of the national health service, not less. They want more doctors, more nurses, more beds, shorter waiting times, improved diagnostic services and a cut in health inequalities. My hon. Friend is quite right about that. The only way to bring it about is to get some reforms into the NHS and to accompany them with investment.
    What my hon. Friend says about the Conservatives is right. Their strategy is based on the four principles of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). First, they say that the NHS is not working; then they say that it has never worked; thirdly, they say that it can never work—as a prelude to their real agenda, the fourth item, which is to get more and more people to pay for their own care. That is not the right way forward for health care in this country. What people want is a national health service treating people according to need, not ability to pay—a national health service with the right principles and the right level of funding.
    Bob Spink: Is the Secretary of State aware that for Littlehaven's—a children's hospice in my constituency—the increase in the wage bill as a result of the national insurance contribution increase in the Budget will be well over £20,000, and that Littlehaven's is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions, topped up by a tiny amount of grant money through the NHS? Will he increase the money that the hospice receives to compensate it for the increase in national insurance contributions, so that it does not have to sack medical staff?
    Mr. Milburn: I join the hon. Gentleman in at least one respect—paying tribute to the work of the hospice movement, not just in his constituency, but throughout the country. Hospices do a first-rate job of work. We want to strengthen the partnership between the national health

    17
    service and the voluntary hospice movement, and we want more NHS money to go into palliative care—not just into hospices, but into palliative care services more generally. That is what we want to see, and what we voted for. It is no use the hon. Gentleman coming to the House and complaining of lack of investment in the NHS or in his local hospices, if he is not prepared to vote for it. On two occasions in the past fortnight he has voted against more money for the NHS. That is what he should go and explain to his constituents.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I ask the Secretary of State a direct question? I fully appreciate the additional cost to the national health service of the increase in national insurance, but will he give me an assurance this afternoon that that will not prevent the Government, acting on behalf of the national health service, from encouraging the recruitment of additional midwives? I attended the Royal College of Midwives conference in Bournemouth last week, as did the Minister. There is a grave shortage in many parts of the country. If we are to provide maternity services of the quality that I believe we should, midwives are essential. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me and the House that the increase in national insurance will not prevent the recruitment of additional midwives?
    Mr. Milburn: No, I do not believe that it will. Already, the number of midwives is increasing, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He is also aware of the substantial commitment that we have given to expanding midwifery services. We expect an extra 2,000 midwives to be working in the NHS by 2004. Of course, that is partly a question of pay and making sure that people who are working very hard in the NHS are properly paid, but it is also a question of making sure that their working conditions and their working environment are right. So yes, I am confident that we will continue to recruit midwives in ever larger numbers in order to give women and families the sort of services that they deserve.

    Social Services (Lancashire)
    Mr. David Borrow: What recent discussions he has had with Lancashire county council concerning the provision of services for the elderly in Lancashire. [52779]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I met leading members of Lancashire county council on 29 April, together with some hon. Members representing constituencies in the county. In addition, the social services inspectorate has been closely monitoring Lancashire county council since it was placed under special measures in February 2000. Following the publication of the council's proposals to close a number of its care homes, the SSI is closely following the work undertaken by the council to assess its current care provision and to consult on future strategies with the NHS, local people and other interested parties.
    Mr. Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing in that area. She is aware of my concern that the consultation document prepared by Lancashire county council, which recommends the closure of 35 care homes, does not include any analysis of the capacity of the
    18
    voluntary or the private sector in Lancashire. I am sure that my hon. Friend will share my concern that on Friday last week the Galloway society for the blind in Penwortham, in my constituency, announced the closure in July of Howick house, a home for the elderly blind, which will mean that in a few months 20 elderly blind people will lose their home.
    The home is currently losing £1,000 a week. Will the Minister undertake to consult to see whether anything can be done to preserve the very specialist care that is given to the elderly blind by the Galloway society for the blind in my constituency? Will she also ensure that her Department and the inspectorate take a very robust attitude to the document that the county council will eventually produce on long-term care for the elderly in Lancashire?
    Jacqui Smith: I can assure my hon. Friend that the social services inspectorate is taking a very close interest in developments in Lancashire. I share his concern about ensuring that both the independent and voluntary sectors are fully engaged in any changes. Of course, that was the reason why the Government published the agreement—alongside investing £300 million in building up capacity and in reducing delayed discharges last October—which makes it very clear that we expect local authorities to work in their commissioning behaviour with the private, independent and voluntary sectors, as well as with their partners in the national health service, to ensure that we commission and develop the services that are necessary for older people.
    Mr. Simon Burns: As the Minister is aware—when she is not adopting an ostrich-like approach to the problem—in the past five years, 50,000 beds have been lost across the whole long-term care sector. Is she also aware that, in the next five years in Lancashire, county council placements in the private sector will decrease by about 1,200—the number will fall from 1,860 to 600—and that 35 of the 48 council homes will close, with the loss of 700 beds? Given the pressures that that will cause in relation to placement of elderly people in long-term care, how will the Government's policy of using the stick rather than the carrot and penalising local authorities involved in delayed discharges be implemented? How will it help in tackling the serious problems that Lancashire faces with finding placements for the most vulnerable and frail in our society?
    Jacqui Smith: Lancashire has already used the extra investment put in by the Government—not least the £5 million from the building capacity grant to improve services, including, for example, an 18 per cent. increase in the number of people receiving intensive home care. It is right that we build into the system incentives to ensure that our health and social services work together better, so that older people are not stuck in hospital when they would be better off in care homes, in their own homes or being supported in some other way in the community. That is why the 6 per cent. annual average real-terms increase in the next three years from which Lancashire will benefit will enable it to build the services to ensure that our older people have the right care, in the right place, at the right time. We are taking responsibility as a

    19
    Government not only for the policy that brings health and social services together, but for the investment that enables that to happen.

    NHS Direct
    Mr. Tom Levitt: What plans he has to extend NHS Direct. [52780]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Building on the very successful roll-out of NHS Direct, I expect the service to expand its capacity significantly over the next six years. By 2008, NHS Direct will be able to deal with more than 30 million callers a year. It will, for example, handle all out-of-hours calls to general practitioners and be in a position to deal with up to 1 million lower priority ambulance calls.
    Mr. Levitt: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I congratulate NHS Direct and its partner BT on having recently answered their 10 millionth call since NHS
    20
    Direct was set up. I am sure that she agrees that there is still a need to educate some parts of the population about the use of NHS Direct, especially in respect of out-of-hours service replacement. Will the extension of NHS Direct be not only quantitative, as she has described, but qualitative, in terms of bringing new services into the NHS Direct family?
    Ms Blears: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right; NHS Direct can really help to contribute towards the reform agenda. For example, in west Yorkshire, NHS Direct is involved in an innovative scheme for people with long-term lung complaints. They can be monitored at a distance via the telephone and computer software, and when their life signs start to deteriorate an emergency response can be triggered. Similarly, Hope hospital, in my constituency, has an innovative programme for people with diabetes. NHS Direct can offer a contact centre to all patients around the country with diabetes, who can get advice through e-mail, the telephone and interactive online services. NHS Direct is truly the kind of service that we want for the 21st century; it is a very exciting development indeed.

Wembley Stadium
Mr. Gerald Kaufman(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on Wembley stadium following the passing of the 30 April deadline that she set.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I explained to the House on 19 December that the Government were willing to support the Football Association's national stadium project, provided that the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. came forward with fully detailed and funded proposals within a reasonable time scale. In the light of the David James-Berwin Leighton Paisner report, I asked that they should deal with four points: first, to commission an independent value for money assessment of the proposed contracts with Multiplex; secondly, to make papers relating to the project available to the Comptroller and Auditor General; thirdly, to make corporate governance changes to produce a management structure capable of delivering a complex project with procedures acceptable to the public sector; and, finally, to confirm that financial support is adequate and fully committed. I also explained to the House that I had asked Sport England to commission a detailed technical evaluation of the new proposals for athletics in the stadium.
Since 19 December, the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. have worked closely with stakeholders and banks to develop the stadium project at their preferred location—Wembley—and to address the issues that I have outlined. Significant progress has been made.
Wembley National Stadium Ltd. carried out my request to make available to the Comptroller and Auditor General papers relating to the project. WNSL also commissioned Cyril Sweett Ltd.—a company with no previous or known likely future involvement in the national stadium project—to undertake a value for money study. Cyril Sweett Ltd. concludes that the Multiplex contracts represent value for money. I have considered the company's report carefully and accept its conclusions. The full report necessarily contains much commercially sensitive information and therefore cannot be published. However, I have asked WNSL to commission a publishable study, which I shall place in the Library.
WNSL has committed itself to meeting the required standards of corporate governance, and I am pleased to be able to say that significant improvements have been made. The WNSL board has been strengthened with experience in construction, financing and marketing. The new chairman, Michael Jeffries, has construction and project management experience. The Government remain in discussion with the FA, WNSL and other stakeholders about these issues.
WNSL also invited the Office of Government Commerce to undertake a gateway review of the project, which recommended that the project should proceed to contractual completion and that it was well managed and viable.
Sport England has completed its athletics study, which was prepared in close co-operation with UK Athletics, the British Olympic Association, UK Sport and the
22
International Association of Athletics Federations. My predecessor rightly drew attention to the extremely long time scale and exorbitant cost involved in the installation and removal of the original platform, and to the fact that there was no legacy for the sport from the project.
I am pleased to report that the new design conforms to the standards required by the IAAF, is considerably quicker to install and remove, and the costs associated with it have been substantially reduced. I have asked Sport England to publish its study. The matter of a legacy for athletics is the subject of separate discussions between my Department, Sport England and UK Athletics. I hope that they will be concluded in the next two weeks.
Although much of the necessary work to secure the financing of the stadium project has been completed, the Football Association has requested more time to enable it to conclude its discussions with the banks. In the light of the progress that the FA and WNSL made in fulfilling the conditions that I set out on 19 December, I have agreed to refrain from reaching my final decision on Government support for the national stadium project at Wembley at this point.
I understand that that decision will disappoint many people in the west midlands, and hon. Members who represent that region. However, it would be wrong for the Government to withdraw their support at such a crucial stage. The FA is closer than it has ever been to making Wembley the home of English football again. I do not believe that it would be right or reasonable to pull the plug on its project when the prospects of success look better than ever.
Subject to the successful conclusion of the continuing discussions with the FA and WNSL, final confirmation that the financing is adequate and fully committed, and the terms of Patrick Carter's final report, the Government will be pleased to support the national stadium project at Wembley. My decision will be taken after full consultation with Sport England and in the light of Patrick Carter's final report. I fully recognise the public and parliamentary pressure for an end to the process and the start of the construction of a world-class stadium. I will therefore make a further statement to the House before the Whitsun recess.
Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend talked about parliamentary and other pressure to conclude the matter, but she gave the House a firm and unequivocal commitment to bring the matter to a conclusion before now. On 19 December she set out her "four fundamental points" and said that they "must be addressed first". They included
"confirmation that financial support is adequate and fully committed".—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 292.]
In reply to parliamentary questions on the matter on 10 April, my right hon. Friend said:
"I expect the FA's work to be completed in April. The Government will determine whether or not that work satisfies the conditions I set out on 19 December".—[Official Report, 10 April 2002; vol. 383,c. 309W.
Is it not a fact that the work has not been completed by the FA and that it therefore does not satisfy the conditions that my right hon. Friend described as "fundamental points"? Is it not a fact that the money is not "adequate and fully committed"? Is it not therefore a fact that the undertakings that she gave the House on 19 December and 10 April have not been fulfilled?

23
How can the Government continue to embrace the tar baby? It is not simply a matter for the FA, because it involves £20 million of public subsidy, which my right hon. Friend promised the FA and £120 million of lottery money, which Sport England irresponsibly and disreputably gave the FA before planning permission had even been sought. It is time to put an end, one way or another, to this travesty of a process and settle the matter.
Tessa Jowell: I know that my right hon. Friend, for whom I have the highest regard, has never been the greatest fan of the national football stadium at Wembley. Let me deal however, with the serious points that he raised. First, he raised the question of the deadline set for the end of April. He is absolutely right to say that the Football Association set the end of April as the point by which it expected to have met the four tests that formed the condition for Government support for the project. As I have outlined to the House this afternoon, in my judgment, and on the basis of the evidence that has been made available to me, it is clear that the FA has made good progress on at least three of the tests. The outstanding matter relates to the financing of the project, on which—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow the Secretary of State to be heard.
Tessa Jowell: Progress has been made on the financing of the project. Hon. Members will understand that the detail of that progress is shrouded in commercial confidentiality. This is a difficult matter of judgment, but, in my view, it would be unreasonable and unfair to fail to give the Football Association, which is now in negotiation with the bank, the opportunity to conclude those negotiations. To do so would be gratuitously to wreck a project on which good progress has been made. I do not think that that would be right or proper, and that is why I have agreed to allow more time to complete the negotiations on the financing.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Secretary of State regret her original plan to try to sneak out this announcement on Wembley by means of a written parliamentary answer on a day when she was known to be making a major statement in Parliament on the Communications Bill? Is there ever going to be an end to her dithering on this subject? On top of the Government's inability to honour their commitment to staging the world athletics championships in London, does the Secretary of State recognise that Britain has now become a complete laughing stock in international sporting circles?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that her statement breaks the promise that she gave to the backers of the Birmingham bid? Is she willing to set any date after which Birmingham can have its proposals seriously considered? Will she confirm that describing the latest stadium design in oral questions before Easter as "athletics-capable" was just a device to allow Sport England to avoid asking for £120 million of lottery money back? Does she seriously believe that Wembley, given the geographical constraints surrounding it, could ever form the centrepiece of a British bid for the Olympic games?
24
When does the Secretary of State honestly think that work on building the national stadium might actually start? When will Wembley Park tube station be rebuilt? Is it not true that, five years after lottery money was provided for a national stadium, and 18 months after Wembley shut its doors, the Football Association has, in fact, delivered its side of the bargain, and that the real reason for this project now being stalled is ministerial dithering? While footballers, athletes, rugby league players and fans wait in frustration, Britain's international sporting humiliation continues.
Tessa Jowell: I hardly think that I sought to sneak out an answer on the national football stadium when this is the first day after local election purdah on which it has been possible to inform the House of this matter. Secondly, I took the trouble to telephone the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) this morning to draw his attention to this question. I also telephoned my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
Michael Fabricant: Your right hon. Friend forced you here.
Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend had made absolutely clear his disagreement with the position that I had taken. He has a robust view, and he is perfectly entitled to do what he did.
In relation to the status of athletics, I made it clear earlier that a working group involving Sport England and the key athletics governing bodies has been considering the position of athletics at Wembley. As I have told the House, the Sport England report will be published shortly, but it shows that the stadium is capable of taking a track that is cheaper and can be dismantled much more quickly than that in the original proposal. As the hon. Member for South Suffolk is also aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions made an announcement about financing the upgrading of Wembley Park tube station.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), as ever, does the House a great service. He has chronicled and pursued the trials and tribulations of the national stadium project for the past five years. Indeed, I have often fought in the trenches with him shoulder to shoulder in cataloguing the past failures of the Government and the FA. However, we part company on one fundamental issue, and west midlands Members would do well to take note of it. Although he may be their hero of the moment, it is clear that he wishes the project to fail completely. I wish it to succeed.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the four conditions that she set on 19 December have been substantially met and that, in the light of that progress, it would be foolish, wasteful and perverse to abandon the Wembley bid in the 89th minute? Will she also convey to the FA the House's frustration at the fact that it has not yet concluded its financial contract? Will she urge it with all speed so to do?
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend. It is important to remind the House that the four conditions in relation to Wembley that I set before Christmas are attached to the investment of a further £20 million of Government money

25
and £21 million from the London Development Agency to contribute to infrastructure costs. Those conditions attach to the release of that money.
This is not a Government project but an FA project. It is led and financed by the FA, but it is dependent on further Government money, for the reasons that I have outlined. As those who have taken the trouble to read Patrick Carter's report will understand, the FA is also dependent on support from the Government to facilitate aspects of this complex project, such as the infrastructure issues. That is why the Government have a role, and it is my judgment in the context of the progress that has been made that the FA should be allowed further time to conclude negotiations on funding the project.
Nick Harvey: If the FA is expected to raise all the money for the project, what exactly is the Government support that the right hon. Lady has yet to decide whether to give to it? If the FA takes another month to raise the money, surely it would be perverse for her then to refuse to support the transport infrastructure to which she refers. As for the Sport England analysis of athletics, will she tell us categorically whether the revised design would be adequate for an Olympic tournament to be held in the new stadium'? Is it still the FA's intention that the new stadium should open in the spring or early summer of 2005, precisely when we were supposed to have held the world athletics championships in London?
Tessa Jowell: The further support from the Government is the £41 million to which I have just referred. In relation to the opening date and the hon. Gentleman's question about the status of the track for Olympic events, those judgments will have to wait until I have had time to study the Sport England report, which has not yet been submitted to me.
Mr. Ken Purchase: This is, of course, a considerable problem for the whole of football, and I am afraid that my right hon. Friend will find it difficult to rebut accusations of muddle and. certainly, delay. The delay is no longer acceptable; we must soon have decisions. It would help if she could say today, clearly and without equivocation, whether a national football stadium that is worthy of the name will be built at all if it is not to be built at Wembley? In short, if Wembley cannot produce the goods, must we assume, as I fear we must, that there will be no national football stadium, simply because all the eggs have been put into one basket and— as I fear—too many have already been broken?
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I recognise that he has advocated for a long time that the stadium be built in the west midlands. As Patrick Carter's report assessed, if Wembley fails—we hope that it will succeed, given the provision of additional time—Birmingham is an option, but it is a more expensive one. However, the decision on location—Birmingham as an alternative to Wembley—is a judgment not for the Government but for the Football Association, because it is the FA that will pay for the project.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does the right hon. Lady understand that her decision today will be regarded as enormously unfair to the west midlands and
26
to the Birmingham bid? Does she also understand that she has not lived up to the solemn commitments that she gave to the House concerning the 30 April deadline, and which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) rightly described as firm and fundamental? Is it not true that the work has not been completed according to the terms that she described, that the money is not in place, and that the undertakings to this House have not been delivered? Does she accept that her decision today will be seen throughout Birmingham and the west midlands as an enormous breach of faith, and as yet another example of southern-based decision makers acting in the interest not of the country as a whole, but of the south?
Tessa Jowell: No, I do not accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's questions. I fully recognise the passion in Birmingham and the west midlands for trying to secure the national stadium for Birmingham. The negotiations will be conducted by the west midlands and the FA with full understanding and recognition of the costs involved—that is the beginning and end of the matter. This is a question not of letting anybody down but of taking a difficult decision and making a reasonable judgment, so that a project that has made progress can have every reasonable chance of succeeding at Wembley.
Kate Hoey: Does the Secretary of State know whether the value for money report, which she describes as satisfactory, took into account the £120 million of lottery money and the £20 million of public money? Surely the root of the problem is that, so far as Birmingham is concerned, there is not an even playing field. The £120 million was intended to provide a multi-sport national stadium. The FA has to decide whether it prefers Wembley or Birmingham, and in my view, if the stadium is to be used only for football, it should be in Birmingham. The reality is that football will get £120 million and there will be no multi-sport use. A football ground such as Millwall's s could be made athletics-capable, but who would pay for the necessary work, if ever it were needed? Are we not witnessing yet another example of the richest sport in the country getting money that it does not need and should not have? The whole £120 million should be ploughed back into community sport.
Tessa Jowell: I know that my hon. Friend has strong feelings about the lottery grant, and I shall certainly let her know how the matter was dealt with in the context of the value for money report when I have further studied its detail. However, all the indications are that, if the stadium is funded to proceed, it will be multi-purpose, providing facilities for rugby league, football and athletics. In doing so, it will largely meet the terms of the lottery agreement on which the £120 million was originally awarded.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: When the Secretary of State sets a deadline, what does she mean?
Tessa Jowell: I am sorry, but I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. McLoughlin: I was trying to oblige by asking a short question. When the Secretary of State sets a deadline, what does she mean by it?
Tessa Jowell: That is a very good question. As I have indicated to the House, the 30 April deadline was set by

27
the FA in the expectation that it would have made progress in each of the four key areas, in order to release the outstanding Government money by that time. The hon. Gentleman is right; the deadline has passed, but I have had to judge whether it would be reasonable — given that the FA has met three of the four conditions and is making progress on the fourth — to deny it the opportunity to complete the negotiations on the funding package. As I hope I have made clear to the House, I have concluded that the FA should be allowed the additional time to conclude the financing with the bank with which it is in negotiations.
Mr. Adrian Bailey: Every time that I have heard a statement on this issue, it has been reported that the FA and WNSL have been making progress. Given the fact that we have already had two deadlines that were not so dead, it would have been reasonable for some sort of conclusion to have been reached. Will the Secretary of State talk to the FA and WNSL, assess the position and give them a non-negotiable deadline, with transparent criteria, for them to complete, with the exercise of due diligence, all financial and contractual matters?
Tessa Jowell: It is important to make it clear that the FA has secured an outline offer of finance from the financial institution with which it has been negotiating. However, the timetable for completing the negotiation is not wholly within the FA's control. The timetable is set by the financial institutions and, to a great extent, the FA simply has to comply with it. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to set an irrevocable date at this point, but I have already told the House that I will make a further statement on progress—and the status of Government support—before the House rises for the Whitsun recess.
Bob Russell: Does the Secretary of State agree that whatever transport improvements are made in and around Wembley they would still be inadequate for the purpose? Bearing in mind the success of playing international matches at stadiums around England, does not she agree that that might be a better way forward? Given the possibility that 30 football clubs might go out of existence because of their financial problems, would not the £600 million be better spent on retaining a nationwide network of professional football clubs?
Tessa Jowell: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman refers all those questions to the FA, whose proper responsibility it is to answer them.
Mr. Tony Banks: I entirely support my right hon. Friend's decision. The English national stadium has to be at Wembley. It would be absolutely crazy of my right hon. Friend to pull the plug on a deal that looks as though it is almost complete. Let me say to my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Birmingham and the west midlands that I am not opposed to Birmingham. My family comes from Birmingham; I used to go on holiday in Birmingham— [Laughter.] Well, it was because we were so poor. If we are ever to attract international events to this country, the stadium has to be in London
28
because the International Olympic Committee and the International Association of Athletics Federations will only go to London.
Finally, despite the talk about the lottery money that was used to purchase the old Wembley site, the majority of the money for building the new national stadium must be subject to the FA's decision, because the FA is raising £460 million on the money markets to do it. Therefore, it is a matter for the FA, and perhaps we should have less Government interference rather than more.
Tessa Jowell: I agree.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The right hon. Lady represents a south London seat, but I wonder whether she realises the adverse effect that this sorry saga has on the economy of north London. We lost Picketts Lock as the national athletics stadium; there will be no football at Wembley for at least five years, probably seven, which will affect the local economy; and the need to take infrastructure decisions is now urgent. It seems obvious that we must have a world-class multi-sports stadium at Wembley, and we should get on with it as soon as possible.
Tessa Jowell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support.
Alan Keen: As a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I have been as frustrated as anyone else over the past two or three years. However, is it not true that the decision is very simple? It is a question not of where the stadium should be but of whether my right hon. Friend will allow a few more weeks so that the right decision is reached rather than blowing the project out of the water straight away. Anyone who has ever worked in the private sector knows about flexibility. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that she is being flexible today for the very best reason.
Tessa Jowell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's assessment. In these circumstances, flexibility and reasonableness are the only way forward.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The site of the proposed alternative bid is in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State accept that her description of "disappointment" as characterising the feelings in the west midlands is a serious understatement? We await this decision because of the related key strategic decisions on expanding the airport and widening the M42. It is not so much disappointment as hair-tearing frustration that is felt at this endless prevarication.
Tessa Jowell: I am very surprised by the hon. Lady's newly discovered support for the alternative site, as the correspondence that I have seen suggests that she opposed at every turn the prospect of a national stadium in Birmingham.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that I have always supported the case for Wembley, so I support the extra time that she is asking for today. As well as the transport and infrastructure improvements, which are crucial, does she accept that the fans who pay to go through the turnstiles week after week are concerned

29
that sufficient seats will be available for the ordinary spectator at the new stadium, as opposed to the snobs with their hospitality suites?
Tessa Jowell: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is that the investment in infrastructure will obviously improve access to the stadium and will offer regeneration to a part of north-west London that badly needs it. Secondly, the FA's proposal is for a 90,000-seater stadium; 18,000 will be so-called corporate seats, but 15 per cent. of the seats will generate 75 per cent. of the money for the stadium's ongoing funding. So there will be more space in Wembley for ordinary fans paying ordinary prices than in any other stadium in the country.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: The right hon. Lady will be very aware of the anger and disappointment in the west midlands about her statement today of her failure to make the FA stick to its 30 April deadline. A few moments ago, she said that she was not prepared to give an irreversible deadline, but surely she owes that to the people of the west midlands—at some point she must be prepared to pull the plug on Wembley. What is the point of her office if she is not prepared to take executive decisions?
Tessa Jowell: The fact is that the FA is currently in negotiations and I believe that those negotiations need to be allowed reasonable time to run their course. That is why I indicated to the House that I shall provide further information—a further report on progress—before the Whitsun recess.
Ms Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware that Wembley holds a special place in the hearts and minds of football fans internationally? Does she agree that it is only too appropriate that the Government should bring the national football station—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Stadium!"]—the national football stadium home to Wembley and that that decision will be welcomed not just by many millions of people internationally and in London, but by people all over the country who love football and love the traditions that Wembley represents?
Tessa Jowell: Yes, I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The national football station, as well as stadium, would also be better upgraded with the money that the Government will provide if the deal goes ahead.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the whole history of this project
30
has been one fiasco after another? Every time there is another problem, another Minister from this sorry Government pops up, with further reports being commissioned, further excuses and further delays. The real problem for those of us in this place and outside who care about sport is that, at every stage, the Government have completely failed to get a grip of this project and bring it to a conclusion. From the City pages of the papers, one sees that banks are walking away from the project as soon as they get close enough to realise the mess that the Government and all around them have made of it. Is not the real problem that what we need is not further delays and reports but a new Government who will get a grip of the project?
Tessa Jowell: I do not think anybody thinks that. The bile that the hon. Gentleman has just tipped over this issue is the easy bit. The hard bit is to do what we have done: work with the FA to get the project to a point where it has achieved more progress than ever before in its history, and make the judgment that it would not be right to pull the plug when there is a possibility—not a certainty, but a real possibility—of success.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: If the stadium is to be for football first, with athletics afterwards, how many seats will be lost when the athletics part is put in? The opening of the Olympics requires at least 80,000, so if the stadium is to be used for Olympics we need to be certain that we can provide that many.
Tessa Jowell: Those are precisely the kind of questions that I hope to be able to answer, and on which hon. Members can form their own view, when Sport England publishes its report on athletics at Wembley. The report will be prepared in conjunction with the athletics governing bodies.
Several hon.Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order: The House will have heard the Secretary of State say that she will make another statement on this matter. I will take note of hon. Members who have been disappointed today when the right hon. Lady comes back to the House.
We now come to the statement on the draft Communications Bill. I call the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Draft Communications Bill
4.8 pm
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): Here comes the second episode, Mr. Speaker. With permission, I should like to make a statement, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and myself, on the draft Communications Bill, produced jointly by our Departments and published today.
Copies of the Bill have been placed in the Library and are available from the Vote Office, along with a policy document and explanatory notes. It is also available on the world wide web.
In December 2000, the White Paper "A New Future for Communications" set out the Government's objectives: creating a dynamic market; universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest quality; safeguarding consumers and citizens; and minimising regulation. Everything that we announce today flows from those principles.
The communications industry is of immense importance to this country, so we are determined to proceed, wherever possible, with the fullest consultation and consensus. That is why we held further consultations on media ownership. That is why the Bill published today is in draft and is subject to scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses. This degree of consultation on major legislation is perhaps unprecedented, but it is important that the legislation has the confidence of the industry and of the public.
There is general agreement that the existing regulatory framework has become outdated because of rapid changes in technology, markets and consumer behaviour over the past six years. The communications industries are regulated in different ways by separate regulators, yet they are coming increasingly closer together in their ownership and in their operation. The evidence is all around us: television and radio companies are linked to newspapers; traditional media are developing websites; cable companies deliver television, radio, telephony, interactive services and broadband internet. This converging industry needs a converged regulator, providing industry-specific regulation with a light touch: a framework that protects the citizen while setting business free; and a regulatory framework that offers certainty where it is needed for business plans and investment, and flexibility where it is needed in a fast-moving environment.
Previous legislation in 1984, 1990 and 1996 has left us with clumsy regulation that inhibits investment and reduces efficiency. The ownership rules send the signal that the UK is not open for investment in our communications industries. The rules on newspaper ownership are opaque, discriminatory and still retain criminal sanctions. The rules on news on ITV have seen investment in ITN fall. Furthermore, technology is changing, throwing up new challenges and new opportunities. The case for change is therefore compelling. The twin ideals of regulation are to be light-touch yet effective. But the current rules are neither.
The communications industries are vital to the health of the British economy and to our democracy. Every week we watch more than 1 billion hours of television, listen to more than 1 billion hours of radio and buy 100 million
32
national, regional and local newspapers. The BBC licence fee costs each viewing household £112 a year and raises £2.5 billion. We send billions-plus of text messages a year; three-quarters of adults use mobile phones; and 24 million people have internet access in their homes.
Crucially, our democratic debate could not take place without newspapers, television channels, radio stations and internet sites that tell us what is happening. Those sources can be biased, sometimes wrong, and occasionally strident. There are many of them, however, and people can hear many voices. This plurality must be protected at all costs.
The White Paper proposed one regulator—Ofcom—to replace the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority, the Radiocommunications Agency, the Broadcasting Standards Commission and Oftel. It also suggested that Ofcom should have sector-specific powers to promote competition; that quality public service broadcasting should be protected; the introduction of measures to enable universal access to public service broadcasting channels over all main platforms; the consolidation of 1TV subject to competition rules; the simplification of regulation for commercial radio; that BBC regulation be brought within Ofcom for basic standards and for specific public service broadcasting requirements, while retaining the regulatory role of the BBC governors; and the promotion of broadband. Since then, the policy has been developed, the detail of which is contained in this draft Bill, supplemented by the policy document.
With regard to the structure of Ofcom, its top board will operate at the highest strategic level. It must be able to move quickly and with agility to address issues in a fast-moving sector. At the heart of its operations will be its sector-specific responsibility to promote competition, to curb abuses of dominant market positions and to ensure fair access to dominant network systems and platforms. In addition, all broadcasters, including the BBC for its commercial services, will continue to be subject to the Competition Act 1980.
Ofcom will have a number of other duties to promote certain interests, especially those of nations and regions. That is why we are providing for Ofcom to establish a content board as an integral part of its structure. It will be a significant body, bringing together diverse interests, including those of the different nations of the United Kingdom. There will also be a consumers panel that is able to articulate the needs and views of consumers, again with strong representation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The draft Bill proposes a regulatory regime that will be lighter in touch, with greater reliance on self-regulation by all broadcasters. Ofcom will be taken out of day-to-day regulation and will use its backstop powers only if licensed broadcasters fail to deliver.
Ofcom's responsibilities will extend to the BBC for the basic broadcast standards and for agreed quotas for such things as regional and independent production while setting the general standards across the industry. It will be responsible for general reviews of public service broadcasting. However, the quality of BBC output under its public service remit will remain fully regulated by the governors. This regime, with its detailed scrutiny by governors, is a measure of the special role that the BBC fulfils. This system has developed because the BBC's obligations are the greatest, not the least.

33
But we recognise that the media of the future must provide the high-quality public service broadcasting that people have enjoyed in the past. Competition alone cannot guarantee this. Public service broadcasting nurtures creativity. It is vital to independent producers. It provides training grounds that sustain the whole sector. It meets the particular needs of local and regional communities, both in programming and in production. And in the case of the BBC, the £2.5 billion raised annually by the licence fee is venture capital for the whole of British broadcasting.
Most important, public service broadcasting works for the public. The draft Bill therefore proposes for the first time to define public service broadcasting and to consolidate in statute the hierarchy of public service broadcasting obligations that viewers and listeners will readily recognise.
The draft Bill is much more than a system for regulating the content of television and radio broadcasting. Telecommunications have become ever more important to our economy and to our society. By bringing together the functions of Oftel and the Radiocommunications Agency with those of the Independent Television Commission. the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Commission, we will ensure that content, economics and technology are viewed as a piece, not as fragments.
The competition responsibilities for Ofcom are intended to deliver dynamic competitive markets in networks and infrastructure as well as in content. Our economy needs access to networks to be opened up. That means a regulator that is light-touch where possible, but powerful where necessary.
The new regime for telecoms will enable Ofcom to operate within a harmonised European framework, providing greater certainty so that UK companies are better able to sell their services abroad. The new regime will be lighter in touch, removing the requirement for licensing of telecoms systems—thereby removing about 400 licences—and replacing it with a much simpler regime for electronic communications. The new regulator will have the right responsibilities and powers to promote competition, tackle abuses and make sure that consumers' interests are protected.
We will also extend the principles of deregulation and market competition to the allocation of the radio spectrum by introducing spectrum trading. Spectrum is to the modern age what iron and steel were to the first industrial revolution, and it must be used efficiently. Companies need to know that they can gain access to spectrum so that they can bring their ideas to the market. In future, as well as being able to apply for a licence, firms will also be able to buy spectrum from an existing user within the terms of that licence. That should prevent the hoarding of spectrum, increase the number and range of users, deliver significant benefit to businesses and consumers and promote the innovation on which the future of United Kingdom competitiveness depends. The proposals are broadly in line with the recommendations of Professor Cave's independent review of spectrum management that was published in March. We intend to respond to that review by the summer and I therefore emphasise that all the spectrum management provisions are subject to revision.
34
The draft Bill will continue our policy of not imposing regulation on the operation of the internet, although we will continue to work with the industry to improve the standards of protection available through self-regulation.
Lastly, on media ownership, competition and competition rules to regulate undue economic power are increasingly recognised here and abroad as the best means of delivering innovation, investment and employment. It is our intention to apply the same principles to the communications industry. But the media are different from other industries in one crucial respect: they are uniquely important to the debate that underpins our democracy. Citizens need access to a range of different media voices if they are to take informed decisions. So we need a system that delivers a plurality of owners and a diversity of output.
Our approach is simple and proprietor-neutral. We will deregulate where it is possible to rely on competition law to maintain a range of voices; where it is not, we will establish clear, predictable rules. The changes that we are proposing today will remove barriers to investment, will encourage innovation and will allow companies to consolidate and expand.
Ofcom will combine the important twin roles of promoting competition while protecting plurality and diversity. Within television, radio and newspaper markets, competition law will tend to encourage dispersed ownership and new entry. We will therefore remove most ownership rules within those markets, retaining only those that we need as minimum guarantees of plurality.
Overall, we intend to get rid of or relax most rules concerning media ownership while keeping those necessary to protect the public interest. We will strengthen safeguards for news and other broadcast content. The rules that we will scrap include those which prevent the ownership of a single ITV, those which prevent large newspaper groups from acquiring Channel 5 and those which prevent ownership of more than one national commercial radio licence. In addition, we will ease the complex rules preventing consolidation of ownership of local commercial radio and scrap the criminal sanctions that apply in the newspaper merger regime.
We also intend to scrap the inconsistent rules that prevent the non-European ownership of some broadcasters. It makes no sense that French, Italian or German companies can own television and radio licences, but Canadian, Australian or United States companies cannot. The resultant inward investment should allow the UK to benefit rapidly from new ideas and technological developments. New blood and new competition will help to give our industry the edge.
The recent report on communications by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, for which I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his colleagues, made a case for relying on competition law alone, but we do not believe that that will guarantee the plurality of ownership that democracy demands. We will therefore retain three key limits on cross-media ownership to safeguard debate at every level—national, regional and local. First, recognising that most people get their news and information from national newspapers and terrestrial television, we will keep a simple rule that any newspaper group with more than 20 per cent. of the national market will not be able to own a significant stake in ITV,

35
the only commercial public service broadcaster with universal access to a mass audience, currently 25 per cent. of all television viewing. Secondly, a parallel 20 per cent. rule will prevent anyone with a dominant position in local newspapers from owning the regional ITV licence in the same area. Thirdly, there will be a scheme to ensure that at least three commercial local or regional media voices exist—in newspapers, TV and radio—in addition to the BBC in almost every local community.
Where necessary we will retain and strengthen content regulation to ensure the quality, impartiality and diversity of broadcasting services. Ofcom will have the power to investigate the news and current affairs programming of any local radio service if it has concerns about accuracy or impartiality. It will have a new duty to protect and promote the local content of local radio services. It can vary any licence on change of control, to ensure that the character of the service is maintained. For ITV, that will protect regional production and programming requirements. Ofcom will oversee the nominated news provider system for ITV, to ensure high-quality and independent news on free-to-air public service television.
In conclusion, these changes are deregulatory. We will depend more on competition and on competition law exercised by a sector-specific regulator. Ownership regulations will disappear or be reduced. Self-regulation will be extended wherever possible. Complex schemes for licensing networks and access to them will be scrapped and replaced with a streamlined system. All regulations will be reviewed regularly.
The rules that remain will be simple and purposeful, and will include a streamlined system for newspaper mergers, simple limits on cross-media ownership of ITV and the largest newspaper groups, and minimum levels of ownership for local radio and for cross-ownership by local newspapers. There will be content rules in broadcasting to ensure UK production, regional production, local and regional programmes and accurate, impartial news and information. Public service broadcasting will be protected in the digital future as it has been in the analogue past.
The reform of the regulation of this vital sector is a major task. The draft Bill will exceed 250 clauses. The accompanying documents also indicate areas of policy not yet fully reflected in the draft clauses, notably those giving effect to the policies on media ownership which I have announced today. Like the changes to the BBC agreement, these will be published shortly so that they can be considered alongside the draft Bill. Our proposals are subject to a three-month consultation period, and I am delighted that both Houses have agreed also to subject the draft Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny. We shall introduce the Communications Bill itself as soon as parliamentary time allows.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I want Britain to have the most dynamic communications industry in the world. We want Britain to continue to have the best-quality TV and radio in the world. This Bill is the route map to making those ambitions a reality. We look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members and we commend the draft Communications Bill to the House.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for making it available to me
36
in advance. I warmly welcome the announcement of moves towards less regulation which reflect the huge changes that have taken place since the law was last updated. A less onerous regime is necessary if Britain's leading role in these industries is to be preserved.
I regret that, more than five years after the Government's original manifesto commitment on this issue was made, we still do not have all the details of their policy, and I hope that the gaps will be filled in soon, so that pre-legislative scrutiny, which I also welcome, can be effective.
Starting with the rules on media and cross-media ownership, I strongly support the relaxation of the present regime, whose restrictive provisions are no longer justified in light of the wider choice available to consumers as a result of new technology and the enterprise shown by many in the industry. I am very disappointed, however, that the Government are not willing to go all the way and leave questions of media and cross-media ownership entirely to the competition authorities.
The Secretary of State proposes to retain three extra limits on cross-media ownership. Why are they necessary, and why can the competition authorities and the marketplace not safeguard adequately the public interest? Extra controls on media and cross-media ownership are no longer needed, especially as leaving decisions about ownership to the marketplace, subject to the constraints of competition law, would not mean that the content of television and radio programmes would be completely unregulated. The authorities would continue to monitor content through their codes and their duty to preserve diversity and choice for consumers.
On the issue of monitoring content, will Ofcom distinguish between harmful material, for which regulation is needed, and offensive material, for which a much lighter touch is appropriate. I welcome references by the Secretary of State to promoting competition. Given that Ofcom will be an enormous organisation, is the Secretary of State aware of the danger that it could become a lumbering bureaucratic giant that obstructs rather than promotes competition? Given that the paving Bill for Ofcom was approved by Parliament more than two months ago, what progress has been made in setting the organisation up?
In promoting competition, how does the Secretary of State envisage that Ofcom will ensure fair access to electronic programme guides? Similarly, how will fair access to competing platforms be secured? As the Secretary of State undertook 11 days ago to keep Parliament in touch with her policy on digital terrestrial television, will she explain whether the Government still intend to switch off the analogue television signal by 2010, what steps she is taking to secure the survival of the digital terrestrial platform, and when the Government will set out the way in which they will increase the strength and reach of the digital television signal?
I welcome references to spectrum trading. Spectrum is a finite resource, the value of which has recently been more clearly recognised. One of the criteria by which Ofcom will be judged is whether it will achieve the aim of more efficient use of spectrum.
As for the BBC, I look forward to debating the definition of public service broadcasting that is in the Bill. Does the Secretary of State agree that the proposed

37
relationship between Ofcom and the. BBC will perpetuate an unlevel playing field to everyone's disadvantage? Does she agree that the issue must be settled during the passage of the Bill and cannot be left until the debate about the renewal of the BBC charter? Does she accept that if the BBC was brought fully within the remit of Ofcom, there would still be a role for the governors? Does she accept concerns about the extent to which the BBC is using its uniquely privileged funding basis to supply services which could be left to the market to provide? If, when the Joint Committee finishes scrutinising the Bill, the Government reject any of its recommendations, will the Secretary of State publish in advance of Second Reading their reasons for doing so?
The Bill is huge—nearly 260 clauses—and deals with issues crucial to consumers and business. Britain has an opportunity to lead one of the 21st century's most important industries, building on our record of innovation, high-quality public service broadcasting and our large pool of creative and entrepreneurial talent. Ofcom can help that process only if it adopts the lightest possible touch, but, equally, it can hinder it if Ministers or regulators get drawn too closely into matters that should be left to the market and the industry to resolve. I trust that the Secretary of State recognises that the acid test of her proposals is whether the regime that she is setting up operates with a light touch rather than a heavy hand.
Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman made many points. Because I spent some time on my statement, I shall not repeat arguments that I made then.
On content, as I have suggested, Ofcom will establish a content board whose membership, importantly, will be drawn from every part of the United Kingdom. The content board will develop codes. It will have a close relationship with the broadcasters and the industry, but content will also be determined for the public service broadcasters by the three-tier regulatory structure. Tier one and tier two will apply to all public service broadcasters including the BBC, and tier three will allow self-regulation of content by the public service broadcasters regulated by Ofcom. Tier three for the BBC will be regulated by the governors.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable standards in television, the content board will be charged with responsibility for developing media literacy and will begin to codify such standards as its work develops.
On the size of the Ofcom board, when the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), took the Bill through the House, he constantly repeated the benefit of the Ofcom board being small. It is our intention to maintain that, with wider representation on both the content board and the consumer panel. We are making progress on the establishment of Ofcom, with the advertisement for chairman appearing in the national newspapers yesterday.
On the obligations relating to electronic programme guides, as we move to switch-over and as the number of digital channels increases, this area of technology will become more important. The operation of electronic programme guides will be subject to codes of performance that will be developed by Ofcom.
It is still the Government's intention to work with the industry and the broadcasters to achieve analogue switch-off between 2006 and 2010, subject to two tests—
38
first, the affordability test and secondly, the accessibility test. The accessibility test means that everyone who currently receives an analogue signal should be able to receive a digital signal.
The final point is the relationship between the BBC and Ofcom. It is important to recognise that the White Paper argued the case for a twin system of regulation—the governors for the BBC and Ofcom for the other public service broadcasters and the rest of the broadcasting industry. That is the position that we have maintained. However, it is important to be clear about the extent to which there will be a level playing field between the standards applying to the commercial public service broadcasters and the BBC.
Standards set at tier one—the general standards that apply to all broadcasters — will apply equally to the BBC. At tier two, the quantitative aspects of broadcasting— the proportion of regional production, independent production and so on—will be set by Ofcom and will also apply to the BBC. I have outlined the new shape of regulation at tier three where, arguably, the BBC will be subject to much tougher regulation because of the regular monthly vigilance of the governors, whereas the other broadcasters will be subject to post hoc regulation by Ofcom against their statement of programme policy.
The BBC will be accountable to Ofcom for all its commercial standards—(Interruption.] I am trying to do justice to the questions asked by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), but there is fizzing and grunting from those on the Opposition Front Bench.
My final point is that in developing the Bill, we have proceeded from very clear principles, whether in relation to the structure and purpose of Ofcom or the new proposals that I have announced in respect of media and cross-media ownership. That is in direct contrast to the Opposition's approach. When they last introduced a broadcasting Bill—it became the Broadcasting Act 1996—that approach looked to fixing particular proprietors and institutions. The media industry in this country has paid the price ever since.
Mr. Chris Smith: My right hon. Friend has reiterated that, in the draft Bill, the BBC will fall within the purview of Ofcom for basic regulation in tiers one and two, but not for the backstop powers that will apply to all other public service broadcasters. Can she confirm that that decision is not set in stone and that it is open to further debate and discussion? Will she seize the opportunity made available by the offer of the chairman of the BBC board of governors to discuss whether the role of Ofcom can indeed be enhanced at the level of tier three—an issue that will form a major part of public discussion about the Bill?
Tessa Jowell: Those are precisely the sort of issues that stress the importance of the pre-legislative scrutiny to which I have referred. There will be scrutiny by both Houses, together with further consultation with the industry, to ensure that a very large and complex Bill will work and deliver our stated aims in practice.
Nick Harvey: May I welcome the final publication of the Bill and also the general direction in which it travels? On the issue of ITV companies merging into one, there is clearly a strong commercial case,

39
but should not there be two prerequisites? First, there should be more rigorous news programming requirements in the light of ITN's cuts. Secondly, regional programme making should mean just that: making programmes in the regions and not centrally with changing regional backdrops.
I welcome the general thrust of the cross-media ownership rules that the Secretary of State is introducing. If each sector is competitive, we do not need to be so pre-occupied with cross-media ownership issues. However, if she is to allow The News Corporation potentially to own the Channel 5 licence, will she consider as a quid pro quo allowing Ofcom to regulate the platforms as Ofgem does in the energy sector? The sort of battle that has occurred between Sky Television and ITV about access to satellite services could then be resolved by the regulator and not by a two-year process going through the competition authorities.
Will the Secretary of State now promote free-to-air digital terrestrial television as a way of salvaging that platform? Is there any country with three viable subscription platforms?
Finally, will the Secretary of State ensure that the new technologies, especially in broadband, are available throughout the country? When telephone, television and radio became available, it was a matter of public policy that everybody everywhere, however remote the place where they lived, obtained those technologies. A market would never have delivered any of them. Will she ensure that everybody in the country gets access to the new technologies on equal terms?
Tessa Jowell: First, in relation to the potential for consolidation of ITV, it is important to be clear that we are proposing to remove the media ownership obstacle. Clearly, the competition rules will still apply. In the event of the ITV companies seeking to merge, the proposed merger would no doubt be considered by the Competition Commission. Secondly, yes, the Bill contains provision for the proper continued networking of ITV. Thirdly, when the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to study the detail of the Bill, he will also see that we have included provision for ITV news to be properly funded. There is, rightly, considerable concern about the drop in value of the contract and the consequence for the quality of news coverage.
On platform regulation, Oftel and the Office of Fair Trading will have concurrent powers. Access for broadcasters to the satellite platform will be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, and that will be overseen by Ofcom. Who knows who might want to buy Channel 5 if it ever came up for sale? Many American, Australian, Canadian and European media companies could be interested. The important point is that we will ensure, through tough content regulation, that we preserve the distinctiveness of British broadcasting while opening up the possibility of investment from all over the world.
David Winnick: Does not the health of our democracy, to use my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's words, depend on there being no weakening of media ownership rules? It would be entirely undesirable for a situation to develop whereby one or two
40
individuals or companies could own more of the press and television than they do now. There is great concern about that, certainly among Labour Members.
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which in a sense makes the case for the proposals that I have set out. We hope that we are striking a proper balance between competition and the benefits that it will bring to UK media: competition that is, where necessary, tempered by regulation in the interests of preserving many voices— diversity —through a plurality of owners.
Michael Fabricant: Three times the right hon. Lady talked about a regulatory light touch. Does not she accept that by tinkering with the ownership rules, she will create a situation whereby the Silvio Berlusconis of this world, who run porno channels in Italy, could take over ITV, but Rupert Murdoch, who owns The Times and The Sun, could not?
Tessa Jowell: Currently, ownership is open to people who are resident in the European economic area. That is precisely why we decided to make changes in relation to Channel 5 and to loosening cross-media ownership rules. ITV is a major national broadcaster, commanding an audience share of at least 25 per cent., and a major source of news for many people. It is right that we maintain a limit on the degree of cross-ownership as regards major newspaper proprietors and the ownership of ITV.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I welcome most of what my right hon. Friend said, but I want to raise a couple of points.
If I asked hon. Members who produced "Friends", "The Forsyte Saga", "Big Brother" or "Bertie and Elizabeth", they probably would not be able to say. What is important is not how one watches, but what one watches. What needs careful regulation is not who owns the overarching companies, but who owns the production companies.
Will my right hon. Friend allow a free vote in the House on whether the BBC should be regulated by Ofcom? It seems to me that only the Executive are against the BBC being regulated by Ofcom; certainly, it is not the wish of the House.
On digital satellite, will she ensure that the underlying software is not owned by the company that runs the platform, so that many software designers can put their games and other information on to the platform in an open, not a closed, format?
Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. His last point, which raised competition issues, will be a matter for Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading. Secondly, on the governance of the BBC and its relationship with Ofcom, I hope that I have made the extent of overlap and counter-accountability clear. The chairman of the BBC governors has made changes largely in response to the debate that took place in Parliament on the Office of Communications Act 2002 to tackle transparency and accountability, and separate the governors' role as a regulatory body from that as an executive body. I welcome that.
My hon. Friend is right that much of the detail of our debate on the Communications Bill will pass most people by. However, I hope that the benefits will be apparent:

41
rich, vibrant television; good, distinctively British content; and a flourishing broadcasting and media industry that will maintain our position as a world leader.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will the Secretary of State answer the question that her hon. Friend—and mine—the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) asked about whether hon. Members will be given a free vote on the BBC? Will she also clarify the rules that she intends to set out for ITN? As she pointed out, it has experienced a diminution in investment in recent years. Does she intend to change ITN's ownership structure?
Tessa Jowell: First, whether hon. Members vote on the relationship between the BBC and Ofcom is a matter for the House. Pre-legislative scrutiny will take place; the Bill will be introduced when time allows, and I am sure that the relationship between Ofcom and the BBC will form one of the key debates that shape our proceedings on the Bill.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asked about the ownership structure of the nominated news providers. When she has a chance to study our proposals, it will be clear to her that they intend to alter the current ownership structure, which deters the necessary investment that I mentioned. We propose to alter the balance of the ownership structure and thus allow for three owners rather than the current five, with a maximum share of 40 per cent. We proposed that because we believe that it will provide much needed investment for the nominated news provider.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I want to take my right hon. Friend back to the consolidation of ITV. If we get a single company, will we have only one broadcaster or will we keep the regional broadcasters, such as Border television in my area? Does the Bill include plans to change the boundaries? To echo a point that has already been made, will the Bill contain an assurance that news programmes will not only be made in but broadcast from the regions?
Tessa Jowell: When my hon. Friend has a chance to study the Bill and the policy narrative, I think that he will be pleased to read assurances about both points. Clear quotas for regional and independent productions will be set for the ITV companies at tier two, which will make judgments about qualitative performance. As I said in answer to an earlier question, ITV's network system with its regional character will be able to continue.
Mr. Richard Allan: The Secretary of State is introducing a Bill on behalf of two Departments that tries to promote broadband in Britain. Does she agree that that requires action across Government? Will she examine proposals on which her colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions are working to charge lane rental access fees to telecommunications companies that want to put in new broadband infrastructure, and ensure that they do not work directly against the Bill's objectives?
Tessa Jowell: Yes, we are working across Government on smart procurement. Prices are falling and, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that is precisely the way in which to encourage further penetration and take-up.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend has twice referred to the inadequacy of the
42
previous legislation, including the Broadcasting Act 1996. One of the problems with that Act was that it was out of date before it even reached the statute book. Does my right hon. Friend accept that she is legislating not for an Act for May 2002 but for an Act that will have to last until the end of this decade or the beginning of the next one? That is the perspective that she should adopt, with regard not only to cross-media ownership—in which I think that she is mistaken in imposing these pretty arbitrary percentages, which are comparable to those in the 1996 Act—but to the way in which Ofcom conducts itself.
Will my right hon. Friend take seriously into account the proposals, published in the Select Committee's report last week, that both Ofcom and the BBC board of governors should meet in public in the way that the Federal Communications Commission does? Will she also assure the House that, when she speaks about the need for different voices, that will include giving a proper position to community radio, which she has not referred to today?
Tessa Jowell: I studied the Select Committee report at the weekend and was particularly taken by the proposals concerning the governance of Ofcom and the BBC. Ofcom will clearly operate on the Nolan principles. It will be a matter for the bodies themselves whether they meet in public; clearly, there will be occasions on which matters of commercial sensitivity will need to be considered. I entirely share my right hon. Friend's view, however, that, as an operating principle, public bodies such as these should meet in public, and provide specific reasons as to why it might be necessary to meet in camera from time to time.
I know that the Select Committee has been very interested in the position of community and access radio, and in the present uncertainty over restricted service licences. I hope that both spectrum planning and the results of the current access radio pilots will be able to inform future policy in this area. In principle, we see great opportunities for the development of community radio and considerable opportunity for the extension of the restricted service licences.
The answer to my right hon. Friend's final question is yes, it is our ambition to view this as legislation that will last, certainly through the analogue switch-off. We are talking about legislation that should stand the test of time for eight to 10 years. It is important that it should be subject to the degree of scrutiny that we are proposing, to ensure that it is fit for that very demanding future.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does the Secretary of State realise that, in the course of answering questions this afternoon, she has twice suggested that competition rules will be relied on to deliver plurality and diversity where media ownership rules have disappeared? If she wishes to say that the British broadcasting and communications industries are open for investment and will be flexible in the future, with the least possible regulation consistent with efficiency, does she not realise that competition is the mechanism by which that can be achieved? Will she at least acknowledge that, in the course of the coming scrutiny, she will be open to the argument that competition might be a more efficient and lighter-touch way of delivering this objective?
Tessa Jowell: It is important that the House takes account of the extent to which this is a deregulatory Bill

43
in relation to cross-media ownership and media ownership. We have scrapped at least 12 of the existing media ownership and cross-media ownership rules, keeping only a minimum of three rules that we believe are necessary for the preservation of plurality and diversity. There will certainly be plenty of opportunity during the passage of the Bill, and in the Government's response to the Select Committee report, to reflect on why a degree of regulation is important to secure the essential place of the media in our democracy.
I should add that it is clear from the regimes operating in other European countries, and indeed throughout the world, that those countries are trying increasingly to use a system underpinned by competition, while recognizing—just as we do—that a plurality of voices and a diversity of content cannot be guaranteed by competition alone.
Jim Sheridan: Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea of the protection, if any, that will be offered to those who are subjected to extremely spurious allegations through the internet, which are offensive to both friends and family? What options will the Bill provide to enable those responsible to be dealt with?
Tessa Jowell: As my hon. Friend will know, we do not propose any specific regulation of the internet, but I understand that the libel laws apply to internet use, as does other legislation such as the Obscene Publications Act 1959. We are working with the Internet Watch Foundation to encourage and promote more self-regulation through the introduction of codes, and although Ofcom will have no regulatory role in that context, it will have an interest.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Both Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party look forward to getting their teeth into the meat of the Bill.
May I suggest that the Secretary of State add a third principle to her twin principles of regulation—or at least that the House add a third? I refer to democratic accountability. Many people in Scotland and Wales feel that Ofcom, in its present form, represents a step backwards from that principle.
Will the Secretary of State tell us a little more about how Ofcom will work with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, and indeed in Northern Ireland, where there are unique communications issues? For example, will her tests for the digital switch-on apply to the United Kingdom as a whole, or can they be applied to its constituent nations?
Tessa Jowell: We take those points very seriously. Ofcom must be seen, and trusted, as a body with the capacity to represent the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is why—as I hope I have made clear—each devolved nation will be represented on both the content board and the consumers panel. There will also
44
be an Ofcom office in each devolved nation. Moreover, Ofcom's terms of reference—the principles that will guide its operations—will include the need to take account of the needs and interests of the regions.
Mr. Calum MacDonald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that broadcasting policy must reflect the full cultural diversity of the United Kingdom, particularly the indigenous minority languages of Gaelic and, of course, Welsh? I am glad that Gaelic broadcasting will continue to be part of the Government's overall responsibility. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me, and representatives of the Gaelic broadcasting community, to discuss these matters further in the spirit of consultation of which she has spoken?
Tessa Jowell: I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I have already discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the light of recommendations in the Milne report. It is clear that much can be done to improve the range and quality of Gaelic broadcasting, and that Ofcom should and will have a role in that.
Lady Hermon: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the broadcasting obligations set out in the Belfast agreement of 1998. Do the Government intend to implement those obligations in the Bill? If so, what discussions has the right hon. Lady had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
Tessa Jowell: It is important to be clear that broadcasting is a reserved not a devolved matter. As the hon. Lady noted, provisions in the Belfast agreement give certain powers to Ministers in the Assembly. In recognition of the fact that broadcasting is a reserved matter, it is not our intention that those powers should be represented in the main Bill. I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposals will mean much tougher external regulation for the BBC under tier one and tier two than was the case under any of her predecessors? Ofcom is essentially an economic regulator, which imposes a light-touch regulation over the commercial companies' public service broadcasting role. The ultimate backstop powers need to be heavy touch to ensure that the BBC maintains its public service roles. Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving Ofcom such powers would exclude the roles of the governors, Parliament and even the Secretary of State?
Tessa Jowell: Yes, the BBC will face tougher regulation than the other public service broadcasters. However, as I said in my opening remarks, I think that that should be the case. I also believe that the backstop powers should remain with the Secretary of State, as the BBC spends licence payers' money, and that requires a particular accountability.

Point of Order
5.6 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On page 63 of "Erskine May", under the heading "Ministerial Accountability to Parliament", it is stated that
"it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister".
On 26 February, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who is in his place on the Front Bench, asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to say
"whether Mr. Martin Sixsmith was a civil servant in his Department on 22 February".
The Secretary of State answered:
"As I said earlier, Martin Sixsmith offered his resignation, which was accepted, on 15 February."—[Official Report, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 574.]
However, today's edition of the Evening Standard states that, in an astonishing turnaround, a statement from the Department apologised for the fact that it announced on 15 February that Mr. Sixsmith had resigned, when he had done nothing of the sort.
That is a very serious matter indeed. On the face of it, the House appears to have been grievously misled in exactly the terms set out in "Erskine May" and the ministerial code. Can we therefore expect—indeed, demand—the earliest possible statement and apology to the House from the Secretary of State, to set the matter straight? We deserve no less. Admittedly, there have been recent rare examples of Cabinet Ministers coming to the House and apologising for errors, even though they were less serious than this. However, this is a matter of such public interest and gravity that I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that it is no less than the Secretary of State's duty to come to the House immediately and set matters straight. If necessary he should apologise, and preferably he should resign.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I have no knowledge of any statements of that kind being proposed at the moment. It is not the job of the Chair to rule on ministerial statements that have been made earlier in the House, but I have no doubt that the whole House will have heard the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made this afternoon.

Point of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    AGE DISCRIMINATION (No. 2)
    Mr. Paul Burstow presented a Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate against persons on grounds of age in connection with employment or the provision of goods and services; to establish an Age Equality Commission with the function of working towards the elimination of such discrimination and promoting age equality generally; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 May, and to be printed [Bill 133].

Fixed-term Parliaments
5.9 pm
Tony Wright: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for fixed-term parliaments.
Ten years ago, I was elected to the House on a policy of introducing a Bill to provide for Parliaments of a fixed term of four years. Labour's 1992 election manifesto declared:
"The general election was called only after months of on-again, off-again dithering which damaged our economy and weakened our democracy. No government with a majority should be allowed to put the interests of party above country as the Conservatives have done. Although an early election will sometimes be necessary, we will introduce as a general rule a fixed parliamentary term."
That proposal was a good one then, and I believe the argument to be a good one now. Indeed, the case has become stronger still because of recent developments, which I shall mention in a moment, but the fundamental issue is this: should one party and one person be able to fix the date of a general election to suit their own interests?
If it were suggested that one runner in a race should be able to fire the starting pistol at a moment of his choosing and, moreover, that that runner should be the one who had won the race last time, it would be considered absurd and monstrously unfair, although, no doubt, there would still be those who would defend the practice as traditional and having the merits of flexibility. Yet that is precisely what we allow in relation to general elections.
Of course all parties, all Governments and all Prime Ministers see this issue through the distorting lens of their own interests. Indeed, when I asked one of my colleagues what he thought about fixed-term Parliaments, he said, "What a good idea. What shall we say, 20 years?" It is not difficult to understand why a proposal that seems eminently sensible in opposition should begin to look less attractive in government—except that the Government have presided over a bold and ambitious programme of parliamentary and constitutional reform, which will be their great historical legacy. They have done so because they believe in reform, often against their immediate political or party self-interest, and it is in that spirit that I wish to add this further item to the programme.
Why is it possible for a Government, in the person of a Prime Minister, to fix the date of a general election? It is possible because it is a prerogative power, formerly exercised by the monarch, but, in practice, it is passed to the Prime Minister. That is why a letter arrived to tell me that I shall need to get the permission of the palace, through the good offices of the Home Secretary, before the Bill can proceed any further.
It is surely no longer acceptable to the House for the prerogative to be used in that way, as a legitimising cloak for Executive and prime ministerial power. It could also put the monarch in an invidious position, which has been glimpsed at certain politically sensitive times in the past. Not the least of the benefits of constitutionalising the prerogative power of Dissolution would be to protect the Crown against possible political difficulty and embarrassment. That would surely be an admirable golden jubilee gift from a grateful Parliament.
The present arrangements, which limit the life of Parliament without fixing the date of elections, are simply the product of historical circumstances. The Septennial

47
Act 1715—which, of course, replaced the previous Triennial Acts—was designed by the Whigs as a bit of emergency propping up of the new Hanoverian monarchy. The shift from a seven-year limit to five years under the Parliament Act 1911 was an incidental by-product of House of Lords reform. At that time, Prime Minister Asquith said that the change would
"probably amount in practice to an actual working term of four years."—[Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. XXI, c. 1749.]
That is what the Bill seeks to enact.
The Bill would fix general elections at four-yearly intervals, which reflects a post-war average of 3.7 years. It would allow departures from that in the event of Governments' losing the confidence of the House, while preventing Governments from engineering bogus no-confidence votes to trigger Dissolutions. It would also give the Electoral Commission a role in setting precise dates for the election timetable.
The question of when elections are held is, or should be, a basic part of a democracy's infrastructure. In local government, it is accepted practice that they be held at regular and fixed intervals. The same practice was accepted when this House legislated to set up the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales; there was no suggestion then that the Executives of those bodies should be able to decide when they wanted to hold elections. The same practice is also accepted by the European Parliament and, indeed, by most of Europe, in which fixed four-year electoral cycles are common.
The time has surely come for Westminster to catch up. Indeed, a Prime Minister who will be the first since the war to agree to appear before a Select Committee of this House is well equipped to be the first to relinquish this prerogative power. If he remains unpersuaded, a word with Lord Callaghan might be enough to convince him that the power can be a curse, as well as a blessing. A change such as I am proposing might help him with other difficulties, too. For example, the Government would like elections to a reformed House of Lords to be tied to general elections, but as the Public Administration Committee's recent report on House of Lords reform pointed out, it is very difficult to fix the terms
of those elected without first fixing general election dates.
48
Similar difficulties exist in relation to the new legislation on party funding. Spending controls are imposed on parties and groups for one year before a general election, but given that election dates are not fixed, the timing of that period is unclear. That creates problems for parties, pressure groups and the Electoral Commission, so it is not surprising that the commission itself is taking an interest in fixed-term Parliaments. As I said, such new factors add weight to the traditional case.
There is a further factor. We are all preoccupied with how to counter the electorate's cynicism about, and detachment from, the political process. The spectacle of parties and politicians manipulating election dates to their own advantage—a process that has intensified in the past 30 years—does nothing to counter, and much to reinforce, such cynicism. We live in a different world from the one in which Sir Stafford Cripps, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, persuaded Clement Attlee to call an election in advance of the 1950 Budget, lest the charge might be made that the electorate were being improperly bribed. On that ground alone, the case for change is surely made.
I offer one final consideration. It will not be long before speculation about the date of the next general election begins in earnest, and pencil marks around certain dates have doubtless already been made on someone's calendar. A change of the kind that I propose would close down that industry at a stroke, and would be received by the electorate with a huge collective sigh of relief. Of course, there would be losers. I am thinking of all those journalists who spend a happy year or two writing endless columns of, and filling many hours with, speculative nonsense about election dates, and who would be obliged to give their attention to something else. To be deprived of the product of their labours is, I suggest, a cross that we should all just have to bear. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Tony Wright, Mr. Graham Allen, Kevin Brennan, Mrs. Annette L. Brooke, Sir Patrick Cormack. Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Mark Fisher, Helen Jackson, Mr. Mark Oaten, Mr. Paul Tyler and Brian White.

Fixed-term Parliaments
  FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS
  Tony Wright accordingly presented a Bill to provide for fixed-term parliaments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 134].
Orders of the Day

  Police Reform Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: Second Report from the Home Affairs Session Committee, 2001–02, on the Police Reform Bill, HC 612; Thirteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, HC 646, and Fifteenth Report from the Committee, HC 706, Session 2001–02, on the Police Reform Bill.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.19 pm
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has been considered in some detail in the other place, and today we have had the welcome and valuable report from the Home Affairs Committee. Nothing is more important to local communities than the ability to live free from crime and antisocial behaviour, and to live without the fear of being a victim of crime. The effectiveness of the police service is critical to achieving that aim. Up and down the country, dedicated and professional police officers do a difficult, and sometimes dangerous, job well, as we have seen in the past week with disturbances at a football match, the local elections and the May day demonstrations.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early, but it is usual for the Home Secretary to introduce a Bill of this magnitude. The Minister has not said where the Home Secretary is or whether he is ill. If so, we all send him our best wishes for a speedy recovery, but if not, his place is here.
  Mr. Denham: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked me to introduce the Bill this afternoon, having worked on it in great detail. Of course, it is not unusual for Home Office legislation to be introduced by Ministers other than the Home Secretary.
  The Bill reflects the Government's commitment to ensuring that the police service—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It really is extraordinary for the Home Secretary not to be present in the Chamber. As I said earlier, if he is ill we all wish him a speedy recovery, but if he is not ill he should be here as the Cabinet Minister in charge of this major legislation. I do not disparage the Minister, for whom I have a high regard. but the Home Secretary's place is in the Chamber when a major Bill is being introduced.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): That is not a matter directly for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is for the Government to decide who should introduce a Bill.
  Mr. David Cameron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have dealt adequately with that point of order.
  Mr. Denham: The House will have noted that the Opposition prefer not to concentrate on the issues of effectiveness in fighting crime.
  50
  The Bill reflects the Government's commitment to ensuring that the police service is able to do its job as well as it can be done. It underpins the police reform that we have already developed with the police service. Our aim is to continue the reduction in crime; to reduce the fear of crime itself; to improve conviction rates and to target persistent offenders; to tackle antisocial behaviour; and to ensure public confidence in the police service.
  Ahead of the legislation, we have already begun to put in place changes that do not require primary legislation. As part of our commitment to reform, we are providing the extra investment the police service needs—an extra £1.6 billion in the three years to 2003–04. In addition, as part of the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced last week that a further £87 million would be made available to the police this year for counter-terrorism and an additional £67 million to fight street crime.
  Police numbers are at their highest level ever, with an increase of more than 3,000 in the nine months since March 2001. We are well on track for the Government's target of 130,000 police officers by spring 2003. The police standards unit was established in July 2001 and has already played a key role in co-ordinating between the police service, the Home Office and other agencies in developing the current campaign against street crime. We are making the best of the new technology available to the police service. The DNA database now contains more than 1.6 million profiles and the number of matches to scenes of crime was nearly 60,000 in the year to March 2002. We are rolling out Airwave and have overhauled the police information technology organization—PITO—to ensure effective delivery of police information technology.
  We are cutting the bureaucracy that ties up police time, making it possible for the first time to carry out identity parades by video, and introducing the pilot video recording of interviews, which will begin tomorrow in four police forces.
  Mr. James Paice: The Minister referred to rolling out Airwave. When does he intend to reply to the written questions that I tabled on 26 March about the delays to the roll-out of Airwave? Is it not the case that many forces, including my own in Cambridgeshire, will suffer many months' delay because the contracts are not being fulfilled by MmO2 and the roll-out is way behind schedule?
  Mr. Denham: I was not aware that there were outstanding parliamentary questions from the hon. Gentleman, but as soon as this part of the debate is concluded I will make inquiries as to where the replies are. I know that I have signed off some, and I will pursue that point.
  As with all major contracts, there have been teething problems at the outset of Airwave. However, forces such as North Yorkshire, which have been at the cutting edge, have reported its tremendous effectiveness. I believe that the development of Airwave across the police service will be a significant contribution to modern communications.
  We have made clear our determination to tackle the decline in the number of specials, giving them a clearer role in the police service, improving the way in which they are recruited and deployed and giving them greater

  51
  recognition for the work that they do. In April, we launched Centrex, the new training authority that will also be the focus for the development of best policing practice and the home of the new national centre for policing excellence.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Bearing in mind the very useful work undertaken by special constables, who will, I believe, be known as auxiliary officers from now on, would it not be better to extend their use and perhaps even remunerate them to meet the Government's goals?
  Mr. Denham: I do not believe that there are any proposals to rename specials as auxiliaries. Auxiliaries is a term that the Metropolitan police force has used in the context of community support officers, which I am sure we will come to in due course. I do not believe that the House or, more importantly, the police service is faced with a choice between the development of the special constabulary and of community support officers. They are different roles—specials are, at the core, a volunteer service, whereas community support officers would be paid officials. Specials have the responsibilities of sworn constables but CSOs would not. I believe that we can look to a future in which both can play an effective role in carrying out policing and public order duties.
  Simon Hughes: Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), how far have the Government got in considering having part-time posts for fully qualified and trained police officers who may be past 50 or whose family commitments do not allow them to work full-time? I understand that many people would be interested. Is that likely to be possible within the next year?
  Mr. Denham: I was just about to say that I hope that we are close to concluding a new agreement on police pay and conditions through the police negotiating body which will reward officers better and more fairly and give police managers the flexibility required to deliver an efficient and effective policing service that is responsive to changing operational needs. The agreement should also provide greater flexibility in the hours that police officers work, which I think would go some way towards what the hon. Gentleman wants.
  We have made it a statutory duty of local authorities to work with the police service to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour. We are also putting in place a comprehensive package to tackle street crime in the 10 forces with the worst problems.
  These and other measures have had an impact. Crime has fallen overall—according to the British crime survey, it has fallen by 21 per cent. since 1997. However, we are not complacent—there are still more than 5 million recorded crimes. Figures for some types of crime, particularly street robbery, rose over the past year, although in the first eight weeks of the Metropolitan police's safer streets campaign, there has been a reduction in the number of street crime allegations compared with 2001 levels. Only one crime in 10 results in a conviction, and the fear of crime remains high.
  52
  The challenge is to work with the police service to ensure that the rising number of police officers, the record resources available and the best of science and technology are used to the best effect. We must ensure that forces co-operate effectively together, make certain that the police receive the support that they need from the wider criminal justice system, make sure that best practice is identified quickly and spread and implemented appropriately across the police service, and raise the standards of forces' performance to the level of the best. That is the purpose of the Bill.
  I want to outline the main elements of the Bill and, in doing so, highlight the areas where the Government intend to bring forward amendments to introduce new elements into the Bill or deal with amendments made in another place.
  Part 1 is about driving up standards across the police service to the level of the best. There is, of course, already much good practice throughout the country, but the police service has not been as effective as it might be in capturing excellence and ensuring that forces learn from the successes of others. The Audit Commission has identified variations in performance that cannot be explained simply by differences in work load or by the varying circumstances faced by forces.
  Part 1 is about raising standards to the performance of the best. It does three things. Through the national policing plan, it will create a coherent national framework designed to ensure that all forces are working effectively together in pursuit of excellence. It will create a framework for the promotion of best practice and ensure that some basic essential elements of policing are approached consistently. It will enable action to be taken in the rare cases where performance is shown to be persistently poor. It will do that by building on the existing tripartite structure of the police service. Throughout, it makes clear the importance of consultation with key organisations, including the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
  Nothing in the Bill creates a national police force; nothing destroys the tripartite structure; and nothing can lead to the micro-management of forces from Whitehall. Those who want to make such claims would do better to concentrate on the issue about which the public are concerned: how we can ensure high-quality policing in every community.
  Mr. George Osborne: One of the organisations that has made precisely those points is my police authority, which states that the provisions of the Bill
  "would radically shift the current balance of responsibility for policing away from local people and local accountability towards greater central direction".
  Has the authority got that wrong?
  Mr. Denham: Yes, I believe that the hon. Gentleman's police authority has got that wrong, although I recognise the concerns about the Bill that were expressed by a number of police authorities. In part, that was a wrong reading of the intents and effect of the Bill. In part, some of those concerns were addressed in another place by making it explicit in the Bill that there would be consultation with police authorities. We had always intended to do that and had made it clear in all previous speeches on the matter.

  53
  At present, the Home Secretary sets policing priorities; he determines the performance indicators under best value, but there is no single place where all the Government's strategic priorities for the service come together. The national policing plan will set out national priorities for policing: the Home Secretary's policing objectives, best value performance indicators, proposals for issuing guidance, codes of practice and regulations. It will look forward to other priorities, such as the development and roll-out of new IT systems or new targets for police numbers.
  The plan will be developed after wide consultation with the national policing forum. The forum will include the APA, ACPO, other police staff associations and representatives of the voluntary sector and victim support groups. We hope that the national policing plan will be debated annually in Parliament.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Is it the intention of Ministers to make the Mayor of London one of the people who has to be statutorily consulted, and to include such a provision in the Bill?
  Mr. Denham: It had not been the intention to include provision for consultation with the Mayor of London in the Bill. Part of the measure provides for consultation with appropriate local authorities— where that is the Mayor of London, he would be included in the process. No doubt the matter can be discussed further in Committee if Members choose to raise it.
  The national policing plan will identify priorities for the issuing of guidance, codes of practice and regulations and will help to deliver consistently high standards across all 43 forces in England and Wales. I shall deal with the three types of measure in turn.
  Regulations, which will be binding in law, will be made when, and only when, it is in the national interest that all forces adopt common practices or procedures to facilitate effective cross-border co-operation. Part 1 also extends the existing power to make regulations in respect of equipment. Regulations could determine a particular type of equipment, where it is the best available, and could also prohibit the use of certain equipment—for example, where there are concerns about its suitability on health and safety grounds.
  Codes of practice will bring together established best practice and will be produced after full consultation with the police service, often using the new national centre for policing excellence. Chief officers will have to have regard to those codes, but will retain the professional discretion to decide on their application to local circumstances. Finally, guidance will continue to be issued, as at present, on a purely advisory basis. Much of it will be issued on a non-statutory basis, not only by the Home Office, but by the inspectorate, ACPO and others.
  In another place, the original clause 5 was removed from the Bill. We believe that that was a wrong move. It cannot be right that a Government, or Home Secretary, who are rightly held accountable, in the public eye, on issues of law and order, have no means of taking action in support of a community suffering unacceptable levels of crime and unacceptably poor policing performance. No one would suggest that such a power is routinely needed, nor that, in the vast majority of cases, the existing means
  54
  of tackling poor performance, together with the other measures taken in the Bill, will not work. However, we believe that, properly constrained, the Home Secretary needs the power to act. We will, therefore, in Committee bring back the power to direct chief officers. With that power, we will again bring forward the safeguards, welcomed by the Home Affairs Committee but implicitly rejected by the other place, to address the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about clause 5.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman is most courteous to give way again. Is the Home Secretary proposing to delegate his powers under the Bill to the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Denham: I think that I shall move on.
  Part 2 of the Bill establishes the independent police complaints system and a new system for the investigation of complaints—
  Simon Hughes: Do the Government not yet understand the principle that was behind the Lords removing clause 5 of the Bill? Law and order is not the responsibility only of the Home Secretary; that responsibility is shared with police authorities. When things go wrong, therefore, people do not—and should not—look only to the Home Secretary to put it right. We do not have a national law and order policy; we have a national framework within which law and order is delivered locally. That is the basis of policing, and it has been for many decades.
  Mr. Denham: Indeed. I am not sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman understands the nature of the debates that took place in another place. It was never suggested, and has not been suggested today, that the Home Secretary should be in the front line of addressing every problem that arises in a local police force. The issue is this: what happens in a situation in which the chief constable has clearly failed to respond and in which a police authority has failed to respond effectively? Under those circumstances, should nothing be done, or should the Home Secretary, within the constraints of the Bill in terms of giving people the ability to respond to representations and the chance to put their house in order, be able to act? The Government's view is that, at the end of the day, we should be able to act. The view of the Opposition parties, as I understand it, is that it would be better to leave people with a high crime level and a poor policing service than to do something about it. That is not acceptable.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Silly.
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman says that that is silly, but that is precisely the logic of the Opposition parties on this matter. They have been so desperate to whip this up into a mythological story about centralisation, national police forces and central direction that they have failed to grasp the central issue: if chief constables and police authorities are not able to deliver, who can act on behalf of local communities? None of us expects the power to be used regularly. Clearly, it is a reserve power, as we made clear to the Select Committee, but that power should exist.
  Mr. Paice: If the Minister's hysterics mean anything, will he explain why clause 4 remains in the Bill and there

  55
  has been no effort to remove it? Under that clause, the Home Secretary will still be able to give directions to police authorities. In addition, clauses 28 and 29 deal with resignation when chief constables are not efficient. The Opposition have no problem with the Government taking a role when there is a serious breakdown in local areas. The clause that was removed, however, would clearly abolish the tripartite arrangement. That is why the clause was removed in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we are opposed to the Home Secretary having any involvement whatever is massively excessive.
  Mr. Denham: We will no doubt discuss this issue at greater length in Committee, but the hon. Gentleman's analysis is wrong. I do not believe that the powers available to police authorities under the current legislation—the Opposition parties have made no proposals to change it—give police authorities the ability to tackle some of the issues relating to how chief constables respond not, of course, to individual crimes and individual criminals, but to particular types of crime. Nor do I believe that it is appropriate to see the proposals in the Bill for retirement and suspension as necessarily the best way of dealing with problems of poor performance and policing practice. I believe that the powers in the original clause 5 are necessary to complete the picture.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: One of the points repeatedly made to us was that many chief constables feel that the bureaucratic burden is still increasing rather than diminishing. The creation of a standards unit separate from the inspectorate is part of that problem. Does my right hon. Friend envisage a day when the standards unit and the inspectorate will merge?
  Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend's question raises two issues. On the burden of information, I accept that a challenge for the police service is to rationalise the number of types of information—often similar but not identical information—that it is required to provide. That would create one set of information that would be useful for the police service in managing its affairs and in responding to various inspectorates, including the Audit Commission and others. We have some way to go, but that is the way in which we want to go.
  Bob Russell rose—
  Mr. Denham: I do not anticipate the merger of the inspectorate and the police standards unit, as they have different roles. The inspectorate essentially inspects all the police service all the time while the police standards unit will concentrate on particular areas of police activity and police performance. Trying to combine the two in one organisation is more difficult than maintaining them as two separate organisations. I note the prediction in the Select Committee's report, but it does not reflect the Government's view at the moment.
  I should now like to make progress. Part 2 establishes the independent police complaints system and a new system for the investigation of complaints against the
  56
  police and police support staff. These provisions also provide for the investigation of serious conduct matters in cases where no complaint has been made.
  I wish to acknowledge the important contribution that the Select Committee on Home Affairs has made to the development of the new complaints system. Its report in the 1997–98 Session was, in many ways, the genesis of these reforms, and today's report broadly endorses the approach that we have taken in the Bill. As there has been extensive consultation with all stakeholders, there is strong support in the service for the new arrangements.
  The new system will deliver better accessibility for complainants, greater openness and greater independence—particularly in relation to the investigation of more serious complaints. Improved access will be facilitated by allowing a representative of an aggrieved person or an independent body to submit a complaint on his or her behalf. Greater openness will be secured by a presumption in favour of maximum disclosure of information to a complaint, subject to a sensitivity test. Greater independence will be achieved by conferring on the Independent Police Complaints Commission powers to call in any case.
  In the case of the more serious complaints—for example, those involving allegations of serious corruption or racist conduct—the commission will either manage or supervise the police investigation. In the most serious cases, the commission will itself undertake the investigation using its independent body of investigators.
  I should like to mention a couple of issues on which we are considering tabling amendments to part 2 to respond to points made in Committee in another place. First, as it stands, part 2 excludes complaints that are about not the conduct of an individual, but operational decisions relating to the direction and control of a force. The Government accept that, in principle, there should be some mechanism whereby public concerns about the policing of major events can be addressed. In the most high-profile cases where serious concerns have been aired about the policing of a major event, we consider that there should be provision for the matter to be independently investigated. We are considering how that might best be done.
  Secondly, we will table an amendment to part 2 to strengthen the protection afforded to police officers who report misconduct or criminal wrongdoing by other officers. It is right that in such cases the whistleblower should have the full protection afforded by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and we will therefore seek to bring police officers within the ambit of that Act. I welcome the support of the Home Affairs Committee for that step.
  We intend to make a further change to part 2. In a small number of cases, a person has not been able satisfactorily to pursue his complaint against the police because of the inability of the force to identity the officer responsible for the alleged misconduct. A gentleman—I will not mention his name without his permission—who was allegedly injured by police officers in the disturbances following the England v. Germany game in 1996 is a case in point. To allow for such cases, we will table amendments to make it explicit that complaints against the police can be fully investigated when no officer can be identified. If the investigation does not reveal the identity of the officers responsible, no criminal or disciplinary proceedings

  57
  against individual officers can follow, but if there is evidence of misconduct we would expect the chief officer to take responsibility and make an apology or ex gratia payment as appropriate.
  Norman Baker: We welcome the creation of the independent commission and the Government's proposed amendments. However, we are concerned that the new commission will be swamped by cases because of the availability of manpower and finance. Liberty and others estimate that the commission will deal with only 3 per cent. of complaints. What system will be in place to ensure that it is not swamped? Will it be possible to refer a genuine complaint to a higher level if the complainant so wishes once a case has been through the internal procedures, which is what happens with the local government ombudsman and councils?
  Mr. Denham: We will discuss that in detail in Committee. The broad answer is that all complaints will, in the widest sense, come within the ambit of the IPCC. For example, an individual who is dissatisfied with the action taken in a substantial number of cases that would usually be resolved at force level, as at present, will be able to complain to the commission about the handling of his case. That facility is not available at the moment. Clearly, the commission's staff will carry out the investigation in only a minority of cases and the IPCC will directly manage, as opposed to supervising, a further minority of those investigations.
  The critical consideration is that the rights of the complainant are built into the system so that someone who is dissatisfied with the handling of the case at a lower level is able to raise that within the commission. It was never the intention that the commission would investigate every complaint, including the malicious cases that inevitably come into the system,. The protection is afforded, however. The IPCC acts as an umbrella over the whole system and is able to issue guidance to ensure that its responsibilities are carried out effectively.
  Part 3 relates to the removal, suspension and disciplining of police officers. By their very nature, the powers, especially in respect of chief officers, will be used only as a last resort. This point was reinforced by the Home Affairs Committee in its report and I am happy to reiterate and agree with its view that we are concerned with removal in what will be exceptional circumstances.
  Of course, a key part of the wider reform process is to strengthen the leadership of the service through better selection, better training and improved arrangements for professional performance appraisal. The question of the early departure of a chief officer should arise only in the most exceptional circumstances. The Police Act 1996 already provides for the retirement of a chief officer in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. So powers exist for the Home Secretary to call on a police authority to exercise its powers to require the chief officer to retire.
  It is against that background that the Bill makes three main changes. First, it provides for the option of resignation rather than retirement. With more chief officers being appointed in their early to mid-40s, when retirement would not be appropriate, that is a sensible change. Secondly, the Bill makes existing procedures less cumbersome. Thirdly, it enables the police authority, either on its own initiative or at the instigation of the
  58
  Home Secretary, to suspend the chief officer when that is necessary for the maintenance of public confidence in the force. In another place, the Government included in the Bill procedural safeguards in response to understandable concerns raised by chief officers.
  Part 4 is divided into two chapters. Chapter 1 will enable the police service to employ and make more effective use of civilian support staff in a variety of new roles. By doing so, the service will be able to free up for front-line operational duties the time of the record number of police officers that we now have and to harness the work of the extended police family in supporting the police in tackling low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. It will also enable the police service to make effective use of specialist skills in tackling crime. Chapter 1 will also allow close working between the police service and other organisations providing part of the extended police family.
  Chief officers will be able to designate support staff as investigating officers, detention officers and escort officers. The police reform White Paper stressed the need to improve the skills and strength of police investigating officers. In part, we will do that by enabling officers to develop careers as investigating officers, but we also need to bring in specialist skills-in IT and finance, for example-to strengthen investigating teams. Chapter 1 will enable such people to exercise appropriate police powers.
  Our recent study, "The Diary of a Police Officer", found that 43 per cent. of an officer's time was spent in the police station. We can cut that by giving appropriate police powers to support staff to carry out custody and escort duties. Chapter 1 makes that possible.
  Martin Linton: Would my right hon. Friend consider extending the power of detention and the power to demand a name and address not only to community support officers but to neighbourhood wardens and street patrols, such as the one that, I am glad to say, started in Clapham Junction this morning? The power to demand a name and address is essential for work against disorder offences.
  Mr. Denham: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the Opposition parties in another place disagreed, so we will have to consider that issue in Committee.
  Since the Bill was introduced, we have received representations from police forces planning to arrange the provision of detention and escort services by private sector organisations. They want employees of companies involved in that work to have access to relevant powers. Although there is no question of compulsion in that respect, we will be tabling amendments to allow that to take place. As will be the case for designated police authority support staff, powers will be granted to contracted-out staff only where the chief officer is satisfied that the individual concerned is suitable, capable and adequately trained.
  Bob Russell: Does the Minister agree with me, and the Home Affairs Committee, that the Government should refrain from including in the Bill measures to allow the employment of civilians to conduct intimate body searches of people who have not even been charged?
  Mr. Denham: The Select Committee's arguments on this point were thin, albeit sincere. The power to conduct

  59
  an intimate search is only rarely used by police officers on detention duty, and the norm, as the PACE code indicates, is for qualified medical practitioners or custody nurses to carry out such searches. Indeed, I understand that last year the power was exercised on only four occasions by police officers in that role, so it would be wrong to have the idea that it is extensively used.
  The Government's view is that if we are to allow civilian detention staff to carry out the duties of a police officer in the custody suite, it would be sensible to give them the full range of powers, particularly given that it is not a matter, as the hon. Gentleman said, of employing them for the purpose of conducting intimate searches, and such searches occur very rarely. I am sure that we will return to the matter in Committee, but at the moment we are not persuaded by the Select Committee's conclusions.
  Mr. Mullin: If such searches are so rare, it would not cost the Government very much to concede the point, would it?
  Mr. Denham: The operational issue, which will need to be considered in Committee, is whether the provision of extra police officers that might be needed to cover the remote possibility would remove the advantage of having civilian detention staff. We must consider that difficulty. The issue is not as straightforward as my hon. Friend suggests, and it would not be worth undermining the potential benefits of having civilian detention officers to cover such a rare circumstance.
  Chapter 1 also introduces community support officers, which are another important way of making sure that we use the record and rising number of
  police officers to best effect. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis see the introduction of CSOs as vital to the policing of London. Following the events of 11 September, the Met diverted considerable resources from the boroughs to guard against terrorist attacks in central London, with an inevitable impact on crime away from Westminster and Docklands. The introduction of CSOs will enable the Met to return officers to fighting street crime and other crime across London.
  The Met also intends to use CSOs in what we see as their primary role of providing an increased visible policing presence on the high street, in town centres and on housing estates. Fifteen other forces outside London have also expressed varying degrees of interest in CSOs. It will be a matter for chief officers, in consultation with their police authority, to decide whether community support officers are appropriate for their force area.
  Mr. David Chaytor: May I tell the Minister how successful and popular the existing community warden scheme has been in my constituency? May I tell him also what reservations police officers in Greater Manchester have expressed to me about the CSO proposals? Does he agree that it is crucial that there is a clear explanation of the distinct legal responsibilities of conventional police officers and CSOs, particularly in respect of powers of detention? Will he be tabling amendments to clarify those powers?
  Mr. Denham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for CSOs. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend talked
  60
  about the welcome for such measures in his constituency. At least I am listening to the interventions, unlike Opposition Front Benchers. My hon. Friend raised important issues. People will need to understand the powers that CSOs are exercising, and chief constables in particular will need to take account of that in deciding to employ and deploy CSOs.
  It is worth remembering that many of the objections to CSOs are almost identical to those made against the introduction of traffic wardens in the early 1960s. It was argued that traffic wardens would be confused with police officers and would divert attention from proper policing. No one would seriously argue that today. In the 1960s, it was radical to have people working for the police service as traffic wardens. In many parts of the country, traffic warden responsibilities are now carried out by people working for the local authority. While I would not suggest for one moment that it is the most popular service in the world, everybody recognises it as necessary for the proper implementation of the law.
  It is a good thing that we are not using the time of professional police officers for duties that demonstrably can be carried out, properly according to the powers laid down by Parliament, by people who are not police officers. Those who oppose this change, and therefore oppose the leadership of the largest single police force in this country who want to use these powers, should think a little more carefully about the matter because, in a few years, people will look back on this debate and wonder what the argument was about.
  Mr. Cameron: The Minister will have noted what the Select Committee said about welcoming CSOs in those areas that want them, such as London, but can he guarantee that he will not use ring-fenced funding to browbeat all police forces into accepting CSOs?
  Mr. Denham: It is perfectly clear in the Bill that the chief constable will have a legal duty to be satisfied about the introduction of CSOs, and there is no power in the Bill to force chief constables to make a decision that they do not believe is in the best interests of their force. However, I see nothing wrong with funds being made available for the development of CSOs. This is a new area of policy and we want to kick-start it. We want to free up police officers' time for fighting street crime and other serious crime, and I see nothing wrong with making funds available to develop CSOs.
  Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, certainly in my area, the issue is not so much the creation of CSOs but their long-term deployment? Will he confirm that it will be the responsibility of each individual chief constable to decide how and in what circumstances those officers are deployed?
  Mr. Denham: The Bill is clear; the chief constable is rightly responsible for making decisions about those officers, as well as their training and deployment.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin rose—
  Mr. Denham: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make progress.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister and do not want to detain him for long. Will he guarantee never to compel a police force to adopt an action plan that includes the forced deployment of CSOs?
  Mr. Denham: To say that there could never be a point in future—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Let us be clear;

  61
  at some point in future it may be clear to everybody, including the community which is suffering, that policing is not being approached in the most effective way, so it would be ridiculous to go through the whole range of measures today and say, "We will never do this or that." The intention behind the Bill is not to use clause 5, when reintroduced, or any other clause to impose CSOs. However, if we are looking at established best practice, I do not want today to say that any particular measure must always be ruled out because that would be wrong and dishonest of me. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts my assurance that the intention is not, and never has been, to use the Bill or clause 5 as a back-door route to impose CSOs.
  In another place, amendments were made with the intention of wrecking the development of CSOs. We believe, as do the Metropolitan police, that the power to require a person's name and address in certain clearly defined circumstances and the power to detain someone for a limited period of time using reasonable force are important to the work of CSOs. We shall introduce amendments to restore those powers to the Bill, which also provides for chief officers, in partnership with local authorities and others, to establish community safety accreditation schemes. Such schemes will enable the work of neighbourhood and street wardens and the like to be more effectively co-ordinated with the police. Accreditation will be subject to a dual-key procedure. Both the chief officer and the local authority or other employer need to agree before any powers are conferred on wardens or security staff. The Bill specifies a more limited range of powers which may be conferred on them, compared with community support officers.
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Denham: I am sorry, but I must make progress.
  During debate on those provisions in the other place, there was broad support for the proposal that the chief constable of the British Transport police should be able to establish community safety accreditation schemes. Accreditation of such security personnel would bring immediate benefits in tackling antisocial behaviour on the railways, so I propose to introduce amendments to bring the British Transport police within the ambit of the accreditation arrangements.
  The other place saw fit to overturn the conclusions of its own Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee by rejecting the power to amend chapter 1 of part 4 by order. The Home Affairs Committee acknowledged that the powers of CSOs may need to be amended in the light of experience, so we shall need to look at how best to ensure that the Bill confers the necessary flexibility.
  Chapter 2 of part 4 includes provisions to modify and supplement police powers. There is not time to mention all of them, so I will confine my remarks to two areas. As the law stands, an unconscious driver can avoid prosecution for a drink-driving offence because he is unable to consent to the taking of a blood sample. The Bill therefore enables a blood sample to be taken from an unconscious driver for subsequent analysis once he has regained consciousness and consents to the analysis. As now, a refusal to agree to the analysis will be a criminal
  62
  offence. The Bill provides for nurses to take blood samples in routine road traffic cases, but since its introduction we have received representations from chief officers that that does not go far enough. It is important that the person taking the blood or other intimate sample is appropriately qualified and trained; their job title is irrelevant. We will therefore introduce amendments to enable qualified paramedics to take samples both under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  The Bill includes measures further to enhance the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders. I shall not go into them in detail, but I know that they will be welcomed on both sides of the House, given our previous debates on ASBOs.
  Part 6 removes the anachronistic bar on foreign nationals other than Commonwealth nationals and citizens of the Irish Republic joining the police service. As in other walks of life, recruitment to the police service should be assessed on merit and determined according to relevant objective criteria. A person's place of birth does not provide evidence of whether he or she would make a good police officer.
  Finally, I shall deal with sex offender orders and give notice to the House of two more amendments that we will introduce in Committee. Sex offender orders are an important tool in the management of the most dangerous offenders living in the community. If someone previously convicted of a sex offence starts to act in such a way that the police believe that he may soon reoffend, they can apply for a sex offender order, which includes a list of prohibitions designed to prevent him reoffending. If he breaches any of those prohibitions he can be sentenced to up to five years' imprisonment. For the majority of offenders subject to an order the existing system works well, but it has become apparent that there are real problems when the police have to deal with offenders who move from one area to another part of the country or between the separate jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.
  We would therefore like to amend the law in two interrelated ways. First, we propose giving police throughout the UK greater flexibility in the way in which they apply for orders and, secondly, because the original provisions applied separately to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we propose to make them apply across the UK as a whole. In addition, we would like to provide for interim sex offender orders in England and Wales, which would allow us to deal more effectively with the most urgent cases, and follows the success of interim orders in Scotland.
  The Police Reform Bill will help the police service to deliver a better and more consistent service to the public. It will build on successes over the past five years in reducing crime and tackling antisocial behaviour, while recognising that much more still needs to be done. Reform is essential if the police are to meet public expectations of improved public services; I believe that the police service recognises the need for reform, and is up to the challenge. The Bill will give it the means to get on with the job, and I commend it to the House.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: The Minister will be congratulated by the Home Office; he was clearly given a brief to speak fast and say little, and he has succeeded admirably.

  63
  This is a major Bill; it is one of the most significant Bills introduced by the Government this Session and we agree with or acquiesce in roughly 98 per cent. of it. However, we disagree almost wholly with 2 per cent. of it., as the Home Secretary knows. He knows that the House of Lords took the same position after mature reflection, because the Bill includes major issues of principle that will change entirely the relationship between the Government in Whitehall and the country's police forces. He knows those things, because he has spoken about them. However, he has chosen to make a speech in Cardiff about a Bill that he removed from this Session's legislative timetable. It is possible that he lacks influence over the business managers of the House, but that is doubtful.
  It is also unlikely that the Home Secretary was entirely unaware that our debate was rescheduled for a later hour as a result of the concoction of several other parliamentary events this afternoon. We are led to believe by the evidence before us that the Home Secretary wishes the Bill, as far as possible, to disappear. I have news for him: we will not allow it to do so. We are debating a major issue which deserves consideration because the Government are taking, for understandable and perfectly upright reasons, a wrong turn in British history. We must make sure that that wrong turn is not taken.
  The primary issue concerns what used to be clause 5. The Minister and the Home Secretary have consistently maintained—the Minister did so today—that it does not fundamentally alter the relationship between Whitehall and police forces. The Minister maintained that it does not give the Home Secretary a new power of direction over police forces. A reading of the clause, after the Government's propositions were half-added to it, but before its removal by the Lords, does not bear out that interpretation.
  The clause is headed "Power to give directions to chief officers". It tells us that the Home Secretary, who is mentioned 21 times in the first four pages of a Bill that he does not choose to defend in the House, will have the power to ensure that whenever he, and not somebody else, judges that any police force, or any part of any police force, is not efficient—efficiency to be determined and defined by him—he may
  "direct the chief officer of police of the force to prepare and submit…'an action plan'".
  Now, if there were merely those two subsections, we could have thought that the Home Secretary intended the initiative to lie with the chief constable, but that is not the case. In subsection (4) we are told that if the Home Secretary does not like the action plan, he has the power
  "to revise that plan in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State".
  If the chief constable does not choose to revise the plan, he may then be forced
  "to resubmit the plan … with the required revisions".
  The fact is—this cannot be denied by anyone who reads the plain text of the Bill that was before us and which the Minister tells us he intends to reinstate—that the Bill, for the first time in our history, consciously gives to the Home Secretary the power to determine the way in which each of the police forces of this country goes about policing the district or districts for which that force is responsible.
  64
  It is open to argument whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, and I would have had considerable respect for the Minister's position, and in particular for the Home Secretary's position, if the Home Secretary had come to the House today and argued openly for that proposition. He believes, and I can understand that belief, that he is sitting there in Whitehall—he has said as much repeatedly in the media—holding levers which, when he pulls them, have no visible effect on policing in this country. I sympathise with that feeling of frustration.
  The Home Secretary and I share many desires to see, for example, the police back on the streets of our country. I understand that he would like the power to direct chief constables how to deploy their forces, but if he wishes to have that power he ought to come and defend the proposition. There are two arguments that the Home Secretary would have needed to meet and which the Minister would have needed to address in order to carry any conviction on that point.
  The first argument is one of principle. However the process starts in practice, it could all too easily end by a politician in Whitehall exercising such influence over the day-to-day activities of chief constables and of those in command of the basic command units in their territories that, in effect, he begins to be the chief of police. There is a great danger to our democracy lurking in that proposition.
  I do not say that the current Government would wish to abuse that power; they would not. I do not say that an immediately future Government would be likely to abuse it; they would not. But some day, people would look back at that clause and identify it as the moment when we had begun to slip into tyranny. That is too great a danger. [Interruption.] No, it is not hyperbole. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We are sent to the House to be vigilant. We are sent here to look forward to possibilities with which legislation is pregnant, and the Bill is pregnant with that possibility.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: It is a strange and novel concept that the Conservative party is the defender of freedom. We do not need to look forward. For a good example of national policing, should we not look back to 1984 and 1985, when many constituents in North Durham and other mining communities saw the effects of a police force under the direct control of Margaret Thatcher and a Conservative Government?
  Mr. Letwin: I am genuinely astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that the only reason why the law-abiding citizens of this country were willing to tolerate the police action at that time was precisely because of the operational independence of the chief constables, and because it was understood that the Home Secretary of the day did not have the power to direct their actions. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is a principle of the rule of law which is worth defending, he cannot possibly subscribe to the reinsertion of the clause.
  Mr. Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at that time police forces throughout the country were being directed centrally by Government—yes or no?
  Mr. Letwin: No, they were not, in practice or in theory. The duty of the police forces of this country is and has

  65
  been for decades and, indeed, centuries to maintain the rule of law, not the rule of a politician. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues do not understand that distinction, they do not understand the foundations of our democracy.
  There is a second argument that the Minister would have had to address. I accept that one might be willing to tolerate even such an attack on the foundations of the rule of law if there were an overwhelming practical advantage in the prevention of crime to be gained by so doing. Crime is so dreadful and so prevalent, and street crime is such a problem, that if we could be persuaded that by that means the Government would bring about a vast reduction in it, there would be a serious argument to counterpoise against the argument from the rule of law.
  We must ask ourselves the question—I urge the Minister to ask himself the question, and if the Home Secretary can be contacted, I urge him to ask himself the question—whether there is the slightest shred of evidence that, of all the bodies in Britain, the Home Office is the one most able to bring about the efficient deployment of anything. This is the Home Office that has created an asylum system which, by the Home Secretary's own admission, is in chaos. [Interruption.] Labour Members may not like the recitation, but the truth remains visible to the population, the media and hon. Members.
  This is a Home Office that has not been able to run an effective asylum system. It is a Home Office that cannot run an effective Passport Agency. It is a Home Office that has prisons with recidivism rates among the highest in the world. This is a Home Office that cannot pretend that it has vastly more efficient means at its disposal than our police forces have at theirs.
  In the whole of rather a long speech delivered at a great rate, the Minister did not give us the slightest argument for supposing that there will be greater efficiency. He hardly mentioned the clause. The Select Committee on Home Affairs examined it seriously. It entertained reservations and supported the clause with great reluctance and modification, but the Home Secretary and his Minister have not chosen to take on the argument. That is extraordinary. There are two arguments against a signal clause—the clause that causes all the fuss: an argument from the rule of law and an argument from practice, and what do we hear? Nothing. A blank. A vacuum.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend is making an extremely good case, as he always does, and making it powerfully. Has he had any indication that the Home Secretary will play some part in the passage of the Bill? Will he be a member of the Committee? Will he at some stage stand at the Dispatch Box and defend and explain the Bill? If not, not only is the House being subjected to an insult of monumental proportions, but Henry VIII powers are being taken in absentia.
  Mr. Letwin: I have not had such an indication. My hon. Friend knows, I know and the entire House knows that the reason why the Home Secretary is seeking by every means at his disposal to play down the Bill is that he does not want to enter into those two arguments. I do not know why he thinks he will lose them, but I suspect that the reason is that they are very difficult to win.
  I hope that before we have ended, the Home Secretary will, in response to my hon. Friend, have played a role in the Bill. By the time the Bill is sent back to the Lords,
  66
  and the Lords, as I profoundly hope, with the assistance of our allies on the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches there, have sent it back to this House, I hope that the Home Secretary and others and I will have the chance to negotiate the clause out of existence.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he concede that some communities in the UK are exasperated by the performance of their local police authorities? After the authorities' failure to engage with them in improving performance, they must look elsewhere and seek the Home Secretary's intervention. If people cannot count on such intervention, must they be satisfied with the appallingly dismal service that they receive in relation to the elements of crime that are not effectively tackled in their community?
  Mr. Letwin: We often hear that structure of argument, and it leads to perdition. What the hon. Lady is actually saying is that we should give up on local democracy and local accountability, and that whenever and wherever they do not happen to work at a given moment, we should seek to centralise to solve the problem. That is the structure of her argument and that of the Home Secretary. It suffers from twin deficiencies, as by centralising we threaten the foundations or our democracy and do not achieve the efficiency that she rightly seeks. There is no evidence to show that the Home Office is efficient. The real way of solving the problem in some areas to which she alludes is to increase and not reduce local accountability and the effectiveness of local communities in ensuring that they are policed in the way they want. The Government have not made any proposals in that regard. Had they done so, we would have considered them constructively and worked with the Government to try to implement them.
  Mr. David Borrow: To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), does the hon. Gentleman recognise the problem that communities face when they cannot get the services that they desire? The existing system of
  accountability for police forces, which operates through the police authority, is not the same as local accountability to locally and democratically elected politicians. That failure of the democratic process in the police accountability system is one of the factors that causes many of us great frustration in seeking to exercise some degree of control or influence over our local police authorities.
  Mr. Letwin: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. In the United States, there are 18,000 police forces and local communities feel that they have the ability to influence the way in which they are policed. In Britain, there are 43 police forces and most people do not currently feel that they have the ability at local level—or at what passes for it in Britain—to affect the way in which they are policed. I repeat that if the Government had brought forward what they should have brought forward—proposals to try to restore and increase the degree of effective local accountability—we would have been working with them and not against them. However, they have moved in the opposite direction, which will further distance people from the feeling that they can affect how they are policed.
  Mr. Denham: It would probably be helpful for our further discussion if the hon. Gentleman were to expand

  67
  a little on the ideas that he is advancing and has aired previously on the "Today" programme. Is he suggesting the direct election of police chiefs at local level? Is he saying that the police force should come under the control of the local county council—or what? It would be very helpful to the House to hear exactly what he is proposing.
  Mr. Letwin: We will, in due course—[Laughter.] In due course and in our own time, we will make our own proposals to achieve an aim that the Government should share. They have 600,000 civil servants at their disposal and they are the current Government of the United Kingdom. It was up to the Government to make proposals. As they have not done so, we will do so before the next election, and our proposals will be in tune with the general propositions that we set out at our Harrogate conference: there should be more, not less, localism and less, not more, centralisation. When we make those proposals, the Minister will have to explain why they are wrong. I suspect that he will find it a good deal more difficult to do so than we find it to show what is wrong with his proposals for centralisation.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that his party and mine are at one on this issue. Does he agree that there is an inconsistency between the arguments that are being advanced? On the one hand it is argued that to make people feel that local government is more important and to encourage them to vote more, they should be given more power, not less. Yet on the other hand, to make people have more confidence in the police and more desire to become engaged in the local police authorities' activities and to be involved in local decisions, the Bill seeks to ensure that they have less power, not more. Surely that position is entirely inconsistent, and works against engaging the public with the police and in working alongside them and in their democratic management.
  Mr. Letwin: I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman. We did not hear an argument from the Minister, so I do not know whether he is saying that centralisation will by some miracle achieve localisation, but I doubt it. I imagine that he would admit—although he did not do so—that the measures will diminish and not increase local participation and a sense in local communities that they can influence the criminal justice system. As he did not mention that position, however, he did not defend it, so we do not know what his argument is. All I know is that that argument would be difficult to mount effectively, and I suspect that that is the reason why we have not heard it.
  I should like to turn now to the only other parts of the Bill with which we have major problems. Apart from a brief tour d'horizon, the Minister was again remarkably silent about them. Communication between the Home Office and the Prime Minister has also obviously been lacking. To judge from what the Prime Minister repeatedly says at Prime Minister's Question Time, it appears that he is under a misapprehension, which I shall correct. He repeatedly asserts that the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives oppose community support officers. I think—I have never quite been able to disentangle the matter, either at the time or by reading the text—that he may be under the misapprehension that community support officers and accredited schemes are the same. I
  68
  do not know, but it is clear that he thinks—or says that he thinks—that we oppose those items. We do not, we never have done and we did not do so in the House of Lords. It would be as well if someone in the Home Office were to inform him of those facts.
  What we have opposed and the House of Lords has rejected are two specific powers, which are in fact the same power in relation to two separate items: community support officers and accredited schemes. They are the powers of detention or semi-arrest. That is the issue that is before the House. The Minister did not address it in any detail, but it is important, and again, I understand the argument that he might have advanced for supposing that the limited power of detention is important.
  The argument has been advanced by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Deputy Commissioner, who have a perfectly rational case. Their argument is that as they will not quickly obtain through the training schools and from the Chancellor sufficient numbers and funds to put proper numbers of policemen and women back on our streets, it would be better if they could quickly put on the streets as community support officers a group of people who do not require so much training and are rather cheaper. A rational case has also been made by local authorities, including Conservative groups, which have argued that in the absence of sufficient numbers of police officers, it would be good to put quasi-police officers on their streets through the accredited schemes.
  We understand those arguments and have some genuine sympathy with them. Indeed, as we proceed with negotiations about the Bill, and as the two Houses undoubtedly find themselves in opposition to each other, we would be willing to concede that some form of experiment or restricted group of experiments should take place. There is much to be said for experimenting on this matter, but that is not what the Bill would have done or will do in the state in which the Government presented it to the House of Lords and wish to present it again.
  When the Government have reinserted the missing clauses, including old clause 5, the Bill will do precisely what the Minster had to admit in response to a question that I asked him during his speech. He and his Home Secretary will be given power to use the action plans in clause 5 to force forces the length and breadth of this country to adopt community support officers in place of proper police officers. They will be able to use Treasury influence and ring fencing, and in the last resort they will be able to use clause 5. I doubt that they will ever have to do so; its existence will ensure that they do not have to use it. That is the way in which Whitehall works.
  Under the Bill as it was presented to the House of Lords—and as it will go back to the Lords if the Government have their way, as they will in this House—the Government will have the ability to try to make up for policing deficiencies by introducing a wide range of community support officers who are much less trained and paid somewhat less than police officers, and who have powers that parallel, but do not quite match, those of police officers. We believe that that would be a wrong turning.
  Mr. Denham: It will be important to look back at the Official Report to see the reply that I gave earlier. What I said about clause 5 powers was that I did not want to constrain in general the ways in which they might be used

  69
  in future; I was not dealing specifically with CSOs. I want to make that clear. Nothing in clause 5 overrules the provision elsewhere in the Bill that it must be the chief constable's decision whether he or she wishes to appoint CSOs. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his interpretation of what clause 5 would do. It is very important that that is understood between us and that I leave him in no doubt about the fact that the chief constable decides whether CSOs are to be appointed, as the Bill makes clear. No doubt the matter can be further explored in Committee.
  Mr. Letwin: Let us explore it more now. I invited the Minister to preclude the possibility of the clause being used under any circumstances to place in the action plans a requirement for CSOs. He refused to preclude that possibility. The structure of my argument is clear. I am not saying that the Home Secretary will seek overnight to use clause 5 to enforce action plans everywhere to bring about CSOs. That is not how Whitehall works. The process will start with ring fencing and Treasury pressure, beneath which lurks the threat of the use of clause 5. Which chief constable or chief superintendent in charge of a basic command unit will want to have to undertake the experiment of discovering what happens when he is forced into an action plan?
  The only safeguard against that line of argument is for the Minister to say that use of the clause is absolutely precluded—in which case, let that be included in the Bill. The provision was never there, and it is not there now. We are not debating a measure that will be debated in a court of law, in which case Pepper v. Hart would be relevant and the Minister's assurances would be useful. We are dealing with administration, and that works through combining the massive power of the Treasury and the Home Office to enforce patterns of action on chief constables. That is what we fear. We are willing to countenance a restricted group of local experiments, but not portmanteau powers.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: The hon. Gentleman denies that he opposes the introduction of community service officers, so will he tell us what powers he would like them to have?
  Mr. Letwin: They are called community support officers, but let us not worry about that.
  I can tell the hon. Gentleman what powers I should like CSOs to have, because they are listed in schedule 4, which he may or may not have seen. There are vast numbers of them, and we support them all except those on detention. The powers are as follows: the power to issue fixed penalty notices; the power to require a name and address; the power to use reasonable force, which, oddly, survived, although it will not be necessary if the detention order is removed; powers relating to alcohol consumption and the confiscation of alcohol; powers relating to the confiscation of tobacco; powers relating to entry to save life or limb; powers relating to seizure of vehicles; powers relating to abandoned vehicles; powers relating to carrying out road checks; powers relating to cordoned areas; and powers to stop and search vehicles in authorised areas.
  As we have said—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will mention this to the Prime Minister, as he may have been the source of the Prime Minister's confusion in the past—
  70
  our subscribing to all those powers is not the same as opposing CSOs. It is important that political debate is conducted honestly, not on the basis of smears.
  Lady Hermon: Would the hon. Gentleman feel more comfortable with CSOs having the power to detain if the form of declaration in clause 68 was extended to them, so that they would have to declare that they would uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people? That would refer them to the power of detention in the Human Rights Act 1998. Would that clarify the matter and ease the hon. Gentleman's concerns?
  Mr. Letwin: It might slightly, but we are dealing more with a practical problem than a question of the legal framework.
  The signal moment when the state expresses its power over the citizen is the moment of arrest. That is the single most important thing that the state can do to a citizen. Ultimately, it underlies the rest of the panoply of the state's powers—for example, as regards taxation. One has to pay one's taxes because one might be arrested and put in prison if one does not. The moment of arrest is not a minor issue: it is the crux of the relationship between state and citizen. In this country, it has for many years been carried out exclusively by people who hold the office of constable or are otherwise very highly trained—for example, Customs and Excise officials. The whole purpose of these measures, if applied nationally, is to avoid the need for the individuals concerned to be so highly trained and to have such authorities, duties, obligations and constraints as police officers have. Were it not so, there would be no point in introducing CSOs. They would not be needed if they had the same level of training, expertise, authorities and obligations, because they would be police officers.
  Methods are being devised to enable groups such as Transport for London to police, say, the buses—it could be a local area—at their own expense through a contract with the Metropolitan police. A similar method already obtains in another of our great cities. Those are perfectly acceptable means of carrying forward a programme for bringing more money into policing. If CSOs and accredited officers are given the power of detention, that is the signal moment at which the trained constable, with all that that term implies, ceases to be the principal person in England and Wales who can arrest people. We should not take that lightly.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): What about a citizen's arrest?
  Mr. Letwin: As the Under-Secretary says from a sedentary position, apart from the rare occurrence of a citizen's arrest.
  Ian Lucas: As the Under-Secretary said, in some circumstances individuals can exercise the power of arrest. The hon. Gentleman should accept that that is the current position in law, not—in error, I am sure—misrepresent the situation to the House.
  Mr. Letwin: I do accept it, because it is true. That is why I said so. At least I try to be truthful.

  71
  There is a point that may have eluded the hon. Gentleman. When one citizen arrests another, the power of the state is not being used to make the arrest, but the people we are discussing will be regarded by the general public—with good reason—as expressions of the power of the state. It is extraordinarily important that those individuals should be endowed with sufficient resources in their training, obligations and many other respects so that they do it in the best possible way. That is why we heartily subscribe to the independent complaints procedure in the Bill.
  We are all trying to make the police better at arresting people, then along comes the Minister with what is in effect a framework for a national plan for less well trained community support officers and accredited officers who will effectively, if with some limitations, carry out the power of arrest without the necessary apparatus to protect the citizen. That is a dangerous way to go. It is a substitute for the way that we should be going, about which I thought that I was in agreement with the Home Secretary. We want to see our police forces back on our streets taking control, not other people.
  Ian Lucas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. First, the law bestows on an individual the power to arrest another. We are discussing the rule of law and specific circumstances under which we will allow one person to arrest another. The Bill provides for accreditation and training schemes to deal with such circumstances. Community support officers will be trained within the limits that the Bill sets out. It is simply incorrect to say that the Bill does not deal with the fundamental right of one individual to arrest another.
  Mr. Letwin: The difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that it ignores the facts. Some—I believe that it may be only one—of our police forces want to employ CSOs because they believe that the training period will last approximately three weeks, in huge contrast to training a constable. The police believe that they can get CSOs on to the streets quickly, without undergoing prolonged training.
  The hon. Gentleman misses another point. The advantage to the Treasury is that CSOs will be cheaper; they will not be paid as much as constables. That is another reason for the Government's wish to proceed with them. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the Home Secretary has admitted it. He said that they were cheaper. [Interruption.] The Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs says that that is not a bad reason.
  As long as CSOs are not arresting citizens, I say, "Hear, hear." All the other powers are fine; of course I back support for the police. We would agree to conducting an experiment, which I hope will ultimately happen, but introducing a measure on a national scale whereby people with three weeks' training and on lower pay wander around arresting people is a bad direction for our police forces to follow.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman wills the end but not the means. He wants CSOs, but he will not give them the power to do the job. Indeed, his proposal would almost make fools of them.
  72
  He says that he supports giving them the power to impose fixed penalty notices and, therefore, to demand the name and address of the person involved. However, under his proposals a person who refused to provide the information could simply walk away and the CSO would have no power to detain until a police officer arrived. The hon. Gentleman would make fools of the CSOs.
  Mr. Letwin: I find that argument extraordinary because earlier the Minister rightly defended traffic wardens. He defended them against nobody because no one opposes them. According to the hon. Gentleman's argument, traffic wardens would be useless, yet they are not. We perceive CSOs and accredited officers as useful. However, the system whereby traffic wardens impose fixed penalty notices works well. [Interruption.] The Minister knows that well, despite his sedentary chuntering. The number of people who pretend that they are not the person with whom the traffic warden is dealing is nugatory.
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Number plates.
  Mr. Letwin: It is true that the notice is attached to the number plate, but there are few instances of people trying to deny their identity or ownership of the car. That is not the pattern of action. When a fixed penalty notice is issued by somebody in a uniform, people in this country are willing to accept that on the whole.
  If the Minister or the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) had in mind great crooks or a gang of violent youths, let us consider the power of detention that they believe will salvage the situation. The circumstances are utterly different from those with which traffic wardens deal. How will a 30-minute power of detention, until a policemen arrives, tackle the problem effectively? Why will everything be put right in that period?
  Mr. O'Brien: A traffic warden is in an entirely different position from a CSO. The number plate is the issue for a traffic warden, whereas in the sort of circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, a CSO would require a name and address. One of the main problems that police officers constantly experience when they nick someone is getting the correct information about identity. If CSOs do not believe that the person has provided the correct identity, they must have the power to detain the individual till a police officer arrives and decides whether to exercise his full powers of arrest. Without that power, the CSO has no real relevance. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman would make a fool of the office.
  Mr. Letwin: I simply do not understand the hon. Gentleman's structural argument. I read out the list of powers, including, for example, the seizure of cars. I do not understand how lack of the ability to detain will affect that power. In Committee, we will go through case after case in which there is no such link. The hon. Gentleman said that the CSO could detain until the police officer arrived. That is not true; he can detain for 30 minutes. If no police officer arrives, he has to let the person go. The potential for practical problems in the scheme is enormous. The only rational means of deciding between

  73
  us is conducting a few experiments, not a national scheme that is imposed by the mechanics of Treasury ring fencing, allied to the hidden effects of a reinstated clause 5.
  I must not speak for much longer; I have been speaking for about 50 minutes.
  Mr. Mullin: Forty minutes.
  Mr. Letwin: I apologise.
  The critical issues are whether the former clause 5 will be reinstated—I hope that I have at least pointed out the argument to which the Minister did not want attention drawn—and whether we give powers of detention to the CSOs and the accredited schemes. I hope that hereafter we can at least debate those crucial matters, not evade them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I remind hon. Members that the Speaker has set a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: In keeping with the spirit of the times, the Select Committee on Home Affairs has attempted a little pre-legislative scrutiny. The report of our inquiry, which was inevitably hastier than we would like, was published this morning. We took oral evidence from all the main interested parties and took into account the deliberations in another place.
  Although the welcome for the Bill has not been universal, it is fair to say that there is widespread support for the Government's general aim of improving the quality of service that the police can offer the public, especially by freeing more officers for front-line duties and giving chief officers the tools that they need to manage effectively. Above all, there is a need for the public to perceive that they are getting value for the considerable sums of public money that we invest in our police. At the moment, there is a suspicion that they are not.
  I shall deal mainly with the issues that have provoked controversy: first, the provisions in part 1 that would give the Home Secretary power to intervene in local forces, down to a basic command unit. Almost all our witnesses, except, of course, the Minister believed that that was a bridge too far. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, the power could easily be abused by a Home Secretary who was less scrupulous than the current incumbent.
  The Association of Police Authorities was especially offended that the Bill, as originally drafted, placed the Home Secretary under no obligation to consult a local police authority before intervening. Since then, the Bill has been amended in another place, and a clause allowing the Home Secretary to direct chief officers has been removed. As the Minister said, the Government want to reintroduce a similar provision in Committee. They tabled an amendment in the other place that takes account of the widespread objections to the original proposal.
  The Select Committee believes that it would be acceptable for the original clause 5 on directions to chief officers to be reinstated, together with the inclusion of the additional safeguards in Lords amendment No. 42. However, we shall watch carefully the way in which the powers are exercised.
  74
  The hon. Member for West Dorset said that we needed a few experiments to ascertain what worked. I agree, but I emphasise that we shall get a few experiments because not every force will sign up to the scheme to which he referred. Those first in the queue are therefore likely to constitute the experiments and we shall gain a clear sign of the way in which they will work.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he would be happy with only a very limited number of experiments being allowed on the face of the Bill?
  Mr. Mullin: I see no need to put them on the face of the Bill because I am confident that, initially, only a handful of forces will sign up to this. Let us see what happens. I do not have a problem with that.
  It is fair to say that there is widespread scepticism about—not to say downright opposition to—the proposal for community support officers from most parts of the police, particularly in relation to the powers of detention. Strong support comes from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who is keen to make use of them. The Minister has been at pains to assure us that community support officers would be optional, and that if a force did not wish to use them, it need not do so. If that is the case, and given that forces such as the Met are keen to make use of them, my Committee sees no reason to object. If the experiment works, others will try. If it does not, they will not. There is nothing to be lost by trying, and, personally, I am optimistic.
  On the powers of CSOs, it has been pointed out that it is unlikely that they would operate alone in potentially dangerous areas late at night. The odds are that they would be used in conjunction with fully trained police officers. A majority of the Committee took the view that the proposals should be left as they are for the time being. I also take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) that CSOs would be ineffective in most situations if they did not have the power of arrest.
  On complaints, there was widespread welcome for the proposed Independent Police Complaints Commission. Although some witnesses were concerned that the proposal did not go far enough, we believe that it is a big step forward and that its independence would be enhanced if its chairman were to be appointed—like the Comptroller and Auditor General—with the advice and consent of the House of Commons and not simply by the Home Secretary. Perhaps the Government could give some thought to that.
  I now turn to several matters which are not in the Bill, but which, in our opinion, should be. It has been put to us, and we agree, that police officers should be brought within the scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—the so-called whistleblowers Act. I welcome the Minister's commitment on that point. Secondly, we believe that there is a good case—as recent events at Yarl's Wood have demonstrated—for repealing the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 which makes police authorities liable for damage caused during a riot. This Bill may or may not be the right place to do that, but it presents a window of opportunity and the Minister might wish to reflect on this point.
  Thirdly, we remain concerned about the huge and inexplicable variation—ranging from 9 to 63 per cent.—in retirements on medical grounds. The Metropolitan

  75
  police have suggested a number of improvements to the regulations surrounding medical retirements and injury awards. We appreciate that, as the Minister said, these do not require primary legislation, but we would like to hear, during the course of this Bill's passage, what plans he has for dealing with this issue.
  Finally, in view of the tight time scale, it would be helpful if the Home Office could reply to the Select Committee's report in time for the House to take the Government's response into account on Report. I would appreciate the Minister's assurance on that point.
  In conclusion, people are crying out for more effective, visible policing. This is especially true of people in the poorer areas of the country such as the one that I represent. The problem is not organised crime, but disorganised crime. The lives of many of the people I represent have been made miserable by out-of-control youths against whom the criminal justice system is all too often ineffective. This is not simply an issue of resources. It is a matter of priorities and proper management of existing resources. I have long taken the view that a hundred policemen on bicycles would be more effective than two in a helicopter, although those propositions are not mutually exclusive.
  Police officers used to live in the communities that they served, but one effect of the big pay increases awarded in the early 1980s was that they all got mortgages and moved up to the posher end of town. I remember a police inspector's wife in my constituency telling me some years ago that there were 13 policemen living in the rather short street in which she lived. By contrast, there were none at all in the vast housing estates where most of the crime and disorder is to be found.
  During the 1980s and early 1990s, the poorer parts of my constituency—it was the same elsewhere—were virtually abandoned by the police. If they came at all, they came in large raiding parties and glared at the residents through reinforced windshields. Today, I am glad to say, all that has changed. Thanks to a succession of enlightened chief constables and other officers of all ranks, the quality of policing in Sunderland has improved immeasurably. I believe that that is true of many cities. We have dedicated police taskforces based in the communities they serve, working with local people and other agencies to overcome the mayhem that blights the lives of too many of my constituents. They have achieved some impressive results, but, with the best will in the world, we have a long way to go before the genie is back in the bottle. I hope that the measures in the Bill will make a small contribution.
  6.55 pm
  Norman Baker: This country has high standards of policing and we all wish to maintain and improve them. We support the Government's aim to drive up policing standards and to achieve a better-quality police service. Echoing the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), my colleagues and I support the vast majority of measures in the Bill; it is well-intentioned and sensible, and will go a long way towards achieving those ends. For that reason, my colleagues and I will support the Government in the Lobby tonight on Second Reading, while ensuring, as far as we can, that the Government
  76
  understand the strong arguments that we shall put forward on the small minority of proposals on whose impact we disagree substantially.
  One issue that is not in the Bill, but which ought to be, is police pensions. This is the great unspoken issue, the time bomb coming down the track—probably a terrible mixed metaphor, I confess. The estimate is that 13.63 per cent. of police funding nationally is now being spent on pensions, and that percentage is rising year on year. Of course, all retired police officers deserve a decent pension, but not at the expense of front-line policing. The Government have to address that issue.
  In Sussex, the percentage is even higher, and my local paper, the Evening Argus, made the point today that, under the present system, the local authority in which a police officer is working when he or she retires picks up the entire pension requirement rather than its being spread across all the authorities in which that officer has served. I hope that the Government will consider that issue, because it discriminates disproportionately against police authorities such as Sussex.
  I was pleased that the Minister acknowledged in a written parliamentary answer on 19 March that there was a need to bring "greater clarity" to pension obligations on police forces, and that the Treasury and the Home Office were reviewing their options. I hope that that process will be accelerated, and, if possible, brought forward as part of the Bill, even at this stage. My colleagues in the Lords tabled an amendment relating to pensions, and I also hope to do so as the Bill progresses in Committee.
  Having identified an issue that is not in the Bill, I shall turn to those that are, and identify some which are the cause of disagreement among hon. Members and between the Opposition parties and the Government. I entirely agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for West Dorset to the effect that the original clause 5 represented dangerous centralisation. Labour Members did not like that suggestion, but I ask them to consider the clause headings in part 1 of the original Bill presented to the House of Lords: "National Policing Plan"; "Codes of practice for chief officers"; "Powers to require inspection and report"; "Directions to police authorities", a clause which contained the provision entitled, "Power to give directions to a police authority"; "Directions to chief officers", which contained the provision entitled "Power to give directions to chief officers"; "Regulation of equipment"; and "Regulation of operational procedures and practices". I accept that that last one was amended by the Government in the Lords.
  All those clauses may have some validity, and there may be some reason for their introduction. The Minister explained some of that is his presentation. Taken as a whole, however, they represent a change to the traditional tripartite system that has served this country well. It may not have been created deliberately as a tripartite system, but it has evolved into one that works and gives the people of this country confidence. It provides a fair balance between the local police authority, the chief constable and central Government. The Government meddle with that arrangement at their peril and at ours. I beg them to think again about their intention to try to reinsert the original clause 5 into the Bill. It is opposed by the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and other parties in the House. I believe it is also opposed by most of the police,

  77
  and by the public. It would be a shame to spoil a good Bill by including such a controversial, destructive and debilitating measure.
  The Government could command unanimity, or at least overall support. They could present to the public a united House—a House united in its determination to drive up police standards and maintain the improvement in years to come. They could ensure that those on all three Front Benches said the same, and backed them. If they want all that, they must not reinsert clause 5.
  The arrogance of the Home Office lies in its belief that it can do best—that if someone fails, a superman will arrive from somewhere and suddenly make it all better; that a magic formula, to be used sparingly, can be sprinkled over police authorities, and suddenly whatever was wrong with them will be cured. I do not think that that will work, because it is undemocratic and takes power away from local people and local police authorities. I accept that local police authorities could be more democratic than they are now. That is a legitimate point, which has been made from the Labour Back Benches. Nevertheless, the Government's proposal is undemocratic.
  Moreover, there is no indication that what the Home Secretary of the day will do will solve whatever problem appears to exist. Indeed, there is no guarantee that a problem will exist. How can a Home Secretary with officials in Whitehall be better able than the people of Essex, Northampton or Derbyshire to say that a problem exists in one of those areas?
  Mr. Kevan Jones: What does the hon. Gentleman suggest a Government do if a police force is letting its local community down by not fighting crime, or by engaging in maladministration, corruption or other practices that lead to there being something severely wrong with that force? Is he suggesting that the Home Secretary will stand by and let that happen? What should the Government do when the local community has clearly lost confidence in its police force, and there are issues of concern for that community and possibly for the nation?
  Norman Baker: If the community feels there is a problem, it should have power to take control and rectify it. It is the community that will suffer. If there is a problem in Derbyshire, the people of Derbyshire will suffer. They should be able to remedy the problem, rather than relying on the Home Secretary in London.
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) failed to answer this question; I wonder whether the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will be able to do so.
  What powers has the hon. Gentleman in mind to deal with the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), if not those of the existing police authorities? Police authorities may not always be relied on to take effective action, although we hope that will be possible in the vast majority of cases.
  Norman Baker: The question is based on the false premise that if there is a problem, it can be solved by the Home Secretary of the day. That makes no sense. Powers are already in place; indeed, the Home Secretary has powers. There are arrangements for independent
  78
  inspections, for example. I would like to see a modified police authority that was more democratically accountable to its local community. That is the answer.
  When there is a problem, the power should not inevitably go to the next level in Government, which would mean that eventually—regardless of the nature of the problem and the sphere in which it occurred—the Prime Minister would deal with it. That is not the way in which we organise things in this country. We have to trust local communities and local democracy. I refer the Minister to a paper on regional government produced by his own Government. Clearly, those in other parts of Government believe in local democracy; it is a shame that the Home Office apparently does not.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I still have not received an answer to my question. May I draw an analogy that relates to what was said by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)? Is the hon. Member for Lewes suggesting that local police chiefs and police authorities should be directly elected?
  Norman Baker: I do not think it would be very sensible to elect local police chiefs, and as far as I know no one in the House or elsewhere has suggested that, but there is an argument about who should choose—or elect, if you like—police authorities, which is perfectly proper. The hon. Gentleman may recall that when his party was in opposition, it—along with the Liberal Democrats, if memory serves me—strongly opposed the Conservative Government's proposed measures to stitch up police authorities. There is a legitimate way in which police authorities can be more accountable, and can be seen to be more responsive to their communities. We should aim for that, rather than giving blanket powers to the Home Secretary.
  Labour Members have failed to answer another question. Do they not recognise, in their hearts, the dangers of handing powers such as these—albeit reserve powers—to a Home Secretary? I do not necessarily refer to the present Home Secretary. I ask Labour Members to imagine the worst possible Conservative Home Secretary, the Conservative Home Secretary whom they see in their worst nightmares. What would he or she do with such powers?
  We are legislating not just for tomorrow, but for a long time ahead. We must therefore ensure that there is a separation of powers relating to local accountability: that is what democracy relies on. The Home Secretary's proposals undermine a system of that kind, and create a potentially dangerous situation. I ask Labour Members to accept what I have said, and I think that in their hearts many will.
  Simon Hughes: Does it not follow from some of what has been said so far that the country has relied on people who are not politicians to enforce and uphold the law—the courts, with independent judges or magistrates, and the police, who come with no party political manifesto or position? That is a fundamental principle, and that is why Home Secretaries, who are politicians, should be kept away from these levers of power while police chiefs, who are not politicians, should be given access to them.
  Norman Baker: My hon. Friend makes a persuasive point, as always.

  79
  My colleagues and I are determined to resist the reinsertion of clause 5. I believe that that applies to the Conservatives as well. The Minister will have to believe that we are united in this regard, and that we are not going to give way. Certainly I am not going to give way. There can be as much ping-pong as the Minister wants, but that is our position. We do not intend to give way on such an important principle.
  The Bill proposes the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints Commission. As I said in an intervention on the Minister's speech, my colleagues and I welcome such a sensible step, which is long overdue and will do much to restore confidence in the police. I also welcome the suggested extensions of the commission's power. The Minister said he would table amendments relating to three issues in that context, and I think that sensible. I ask him, however, to reflect on my comment that the commission might be swamped by a huge number of complaints. People who have not thought it worthwhile to complain so far because, rightly or wrongly, they have assumed that they will not be given a fair hearing might want to complain to an independent body.
  There may be a small secretariat, for want of a better word, dealing with relatively few cases—high-profile cases—and, in effect, relying on the police to investigate 98 per cent. of cases. That is welcome as far as it goes, but I think the public want to feel confident that if they are not satisfied with the police response, the case can be referred to the commission and examined independently. Many complaints to local authorities about their services are settled through an in-house council complaints procedure, but if complainants are still dissatisfied they have the right to go to the local government ombudsman. I think the same right should be given in this instance.
  That right, however, will be worth nothing if there is no capacity for dealing with complaints that are referred—if the commission ends up picking and choosing, because it simply cannot cope with the river of complaints. The commission must be properly financed and properly staffed if it is to gain public confidence.
  Let me say something about clause 19 of the original Bill, and the comments of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was concerned about what the Government had proposed in relation to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights said:
  "Clause 19(2) would allow for the inclusion of the application of the relevant provision of the 2000 Act to Commission investigations, but does not require this. As a result, there is a risk that an Order made by the Secretary of State might fail to contain the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers 2000 Act designed to protect human rights. Such an Order might be invalid as breaching the 2000 Act, and would be in considerable danger of being invalid as violating the Convention right under article 8 of the ECHR."
  The Minister needs to deal with that matter in Standing Committee.
  I turn now to part 3 of the Bill. Liberal Democrat Members retain concerns about clause 31, which used to be clause 30. It deals with the power of the Secretary of State to remove senior officers. That is a further example of the centralising tendency. The Home Secretary wants to take to himself powers that might best be left elsewhere.
  80
  Clause 31 is headed "Removal etc. of senior officers at the instance of the Secretary of State". To mix metaphors again, I believe that that should send shivers down spines and set alarm bells ringing at the same time. It is an extensive and draconian power.
  What is wrong with allowing police authorities to deal with that matter, as has been the position so far? How many problems have arisen? As it happens, the Home Secretary was already able to get rid of a chief constable by the slightly back-door method of issuing a press release, as happened with Paul Whitehouse, the former chief constable of Sussex. The proposed power would mean that chief constables would always be looking over their shoulders, wondering what the Home Secretary of the day was expecting of them. They would worry about whether they were complying with a police plan, or whether they should have community support officers in their areas, given that the police authorities next door and down the road had them. If they did not have such officers, they would worry about being asked to explain why, and wonder whether they would get a black mark.
  In addition, let us suppose that a chief constable undertook an experiment such as the one launched in Lambeth regarding the enforcement of the law relating to cannabis. What would happen if the Home Secretary of the day disliked such a plan? Many hon. Members would be violently opposed to such experiments, so where would that leave the chief constable? The power proposed in the Bill would make chief constables less willing to make such judgments and take such chances. It is the wrong power to take, and I hope that the Government will reconsider.
  I turn now to part 4, the other controversial part of the Bill. The ideal structure for police in this country would involve more police officers. Every hon. Member would support that. To their credit, the Government have finally adopted a strategy of recruiting more police officers—albeit after a long lead-in period. We are just about back to above 1997 levels, although some police authority areas are still below them. We are approaching the Government's target of 130,000 officers, and that is welcome.
  Another problem is retention, as I and other hon. Members have pointed out in previous debates on this matter. There is no point in pouring police in at one end of the colander, if they are only to come out of the other. One or two police authority areas have poor retention levels.
  In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) referred to the proposal in the Liberal Democrat general election manifesto that part-time officers should be employed on a retained basis. I was pleased to hear the Minister suggest that they may have a role. Some people may be too old to want to be full-time officers, but they may not want to retire. Their great experience means that they may have a great deal to give the community. It would be folly to lose such people, who may be prepared to continue to work limited hours. We must find a way to retain them.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Norman Baker: No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way to him twice.

  81
  People may not want to work as full-time officers for various reasons. For instance, a mother who has recently given birth may wish to ease her way back into the police force. I hope that the Government will consider seriously the proposal that properly trained officers could work part-time.
  Another question concerns specials. They have not been mentioned much today, but their role in policing is very valuable, as I am sure hon. Members of all parties will accept. In December 1971, there were 29,992 specials, whereas on 30 December 2001, there were only 12,068. That is a fall of more than 50 per cent. in the numbers of specials over that period. In fact, there has been a fall of 7,000 since the Government came to power in 1997. I am not making a party point, as the figure was dropping under the previous Conservative Government. Nothing has been done to arrest the decline. [Interruption.] As far as I know, there was no fall in the number of specials under the last Liberal Government of 1906, so my party can claim to be immune from the problem.
  Over the lifetime of this Government, there has been a fall in the number of specials in my area of Sussex. There were 465 specials in 1997, and there are 301 now. Specials are valuable. They are properly trained police officers, who do not have the side effects—if I may put it that way—that community support officers might have. However, it seems that little enough is being done to retain them.
  I hope that the Government will consider establishing an annual bounty—some sort of fixed allowance—for specials, as that would give them some recognition. I accept that there would have to be some rostering if such a proposal were to go forward. I believe that the Government told the House of Lords that they would consider such a proposal, and I very much hope that they do. We have to arrest the decline in specials-no pun intended.
  Community support officers present a more difficult problem. They represent yet another tier of policing, an idea that the Liberal Democrat party put forward first, in our manifesto. Like the hon. Member for West Dorset, therefore, I object to the Prime Minister saying that we have been totally opposed to CSOs. We have not: we have opposed the powers that the Government have been willing to give them, but that is not the same thing.
  If the CSOs are to command support in post, they must first be recognisable, which means that they must have a common uniform. Secondly, they must have one set of powers that does not vary between areas. Thirdly, they must be properly trained, by the police. Fourthly, they must be either police or local authority employees. We are against accreditation by external bodies. We do not want accredited officers to be employed by anyone other than the police or local authorities, and the same goes for CSOs.
  We want simplicity and accountability. The Government scheme is something of a hotch-potch. It will lead to misunderstanding among the public about exactly who is doing what in which area. People will not know who controls the CSOs; to whom complaints should be made; or what powers the officers may have. That is a dangerous road down which to go. For example, a citizen may genuinely believe that a CSO who wishes to detain him, or issue him with a fixed penalty ticket, does not have the
  82
  power to do so as CSOs elsewhere in the country do not have that power. That is a recipe for disaster. We need clarity and accountability. I fear that the Bill does not provide them.
  Another way to reduce the number of tiers would be to wrap up traffic wardens in one of the groups. There is no reason why traffic wardens should be a discrete group, nor why they should not have enhanced powers and act in a more effective manner. For example, traffic wardens can antagonise motorists by giving out parking tickets, but they are unable to deal with problems with which people locally—in the area or the street—want someone to deal. We need to look at the powers of traffic wardens.
  Mr. Letwin: Has the hon. Gentleman had a moment to consider the point made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who wondered whether the power of detention was necessary to make the other powers operative? Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the power of detention is necessary in connection with powers such as giving notices for fixed penalties under road traffic legislation, or dealing with dog fouling, or in connection with environmental protection legislation, or in connection with the confiscation of alcohol or tobacco?
  Norman Baker: The power of detention is very significant. which is one reason why my colleagues have opposed its being given to people who are not properly trained police officers. That significant power should rest only with the police. People associate the power of arrest with those who wear the police uniform, and they should know that they cannot be arrested by those who wear a different uniform. Allowing other people to have that power is a very dangerous road down which to go, and we intend to continue to oppose that right to detain. There is an argument about how many powers those officers should have. I make no secret of the fact that we are dubious of some of the powers in the schedule.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I suggested that fixed penalty notices in particular would require the identity of the person—the name and address—to be given. Indeed, if a person refused to give his or her name and address, a fixed penalty notice could not be issued and the community support officer would be faced with a very limited choice: he could either use his citizen's power of arrest or let the person go. In practice, would not the hon. Gentleman's suggestion put the CSO in the intolerable position of having to let the person go and not being able to detain him until a police officer arrived?
  Norman Baker: First, depending on the offence, citizen's arrest would still apply. That point was made earlier by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas). Secondly, people do abscond from police officers. They do so very effectively on occasion—the police officers are unable to catch them. However, I understand the serious point made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
  Mr. Denham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Norman Baker: In a second; I am answering the question that the Minister's colleague asked.
  The serious point that the hon. Gentleman makes is one reason why we have to consider the powers given to CSOs. I would personally wish them to have powers that were not

  83
  likely to put them in the situation to which he refers. I would wish them to have powers, for example, in relation to untaxed vehicles—a major problem—and powers similar to those exercised by traffic wardens. They could have a range of non-confrontational powers, such as acting as eyes and ears for the police and assisting constables in the exercise of their duties. Those powers would be straightforward and would not put CSOs in the position to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He raises a genuine issue, which is why we need carefully to consider the range of powers that CSOs are given.
  Mr. Denham: I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he would enlighten me as to whether he would have preferred the Bill if we had made no reference to the detention powers but had said that we wished those paid employees of the police service to rely on their citizen's powers of arrest? Surely it is better to make it clear in the Bill what Parliament intends.
  Norman Baker: That intervention is not very fair; in response to the point made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, I have referred at some length to the sort of powers that my colleagues would wish CSOs to have. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Wrexham, I have also recognised that a general power applies to all citizens of this country.
  Several hon.Members rose—
  Norman Baker: I ought to make some progress.
  It would be rather odd to include in the Bill a power that already exists for all citizens of this country.
  I want to deal with the pressure that will be applied to police authorities or chief constables to deploy CSOs. The Select Committee on Home Affairs picked up the issue of ring-fencing expenditure. I was extremely worried by the Minister's response, in which he failed to rule out—in fact, he encouraged the idea—that the Treasury and the Home Office would, in effect, get their own way by the back door. In other words, chief constables would be given the right to deploy CSOs. If they chose not to do so, they would be put under financial pressure to encourage them to do so, until there were CSOs throughout the land and the Government could say, "They have all done it voluntarily. We have not used clause 5; they have taken the decision themselves."
  Mr. Denham: I rather suspected that my straightforward and honest answer would be the subject of the most massive distortion by this time in the evening. What I actually said was that I see no objection to providing funding to kick-start the CSO initiative. Indeed, I do not see anything wrong with that. I undoubtedly did not say the other things that it has been claimed that I said, and the hon. Gentleman knows that full well.
  Norman Baker: I hear what the Minister says, and I shall be interested to read Hansard tomorrow to find out whether that is exactly what he said earlier. I am sure that it will be because he is a very honest fellow. Nevertheless, the fact is that he now envisages a situation where, even if it is a kick start, certain authorities will be given a bribe, a sweetener, a golden hello to introduce CSOs. Those
  84
  authorities that do not do so will be left out and, no doubt, their budgets will be top-sliced to help those authorities that have chosen to deploy CSOs. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming tonight that there will be a financial incentive.
  In conclusion, I want to raise an issue mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, the Yarl's Wood fire and the fact that Bedfordshire police are being sued for £40 million. That is nonsense, and we should take the opportunity provided by the Bill to deal with it. That could be done quite easily; otherwise we shall put the police in a difficult position. Neither is suing Millwall football club any way to recover money for the police.
  By and large, this is a good Bill. It could be a very good Bill. There were one or two poisonous flies in the ointment but, by and large, they have been removed by the House of Lords, and I very much hope that the Minister will not seek to reinsert them. If he does, I assure him that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches will not waver.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: May I begin by declaring an interest? I am the parliamentary adviser to the Chief Police Officers Staff Association. I am also a member of the appeals committee of the Police Dependants Trust. Both those roles are unpaid. However, the views that I express today are my own, on behalf of my constituents, but I will let the House know the Chief Police Officers Staff Association's views on a certain issue.
  Broadly, I welcome the Bill. It is a good Bill, which is designed to improve the performance of the police. On the whole, it will help police efficiency and effectiveness, and therefore reduce crime and the fear of crime and help to tackle antisocial behaviour. After all, police reform must be about giving the police the numbers, the tools and the management that they need to be more effective at catching criminals and reducing the fear of crime.
  The taxpayer is putting unprecedented millions of pounds into Britain's police and expects results. To some extent, the taxpayer is getting results. The British crime survey shows a 21 per cent. fall in crime since 1997, but crime levels are still too high, especially for street crime.
  The Bill aims to improve police morale and effectiveness. Police morale was undoubtedly damaged by the cut in police numbers in the mid-1990s and the failed Sheehy attempts at police reform.
  I represent Warwickshire, which from 1993 to 1998, experienced one of the biggest cuts in police numbers. By 1998, Warwickshire had lost 11 per cent. of its officers—probably the largest number in the country. Police numbers are rising once again. The chairman of the police authority hopes shortly to restore record numbers of police officers in Warwickshire. As part of that process, the police authority has increased its council tax precept by 19 per cent.
  Few voters in the recent elections complained about the cost of the police; they wanted to see more officers on the beat and were prepared to pay for it. Warwickshire police force has tremendous public support. It is an excellent, although small, constabulary. People are prepared to pay more for policing, but they demand value for the money that they pay. Taxpayers are not pleased when a police

  85
  officer turns up at the scene of an offence or an incident and says, "Sorry I am late, but we did not have enough staff on duty", or "There is no point in arresting them; the courts will let them off." That rarely happens now in Warwickshire, but it did happen until all too recently.
  Across Britain, questions need to be asked about why some forces perform better than others. What efforts are being made to improve delivery? The Bill will put each chief constable and each bobby on the beat to the challenge of delivering for the taxpayer. Most of them will rise to that challenge and raise their game, but it is also important that the Government, the police authorities and chief constables have the powers to deal with those who are not raising their game and not delivering for the taxpayer.
  Most police officers everywhere are committed, but performance varies, even where local policing is similar. We need to ensure that policing everywhere is brought up to the standard of the best. We also need to deal with the problems of red tape and bureaucracy that all too often clog up police procedures. Police officers spend 43 per cent. of their time in the station, much of it on paperwork. I am pleased that the Government are addressing that with their taskforce, which is working alongside the reforms in the Bill. The Independent Police Complaints Commission is good news and will, no doubt, be welcomed by the Police Federation, which has long sought such change.
  The Bill is therefore a move in the right direction, as part of a broad strategy to reduce crime and raise standards in public service. However, in our zeal to create organisational tools to improve standards, we need also to recognise that good policing requires a fair degree of local discretion and local decision making. That means that chief constables must have considerable discretion in operational matters in their locality.
  Chief police officers welcome the Bill's broad thrust and want it to be enacted, but they do have concerns about individual aspects of the Government's proposals. Given that the Government have had one or two problems with the federated ranks, Ministers will need the support of chief police officers in implementing reform, and they will doubtless want to listen with care to their views. Individually, most reforms in the Bill cause few problems for chief police officers, but in combination they raise some concerns. The creation of plans, the setting up of national bodies that give guidelines, and the measuring of performance are all sensible provisions, but what worries some chief police officers is their conjunction with the Home Secretary's extended power to remove and to suspend chief police officers. However, they can be reassured through minor adjustments to those powers. The agreement to a protocol on their use is helpful, but a further concession would be even more helpful. Chief police officers would like a tribunal to review any decision by a Home Secretary to require a police authority to suspend or bring about the resignation of a chief police officer, and the tribunal would also need the power to reinstate such an officer.
  I accept that the Home Secretary's current powers under the Police Act 1996 are inadequate—a point illustrated by the recent experience of Warwickshire police, which found it difficult to remove a chief constable who was ill. Delay and difficulty occurred in that case, and although it was resolved, it is clear that better powers to take action are needed. It would help if the Home Secretary's powers were subject to review by a tribunal
  86
  composed of, say, representatives of the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and, perhaps, a judge. After all, the circumstances in which those powers will be used are expected to be quite exceptional. That would certainly reassure chief constables and police authorities that they will not be subject to operational interference from Whitehall, and perhaps to sacking in default of doing as they are told.
  To some extent, operational decisions should be the prerogative of chief constables. No Home Secretary should try to micromanage from Whitehall, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary doubtless has no intention of doing so. However, on police numbers—a political issue whereby politicians carry the can if chief constables do not use their budgets to increase numbers—the Home Secretary should have a real say. I have said so before and I believe it to be true, but in deciding how many police officers operate in a particular area or how policing takes place, chief constables need flexibility, not straitjackets from Whitehall. I do not believe that Whitehall has any intention to micromanage, but such concerns do exist, so Ministers need constantly to reassure the police, and in doing so to put in place safeguards, where possible and appropriate.
  The shadow Home Secretary's claim that he supports the concept of CSOs but opposes the power to detain is nonsense. He wills the end but not the means. He would give CSOs the power to issue fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour, which require giving a name and address, but if a person refuses to do so, he would leave CSOs with the power to do nothing except make a citizen's arrest. If we are to have CSOs, a power to detain for 30 minutes is necessary.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why detention is necessary to deal with alcohol consumption, confiscation of alcohol, confiscation of tobacco, seizure of vehicles, entry to save life and limb, abandoned vehicles, carrying out of road checks, cordons and so forth?
  Mr. O'Brien: I could discuss each of those, but a gap in the hon. Gentleman's argument strikes me immediately. With an uncharacteristic lack of candour, he has omitted from his list fixed penalty notices, which he mentioned earlier. If he cannot fill that gap and must seek simply to divert attention, he ought to rethink his policy.
  On abandoned vehicles—one of the hon. Gentleman's examples—let us say that some young kids are found in the vicinity of a burning vehicle. If a CSO discovers them and is unsure of the circumstances, he may want to detain them until a police officer arrives on the scene. Under the hon. Gentleman's proposal, however, he would have no power to do so. He would have only two choices. First, he could use his citizen's power of arrest, which might be going too far; after all, under such a power he cannot arrest on suspicion. Secondly, he could let them go. The hon. Gentleman looks confused, as indeed I suspect that he is.
  Mr. Letwin: I cannot understand what that argument has to do with the removal of abandoned vehicles—the actual power in question. In what way do fixed penalty

  87
  notices relating to dog fouling, or to litter and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, require the power of detention? I simply do not understand the argument.
  Mr. O'Brien: The simple and straightforward point is that, if the hon. Gentleman is willing an end, he must also will a means to it. If he wants to be able to issue a fixed penalty notice to an individual, he needs that individual's name and address.
  Martin Linton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
  If a person refused to give their name and address, the CSO would be in a difficult position. If the hon. Gentleman cannot work out how to resolve it, that is his problem. He is creating the difficulty, and through the Bill the Government have set out a way to resolve it. The CSO will have the power to detain for 30 minutes, if necessary. If a person refuses to give—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has had his time. I call Mr. Francis Maude.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: The last time that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) and I followed one another was 10 years ago, when he succeeded me as Member of Parliament for North Warwickshire. I join him in paying tribute to the Warwickshire police force, which is an excellent force, not despite being very small, but because of that fact—a point to which I shall return if I have time.
  I am concerned about police accountability, and I agree that the current arrangements are inadequate. Although there is a deficiency in accountability, I differ from the Government in terms of how it should be dealt with. The deficit should be filled not by increasing centralisation, but by increasing local accountability, and the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made that case to devastating effect.
  I want to use the case of a constituent of mine to illustrate the deficiencies of the current system and the way in which they need to be filled. Although the Bill fills them to an extent, it does not do so completely, as the Minister has acknowledged. The Minister referred obliquely in his opening remarks to the case of John Wilson. On 26 June 1996, then aged 16, having attended an international football match, John Wilson congregated with others in and around Trafalgar square. By common consent, he was a completely innocent bystander in a fracas that developed, during which the Metropolitan police—perfectly properly—deployed police in full riot gear.
  As I said, John Wilson behaved peacefully. He is a responsible boy from a decent background. During the fracas, he was physically charged by a police officer in riot gear, fell backwards, smashed his skull on the pavement and sustained a double fracture. As a result, he suffers from epilepsy, and in the six years since he has
  88
  been unable to study or to work. The High Court finally judged against the Metropolitan police in a civil action in July last year. The judge said:
  "I am utterly convinced that the claimant was the victim of a deliberate unlawful assault."
  That judgment was subsequently upheld in the Court of Appeal, without John Wilson's lawyers being called upon to rebut the Metropolitan police's case.
  During that case, the Metropolitan police behaved—I choose my words carefully—disgracefully. I say that in no spirit of hostility. As a part-time London resident, I depend on them, and in a previous career as a barrister many years ago, my mortgage depended on them as my best client. However, during that case they maintained that it was impossible to identify the police constable responsible for the incident. It is inconceivable that such a serious incident, in which a young boy was laid out cold on the pavement and taken to hospital as an emergency, was not reported or recorded. It certainly should have been, and obviously procedures require that it should.
  It was even maintained subsequently by the Met that the serial of officers—some 25 officers—could not be identified, so that other officers could not be interviewed about the identity of the offending officer. That is literally incredible. I simply do not believe that the serial could not be identified, but that is what was maintained at the time and has subsequently been stuck to.
  Civil litigation was brought by John Wilson's mother, on John's behalf. I pay tribute to Susan Wilson, a redoubtable lady who has stuck to the case with great tenacity for which she deserves great credit. However, the Metropolitan police pursued a campaign of what can be described only as low-level harassment against the case. For example, at one stage, they wrote directly to the legal aid authorities to seek to have John Wilson's legal aid discontinued. It was discontinued, on that unilateral application. However, it was subsequently reinstated, with some strong words of reproof, by the High Court judge.
  The police also pursued an appeal against the High Court judge's ruling on the substantive issue of liability, despite having said immediately afterwards that they would not do so. That appeal was rejected out of hand by the Court of Appeal, as was always likely to happen. Even after that, the police have tried to postpone the hearing on the question of damages, again to the obvious irritation of the judge handling the case. I have numerous other examples of petty behaviour by the Metropolitan police solicitor—all, happily, in vain—trying to hinder the conduct of the case.
  My point in relation to the Bill is that no effective way exists for the Metropolitan police to be held to account, either for what happened in relation to the initial incident and the failure to investigate it by the police themselves, or for the way in which they conducted their defence to the proper and justified civil action brought by John Wilson. The Police Complaints Authority could not investigate the case because there was no identified officer against whom to lodge a complaint. Some of the later wrongdoing by the police prevented investigation of the original wrongdoing by the police.
  I welcome the setting up of the new Independent Police Complaints Commission. However, as drafted, it would not remedy the gap that I have exposed, as the Minister has admitted. I welcome the Minister's commitment to table amendments to fill the gap, because that is very

  89
  important. Incidentally, I pay tribute to the time spent and courtesy shown by the Minister of State on this case. I know that he has taken it seriously.
  It has also transpired that neither the Home Secretary, as the police authority at the time, nor the Metropolitan police authority as the successor authority have any power to investigate the case. That is a deficiency in accountability, and should be remedied. Much of the argument today has concerned where that accountability should lie. I simply raise the case of John Wilson to illustrate the deficiencies that exist.
  In my opinion, accountability, and the probability that police forces will do what local residents want, will not be increased by giving a power to the Home Secretary to tell forces to do what local people want. He is much less likely than the local police authority to know what local residents want. Given the chance, the police will take decisions that respond to local needs. For example, in my constituency of Horsham and next door in Crawley, the local divisional commander—not even the chief constable—has introduced a terrific scheme that puts the police on mountain bikes so that they can pursue yobs who are being disruptive down the alleyways into the housing estates where police cars cannot go. That initiative is popular with the police and the local residents. It makes the police accessible and available. The only people who hate it are the hooligans who find that the police are silently and unexpectedly upon them. That is a local initiative that has not been imposed by the Home Secretary, although he probably thinks that it is a good idea—everyone else does.
  We should consider ways of increasing local accountability and also ask whether police forces are now too big. Many are. The whole notion of economies of scale is a dubious proposition in any circumstances, but in the public sector the reverse is the case. There are inefficiencies because of the scale. We should consider having small authorities, perhaps with directly elected police authorities. That would provide a direct and focused responsiveness to what local people want. It was suggested earlier in the debate that chief constables should be elected. I foresee many difficulties with that, but we should not completely rule it out as a possibility. I cannot imagine anything that would provide greater emphasis on the requirements of local residents, so we should not close our minds to such suggestions.
  There are hundreds of different ways in which the local accountability of the police could be improved. However, we definitely should not go in the opposite direction and push more and more power to the centre. I acknowledge that the Government whom I served in the 1980s achieved a certain amount of centralisation. I admit that that was wrong and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said that it was wrong. We should not continue to make that mistake—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.46 pm
  Ms Candy Atherton: I am pleased to contribute to today's debate. I wish to focus on the clauses relating to blood specimens taken from persons incapable of consenting, because those provisions have a particular significance for at least one of my constituents.
  90
  In November 1999, a young woman died in a road traffic accident in my constituency. Sarah Kettle was young, the owner of a dress shop in Truro and the much loved daughter of my constituent, Mary Kettle. There was another car involved in the accident and the injured driver was taken to hospital unconscious. At the point of impact, his car was travelling on the wrong side of the road at 60 mph in a 30 mph zone.
  As the driver was unconscious on arrival at hospital, he was unable to give consent to a blood sample being taken. When the driver came round he promptly discharged himself from hospital. He later appeared before magistrates who banned him from driving for two years for reckless driving and fined him £250. There were eye-witness accounts of his drinking in a pub beforehand, but without medical proof there was insufficient evidence and the magistrates could do little.
  In other words, because consent could not be given, the definitive piece of evidence could not be obtained. Mrs. Kettle, having endured the tragedy of her daughter's death, sat in court to witness a mockery being made of our legal system. I should make it clear that this is not a witch hunt. I was not there on the evening of the accident and it is not for me to judge. However, since hearing this story and speaking to Mrs. Kettle, I decided that the law was wrong and was not acting in anyone's best interests.
  I believe in allowing the police appropriate powers to bring the guilty to justice. I also believe in giving people the power to prove their innocence. This driver and others like him are left with clouds of suspicion hanging over them for ever. The legal loophole serves only those who have committed an offence, and that is simply perverse. There are even reports of drivers attempting to feign unconsciousness to avoid an immediate roadside test.
  That case is not the first of its kind, but the family involved were vociferous in their campaign for a change in the law. They did not want any other family to go through what they had, so they told their story to national newspapers, to local media and to me. I was pleased to arrange a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), then the Minister of State at the Home Office. I am grateful to him for meeting us so quickly—within a matter of days—and for taking the argument forward through consultation with the British Medical Association and others. He passed the issue to his successor, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety. Ministers recognised that the law as it stood was an obstacle to justice; justice had to be done and had to be seen to be done.
  After the Bill had begun its passage through the other place, Mrs. Kettle came to London a second time and met my right hon. Friend. She related her story once again and heard what the Government were aiming to do. Clause 51 enables a police constable to obtain a sample, irrespective of consent, in the instances laid out in subsection (1). If requested, medical practitioners may take a sample, as they frequently do for medical purposes, from an unconscious patient, and that can be passed to the police. Crucially, when the person regains consciousness, they will be asked to give their consent to the sample being taken into account as evidence. They will still have the power to refuse, as they would at a roadside check, although that could also become a matter for the courts.

  91
  The provisions establish parity, allowing evidence to be taken whether drivers are conscious or not. At present, the law has meant inconsistency.
  I do not dismiss the arguments against the change lightly. Equally, necessary safeguards are attached. The person taking the sample would not be responsible for the immediate clinical care of the patient, which avoids a conflict of responsibilities. That very important point was made in discussions with representatives of the British Medical Association.
  In most instances, as I understand it, the person taking the sample will be a police medical practitioner. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree with the BMA that the care and well-being of the patient must be the first priority of all medical staff. For that reason, blood samples will not be taken from unconscious patients if that would put them at any risk; medical staff would have the power to prevent a sample from being taken on those grounds.
  Other concerns relate to the vexed question of consent. If a sample was obtained when a person had gained consciousness, was that person in a fit state to make the decision? That is a difficult question, but the validity of consent is a much broader issue.
  Mrs. Kettle is expecting this House to deliver. She and her family have suffered a tragedy. The Bill offers a remedy, and I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will support it tonight.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: The background to this debate is a police service that is demoralised, discontented and frustrated. The police are annoyed that they are not being given sufficient resources to provide the service to the community that they wish to provide and are fed up with being abused and assaulted not only by the criminal fraternity but by many of the comments emanating from the Home Secretary. I wish to place on the record my faith in the work that the police do in my constituency and across the country. We should all be giving them our full support and encouragement.
  The police are aggrieved about increased paperwork and the lack of support from magistrates, many of whom are too lenient with persistent offenders. The police are co-opted into worthwhile specialist areas such as drug abuse, child abuse and domestic violence but without the necessary additional resources being allocated for such work, they are taken off the beat, which exacerbates the already poor perception of the police presence.
  More administration staff are required, as is greater administrative streamlining. That would allow others, such as wardens, to take over basic information-gathering tasks such as taking and co-ordinating statements, allowing fully trained officers to go back on to the streets. More cases need to be prepared using computerised techniques to cut down on the massive amount of paperwork that our policemen and women have to endure. Several provisions in the Bill make some attempt to make adjustments to the existing situation, and I warmly welcome them.
  The Home Secretary's plans to take powers to dismiss chief constables and to exert control over police forces by circumventing the chief constable and imposing demands
  92
  on heads of basic command units is unacceptable. The proposition shows a fundamental lack of historical understanding that British policing is policing by local consent; it developed not from the state's desire to control its citizens, as in many continental European countries, but from the desire of local communities to professionalise and improve their volunteer constables. That, ironically and paradoxically, is also proposed in other sections of the Bill.
  The Bill unbalances the tripartite relationship between chief constables, police authorities and the Home Secretary. It introduces excessive centralised control. The solution is to decentralise and increase democratic accountability, not to withdraw to a more centrally controlled structure.
  The Bill intervenes directly in police forces, bypassing police authorities and thereby local democratic accountability. As has been said, the Government were defeated on the original clause 5 in another place and I hope that they will not seek to reintroduce its provisions. Clause 7 allows direct adoption of particular policing practices if the Secretary of State perceives that to be in the national interest. That is a very dangerous route to take.
  Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to direct a police authority to suspend its chief constable even when it does not judge that to be necessary to maintain local confidence in the force. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers accept that following the logic of that argument to its conclusion would be very dangerous.
  Clause 77 requires police authorities to submit their three-year plans to the Home Secretary. With this Government, I am surprised that the Bill does not specify a 10-year plan. The plans have to be checked, and if they do not fit in with the Home Secretary's desire, they will presumably have to be changed, irrespective of the local operational facets current at the time. I doubt whether anyone in the House would object to best practice and to forces learning from one another, but exerting political control and centralising power and decision making is not the way forward.
  Both Lord Scarman and the Castle report highlighted the importance of local policing being responsive and sensitive to local circumstances. The formation of district-based crime and disorder reduction partnerships across Lincolnshire, including in my constituency, has started to improve the ability of local communities to share responsibility for community safety with police. To my mind, the Bill removes much of that local flexibility. It starts to create a national police force by the back door.
  I wish to address the provisions that radically change the nature and style of local policing—namely, community support officers—and provide for a whole range of auxiliary non-police officers with arrest powers patrolling the streets in our urban and rural areas. In my constituency, Boston borough council has formulated an excellent and effective warden scheme. I have met those wardens and have a tremendous amount of time and respect for them, but both the police and the wardens believe it correct that wardens should have not full or partial police powers. Their role should be complementary, not a lesser, cheaper substitute and replacement for police officers.
  Boston borough council and others are filling a vacuum that has been created, and the situation needs to be reversed. I wrote to all the parish councils in my

  93
  constituency and they responded, in unison, and without prompting, that they would like to see policemen in their rural areas. They want effective policing. Surely the answer is not to create a confused and multi-layered structure of different auxiliaries, with different powers both within the same police authority and between police authorities. Nothing should be done that would deter the police from taking back the streets as either neighbourhood custodians or responsible citizens in a particular geographical area.
  We must find a way of restoring confidence both in the rural villages and on the urban estates in my constituency and beyond. We must get more police on the streets and we must use our existing officers to greater and more visible effect. We must reduce centralisation and improve the local democratic accountability that this Bill will severely damage.
  8 pm
  Ms Bridget Prentice: I welcome the Bill and the Government's commitment to tackling crime in all its forms. I especially welcome the Home Secretary's response to the many points that the Select Committee on Home Affairs made when we scrutinised the measure. That pre-legislative scrutiny might not have been ideal, as part of it took place while the House of Lords was debating the Bill; none the less, we managed to see almost everyone who was interested in the progress of the Bill.
  I shall concentrate especially on community support officers and on police costs, despite the fact that in the case of the latter the Committee declined to make specific recommendations.
  Much has been said about community support officers since they were proposed in the Bill. Many vested interests have raised their voice in protest: such officers would water down policing; we should end up using more police resources than we would have done otherwise; we would be policing on the cheap, and so on. The Select Committee rightly noted that the only way to know for sure is to try out the proposal. After all, if the largest police force in the country—the Met—is enthusiastically in favour of such a scheme, surely we should have the courage and confidence to see whether it works.
  As has already been said, no one will be forced to join in. However, I believe that other forces will want to use such officers when they see the results in London. Indeed, I understand that, after the initial flurry of negative responses, more and more chief officers and police authorities are beginning to see the merits of the proposal.
  Perhaps London, as the capital city, is different. I do not know, but I find it difficult to believe that Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds do not have much the same policing needs as we do in London. However, if they do not—so be it.
  I speak as a Member who represents an inner-London constituency where crime is at the top of everyone's agenda and where the added problems of higher security risks and terrorist attacks are at the forefront of everyone's mind, so when Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan commissioner, told us that, post-11 September, 300 plus officers had to act as eyes and ears for suspect packages in central London, we had to ask where they were to come from. They came from boroughs such as mine—from Lewisham, Lambeth, Wandsworth, Hounslow and so on.
  94
  When my borough commander said that street crime had soared in Lewisham post-11 September, no one was very surprised; but because Lewisham is the safest inner-London borough in which to live, it was also deeply disappointing. Of course, the reason was obvious: as long as highly skilled police officers were being taken off the streets of Lewisham and elsewhere to look after the security needs of Members of Parliament here in Westminster, the rise in street crime was inevitable.
  Surely it would be better to use between 300 and 500 community support officers—or auxiliaries as the Met calls them—to do the job of being eyes and ears, like the superb security staff in this place, thus allowing police officers to go back to the boroughs and do the highly skilled job for which they were trained. I really wonder at the stance taken by some people on that issue when that solution is so obvious.
  I turn to community safety accreditation schemes. The Select Committee heard evidence about neighbourhood warden schemes and I want to consider one in my own borough—sadly, we do not have one in my constituency, but I hope that we shall soon remedy that. The scheme is based on the Honor Oak estate, in the north of the borough, where residents consider that crime has a major impact on their quality of life.
  Lewisham council is extremely proud of its partnership with the local police force and the community—rightly so. Furthermore, it is important to remember that with crime and disorder people do not react only to the most serious offences—the tip of the iceberg. As Martin Ryan, the council officer in charge of the scheme, said:
  "They see the whole iceberg."
  So-called low level crime and disorder such as graffiti, abusive and loutish behaviour and vehicle crime all have a major impact on the fear of crime in our communities.
  The wardens are helping to resolve those problems. Since the patrols commenced on that estate, there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in calls to the police; a 69 per cent. reduction in auto crime; an 80 per cent. reduction in racist crime; and a 75 per cent. reduction in burglary. That is against the background of a general increase in reported crime. Neither I nor anyone involved would suggest that the scheme is a panacea, but it is clearly having a positive impact, especially in reducing the fear of crime.
  Accredited community safety organisations, of which local authority warden schemes would be an example, must surely be welcomed in the overall fight against crime, in the partnership between the police, the council and the local community.
  I want to turn to an aspect that is not covered by the Bill but which was raised with the Committee by the Met and to which we refer in our recommendations: the cost of policing commercial events. The Met argues that it receives only 10 to 20 per cent. of its costs in policing some sporting and other events. It gave the example of a low-level Chelsea game where the force received £397 from the club for an exercise that cost £13,705.
  When the Committee considered that point, we accepted the comment of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety that the matter was problematic in that smaller, less well-off football clubs and other organisations might not have pockets deep enough to cope with those costs. However, we ask the Government that guidance be reviewed in that area.

  95
  That point is especially important in the light of the remarks I am about to make. When the Second Reading debate was scheduled for today, I did not know that we should have to refer to the dreadful and appalling events in Lewisham on Thursday night after the Millwall-Birmingham game. I emphasise the fact that Millwall football club, under the excellent chairmanship of Theo Paphitis, has done wonders in changing the behaviour at the ground of fans who, in the past, had a well-earned reputation for disruptive and violent behaviour. The work carried out by the club in the local community is excellent and deserves wider praise and support.
  However, Thursday night's violence was not down to one or two hooligans. It was an orchestrated assault on the police. I asked Commander Humphrey, the borough commander, about it when he returned to the election count shortly after the events. He described how between 400 and 500 thugs directed each other on mobile phones about ways to attack and injure police officers and horses, innocent bystanders and fans. Thunder flashes were exploded; cars were set alight; 47 officers were injured; all 34 horses were injured; and so, too, were many fans. No doubt some of the cars that were set alight belonged to law-abiding Millwall fans. A children's playground was wrecked and equipment used as weaponry.
  I know that Millwall football club will do everything possible to help to identify those thugs, but I have to point out to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), that that is a dark example of what the police have to put up with and we have to pay for in the general policing budget. That event may serve as a powerful and timely reason for giving more thought to how such occasions are paid for. I would make every hooligan found guilty of any crime in that attack pay directly to the police, the community and the fans for the shame that they have brought on the club and the devastation that they have wreaked on the local community.
  The Bill goes a long way towards making the police more able to do well the job that we entrust to them. There are aspects that need further clarification, but I hope that the Home Secretary will not be diverted from the main thrust of the Bill by the concerns of vested interests when my constituents want policing at its best—catching criminals and reducing crime.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: I am delighted to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), who, like me, sits on the Home Affairs Committee. I commend our report to the House: we did as good a job as we could in the limited time that we had, and, in many ways, we were chasing a moving target—the Bill kept being amended in the other place, the Government kept being defeated, and we kept having to comment on something that was changing. The current Bill is an improvement on the one that was published, and some parts of it are widely supported, particularly the independent complaints commission for the police, which is supported on both sides of the House.
  I believe, however—this is where I differ from the hon. Member for Lewisham, East, although we were able to sign up to the report together—that the Bill was wrong in
  96
  its conception and remains wrong in much of its execution. What was wrong with the conception is the point about centralisation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) spoke clearly about that. This seems to be a default setting for the Government: they know, and they are right, that many things are wrong in the public services, and they rightly want to address them. Their answer, however, always seems to be to draw more power to the centre, which is profoundly the wrong way to go about it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pointed out that the Secretary of State is mentioned 21 times in the first four pages of the Bill. It is very much the Secretary of State who is being given the power. Remarkably, police authorities are barely mentioned in the Bill. If the Government think that police authorities are not good enough, they are not doing a good job, or they are not correctly constituted, they should come forward with proposals to change them. We could talk about that. What is not right, however, is taking all the power and handing it to the Home Secretary. It has been mentioned that clause 5 was removed in the other place, but the beginning of clause 6 states:
  "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring all police forces in England and Wales … to adopt particular procedures or practices".
  That is drawing powers towards the centre, which is wrong. Clause 5 itself was called "Directions to chief officers". The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety is therefore wrong to say that the measure is not about centralisation.
  Lady Hermon: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in Northern Ireland each local council has a district policing partnership made up of council representatives and independent members who are representative on the basis of sex, origin and various other characteristics? Would the hon. Gentleman like that—or a form of local accountability—to be extended to England and Wales?
  Mr. Cameron: I certainly would. We often have things to learn from Northern Ireland. I served in the Home Office when the Police Act 1996 was drafted. That introduced independent members for police authorities, which the Association of Police Authorities now says were a thoroughly good thing.
  Members on both sides of the House have spoken about the tripartite structure of the police service in this country—the Home Secretary, the chief constables and the police authorities. The tripartite structure is not just a good thing because it has a long name and it is there. It delivers something terribly important—police forces in this country have operational independence from the Home Secretary. 'That helps to give us policing by consent. The Home Affairs Committee referred to that at the beginning of our report:
  "We believe that the tripartite structure and operational independence of police forces are essential safeguards against politicisation and centralisation of the police."
  I am worried that we are going in the wrong direction tonight. I do not want to live in a country that has an interior ministry to which the police forces report. I am not saying that the Bill will deliver that in one go, but I profoundly believe that we are going in the wrong direction.

  97
  I asked a lot of questions on the Home Affairs Committee, particularly of the Association of Police Authorities. That is why I think that there is more to this than the removal of clause 5 by the House of Lords. Mr. Peel—great name—of the Association of Police Authorities said to me:
  "Effectively what we are saying is 'Please take out Part 1".
  He referred not to clause 5 but to part 1, and added:
  "Most of the rest of it is a matter of detail."
  We therefore have some problems.
  The conception of this Bill should have started with what is wrong with the police service in this country. Let me give four headings for that: we cannot keep enough good officers; it is almost impossible to sack bad officers; the ones that we have are strangled with red tape and paperwork; and there are not enough of them in any event. My problem with the Bill is that it provides no real answer to the first three of those problems. The problems of police disciplinary procedures are largely ignored by the Bill. It is a great irony that, once the Bill has been passed, the Home Secretary will be able to sack every chief constable in the land, just by order from his office. What about the chief inspector in the Witney nick, or the chief inspector running a basic command unit—will they be able to get rid of a police officer who is not corrupt but who is not particularly good at the job? That is incredibly difficult. We should be devolving power to police forces down to the basic command unit so that that can happen. I asked Mr. Ian Blair—not Mr. Peel, but Mr. Blair—how many of these problems with disciplinary procedures are addressed by the Police Reform Bill. He replied:
  "I do not think any of them are addressed by the Police Reform Bill."
  That is a missed opportunity.
  The question that the Government do try to answer through the Bill is that of having more officers. Their answer is community support officers. There has been a lot of confusion about them, not least from the Prime Minister, who was asked about them at Question Time by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). The Prime Minister gave them four different titles, so even the Government are not clear what those officers are meant to do. I agree with the comment that we should be in favour of more officers and more elements in the police family, whether wardens, specials or CSOs. What we must not have is confusion about their powers. That is a recipe for problems.
  Mr. Elliott of the Police Federation appeared before the Select Committee and was asked what issues his organisation had with the 30-minute power of detention that was in the Bill. He replied:
  "The practical difficulty with that is that anybody who knows anything about street policing knows that the first thing that you do when you arrest somebody is to try to get them out of the public eye. It is the most ridiculous thing to have somebody stood trying to explain why he or she has been arrested to them and you gather a crowd, it is embarrassing for the person who has been arrested, it is difficult for the officer, it is a recipe for disaster."
  It was not just the Police Federation that said that. The superintendents had their concerns, and some of the chief officers had concerns. I am not saying that the CSOs should be scrapped. Let us have different elements in the police family as an experiment, as the Home Affairs Committee said, but please do not compel police forces and police authorities to go down this route.
  98
  I was a little disappointed by what the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety said in answer to the question that I asked him about using ring-fenced funding. The Bill has the ingredients to make sure that the Home Secretary has his or her way with every police force in the country with regard to CSOs. The Home Secretary can say, "Here is the ring-fenced funding; you only get it if you have CSOs." Compulsion to have CSOs can be included in policing plans. There is even concern that some of the powers on adopting procedures and practices could be used to insist on having CSOs.
  Everyone who appeared before the Home Affairs Committee said, "Go for the local solution. Give us the money and let us get on with the job." The response from the Association of Police Authorities was,
  "Why not more police officers?"
  Sir David Phillips, the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:
  "Do you think there will be more operational gain from four police officers or six community support officers? … the answer would be four police officers".
  That is the message that we want the Government to take home tonight: they should give the police authorities and the police forces the money, and leave them with more operational independence to respond with local solutions to local problems. The man in Whitehall—who is mentioned 21 times in the Bill but does not have the courtesy to turn up here this afternoon—does not always know best.
  8.19 pm
  Ross Cranston: First, I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I was flatfooted by the fact that proceedings on the Bill did not start until nearly 5.30 pm, so I was not able to hear all his remarks.
  I want to deal with the proposition that the Bill is somehow a major attack on the tripartite structure of the Home Secretary, chief constables and local police authorities. I do not accept that point or that we have the foundations of an interior ministry as described by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and other Conservative Members. The much more measured response of the Select Committee on Home Affairs is to be preferred.
  Three fundamental principles are involved when we talk about the police. The first is that the police have to uphold the rule of law. They have to protect citizens' lives, liberties and property and they have to prevent public disorder and assuage citizens' fear of crime. Secondly, the police have to act in partnership. Traditionally in this country, that involves the notion of community policing. However, in more recent times, legislation has meant that the police have been called upon to act in partnership with local police authorities and, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, with other bodies, such as local authorities. That is a good thing.
  The third principle is the important one of accountability. One aspect of that is the police's accountability for their performance, and one aspect of performance is efficiency. The powers in part 1 are perfectly proper in terms of ensuring better accountability for efficiency. In a way, the foundations of that were laid by the previous Government. The Police Act 1996

  99
  brought together and consolidated a number of provisions whereby the Home Secretary could set performance targets, require a policy authority to have a chief constable retire and so on. There is nothing new in the principle of accountability being designed to improve the performance and efficiency of the police. I therefore do not accept the notion that the sky will fall in as a result of part 1.
  The performance of police forces around the country is variable, and it would be much better for our citizens if the performance of the best was emulated by all forces. One aspect of performance that varies enormously is the quality of files submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service. If we can improve performance through the activities of the standards unit and other measures, so much the better.
  My remarks will concentrate, however, on the Bill's provisions that deal with antisocial behaviour, which is a major concern. I shall consider two aspects of the issue: the use of community support officers and accredited community safety schemes, and the special provisions in the Bill for antisocial behaviour orders.
  I want to make four points about community support officers and accredited community safety schemes. The first is that we already have an extended police family. We already have traffic wardens, security staff, street wardens, local trading standards officers and environmental health officers, and we even have citizens involved as part of the extended police family in as much as they are members of neighbourhood watch schemes. We are not dealing with a new principle.
  The second point is that community support officers and accredited community safety schemes will be under police control. If a chief constable does not want community support officers, he or she does not have to have them. Of course, there is also control over the accreditation for community safety schemes. That is a second guarantee, which is contained in the Bill, that ensures that ancillary aspects of the police family will operate in accordance with the law.
  The third aspect is that the powers of the community support officers, as set out in schedules 4 and 5, will be very limited. The extended police family already has certain powers. For example, trading standards officers and environmental health officers have the power of access to premises and they can seize property, but we shall entrust only limited powers to community support officers and members of accredited community safety schemes. My hon. Friends have mentioned the power of citizen's arrest. Although that power is not especially favoured by the courts, it is possible for store detectives to affect a citizen's arrest. Again, the Bill does not do anything new in terms of principle.
  My fourth point is that there is always a bureaucratic imperative when agencies are established with a special responsibility. The police take antisocial behaviour seriously, but they have a whole range of other responsibilities. By entrusting to special units in the extended police family responsibility for dealing with antisocial behaviour, we will better address the problem.
  The evidence already exists. The preliminary results that were published in 1999 in the Home Office paper "Neighbourhood Warden Schemes: an Overview" identified some of the emerging evidence. More recently,
  100
  a casual perusal of the publication "Warden" shows the whole range of benefits that such schemes can bring. For example, the No. 4 bulletin, which is the most recent one, contains accounts of how east Manchester has recorded a 30 per cent. drop in crime following a community-driven package that includes the use of wardens. Wardens in Sheffield have fast-tracked the processing of abandoned vehicles, reducing the time from 30 to 10 days. There are also accounts about what has happened to deal with graffiti in Middlesbrough and to get rid of the needles used by drugs addicts in Hull. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) also mentioned the Honor Oak scheme in her constituency. There have been definite achievements.
  When antisocial behaviour orders were introduced in 1998, they were a major advance. The recent Home Office report No. 236, which was published in April, suggests, however, that there have been problems and that we have not had as many antisocial behaviour orders as we want. In the borough of Dudley, 16 ASBOs have been issued. Seven of them have been breached and that has led to custody in every case. However, we need more ASBOs to deal with the issue.
  The Home Office report identified several problems. One was witness intimidation, and that must be addressed. Others were delay and the patchy performance of local authorities. Clause 55 attempts to deal with those problems by extending jurisdiction and by giving registered social landlords the power to seek ASBOs and the county courts the power to issue them. I welcome that.
  I also welcome the steps taken on the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the assurance by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety that provisions on whistleblowing will be introduced in the Bill in Committee. The Government promised such provisions when the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 was introduced, and I look forward to the way in which such provisions can deal with the problem of malpractice in the police, in as much as it occurs.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: It is a contempt of Parliament that the Home Secretary is not here to take through what on the Government's own admission—not that of the Opposition—is an extremely important Bill. It is no disrespect to the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety to say that he has been put up as the monkey when the organ grinder should have been present. It is, of course, in stark contrast to what the Prime Minister has said about his belief in the importance of Parliament and, therefore, to the proposals that he has suggested to demonstrate that, such as coming before the Liaison Committee. I am afraid that the Home Secretary has betrayed the Prime Minister's intentions in that respect. The Minister could have done himself and the House a favour by explaining why the Home Secretary is not in the Chamber.
  The debate is being held not just against the background of the contentious issues that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) set out so graphically, but against a great deal of dissatisfaction in the police service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) said, morale is extremely low. There was an overwhelming vote against

  101
  the Government's proposals on pay and conditions, and the police service has been left thinking that it is not appreciated by the Government. Everything that the Government have said about their intentions to improve the lot of our police service, to make it more modern and to improve the detection of crime has to be set against the experience of police officers up and down the country in recent months.
  I make no apologies, as a Hampshire Member, for bringing to the attention of the House and the Minister the concerns of the police in that county. The chief constable, Mr. Paul Kernaghan, wrote to me on 25 February this year. Against the background of the dissatisfaction of the federated ranks, he said:
  "My personal view and I stress it is a personal view, is that the federated ranks did not primarily look at the agreement in terms of whether or not they would personally gain from its implementation. I feel that given its conditional nature, many officers utilised the ballot as a means of expressing their anger at what they perceive as a sustained denigration of the police service in recent months. It is not appropriate for me to speculate as to how that climate in the media arose. However, you should be aware that many officers feel angry and resentful as a result."
  That speaks volumes. Mr. Kernaghan is chief constable of a force that serves a county for which the Minister is a Member of Parliament and he is reporting the dissatisfaction of police officers in our county.
  On 18 January this year, a number of right hon. and hon. Members met members of the Police Federation at Netley where we listened to their concerns about what was happening. Something like 78 police officers were present, all of whom had come in their own time. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), my hon. Friends the Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts), for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) were present. It was one and three quarter hours into our discussion before the issue of pay arose, so it was not a bleating operation by police officers in Hampshire, but the expression of real concerns, three of which I shall highlight.
  The first relates to the new scheme to create community support officers. First and foremost, officers were worried about the experience of CSOs and what knowledge they would bring to the policing of our locality. They wanted to know who would train them and how long that would last. The particular point was made that cases might not proceed to court because those acting in a quasi-police role who do not have the full training and do not understand the ins and outs of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and other Acts that regulate the conduct by which police officers bring evidence to court would be unlikely to follow the rules of evidence.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman sets out why we should not have CSOs. Is he therefore at odds with his Front-Bench spokesmen who favour them, except for their powers of arrest?
  Mr. Howarth: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who is very intelligent, failed to grasp that I am highlighting the concerns of police officers in Hampshire and some of the practical questions that they posed. That is not the same as opposing the idea of introducing CSOs; I am merely posing questions that have not been answered by the Government on how the CSOs will operate.
  102
  The police officers made it clear that they do not want to fill in forms or write out verbatim reports. Instead, they want to be on the streets doing precisely the job that the CSOs are supposed to do. As one of them said, that role used to be played by park keepers, bus conductors and others in a uniform. It is because those people are not so much in evidence and, indeed, because of the fear that some people might take the law into their own hands that the Government have come up with the proposals. The overwhelming message was that existing officers want to get on to the streets. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made that point. He also referred to the special constabulary. We need to increase the number of specials rather than creating CSOs in the first instance.
  The second point made by the police officers relates to bureaucracy. Police officers spend a great deal of time sitting around in court. Sometimes that is because the courts are not well organised and police officers spend time waiting for cases to be heard that are not running on schedule. That is a complete waste of their time. The Government should do something to address that problem because that will help to ensure that police officers do the job that they are supposed to be doing.
  Vera Baird: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: If the hon. and learned Lady will forgive me, I will not because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  One of the members of the constabulary, who is based at Aldershot police station, wrote to me explaining how difficult it is to do the job that he is charged with doing. He said:
  "Mr. Blunkett obviously does not appreciate the complexities of criminal investigation … I compile files for some of the most serious and complex of cases that occur in Hampshire. I can assure you that the Police receive little co-operation from other Government Agencies, telephone companies and Banking institutes with the investigation of crime. Many Agencies are so confused and frightened by"
  the European convention on human rights,
  "such as Article 8, and they are no longer willing to make inquiries on behalf of the Police even with a written report explaining the full justifications for doing so … The amount of reports covering Data Protection and ECHR issues that I have to write on a weekly basis are one of the major reasons that our investigations take so long to complete."
  The Bill does little, if anything, to address the concerns of police officers about the amount of time that it takes to bring cases to court. What police officers want is a reduction in bureaucracy, but there is very little sign of that in the Bill. That is a practical example for the Minister of how the Bill fails to address the concerns of the policemen out there on our streets.
  Finally, the independence of police authorities has been mentioned several times. I simply want to reinforce the arguments that the Minister has now heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House. His own police chief, Mr. Kernaghan, asks:
  "Why have additional powers been sought and what are the implications of the proposed changes in legislation?"
  He continues:
  "I respectfully suggest that the lack of safeguards and the effective bypassing of police authorities will result in a cadre of Chief Constables obsessed with pleasing the Home Office, regardless of

  103
  their own professional judgement. Chief Constables cannot be above account but the current proposals will result in increased central control at the expense of local representatives."
  There in a nutshell is the case against what the Government are doing, and I hope that they will have the sense and the wit to recognise the validity of the changes made in another place, and to accept them here.
  8.39 pm
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: I welcome the Bill for its radical police reform. Time is of the essence, and I shall concentrate on parts 2 and 3, and particularly clauses 8 to 34 on complaints and misconduct.
  It is no secret that in Teesside our local community has been sorely riven by one of the most high-profile police disciplinary cases that has arisen in this country. I refer, of course, to Operation Lancet, of which I am sure some hon. Members are aware. There have been debates about it in the Chamber and publicity in the national papers. Serious allegations were made against eight serving Cleveland police officers, most notably Detective Superintendent Ray Mallon, all of whom were suspended. Subsequently, a further 400 allegations that could be construed as criminal were made against 60 officers.
  The case became a huge operation that took on a life of its own: 571 disciplinary notices were served; 6,701 inquiries were launched; 3,162 statements were taken and 8,311 other documents were taken into consideration. After a period of intense scrutiny and the referral of the allegations to the Crown Prosecution Service, none of those allegations was found to have any criminal content. Lancet has lasted for over four and a half years, and I estimate that it has cost over £7 million.
  I do not intend to enter into a debate on the rights and wrongs of Operation Lancet—that is not the purpose of this debate. However, its subject is a fresh look at how police misconduct matters could be handled in future, and what lessons we can learn from the problems highlighted by the present system. My concerns are that it is bureaucratic and cumbersome, and gives a licence for investigations to grow like Topsy.
  The present system dates from 1984 and is itself the child of previous legislation. The Home Office has always made it clear that the aim of legislation governing police complaints is
  "to investigate complaints about individual policemen or women and not about the direction and control of a police force".
  However, in cases such as Lancet and similar investigations elsewhere in the UK, it is difficult to discuss the substance of allegations against a police officer and the defence of that officer without looking at the central direction of a police force and whether that direction serves the public interest.
  Allegations have been made against individual serving and suspended police officers which have been publicly rebutted by those very officers. Allegations and counter-allegations have been made not in a committee room at force headquarters but in the columns of the national press and on television. They have been part of a controversy that has rocked and destabilised the Cleveland police—a controversy that arose solely from serious jealousies and rivalries within the ranks of the senior management of the Cleveland force.
  104
  There are big issues here too about the seeming independence and openness of the complaints procedure. I want to make it clear that I am not criticising the officers from external forces who were drafted in to consider Lancet issues; they have conducted themselves in the great spirit of impartiality and independence which should characterise this country's police. However, the procedure has led the public of Teesside to conclude that Lancet is a case of the police investigating the police.
  When questions arise about the suitability of the actions of the employing force and about the central direction and management of that force, it would be better to have an independent structure in place. That has been called for several times in relation to matters other than Lancet, most notably in the Macpherson report on the murder of Stephen Lawrence. From my own local perspective, it is welcome that the Bill addresses the need for an independent complaints commission.
  Norman Baker: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the police should not investigate the police. However, does he agree that if that is to be achieved it is important that the independent commission is properly staffed and financed, otherwise the inquiries it looks at will go on for any length of time, as has Operation Lancet?
  Dr. Kumar: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister heard that. Doubtless the commission will receive strong support; the Minister addressed that earlier.
  The independent complaints commission will have its own powers of investigation: it can call in a case for investigation or supervision and decide what level of investigation is fitting or justifiable in the light of the seriousness of a case; it can call for papers relevant to the investigation to be made available to it; it will have the power to enter any police premises without let or hindrance; and it can allow third parties access to the investigation. If an Independent Police Complaints Commission had existed, Lancet would not have become a debacle and public moneys would not have been needlessly spent on an investigation that went nowhere.
  I wholeheartedly support the spirit of clause 8, which allows for the appointment to the commission of members who are not past or present members of a police force, thus allowing for greater public confidence and greater freedom to look laterally at the case under investigation, the way in which it has been handled by the force concerned, and the burden of the complaint laid against a serving officer or officers.
  The Government were elected on a promise of openness and transparency in public life.
  Mr. Colin Challen: And they fulfilled it.
  Dr. Kumar: I agree wholeheartedly.
  The Bill is a testament to that great promise—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may laugh, but their Government never delivered that. Nowhere is the Bill more open and radical than in its clauses on police discipline and complaints; the only pity is that it was not introduced sooner. Had that been the case, the public of Teesside would have been saved many years of doubt, concern and anger and honest police officers would have

  105
  been allowed to get on with the job that they know best—policing effectively the streets of the towns, estates and villages of Middlesbrough.
  8.47 pm
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: The genuine desire for reform, across the political spectrum and among relevant organisations, is welcome; clearly everyone shares the vital objective of curbing antisocial behaviour. Division in opinion largely concerns the details.
  I should like to look at three areas: the extension of the Home Secretary's powers; the responsibility and scope of powers given to community support officers and accredited community safety officers; and the use of antisocial behaviour orders. Excellent cross-party work was undertaken in the other place and I commend colleagues on their work to change the more illiberal aspects of the original Bill. The Government introduced some welcome amendments, but there were also strong messages for them about various aspects of the Bill. I welcome the removal of clause 5 from part 1 of the original Bill, as it would have granted the Secretary of State powers to give directions to chief officers. I feel, as do many people—many hon. Members have expressed such views tonight—that it is inappropriate for a Home Secretary both to give orders to chief officers on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces and to scrutinise action plans. The clause would diminish local influence, accountability and control, leading to a diminished role for chief officers and police authorities, whether actual or perceived, in the system.
  As a local councillor, I know only too well the problems of lack of powers and authority locally. The level of centralisation and lack of true devolution in England are significant contributors to many problems in our local communities. They also lead to a blame culture. All the time in the local authority we have a sort of ping-pong game: "It's the local authority's fault", then, "It's the Government's fault". With the centralisation of power, we bring in the blame culture with no true accountability.
  By concentrating powers over the police in the hands of the Home Secretary and, in consequence, taking powers away from chief officers and police authorities in clauses throughout the Bill, we are reinforcing the view on the ground that under the present Government power rests only with central Government in London. Although London may be important, there are those of us from the shire counties who see life differently. Life is very different in different parts of the country.
  I agree with one of my colleagues in the other place who argued that during all stages of the passage of the Bill through the Lords, the Government provided little or no hard evidence to show why such powers in the hands of the Home Secretary are necessary, or in what circumstances they would be used. That colleague also pointed out that many new initiatives to tackle crime have been launched by the Government and draw on the experience and knowledge of numerous organisations, including the Association of Police Authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the courts. With such initiatives, why are additional powers for the Home Secretary necessary?
  106
  I am not convinced that the Government's own amendments—clause 42—are enough to address fully the concerns of members of both Opposition parties, although I welcome the Government's efforts to improve the Bill.
  As hon. Members have said, the tripartite system should remain just that. The Home Secretary should not be in a position to override local control. Such political power—that is the crunch—should not hang over the police force. It contradicts the rationale underlying the tripartite system, which we all value.
  On the use of civilian support, I shall begin by examining the proposed powers. I am concerned that the issues that caused so much debate in the other place and clauses that were so opposed by my colleagues there will simply be reintroduced. Many of those clauses infringe the liberty of our citizens. I do not deny that something must be done to prevent antisocial and criminal behaviour, but I am not sure that a non-police officer with limited training and powers should be able to detain someone for up to 30 minutes. We had a debate on that tonight, but I should like to add another point. What if a constable or a police officer does not appear within the allocated 30 minutes? In my part of the country, one cannot guarantee that the police will turn up in 30 minutes. That could lead to a very odd situation.
  I welcomed the removal of clause 40, which would have enabled the Home Secretary to amend and supplement the list of police powers that civilians might possess. I am worried about the provision being reinstated.
  With regard to the various forms of civilian support proposed in the Bill, I acknowledge that the Government do not intend to impose community support officers on police authorities where they are not required or wanted. Perhaps I am being generous; various hon. Members have mentioned the issue of ring-fencing. However, I am still rather naive, so I shall accept that assumption for the moment. I am concerned that in the absence of enough funding for police officers, police authorities can easily be seduced by the prospect of three for the price of two. I am frequently seduced in that manner when shopping in the supermarket; one does not always make the best decision. It is the seductive nature of the proposal that is inherently taking us down the wrong line.
  Mr. Denham: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Brooke: I should like to carry on, as I am worried about the time.
  I am very concerned about the authorities' proposed powers, and I think that variations in powers between neighbouring authorities could create great confusion. In all these matters, clarity and ease of understanding are vital. Will the public really be clear about all the different categories proposed in the Bill? Neighbourhood wardens are being introduced in one part of my constituency. I am very pleased about that; I would like them to be introduced throughout the whole constituency. They will have a distinctive uniform. The important thing is that they are employed by the police and have arisen from a partnership between the police and local authorities. I feel that we should have not accredited community safety officers but one type of community safety warden whose role is clearly defined and must be recognised only by local authorities and the police.

  107
  I want briefly to mention antisocial behaviour orders. When we discuss those orders in Committee, we must consider not only the evaluation of their effectiveness, but what guidance is being given to local and other authorities on rehabilitative measures. I do not think that ASBOs work effectively by themselves. They need to be used with other measures as well; indeed, there are lots of measures that we can use besides ASBOs, which should be a last resort. I cannot agree with the simplistic suggestion that a large number of ASBOs is a good thing and that a small number is a bad thing. That argument is far too simplistic.
  In conclusion, I should like to highlight the fact that the police need and deserve support. Police morale is low, but we have to get the support right. I welcome in principle the use of available civilians to undertake some of the tasks that are currently carried out by police officers and to allow the police to concentrate on police work rather than incessant form filling. However, the dividing line between civilian and police work should be very clear. We need more police officers in the most demanding areas and support for preventive measures at local community level. Surely, we should focus on crime prevention and nipping crime in the bud. The costs to society are too great for us to begrudge spending in this area, and the possible benefits are too great to ignore.
  8.57 pm
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate.
  Hon. Members may be aware that I am chairman of the all-party group on abuse investigations. During the past four years, I have received a considerable amount of correspondence from the family and friends of individuals who believe that they have been convicted of crimes that they did not commit about the validity and integrity of police and criminal justice procedures. The members of the all-party group have not considered individual cases, but have examined the processes used by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other criminal justice structures. Along with numerous professionals working in the criminal justice system, the group's members have grave concerns about the processes currently employed in the system.
  It is in that context that I welcome the Bill. I wish to contain my remarks to the following areas: the failure of existing policing arrangements and my concerns about the proposals before the House. To date, I believe that there has been a demonstrable failure by police authorities to share good practice with other authorities. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that the Attorney-General has referred the Damilola Taylor case for review. I am concerned about the absence of any structure that requires, rather than requests, that police authorities implement the recommendations that will be made following the Attorney-General's review.
  I believe that there is a manifest failure among police authorities to review their performance and procedures to ensure that they are effective. Indeed, I note that unless authorities are directed by some catastrophic disaster such as the Stephen Lawrence or Damilola Taylor cases to make recommendations to improve internal practices and procedures, very few of them will do so.
  108
  Police authorities have been unable to develop local information databases that reflect significant local circumstances or to produce statistics that could be used to justify local policing plans instead of reflecting national priorities. That is a serious problem.
  I am deeply concerned about the failure of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary—HMIC—to improve the effectiveness of police authorities. I have read all the HMIC's reports from 1995, and it seems to spend a great deal of time reviewing how police authorities achieve targets, rather than examining the procedures and practices that the police use to achieve those targets. The reports suggest that the HMIC is more interested in the number of cases coming off the end of the production line than in the quality of those cases.
  The failure of the police authority and the HMIC structures to employ and utilise the services of experts who could be instrumental in improving the effectiveness of police authorities leads to a great deal of inefficiency and wasted time. The police must be masters of a particular trade, not try to be jack of all the trades in which a modern, effective organisation must be engaged.
  I have great concern about the technical competence of officers. That arises from the number of cases that are repeatedly rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service, which then need to be reworked. I am equally concerned about the number of cases that are subsequently discontinued in court. The current processes are manifestly inefficient, and some authorities seem to be unable to tackle the inefficiencies. I suspect that that is because they do not adequately train staff or retain appropriately qualified staff.
  On the failure of the complaints system, I recently asked a series of parliamentary questions on the number of complaints received by the police, the CPS, the Attorney-General, the HMIC and Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate. In some cases, no statistics on complaints are collected; in others, the statistics that are collected are not subject-focused. How can people involved in the criminal justice system know what concerns the public if they do not collect the statistics that flow from complaints?
  I turn to the Bill. I have grave reservations about the proposal to establish a separate standards unit. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, with all its faults, should be expanded and required to undertake the activity ascribed to the standards unit—although I recognise that it was the HMIC's inability to seize the initiative on improving standards that led to the proposal. I seek reassurances that the two units will eventually merge. I am normally fundamentally opposed to command from the centre. Can the Minister confirm that the new police standards unit will, in the longer term, be an enabling authority that encourages police authorities to develop more efficient practices and procedures, to share good practices and to work together to resolve cross-border crimes? The unit must encourage authorities to review their own practices and procedures instead of being remotely managed, which breeds managerial ambivalence.
  The proposed complaints system addresses some of the concerns that have been expressed and will at least minimise the confusion that arises among the public. Many people are not even aware that they can complain about the police or, if they do so, worry that the police may subsequently take punitive action against them for

  109
  raising a complaint. Currently, following a complaint, the Police Complaints Authority refers its recommendations to each police authority, and chief constables can decide whether to accept them. It is regrettable that the Home Secretary needs to avail himself of powers to address that unacceptable situation. Legitimate complaints must lead to changes in practices and procedures. The system discourages many people from complaining, because they believe that nothing will change. We live in a democracy, and the police, as part and parcel of the democratic process, must engage and work with the people whom they are employed to protect. The lack of Home Office intervention so far has allowed police authorities to believe that they are essentially a law unto themselves.
  My primary worry about community support officers is their employment terms and conditions. Will the Minister reassure me that they will be not only directed by the chief constable but paid directly by him, not through the local authority?
  The White Paper refers to extending the role of the port police. I am sure that the proposal is sensible, but we must ensure that all those engaged in police work are protected under the same terms and conditions as those who are employed by police authorities. That does not currently apply to officers who work in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.
  I wish that the Bill was unnecessary. However, the great variation in police performance cannot go unchecked. The police authorities have not tried to manage themselves; regrettably, they must therefore be managed.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in a high-quality debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who gave a bravura performance without notes. As a former speech writer, I am always suspicious of that because it puts us out of a job. Nevertheless, his speech was impressive. I also draw attention to the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).
  We are all trying to tackle the same problem, which I encountered at my surgery on Friday. A gang of local youths are making life a misery for a family who live on a housing estate in Knutsford. The case was serious; the daughter, who was pregnant, had been attacked. The police have arrested six people, but they are out on bail on the same small housing estate. People in estates throughout the country cry out for politicians to respond to their anxieties, put police on their streets, deal with the criminal justice system and tackle the growing problem of disorder in their communities.
  I have every sympathy with a Home Secretary who says that he will listen to people, who wants to make policing more visible and says that he will take on some of the ingrained practices of the police. When he announced his great crusade to reform the police within weeks of becoming Home Secretary, many people believed that he would do it because he had the political capital and clout to do what previous Home Secretaries, including Conservative Home Secretaries, had failed to achieve: take on the police, reform their practices and radically change the way in which law and order works in this country.
  110
  The political capital has been dissipated and the good will has gone. The Home Secretary, who knows when to take the limelight and when it is important to turn up, is absent. That speaks volumes about the Bill. It is a great shame and a missed opportunity.
  I want to concentrate on community support officers. Various Members have got the name wrong; even the Prime Minister occasionally gets it wrong. Hon. Members have spoken about the value of community support wardens in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) spoke about their value on an estate in Lewisham. The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) spoke about the value of street wardens.
  There are street wardens in my community, and they do a fantastic job in Cheshire. They have transformed the life on some estates. Why not simply extend the activities of wardens? We should not create a new category, called community support officers. Wardens should not be removed from the job that they currently do. It is low level and involves picking up litter, reporting vandalism and keeping an eye on the estate. We should not take away that role and replace it with a pseudo-police role.
  The Stockport community warden scheme is one of the best in the country and Home Office Ministers often cite it as an example. It is close to my constituency, and the people who run it are suspicious of the proposals for CSOs. They say that there is a risk of turning wardens into pseudo-policemen that might break down the bond of trust that has developed between the local community and the wardens. That may say something about the esteem in which police are held, but there is a danger. The Home Office seems to be trying to get policing on the cheap.
  When Cheshire Members of Parliament went to see our chief constable a couple of months ago, and spoke to him about the proposals in the White Paper, he was very concerned that he would not have the flexibility to deploy these community support officers in the way that he wanted to. He would not, for example, be able to send them to riots in Burnley, as he had had to do with his regular police officers last year, or send them to a football match to deal with some of the really tricky problems such as those we saw at Millwall recently. He felt that he would not have that kind of flexibility, and that that would be a great weakness of community support officers. After all, once we start paying them a decent salary and giving them all the perks and pensions, they are going to be almost as expensive as new police officer recruits, but without the flexibility.
  I urge the Government to reconsider this proposal. By all means, let us extend the warden schemes and develop the neighbourhood watch schemes. Let us use these examples and build on them. Let us have a broader police family, but let us not try to get policing on the cheap.
  Mr. Challen: You just said they were going to be expensive.
  Mr. Osborne: Well, they are. There is only one reason that the Government want to introduce these officers: they think that it will save money and put more people in uniform on the streets.
  Mr. Challen: Is it not the case that we have promised to have 130,000 uniformed police on the streets by next March? Is that expensive or is it cheap?
  Mr. Osborne: Policing is expensive, but the answer is not to have a load of people in uniform on the streets who

  111
  have sort-of police powers, and who are unable to deal with antisocial behaviour, for example, in the way that the police can. Going into a town centre on a Friday or Saturday night and confronting a group of drunk youths who are causing all sorts of problems might constitute low-level policing in the Home Office's book, but any police officer will say that dealing with unpredictable, violent people is one of the most difficult parts of their job.
  The Home Office wants to put community support officers into that role, and to give them one power—the power to detain people for half an hour. In most town centres on a Friday night, giving someone in a uniform that is not a police uniform the power to detain people for 30 minutes until the police arrive is not going to work. The Government think that they are getting policing on the cheap, but I do not think that it will not turn out that way. That is why I reject these proposals, and I hope that the House of Lords continues its resistance to them.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am very pleased to be able to speak in favour of this bold Bill, not least because it is not an isolated initiative, but part of a pattern of legislative and executive action by the Government to combat crime. It links with other initiatives such as the street crime initiative—which is going to deliver £67 million to 10 police forces across the country, including my own in Blackpool—and the safer cities initiative, which will have important implications for tackling antisocial behaviour through interventions such as pub watch schemes, approved tenancy schemes and antisocial behaviour orders.
  The Bill also links with action on victims' rights and the determination to link the Crown Prosecution Service with the police to improve follow-through in the justice system. This represents a sustained, intensive and pragmatic attack on crime, but also a responsive one. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his team at the Home Office deserve the highest praise for this, and for pursuing this Bill.
  I want to speak first about the police standards unit. It is absolutely right that we should pursue this. In his previous incarnation in the last Parliament, my right hon. Friend showed courage, vigour and balance when this principle of inspection was applied in education. I find it bizarre that Conservative Members, whose Government introduced an inspection unit in education in the early 1990s, should now apparently be so opposed to the extension of the concept to the police service today.
  Clause 3, which establishes
  "Powers to require inspection and report"
  is absolutely right. Hon. Members have said today that there is too much variation in the figures. This is not just a question of value for money; it is also a question of performance and accountability. We need to be able to share best practice and joint partnership, as is the case in education. Occasionally, police officers need that little extra push, in the same way that local education authorities do. It is needed if there is to be public confidence, and a feeling that external inspections are being carried out.
  112
  We heard a lot of puffed-up rhetoric and false antithesis from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). Why did he not note the eminent good sense displayed by his former colleague as Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, Lord Mayhew, who said when speaking about the Bill in the House of Lords:
  "The Home Secretary cannot be expected to carry the can unless he is in a position ultimately to influence how policing is carried out by chief officers. So a balance has to be established"?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2002; Vol. 631, c. 558.]
  I entirely agree with that.
  We all know that the police work hard locally and nationally, and that applies not least to the initiative on antisocial behaviour orders; but a further push is needed. The process needs to be streamlined. The new forms of ASBO that the Bill will permit will give police, courts and councils more flexible tools with which to do their bit. ASBOs can constitute a key element in dealing with the destructive swathe of juvenile offenders in local communities.
  I have seen how people in Blackpool are made vulnerable by problems such as transience, a relatively skewed demography causing more young and elderly persons to feel at risk, the effect of vandalism on small businesses, and aggressive street behaviour—which, sadly, can be both locally and visitor-generated. I think that that applies to all coastal towns. In that context, ASBOs are not just a response to public concern; they enable time to be "freed up".
  I welcome the proposals to increase civilian input, which will, I hope, enable the police to be more sensitive and responsive to home calls. A lady in my constituency was asked, when a crowd of youths were jumping up and down on her elderly husband's car outside, whether it was "a life-threatening situation". The police felt that if it was not, they could not go and deal with it. I do not want to see more examples of that.
  In the intervals between not being able to decide whether policing, or the provision of community support officers, was cheap or dear, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) spoke of the impact on town centres. He missed the point. The point is that the presence of community support officers as part of a network will, in many cases, enable police to be there in the town centres. What people in my community in Blackpool who are not in the tourist area want is a dedicated presence of police, or police support, to provide the necessary reassurance. At present, inevitably, many of those who are present must be taken away to deal with town-centre problems at weekends.
  I welcome the extra police numbers we have been given in Blackpool—45 last year and another 10 this year, five of whom have gone on dedicated patrols on a major estate in the constituency. I also welcome the impetus given to ward beat managers and response teams, and the initiative launched by Blackpool police and my local newspaper for the printing of ward beat managers' details. Nevertheless, however well we do in surpassing the targets of 1997, the police will always be stretched. We need community support officers to provide that intensive day-by-day reassurance—to provide that local input.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) mentioned the important things that had been done in a Lancashire pilot. I welcome the Home Affairs Select Committee's support for the proposals, with

  113
  safeguards, but we must give practical support to the community support officers. We cannot be left with the toothless CSOs with whom the hon. Member for West Dorset and his hon. Friends would be satisfied. For instance, how would they cope with the problem described by a constituent who wrote to me earlier in the year? The letter states that between 6.45 pm and 8.15 pm on most Fridays
  "about thirty youths plus girls met drinking, fighting … urinating on the fences, this now seems to be every Friday … two youths kicked the door of the electric department at the back".
  Conservative Members may say that that is a job for the police. However, without regular policing in communities to get rid of that low-level violence and antisocial behaviour, difficulties will build up into the sort of problems that I have described.
  Community support officers will help to build up communities and people's quality of life. They are part of a process that involves area forums, neighbourhood watch schemes, neighbourhood renewal, home zone schemes such as those that operate in the wards of Talbot and Brunswick in my constituency, and even the gating initiatives that are being introduced.
  We cannot expect everything to be done by policing. We must accept that parents also have a responsibility in the matter, and that we need to use all the relevant associations and voluntary groups. That is why I welcome the accreditation schemes proposed in the Bill.
  However, we must also make sure that we fulfil the debt to people of the older generation on our estates and in our constituencies. They feel most pressured by this low-level activity. Some of the chatterati outside the House who have complained about the provisions in the Bill, or the reborn liberals among Conservative Members, ought to look at the practical implications of what they are suggesting—or, rather, what they are not suggesting—should happen on the estates in our constituencies.
  Community support officers will be able to show juveniles the errors of their ways at an early stage, just as the effective enforcement of ASBOs does. The "broken window" effect, which so often leads to the creation of no-go areas and the misery that all hon. Members have seen in their constituencies, can be stopped by that sort of application.
  Problems such as I have described are of concern to all of us, but especially to those who are core voters, and those who feel that they are most affected by such problems. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at an early stage in the Bill's introduction, tackling crime is part of our social renewal agenda. That is why the proposals regarding ASBOs and CSOs are so important, and why I am very pleased to support the Bill tonight.
  9.22 pm
  Lady Hermon: I should begin by declaring an interest: 15 years ago, I wrote a critical article about the then Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, the head of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I married him 13 months later, and five months later he retired, although the two things are riot connected.
  I am delighted to speak in this debate, as we in Northern Ireland are streets ahead of the rest of the UK. Police reform went ahead in Northern Ireland two years
  114
  ago, with the introduction of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. I hope that it will be useful and constructive for Ministers and the House to draw on our experience of police reform.
  My first point concerns the retention of officers. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said that we must ensure that we retain police officers. It is essential that the Home Secretary somehow builds up the support of the rank and file members of the police service in England and Wales. The Police Federation of England and Wales and the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales must support the reforms.
  I say that passionately. The House will hear the passion in my voice, but I feel passionate because of what happened in Northern Ireland. The Patten report recommended that the number of regular police officers should be reduced over 10 years to 7,500. The report came out on 9 September 1999. Two and a half years on—nowhere near the 10 years recommended by Patten—we in Northern Ireland are down to 6,900 police officers.
  I am sorry to have to say this, but nothing has done more damage to the credibility of the Belfast agreement, and to the support for it, than police reform. I hope that the damage can be repaired, but that will require more resources. It is essential that rank and file members support police reform.
  When we gave the Minister a break earlier on and stopped intervening on him, he actually managed to tell us that the target for spring 2003 was 130,000 police officers. That may be the target, but the difficulty is that, without the support of rank and file officers, experienced police officers will drain away and morale will go down, as it has in Northern Ireland. The Government must retain police officers by persuading them that the reforms are worth introducing.
  Secondly, I was absolutely delighted when fundamental human rights were put at the core of policing in Northern Ireland. That is where they should be because that enhances people's respect for the police. I am delighted that the United Kingdom has rightly made the European convention on human rights part and parcel of its domestic law. We in Northern Ireland have a new oath for police officers, who now swear to uphold fundamental human rights. I am very pleased that that is mirrored in clause 64. It is essential that the other people to whom the Government intend to give policing or detention powers have human rights training; otherwise the Government will face many legal actions. The respectability of police officers is increased when they have a basic operational understanding of human rights legislation.
  Thirdly, it is the responsibility of all hon. Members, not just Ministers, to increase public awareness of police reform. That is key. I am very sorry to say that we politicians in Northern Ireland must bear a lot of the responsibility for not preparing the general public for the reforms, especially the speed of reform, introduced under the Patten report. I do not want that mistake to be repeated in England and Wales. The Government must, please, increase public awareness of the reforms, which depend on public support.
  I shall rest my case on my fourth and final point, as other hon. Members wish to contribute. I made this point in an intervention in the hope that it would be taken on board. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has limited powers over policing; we have a Chief Constable

  115
  and a policing board, which includes 10 elected Assembly Members. That arrangement is working very well, but it is not just tripartite—we will have district policing partnerships for every local council in Northern Ireland. I know that our system is easier to manage; we have 26 district councils, and the number may decrease as local government reform is due.
  Every district policing partnership will meet the local chief superintendent every month to discuss, advise and consult on local policing issues. Whether considering parades—we are approaching the season for them—or other issues, district policing partnerships represent a real vehicle to enable local councillors, who form the majority of each partnership, to be accountable to the electorate. Those partnerships also represent the means through which ordinary people can have a voice.
  I urge the Government to consider those four points and to try to learn from the good lessons of police reform in Northern Ireland.
  9.28 pm
  Vera Baird: I welcome the Bill. It is very timely that the House is considering part 1 in the immediate aftermath of the thematic report, published on 10 April by the inspectorate of constabulary, about the way in which the crime of rape is policed.
  The inspectorate examined the way in which rape is dealt with in nine police areas, which represent a cross-section. The disparities that it found among those forces in the operational and investigative standards at almost every stage of dealing with that offence make much of the case for the police standards unit and for the Home Secretary's extended powers under part 1 to direct chief officers to remedy shortcomings and to regulate procedures and practices.
  If this were a different debate, I would be arguing that the overall picture concerning rape is very poor indeed. However, what is germane to this debate is that inspectors have found specific examples of good practice in some police forces—not necessarily in the same force—that, if combined, could produce a radical improvement in the current 7.3 per cent. conviction rate. That rate is the lowest ever, and far lower than for any other kind of assault. To be fair to women, such good practices must be disseminated to all 43 forces, and especially to those that are performing poorly. The inspectorate of constabulary is influential, but its role is only advisory, and although the Association of Chief Police Officers has frequently mediated to spread good practice, it cannot ensure its adoption. In that regard, the Home Secretary's powers are also insufficient.
  In response to the report on rape, a cross-departmental working group has been set up to try to implement its 80 recommendations. The police standards unit that the White Paper announced is now working, and its core task is the identification and dissemination of best practice. Had it been operating earlier, it would have continuously identified and spread good practice to drive up standards to the best levels of operational performance, and rape convictions would not have fallen so far behind. It would have identified a host of best practices scattered around the country, which I do not have time to itemise.
  The PSU will be particularly important for those such as rape victims, whose criminal victimisation is not naturally at the top of the police's hit list. For rape, read
  116
  domestic violence as well, for which the standards are equally variable. However, centres of excellence do exist that involve officers with special interests. The PSU is operating and does not need legislation, but to implement its recommendations it plainly needs all the powers that part 1 of the Bill gives to the Home Secretary. In particular, it needs enhanced powers to direct police authorities, and to direct chief officers in cases where the Home Secretary is satisfied that a particular force, or part of it, was ineffective or inefficient. That would assist rape complainants. Clause 7 will allow the Home Secretary to issue directions requiring all forces to follow particular operational procedures—in other words, to follow best practices.
  Huge variations in performance between forces, and therefore between postcodes, are unacceptable. If women in a given area knew that their rape complaints would be investigated poorly, but a few miles away they would be offered support, assistance and best practice, they would be inflamed with anger to discover that no mechanism exists to enable the Home Secretary to compel such practice in their area. They would not regard the power to drive up standards as interference in the independence of operational command, and nor do I.
  I also welcome the advent of community support officers. The beauty of the proposal is that the question whether an area will have such officers, and the powers granted to them, will be determined according to local need by the chief police officer and the local police authority. That is a clear devolution of policing power: what it is not is policing on the cheap. CSOs will do exactly as has been described: support the police—and surely the community, as well—by handling a specific range of antisocial behaviour, including noisiness, litter, dog-fouling and rowdiness. Only recently have we come to realise that such conduct affects people's day-to-day peaceful enjoyment rather more than does armed robbery, for example. It has always been extremely difficult for police to provide a local, targeted response to such conduct, which calls for a much more street-based, mediation-oriented regime. It is an inappropriate task for highly skilled, but differently skilled, officers, who as police are better suited to different duties. CSOs offer a real opportunity for a modern way forward.
  Redcar and Cleveland borough council—my constituency is located in that borough—has the largest community support warden scheme in England. Some 45 wardens provide coverage until 10 o'clock each night, and soon there will be 49 of them. Each ward has a pair of wardens, so they are never far away. They have a radio link and mobile phones. They also have vans, but the rules require them to be on the beat 85 per cent. of the time in the evening. They were established as the council devolved its services down to neighbourhood level, so they are the first port of call for anybody who sees a hole in the road or some item of disrepair. The wardens call out the repair team from the local office, and the matter is dealt with swiftly. That helps to alleviate what is called the broken window syndrome—if a minor problem such as a broken window is not fixed, it is followed by others in a spiral of decline.
  I am told by Councillor David McCluckie, the lead councillor for community safety, that the wardens also play a very important role in gathering information, some of it very sensitive, about crime. People feel much freer to give the wardens the information than the police, probably

  117
  because members of the public could have all sorts of reasons for talking to the wardens. A member of the public might say, "There's a hole in the road over there, and No. 26 is dealing drugs". but as long as the hole in the road is mended no one can take revenge if the other information is acted on as well.
  The wardens have byelaw powers to give tickets for dog-fouling and other minor offences. If they observe the stuff of antisocial behaviour, they can make statements and they have given evidence. They do not live in the ward where they work, so they do not face retribution.
  A notable aspect of antisocial behaviour is that it involves the young more than any other group in the community. Sometimes the behaviour is deliberate and highly offensive, but sometimes the young people are not aware of or concerned by the effect that their behaviour has on the rest of society. Often they do not have anything else to do, or that is what they think. In a ward called Grangetown, the council has decided to build a youth shelter because two wardens made an informal approach to a group of young lads and found that the nuisance of kicking a ball against the walls of pensioners' bungalows was for want of another surface to kick the ball against that was anywhere near the shops.
  Young people know who the wardens are and they do not approach the young people aggressively or judgmentally. The wardens' uniform makes them look like paramedics, and everybody trusts them. The wardens are trained by the police in PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—so they know what they are doing. They are also trained in anger management and mediation and how to develop an exit strategy. If they want a name and address and are refused, they are so local that they can ask people nearby for a name, or they follow the person home and deliver the ticket. If they have to withdraw from a confrontation, they can identify the offender through other locals and can go to the home later with a police constable.
  Antisocial behaviour has been cut by between 20 and 30 per cent. in the year that the wardens have been working, and the fire brigade locally reckons that the number of hoaxes and fire-raising incidents has fallen by 70 per cent. The wardens are seen as the community's champions. They are proud of that role and they want to retain it. They take pride in their communities.
  The picture that I have painted does not show something that is inferior to policing. It is not policing on the cheap. It is a new approach, based in and regenerating the community and with its own virtues. A poll has been taken about whether the wardens would benefit from having powers of detention, and they do not want them. They fear that they would not be safe while exercising such powers and that they would be distanced from the community. However, there is no doubt—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. James Paice: Unsurprisingly, the debate has concentrated on two issues—standards and the level of policing. A clear division of views on what to do has evolved. We have heard some very good speeches from both sides of the House, although I detected in some of the Government Back Benchers' speeches a little whiff of the old
  118
  traditional Labour left-wing antagonism towards the police. That is a pity. Nevertheless, a number of speeches welcomed the present situation, and I will come back to that in a moment.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) spoke about a constituency case that supports the Government's proposed amendment on the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and we welcome that. My hon. Friends the Members for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), for Witney (Mr. Cameron), for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) all spoke about centralising powers and the use of civilians as community support officers and community safety accreditation organisations, yet those two issues represent considerably less than half the Bill. It is remarkable that most of the debate has concentrated on a small part of the Bill, with one or two exceptions. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) spoke about another issue, which I shall mention shortly. However, almost all the speeches focused on two issues that represent a relatively small part of the Bill.
  As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said that the Bill failed to address three of the most crucial issues. He said that the police cannot attract and hold good officers and cannot get rid of bad ones, while those in the service are strangled by paperwork.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) brought the wisdom of experience to the debate, for which I am grateful. She stressed the need for the support of police officers when we embark upon change. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary does not seem to have learned that lesson yet.
  Much of the debate has been about centralisation. The Select Committee said that the former clause 5 was unacceptable. Even with the proposed safeguards that the Government had planned to introduce, the Select Committee was, at best, lukewarm about it.
  In response to an intervention from me, the Minister of State said that there are no existing powers with which police authorities can deal with problems. He is quite right. However, the answer is not to take powers to the Home Secretary but to give them to the police authorities. The whole of part 1 is about taking powers to the centre. Some provisions, such as the regulation of equipment, are perfectly acceptable. However, no one who studies the whole of part 1 can argue that the removal of the original clause 5 has taken away every opportunity for the Home Secretary to intervene when he thinks that things are going wrong.
  Clause 2 deals with codes of practice, clause 4 with directions to police authorities, and clause 6 with the regulation of procedures and practices. Clause 77 gives the Home Secretary immense powers over three-year strategy plans. The Bill provides plenty of opportunities for the Home Secretary to take action. My right hon. and hon. Friends all spoke of the need to decentralise.
  The issue of community support officers also occupied much of the debate. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) brought home to us the fact that a large number of very successful schemes operate under present legislation, using neighbourhood wardens, local guardians and even ambassadors. I have seen a number of such schemes in operation and several other hon. Members described their success in their constituencies.

  119
  The point is that such schemes are operating, but those civilians do not have a range of police powers. What is more important, they do not have the power of detention.
  I have spoken to many support organisations and, without exception, not one has said that it wants detention powers. Indeed, a number say that having such powers would do them a disservice and get in the way of their fulfilling such a role. There would be an obligation to comply more with PACE provisions on training.
  What happens after 30 minutes remains unanswered. One or two hon. Members made the point that in their constituencies, the likelihood of an officer being able to reach someone within 30 minutes of detention was remote, and that certainly applies to part of my constituency.
  In relation to other powers introduced under schedules 4 and 5, there is the likelihood of a huge variety of provision and immense confusion throughout the country. At present, the schedules do not provide for a fixed system; they offer a pick-and-mix menu. Every chief constable will be able to decide which powers to give to his community support officers or accredited safety organisation. It is possible that where CSOs exist, they will have different levels of power in different forces: in London, the powers may differ between boroughs and, in the case of people employed by an accredited safety organisation, from employer to employer. That is a recipe for considerable confusion. It will give rise to public concern, and there will be a failure to appreciate the role of civilians.
  There are some issues that have not been covered by the Bill, including the standards unit. Listening to some of the Labour Back Benchers who were talking about the standards unit, one would have thought that the inspectorate did not exist. However, there is a perfectly competent inspectorate, which, we understand, the Home Secretary has no plans to alter or disband. Like the Select Committee, we cannot understand the necessity for a distinct and separate organisation called the standards unit. That is not to say that we are against raising the standards of all to those of the best or against spreading best practice, but we are asking whether we need two separate organisations. The distinction between their roles is unclear.
  The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne referred to the provisions that would allow blood samples to be taken from people who could not give their consent. I do not detract from her support for that change, but I also know that, for more than a year, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has worked hard for a change in the law. I welcome it, although we must obviously consider the finer detail in Committee.
  Several Members referred to ASBOs. The orders are not the raging success predicted by the former Home Secretary: the most recent statistics showed that just under 500 had been granted. Police officers and other people involved are extremely concerned about the amount of bureaucracy and time required to generate an ASBO. We welcome changes to the system and we welcome the extension of the orders, but there is little in the Bill to address the fundamental reason for their lack of success—the problem of bureaucracy in the criminal justice system.
  120
  The Bill includes a provision to remove the obligation for police officers to be British citizens, or citizens of the Commonwealth or Ireland. We can be persuaded of the need to end that rule, but before the Bill completes its passage the Government should publish the exact criteria to be required of would-be recruits, as regards language ability, residence qualifications and so on.
  Several hon. Members referred to another absence in the Bill—provision for special constables. In the White Paper, the Government stated that they wanted a revival of the special constabulary. We all agree with that. However, the Bill contains nothing that would achieve that. The Government have a policy vacuum in that regard: they seem to have no idea how to revitalise the specials.
  The official Opposition welcome a large part of the Bill, but we object to two points of principle. The first is the extension to civilian officers or officials of police powers of detention. As several hon. Members pointed out, that will put civilians in the front line in the community. We believe that community or neighbourhood policing should be recognised as having the most important role in the police force. That is where problems can be resolved before they get out of hand. We want neighbourhood police to be seen as an elite force, not as a second division.
  The other point of principle is the issue of powers being taken by the Home Secretary. I have some sympathy with the Under-Secretary. Anybody who has been privileged to stand at that Dispatch Box knows the temptation to command and control, but that temptation must be resisted, not just because it is wrong but because it cannot work. It is a downward spiral of ever-closer scrutiny and involvement in day-to-day decisions. That is why we will resist moves to restore the original clause 5 to the Bill.
  9.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): There is one thing about which I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)—there has been a clear division in tonight's debate, which has concentrated on the main areas of disagreement. I would describe it differently, however. There has been a real contrast. On the one hand, there have been thoughtful contributions, mostly, but not exclusively, by Labour Members. Some of the comments of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), for instance, were aimed at Members of Parliament generally and not just at Ministers. Such contributions showed, in the main, a depth of support for the proposals. Coupled with that were the Home Affairs Committee report and contributions by members of that Committee that gave an in-depth analysis of the Bill. There was a clear contrast between that and contributions by Members on both Opposition Front Benches who have been brought in to back up their new alliance in opposition to the Bill. That synthetic opposition was aimed at measures that are absolutely necessary if we are to tackle effectively some of the problems that my hon. Friends have exposed tonight.
  The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), who was supported in large part by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), told the House that the police force in this country was demoralised, under-resourced and abused. Those comments were aimed at the Home Secretary. I was in the House when the Home

  121
  Secretary challenged hon. Members to give a single item of evidence that he has made comments purporting to attack the police force. I heard not a shred of evidence coming back. Why do Opposition Members such as the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness and for Aldershot continue to peddle such nonsense without providing a shred of evidence for any of their allegations?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I quoted from a letter from the chief constable of Hampshire, who is the chief constable for the constituency of the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety. The chief constable pointed out that his officers felt that they had been subject to a campaign of denigration. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right. There was not a single such quote in that letter, as the hon. Member for Aldershot knows jolly well.
  With regard to under-resourcing, let me make the point—it needs to be made again and again—that we are not talking about policing on the cheap. Currently, we have an all-time record number of police officers—128,748, which is planned to rise to 130,000 by next year. Before Conservative Members start talking about policing on the cheap, they should be prepared to say why that resource was never provided when they were in power, as they had clear opportunities to do so.
  In the time left to me, I shall be able to deal with the central issues but not with all the other points that have been made. However, I shall briefly refer to one or two of them. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and expressed the view that the proposals would not be adequate for the size of the task. About 1,000 cases will be taken on under the new system, and that is not 3 per cent. of all complaints. It is about 10 per cent. of all the cases that go forward currently and that are not dropped or dealt with at a local level.
  The commission will be able to take on cases at its own instigation, so it will be able to investigate cases at its discretion when, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) clearly pointed out, it is not possible to name the individual police officer against whom the complaint has been made. We believe that the proposal will be adequate in providing the framework for the independence that will be necessary to deal with police complaints. However, we can discuss this issue with the hon. Member for Lewes in more detail in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) talked about the proposals for blood sampling. I congratulate her on the work that she has done to raise this issue.
  One of the main issues of difference that has been exposed tonight is that both Opposition parties are effectively saying that, even with the safeguards that we are proposing in the Bill, the Home Secretary should not be allowed to act even in circumstances in which a chief police officer and a police authority have failed to address serious problems of under-performance. In return for that, they propose that there should be an increase in accountability. However, when those on both Opposition Front Benches were asked to provide details of what they suggest, they refused to answer the question. We can assume only that they are content with variations in performance and are happy to allow the existing situation to continue. It is no wonder that crime doubled when the Conservatives were in government.
  122
  The Opposition also claim that community support officers should not be given the powers to detain. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) reached the height of political hyperbole when he opposed the measure and said that such officers should not have the power of arrest. However, they will not have the power to arrest or to bring charges; all they will have is the power to detain for 30 minutes while waiting for a constable to turn up on the scene.
  The hon. Member for Lewes opposed our proposals and said that we should listen to and trust local people. However, why will he not trust the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis who said that the police needed community support officers and that such officers needed—it has been specifically asked for—the power of detention? Why does the hon. Gentleman not listen to the Association of London Government, which said:
  "If the power to detain is to be used effectively, then a longer period of detention is essential"?
  Norman Baker rose—
  Mr. Ainsworth: I ask the House to give the Bill its Second Reading. I commend it to the House, because it is needed to deal with the issues that badly need addressing in our communities and to provide the clear standards and consistency of performance that are necessary.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  POLICE REFORM BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June].
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Police Reform Bill [Lords]:

  POLICE REFORM BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    Programming of proceedings
    2. Proceedings on the Bill (including proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any other message from the Lords) may be programmed.

    Standing Committee
    3.—(1) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 27th June 2002.
    (2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4.—(1) Proceedings on consideration (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
    (2) Proceedings on Third Reading (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven &clock on that day.

    Programming Committee
    5. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Dan Norris.]
    The House divided: Ayes 366, Noes 162.

    Division No. 225]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Allan, Richard

    Coaker, Vernon

    Allen, Graham

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

    Cohen, Harry

    (Swansea E)

    Colman, Tony

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Connarty, Michael

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Austin, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cotter, Brian

    Baird, Vera

    Cousins, Jim

    Baker, Norman

    Cranston, Ross

    Banks, Tony

    Crausby, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Barrett, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

    Battle, John

    (Copeland)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Beard, Nigel

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Dalyell, Tam

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Bennett, Andrew

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Benton, Joe

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Berry, Roger

    David, Wayne

    Best, Harold

    Davidson, Ian

    Betts, Clive

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Blackman, Liz

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dawson, Hilton

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Borrow, David

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Brake, Tom

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Breed, Colin

    Doran, Frank

    Brennan, Kevin

    Doughty, Sue

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Dowd, Jim

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Drew, David

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bryant, Chris

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Burden, Richard

    Eagle, Maria (L'Pool Garston)

    Burgon, Colin

    Edwards, Huw

    Burnham, Andy

    Efford, Clive

    Burstow, Paul

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Ennis, Jeff

    Cairns, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Farrelly, Paul

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    (NE Fife)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Caplin, Ivor

    Flint, Caroline

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Flynn, Paul

    Casale, Roger

    Follett, Barbara

    Challen, Colin

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Chaytor, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Chidgey, David

    Foulkes, George

    Clapham, Michael

    Gapes, Mike

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

    Gidley, Sandra

    (Norwich S)

    Gilroy, Linda

    124

    Godsiff, Roger

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Goggins, Paul

    Linton, Martin

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Lloyd, Tony

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Love, Andrew

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Lucas, Ian

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Luke, Iain

    Grogan, John

    Lyons, John

    Hain, Rt Hon Peter

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McDonnell, John

    Hancock, Mike

    MacDougall, John

    Hanson, David

    McFall, John

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Harvey, Nick

    McKechin, Ann

    Havard, Dai

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Healey, John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Heath, David

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    McWalter, Tony

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McWilliam, John

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Heyes, David

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hill, Keith

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mann, John

    Hoey, Kate

    Marris, Rob

    Holmes, Paul

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Martlew, Eric

    Hope, Phil

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Meale, Alan

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Merron, Gillian

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Miliband, David

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Mole, Chris

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hurst, Alan

    Moore, Michael

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Moran, Margaret

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Morley, Elliot

    Illsley, Eric

    Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Mountford, Kali

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mudie, George

    Jamieson, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Jenkins, Brian

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Norris, Dan

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Joyce, Eric

    Olner, Bill

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    O'Neill, Martin

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Öpik, Lembit

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Organ, Diana

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Khabra, Piara S

    Pearson, Ian

    Kidney, David

    Perham, Linda

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Pickthall, Colin

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Pike, Peter

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Plaskitt, James

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Pope, Greg

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Pound, Stephen

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Prentice, Mr Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lamb, Norman

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Laxton, Bob

    Pugh, Dr John

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Purchase, Ken

    Lepper, David

    Purnell, James

    Leslie, Christopher

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Levitt, Tom

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Rapson, Syd

    125

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Taylor, Mr Dari (Stockton S)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Rendel, David

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Thurso, John

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Timms, Stephen

    Rooney, Terry

    Tipping, Paddy

    Ross, Ernie

    Todd, Mark

    Ruddock, Joan

    Touhig, Don

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Trickett, Jon

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Truswell, Paul

    Ryan, Joan

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Salter, Martin

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Tyler, Paul

    Sawford, Phil

    Tynan, Bill

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Vaz, Keith

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Sheerman, Barry

    Walley, Mr Joan

    Sheridan, Jim

    Ward, Mr Claire

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Watson, Tom

    Skinner, Dennis

    Watts, David

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Webb, Steve

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    White, Brian

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    (Swansea W)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Willis, Phil

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

    Winnick, David

    Soley, Clive

    Woodward, Shaun

    Southworth, Helen

    Woolas, Phil

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Worthington, Tony

    Squire, Rachel

    Wray, James

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Wyatt, Derek

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Stringer, Graham

    Stunell, Andrew

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Tami, Mark

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mr. John Heppell.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Clappison, James

    Amess, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    (Rushcliffe)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Collins, Tim

    Bacon, Richard

    Conway, Derek

    Baldry, Tony

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Barker, Gregory

    Cran, James

    Baron, John

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Beggs, Roy

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Blunt, Crispin

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Boswell, Tim

    Evans, Nigel

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Fabricant, Michael

    Brady, Graham

    Fallon, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Flight, Howard

    Burns, Simon

    Flook, Adrian

    Burnside, David

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Burt, Alistair

    Francois, Mark

    Butterfill, John

    Gale, Roger

    Cameron, David

    Garnier, Edward

    Cash, William

    Gibb, Nick

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Goodman, Paul

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Gray, James

    Chope, Christopher

    Grayling, Chris

    126

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Pickles, Eric

    Grieve, Dominic

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Price, Adam

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Prisk, Mark

    Hammond, Philip

    Randall, John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hayes, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Heald, Oliver

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Hermon, Lady

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hoban, Mark

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Horam, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Ruffley, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Salmond, Alex

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Selous, Andrew

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Simmonds, Mark

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Key, Robert

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Spink, Bob

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Spring, Richard

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lansley, Andrew

    Steen, Anthony

    Leigh, Edward

    Streeter, Gary

    Letwin, Oliver

    Swayne, Desmond

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Swire, Hugo

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Syms, Robert

    Lidington, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Loughton, Tim

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Luff, Peter

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Trend, Michael

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Tyrie, Andrew

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Viggers, Peter

    Malins, Humfrey

    Walter, Robert

    Maples, John

    Waterson, Nigel

    Mates, Michael

    Watkinson, Angela

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Weir, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Whittingdale, John

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Wiggin, Bill

    Mercer, Patrick

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Wilshire, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Norman, Archie

    Wishart, Pete

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Yeo, Tim

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Ottaway, Richard

    Page, Richard

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Paice, James

    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

    Paterson, Owen

    Mr. Charles Hendry.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  POLICE REFORM BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police Reform Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act;

  127

  (b) the payment out of money so provided of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other enactment; and

  (c) the payment of money into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Woolas.]

  Question agreed to.

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

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 96) (HC 710), on Special Grants for School Standards and Support of post-sixteen budgets, which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    THE PROMOTION OF THE USE OF BIOFUELS IN ROAD TRANSPORT
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15500/01, Commission Communication and two draft Directives on the promotion of the use of biofuels for transport, and provision for Member States to apply differentiated rates of excise duty in favour of biofuels; considers that the objectives of security of supply and climate change abatement can best be achieved by an approach which promotes renewable transport fuels as a whole, and reflects the individual circumstances of Member States and EU renewable energy policy through the setting of indicative, flexible targets; welcomes the principle of making it easier for Member States to set a lower rate of duty on cleaner fuels such as biofuels; but considers that the detail of the Commission's approach (in particular, the links with current duty rates for conventional fuels and with oil prices) should be questioned—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to.

  Hollands Wood Campsite
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  10.16 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: It is customary to begin an Adjournment debate by saying how fortunate one is to have secured—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly?
  Dr. Lewis: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, it is customary to begin an Adjournment debate by congratulating oneself on one's good fortune in securing the debate.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Quite right.
  Dr. Lewis: Indeed, as my hon. Friend observes from a sedentary position, I am lucky to have done so. However, the Minister is also rather fortunate tonight. It is a lucky night for him, because for once this is not a NIMBY debate. This is a debate about people who have something in their back yard already and who want to keep it there, rather than have it removed further from their area, with possibly catastrophic consequences for the local economy.
  Let me spell out the background. The Hollands Wood campsite is on the east side of the A337, near the village of Brockenhurst in my constituency. The New Park site is on the west side of the A337, further north towards the village of Lyndhurst, also in my constituency.
  One might think that the villagers of Brockenhurst would want a large number of visitors to be congregated somewhat further away, rather than nearer to their village environment, but not a bit of it. In fact, the parish council is totally united against the proposed move to close the Hollands Wood campsite and transfer it to the New Park site, and other parish and town councils in my constituency are also strongly against the proposal. Most important of all, the residents of Brockenhurst are overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed change.
  On 7 March I presented a petition on the matter to the House. It contained no fewer than 1,719 signatures out of a possible total of 2,652 people on the electoral register. That was no less than 65 per cent. of the electorate, but in reality only 3 per cent. of the electorate declined to sign, and that understandably included a number of employees of the Forestry Commission. Thirty-two per cent. could not be contacted. In other words, 95 per cent. of those who could be contacted signed the petition, and all that between 9 and 25 February. I pay tribute to Nina Ball, Jean Wingate, John Cockram, John Purkess, Andrew Mitchell and more than 50 other villagers who gained so many signatures in so short a time.
  Why is that feeling so strong? There are four principal reasons. First, a major traffic hazard will be created on a busy trunk road. Secondly, the New Forest show will be endangered. Thirdly, more harm than good will be done to the environment. Fourthly, the local economy of Brockenhurst will be gravely undermined.

  129
  From about 1930 until the end of the second world war, the Hollands Wood site was the village rubbish tip. From 1946, the then rural district council turned its attention to the site. The tip closed in 1950 and the campsite was created soon afterwards, and so it has remained for half a century.
  According to the admirable Lymington Times of 1 December last year:
  "The Forestry Commission has a total of 3,320 camping pitches in England of which no fewer than 1,860 surround Brockenhurst."
  It has been suggested that a European Union directive on the restoration of ancient woodland is forcing the Forestry Commission to close Hollands Wood. It is for the lawyers to decide whether that is the case, or whether a degree of creative "gold plating" has been going on. For once—I hope that the House will note this point carefully—I think that the EU is being maligned.
  In reply to our petition, a ministerial response was drawn up, undoubtedly on the basis of a Forestry Commission briefing. The response points the finger at English Nature for having designated the Hollands Wood campsite as part of a candidate special area for conservation under the EU habitats directive of 1992. If that is so, it is a piece of meddlesome stupidity on the part of English Nature that lies at the root of the problem. I am advised that current regulations require only a 95 per cent. implementation of SSSI—sites of special scientific interest—(SAC) target statements. If that is true, it means that there is no necessity to vacate Hollands Wood, as it occupies only a fraction of 1 per cent. of the New Forest SSSI(SAC).
  I acknowledge the courtesy of the deputy surveyor, Mr. Donald Thompson, in alerting me and Hampshire county council leader Councillor Ken Thornber early on about the intended move. Two problems immediately occurred to us. First, there was the traffic danger: the A337 is a very fast stretch of single carriageway that is arrow straight, but has periodic dips that can temporarily mask traffic hold-ups ahead and conceal oncoming vehicles from view. By transferring the campsite from the east to the west of the trunk road, the Forestry Commission would create an all-year-round problem of southbound traffic from arriving campers having to cross the northbound flow in order to enter the New Park site. That currently happens on a large scale for three days a year, when the New Forest show is held at the New Park site in July, and would cause major dislocation but for the sterling efforts of traffic controllers drafted in for the occasion. That can be done three days a year, but could not be done continuously.
  This leads us to the second problem: the future of the New Forest show. It is becoming abundantly clear that a permanent campsite in New Park will have a crippling effect on the show. The event involves the creation on the site of temporary car parks so vast that people attach helium-filled balloons to their vehicles in the hope—usually it is a vain one—of successfully finding them again at the end of an enjoyable day at the show. The notion that a park-and-ride shuttle scheme for the show might provide an effective substitute for the car parks is, to use a favourite term of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), frankly risible.
  It has also become abundantly clear as the controversy has developed that even if Hollands Wood could no longer continue, a move to New Park would be
  130
  unacceptable on environmental grounds in any case. It may take 100 years to restore Hollands Wood from its present existence as a much-loved campsite in the forest, but it will take a fraction of that time to commercialise and degrade the rural environment of New Park. Not only the farmland New Park site itself will suffer, but—far worse than that—the contiguous unspoilt, ancient and ornamental woodland will be put at risk from such a large development. Some of those adjacent areas are designated sites of special scientific interest and special protection areas. Above all, the riverine woodland between New Park and Brockenhurst village is a rare and highly protected habitat. Indeed, I understand that it is an EU-designated candidate special area for conservation, and thus requires maintenance and improvement, not degradation.
  The principle of Occam's razor states that when one has eliminated all other possibilities, that which remains, however improbable, must be the true explanation. We have considered the traffic implications, the New Forest show implications and the environmental implications of building a huge campsite at New Park, all of which suggest that the proposal is fatally flawed, so what explanation remains? As is so often the case, only a monetary one. A big difference between the two locations is that Hollands wood is subject to the authority of the ancient court of verderers, whereas New Park, as Crown freehold land, is not.
  The verderers court has been staunch in defending the interests of the people of the forest and its villages from time immemorial. One of the first occasions on which I attended the verderers court was unforgettable. A villager from Ashurst tearfully related how her village shop had had to close because the Forestry Commission had for a period of time allowed illegal sales of products on one of the campsites—the one near Ashurst. By the time the verderers were able to step in to stop it, her trade had already been undermined to the point that the shop could not continue. As a result, the village of Ashurst lost its village shop and the lady lost her living. We all recognise that the Forestry Commission has an important job to do, part of which is to try to generate income. However, there is a history of attempts to allow more and more goods to be sold on campsites—attempts that can be blocked by the verderers anywhere in the open forest except on Crown freehold land. My general line of argument will come as no surprise to the Minister because, as is my normal practice, I took the precaution of advising his office in advance.
  Brockenhurst village depends on its shops if its local economy is to continue, and that viability depends in turn on the summer trade and the influx of non-village custom. Even if the Forestry Commission refrained from selling anything extra on a site at New Park, the greater distance from Brockenhurst, the lack of easy access to Brockenhurst by foot and, especially, the location of the New Park site—where a camp would now be—to the west of the A337 would have major adverse effects. Traffic leaving the new campsite would naturally head north to Lyndhurst, adding to its already diabolical congestion at that time of year, not south to Brockenhurst, where trade from the campers is so welcome and important.
  The truth is that the Forestry Commission will not resist the temptation to commercialise if it is allowed to build the new site. The experience of the Ashurst village shop will be repeated on a much larger scale, driving a stake

  131
  through the heart of the Brockenhurst economy. In fact, I understand that English Nature could easily be asked to redesignate the Hollands wood campsite to exclude it from the special area for conservation. That would be entirely in line with the derogation allowed in the habitats directive—introduced so considerately, it must be said, by the European Union—which allows for
  "Imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature".
  That certainly applies to the effect on Brockenhurst of failing to apply for such a derogation. There is no good reason for closing the Hollands Wood campsite. Even if English Nature and the Forestry Commission succeed between them in doing that, it will provide little justification for a move to New Park, with all that that entails. As so often happens with crafty little stratagems, one can end up with the worst of both worlds.
  By failing to resist the closure of Hollands Wood, the Forestry Commission may end up with no large campsite in the area; the villagers of Brockenhurst, however, will be the biggest losers of all.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on securing the debate and presenting the anxieties of local people about the proposed change. It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I know the New Forest well and have a long-standing personal interest in it. I talk to representatives of the Forestry Commission regularly, and I recently met the court of verderers.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that I introduced the Ministers' mandate. It was revised in 1999 and it clearly sets out the principles for managing the Crown lands, which cover half the New Forest heritage area, of which Hollands Wood is part. The first objective of the Ministers' mandate is the conservation of nature and heritage. The second includes promoting rural opportunities, providing access and recreation opportunities and increasing public awareness and understanding. The objectives in the mandate are compatible with the Forestry Commission's proposals.
  Of course local people's views have to be taken into account, and I have therefore listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I want to take them into account because it is important that the reasons for the move are properly understood and debated. I must confess that I was a little puzzled about some of the reasoning behind the hon. Gentleman's anxieties. I shall try to deal with them.
  First, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, English Nature requires the closure of Hollands Wood campsite because it is in a site of special scientific interest and a special area of conservation. I have visited Hollands Wood campsite; I walked around it while it was closed so that I could have a clear view. We cannot escape the fact that it is situated in an area of ancient woodland that is important scientifically and from the point of biodiversity.
  Of course, Hollands Wood is a popular campsite and it needs to be replaced with an alternative, modern campsite for visitors to the New Forest. We recognise the importance of the New Forest not only to visitors and recreation, but to the area's economy.
  132
  New Park is literally across the road. It is a desirable site that is not in the site of special scientific interest or the special area of conservation. It is close to Hollands Wood and ensures that the considerable economic benefits to Brockenhurst are not lost. New Park is a farm that does not have same biodiversity importance as Hollands Wood. There is no comparison. It is next to important riverine woodland; I took the opportunity of walking the length of it the last time I was there when I was discussing the issues with the Forestry Commission.
  Part of the proposal for New Park is to establish, at some cost, a buffer zone to protect the riverine woodland. The proposals recognise the potential for increasing conservation and protecting fragile areas. The commission is therefore complying fully with all the requirements of the planning system. A full planning application and environmental impact assessment will be submitted to the local authority. That is also right because we must examine the impact of the proposals, which must be open to public scrutiny.
  The proposed campsite will be designed and built to a high standard to take into account the fact that people live close to it; that has also been recognised.
  On the New Forest show, I have attended it and I recognise that it plays an important part in the culture and activities of the area and the local communities. I very much enjoyed my visit and was impressed with the range of activities and displays. I do not want the New Forest show to be threatened, and I want to make that point very clearly as the person who oversees the Ministers' mandate for the forest.
  The needs of the New Forest show are being carefully considered, and full consultations are being undertaken with the show committee. Following my discussions with the Forestry Commission, I have been convinced that it would be possible to meet the requirements of the show, even if there were a campsite on the ground. I want to make it clear that the New Forest show is not going to be abandoned, and that its importance is recognised by me, as a Minister, and by the Forestry Commission.
  I also want to stress that the campsites are very important to the local economy, bringing into the forest a large number of people with considerable spending power. Those people spend their money in the shops and pubs, and on local services such as cycle hire. The hon. Members for New Forest, East and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) know how important that is for their constituents and for their constituents' businesses.
  I am not very clear on the issue of traffic. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I understand that there is an assumption that the traffic will all turn one way when it leaves the new campsite. I do not believe that that will be the case. There will be the same amount of traffic going into the campsite. As I understand it, there are currently about 600 pitches in Hollands Wood, and about 100 overspill pitches in New Park. So, when the site moves—if it does move—to New Park, there will be about 100 fewer pitches. That would result in there being less traffic turning in and out of the site. I would be happy to examine these hypotheses in greater detail, but, at the moment, I cannot see how moving from one side of the road to the other will increase the traffic.
  Dr. Lewis: Perhaps this is an argument for adopting a continental system of traffic flow—I really am being

  133
  reborn, here—because if we drove on the same side of the road as they do on the continent, the campsite's move from one side of the road to the other would be a positive enhancement. As we drive on the left, however, it is clear that when people come out of the campsite to shop in the villages, they will turn left, rather than turning right across the busy main road. I am sorry if I did not make that clear enough. More importantly, will they want to come out of the campsite at all when, without the protection afforded by the verderers, the site is developed so that it becomes a rival to Brockenhurst with its self-contained shopping centre? That is the question at the heart of the problem.
  Mr. Morley: On that last point, the hon. Gentleman is assuming that some kind of shopping centre is going to be built on the campsite. I am not aware that such proposals feature in the Forestry Commission's plans. Those plans will be submitted for approval, and the hon. Members for New Forest, East and for New Forest, West and their constituents will, of course, be able to scrutinise them. But they should not make that assumption. The Forestry Commission has been very sensitive to the potential impact on the local economy, and I think that that has been reflected in its activities.
  On the issue of traffic, I do not disagree that, if people are going into Brockenhurst, they will have to turn right, whereas, before, they would have turned left. That assumes, however, that all the traffic in the campsites always comes from one direction. The traffic comes from both directions, and there is no guarantee that there will be any increased congestion. That issue needs to be carefully examined, and there will be an opportunity to do so as part of the planning process.
  Dr. Lewis: I will not reiterate the point about the traffic. I feel, however, that the Forestry Commission has a long history of trying to commercialise its campsites by increasing its sales—given half an inch, it generally takes more than half a mile. The Minister is, therefore, being unrealistic if he feels that, without the guardianship of the verderers to limit this kind of activity, this development will not happen. It will happen, and everyone believes that it will happen.
  Mr. Morley: People may believe that. Again, it will be a matter for proper scrutiny during the planning process. I merely say that the hon. Gentleman should not assume
  134
  that that is the case, or that that is the motivation. I do not believe that it is the motivation. I genuinely believe that there is a problem with a site of special scientific interest and a campsite in ancient woodland, and that someone starting from scratch would not have put the campsite there in the first place. However, when it was opened, there was not the pressure that is imposed on it now by all the people wanting to use it.
  As I have said, there will be extensive consultation. Indeed, that has already begun as part of the environmental impact assessment: local individuals, groups and organisations are being consulted. All local people, groups and neighbours will have a full opportunity to comment on the details of the application when it is submitted, and to make objections as appropriate in the normal way.
  I ask local people, and the hon. Member for New Forest, East, to consider this. The choice is between a campsite which I do consider to be inappropriately placed in terms of its impact on the special conservation importance of the New Forest, and farmland which, despite its extremely limited biodiversity potential, could be developed in a way that would enhance facilities for visitors to the forest, and indeed designed—I know that this is what the Forestry Commission proposes—to take some of the pressure off the more fragile parts of that ancient forest.
  That proposal is, at the very least, worth considering carefully. It is worth looking at the details, and worth recognising that the motivation is right. Of course issues affecting local people, such as traffic and economic impact, need to be taken into account. I want them to be taken into account, but I also want the right balance to be struck between providing for the many visitors who enjoy and love the New Forest and ensuring that the pressures on one of our most ancient and precious natural woodlands are properly managed. I am sure that no one disagrees with that objective.
  I believe that the Forestry Commission is motivated by that consideration. I also believe that the proper scrutiny processes that will take place will give local people an opportunity to ask questions, examine the proposals and consider them properly—and, I hope, fairly.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Elderly Care
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Kidney: On Sunday, I cycled 30 miles around my constituency in order to raise money for the local hospice, Katherine house. You will therefore understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why I prefer to stand.
I applied for this Adjournment debate before I took part in that sponsored bike ride, but because hospices such as Katherine house provide care for terminally ill adults, their care for the elderly is relevant to the debate. Katherine house and hospices like it raise a phenomenal amount of money by voluntary means, but it is important that we, the decision makers in charge of spending public money, should properly value the work done by hospices to ensure appropriate support from the public sector as well as from voluntary organisations.
I intend to focus on three issues relevant to the care of the elderly—the well-known problem of delayed discharges from hospital, what help is available for elderly people in their own homes and residential care for the elderly.
It is common ground among politicians that hospital is no place to be once medical treatment has been completed. Social isolation and the absence of purposeful activity are especially harmful for older patients. I regularly receive complaints from elderly constituents—and from their relatives—about the wait for their needs to be assessed before they can be discharged, or about having to wait for the services that have been identified by that assessment of need to be provided or for the funding to pay for that provision.
It is not only patients and their relatives who complain to me—so do hospital managers, who would like to use the beds to help other people with urgent medical needs, and who would very much like those who should not be in hospital to be discharged as soon as possible. It is important to bear in mind that hospital managers are also under pressure to meet targets and deal with the demand for hospital services.
I say well done to the Government for the extra £300 million provided late last year for helping with this problem. Staffordshire's share was £1.7 million last November and another £3.6 million this April. The director of social services in Staffordshire was upbeat about that when I spoke to him, and in the short term at least the money will go a long way to ending the unnecessary delay in people's discharge from hospital in Staffordshire.
In the longer term, we must look for more lasting solutions. One encouraging feature of the final Wanless report, which was published at the time of the Budget,
2WH
was that subsequent to the interim report Derek Wanless had received many representations about the important link between adequate social services and a satisfactory and efficient health service. In his final report, he identified the need for more support for social services. The Chancellor rose to that challenge magnificently in the Budget by announcing a 6 per cent. increase in social services spending for each of the next three years.
Mr. Simon Burns: Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away in his praise of the Government, let me put one point. I presume that he is also aware that directors of social services are concerned about the impact that the increase in national insurance contributions will have on that sector.
Mr. Kidney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was about to show that I am not carried away by identifying more of the challenges that face directors of social services. I do not minimise the challenge that he mentioned, but I would add several others, which I shall deal with now if he will permit me.
I still hear of many instances of delay in which money is a factor, but working practices cause problems as well. For example, in multi-agency assessments, one professional after another seems to queue to ask the same questions of the same people. The social services department tells relatives to find a residential home placement for a patient in a hospital bed, and then takes months to say what payments it will make towards it. Families are either forced to lose the places that they have found, or put under pressure to pay out of their own pockets to keep the places open until social services funding kicks in.
To answer such problems, could we not have an effective single assessment of a person's needs? Could we not have some up-front assessment of financial eligibility and availability of funding for people while they are in the hospital bed at the outset? I am reminded of the old problem of people looking to rent a home, but being unable to find out whether they would receive housing benefit for the place that they wanted until they were in and running up arrears. Eventually, the Government said that people could have an advance assessment of their housing benefit entitlement, so that they could look with confidence for a place to rent. The issue of people in hospital beds looking for a residential care placement seems similar.
On departure from the hospital bed, short-term intensive care is sometimes helpful for older patients while they get used to being back in their homes and living independently again. However, intensive care packages are a rarity in my part of the country. I suspect that that is true throughout the country, although good work is being done in some places. The professionals involved need to sharpen up their act on that.
The strain is inevitably taken by the army of carers, the relatives and other volunteers who save the state a staggering £57 billion every year, according to Carers UK when it recently launched its new service "Carers Online". There have been some good developments to support carers since 1997, such as the publication of the first national strategy for carers. There has been funding for support, including respite care. Carers grant this

3WH
year is £85 million and will go up to £100 million next year. There have been improvements in social security provision, with an extra £500 million to be put into social security benefit over three years. Perhaps the most glittering prize recently announced was the new state second pension, which gives carers pension credits for the first time. I am pleased to see all those good developments, as carers are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, an integral part of help for elderly people. I hope that we continue to support them with such commitment.
Alongside respite care, intermediate care is extremely valuable to people who try their best to survive in their own homes but need help from time to time. In my constituency, our new primary care trust has managed to put together the basics of a good intermediate care strategy. However, it is run on a shoestring. Obviously, there must be adequate funding if intermediate care is to be a reality for the large numbers of people likely to demand it in future.
People want to stay in their own homes, but older people in particular need help to keep their homes habitable. Sometimes homes need major adaptations such as ramps to the front door, or stairlifts and walk-in showers, and sometimes only minor works of maintenance and repair. I generally find that social services departments are under-resourced for adaptations, which leads to long waits for the simplest tasks. However, care and repair services, where they exist, are extremely flexible and responsive to people's needs. Could we not bring together the two types of service to provide a comprehensive social home care service, so that people can have a speedy response when they need minor help with their homes?
The other great aid to people who live in their own homes with help is domiciliary care. I am not sure how unusual Staffordshire is in relying entirely on private sector provision of domiciliary care. I recently met representatives of providers in my constituency, who warned of the imminent collapse of the service that they provide. They said that fees were too low throughout the system and that there were problems with recruiting and training staff, enabling them to gain qualifications, and paying them good wages.
That very neatly brings me to residential care. The last time that I met representatives of the proprietors of privately owned residential homes in my constituency, they raised exactly the same issues: low fees, training, qualifications and low pay for staff. Raising the pay of those who work in the sector is obviously closely related to the ability of social services departments to raise rates for places in homes and for domiciliary care. Providing training, qualifications and status for care workers is, however, not simply a matter of money. Could there not be closer partnership working between social services departments and private owners to tackle such human resources challenges?
I recently came across a Government announcement about employer training pilots, which combine employee leave for learning with employer compensation for costs and free training. The pilots will cover six geographical areas at a cost of £40 million. Is there any chance of the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Learning
4WH
and Skills Council discussing an additional sector-based pilot to cover domiciliary and residential care and to raise training and qualifications issues and the status of those who work in the sector? To quote a famous line, which I cannot attribute, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."
Unfortunately, there is a lack of trust between the social services department and private owners in my area, which is, I think, replicated in many parts of the country. I publicly urge both sectors to work more closely together as partners and to keep at the forefront of their minds the fact that they exist to provide a service to vulnerable and valuable members of our society.
I say bluntly that fees must rise; otherwise many residential care home owners will find that it is not worth the candle to run the business.
The other issue that is often raised is national standards for residential homes, and I expect that some hon. Members will mention it. Such standards would be a good thing, but must be enforced sensitively and constructively.
It is a little unrealistic to separate those three issues—hospital discharges, people with help at home, and residential care—in the way that I have done, because, in reality, the challenges involved in tackling them are interrelated. Solutions, of course, require money, but other things, too. For their part, the Government must demonstrate some ownership of the issue and show that they are interested in solving the problems. They have, for example, done good work in developing the national service framework for older people, but on the ground, I still have difficulty identifying older people's champions in local organisations. Furthermore, people tell me that the Government are not committed to the framework, and it would be sad if that became the general view. I therefore urge the Government to take a grip and show that they are concerned about the issue and want to solve the problems.
Last year's King's Fund report on care and support, which was called "Future Imperfect?", identified several national issues that it is important to tackle. The first was the pressure on agencies to contain costs, which cause difficulties when it comes to deciding how to provide services. The report also said that two thirds of the work force lacked a relevant qualification and that there was a problem with low pay and the resulting high staff turnover. It made several recommendations, of which some are relevant to this debate. One was that that there must be funding growth, which was, in part, recognised in the recent Budget. Service users need to be involved and empowered. the national vocational qualifications in care need to be strengthened, skills and standards for all care staff must be improved and the voluntary sector and individual volunteers should be strategically involved.
Those messages were, interestingly, reflected at a conference that I held in my constituency on 19 April to consider care of the elderly in Stafford. The conference attracted 130 people, representing health and social services, private sector providers, housing providers, the voluntary sector and older people and their carers. I had to turn away 40 people because we were full up. A pack was produced for everyone who attended. The keynote speaker, Robin Wendt, a member of the Sutherland commission, made a thought-provoking presentation,

5WH
which caused me to wonder whether we have yet drawn the line between nursing and personal care in the right place. In his view, the commission was right and the Government wrong.
The people representing the many interests in my constituency made a number of points that are relevant to the national debate, the first of which was that good communication is key—that includes listening to older people and their carers. Suggestions were made about challenging existing ways of working, which will be music to the ears of the Minister, who is demanding modernisation for funding. They included more joint working between the agencies; more preventive work, which is music to my ears in terms of keeping people healthy for more years of their lives; higher pensions, which was not an unexpected contribution from many of the older participants; good quality provision, particularly respite care; and a directory of agencies offering help, advice and advocacy. They also provided some action points for health and social services departments including an effective single assessment procedure, more collaboration in order to end delayed discharges, better provision to help individuals to remain in their own homes and better attention to recruitment, retention and recognition of staff.
Other recommendations covered carers, funding and housing providers; I shall not list them all. However, I shall draw attention to the need for rapid response when people need help, with the allied requirement for out-of-hours respite care, and the growing issue of pensioners who are themselves carers and who find that when they become eligible for state retirement pension, they lose invalid care allowance—shortly to become carers allowance—because of the rule about overlapping benefits. The Government are about to make new regulations allowing over-65-year-olds to claim for carers allowance. However. the rule about overlapping benefits will still apply. That is increasingly an issue, and greatly unfair. People provide help that would otherwise cost the state much money, yet they cannot keep the allowance that is provided specifically for caring for another person. I hope that that will be given urgent consideration.
At the end of the conference, I made three commitments: first, that I would produce a conference report and send it to everyone, including the 40 people who were not there; secondly, that I would report the findings to Parliament; and thirdly, that I would meet the heads of the various agencies in my constituency to devise an action plan for Stafford. I am pleased to say that by the end of this debate only the third will remain to be completed. I do not want to boast, but it was a worthwhile exercise in identifying local pressures and getting good ideas from local people about how to solve immediate problems. I commend it to other MPs as an approach for their constituencies, so that we can tackle the problems nationally by contributing to the debate, as well as locally by doing something personally.
It is important to recognise, and give thanks to, all the dedicated workers in that sector. As I have said, the pay is not always great, but the dedication of the workers and the importance of their work is clear. A factsheet sent to me by the Royal College of Nursing called "The health of older people" sets out the demographic change that we can expect in the next 30 years and underlines the challenges posed. Some common themes run
6WH
through everything that I have read, including the King's Fund report, the Royal College of Nursing factsheet, and the work that I did for my own conference, such as getting the funding right, valuing staff and voluntary carers, and putting older people at the centre of the services provided for them. The Budget gave a terrific boost to that work, but plenty more remains to be done. As a society, we do not lack the resources, and the vision of affordable quality services for all older people is exciting and achievable. I look forward to being able to stand in the midst of the community in my constituency and say, "We are all good neighbours now."
9.51 am
Hywel Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing this interesting and important debate. I shall begin by considering what older people want—which is the same as everyone else: normal care; normal services or, in the jargon of my previous profession, social work, normalised services; to be partners with those who provide the services; and to be seen as contributors, rather than as a burden. They want to give as well as to receive, and they want to be part of society, not a forgotten addition.
I want to address some particular issues, not only those that are peculiar to Wales. Everyone needs good quality information and advice to inform their choices. That advice and information is not always available, either from advice agencies or from social services departments in my constituency or elsewhere. Language is a particular issue in my constituency because, often, in the south and east of Wales, information is not available, face-to-face, in Welsh. In my constituency, and in the north and west of Wales, the majority of people speak Welsh, and services for older people and for others are available in Welsh as a matter of course. However, half the people who speak Welsh live in the south and east, where they form a minority of 5 or 6 per cent., but where those normalised services in the medium of Welsh are not available and older people who need those services, and who are perhaps unable to speak English because of an illness or a stroke, are unable to access them. The 1991 census showed that 23 per cent. of the population of Wales who spoke Welsh were over retirement age; that is 110,000 of 500,000 people.
Older people want services to be provided locally, and the threat to post offices and local council services certainly has a disproportionate effect on older people. They also want improvements in the built environment, in terms of access to buildings and the provision of ramps and lifts, so that they can use buildings in the same way as everyone else. They want adequate community policing and freedom from the fear of crime. That is especially pertinent in rural areas, where crime rates might be lower, but the perception of the danger of crime is as high as elsewhere. Some of those who live in rural areas and visit my surgery are extremely worried about crime.
Those issues affect older people throughout Wales and the United Kingdom. One issue of particular interest to me, given my previous career in teaching, is non-discriminatory access to lifelong learning and recreational activity. At a recent Carers National

7WH
Association meeting, I met a lady in her late 70s who is about to undertake a degree course. She was extremely interested in my work and very capable and lively in her mind but, because she was over 75, she could not get insurance for her car to drive the 10 miles to the local college. That had nothing to do with her condition or abilities—it was an example of structural discrimination against her as an older person.
In Wales, as elsewhere, problems have arisen with providing an integrated public transport system, especially in rural areas. Efforts have been made to counter that, and everyone in Wales will welcome the National Assembly's programme of free transport for older people, which has liberated older people and allowed them to travel when before they could not, or when there were different provisions for different local authorities. That free transport does not extend to the train service, however. People can travel by bus but, in some areas, the train service is the service of choice. If we want an integrated transport system for older people, we should integrate the trains as well as the buses.
I should like to draw the House's attention to some innovative projects. Cyngor Henoed Gwynedd, the Gwynedd Council for the Elderly, is providing a day centre, not on the fringes of a village, in a local authority building or a church hall, but next to the bus station, so that older people can pop in for a cup of tea before they get on the bus. Older people who come along with their carers can find a safe, warm and interesting environment and have a bit of a rest while their carers go off and do some shopping. That sort of innovative project is what we need. There are problems in the provision of such services, which I have discussed with the Council for the Elderly. Inevitably, one of those problems is funding.
Two years ago, I had the privilege of advising the Welsh Affairs Committee in its investigation into social exclusion. Some of the conclusions of the Committee's report are pertinent, including those relating to the funding of community groups. I accept that the same problems affect all sorts of community groups, but they have a particular effect on services for older people. The Committee discovered that short-termism was chronic and that planning by community groups providing services was blighted by the fact that they could not plan more than a year or two ahead. The report also stated that staff felt insecure and that the providers of services were forced to waste time in continual justification of the value of services when applying for extra money. Funding must be secure and long-term and take account of on-costs. In my opinion, five-year rolling funding should be the norm.
The University of Wales Swansea issued a report on domiciliary charging for care services, called "Charging for Care in Wales", which was commissioned by the National Assembly. Unsurprisingly, the report found that there were many difficulties with the charging system. First, and most obviously, there is the postcode lottery, which means that each of the 22 local authorities in Wales has its own system and charges at a different level. People who lived on the border of two local authorities were particularly affected. They might be charged more or provided with a worse service merely because of where they lived, with no regard to their needs. That is the theme of the report.
8WH
The local authorities and user groups in Wales want an all-Wales policy, which is relevant for not only the National Assembly for Wales but the Department of Health. The report noted that guidance was not strong enough and that the bewildering array of charging policies was causing problems. Those charging policies reflect not need but local circumstance, especially in respect of local authority finances.
The report said that there was pressure on local authorities to charge. Of course, they have been allowed to charge since the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 but, significantly, most of them did not charge until they were subject to pressure. I understand that local authorities are pressured to raise 9 per cent. of their funding through charging, irrespective of the wealth or poverty of the area. That is a blunt instrument, considering the variety of poverty and wealth not only in Wales, but throughout the United Kingdom.
The University of Wales Swansea found a powerful case for disregarding disability benefits. It suggested that that would simplify the system of charging and make it fair for all and cheaper to run. Significantly, it found that local authorities with simpler systems also monitored debts more effectively, stating that those
"with more basic charging arrangements tended to monitor debt on a case by case basis".
Those authorities tended to encounter fewer users who fell into debt, perhaps because other instruments were not as detailed as individual assessments. Those local authorities took much more notice of the problems caused by the system. There is a lack of clarity about carers' income, certainly in Wales, where most local authorities are reviewing their positions on the matter.
Charging should be a way to develop the service, but the report found that it was not. It stated that the use of charging income to develop new or existing services
"was the exception rather than the rule".
Development has been used as a justification for charging, but it is not a good one, so I would be interested in the Minister's response to that.
Many saw charging as effectively a cut in their benefits. During last year's election campaign, I visited many homes for the elderly in my constituency, which was sometimes a sad and sometimes an inspiring experience. I remember asking one gentleman—in Welsh, of course—"What do you want?" Simple questions often give revealing answers. He said, "What you've got," referring to my freedom to walk in and out, the freedom that my wallet and family support give to me, my ability to travel and other such things. That was eloquent testimony of what we need to provide for older people, and what we do not provide at present.
10.2 am
Ms Joan Walley: I declare an interest as a member of the trade union Unison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for the way in which he introduced the subject of our debate, which was challenging as well as sensible and constructive. So often, Members of Parliament are not given credit in the House for their work. People in Stafford should be proud of my hon. Friend's huge amount of detailed work on the delivery

9WH
of health care. He may not want to boast about that, but he can be proud of what he has done. It is so important that MPs make a difference on the ground in that way.
We all hope to be elderly one day, and I want to set the debate in the context of inter-generational issues. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies, she will place her remarks within the context of public health as a whole. Elderly care is not only about care given to people when they become elderly, or hospital care that we may or—we hope—may not need. It is not only about domiciliary care or the social services care that we may need when we get old, but about how we increase life expectancy. We should not do that simply for the sake of it, but so that we can all look forward to a long, happy and healthy life. Emphasis should be on health promotion so that our NHS and other public services, particularly those provided by local government, do what they can to help us to look forward to as healthy a life as possible.
Will the Minister consider the public health context? As vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, I should like to think that we develop policy by linking public health issues with the whole health agenda. The question is not simply about the money spent on hospitals, but about wider issues. None the less, the Government can do a great deal more now that the Chancellor has given a commitment to extra funding for health.
I shall put the debate in a spending context. It is wonderful that we now have extra money for the NHS, but we must address how we spend it to achieve the most efficient delivery services. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has already said that we desperately need a reform of the standard spending assessment so that places such as my constituency, which covers Stoke-on-Trent and other parts of Staffordshire, have a fair funding formula. I am pleased that the Government have promised reform in 2003—it cannot come a moment too soon. Between now and then, we must ensure that there is full consultation with local authority leaders and local government associations so that social services, which are integral to full health care for the elderly, are properly funded. In certain parts of the country—usually the parts with deprived populations—the shortfall from the target amount that should be spent to deal with problems is so great that we cannot catch up.
When I first set out in politics, some 20 or so years ago, there was something known as RAWP—the resource allocation working party. In health, that formula helped to raise the areas furthest from the target level and put them on a level playing field; only then would extra money be given. In the review of the SSAs, we must put areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, which has such great deprivation, on a level playing field to allow our social services to invest money that will complement services provided by the NHS, as happens elsewhere.
Another service that is important for keeping elderly people in their homes, when that is where they wish to be, is provided by local social services, and is called Lifeline. In my constituency—I assume that the same applies elsewhere—only people on housing benefit can access that service. If we want people to stay in their own homes rather than in care beds or intermediate care, we must fund the services that all elderly people need to be able to stay at home.
10WH
In her reply, I should like the Minister to consider the fact that elderly people who stay in their own homes desperately need to feel safe and secure. I am aware of that not just because I have been out over the past few weekends for the local election campaign, but because I have regular phone calls and correspondence from constituents throughout my Stoke-on-Trent, North constituency. They say, "Joan, we don't always feel safe." They want local crime partnerships with police. Above all, those who live in council accommodation, which can consist of wonderful bungalows, do not always have the fencing that they need to make them feel secure.
If we had a standing spending assessment that treated our area fairly so that we could invest in council houses, and if we had a level playing field between council houses and other forms of social ownership resulting from transfers, we would be able to provide both the fencing to make elderly people feel secure in their homes and better elderly care.
During the 15 years that I have been in Parliament, I have worked with local people to ensure that we have sufficient continuing care beds for our needs. That campaign came about as a result of the standards, which were not fit for the 20th century let alone the 21st century, at Westcliffe hospital—a former workhouse known locally as the old poorhouse, which is now a large hospital with many continuing care beds. I have been involved with a campaign not to close Westcliffe hospital but to agree a delivery plan to provide sufficient continuing care beds in the context of health care, domiciliary care and intermediate care.
The campaign has had huge success. The Under-Secretary responsible for public health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), set up the Edwards report, which brought together health care professionals, and considered how we can move from putting people into long-stay beds to using all our community resources to provide the ongoing care needed across north Staffordshire. We had various meetings with my hon. Friend, and were given an undertaking that the Edwards report would be implemented. I am happy to report that under the fit for the future programme, considerable progress has been made towards building both a new hospital at the North Staffordshire royal infirmary and a medical school, for which I have waited 40 years, since I was a small child.
Under the fit for the future scheme, there is a proposal called the north Stoke development, which is going to provide us with the continuing care beds that we need. Will my hon. Friend the Minister take time out after the debate to get back to me, and to other north Staffordshire Members of Parliament who are similarly concerned, to give us an update on the progress that has been made? We need to know whether the number of beds that we were promised will be put in place. Are we going to get the development money for those beds? We were given undertakings following a lengthy formal consultation procedure that involved the community health council.
The Edwards report anticipated that a number of beds would be shared between the NHS and independent sectors. The proportion of the beds that would provide continuing care in the independent sector was never properly specified, but it was suggested that it would be about 20 per cent. As I understand it, however,

11WH
as many as 48 per cent. of beds will be provided in the independent sector, although they will be paid for by the NHS.
I want to make sure that the Government are giving their full attention to the community health council in north Staffordshire, which wrote to my hon. Friend on 18 April, as it is particularly concerned that no further public consultation has been undertaken
"on what we consider to be significant changes to these agreed proposals. We feel it important to apprise you of this and if we do not receive a satisfactory response from the Health Authority I shall write to you again."
There is genuine concern that the Edwards proposals, to which we all signed up in good faith and which set out a way forward for continuing care beds, have somehow been superseded by a further consultation, undertaken by the health authority, which looks at the number of intermediate care beds needed. We all recognise the need for intermediate care beds, but there is a suspicion that unless we have full openness and transparency, the wonderful commitment given on intermediate care beds will be at the direct expense of the continuing health care beds to which we all agreed under the Edwards report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has hosted debates and conferences in Staffordshire. We need the Government to get back to local MPs in north Staffordshire and ensure that we can have full, open and transparent debates on every bit of progress being made on every aspect of the Edwards report. If they can do that, there will be much joy and optimism among all those who care so deeply about providing long-term care for elderly people.
I shall briefly raise one final issue. Encouraging people to get the very best care and continuing health care beds, and also providing intermediate care beds and care in people's homes, raises a point about adaptations, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford made graphically. I have been campaigning about wheelchairs for a significant time. The wheelchair service in my constituency is based at Haywood hospital, and people sometimes have to wait for 13 months to get a wheelchair. How can we discharge people from hospital into their own homes if they cannot be mobile?
Two years ago, during the spending round, I went to the then chief executive of the hospital trust responsible for wheelchairs, who is now the chief adviser on the modernisation of the Government's health agenda. I set out for him the importance of increased investment in, and reorganisation and modernisation of, the wheelchair service in north Staffordshire. He as much as gave me an undertaking that that would be dealt with in the service and financial framework round. I heard nothing further and, in good faith, assumed that that spending had increased. As I said, that chief executive now advises the Government on their modernisation policy.
Some months later I realised, with a great shock, that the SAFF round had not agreed the money for increased investment in wheelchairs. It should come as no surprise that I felt it important to campaign to ensure that there was a sufficiently well researched, competent and businesslike plan for wheelchair services in this year's SAFF. Again, I made a point of contacting the
12WH
chairman of the then North Staffordshire health authority and the then chief executive of the hospital trust. I was assured that everything possible would be done about wheelchairs. but, to my deep disappointment, the SAFF round did not agree an increase for the wheelchair service.
Perhaps as a result of my perseverance, and that of others, the silver lining to the tale is that the hospital trust, recognising our points about the wheelchair service, provided extra money to start investment in its long-term business plan for the service. Some one third of the money needed over a three-year period has now been committed, and I am very grateful to the North Staffordshire hospital trust for making that money available.
That story shows that we all have a responsibility to look into joined-up thinking right across NHS services and the different forms of care that need to be provided. The whole system can be completely undermined if one part of it is not right. It is important to get all the pieces of the jigsaw in place so that people in north Staffordshire have the services that they need. I have no doubt that we have an ambitious plan for elderly care in north Staffordshire, but delivery must be open and transparent. I ask the Minister to consider carefully, together with north Staffordshire Members, how we can ensure that our hopes and vision are backed up by delivery of services, so that nobody is without the care that they need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Perhaps I should remind hon. Members, after one day's holiday, that the three Front-Bench spokespeople routinely commence their winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the termination of the debate.
10.20 am
Mr. Edward Davey: I rise to speak because this issue is of huge concern to my constituents. They raise it with me in advice session after advice session in my tours of residential nursing homes in the royal borough, so I felt it right to attend today's debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) not only on his measured and well considered remarks but on the work that he has done in his constituency. I have always regarded him as one of the most impressive Labour Members, and his performance today has only confirmed that judgment. I hope that he will share some of the papers from his conference with me, so that I can see whether I can organise a similar conference in my constituency. I am currently undertaking a survey of care home owners in the royal borough, using a pack produced for me by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), which is producing some interesting results. To follow that up with a conference may be the next step forward and, as with the hon. Member for Stafford, it may be the best service that I can provide for my constituents.
I should declare an interest: I have an elderly grandmother who is recovering in Fordingbridge convalescent hospital because she recently broke her hip

13WH
for the second year running. She was about to come out of care to go back to her warden-controlled flat when she fell over in hospital and broke her left wrist. Family members, including me, are increasingly concerned about the care provision that we make for her in the future. Therefore, the experience that I bring to the debate comes not only from my constituents but from the questions that my family and I are having to ask about my grandmother.
Some basic issues arise when one begins to look at the individual families and their concerns. The first question is: where is my relative to go? Is there a place available for him or her? Because so many care homes have closed down in my constituency, the number of places available is limited. People must wait, either in hospital, like my grandmother, blocking much needed NHS beds, or at home, where the quality of care is not good enough. Neither case is satisfactory, so one of the most important questions concerns the number of places.
It is easy to see why there are so many closures in my constituency. First, the labour market is very tight. The number of qualified people available to nurse and care for the elderly in homes is increasingly limited. It is noticeable when one goes round the care homes that many of the nursing care assistants are from countries such as the Philippines, having been brought over by different agencies to fill the gap. However, that is not an easy or cheap solution, and the pressure of costs on care home owners is increasing because of the tight labour market. I welcome the tight labour market because it helps to drive down unemployment, but it has that knock-on effect, which must be addressed by other areas of Government policy.
The lack of places in my area is also driven by two other factors. First, because of rising property values in areas such as Kingston, many care home owners coming towards the end of their working lives are being offered sizeable sums by property developers. One cannot blame them for wanting a decent pension, but a number of homes are closing for that reason.
Secondly, that desire to cash in on the value of the property is being exacerbated by new regulations. We know that there has been all-party support for those regulations, and I am not undermining the thrust of them, but in an area such as Surbiton where many of the houses were built in the Victorian era, although adaptations have been made, it would be extremely costly for care home owners to make the changes necessary to meet some of the more stringent standards in 2006–07.
There is insufficient help available to make that worth owners' while, so many of them are having to say, "We can't make that room a little bit larger—it's impossible. We can't afford to knock those two rooms into one to meet the standards, either, so we'll have to sell up." The problem is huge. Kingston has some of the most severe pressures in the country on its care sector because of those problems. The borough's senior citizens are suffering as a result, and we have to tackle that quite urgently.
There are other issues that we ask about immediately after finding places for our loved ones, such as the quality of the care. As I go round the residential nursing homes in my constituency I find a high quality of care, and I have seen some very dedicated people, but the
14WH
owners tell me that they have problems in finding qualified staff. The hon. Member for Stafford touched on that during his speech.
Another issue germane to myself and my constituents is that people like their relatives to be near. Often, grandmothers or grandfathers live some way away in a different authority area. They may live in a home or a warden-controlled flat, or benefit from domiciliary care. Then may come the moment when they need to go into residential care. The complexities and difficulties of moving someone from one authority to another are large. If people want their relatives to be near to them when they move to a care home, that can be extremely difficult, given the different financial regimes. Will the Minister comment on that problem?
The Government have slowly been trying to address the problems, and after a lot of pressure and campaigning by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam they have begun to change policies. In the Budget they announced some increases of more than 6 per cent. in real terms for social services over the next three years. The question is whether that is sufficient, particularly if one subtracts from that settlement the extra cost of employers' national insurance contributions. The real-terms increase is significantly less when that extra taxation is taken into account. I am not convinced that the settlement is up to the job. I know that the Minister will not like that, but the extent of the challenge in the sector, and its high relevance to the challenge in the NHS, is such that that sector ought to be getting a better settlement than the NHS.
That sector has been the Cinderella sector, and has been underfunded for many years. The catching up that it needs to do is even greater than that required in the NHS. I found the Budget settlement in that area disappointing. The arguments that the Government rightly used to back the current funding mechanism for the NHS apply in this sector too—in spades. The Chancellor quite rightly argued that a taxpayer-funded health service is needed because in society we should pool risk. We come together as a community and decide that that is the most effective and efficient way of funding that type of service. That argument applies just as much to the care sector—yet people are charged, the quality of service is not sufficient, and the sector has been severely underfunded for a long period. I urge the Minister to press the case for extra funding in future negotiations with her colleagues.
Because the time is approaching the witching hour for Back Benchers I will draw my remarks to a close, Mr. Deputy Speaker— save to say that I can tell the Minister and her colleagues that areas such as mine, which many Government Members believe are prosperous and do not require funding, experience pressures that are as severe as those anywhere in the country, and our budgets and council settlements have not been up to the task of meeting that huge challenge.
10.30 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing the debate and also on the conference that he organised, the information that has come out of it and the work that he is doing. I want to address some of the important issues that he raised.

15WH
Delayed discharge has been the focus of Government anxiety, but all too often the initiatives treat the symptoms but do not tackle the underlying causes. The causes of delayed discharge are a lack of prevention upstream and a lack of capacity downstream in home or residential care. Other speakers have touched on the latter, and I want to focus on prevention, about which we should be doing so much more. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) rightly identified the need for it to be seen as part of a wider public health agenda, because a little help early on could make an immense difference to an individual's quality of life and could arrest and prevent a downward decline into dependency and a greater need for more intensive support later on in life.
There is a story that is often used to illustrate how powerful a little bit of help can be, and it is about mucky nets. Many people, when they get to a certain age, can no longer climb up a stepladder or on to a chair to take down mucky nets. For many, keeping up appearances is important to mental well-being, which in turn feeds through into their health. If the ability to keep up appearances is lost, the slide down the path of dependency may begin. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, feeling safe is also very important. There really is a crying need for services that provide a little bit of help, whether essential gardening services, essential property maintenance, basic do-it-yourself or the auditing of safety, security or energy efficiency.
However, the figures show that the number of people receiving basic care in their own homes has dropped by 109,900 during the past five years. We are told that those people are now living independently, but I suspect that they are the ones who turn up in the accident and emergency departments and end up as the delayed discharge cases in the national health service. They needed a little bit of help, but ended up getting it through the NHS rather than as it should have been given.
The hon. Lady spoke about budgets and resources. One of the measures of the pressure on social services departments is the extent to which rationing is now the norm, such as by denying care and support to those with moderate care needs who have carers—it is a widespread practice in social services departments that those who have carers often do not have access to any care at all. Rationing is also imposed by making those with high care needs wait, whether in hospital beds or in their own homes, hidden out of sight and out of mind, and by limiting the quality or quantity of care provided. Social services departments regularly deploy those tools to try to make their very stretched budgets go just a bit further.
The Secretary of State and the Chancellor recently spoke about the need to do something about delayed discharge by introducing financial incentives or penalties. Not surprisingly, people in local government and many others have expressed their concern, not least because there was no consultation about the proposals. I am very concerned about the introduction of a penalty system, the details of which are still rather vague, because of the potential distortion of priorities that it could produce.
We all know that there are serious pressures on local authority budgets for children's services. Indeed, two thirds of the overspend in social services budgets is on
16WH
children's services. Therefore, a system that imposes more pressure to spend money on elderly people—right though that may be—without putting in extra resources in the first place, could result in yet more pressure on the budgets for children's services. The Wanless report, which was published on Budget day, made the following useful point:
"The processes of objective setting incentivisation and targeting have to be sensitively designed to ensure they achieve the required result rather than distort resource allocation."
I fear that we are about to see a distortion of resource allocation.
Hon. Members have referred to loss of capacity in the care home sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, there is a real possibility of people not being given the opportunity and choice of residential care in their own communities, and being bussed miles away. Kent comes to mind, because the consequence of a substantial loss of capacity there is that people are bussed miles away from Kent, and from their families and loved ones.
The focus has been on delayed discharge, but there has been an 18 per cent. increase in emergency readmissions during the past two years alone. I understand that there will be a scheme of penalties to deal with that, but the details are much vaguer. Perhaps the Minister will comment on whether the system of penalties will simply recreate the cost shunting that already exists in health and social care. Social services will provide inappropriate packages of care, and when someone comes back into hospital as an emergency readmission, who will pick up the bill?
Hon. Members have spoken about residential care, and I shall touch on the important subject of training. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Stafford for a pilot scheme. There is almost a revolving door in care homes at the moment. Unqualified, ill-equipped, untrained staff come in. They pick up the skills and ability to care for frail, elderly people, acquire NVQs and then leave for better paid jobs in the NHS and the statutory part of the state sector of social care. The same happens with domiciliary care, and the consequence is high levels of staff turnover and many vacancies.
We must consider what can be done about that. I hope that the Minister will tell us today what work she and her Department are doing, particularly in parts of the country where there is a tight labour market, to ensure that we can not only recruit but retain the necessary qualified and quality staff. Some parts of the country, such as Kent, Somerset and elsewhere, have lost a massive number of care home beds. What is being done to identify ways of regenerating the sector? When a home is knocked down or turned into flats, the land is lost and the opportunity is lost. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what is being done, in areas where the costs of entry into the market are so much higher than elsewhere, to ensure that the barriers are lowered and capacity can be retrieved.
We have discussed budgets and the need for SSA reform. Amen—weall agree about that. However, that is a holy grail that will deliver only if there is an increase in the size of the cake being distributed. The Budget settlement announced by the Chancellor a little while ago does not address the crying needs in social care

17WH
throughout the country. The Chancellor rightly identified the fact that social services have been a neglected part of the caring services for too long, but it is not clear from the detail—I hope that the Minister can help us with that today—whether social services' extra spending during the next few years will be borne almost entirely by council tax payers forking out more, or whether substantial extra funds will be made available through grant to fund the necessary improvements. When the Local Government Association and others look at the figures they are alarmed that the resources going in are not sufficient to meet the Government's national service framework aspirations or arrest the collapse of confidence in the independent care sector in many parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Stafford referred to his conference, and I was interested to hear that his keynote speaker was Robin Wendt. I agree with him that there is still a debate to be had and a conclusion to be reached about the boundary between personal and social care. It is interesting that Wales is moving in the same direction as Scotland has taken, and I look forward to hearing more details about that.
Finally, I want to ask the Minister about the guidance document "No secrets", which concerns the abuse of older people. When will we have a report from the Department on its implementation, the budgets that will be made available and the staff who will be put in place? What initiatives are being undertaken to ensure that the document, which was published two years ago, is not a worthless set of words but a meaningful mechanism for delivering services on the ground and protecting the elderly?
In conclusion, I repeat that the care of the elderly must be a priority for us, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford on giving us a further opportunity to debate the issue.
10.40 am
Mr. Simon Burns: I, too, begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on providing us with the opportunity for this useful and opportune debate. Sadly, as we have heard in several speeches, there is a crisis in long-term care and the care of the elderly. The problem is not restricted to particular parts of the country, although there are some in which it is more pronounced.
In the past five years, 50,000 residential care beds have been lost across all sectors. That has put a desperate strain on elderly people who can no longer remain in their homes with domiciliary care. The loss of care home beds has not been uniform, and in some parts of the country, particularly in the south-east and East Anglia, a significant number of beds have been lost as homes are sold and local authorities use their bulk purchasing power to force down the amount that they pay to care for the elderly. The shortage of beds has had a distressing knock-on effect on many people who have been unable to find a home in the area in which they have lived all their lives. As a result, they have had to move ever further from their roots, from family connections and from the communities in which they used to live.
Unfortunately, as many hon. Members have said, we also have a problem with delayed discharge. Figures given in written answers have shown that more than 30
18WH
per cent. of those who are caught up in the delayed discharge system remain in hospital for more than a month. There is no medical or clinical reason for them to do so, but they remain in hospital because no beds are available elsewhere, or because there is no back-up for a domiciliary care package to allow them to return home.
Interestingly, last year's social services inspectorate report noted that 39 per cent. of delayed discharges were caused by delays in public funding, 36 per cent. by people having to wait for residential home placements as a result of the loss of beds and consequent shortage of spaces, and 18 per cent. by delays in the provision of domiciliary care packages. It is staggering that 39 per cent. of delays are due to people having to wait for public funding because there is not enough money in the social services budget to fund a place or domiciliary care, and that the national health service must meet the exorbitant cost of keeping such people in hospital for no clinical reason. That is an utter waste of taxpayers' money, and it is a disgrace that people are languishing in beds that are urgently needed for the acute care of other patients.
Reference has been made to this year's 6 per cent. real-terms increase in social services spending. Of course that is a step forward—it would be churlish to say otherwise. However, we should examine more closely the balance in the NHS funding budget between acute care in the NHS and personal social services.
Since community care was introduced in the early 1980s, there has been a significant increase in PSS funding, in percentage terms. As no doubt the Minister will tell us, the recent Budget contained a significant increase in such funding, although some of the gloss will be removed from that increase next year by the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions, which will have a considerable impact on the NHS budget and place even greater financial burdens on care home owners and those in the care sector. The Department of Health did not examine closely enough the implications of an across-the-board increase in this personal tax and its impact on an area that is already struggling with other problems.
Some 62 per cent. of social services clients being looked after are from the elderly section of our community, but only 47 per cent. of the total funding is spent on social services, so there is a gap. Local government spending is significantly more than the SSA for social services, running at about 8.9 per cent. in 2000–01. It is estimated that for the financial year that has just ended, the difference rose to 9.7 per cent. In personal social services and social care, the amount of money has not increased to keep pace with increased demand and the highly sensitive and difficult nature of the care required by that vulnerable section of our community.
The gap between health and social care funding is inexorably widening. It will continue to do so because of the demographic changes brought about by more people living longer and because the extent and the complexities of the care that many people require will increase year on year. That is producing a vicious circle in which the pressure caused by delayed discharges is passed on from the health sector to the social care sector and then to the care market, where funding pressures affect capacity, leading to another increase in the pressures on the health sector.

19WH
As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) mentioned, there are other pressures involved in getting people out of hospital and into care or domiciliary care packages in their own homes as soon as it is clinically possible. However, I suspect that corners have been cut. Emergency readmission levels have significantly increased—another vicious circle that exacerbates the problems with acute care.
After the Budget, the Secretary of State published a document called "Delivering the NHS Plan", which contains the ludicrous and self-defeating proposal to fine local authority social services departments for delayed discharges. That is an ill-conceived gimmick, which, if it ever sees the light of day, will cause even more problems. The carrot rather than the stick should be used to overcome such problems. The Secretary of State and his successors will rue the day that that proposal was conceived.
We need an urgent and fundamental review of short, medium and long-term financial planning and a proper assessment of the necessary balance between health funding and local authority funding for social care. That will ensure that the problem of funding, which has continued to grow year in, year out as demand rises inexorably, is analysed and rectified to enhance and improve the provision of social care and health care for the most vulnerable, fragile and weak in our society.
10.50 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Like others, I shall start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing this debate, on his valiant efforts on his bike during the bank holiday and on the good and useful way in which he opened our discussion. I particularly congratulate him on the lessons that he learned from the conference held in his constituency. That was heartening, because we have made it clear that although the Government can set standards and targets, improve funding and offer clear guidance, local action is required to improve services on the ground. The local partnerships and plans that my hon. Friend is leading and contributing to will be important for his constituents.
Importantly, most contributors to the debate have recognised the complexity of the matter. Hon. Members have recognised that it is about more than the number of residential care places and that a range of policies will contribute to the provision of the high quality care that we want for older people.
Many older people lead happy and fulfilled lives with a minimum of assistance from formal services. Many of them make an important and positive contribution to their families and their communities. They do so by giving up their free time to work for voluntary organisations and by working with children in their own families and in schools.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) rightly emphasised the range of older people's needs. We ought to aim to support older people and their families in their choices and lifestyles. We should ensure that, as far as possible, people are not removed from their communities and social networks and we should find
20WH
ways to underpin existing relationships and situations that minimise risk and disruption and maximise continuity, familiarity and social inclusion.
Hon. Members also made the important point that responsibility for that goes across agencies. Local councils, working with partners, have a fundamental role to play, as does the private and independent sector. The voluntary sector also makes an important contribution to the care of older people in our communities.
From talking to older people—my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) made this point—we know that fears about safety and security are high up on their agenda, as is access to reliable transport, local shops, good leisure facilities and primary health care. It is vital for councils to work with local agencies such as those for health, fire, police, housing, education and social care to make our communities safe and supportive places for older people to live.
My hon. Friend made an important link with the Government's overall public health agenda. Our development of good health throughout our lives will affect us in older age. As a Worcestershire MP I heard, as, I am sure, did my colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, her plea for SSA reform. I assure her that there will be consultation with local government throughout the summer as we move towards the implementation of the new regime in the next financial year.
Many hon. Members raised the issue of delayed discharge. I agree that it is bad for the system as a whole; even more significantly, it is bad for individuals. That is why the Government's investment in the system is important—and it is important that it should work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford spoke about the £5.4 million going to Staffordshire. He will be pleased to know that it led to a reduction in delayed discharges in Staffordshire; they were down from 224 in September 2001 to 127 in March 2002, and the target is for a further reduction by March 2003. The investment has allowed extra publicly funded care home places, extra intermediary care beds and more intensive care packages; it has been a successful start in tackling the problem of delayed discharges.
I agree that we need extra investment. I was therefore pleased, as were my hon. Friends—we should not be too surprised that the Liberal Democrats thought that it was not enough—that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to give personal social services a significant annual average real-terms growth of 6 per cent. in 2003–04, rising again in 2005–06. That demonstrates the Government's firm commitment to social care. It contrasts with an average real-terms increase, on a like-for-like basis, of less than 0.5 per cent. a year under the last Conservative Government. That new cash includes resources to cover the cost of hospital beds that are needlessly blocked through delayed discharges.
Councils will be able to use that extra money to expand care at home and to ensure that all older people are able to leave hospital once their treatment is completed. We shall introduce stronger incentives to ensure that people do not have to wait so long before being discharged. Older people and other service users have the right to expect that local services should work

21WH
together as a coherent whole, and that the policy that underpins them should promote joint working rather than letting them act perversely, as sometimes seems to be the case.
The hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) raised the issue of residential care fees. Once again, we heard the wrong figure for a fall in residential care beds of 50,000; even Laing and Buisson accept that it was a net figure of 19,000. However, we share their concern about residential care placements. As my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said, higher resources in social services should lead to higher residential care fees. For example, I was glad to see that what Staffordshire received of the £300 million went into increasing residential care fees.
Other hon. Members pointed out the importance that the Government place on promoting independence and allowing people to remain within their own homes. The number of people receiving intensive domiciliary care increased nationally by 6 per cent. to September 2001. That is an important and encouraging trend, and we want to see it continue.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) raised the issue of non-residential care charging. The guidance issued by the Government in England takes an important step in helping to overcome the discrepancies between authorities, and for the local authorities to charge where they choose, which will be much fairer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and other hon. Members raised the important issue of training, and training support, in residential and domiciliary care. The national minimum standards put in place by the Government will ensure higher levels of training, but we are also matching it through increased investment—for example, through the training organisation for personal social services, which increased from £2 million last year to £15 million this year—to ensure the sort of training that is crucial to recruit and retain staff and to ensure quality in the residential and domiciliary care sector. My hon. Friend's point on how we can take forward that training is important, and I shall certainly consider it.
Several hon. Members made the important link with housing issues. I assure them that my Department is working closely with colleagues across Government to ensure that local authorities recognise those links, and the importance of developing new forms of housing. More extra care at sheltered housing, for example, could play an important role. We are reaching and exceeding our targets on intermediate care. As several hon. Members have said, that is an important bridge between hospital and home, which helps to prevent some admissions to hospital. It is a key part of the national service framework for older people, which remains a high priority for the Government. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, receives a reply about the north Staffordshire elderly care strategy.

Cancer Services (South-East)
11 am
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the chance to introduce the debate. It was prompted by the realisation that I had dealt with a number of constituents who had had less than happy experiences in cases in which a cancer had been diagnosed. A glance at Hansard shows that other hon. Members have had similar experiences, and I hoped to be able to share those today. However, not many of those concerned seem to be here.
Almost invariably, my constituents have nothing but praise for the staff who treat them. It is important to mention that, because when we say things that might have a negative feel, staff may believe that we are getting at them. We are not getting at staff; indeed, in many cases, they are just as frustrated by the problems as are the patients. Most health professionals went into the profession because they wanted to make things better for people, and it is frustrating if they cannot solve problems quickly. In many cases, staff have verified my constituents' stories and have expressed a great deal of dismay at the difficulties that they have faced from time to time.
I want to touch on a number of matters: first, the problems surrounding diagnosis; secondly, waiting times for radiotherapy, without which the debate would not be complete; thirdly, access to drug treatments; fourthly, funding; and finally, a brief recognition of local cancer support services. Much of what I have to say has a national context, but as much as possible I shall restrict my remarks to those relating to the southeast of England.
I shall start by considering diagnosis. The Government have set a two-week standard for patients who have been urgently referred by their general practitioners. That means that they have to see the relevant specialists within that time. The latest available figures show a somewhat patchy compliance. Patients in the Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS trust, for example, come off best in that 99 per cent. of them are seen within the target time. Not so lucky are the people of Hastings and Rother; in that area, only 58.6 per cent. of patients see the relevant specialist within two weeks. I do not know the reasons for the differences—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us—but it will be interesting to know what performance level would ring alarm bells and, once those bells had sounded, what action would be taken, and by whom, to improve the service for patients in a particular area.
It is all very well if one has a lump or worrying symptoms and one's GP makes a referral. However, some say that GPs have a tendency to over-refer—I might not agree with that —because they know that it will put a patient's mind at rest. Others are more mindful of pressure on resources and may take certain decisions before referring, but that can lead to problems, as a constituent of mine in her early 20s discovered. She was a nursing mother, but was convinced that something was not quite right and found a lump in her breast. Her GP dismissed her as being over-concerned and suggested that her lumpy breast was caused by breastfeeding. He was wrong. By the time that the young woman was believed and the cancer properly diagnosed, it had spread, as it was of a particularly virulent type.

23WH
Also locally last year, the press highlighted the case of a teenage girl who had died of breast cancer. The press reported that she was the youngest person in the United Kingdom to die in that way. Unfortunately, the probability of those two young women having breast cancer was extremely low, as any GP would know. That may work against young women being taken seriously and referred when they visit the GP. I have tried, but have been unable to find figures to show whether the rate of breast cancer in young women is rising, but GPs should be aware that breast cancer can affect women of all ages. Are there any plans to ensure that age is not a factor in determining whether a woman's symptoms are taken seriously?
While I am on the subject of diagnosis, I want to put in a word on behalf of the medical and scientific laboratory officers. They are all graduates and many of them have a secondary qualification. They are essential to the long-term success of the cancer plan, but their wages are very low. My local organisation asked to speak to me about the subject because so many people were leaving the profession. The previous hon. Member for Isle of Wight made the front pages of the local papers with his revelation that highly qualified people earned less than chicken pluckers. The wages are a particular problem in the south-east of England, as property prices are high and there is a high cost of living. There will be implications for the future if the issue of salary levels is not addressed, as the profession will simply not attract the bright young people that it needs to attract.
As I am about to show, accessing some treatments may take time, and there is a debate to be had about whether the two-week target is appropriate or whether it should be longer. Would patients be better served by concentrating efforts following diagnosis to ensure that people are treated more quickly? I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) will want to elaborate on that point.
I shall now discuss waiting times for radiotherapy treatment. I was first alerted to the problem by a constituent who had developed a form of skin cancer. His specialist decided that he needed urgent radiotherapy and spent two hours on the telephone trying to book treatment for him. He telephoned places all around the south of England and no treatment was available for three months. My constituent had some savings, which he was reluctant to use, but he eventually decided that his life was worth it and his oncologist managed to book him into one of the London hospitals as a private patient. As my constituent did not know how he would be feeling, he had to travel from London by taxi, again at some expense. Although he accepted that it was his decision to access private medicine, he thought it reasonable to try to reclaim some of his travel costs— unfortunately, to no avail, as he had not agreed that before embarking on treatment. I suspect that he had other concerns at the time, focusing on the diagnosis of cancer, which does tend to concentrate the mind. The decision not to pay some of his travel costs, although they were a small portion of the cost that would have been incurred had he undergone radiotherapy under the national health service, seems perverse when we are shipping people to the continent for hip operations.
24WH
Currently, many people in the Southampton area are waiting 13 weeks or more to begin radiotherapy. Recent figures show that that appears to be a problem throughout the south-east. On 30 September 2001, 35 per cent. of in-patients were waiting for more than 12 months for radiology—I cannot believe that figure, but most have to wait more than three months. The latest figures for out-patients show that only 77.6 per cent. are seen within 13 weeks of referral. Is there spare capacity in other parts of the country? Would it be possible to treat patients from the south-east elsewhere?
The plot thickens. Two days ago, The Sunday Times pointed out:
"Many patients are having to wait months for tests for illnesses including cancer and heart disease before they are placed on official NHS waiting lists for surgery. Some die before they reach these lists."
That article specifies surgery, but do the same criteria apply before a patient is put on a waiting list for radiotherapy?
Worryingly, The Sunday Times also claimed that there were long waiting lists for magnetic resonance imaging and computerised tomography scans. Worse still, waiting times for MRI scans are not compiled, as revealed by the Minister in a written answer to me on 15 April. In the light of the importance of that procedure in diagnosis of cancers, does she have plans to collect the figures so that we can know whether our constituents receive a service that is good, bad or as we would expect? Constituents of mine have raised concerns about waiting for up to six months for such diagnostic procedures.
I developed a close interest in drug treatments when a constituent wrote to me in desperation. She had been told that Herceptin was her only chance, but at the time the National Institute for Clinical Excellence had not approved it. Her doctors were reluctant to provide it. She obtained the treatment eventually but, sadly, it was too late for her. In some ways, she was luckier than most, in that she was tested to see whether the drug would benefit her. A Europe-wide survey showed that only 18 per cent. of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in Britain were tested for HER2. A positive test for that means that the drug will be useful. That compares with 67 per cent. of women in Germany and 87 per cent. in Spain.
Happily, NICE has approved the drug, but some interesting questions have been raised. If doctors still do not test for HER2, they will not be in a position to know whether the drug will be valuable. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all women, not only those in the south-east, have access to the test to suggest whether they should receive a NICE-approved treatment?
I have been lobbied by many drug companies since the subject of our debate has been known. I shall deal with a couple of their points briefly because they affect the south-east, although not exclusively so. Is the Minister happy with the delays in obtaining NICE guidance? What estimate has been made of patients who have been denied treatment because of the delay? When a drug is approved, what monitoring of uptake is there? How does the NHS monitor the number of patients and the cost that it bears, and make comparisons with the pre-approval phase of the drug? Without such

25WH
comparisons, it is difficult to say with conviction that NICE guidance is being acted on. An undertaking to provide such information would be most welcome and add to the transparency of the process.
I want to touch briefly on aspects of funding. No one would deny that the extra money for cancer services was welcome. What is less clear is how it is allocated once it reaches a trust. Recently, the Select Committee on Science and Technology considered cancer research, and in one sitting with the Minister specific concerns were expressed about whether funding reached what it was designated for. Macmillan Cancer Relief had received reports that much of the money was diverted elsewhere to pay off debts. At the time, the Minister did not have a categoric answer because the accounts simply were not available. Is there any update on that position, and what action will the Minister take so that her Department—particularly in the south-east region because that is my concern—ensures that hypothecated resources get to the services on the ground?
I want to say a brief word about a couple of local cancer services. We are very lucky to have the Wessex Cancer Trust, which does sterling work. I have mixed feelings about whether such trusts should be funding hospital equipment, rather than the NHS, but it seems to be the way of the world these days. I want to mention briefly Jane Scarth house, which is part of something called Cancer Concern. It is a walk-in centre close to the local Waitrose, in the high street in Romsey—an excellent idea. It provides information, support and counselling. You name it, it does it—from helping women to look good when they have to wear a wig, and really do not want to, to providing counselling support for families, and more or less everything in between. It has suffered financial problems recently, due to the winding up of the parent charity. It has been so worth while and of such benefit to many local people that I wondered whether there was any way of extending that sort of scheme to other areas of the country. People do not always want to go into a medical environment to obtain the help and support that they need. It seems to me that such high street centres are well placed to cater for that.
I am disappointed that there are not more people present today because I have had a considerable mailbag on various aspects of the problem. I had thought that more concern would be shown here today. Of particular concern is the radiotherapy waiting list. I understand that there are plans afoot to put in new equipment, but that will take some time. In the interim, it would be useful to know what we are doing for those patients.
11.17 am
Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on obtaining the debate, and on her thoughtful speech. She was looking, quite rightly, at the full spectrum of cancer services, from primary care through the full range of hospital services and related support.
I want to focus on the narrower but absolutely critical issue of cancer centre services in east Kent. I am glad to see the Minister in her place again because I have had the opportunity to pursue the cancer issue with her in a small way. The debate will give me a little more time to
26WH
focus on the cancer problems that arise out of the proposed reorganisation of hospitals in east Kent, particularly in the light of last week's revelations about cancer.
The cancer centre in Kent is unique in the country in being jointly delivered on two sites: Maidstone, which serves west Kent, and Canterbury, which serves east Kent. They have the ability to treat common cancers and provide specialist services for diagnosing and treating rarer tumours, radiotherapy, specialist nurses, diagnostic services, CAT scanners, MRI, endoscopy, pathology, in-patient medical care for complex treatments, a high-dependency unit for seriously ill patients and dedicated out-patient facilities. In other words, all the various strands that comprise a cancer centre are provided on both sites. That is partly because the logistics of Kent are so bad. To be readily accessible to people at both ends of the county, two sites were needed. There is also a capacity issue, to which I shall return.
Behind that dry list of services there exists an extraordinarily good cancer centre at Canterbury. Several very dear friends of mine have been treated there, in most cases extremely successfully. A former agent, Jo Chapman, who, tragically, did not survive, was none the less treated very professionally right up until the day she died. I saw her just before she died and she was full of praise for the treatment that she had received in the Mountbatten centre, the residential facility in Canterbury, whose construction was largely funded by outside money raised on appeal.
Several problems for the cancer centre arise from the proposed reorganisation of the three acute hospitals in east Kent. I have letters from two of the three consultants who operate in the joint cancer centre. One, from Dr. Stewart Coltart, lists the problems, saying:
"Ambulatory/outpatient model is untested in UK"
and
"Not advised by Canterbury and Maidstone consultants nor by the Royal College of Radiologists."
He mentions
"Difficult access for the poorer population from Thanet, Deal and Dover"
as well as from Canterbury. Thanet has the largest concentration of deprived people, we are told, in southeast England outside London; Deal and Dover have large amounts of deprivation and I have some extremely deprived wards in Canterbury.
Dr. Coltart raises the question of
"Who will look after seriously ill cancer patients in E Kent … when in patient care and consultants are based in Maidstone. It will not be specialist cancer doctors or nurses as happens now."
He mentions the enormous cost of transferring the facilities from Canterbury to Maidstone, which does not seem to have been included in the private finance initiative proposals at all because of the anomaly that, thanks to the East Kent health authority's last reorganisation, cancer services belong to the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust and not to the East Kent hospitals trust, which designed the document. Listing a final problem, he says:
"Lack of access would mean that some patients would not be referred or be fit enough to receive radiotherapy."

27WH
Dr. Howard Smedley, another consultant, backed up his colleague's comments, saying:
"I have been involved in several meetings with middle management in East and West Kent recently as they try to resolve the issue of what to do with cancer services given the downgrading of the Kent and Canterbury. Despite the rhetoric it is quite clear that Canterbury is going to be left with an outpatient radiotherapy facility as the only treatment facility",
he alleges. He continues:
"It is clear that more chemotherapy may take place in Margate and Ashford and all the true cancer centre, i.e. complex work, will go to Maidstone."
Let us look for a moment at the process that has taken place. Cancer was excluded from it. The trust responsible for delivering the joint cancer centre in Canterbury is not a signatory of the document. Professor James, who heads the joint cancer centre, attended the meetings and claimed that he was closely involved with the writing of the appendix that appears in the back of the document on cancer. He said that his main thrust would be to restore confidence for the purpose of attracting new cancer consultants. He also claimed, at the Canterbury meeting, that all three of the Canterbury-based consultants were solidly behind the proposals in the document. He even listed them by name. Yet the two letters to which I have just referred, attacking the proposal, had been widely circulated some weeks before.
I asked Professor James at a subsequent meeting at Whitstable whether he supported the sentence on page 42 of the document that appears to be a direct attack on confidence in the centre. It says:
"This has led us to conclude, reluctantly, that for the longer term it is not possible to guarantee the continuous medical support and cover that is required to provide safe inpatient radiotherapy and chemotherapy services in Canterbury".
He was, of course, unable to answer, as his previous spiel had been all about building confidence in the viability of those services.
Asked whether he had seen the letters from two of his three Canterbury consultants vehemently opposing the proposals on the grounds that they would be clinically unsafe, Professor James again refused to answer. Just for the record, I understand that the third consultant was so angry about his claim, which mentioned her name and views, that she subsequently denounced him at a consultants' staff meeting.
I shall look for a moment or two longer at the detail of some of those problems. Page 43 of the cancer appendix—I should stress that it is only an appendix that sets out some ball park points rather than a firm proposal— to the document claims that
"in summary, the ambulatory/outpatient model of service at the Kent & Canterbury hospital will support for the next ten years … outpatient/radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatment".
That is stated as a bald fact. It was backed up—if that is the right phrase—by Professor James's claims at the Canterbury meeting that four fifths of the people who are currently treated in the cancer centre at Canterbury will continue to be treated there. We have heard the four-fifths figure in a quite different context before. It was claimed for the accident and emergency unit in its downgraded form as a minor injuries unit. That figure
28WH
has now been abandoned and replaced with one of between 50 and 60 per cent. None the less, I mention that as the figure that Professor James was claiming. He made a bald claim that the ambulatory out-patient model would be good for at least 10 years at the lower level of 80 per cent. of current treatments.
After the cancer tsar visited Canterbury, however, he sent a letter headed "Provision of cancer services in Kent" to Dr. Stewart Coltart. It states that if Canterbury ultimately becomes a community ambulatory care centre, it would not be safe to provide in-patient oncology services there. More important, it states that day case treatment, including radiotherapy, "might be possible." All that the cancer tsar can say is that it "might" be possible.
Since then, Professor James has prepared another paper that he has actually signed—there is no signature on the mysterious appendix that appeared in the back of the proposal document. Indeed, as I remarked earlier, his trust was not a signatory to that document. This paper was produced in secret, prepared for his employers in Maidstone and, I imagine, sent to the new Kent health authority. It also happens to have fallen into my hands. As one would expect, it is worded in highly technical language. I shall therefore only quote its aims and final conclusion, both of which are extremely short. It examines the implications for Kent of
"the impact of haematology location on service delivery of solid tumour chemotherapy and complex cancer surgery"
and looks at
"alternatives for the co-location of solid and non-solid tumour chemotherapy".
I shall also quote the paper's first three conclusions. The first conclusion is:
"Planned changes in support services for cancer services in East Kent increase the need for co-location of complex cancer services in the Maidstone Cancer Centre."
Maidstone already has a 14-week waiting list as opposed to Canterbury's seven-week waiting list.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) tells me that he has written three times to the chairman of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust asking it to give an official response to the cancer appendix to the document. He has not yet received an answer of any kind. He asked me to state that, because he is attending another meeting booked some time ago that prevents him from joining us.
The second conclusion is:
"National guidance on the surgery for rare cancers (gynaecological, head and neck, upper gastrointestinal) recommends centralisation. For West Kent, the chosen site is the Cancer Centre in Maidstone."
The idea that gynaecological services will be taken away from Thanet, where they are now, has been neither canvassed nor discussed anywhere. Professor James uses the word "centralisation", reminding us that the centre for west Kent is now in Maidstone. The only other place where gynaecological services are delivered at present is Thanet. Is east Kent to lose gynaecological services too? It would be interesting to have an answer to that question.

29WH
The third quotation is the real killer:
"There are strong arguments for co-locating high-level haematological chemo with a cancer Centre. Parallels exist in service support for cancer surgery and the haematological malignancies and consideration should be given to merging and co-locating some of these support services."
Indeed, a large part of the paper, which I shall spare the Chamber, discusses the back-up services for haematological cancers—leukaemia and the other blood-related cancers. In other words, since Professor James's various verbal contributions to the consultation process—they were only verbal—he has already conceded that in the case of blood-related procedures the services are worthless: they will all have to go to Maidstone.
A few minutes ago I was on the telephone to Dr. Stewart Coltart to discuss this issue. He makes the point that the distinction that Professor James draws between blood cancers, in the case of which he has finally conceded that it will not be practical to follow his model in Canterbury, and the solid cancers does not exist: almost exactly the same problems apply to the solid cancer centre services as to the blood cancers. In other words, we face the loss of all the true cancer centre services from east Kent. It is true that on all three sites in east Kent it will be possible to continue to deliver the cancer out-patient unit services. However, to summarise in plain English what I have been saying for the last few minutes, if the proposals to reorganise the three acute hospitals in east Kent go ahead, the first cancer centre closure since the Government took office will take place: the cancer centre, as a centre, in Canterbury will close. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that.
11.31 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) for securing the debate and setting out what she wished to say in such a clear and organised way. She draws our attention to key questions about diagnosis, the waiting time for diagnosis and, in a couple of examples, the quality of diagnosis, the waiting time for treatment, access to drug treatments, funding and the role of local cancer support services in the NHS and, particularly, the voluntary sector. I share her regret that more hon. Members from all parties are not present to hear her points of view, but what we lack in quantity the two previous contributions have made up for in quality.
Even in the south-east, cancer services are a large subject. I am sure that the Minister has come prepared to deal with a number of questions from Back Benchers and Front Benchers on all aspects. I concur with my hon. Friend that many of these issues are not only local and regional but national. I have a number of questions to which I hope that the Minister will be able to respond. To ensure that she has time to prepare her answers, I shall set them out at the start of my speech, before I mention each one individually. I should be grateful if she would respond to six questions.
Will the Minister first—she may have guessed that this was coming—set out the evidence base on which the two-week wait policy is predicated, to show that it will improve survival, compared with a policy of a maximum waiting time between presentation and treatment or
30WH
diagnosis and treatment? She will accept that, at best, there is some controversy about the rational evidence base for improving survival for that target.
My second question, which my hon. Friend raised in passing, relates to the shortage of radiotherapists and the fact that the private sector has radiotherapists who may be available to the NHS. A separate question relates to the fact that the bulk of those radiotherapists will have been trained by the NHS, at its expense and that of the public sector, through our university system. Does the Minister think that it is reasonable for the private sector not to carry any overhead for the training of radiotherapists when it tenders for NHS contracts or any other business? Does she agree that there may be some rationale for asking the private sector to pay some form of levy for the time that it uses of NHS-trained radiotherapists and other professions allied to medicine, such as nurses and doctors? Otherwise, there will not be a level playing field in tenders for NHS contracts, which she wishes to open up to the private sector.
My third question relates to a point made by my hon. Friend. By focusing on specific aspects of waiting, the Government fail, by an act of omission, to pick up the overall waiting time between presentation and treatment everywhere in the country, although one can consider it on a regional basis. Can the Minister explain why the Government did not set up a mechanism to measure the time between presentation and treatment and, even more important, between diagnosis and treatment rather than between presentation and diagnosis of referrals, most of whom, fortunately, will not have cancer? The failure to collect such data and the failure to record other waiting times, such as those for MRI and other services, lead to the allegation that the Government seek to disguise long waiting times.
My fourth question is about NICE approval for drugs. Can the Minister tell us which drugs are not funded in order to find the money to pay for drugs and treatments that have been approved by NICE, which must now be used, following the regulation that NICE guidance must be implemented? If she cannot answer that, can she say what system she has set up to monitor the effect on drug treatments that have not been approved by NICE and, therefore, are not protected by the diktat that health authorities and primary care trusts—whoever has the funding—must fund them?
I should be grateful if the Minister would discuss the role of the lottery in local cancer support services. Perhaps the Government have changed their policy, but my understanding was that the lottery would not be used to pay for core services in the health service. We know that the proceeds of people's gambling on the lottery are used to pay for radiotherapy machines and linear accelerators to treat cancer. Is that because the Government's policy has changed or is it their view that such machines are not part of the core service that the NHS should provide? Everyone wants to see more machinery, but is that consistent with the Government's announced policy?
My final question is about the funding of hospice care, which is, I suppose, the end of the process. The Government made a series of announcements about additional funding for hospices, which have not really been part of the NHS. In my constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members, that important part of patient care has generally been left, at best, to a

31WH
combination of voluntary organisations that have been fortunate and hard-working enough to raise funding, and small NHS or social services contributions. If hospice care and terminal care are part of core NHS treatment—I believe that they should be—they should be funded by the Government. I am not asking the Minister to repeat her previous announcement about the amounts of money, but I am asking her to clarify when hospices will receive the funds.
My local hospice certainly has not seen any additional funding. I refer to the children's hospice, Helen house, and its partner organisation, Douglas house, which is about to be established. I fear that, despite huge efforts, such hospices will be unable to continue to fund-raise sufficiently to maintain resources. Since there is not an adequate NHS for children and young adults, which is the area covered by the hospices, I should be grateful if the Minister would give a categorical assurance that the funding that she announced—it differed from a Library briefing that I was given—will reach front-line services.
My hon. Friend raised several important points about the two-week wait. Through her work, she showed that the implementation of that has been patchy, which is a source of concern even if it is a rational target. None of us wants our constituents to wait too long for a diagnosis of symptoms. There is a debate over whether people necessarily want a same-day or one-stop service, which has been previously advocated, or whether they want time for investigations, to see specialists, and to return in the near future for a discussion of the diagnosis. However, the trend towards conveniently accessed one-visit diagnoses and further investigations is important.
If there is no evidence of improved patient survival after a two-week, rather than a two-month, wait to see a specialist, one must balance the undoubted gain of speedy referral for some patients with the consequences of such a policy. The consequences do not appear to be improved survival for the patients referred; they appear to be a later referral time for those who are not fortunate enough to be referred under the two-week wait. That may apply to the people in the cases raised by my hon. Friend, who are not thought to have cancer symptoms and are referred by GPs in the normal process if they are referred at all. They must wait longer because resources have been taken from general out-patient services to meet the two-week wait.
Even when funding is available, if there is a fundamental shortage of staff one is simply rearranging queues. The Government have decided to prioritise people referred under the two-week wait, but they must recognise the consequences of that. Professor Michael Baum told me that he was concerned that in the breast cancer field patients who were not referred under the two-week wait would suffer. Many GPs recognise that, and refer as many people as possible for the two-week wait, which somewhat defeats the purpose. Can the Minister say whether any thought has gone into the implications of that policy?
I should like to reinforce the message of my hon. Friend on the state of recruitment among scientific officers, and on their remuneration. The problem is apparent not only in laboratory staff and medical laboratory scientific officers, but in cytology screeners,
32WH
who are a crucial link in the diagnosis of cancer. They are among the worst paid graduates working in a technological area. The south-east has a general skill shortage and will find it more and more difficult to recruit newly qualified graduates. It may also become more difficult to recruit people into training for those subjects. As the former Member for Isle of Wight, Dr. Peter Brand, remarked, for scientific officers on the Isle of Wight to be paid less than chicken pluckers is an indictment of the way in which, over many years, the NHS has treated people with those qualifications.
There is a growing concern, although the problem has always existed, about the wait for radiotherapy treatment. In that case, outcome will be impacted by the time spent waiting for treatment. Many of the points made in the article in The Sunday Times need a response from the Government. In my constituency and other areas throughout the south-east, patients have great difficulty in gaining access to drug treatment. My hon. Friend drew attention to the difficulties for patients waiting for drug treatment when NICE has started its appraisal process because of what is commonly called "NICE blight" in which the take-up and prescription of a drug falls simply because the drug is going through the NICE process. My hon. Friend's questions about the speed at which NICE reaches its conclusions are pertinent and I look forward to the Minister's response.
A number of hon. Members in this debate and elsewhere have asked where the funding for cancer services has gone. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said at Prime Minister's questions that if funds are ring-fenced for cancer services, it is reasonable for people to ask what steps the Government are taking to ensure that that funding reaches its destination. There have been a number of claims that funding has been used to pay off debt or has gone to other areas. One can question whether it is reasonable, legitimate, ethical or distorting specifically to allocate some of the growth to centrally decided priorities, but if the Government do that they owe it to the audit process, if not to patients and staff whose expectations have been raised, to ensure that the funding reaches those priorities. The Science and Technology Committee report on research mentioned the matter and raised serious questions for hospitals not only in the south-east but throughout the country.
I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who perhaps has more detailed knowledge than anyone of the proposals for east Kent hospitals. He has been very active in the matter and I know from speaking to people in his area that he has worked hard on their behalf, no matter what their political views or whether they have any. The reorganisation of hospital services in east Kent, particularly cancer services, poses difficult problems for a Government with whom the buck eventually stops. His contribution reflected the widespread public concern about the future of cancer services as well as the drastic situation concerning acute services in those hospitals.
In conclusion, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those who work in this area. They have to deal with a difficult condition. Cancer can strike at any age and is, by nature of its pathology, often relentless in its course. They must deal with a condition that receives a lot of political and media attention. Professional staff tell me

33WH
that they know the risks of working with this condition and that they may be labelled negligent if one cancer is missed because the expectation is that screening will pick up every cancer and that early detection automatically and always means an increased likelihood of cure. The picture is more complex. Screening is high risk detection and is not foolproof. It is incumbent on the media and politicians to recognise that when cancer is missed. It was ever the case. We must improve diagnosis and our level of suspicion. We must also improve treatment in the health service, but it is dangerous to raise expectations to too high a level because it will simply put off hard-working staff who do their best.
Tribute should also be paid to the voluntary organisations that do so much to raise resources for cancer research and treatment. My hon. Friend referred to the tension between welcoming fund-raising of all kinds for cancer and the question whether that is a replacement for or an addition to Government funding for the health services. It is clear that without volunteers to offer counselling and raise funds for treatment and research, we would not have the cancer services that we do, and I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those people.
11.49 am
Tim Loughton: Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on raising an important subject, although it is a great pity that its importance is not reflected in today's turnout. That said, the reason for the poor turnout may be that we hold debates almost every other week on some aspect of this issue, be it breast cancer, cancers in men or, as today, cancer services in the south-east. However, the low turnout gives the Minister an opportunity to provide a full and detailed response to the points that have been raised. Usually, Ministers must squash their replies into the final 10 minutes or so and are peremptorily cut off just as they get to the essential question that we want answered.
I echo the six questions raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), which I, too, have raised at various times in the past, not least in this Hall. I want to take up two of the hon. Gentleman's points. First, the two-week policy has been a cornerstone of the Government's approach to cancer treatment, but I have seen evidence that it distorts treatment times following the front-end loading of consultation times, which have been speeded up only through the massive concentration of a finite quantity of resources.
Secondly, I echo the hon. Gentleman's final question, which related to hospice care and to which I hope the Minister will reply. Hospices are finding the going tough, and that will be particularly true following the national insurance increases in the Chancellor's recent Budget. They will receive none of the additional funding that is intended to make up for the £250 million national insurance bill that will fall to the NHS. The vast majority of hospice funding will have to come from additional voluntary contributions and charitable fundraising which we see throughout the country. That is true not least of St. Barnabas hospice in my constituency, of which I am honoured to be a patron. St. Barnabas is conducting its massive chestnut tree
34WH
appeal to build a hospice for children in my area, and it needs to raise £5 million in capital alone. The running costs involved in staffing the new hospice will be that much higher than elsewhere given that it is in the most expensive corner of the country and that it is particularly difficult to recruit medical staff. The Government must consider the issue more favourably than they have done. The Conservative party promised a big increase in funding for hospices, particularly for children, and I would like guarantees along those lines from the Government.
The initial point raised by the hon. Member for Romsey was that our comments about cancer services in this debate and elsewhere are not a criticism of the dedicated and long-suffering staff in this highly stressed area of the NHS. From all the examples that I have seen, I know that, without exception, they do their jobs with enormous dedication and professionalism, even if the results do not reflect their input in many cases.
Cancer treatment remains one of the cornerstones of new Labour's promises to modernise the NHS, but we still hear far too many horror stories and excuses as to why services are taking so long to improve and will need much more investment. The national cancer plan stated:
"The ability of the NHS to modernise and reform its cancer services is a litmus test for the health of the NHS as a whole."
The Government therefore have an awful lot more to do.
Over recent months, we have heard stories that suggest that things are not going as well as they should, not least the stories in the recent Science and Technology Committee report about the siphoning off of cancer funds, revealing that money promised to improve cancer care appears to have been siphoned off by NHS trusts to pay for other priorities.
In their cancer plan, the Government pledged to increase spending on cancer care by £570 million a year by 2003–04, but cancer specialists told the Select Committee that part of the first round of funding—about £280 million for 2000–01—may have been diverted by NHS into paying off debts or meeting administration costs. The report stated:
"The increase in cancer care funding, often quoted over recent months, may not be reaching those who are relying on it to deliver the cancer plan … We are seriously concerned at the apparent ease with which trusts can re-deploy such funds if they choose."
The Committee thought it "dissembling" of the Government to allocate funds to cancer care with great publicity, without taking even the "simplest precautions" to ensure that the money reached the intended areas. I am sure that all hon. Members will echo the sentiments expressed in that frank, detailed and welcome report.
As other hon. Members have said, there are continuing problems over spending on chemotherapy drugs. Spending in this country is still way out of proportion to what is spent in other countries. Spending per head of population is £6.24 in Germany, £3.31 in Italy and a derisory 95p in the United Kingdom. That puts it in context.
Conservative Members welcome the Government's cancer plan—it will allow preventive work to reduce the risk, earlier detection and improved community support for sufferers—but the proof of the pudding will be in the

35WH
output, not in the amount of literature produced to identify the problem and to try to convince us that something is being done.
As we have heard, waiting times are still far too high. In a recent Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) spoke of the alarming problems caused by the time that breast cancer patients have to wait for treatment in his constituency in East Sussex. In an article entitled "Not the waiting list" in The Sunday Times this weekend, we read of further examples of treatment not happening in the south-east. For instance, Joy Barthorpe of Battle was diagnosed with breast cancer last October and had her operation on 28 December. She has now been told that her radiotherapy will not start until 24 June.
Another patient from Sussex was attending the Kent oncology centre in Maidstone. She was diagnosed last autumn as having breast cancer, and she underwent surgery on 21 November. Following the operation, she was told that it would be a requisite part of the treatment that she should start radiotherapy between four and six weeks later. She was told that she would receive written confirmation that radiotherapy would begin in early January, but she heard nothing for seven weeks. On telephoning Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust in early January, she was told that her treatment could not begin until 25 March. In practical terms it means that treatment that was recommended to begin four to six weeks after the operation will not now take place until at least 16 weeks later.
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of the case is that the hospital made no attempt to get in touch with the patient and tell her that she would have to wait another two and a half months to begin radiotherapy. By its own admission, current waiting times at the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust are not unusual; they are an accurate reflection of the situation across the NHS. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) show how the centralisation of those services may push waiting times out even further.
Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but he has just made exactly the point that I was about to make. We already have completely unacceptable waiting times at Maidstone. Waiting times at Canterbury are currently shorter; however, if Canterbury is run down and everyone is expected to be treated at Maidstone, what can we possibly expect to happen to waiting times?
Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes his point well. As we know, Kent has a particular problem. Speed is of the essence in treating these cancers. Six weeks is approximately the time that it takes for many tumours to double in size, and introducing an additional delay of four or more weeks between planning and starting radiotherapy must prejudice outcomes.
It is not all the bed of roses in the south-east that many Ministers seem to think. It is the largest region in the country, with 8,100,000 people, which is 13.5 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom. It is the most densely populated part of the country and the one with
36WH
the greatest number of older people, as I know from my experience of Worthing. That brings with it problems for the NHS, such as additional costs of treatment for the elderly, bed blocking and long waiting times for hip and knee replacements. What measures have been taken to utilise spare capacity elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Those in the south-east face disproportionately long waits.
The pressures on finance are especially acute in the south-east. One recalls the leaked memo from Ruth Carnell, the chief executive of the NHS in the south-east region, which came to light just before Christmas. The memo showed that NHS trusts in the region would overspend in the financial year 2001–02 by £60 million. The Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS trust, in my constituency, is some £2.7 million in deficit.
Jo Yardley, the general manager of Kent oncology centre in Maidstone, in my hon. Friend's area, said:
"We asked for in excess of £1 million for this financial year. It was reduced to £650,000 and has now been reduced yet again. The waits cause immense anxiety yet I have never reported on any performance programme. It's something that we have been crying out for years."
Hilary Thomas, professor of oncology at Royal Surrey County hospital, said:
"When the money comes in, the chief executives want to put the money into achieving the targets over which they will get sacked. The public should know that one patient might be getting their varicose veins surgery done to meet some silly target in a manifesto and another"—
someone who does not appear on the waiting list—
"might not get radical treatment for cancer that may make a difference to whether they live to old age or not."
Those quotes are from this weekend's edition of The Sunday Times.
In the south-east, the additional pressures of staff shortages at all levels are causing problems. There is a particular shortage of radiographers, as has been mentioned by hon. Members. The figures for radiographer shortages in the south-east are alarming: the number of whole-time equivalent radiographers per 100,000 for the whole of England is 21. In the south-east, that figure is just 17 and in West Sussex, in my area, it is just 12, which compares with a figure of 25 in the northwest and 65 in Manchester. Those are big differences.
The vacancy rates also reflect the differences between regions. Against a national average of 8 per cent. of vacancies for therapeutic radiographers, in the southeast the average is 13.1 per cent. and in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, next to my constituency, it is 19.2 per cent. Those are enormous differences. When I tabled questions about radiographer vacancies, we were told that information regarding the number of radiographers joining and leaving the NHS was not collected centrally. One might suggest that it should be collected centrally, because urgent central attention is required.
The Government may tell us that the number of qualified radiographers has increased by 8 per cent. since 1997—that is a head-count figure, not a whole-time equivalent. However, the Government have placed extra burdens on radiographers, with the enormous numbers of people who now, rightly, have breast screening. That extra capacity has been used up in dealing with the extra breast screening alone.

37WH
The breast screening centre in Worthing hospital has one consultant radiographer, Dr. Linda Rockall. Goodness knows what problems we would have in that hospital if she fell under a bus. The hospital desperately needs more recruits. People at the hospital say that they would be delighted to offer breast screening to older women, but that they cannot do so because they are struggling to cope with the work load as it is, without taking on a new raft of clients. Breast screening for older people would be a fair promise to make, but it is a worthless promise unless the resources and qualified radiographers exist. Especially in our corner of the world, there is an enormous shortage of those people.
I want to mention breast care services in Brighton and Hove. The central Sussex partnership has proposed the establishment of a single breast care service at the Princess Royal hospital at Haywards Heath, which will mean the closure of the breast care unit at the Royal Sussex County hospital in Brighton. That is a big issue locally. Just last week, a couple of Brighton and Hove councillors, Brian Oxley and Ann Norman, came to see me to try to focus yet more attention on what is a serious issue. A petition on the subject attracted some 30,000 signatures in just 11 days and a unanimous vote by every councillor of every political persuasion on Brighton and Hove council.
The city of Brighton and Hove has a population of just over 250,000, plus another 50,000 people living in the surrounding areas and 750,000 in West Sussex and my constituency, from where many people go to Brighton hospital for treatment. Many hundreds of women who live locally put their lives at risk each year by failing to keep hospital appointments, mainly due to fear of diagnosis. Certainly, as the hon. Member for Romsey said, we need to encourage women to walk into centres and get treatment at an early stage. It is felt that the number who fail to keep appointments will rise if patients have to undertake a difficult journey, often alone by public transport—in this case, to Haywards Heath.
The journey by public transport from Brighton to Haywards Heath and back to Brighton would take approximately four hours to complete, as the Princess Royal hospital is situated on the outskirts of Haywards Heath. The journey will be even more difficult for people who are elderly, disabled or infirm. The hon. Member for Romsey mentioned paying the travel costs of people who have operations on the continent, but it is a real problem at home. By contrast, buses travelling from all parts of Brighton and Hove stop at four-minute intervals outside the Royal Sussex County hospital in Brighton.
Even if the breast care service should be relocated to Haywards Heath, the accredited pathology service and treatment for patients needing chemotherapy or radiotherapy would be available only at the Royal Sussex County hospital in Brighton, and it is felt that separating services could lead to a lack of continuity in care. Two thirds of patients who attend breast care facilities at the Royal Sussex County hospital come from the Brighton and Hove area, where, on average, 2,700 patients a year attend 7,700 appointments.
My point is that the centralisation of cancer facilities—in this case, breast cancer facilities—is not doing anyone any good. Virtually the whole of the population of Sussex will have to use one centre or go
38WH
across the border to Maidstone, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has mentioned the problems there. Such services should be far more widely available, and far greater cognisance should be taken of the transport difficulties that people, especially those who come from deprived areas, encounter in trying to reach those facilities. That is not happening in Brighton and Hove.
Mr. Brazier: I want to add one point to the powerful case that my hon. Friend is putting on the issue of staffing. Part of the capacity problem results from staff shortages, yet people who are told that they must move to jobs in other specialties do not always go. I have seen a considerable number of resignations result from people being told that they must move from working on cancer.
Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a question not just of getting patients to the new facility but of getting professionals there to treat them. As the Minister knows, Sussex is a notoriously bad county to travel around, especially going from east to west. We need to take such considerations into account, instead of adopting the approach that big is good and centralising is inevitable. That is crucial in relation to breast cancer services, so I ask the Minister to reconsider. I am not saying that all services should be kept at Brighton or go to Mid Sussex, but we need much greater provision, which is more accessible to everyone in that area, although I do not believe that the example is atypical. I shall not refer to my second example because I want to leave the Minister adequate time to address the serious and important questions that have been raised. I hope that she will use the remaining 22 minutes to do so.
12.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on securing this morning's debate and choosing such an important issue to discuss. The issue of cancer services clearly has immense resonance and importance to people throughout the country, including the many people who have in their family someone suffering from cancer and those whose relatives have died of cancer. Of course, people are anxious that, should they suffer from cancer, they will get the treatment and support that they need.
In introducing the debate, the hon. Lady spoke about the south-east, although she recognised that these were national issues. Other hon. Members also raised national issues, so I will talk about local issues, but I shall need to address many of the national questions that have been raised and put them in the national context.
The Government drew up a national cancer strategy, the NHS cancer plan, in September 2000. It is a 10-year strategy, part of the NHS 10-year plan. It is the first time that there has been a national strategy that covers cancer all the way from prevention, through diagnosis and treatment, to palliative care and research. Although hon. Members have concentrated primarily on cancer treatment, I shall make a couple of points later about prevention and research. It is important to look at the

39WH
overall picture, not to segment the approach to cancer, as happened too often in the past and led to many of the problems that we face.
We should be clear that, throughout the country, NHS patients receive excellent cancer care. Hon. Members have mentioned the gratitude felt by individuals towards those who treat them; many people feel that they receive excellent care. However, it is also true that many patients wait too long for their treatment, and that there are too many variations in care across the country. Before the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the cancer plan, we had too little in the way of national standards.
Considerable progress has been made, particularly in the areas that have piloted some of the most innovative reforms, but we still have a long way to go. The Government have made substantial extra investment available for cancer—with tangible results in terms of both cancer consultants and extra equipment. We had 560 more cancer consultants in September 2001 than we did in September 1997, including 360 more since the national cancer plan was set out, and we have 29 new MRI scanners, 81 new computerised tomography scanners, 41 new linear accelerators and hundreds of extra pieces of breast cancer equipment.
In the south-east, staff recruitment and retention pose additional problems, although considerable work is under way and good progress is being made with the cancer plan initiatives to recruit and train more cancer staff. We must consider not simply recruiting further members of staff—given the time that it takes to train many health professionals, that could still leave us with an interim concern—but changing the mix of skills and the work that different health professionals do, in order to expand capacity. For example, we have made £2.5 million available to train additional staff in endoscopy and I shall say more about radiotherapy.
Capacity is not the only issue; there is also a matter of reforming the way in which care is provided in order to speed up treatment. In that respect, I pay tribute to the excellent work being done by the cancer collaboratives, including those in the south-east, some of which have demonstrated the most innovative reform in the NHS. For example, the cancer collaborative in north Hampshire has cut the length of time for which a patient has to wait between an out-patient appointment and a CT scan from an average of 20 days to an average of two days, and the one in west London has cut the diagnosis time for prostate cancer from 20 weeks to 14 days simply by changing the way in which it provides the service. On average, since the cancer collaboratives were introduced, waiting times for treatment have dropped by two and a half weeks. The NHS has also made substantial progress in meeting the two-week target for waiting to see a specialist. Between October and December 2001, over 95 per cent. of patients nationally referred urgently with all suspected cancers were seen within two weeks. That figure rose to 97.1 per cent. in the case of breast cancer in the south-east.
The hon. Lady mentioned variations in meeting those targets and referred to Hastings and Rother meeting the two-week target in only 58 per cent. of cases. The latest figure there is 97 per cent. I am advised that in order to meet that target, the health authority developed a one
40WH
stop breast clinic. It was a question of reforming the way in which it provided the services in order to speed up the time that patients had to wait to see consultants.
Hon. Members raised concerns about other factors not being measured and said that the whole cancer pathway from referral to treatment or from referral to diagnosis should be considered. That is right and that is exactly what we are doing. We have set out a series of targets that will come into force during the next few years. Already, from last December, a maximum one-month wait between urgent referral and treatment has been established for children with cancer, patients with acute leukaemia and those with testicular cancer. A similar one-month target has been established for the length of time between diagnosis and treatment for women with breast cancer. By 2005, there will a maximum one-month wait from diagnosis to treatment for all cancers and a maximum two-month wait from urgent referral to treatment for all cancers.
The two-week wait is just the first step. It is an important step and an important part of the patient pathway, but we must also take action to bring down the waiting times for diagnosis and for treatment. To do that, we need to measure waiting times differently and follow the patient in a different way. The cancer collaboratives are already doing that and we need to do it across the NHS to ensure that cancer patients are getting the best possible care. Work is already in hand to introduce those targets and ensure that they are met across the country.
Hon. Members raised issues surrounding radiotherapy. We have been very open about the problems in that area. The number of therapy radiographers needs to increase and we need to improve facilities. The problems are exacerbated by the fact that the number of patients being referred for radiotherapy has increased considerably during the past few years, following the establishment of specialist cancer teams. The increase in referrals is a positive development because there was unmet need before, but that increase means that considerable work needs to be done. Progress has already been made. The number of therapy radiographers increased by 9 per cent. between 1997 and 2001 and training places for therapy radiographers at university have increased by 62 per cent. since 1997. By 2003–04, the projected increase is 120 per cent.
The numbers are increasing, but we need to go further. We need to consider a different skill mix. Different skill-mix programmes are already being piloted, including the creation of a new grade of assistant practitioner. Pilots are continuing in 10 centres and early indications are positive. Huge additional investment is being made in radiotherapy facilities, but there is much to do and we need to go further.
Hon. Members asked questions about funding. We have made substantial extra sums available to support the implementation of the cancer plan. We are monitoring the extra investment and will continue to do so to ensure that improvements are being made. In the end, the key issue will be the output from improvements in care.
Hon. Members also raised the question of palliative care. We have made available an extra £50 million to support investment in such care by 2004. It will be a matter for local cancer networks to decide how that

41WH
extra money needs to be spent. They will consider hospices, investment in the community and the issues surrounding palliative care in hospitals. It is important that that is done as part of a strategic approach. For the first time this year, local areas have had to draw together palliative care strategies, which are now being assessed. In some areas, it is the first time that hospices have got round the table properly with the NHS to consider strategically the community's palliative care needs. In other areas, good working relationships have been built on and in others there is considerably more to be done.
It is important for the NHS to pay sensible contribution costs. We need to inform that process through guidance produced by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on palliative care, which is due to be published this summer. However, it should be recognised that extra investment is reaching hospices. The Help the Hospices survey showed an increase in funding to hospices during the past two years of 14 per cent., although I say that from memory and not from my briefing. Extra resources are reaching the hospices, but they must be part of a broader, more strategic approach to palliative care across the country.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Minister is making quick progress through the points that we raised, but I want to return her to my first two questions. The first related to her attitude to the private sector employing NHS-trained radiotherapists, whether there is any compensation for the NHS and, more important, whether one can ask it to reflect the cost of that training in its tenders. The second related to the evidence base for improved survival resulting from concentrating first on a two-week wait to see a specialist rather than giving priority to the waiting time for treatment for patients already diagnosed with cancer.
Yvette Cooper: When it comes to the relationship between the NHS and the private sector, the Government have clearly said that we must ensure that the NHS obtains value for money. There are many different ways to achieve that. The relationship will evolve over time to ensure that that value for money is sustained. However, we must use whatever extra capacity there is and must not disadvantage patients by avoiding doing so, as long as extra capacity can provide value for money without undermining the long-term sustainability of the health service.
The two-week wait must be seen as one part of the patient's journey. There is considerable evidence of the anxiety felt by patients at that important time when they first raise concerns and are referred by a GP, but have not been seen by a specialist: they have not even entered the first stage of the process of being seen by the specialist and sent off for the appropriate tests or possibly being reassured by the specialist. Therefore, we must speed up every stage of the patient's journey. The point is not to separate out the different stages and consider the comparative evidence base, but to start at the beginning and see how quickly patients can get through the whole process once they are referred by their GP. The cancer plan approach is to consider the whole journey, and that is what the collaboratives have done. Their success has come from following the patient from beginning to end instead of looking at the way in which isolated cancer services perform and do their job.
42WH
That is the right approach, but the improvements take time to put in place, because they involve different ways of working as well as changes taking place across the NHS and additional capacity, and the information must be monitored. It is right to make a start with the two-week wait, but we must also speed up the process across the board, particularly by rolling out the cancer collaboratives.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred to the cancer services and issues in his area and in relation to the Canterbury hospital. As hon. Members will know, after a public consultation on proposals issued last year the East Kent health authority has made its conclusions known. The new health authority considered those proposals recently, and two community health councils have now registered their objections to some of them. Ministers will have to decide what action to take, and a decision will be needed from the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has raised those issues before and will understand that I can add no more to my earlier comments. It is not a decision that Ministers will take lightly; they will have to consider all the issues. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), will visit the East Kent health authority area in advance of any decision to see the situation for herself. I simply underline the fact that decisions on reconfiguration in East Kent must be taken in the best interests of all the residents, who must have access to the best quality treatment. The cancer services and their configuration in the area must reflect those principles.
Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Would she accept that the problem is that cancer was not included in that consultation? The trust responsible for delivering cancer care in Maidstone and Canterbury, the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust, was not a signatory to the consultation document.
Yvette Cooper: I know that the hon. Gentleman has made those points. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is very much alive to them, and will certainly take them into consideration. Although I cannot comment, the hon. Gentleman made various detailed remarks about the views of different consultants, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend is aware of the points made during today's debate.
On the issue of cancer services in Brighton, I understand that the recommendation for the central Sussex partnership programme has yet to be considered in full by the new health authority. Because that is the case, and because of the possibility that Ministers will have to take a decision on that issue in future, I am sure that hon. Members will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.
Several hon. Members have raised the issue of cancer drugs and the role of NICE. It is important to remember why we set up NICE. We did so specifically to end the lottery of postcode prescribing. For the first time, we have national guidelines on treatment and drugs, particularly for cancer. It is important that the national guidance is right and that the process that NICE goes through involves opportunities for interested parties to submit evidence and comment on draft conclusions. Directions have been issued obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for the treatments recommended by NICE.

43WH
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) asked what the implications were for other drugs. We have made the extra investment available for cancer services. It is clear that that was to cover recommendations made by NICE. We have also made overall investment available for the NHS, which is increasing by more than 7 per cent. and includes a substantial increase in the drugs bill. Local areas clearly have to take their own decisions about prescribing, but the allocations available for them and the investment in drug treatments is increasing substantially right across the board.
There are other areas of progress worth pointing out, including the increase in the number of women receiving breast cancer screening as a result of the extension of the age range up to 70. A total of 87,000 more women were screened last year, and that figure will eventually reach 400,000. There has also been an increase in the numbers of people receiving support to give up smoking. We should not forget that we shall save far more lives from cancer by preventing people from getting it in the first place than purely by improving the care that people receive.
There have been some common themes in the debate, interestingly including, from both the Opposition spokespersons, a concern about more investment and more money for cancer care. They want more money for drugs, treatment, palliative care, staff pay, and consultants. I agree that we do need more investment in cancer treatment, and that cancer services need more funding. They are already getting an increase in funding, but they need to continue to receive that increase during the next few years. That is why the Government set out an overall increase in funding of over 7 per cent. a year in real terms-double the historical increase that the NHS had during the last 30 or 40 years-and we have said that that money will come from national insurance contributions.
The Conservative Opposition, with respect, have opposed the increase in national insurance contributions, but have also said that there should be more money for palliative care and other areas of cancer. I have no inkling of where on earth they think that that money will come from. Frankly, the idea that people should pay extra for cancer care to provide, for example, their own cancer drugs is not something that we would expect to see realised in the NHS, and no one, whatever their background, is likely to be able to afford it easily, given the cost of some of the new treatments that are coming on line. It is right and fair that cancer care should be provided for everyone on the NHS, not simply for those who can afford to pay. We need greater investment but also greater reform.
Opposition Members need to recognise our extra investment, and if they want further investment they need to set out where it should come from. We have set out where it should come from and where it should go—
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): Order.

Standard Spending Assessment (Bury)
12.30 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the standing spending assessment for Bury. This may not be the best-attended debate of the Session, but the issue is of enormous importance both to my constituents and to the local authority that encompasses my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) and I have campaigned consistently on behalf of our constituents over the past five years, and it is only his ministerial responsibilities that prevent him from participating in today's debate.
The timing of the debate is interesting as it is almost three years to the day since I raised the issue of SSA in Bury in an Adjournment debate that I secured on 19 May 1999 on primary schools in Bury. The particular component of SSA that is most controversial from Bury's point of view is, of course, the education SSA, to which I shall return later.
Bury metropolitan district council is one of the smallest of the 36 metropolitan districts, with a population of 182,000. It has a mixed population and is not easily categorised. It contains areas of great deprivation and of great prosperity. It is an urban local authority with a rural hinterland and significant expanses of suburban areas. The local authority has historically suffered from its small size because, by definition, it cannot enjoy the economies of scale open to bigger metropolitan districts and shire counties. Historically, it has been underfunded, originally because of many years of control by a Conservative group, which did not build up the asset base in Bury, and over the past decade by the impact of the SSA, which has always worked against Bury and many other small metropolitan districts.
The authority has recently been categorised as one of the 20 most improved authorities in the country. It is well regarded by most ratepayers in Bury, as evidenced by the results of the local elections last Thursday, in which the Labour majority on the council was increased by two. The authority does most things well, some things excellently, and where it has weaknesses is working hard to remedy them. Its financial difficulties are enhanced by the large majority of properties being in council tax bands A, B and C, which limits the scope of revenue from that source.
The history of Bury over the past 10 years is interesting. In the early 1990s, it was subjected to continuous financial pressures that led to an absolute crisis in the 1997 budget. Several million pounds of cuts were made, particularly to the education budget. That caused widespread controversy and disruption throughout schools in the borough. The council had historically protected its education service—it has to be said that that was at the expense of other services such as highways and social services—by spending approximately 10 per cent. more than SSA throughout the early 1990s. By 1997, that was no longer possible, and the bullet had to be bitten. The local authority bit the bullet by cutting its education spending to the SSA level.
In Bury, we are extremely grateful for the gradual increase in SSA that the local authority has experienced in the past three years. For example, in 1998–99, it

45WH
increased by 7.99 per cent. against a national average of 5.19 per cent.; in 1999–2000, it increased by 5 per cent. against a national average of 4.84 per cent.; and in 2000–01, it increased by 4.74 per cent. against a national average of 4.37 per cent. We are grateful for the year-on-year improvements in investments in our services. Despite that, the difference between Bury's education spending and the national average has widened in the past three years, as has the difference between Bury's education SSA and that of the best-funded authorities.
We would never expect to be one of the best-funded local authorities, but we are hugely aggrieved that we consistently find ourselves in the bottom quarter of the education SSA. The Government's index of local deprivation suggests that Bury is in the worst third of local authorities on most deprivation indicators, so we think that our SSA settlement should reflect that. I should like to quote briefly a debate here on 19 May 1999. I am reluctant to quote myself, but it is a timely way to start. I said:
"On finance, Bury local authority has suffered historically from a low standard spending assessment…The aggregated schools budget per capita spend is £100 below the national average for primary schools and £150 below the national average for secondary schools."
Those differentials have increased over the past three years. I also said:
"I know that Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are highly conscious of the inequities of the SSA system. I know also that a considerable amount of work was done on that last year and that a change to the children's social services criteria was introduced which benefited some of the poorly funded authorities such as Bury. However, I again draw attention to the fact that we must wait a further three years for the next review of SSAs. The contentious issues of the area cost adjustment and the additional educational needs criteria remain to be resolved. In those three years, Bury and other small local authorities will continue to he funded by a system that is widely regarded as being unjustified and methodologically unsound."—[Official Report, 19 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 1023.]
So it has proved over the past three years. We look forward to the promised Government reforms of 1 April 2003.
Just before the 1997 general election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the then shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, came to Bury, pledged that there would be a full reform of the SSA system, and accepted that Bury's case for improvement was overwhelming. Two years later, the present Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions came to Bury in his former capacity and recognised the inequity in funding, particularly in education; he pledged that the system would be reformed. In each of the past five years, the local authority has written to the Department in response to the settlement and has made arguments for change and improvement. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of recent correspondence, and I am grateful for his reply acknowledging the council's points.
In a letter that I sent to the Department on 24 January this year which summarises my views I said:
"I am writing to support the Council's response in its entirety; to reiterate the urgent need for a transformation of the current arcane SSA system to one that is not only fairer in application but more transparent in methodology and less subject to dubious forms of manipulation; and to draw attention to the fact that the
46WH
discrepancy between Bury's SSA and that of both the best funded authorities and those with average levels of funding would appear to have significantly widened during the last four years."
We welcome the overall improvements to local government finance, the approximately 5 per cent. a year increase in SSA, and the introduction of new funding streams, particularly for education, from which we have benefited. However, I come back to the fact that the basic methodology that currently applies is unacceptable.
In a letter to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the finance spokesman of a local authority criticised the area cost adjustment component of the SSA:
"The operation of what is the most perverse element of the SSA system has now reached the point of farce and the late amendments made to the data used in the provisional Settlement has brought the absurdity of the situation directly to the attention of our residents, schools, partners and service users.
Bury continues to acknowledge that the costs of providing local authority services in London and the South East are, to some extent, higher than in other areas of the country. However we have always believed that the current ACA methodology considerably overstates the differential in costs and we have campaigned, along with our colleagues in SIGOMA, for a distribution system that reflects actual, measurable variations in local authority costs.
The late data changes have severely damaged the expectations of service providers and users, and they will hit our schools particularly hard. Local politicians and officials will find it well nigh impossible to justify to Governors, teachers and parents why it is that the pay increases given to 350 `City' workers should rob Bury schools of around £400,000 of much needed resources."
That was a reference to the late changes to the data used in the settlement for this year. We want a system that is based on transparency and on measurable costs that have been agreed and that everyone can understand.
May I give an example of the differentials that currently apply between Bury and other authorities? The gap that I referred to in the 1999 debate on Bury's primary schools was of the order of £100 between the primary SSA for Bury and the national average, and £150 between the secondary SSA for Bury and the national average. In the past three years, the gap has increased: the gap between Bury and the English average is now £201 for the primary SSA and £254 for the secondary SSA. The differentials between the Bury primary and secondary SSAs and those of some of the best-funded authorities have increased by far more than that. The primary SSA for Tower Hamlets has increased by £443 in the past three years, against an increase of £223 in Bury. Its secondary SSA has increased by £521 against an increase of £281 in Bury. I know that Tower Hamlets has many problems to grapple with, and everyone in Bury would accept that the problems in Tower Hamlets are of a different order from those in Bury. However, my constituents, my local authority and I cannot and do not accept that that is an argument for increasing the differential in SSA year after year.
I am focusing on the area cost adjustment element in education because it is most controversial. We have particular problems this year. For example, the need to provide local authority matched funding for the standards fund resulted in the call of an extra £900,000 on the local authority. Had the local authority not attempted to draw down its full allocation of the standards fund, it would rightly have been subject to criticism by head teachers and governors and by the

47WH
auditors. The only way it could find that additional £900,000 was by working with the schools and getting their agreement to pool their surpluses to achieve the matched funding.
The teachers' pay award this year put additional stress on SSA funding. The cost of statementing children with special needs has increased dramatically in recent years. Like many other areas, the area faces the problem of declining numbers in primary schools, an issue with which the authority is currently dealing through a consultation programme on proposals for mergers of primary schools to reduce surplus places.
The pressures on education budgets remain intense, but it is not just education that feels such pressures. The local authority was particularly aggrieved this year at the way in which the implied promises£I choose my words carefully£of increases to highways SSA because of the use of geographical information system data did not materialise. Apparently, that was because of a very late decision to change the application of GIS data so that the data applied only to principal roles. That change resulted in the loss of several hundreds of thousands of pounds for Bury's highways SSA.
In social services, we have a legacy of overspend, with which the local authority is dealing effectively. However, pressures on social services, particularly because of the interface with the health trust, are putting significant pressures, in turn, on the local authority. I draw attention to a further issue: the pressure on the local authority to meet performance indicators on the movement of elderly people from residential care and on the increase in domiciliary care is in conflict with the pressure on primary care trusts to deal with bed-blocking by getting more people out of hospital as soon as they are ready to leave and into residential care. Ministers in the DTLR and the Department of Health could usefully discuss, and to try to resolve, that issue. At the moment, the local authority's performance indicators are in direct conflict with the performance indicators by which primary care trusts have to abide.
The local authority has put a budget together this year that resulted in a council tax rise of a little more than 6 per cent.—;higher than we would have wished. It has allowed some modest growth in education and one or two other services, but there have been serious reductions in some services. The local authority continues to support the work of the special interest group of municipal authorities, which has campaigned consistently for the abolition of the area cost adjustment. It is also a member of the F40 group of local education authorities—the 40 worst-funded LEAs. Bury has a very strong interest in the campaign that F40 runs for a national minimum per capita level of investment in primary and secondary education.
I know that the Government have pledged to reform the system by 1 April 2003 and I understand that there will shortly be a consultation document. We look forward to that with enormous interest. We hope that there will be a genuine consultation, 'with ample opportunity for all local authorities to state their views. In his reply, I hope that the Minister can say whether he accepts the case that Bury has consistently argued over the years—that the current system discriminates against Bury.
48WH
Can the Minister confirm that the reforms promised by the Government, whatever shape they prove to have, will be in place by 1 April 2003? Can he tell us when the consultation document is likely to be published and how long the consultation period will be? Will the proposals put out for consultation include the idea of a flat-rate entitlement in respect of the education SSA? Given my earlier comments about the discrepancy in the way in which Bury is treated for SSA and categorised in the index of local deprivation, will the index of local deprivation be used as a factor in the new methodology?
Finally, the Minister is very welcome to visit my constituency and I invite to him to do so at his earliest convenience.
12.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on securing this debate on Bury's standard spending assessment. I drove through his constituency the other day, but did not stop in Bury. I should be delighted to visit his constituency and Bury metropolitan district council in the not too distant future. Not only has my hon. Friend secured this debate on Bury's SSA, but the evidence of his contribution suggests that he is in danger of becoming one of the five people in the country who, allegedly, fully understand the SSA system.
The 2002–03 local government finance settlement has come and gone. Parliament approved it, councils have set their budgets and are getting on with the difficult tasks they face this year. Finance directors of most councils are turning to the distribution of grant next year. We want a fair and transparent distribution of Government grant between authorities. My hon. Friend's letter of 19 January was prescient in that regard. That is precisely what we are trying to achieve in our review of how SSA, or its successor, is determined.
My hon. Friend focused on the changes he would like to be made to the distribution formula. We are working hard to develop proposals with local government and will consult councils, probably during the summer, on the options. I confirm that the new distribution formula will be in place for the next financial year, but I do not underestimate the magnitude of that task. All authorities want to be winners, but that, of course, is not possible. I can assure my hon. Friend that changes will be made only in the interests of ensuring that the money that is available as a result of the current spending review finds its way to the right areas.
I must set the scene for what has happened in Bury in recent years. It could make a case that it has not done as well as it might in terms of grant increases, but we have been able to provide good increases for Bury metropolitan district council in recent years. However, I recognise that it has not done as well as many authorities.
The overall settlement for 2002–03 was a good one for local government and provided an increase of £1.9 billion in general grant on a like-for-like basis. Those good increases in grant enabled us to set a floor grant increase to ensure that all authorities received increases in general grant at least in line with inflation. All authorities with education and personal social

49WH
services functions, such as Bury, received an increase of at least 4 per cent. Bury's settlement was just above that floor with an increase of 4.2 per cent. or £4.6 million. However, Bury remains close to the floor because it received a lower than average increase in SSA: 4.3 per cent. this year compared with a national average increase of 5.4 per cent.
That was due mainly to a small population decrease compared with a national average increase and also to a below-average increase in the number of pupils aged 11 to 15 compared with a national average increase of 1.2 per cent. However, as my hon. Friend said, compared with the increases in SSA before 1997, Bury, like many authorities, has done well. In the four years before then, Bury received an average SSA increase of 2.6 per cent. each year and since then it has received an average annual increase of 4.6 per cent.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the pressures facing social services departments from bed-blocking and the care of elderly people. He will be aware that Bury benefits from the increase in ring-fenced grant to tackle bed blocking and receives £500,000 from the new fund. We recognise, however, that there remain substantial pressures on social services departments in that regard.
My hon. Friend makes the case for a different distribution of grant, which would benefit Bury. As I mentioned, we want a fairer and more transparent system for distributing grant between councils, and we are working with local government to develop options to achieve that. Fairness is, however, often in the eye of the beholder, and while we hope to achieve consensus, we shall inevitably be unable to please everyone.
I cannot provide details about the possible options today, but the debate has given us a valuable opportunity to understand more about the issues from Bury's perspective. As I said, we will consult on options for the new grant distribution system over the summer. Colleagues from across Government and I will continue to discuss these difficult issues with hon. Members, local government representatives and others with an interest in what the grant system delivers.
As my hon. Friend said, Bury wants to close the gap between SSA and spend. We know that most authorities spend more than the grant allocation system assumes when standard spending assessments are calculated, and we are considering particular pressures in the spending review. Among other things, that will effectively spell the end of the standard spending assessment as we know it. We certainly intend to remove from the system elements of roll-forward from historic assumptions, which have caused some of the problems that my hon. Friend mentioned.
My hon. Friend will also want to know that, alongside the changes that I have outlined to the SSA system, the Government are committed to ensuring that ring-fenced funding as a proportion of total revenue spend will go down over future years.
50WH
It is for local authorities to take decisions on council tax levels and on whether to spend above the level that we assume in the formulae. The son or daughter of the SSA system is likely to involve a decision about how much spending the Government are prepared to support, and grant will be allocated on that basis. However, we want local authorities that are in the process of making such decisions to continue engaging with their communities about priorities and their implications for council tax.
My hon. Friend mentioned the possible allocation of a fixed sum to reflect population. He said that Bury was a small authority and could not find the same efficiencies of scale as larger authorities. My officials are examining the proposal from many smaller authorities that an element of grant be distributed on a fixed-cost basis. Authorities should, however, be able to think innovatively about making themselves more efficient and providing better services.
My hon. Friend mentioned the area cost adjustment and underlined his concern about the late change in this year's figures. The area cost adjustment turned out to be different from initial indications. A late change in the data that the Office for National Statistics supplied to us led to a change in the area cost adjustment just before the provisional settlement announcement. We certainly want to avoid a repeat of that. We know that the ACA is possibly the most controversial element of the formula system, and we want to reform it.
My hon. Friend talked about the education standard spending assessment formula. I am very much aware of the strength of feeling about the current education funding formula in Bury. As he will know, we are working on a new system, which includes education. Our aim in introducing that system is to make funding not only fairer, but clearer, and that is particularly true of education. For the first time, we will separately identify the funding that we want to reach schools, which we cannot do under the current system. Of course, any funding formula will need an element for deprivation and an enhancement for areas where schools must pay more to recruit and to retain staff. However, we want the level of those enhancements to be decided using more up-to-date evidence, not by building on past expenditure, as in the current system.
We still have work to do on the new system, and my hon. Friend will understand that until the new formula has been developed and detailed figures have been obtained we cannot say how individual authorities' share of overall funding will be decided. We shall be consulting on proposals for the new funding formula in the summer.
I accept that there are declining pupil numbers in Bury. Interestingly, however, a lag in data tends to protect local authorities in that regard. The problem faced by authorities with increasing pupil numbers is of equal concern.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): Order. We move to the debate on the state of the Scottish whisky industry.

Scotch Whisky Industry
1 pm
Angus Robertson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to initiate a debate on the Scotch whisky industry, which is responsible for much of the country's exports. It is a significant employer and provides hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds of taxation revenue to the London Treasury.
I should begin with a declaration of interest, which is not confined to a personal, though moderate, recreational tasting interest. My first job was at the Scotch Whisky Heritage Centre on Edinburgh's Royal Mile. That has been superseded by my responsibilities in representing Moray, the constituency that contains more than 50 per cent. of Scotland's malt whisky distilleries. I am also vice-chairman of the all-party group on Scotch whisky, and I pay tribute to Margaret Ewing, my predecessor in that post and in the House. She was a doughty fighter on whisky issues in the House and continues to be so in the Scottish Parliament.
Maintaining a close interest in all Moray's whisky producers is not always easy, especially at election time, when it is necessary to tour the region's fine distilleries. Of course, it would be rude not to sample the product—in moderation, I hasten to add. Discipline is called for, given the number of distilleries. One can at least rely on the knowledge of numerous genuine experts in Moray, such as Peter Brown of Craigallaichie hotel, whose encyclopaedic knowledge covers all 436 single malts, a large selection of blends and the vatted malts at the Keeper of the Quaich bar.
The whisky industry in Moray is vital, owing to the considerable direct and indirect employment that it provides in the constituency, from the stillmen, the coopers, peat cutters, farmers, hauliers, tour guides, managers and office staff. Moray is home to world-renowned bottlers, retail outlets and experts, such as Gordon & McPhail, the whisky shop in Duffton, and Malcolm Greenwood, the celebrated writer. For those who would like to know more, I recommend the new Scotch whisky course offered by Moray college.
One cannot accurately measure the importance of the whisky industry to local business and tourism, as it is immense. Yesterday, the highly successful Spirit of Speyside whisky festival ended. At the beginning of the festival, on Friday, I was delighted to be able to join hundreds of locals and tourists at the Coothie Doo Two ceilidh in Craigallaichie. That was a fantastic event, featuring a fly-over by Flight Lieutenants Colin McGregor and Andi McColl of the Tornado GR4 display team based at RAF Lossiemouth, in their aptly named fast jet Spirit of Speyside. It was a great example of the local partnership between the whisky industry and charitable and community causes. In this case, moneys were raised for the Children's Hospice Association of Scotland, Rachel house. I am sure that hon. Members will wish the appeal all the best.
The whisky industry is significant throughout Scotland. It is the second largest export industry in Scotland and the fifth largest in the United Kingdom. The industry directly employs more than 11,000 in Scotland and a further 30.000 are employed in related sectors. It is among the United Kingdom's top five export earners, generating more than £2 billion from
52WH
sales a year, in 200 markets. The industry uses about 25 per cent. of Scotland's barley crop, and 70 per cent. of all Scottish grain is used in grain distilleries. It supports one in every 54 Scottish jobs, accounting for 5 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs, and spends £1 billion a year buying goods and services from local suppliers.
In 1999, the Fraser of Allander Institute produced a report for Allied Domecq. ft identified that the Scotch whisky industry was twice as important as computer-related manufacturing, a third bigger than the oil and gas industries, 12 per cent. greater than banking, insurance and finance, 30 per cent. greater than mechanical engineering, and a third larger than the chemical industry. All those statistics underline the key importance of the Scotch whisky industry, and stress the need for the Government to provide the optimal conditions for it to flourish.
Over the years, commentators have established that the taxation regime at home and abroad is one of the most significant factors that determines whether whisky sells as much as possible. In recent decades, Scotch whisky has made great strides in markets such as Spain, Italy, the United States and the far east. Those areas generally have more benign tax regimes than the United Kingdom. Sadly, some of the worst taxation excesses are to be found in the UK, the state that benefits from massive revenues from the industry.
Currently, 66 per cent. of the price of a bottle of whisky is tax. Since 1973, the price of a bottle of whisky, including the excise duty, has been subject to value added tax, which is levied on the duty-paid price. That means that the price of a bottle of Scotch whisky is increased by and subject to a tax on a tax. On 10 occasions in 18 years of government, the Conservatives took the opportunity to raise the burden on the whisky industry. Perhaps that sad record is why no Conservative Member of Parliament is present today. The discrimination under the Conservatives has continued under the Labour Government, and duty on whisky is currently one and a half times higher than that on other competing beverages.
Although there has been some recent narrowing of tax discrimination against spirits, the discrimination remains and was continued in this year's Budget by a Chancellor who, of course, represents a Scottish constituency. Like the Scotch Whisky Association, the Scottish National party has been in favour of a 4 per cent. cut in whisky duty. Experts believe that such a measure would be revenue neutral, creating a higher demand for whisky and thereby maintaining duty and taxation income for the Treasury.
Most distilleries are based in rural areas such as Moray, and the distillery is often the lifeblood of the community. A duty cut for Scotch would have helped to end the competitive disadvantage that discriminates against Scotland's farmers and rural communities. Perhaps the Minister, in his summing up, will outline how long we must wait for an equalisation of duty under the Government's current policy.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify the recent and welcome U-turn by the Treasury, in which it dumped its controversial proposal to bring in strip stamps. The Government have consulted on introducing the costly anti-fraud strips on the top of bottles, despite evidence from other countries that they

53WH
do not work. Luckily, a vigorous campaign by the Scotch Whisky Association, the Scottish National party and others made the Government see sense. However, Ministers still have to answer why they thought about introducing the daft scheme in the first place.
David Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. Like him, I enjoy a tipple or two now and again, and frequent the usual areas. Unfortunately, there are no distilleries in Midlothian, although East Lothian has the only lowland distillery.
Does the hon. Gentleman not give credit where credit is due? The Government are listening. They listened to Back-Bench Members who approached them, and to the whisky organisations, about the strip duty. It was a bad idea, but the Government had to consider it. He should give them credit for having withdrawn it.
Angus Robertson: Midlothian has the largest plant that produces labels for the Scotch whisky industry, so the hon. Gentleman has a direct and pressing interest in it.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning other parties' opposition to strip stamps. Early-day motion 842 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), and we were grateful to receive the support of English Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs. However, I note with interest that not one Scottish Labour or Scottish Liberal Democrat MP chose to oppose strip stamps publicly. I am therefore grateful that the hon. Gentleman has, perhaps belatedly, joined the opposition to what I described as a daft idea. I welcome that greatly, and would be grateful for his support on similar campaigns while they are ongoing rather than over.
Why did the Government think about introducing strip stamps? That measure would have cost the Scotch whisky industry £250 million extra. The Government had no idea how much revenue strip stamps would raise, but application machines would have cost producers millions of pounds, forcing smaller businesses under.
In a recent debate on the subject in the Scottish Parliament, justifiable concerns about tax fraud were raised. Despite efforts by Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament such as Brian Fitzpatrick to support the case for tax stamps, more thoughtful contributions were made on the problem of inward diversion, which is tax fraud connected with whisky coming from the European Union to the United Kingdom. Of course, the primary difficulty is that excise duty in the UK is much higher than in other EU states. That creates an automatic incentive to fraudsters who want to avoid paying the higher rates of excise duty in the UK. Government efforts to deal with fraudsters should start with that point, rather than measures that penalise the whisky industry.
The key matter of minimum duty rates applied by the European Union also affects the Scotch whisky industry. The EU Commission has said that spirits, including whisky, are disadvantaged and that there is distortion in the market. With a new draft proposal by the Commission on the table, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified what efforts the UK Government are making to secure the best deal for the whisky industry and everyone who works for it, directly and indirectly.
54Wh
It would be useful to find out what consultations have been held with the Scottish Executive, whose Ministers miss 90 per cent. of meetings of the Council of Ministers. That is a great example of the case for direct Scottish representation in Europe. Today's edition of The Herald suggests that the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament do not receive all relevant EU documentation from UK Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Before today's debate, I took time to speak to many local people in Moray involved directly in the whisky industry. I tried to find out what problems they face, in the hope that the Government would listen to those concerns and do something about them. Next to the matters of taxation that I have outlined—that is the overwhelming issue for them—red tape concerned them most. Despite the excellent safety and environmental record of the industry, regulations and compliance issues with regard to the control of major accident hazards have mushroomed. Those include the climate change levy, the waste water directive, the fresh water fisheries directive and the possible consequences of the Rogues report. What assurances can the Government give that they will stop forcing the industry to prove negatives, that public agencies will act as facilitators rather than barriers to success, and that red tape will be reduced?
The Scotch whisky industry is vital to the Scottish economy and the UK Treasury. The taxation imposed on whisky by successive UK Governments has disadvantaged Scotch in the home market, where whisky is taxed at higher levels than wine or beer. That discrimination has allowed other countries to seek to justify their own discriminatory tax regimes by reference to those implemented in the UK by a Labour Government and previously by a Conservative Government.
The Government will be aware of a joint document published by the Scottish Executive and the Scotch Whisky Association, aptly if optimistically entitled "A Toast to the Future: working together for Scotch whisky". The Scottish Executive support the industry's case for a review of the UK tax regime, with the aim of achieving a fair outcome for the Scotch whisky industry. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government will accede to that moderate demand, or do they oppose the Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive?
I welcome the Government's U-turn on a tax stamp system, which would have constituted a barrier to trade and been inefficient and ineffective. Finally, it is high time for all powers relating to the regulation and taxation of the whisky industry to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. That should not be left to the whim of successive Westminster Governments, who do little to help it.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on securing this debate and on making a strong case for an important industry. It is important for employment in many areas—not only rural areas but urban areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) pointed out, the Scotch whisky industry is important to his constituency and the surrounding area.

55WH
The whisky industry, however, is also much involved with the tourist industry. I speak as someone who has enjoyed the whisky trail, visiting the distilleries in Speyside—a good time was had by all—and I understand the popularity of whisky tasting. The hon. Member for Moray may like to know that, when the United Kingdom had the presidency of the European Union and the president of the Agriculture Council was my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), one of the most popular informal meetings was the whisky tasting event. Indeed, Franz Fischler was intrigued by it, and it was difficult to get him out of the room at the end. The event was a huge success for Britain and for the Scottish whisky industry.
I was intrigued to learn that the hon. Gentleman once worked at the Scotch Whisky Heritage Centre. I should have thought that the attraction of being a Member of Parliament for the SNP did not compare to working in the whisky heritage centre: the hon. Gentleman seems to have given up a very good job. I echo his comments on the Tornado GR4 display team. It is good to see such community involvement. I congratulate all those concerned in that fund-raising exercise and wish them every success.
I turn to the details raised by the hon. Gentleman. We concede the whisky industry's importance to the UK. We also recognise its tremendous success in promoting exports. He was right to state that Scotch whisky is the UK's fifth largest export earning industry. Fourteen per cent. of exports go to the United States of America, and 40 per cent. go to the EU. Indeed, wherever one travels, Scotch whisky is effectively promoted. The brand image and the industry's promotion campaigns are a lesson to other industries on how to succeed in export markets.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of tax parity and the duty on whisky. We know that it is of considerable interest to the sector. There has been a lot of dialogue between the industry and the Government. I emphasise that, since the Scotch Whisky Association wrote its report on duty, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has frozen the spirits duty rate for a fifth successive year. That will doubtless feature in the association's report for 2002. It demonstrates that the Government are prepared to listen to a good case and to respond. That five-year freeze is significant.
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear me say that future taxation and parity are matters for the Chancellor, not the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Decisions on spirits duty and other taxes are made Budget by Budget, and account is taken of a wide range of factors, including the views and the state of the industry concerned. I am sure that the Scotch Whisky Association is well capable of making its case. Indeed, it has done so, and I am sure that it will be pleased with the results.
On EU minimum duty rates, the UK has consistently argued that member states should be allowed to maintain fiscal sovereignty, but that it should be underpinned by a regime of sensible and realistic minimum rates. The Government hope that the European Commission will carry out a meaningful review of EU minimum rates, and we look forward to receiving its long-overdue proposals.
56WH
The Scotch whisky industry's strength lies in its export markets, so it is not surprising that much of its long-term success will depend on fair access to world markets. The Government recognise the importance of access in Europe and further afield, and we seek to assist the industry wherever possible. That was highlighted in the Scotch Whisky Association's 2001 annual report, which said:
"the single most important trade issue confronting the industry in world markets is to secure acceptable access to India 's enormous domestic spirits market".
We recognise how important that is to the industry. We have worked hard on its behalf to persuade the Indian Government to remove trade barriers that are causing concern, and Ministers have repeatedly pressed the industry's case with their Indian counterparts. On 28 February, the Indian Government's Finance Minister announced budget proposals to reduce the relevant import duty in line with India's World Trade Organisation schedule. That is a positive step, which we welcome.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned tax stamps. Antifraud strips were certainly worth considering, and I was a bit surprised that he dismissed them. I understand, as the Treasury did, that they would have had significant financial consequences for the industry, but it is unreasonable to dismiss them as daft. The Treasury was examining how to prevent fraud that costs the country about £450 million, which is a significant amount. It is not, therefore, unreasonable that the Treasury should consider a range of anti-fraud measures. It consulted on the options and listened to the industry's case, which many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, supported. The Treasury accepted that the industry's case was reasonable, and did not go ahead with its proposal. That demonstrates that the Government respond positively to a fair and good case.
Angus Robertson: Why have not the Government pursued an active policy of reducing duty on Scotch whisky? Such a policy would remove the incentive to use fraudulent measures, because the cost of whisky here would be equalised with that in EU countries, where fraud is a particular problem. Will he also say whether the Government are happy to accede to the Scottish Executive's proposal for a review of taxation on Scotch whisky?
Mr. Morley: On the latter point, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government regularly discuss such issues with the Scottish Executive, to whom we listen carefully.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about equalising duty as part of an anti-fraud measure. The problem, of course, is that equalising duty in European markets is no guarantee that people will stop illegally avoiding duty if they think that profits can be made by doing so. Although I understand the case for equalisation, that is a matter for the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman would be making a mistake if he thought that equalisation would prevent fraud. There is no indication that it would, although I accept that that is not his argument.

57WH
We are ensuring that Customs works with the industry on a joint strategy to identify and track illicit consignments of spirits, radically increasing the exchange of information and making fraud easier to detect through the development of product testing kits, enhanced barcode data and a range of other measures. We recognise that there are several ways to tackle fraud, and I am gratified that we have received so much cooperation from the industry.
We have also made additional funding available to Customs this year to allow it to up the volume of intelligence-based checks on inward freight consignments of duty-suspended spirits, which includes making full use of the national network of X-ray scanners; to increase disruption of the criminal gangs engaged in spirits fraud; and to strengthen control on UK excise warehouses.
We take the issue of fraud very seriously. We are looking at several ways of tackling fraud; barcoding the bottles was just one. However, we accept that the disadvantages to the industry would have outweighed the benefits. We are committed to supporting the industry in the drive for export markets. I can update the hon. Gentleman. As recently as last week, we intervened in a case in the European Court of Justice brought by the Commission against Greece, because preferential duty rates for ouzo were acting against the interests of competing products such as Scotch. I know that our intervention in that case was warmly welcomed by the Scotch Whisky Association. We are committed to the long-term sustainability of the Scottish whisky industry, and we are working to foster conditions abroad that will achieve that.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point about the cost to the industry of red tape, the problem is not confined to the Scotch whisky industry. The matter is raised with the
58WH
Government by all industries, which are, reasonably, concerned about the additional cost burdens inherent in a range of policies—some are national, such as the climate change levy; others result from European Union directives, such as environmental pollution controls; and others relate to health and safety measures designed to protect those who work in the industries.
We recognise those costs to the industries, but whatever measure we implement, we always carry out a financial impact assessment to give us some idea of its implications for the industry concerned. We seek to minimise costs and streamline the burdens placed on industries. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that environmental controls, pollution controls and health and safety are important issues, which we should not ignore.
We are trying to strike a balance between the necessary protections, controls and regulations, with which all industries must comply—in the case of EU directives, to ensure that, within the European single market, no industry has to bear an unfair burden and the costs and bureaucracy that fall on the sector. We regularly review those issues, which are also considered by taskforce groups, and we talk to people in the various sectors of the industry about how to reduce the burdens. Indeed, where there is a case for self-regulation, we will consider that, too.
In conclusion, the Scotch whisky industry is a great success story for our country. It is important for us economically, and in terms of our export markets. We have done a lot for the industry and we are working closely with it. We have listened carefully to the representations that we have received. I believe that the industry has a great future. We will recognise its needs and support it.

Racism (Welsh Politics)
1.30 pm
Llew Smith: May I say in advance that I will not accept interventions from any party because I am already sharing time with one of my hon. Friends?
In a recent debate on the Government of Wales Act 1998, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) angrily intervened on my contribution, accused me of ranting and wanted the Deputy Speaker to call me to order. I assumed that the hon. Gentleman and his fellow nationalists were not happy about me trying to iron out some of the contradictions that are obvious in their policies. In retrospect, I have to admit that I was probably wrong, and that deep down the nationalists, and the hon. Gentleman, appreciate all the good work that I am doing in trying to resolve those contradictions. Their support for my good work has been recognised during the past few days when I received a letter from their party headquarters inviting me to the leaving party for their chief executive, Karl Davies. I am sure that that was not a computer error, or the result of someone pressing the wrong button, but a genuine attempt on behalf of the nationalists to show their appreciation and thank me for all my good work in recent months in highlighting their policies. I hope that the nationalists who attend the bash will give my apologies and appreciate the necessity for me to be here in Parliament to continue all of the good work.
My father and his family were born in England in the early part of the last century and they came to Wales. My father proceeded, from the grand old age of 13, to work in the local colliery as a face worker. He died not just with cancer, but like many of his generation in that employment, with pneumoconiosis as well. His brother, at a very young age, died as a result of a tragic accident in the same local colliery. Although my dad was English, he did not feel, as nationalists have described them, that he was part of an
"alien culture within our nation".
Like other people who came to Wales from England, my dad built many of the good things that we are proud of in communities such as those in south Wales. He never learned the Welsh language, but that did not make him any less a part of Wales. Contrary to what nationalists such as Saunders Lewis argue, he did not
"completely submerge and destroy all of Welsh national tradition."
Indeed, he and his generation helped to build on many things in that tradition, which we are justifiably proud of in working-class communities. If he had a criticism of Wales, which I share, it was that we lost too many times on the football field. He often made the plea for the occasional victory, which he thought would be much appreciated.
The nationalists have always seen conspiracies everywhere to destroy the Welsh tradition and nation, and almost invariably they are the fault of the English. I well remember reading an account of the decision of Neath town council in the 1930s to invite the Bath and
60WH
West Southern Counties show to the town. The nationalists protested at the time, claiming that the invitation was
"proof of the diseased individualism of Welsh local authorities"
and
"a basic challenge to our principles as a party.
That attitude to the English can also be seen in their opposition to English children coming to Wales during the second world war to avoid the Nazi bombing of their homes. For the nationalists, that movement of population was one of the most horrible threats to the continuation and life of the Welsh nation in history. How could anyone have such a warped sense of priorities, seeing as the enemy not Nazi Germany, which was bombing the homes of people in London, but English children, who were coming to Wales as evacuees?
Angus RobertsonWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
Llew Smith: No.
It was not just the Bath and West Southern Counties show and English children coming to Wales that caused concern. The Welsh nationalist party at the time described the building of the Severn bridge as a suicidal policy; I have never heard any retractions from modern-day nationalists. I assume that their main interest was breaking all links with England, and that that was far more important than creating jobs.
Some hon. Members may argue that those examples are from some years ago and that Welsh nationalists have seen the light and learned to love the English. Sadly, that is not so. Gwilym ap Ioan referred to the English in Wales as an alien culture within the nation.
Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) has said that he is not giving way.
Llew Smith: Gwilym ap Ioan said that Wales would soon be so full of foreigners that the Welsh voice would be drowned out, and Simeon Glyn referred to retired people moving to Wales as a drain on the resources. Time does not allow me to quote the many other examples of similar expressions put forward by leading nationalists. When is the leader of the Welsh nationalist party, Ieuan Wyn Jones, going to insist that such people be kicked out of the party if they continue to make racist demands?
Not only nationalist members but fellow travellers such as John Elfed Jones use the race card. He compared the effect of English migration to foot and mouth disease. Who made the greater contribution to Wales, my English father and his generation, or John Elfed Jones, who made a killing on the backs of Welsh workers and consumers, among others, through the privatisation of Welsh Water?
The BBC has joined in. It was recently found guilty in the courts of sacking one of its senior journalists because his accent was not Welsh enough. The Arts Council of Wales continues to subsidise Barn, although it says that

61WH
it will review the output. However, anyone who knows anything about the Arts Council of Wales knows that very little will happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) referred in the Welsh Grand Committee to a visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) to north Wales. In referring to his lecture, my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy said that he recalled that,
"as a child—of about 10 years old, I think—he attended an outdoor parliamentary meeting with his father. He felt himself caught up with the passions aroused by patriotic flag-waving. His father brought him down to earth by reminding him, 'You can't eat a flag."'
My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy said:
"That comment is relevant in Wales today, and I would add that the people of Wales cannot eat the graffiti, 'Cymru i'r Cymry. English go home.—[0fficial Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 24 April 2002; c. 60.]
Today, John Humphreys of the Welsh Independence party calls for a national act of defiance to halt the influx of incomers to the Welsh heartlands. He states:
"Those of us of a bloody minded disposition will not be passive observers to the obliteration of our heritage",
which, he goes on to say,
"must be fought for over and over again."
I do not want to give the impression that the Welsh nationalist party hates the English to the extent of taking a principled stand against taking English taxpayers' money. Hardly a day goes by without their demanding a change to the Barnett formula so that Wales can have a bigger slice of the cake. When cash is concerned, the principles of the nationalists go out of the window. It is not surprising that English Members of Parliament are increasingly demanding to know why the nationalists and their sympathisers, who demand independence, are not willing to accept the financial responsibility that goes with it. The nationalists are willing to take money from the enemy, the English, although they took a somewhat different and, in some ways, more principled position in the 1930s when they argued for refusing the blood money from the English, whom they so despised.
That is sad. It is damaging when nationalists and their fellow travellers judge others not by their character but by their nationality. We are a tiny island and if we cannot live together as brothers and sisters, there is little hope for us. Linked to that, there is little hope for the Welsh language if nationalists use it as a political philosophy and a measuring rod of Welshness. I say that as someone who spent a considerable part of 15 years developing the Welsh language in Gwent.
Nationalists in Wales demand that we dump the geography that we share with the rest of the United Kingdom, our common struggles and the philosophy of international socialism, replacing those with a narrow nationalism based on bigotry and prejudice, in which the problem lies with the so-called English or London government, not with the economic system. Is that the kind of philosophy that we want our children to inherit? I suspect not. That is why we are having this debate.
1.40 pm
Mr. Wayne David: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) on his forthright contribution. The strong strand of racism and xenophobia in Plaid Cymru's history is well tabulated. We have only to look at some of the writings of Saunders Lewis, the founder of Plaid Cymru, to recognise the truth of that. He believed that he could embrace the corporatist ideas of Mussolini, with whom he was enamoured. He certainly had plenty of time for the racist remarks of various fascist elements arising in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. Let me make it clear that he was an anti-Semite. We can see that time and again in his writings—it runs through them from start to finish.
Saunders Lewis had sympathies for Mussolini, Franco and Hitler. Other elements in Plaid Cymru had sympathies—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should not betray some of their pedigree by interrupting in the way in which they are. If they stopped to listen for a moment, they might learn something. That goes for Scottish as well as Welsh nationalists.
Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. David: My time is short and I have a number of points to make. I will not give way.
It was not only Saunders Lewis who was enamoured with fascist elements in Europe. On one occasion in the 1930s, when Welsh miners were going to Spain to fight for liberty and democracy, Welsh nationalist academics stood up in Cardiff university and toasted Franco as an honourable Christian gentleman. That is in the nationalists' history, and they cannot get away from it, even if they do not like it.
More recently, we have seen spasmodic examples of intolerance coming to the fore from the Welsh nationalist party, such as the comments of Simeon Glyn.
Paul Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. David: My time is short, and I must continue.
We have seen the racist remarks of Simeon Glyn and the comments of Simon Brooks. What unites their views is an intolerance of English people and those who speak the English language. There was a report in The Western Mail yesterday about a new play written by a Welsh playwright by the name of Dic Edwards, about Welsh extremism and the Free Wales Army. Two of his performances have been disrupted by Welsh nationalist elements. He spoke forthrightly and sadly to The Western Mail, which reported:
"Born and brought up in Cardiff, Mr Edwards said he encountered racist attitudes towards immigrant communities in areas of the city and now sees similar racism towards English-speaking incomers in rural areas."
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. David: The report quoted Mr. Edwards:
"'I come from a racist culture in Cardiff and now that I live in Aberaeron and work in Lampeter I know children who are discriminated against because they are English,' he said. He said his son Nick, brought up fluent in Welsh, was so disgusted with

63WH
the attitudes he found among Welsh speakers towards English that now, at the age of 30, he wants nothing to do with the Welsh language."
That is extremely sad. I want the Welsh language saved and I want it to flourish. I call upon the Welsh nationalist party today to unite the communities of Wales—to unite the Welsh speakers and the English speakers, so that we have one Welsh nation.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. David: I call upon the leadership of Plaid Cymru, once and for all, to renounce unequivocally the racism and xenophobia inherent in the party. Now, here is a chance for Plaid Cymru to renounce those elements. Let it do so.
1.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) and for Caerphilly (Mr. David) have made some serious points in their usual trenchant way, and have given examples of when, in our history in Wales, race has been used as a political weapon. Words are as powerful as arty weapon, particularly if spoken by those who hold political responsibility, as we do. Words can be used to inspire great actions, but they can also be used to inspire base actions. All of us who hold political office in Wales have a responsibility to choose our words carefully. They must not give offence in a racial way.
Angus Robertson: Does the Minister agree that it is important that one should not take a partisan approach to such a serious issue? He says that words are important, but will he put on record his opposition to Ministers using words such as "swamping" and to Back-Bench Labour Members using words such as "floodgates" when talking about asylum seekers and their children? Will he disassociate himself from the Government's efforts to build a special relationship with a Government who include neo-fascists, and perhaps reflect on the fact that the Labour party, through the Socialist International, condoned the first occasion that the Freedom party got into government in Austria?
Mr. Touhig: Yes, we should all be careful about the words that we use, because it is possible to give offence in a racial way. I have made that point clear. That applies in Wales as much as in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Our great cultural heritage, which includes the Welsh language, should be used to unite the people of Wales, not to divide them. Wales is a bilingual country. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said in last week's debate in the House on Wales in the world, we must remember that English is a Welsh language, too. Those who seek to use the Welsh language to emphasise their separateness from the rest of the peoples in these islands do no service to the Welsh language or to the Welsh people.
Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister will accept that I was born in Wales and lived there for
64WH
33 years of my life. I am proud to be Welsh but proud to be British as well. Part of the problem between reality and perception is that, when politicians say things that are narrow, nasty and evidently abusive to our neighbours in England, it does enormous damage, even though they are only a small minority. The English will feel equally hurt when people who should know better have a go at the Welsh.
Mr. Touhig: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall touch on it as I progress.
No artificial wall, whether it is a wall of rhetoric or one put there by the law, will protect Welsh-speaking communities from a lack of jobs and economic opportunity. Indeed, we will not help the Welsh language by shutting out non-Welsh speakers. We will help it only by ensuring that people can stay in their local communities in rural Wales: they will stay if there are jobs, affordable housing and good public services.
The future of the Welsh language will be secured through a strong economy. We have already made good progress by cutting unemployment in Wales to a 27-year low, but we know that there is much more to do. To secure economic prosperity, we must take tough decisions. That applies to all parties, both Government and Opposition parties. We must radically reform the current system of agricultural subsidies and tackle the culture of long-term reliance on benefits, which is a blight in many parts of Wales: we must help people to move from welfare to work. We must also tackle the problem of providing affordable housing in rural communities, an issue we should be cautious about. Some restrictive policies in relation to new houses have had the opposite effect from that intended. The market being what it is, house prices are often driven up in rural Wales as a consequence of the actions of some, and the problem remains.
I have referred to measures to reform agricultural subsidies and welfare to work, but vociferous members of the Welsh nationalist party, who are here in the Chamber this afternoon, have opposed them. They have been negative and backward looking when we have sought to raise those issues and to take that agenda forward.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister give way?
Paul Flynn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Touhig: They have that attitude because they have no serious policy issues.
Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. The subject of the debate is racism in Welsh politics. The Minister has not mentioned that in his speech. Is he trying to disassociate himself from the inflammatory and ill-informed speeches by his hon. Friends?
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): That is not a point of order, but it was a nice try.
Mr. Touhig: My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) must not have heard what I said at the beginning of the debate about race being used as a political weapon in Wales. He should bear that

65WH
in mind. I am seeking to develop an argument that language is being used destructively as a racial political weapon in Wales.
Plaid Cymru has no serious policies on the issues that I have raised. It has no political leadership about which it is worth talking. In fact, it will not take responsibility for facing up to the problems in Wales. Political leadership must be based on a set of beliefs and a set of principles. On no issue is Plaid Cymru's lack of leadership more evident than on that of whether language extremists have introduced race into the political debate in Wales. Language extremists want to restrict the movement of English speakers, whether or not those English speakers are Welsh-born.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the Minister share my great disappointment that, in an Adjournment debate on racism in Wales, we have heard not one word about racially motivated crime in Gwent, which is higher than that in London, not one word about asylum seekers' problems in Wales and not one word about the difficulties faced by young Asian people, who are less likely to find jobs in Wales than people of other races? Does he agree that this debate is disgraceful? Nasim Babur of the Welsh Asian Council said:
"There is no problem with Plaid Cymru and Welsh nationalists who just want to control their own country, which anyone would want to do".
I agree with the Welsh Asian Council. Does the Minister?
Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that it is our country as well as the nationalists' country. The subject of the debate to which I have been asked to respond is racism in Welsh politics, and I am seeking to develop my argument on that subject. Every intemperate attack on so-called outsiders and every word of hatred expressed can only worsen the prospects of Welsh-speaking communities getting the investment that they desperately need to secure their future. Recent headlines in the press such as
"Anti-English graffiti daubed over village"
and
"Town daubed with racist graffiti"
damage Wales, rural Wales and its economy, because tourism is important for that part of the country.
In a recent debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) made some good points, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent referred. She represents an area that depends strongly on tourism. She made it clear in the Welsh Grand Committee how damaging such headlines are to our efforts to encourage people to take their holidays in Wales. We had a debate in the House last week on Wales in the world. It is extremely harmful to Wales, its people and its economy when lunatics put up posters and splash walls with graffiti that says, "English go home".
In last week's debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Rua ne) made those points and pointed out the lack of leadership in the Welsh nationalist party. When he made those points, hon. Members representing Plaid Cymru said, "This is our leader," and pointed to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). Perhaps there
66WH
will be a challenge somewhere down the line. He would be a leader of some stature. A vacuum presently exists in Plaid Cymru.
We must remember that if we want to secure and improve use of the Welsh language, we must underpin that with a strong economy in rural areas. All we hear from the nationalists, apart from a constant demand for English taxpayers to stump up more money for their separatist nightmares, is a demand to tax English people who settle in Wales. Nowhere is that more clearly shown than in Plaid Cymru's hypocritical approach in dealing with Cymuned and Simon Brooks.
Cymuned is a deadly enemy of the Welsh language, and those involved in Cymuned are harming the Welsh language. Their tactics, which are simple—this goes to the heart of the debate about racism—are to intimidate English speakers, whether Welsh or English born, out of what they see as their communities. It is our community, whether we speak Welsh or not. They want a monoculture: a throwback to a Wales that I doubt ever existed. I know that some members of Plaid Cymru are as disgusted with that approach as Labour Members, but they dare not say so because at the core of Plaid Cymru is a right-wing, hard-core group of language extremists who drive forward their policies. They have been successfully excluded from positions of real power in Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but it remains the case that everyone in the nationalist party who wants to succeed must bend a knee before those who preach language intolerance.
Simon Brooks is the grinder of the organ and Ieuan Wyn Jones plays his monkey. They do not offer leadership; they offer an opportunity for those who hold the extreme view that people who do not speak our language and come from outside Wales have no place in Wales. It is a sad reflection on Wales in the 21st century that people who hold the views expressed by leaders of the nationalist party 30 or 40 years ago—
Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. As we have been unable to debate the real causes of racism against black and ethnic minority people in Wales, will it be in order to apply for such a debate? The title for this debate was misleading.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): That is a matter for Back Benchers, not for me.
Mr. Touhig: I regret that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), for whom I have great respect, is again following his party's leadership and ducking the issue by not condemning the racist extremists in his own party. Why do people such as Mr. Brooks remain on its candidates' list for election to the Assembly? Strong leadership would have tackled that and said that such people have no place in the party or in politics in Wales. It is important that we all unite in saying that it is wrong.
I sensed a degree of unity when the matter was touched on during the debate on Wales in the world in the House last week, but there is no such unity in the Chamber this morning for partisan reasons. Interventions this morning have dodged the issue. Hon. Members have said that they will oppose such views, condemn people who hold them and remove them from their party. That is the true fact of the problem.

67WH
We will not build a harmonious and strong Wales if we allow people who preach intolerance to be seen to be speaking for the people of Wales. They do not. The people of Wales treat such people with abhorrence. The language should not divide us; it should unite us. English is a Welsh language, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon said during the debate last week.
It is important to take opportunities such as this to flush out extremism in society. We have seen it grow in other parts of Europe and we have seen the resulting
68WH
danger to a healthy, free, open and democratic society. Our challenge to everyone in politics in Wales should be to stand up and say we will not tolerate such division in our society, or racism. It is a pity that the so-called Opposition party in the Assembly—the so-called party of Wales—is so lacking in leadership that it is unwilling and unable to stand up to people who are divisive and destructive. It is for those on the Labour Benches to bring such matters into the open, and to make it clear that we shall fight them tooth and nail.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide a breakdown of the investment her Department made in 2000–01 to the programmes designed to improve the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. [49877]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department's expenditure in this area is reported under the objective of "Promotion of enterprise, innovation and increased productivity". The total cash outturn for this objective is shown in the Appropriation Accounts 2000–01 (HC 335-IX), and the resource outturn
  in the Consolidated Resource Accounts 2000–01 (HC503). Further breakdowns will shortly be published in the Department's Expenditure Plans Report for 2002–03, and also in the Treasury's Supplementary Budgetary Information (SBI) tables. I regret that a breakdown between manufacturing and service sectors is not available. However, a good proportion of this money, though not all, will have benefited manufacturing directly or indirectly.

  Better Quality Services Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which of the services of her Department have not been reviewed under the Better Quality Services Initiative; and when they will be reviewed. [50319]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has been reviewing its services under the Better Quality Services programme for some time (see Trade and Industry—The Government's Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04), and building on this work, my Department has recently undertaken a review of its role, priorities and structure, and a review of its business support. As a result of these reviews, from 2 April 2002, a new structure has been put in place that is designed to help facilitate change and help the Department become more customer-focused. Tools and techniques from BQS will now be included in the Department's change management programme as part of improving customer focus and the effectiveness and value for money of service delivery. The Department is continuing its reviews of its agencies in line with BQS principles.

  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the draft EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive will be applied in the UK in respect of(a) foreign manufactured equipment and (b) equipment personally imported into the UK from outside the EU. [50915]
  2W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Common Position text requires the end of life costs for equipment imported into the UK to be met by the manufacturer in the case of EU-made goods or the professional importer in the case of goods made outside the EU.

  A decision on personal imports will be taken after full consultation on implementation options.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will seek to prevent adoption of the draft EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive in the form recently approved by the European Parliament. [509131

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK continues to support the Common Position text adopted by member states at the Council of Ministers meeting in June 2001.

  The Government will consider the European Parliament text carefully in conjunction with other member states.

  Research Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 86W, on the Research Council, what the Government's policy was on the work of the expert group on bioterrorism. [50993]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's policy was to welcome the establishment of the EU R and D expert group on countering biological and chemical terrorism which should lead to improved coordination of member states' research efforts in this field.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many net additional staff her Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52426]

  Ms Hewitt
  The figures requested for my Department are set out in the table.

  Administrative grades

  Executive officer

  June

  11

  0

  July

  24

  -2

  August

  3

  -1

  September

  5

  -2

  October

  4

  4

  November

  -5

  -1

  December

  2

  -3

  January

  4

  3

  February

  0

  0

  March

  13

  0

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what subjects and on which dates her Department has consulted organisations representing young people; and if she will list such organisations. [52492]

  Ms Hewitt
  I regret to inform my hon. Friend that the information is not held centrally in the manner requested and that the information can be secured only at disproportionate cost.
  3W
  However, the Department of Trade and Industry will be guided by the new core principles for the involvement of children and young people in the design, provision and evaluation of policies and services that affect them. These principles were published by the Minister with responsibility for young people in November 2001.

  Construction Industry
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what progress her Department is making in establishing a quality mark scheme for the construction industry; [52990]

  (2) what action she is taking to rationalise the number of registration schemes which promote quality within the construction industry. [52991]

  Ms Hewitt
  My hon. Friend the Minister with responsbility for energy and construction announced his decision to roll out the scheme across the country over a three to four year period, in his answer to the question from the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 891W. A Quality Mark Shadow Ownership Group has since been set up and, at its first meeting on 19 April, it began developing a comprehensive implementation strategy and detailed business plan. The group is finalising decisions about the next stages of the roll out.

  Following recommendations in the pilot review, the scheme is developing recruitment mechanisms to accelerate achievement of a critical mass of members. So far 175 builders have been awarded the Quality Mark and 247 are in the assessment pipeline, with more firms expected to apply shortly.

  The DTI is also working with local authorities, financial services groups, consumer groups and others to promote the scheme to tradesmen and encourage their participation.

  The national launch of the Quality Mark at the Ideal Home Show produced extensive television and radio coverage and articles in regional newspapers. The scheme is already being marketed successfully to consumers in Birmingham and Somerset through a variety of media, including Yellow Pages and Thomsons directories, household leaflet distribution with advertising and editorial coverage in a number of local papers and radio stations. Further targeted marketing will follow in new areas once sufficient numbers of builders and tradesmen are registered, to satisfy consumer demand.

  The DTI is working with a number of trade bodies to fast-track members into the Quality Mark scheme through use of trade association vetting procedures adapted as necessary. The DTI is also examining the scope for developing closer links between the Quality Mark and Constructionline, looking for some form of passporting system between the two schemes that might allow fee reductions and reduce duplication of assessments. However, the schemes do have different client targets and operating systems and a number of issues need to be considered carefully. In addition, the DTI has been liaising closely with DTLR on self-certification schemes and extension of non-notification of building work under amendments to Part L of the Building Regulations.

  Westfield
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the dates since 1 May 1997 when(a) Ministers and (b) officials have met representatives of Westfield. [52164]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Imports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total value of imports of(a) paper, (b) cloth, (c) chemicals, (d) foodstuffs, (e) medical supplies, (f) fruit, (g) grain, (h) cars, (i) computer equipment, (j) steel, (k) alcohol and (l) livestock to Wales was in each year since 1997. [53487]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The information requested is not available since it would require local firms to divert resources to fill in forms and submit them to Government and therefore pose a significant additional burden on respondents.

  National Missile Defence
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions her Department has had with UK firms bidding for work on the US-initiated programme of National Missile Defence; and if she will make a statement. [53596]

  Alan Johnson
  A decision to bid for work on the US-initiated programme of National Missile Defence is a commercial one for individual firms to make. DTI Ministers and officials have regular meetings with UK aerospace and defence companies on a range of issues and is supportive of decisions to bid for work in this and in other areas.

  Office for Civil Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (1) pursuant to her answer of 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 7, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. (Mr. Chaytor) when she received the annual report from the Office for Civil Nuclear Security; and when she plans to place a copy in the Library; [54209]

  (2) when she plans to publish the annual report of her Department's Office for Civil Nuclear Security. [54172]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have not yet received the report, but understand that I shall do shortly. I shall publish it and place a copy in the Libraries of the House before the end of May.

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will introduce improved safeguards to stop employers requiring their employees to work overtime without payment. [54187]

  Alan Johnson
  Payment for overtime is a contractual matter for negotiation and a agreement between employers and employees (or their representatives). Employees can already seek redress in the form of a breach of contract claim if they suffer financial loss because any terms of their contracts of employment are changed without their consent. Workers can also seek redress if unlawful deductions are made from their wages.

  Holiday Entitlement
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will introduce legislation to require employers to agree holidays with their employers on an annual basis. [54186]

  Alan Johnson
  Under the Working Time Regulations, which implement the European Working Time Directive, employers are already required to ensure that their workers are given the opportunity to take four weeks leave with pay each year.

  Icelandic Trawlermen (Compensation)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to accept sworn statements from those wishing to make claims under the Icelandic waters trawlermen compensation scheme whose services records are lost; and if she will make a statement. [54512]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Scheme rules state that, in exceptional cases, e. g. where it can he demonstrated that fishing records were lost in a fire or similar circumstances, the Redundancy Payments Service, to assist in validating claims under the Scheme, may be prepared to accept a sworn statement from the claimant in lieu of documentary evidence.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance the Government have given to small businesses to help them through the global downturn. [54194]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Government provide a range of assistance to small firms experiencing difficulties.

  Small businesses dependent on UK airlines affected by 11 September will benefit indirectly from the aid package provided by the UK Government to the aviation industry which is in addition to the significant financial contribution the Government make to the aerospace industry generally.

  There are also other forms of generic business support available to small firms facing difficulties:

  The SBS launched its Company Rescue Pilot scheme in September 2001. The pilot scheme will initially run for 6–12 months. It is aimed at giving SMEs suffering from short-term financial difficulties a second chance.
  6W
  The Business Link network provides advice and support for businesses suffering as a result of a recent crisis including advising on a range of disaster management issues. Businesses should telephone 0845 600 9 006 in order to contact their local Business Link Operator.

  The Government have recently established the Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS) to improve the UK's resilience to disruptive challenges at every level through improved anticipation, preparation, prevention and resolution. In addition, the Small Business Service (SBS) is identifying current market weaknesses in the provision of emergency loans to small businesses affected by disaster and will report back to Government with its findings and recommendations.

  Finally, the National Business Debtline is in place to help Micro Businesses in England and Wales facing debt problems to obtain free, confidential and impartial advice.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the written questions asked of her between(a) 1 to 30 June 2001, (b) 1 to 31 July 2001, (c) 1 to 30 September 2001, (d) 1 to 31 October 2001, (e) 1 to 30 November 2001, (f) 1 to 31 December 2001, (g) 1 to 31 January 2002, (h) 1 to 28 February 2002, (i) 1 to 31 March 2002 and (j) 1 to 30 April 2002 that had not received a substantive answer by 30 April; and if she will state (i) the name of the hon. Member asking the question and (ii) the reasons the question had not received a substantive answer. [54091]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 2 May 2002, Official Report, columns 949–50W, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

  Questions that remain unanswered within the dates listed are as follows:

  (a) 1 to 30 June—(f) 1 to 31 December: 0

  (g) 1 to 31 January: 1

  (h) 1 to 28 February: 4

  (i) 1 to 31 March: 7

  (j) 1 to 30 April: 41.

  The delays in answering these questions have been due in part to work pressures throughout the Department. However answers will be provided shortly.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what measures her Department is taking to encourage the use of liquid petroleum gas; [54228]

  (2) what incentives her Department offers to retailers to encourage the sale of liquid petroleum gas. [54229]

  Mr. Wilson
  This Department is actively working with colleagues in DTLR and HMT, and with the energy and transport industries, to promote wider uptake of alternative fuels, in particular liquid petroleum gas (LPG).

  At the opening to the 1,000th LPG filling station in February this year I announced LPG Boost, a £1 million DTI funded programme over two years to boost the uptake of LPG as a vehicular fuel. This programme (in conjunction with DTLR funded PowerShift) is aimed at

  7W
  boosting consumer demand for, and availability of, good quality LPG vehicles, especially in three target areas, the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, Mid Wales and rural East Anglia.

  Additionally, the LP Gas Association inform us that new retail sites are opening at a rate approaching one per day, with 1,076 sties as of 29 April. Given these incentives and the rate at which sites are opening the Government feel that it is not necessary to offer direct capital incentives to retailers.

  Beer Production
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total annual UK production of beer is in pints. [52983]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Nigel Evans, dated 7 May 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the annual UK production of beer in pints. (52983)
  For the year 2000, the total annual UK production of beer in pints was 10,370 million (rounded to the nearest 10 million). Details are given in 'ONS ProdCom (Products of the European Community) 2000 Annual Inquiry' which is available on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vInk= 7384&More=N.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will place in the Library copies of each version of the internal guidance which have been drawn up by her Department since 1 January 1999 to assist staff in her Department to answer subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. [53377]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, has not produced separate internal guidance on answering subject access requests.

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

  The Crown Prosecution Service issued guidance to staff about the Data Protection Act in February 2000 (Inform Insert Issue 6) and September 2001 (Data Protection Act 1998 Update), and has also produced a poster.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department issued guidance to staff in February 2000 (Office Notice 9/2000).

  The Serious Fraud Office has not produced separate internal guidance on answering subject access requests.

  I have placed copies of this guidance in the House Library. No other separate guidance has been issued.

  All Departments also have the central guidance on handling subject access requests issued by the Lord Chancellor and placed in the House Library on 25 April 2002.

  Sentence Referrals
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions in each of the last five years for which figures are available her Department was unable to complete the usual procedures in handling requests for referral of a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue lenience within the required time limit. [53396]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The Attorney and I have been able to consider and take a decision in all cases received at his office within the time limit.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General what deadlines and time limits exist on the referral of sentences to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue lenience; and if she will make a statement. [53397]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The Attorney-General has the power (under section 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) to refer a sentence for a specified category of offences, to the Court of Appeal for review, if it appears to be not merely lenient but unduly so. Schedule 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specifies that notice of an application for leave to refer a case to the Court of Appeal shall be given to the Registrar of Criminal Appeals within 28 days from the day on which the sentence, or the last of the sentences, in the case was passed. This period cannot be extended.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the procedure undertaken by her Department upon receipt of a request to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue lenience. [53398]

  Solicitor General
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The Attorney receives requests to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue lenience from two sources.

  The first source is the prosecuting authority (such as the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office etc.), which conducted the case against the offender. The written request is accompanied by various documents. These invariably include, hut are not limited to, the following:

  1. Relevant case papers, including material obtained for the purpose of the sentence, such as pre-sentence reports, the offender's antecedents, if any, etc.;

  2. A summary of the prosecution's case, the defence mitigation and the learned Judge's sentencing remarks.

  3. Relevant authorities, that is decisions in previous cases.

  4. Advice from Treasury Counsel, not involved in the prosecution of the case.

  The Attorney gives due consideration to the information and takes into account Counsel's advice. He is however not bound to follow the advice Counsel offers. The Attorney also receives requests for referral to the Court of Appeal from members of the public and also Members of this House. In such circumstances the relevant prosecutorial authority is approached and is required to provide the above stated documents.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many requests to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue lenience her Department
  9W
  has received in each of the last five years for which records are available from (a) the CPS and (b) other sources. [53445]

  Solicitor General
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Relevant records are only available for the year 2000 onwards. The following figures are available. These figures represent the number of offenders whose cases were referred to the Attorney General's office on the grounds of undue leniency:

  Year

  CPS

  Other sources

  2000

  136

  27

  2001

  226

  49

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many sentences have been referred to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue lenience following representations from(a) the CPS and (b) other sources in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [53444]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Relevant records are only available for the year 2000 onwards. The following figures are available. These figures represent the number of offenders whose cases were referred to the Court of Appeal.

  CPS

  Other sources

  2000

  87

  6

  2001

  136

  18

  Dublin Monaghan Bombing
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General what funds have been set aside to conduct a defence in proceedings brought by families of victims of the Dublin Monaghan bombing. [53514]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: No funds have been set aside to conduct a defence of proceedings brought by families of the Dublin Monaghan bombing. In the event that proceedings are commenced, then the Department responsible for defending the action will be billed after the event in the normal way in respect of any work done. No proceedings are currently on foot.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General what solicitors he has appointed to represent the Government in proceedings brought by families of victims of the Dublin Monaghan bombing. [53513]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: In the event that any proceedings are issued, the British Government will be represented by the Treasury Solicitor instructing local (Dublin) agents as necessary.

  Sovereign Immunity
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General in how many Northern Ireland conflict-related cases sovereign immunity has been sought since 1980; what reasons were given in each case; and what rulings were subsequently made by each court or tribunal. [53512]
  10W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: From the research that has been possible in the time available, I am aware of three cases in which a claim of sovereign immunity has been made or intimated in Northern Ireland conflict-related cases.

  The cases are:
  McElhinney v. Williams and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in which proceedings were commenced in the Republic against the United Kingdom Government by a claimant who claimed in respect of an alleged shooting incident at the border. The decision of the Irish Supreme Court is reported at [1996] ILRM 275, and the Court explains in detail the basis of sovereign immunity upon which it upheld the order striking out the claim.
  Bridget McGovern v. Ministry of Defence (in the early 1990s, unreported), in which the claimant claimed in the Republic in respect of damage to her property caused by an explosion at the border. Her claim was struck out by the Irish Court on grounds of sovereign immunity. Ms McGovern subsequently issued proceedings in the Courts of Northern Ireland and recovered damage for her loss.
  Adams v. Secretary of. State for Northern Ireland and George Mitchell (1998 unreported). Mr. Gerry Adams sought judicial review in the Court of the Republic in respect of the decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to exclude Sinn Fein at that stage from the peace negotiations. A claim for sovereign immunity was to be made but the claim was not pursued to a substantive hearing, probably because the negotiations returned to Northern Ireland.

  Sovereign immunity is an elementary principle of international law which states that in general an independent sovereign state may not be sued in the courts of a foreign state against its will and without its consent. One factor of relevance is which is the most convenient forum for the claim to be heard, and it is noteworthy from the McGovern case that Ms McGovern was able successfully to pursue her claim in the Courts of Northern Ireland.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sellafield
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister how many pieces of correspondence in connection with the Irish Government campaign with regard to Sellafield he has received; what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Irish Republic on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [53950]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in the House on 1 May 2002,Official Report, column 941.

  Ministerial Visits
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on(a) security issues and (b) nuclear weapons in respect of his visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in January; and what representations he has received regarding the state of intergovernmental relations in the sub-continent. [54212]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 11 January 2002,Official Report, column 1034W.
  11W
  We remain deeply concerned by the continuing tensions between India and Pakistan. We have called on Pakistan to ensure an end to cross-border terrorism, and on both sides to resume a dialogue so that a lasting solution can be found to the issues between them.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he plans to hold with the Prime Minister of Spain to discuss the future of Gibraltar within the Brussels process; and what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Spain about Gibraltar since the European Council's meeting at Barcelona. [54602]

  The Prime Minister
  I talk to the Spanish Prime Minister frequently on a range of EU and foreign policy issues, and I look forward to seeing him at our next planned meetings on 17 and 20 May. I have not discussed Gibraltar with Mr. Aznar since the European Council in Barcelona.

  Meetings
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister of Spain; and what will be on the agenda for discussion. [54243]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) today.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  1 Palace Street
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if sapele wood was used in the recent refurbishment of 1 Palace street. [54345]

  Clare Short
  Sapele was used in a small number of doors during the recent refurbishment. These were used only in the small Grade two-listed section of the building, following consultation with local planning officers. The suppliers no longer purchase veneer from tropical forest zones, and have been permitted by WWF to use up the veneer from existing stocks.

  International Debt
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the value is of bilateral debt repayments to the United Kingdom for(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02, broken down by each of the HIPC eligible countries. [53791]

  Clare Short
  The value of bilateral debt repayment to the UK by the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries is £11.603 million for 2000–01 and £19.575 million for 2001–02. These figures relate to old rescheduled debt owed to ECGD from the 1970s and 1980s; details are set out, by HIPC country, and by financial year, in the table. There were no repayments on aid loans to the UK, as we have already cancelled our aid debts to all the poorest countries, not just HIPCs.
  12W
  The Government provide 100 per cent. relief on their bilateral debt to HIPC countries once they qualify for debt relief under the HIPC initiative.

  Amount of debt repayment received by ECGD from HIPCs

  Recoveries £ million

  HIPC country

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Angola

  —

  —

  Benin1

  0.146

  0.051

  Bolivia1

  0.872

  0.409

  Burkina Faso1

  0.066

  0.061

  Cameroon1

  1.421

  0.363

  Central African Republic

  0.010

  —

  Congo

  —

  —

  Cote d'Ivoire

  —

  —

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  —

  —

  Ethiopia1

  0.526

  —

  Ghana1

  0.705

  —

  Guinea Republic1

  0.185

  0.012

  Guyana

  3.026

  1.228

  Kenya

  —

  14.942

  Liberia

  —

  —

  Madagascar1

  —

  —

  Malawi1

  0.114

  —

  Mali1

  0.240

  0.095

  Mauritania1

  0.005

  0.009

  Mozambique1

  —

  —

  Nicaragua1

  —

  —

  Niger1

  —

  —

  Senegal1

  0.013

  0.176

  Sierra Leone1

  —

  —

  Somalia

  —

  —

  Sudan

  —

  —

  Tanzania1

  —

  0.387

  Togo

  —

  —

  Uganda1

  0.465

  —

  Vietnam

  0.749

  0.699

  Yemen1

  0.213

  0.186

  Zambia1

  2.847

  0.957

  Total

  11.603

  19,575

  1 Have now passed Decision Point.

  Note:
  When HIPCs reach their Decision Points they are no longer required to service their debt—with a commitment to full write-off, eg Bolivia, Uganda, Mozambique and Tanzania.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries she expects to reach decision point under the HIPC initiative in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [53790]

  Clare Short
  So far this year, Ghana and Sierra Leone have reached their decision point under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, bringing the total to 26 out of a total of 42 HIPCs. We hope that, by autumn, Cote d'Ivoire will be added to the list of countries benefiting from the Initiative. In 2003, three countries (Comoros, Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of Congo) may qualify for HIPC relief. The prospects for the remaining eight unsustainable countries are not good. Six—Burundi, Congo Republic, Liberia, Myanmar, Somalia and Sudan—are still affected by conflict; Togo has governance problems; and Lao PDR is undecided as to whether to opt for HIPC relief. Angola, Kenya, Vietnam and Yemen already have sustainable debt burdens.
  13W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the value was of payments made by the United Kingdom towards the HIPC Trust Fund to contribute towards multilateral debt relief for(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [53786]

  Clare Short
  The total UK pledge to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative Trust Fund, which is funded by the Department for International Development, is US$306 million, including our US$85 million share of the EC contribution. In 2000–01, DFID paid US$40 million to the HIPC Trust Fund, and in 2001–02 DFID paid US$33.7 million. The UK contribution is paid on an as-needed basis on request by the International Development Association (IDA), which is administering the Fund.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will list the multilateral institutions which received payments from the HIPC Trust Fund to cover their provision of debt relief broken down by(a) amount received and (b) country; [53787]

  (2) which countries had financial assistance from a multilateral debt fund in the financial years (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; and how much they received. [53788]

  Clare Short
  The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative Trust Fund makes payments to multilateral creditors to enable them to meet their shares of the costs of providing debt relief to eligible HIPC countries. The Trust Fund is administered by the International Development Association (IDA), which holds the details of information sought. I will write to the hon. Member with further information shortly.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the bilateral debt owed to the United Kingdom by each of the HIPC eligible countries(a) has been written off and (b) is outstanding, broken down by country. [53789]

  Clare Short
  The total outstanding bilateral debt owed to the UK by the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) is £1.529 billion; the amount written off is £0.703 billion. Most of this relates to old rescheduled debt owed to ECGD from the 1970s and 1980s; details are set out, by HIPC country, in table 1. The outstanding debt figure includes £53 million of aid loans which have already been cancelled but are still in DFID's accounts, as payments are written off as they become due; details are set out, by HIPC country, in table 2.

  The Government provide 100 per cent. relief on their bilateral debt to HIPC countries once they qualify for debt relief under the HIPC initiative.

  Table 1: Amount of ECGD debt outstanding and written-off to date for HIPCs

  £ million

  HIPC Country

  Amount of debt outstanding

  Amount of debt written-off

  Angola

  131.0

  —

  Benin1

  2.6

  5.9

  Bolivia1

  —

  53.2

  Burkina Faso1

  1.1

  1.1

  Cameroon1

  50.9

  38.0

  Central African Republic

  0.4

  0.3

  Congo

  149.0

  —

  Cote D'Ivoire

  33.2

  6.5

  14W

  Table 1: Amount of ECGD debt outstanding and written-off to date for HIPCs

  £ million

  HIPC Country

  Amount of debt outstanding

  Amount of debt written-off

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  165.0

  —

  Ethiopi1

  12.6

  5.1

  Ghana1,2

  150.0

  —

  Guinea Republic1

  3.7

  1.3

  Guyana1

  33.0

  90.0

  Kenya

  44.3

  —

  Liberia

  18.0

  —

  Madagascar1

  25.0

  3.6

  Malawi1

  25.0

  3.6

  Mali1

  3.0

  8.9

  Mauritania1

  5.9

  3.0

  Mozambique1

  —

  105.6

  Nicaragua1

  1.1

  1.1

  Niger1

  9.5

  5.3

  Senegal1

  1.5

  1.9

  Sierra Leone1

  5.0

  0.6

  Somalia

  29.0

  —

  Sudan

  361.4

  —

  Tanzania1

  —

  232.1

  Togo

  15.7

  4.5

  Uganda1

  —

  23.5

  Vietnam

  8.9

  12.0

  Yemen1

  2.3

  6.4

  Zambia1

  212.0

  84.3

  Total

  1,475.5

  694.5

  1 Have now passed Decision Point.

  2The amount shown is ECGD's exposure some of which shall shortly be restructured/reduced.

  Note:

  Total amount outstanding column includes principal outstanding together with any arrears of interest.

  Table 2: Amount of aid loans outstanding and written-off for HIPC countries

  £

  Country

  Balance at 1 April 2001

  Written off 2001–02

  Balance at 1 April 2002

  Angola

  0

  0

  0

  Benin, People's Republic

  0

  0

  0

  Burkina Faso

  0

  0

  0

  Burundi

  0

  0

  0

  Cameroon

  0

  0

  0

  Central African Republic

  0

  0

  0

  Chad

  0

  0

  0

  Congo, People's Republic

  0

  0

  0

  Ethiopia

  0

  0

  0

  Ghana

  6,071,475

  1,667,600

  4,403,875

  Guinea

  0

  0

  0

  Guinea-Bissau

  0

  0

  0

  Cote d'Ivoire

  1,684,482

  213,126

  1,471,356

  Kenya

  0

  0

  0

  Liberia

  0

  0

  0

  Madagascar

  0

  0

  0

  Malawi

  96,000

  76,000

  20,000

  Mali

  0

  0

  0

  Mauritania

  0

  0

  0

  Mozambique

  907,704

  695,721

  211,983

  Niger

  0

  0

  0

  Rwanda

  0

  0

  0

  Sao Tome and Principe

  0

  0

  0

  Senegal

  160,330

  56,000

  104,330

  Sierra Leone

  0

  0

  0

  Somali Democratic Republic

  0

  0

  0

  Sudan

  0

  0

  0

  Tanzania

  0

  0

  0

  Togo

  0

  0

  0

  Uganda

  0

  0

  0

  Congo, Democratic Republic

  0

  0

  0

  Zambia

  28,210,920

  2,549,200

  25,661,720

  Bolivia

  0

  0

  0

  Guyanas

  23,690,803

  3,374,420

  20,316,383

  15W

  Table 2: Amount of aid loans outstanding and written-off for HIPC countries

  £

  Country

  Balance at 1 April 2001

  Written off 2001–02

  Balance at 1 April 2002

  Honduras

  1,164,476

  324,476

  840,000

  Nicaragua

  398,200

  0

  398,200

  Burma

  0

  0

  0

  Laos

  0

  0

  0

  Vietnam

  0

  0

  0

  Yemen, Republic of1

  0

  0

  0

  Yemen, People's Democratic Republic

  0

  0

  0

  Myanmar

  0

  0

  0

  Vietnam—Hanoi

  0

  0

  0

  Vietnam—Ho Chi Minh City

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  62,384,390

  8,956,543

  53,427,847

  1 YAR to May 1990

  Health Aid Budgets
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the proposals to increase health aid budgets contained in the World Health Organisation's report by the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, published on 20 December; and what role her Department has played in the report's distribution in the United Kingdom and in British overseas territories and embassies. [54166]

  Clare Short
  We welcome the broad messages of the Commission for Macroeconomics (CMH) report. It has provided clear evidence that investing in health is far more important for economic development and wider poverty reduction than was previously understood, and we embrace the call for extra resources from both donors and developing countries.

  I hosted the worldwide launch of the CMH report at the Department for International Development headquarters in December. Later this month I shall be opening a conference (organised and part funded by my Department) to disseminate the messages of the report to the global audience and plan how to take these findings forward.

  Poverty
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made toward the 2015 targets for reducing poverty. [53711]

  Clare Short
  Latest forecasts from the World Bank suggest that globally, meeting the 2015 target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty is attainable. There has been progress. During the 1990s, the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day in the developing world fell from 29 per cent. in 1990, to 23 per cent. in 1999. This was mainly due to the substantial progress made during the 1990s in east Asia, and in particular China.

  In the developing world, progress has also been made during the 1990s against almost all the other 2015 Millennium Development targets. The proportion of children completing a full course of primary school
  16W
  increased from 68 per cent. to 73 per cent.; the under-five mortality rate decreased from 88 to 84 deaths per 1,000 births; and the proportion of people with access to an improved water source increased from 73 per cent. to 79 per cent.

  However, to meet all of the 2015 targets progress must be improved. The sub-Saharan African region presents the biggest challenge to meeting the 2015 targets. We need an enormous effort internationally to accelerate progress in Africa. My Department is dedicated to do all in its power to accelerate progress towards the targets.

  A detailed description of progress towards all the 2015 targets is contained in a recent World bank publication: World Development Indicators 2002, which can be found at the following website: http://www.worldbank.org/ata/ wdi2002/worldview.pdf.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the representatives of the island of St. Helena on assisting with financial provision for providing an airport on St. Helena. [53699]

  Clare Short
  A St. Helena Government team visited the UK in February 2002 to take forward discussions on air access for the island with my officials. The team reported on these discussions to the St. Helena Government at the beginning of April. Further discussions on the issue of air access will take place over the coming months.

  Donations (Tax Relief)
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what role her Department will play in deciding whether tax relief on donations of medical supplies and equipment to developing countries announced in the Budget is supportive of recipient countries health strategies; [53343]

  (2) what role her Department will play in the interpretation of "humanitarian" in relation to tax relief on the responsible donation of medical supplies and equipment to developing countries announced in the Budget. [53344]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been working closely with HM Treasury, Inland Revenue and other Departments on a range of measures to improve access to medicines for the developing world, including tax relief on donations of medical supplies.

  The tax measure is intended to be supportive of health strategies in developing countries. The Inland Revenue will be issuing guidance to its tax inspectors on interpreting what constitutes a donation for "humanitarian purposes". The Inland Revenue guidance will include appropriate reference to elements of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines.

  The WHO guidelines clearly set out that drug donations should: constitute a sustainable contribution to government health strategies in developing countries; be based on need and relevant to the disease pattern of recipient countries; have at least one year remaining shelf

  17W
  life; be of a quality which complies with the standards of donor and recipient countries; and only provided after consultation and at the request of the recipient.

  Chechnya
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Chechnya; and if she will make a statement. [53058]

  Clare Short
  We closely monitor the situation in the North Caucasus, both from our desk in London and through regular visits to Moscow.

  According to research by the International Committee of the Red Cross(ICRC) food, clothing and shelter are the priority needs for internally displaced people(IDPs) and vulnerable persons in Chechnya. Water supply, reconstruction and education are also seen as important areas of need.

  Country

  Poorer (yes/no)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  (a)Number of investments held

  South Asia

  —

  85

  75

  71

  71

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  —

  177

  176

  149

  136

  Poorer

  —

  338

  329

  295

  268

  Total

  —

  418

  407

  374

  349

  Bangladesh

  y

  6

  7

  7

  7

  India

  y

  44

  35

  30

  30

  Sri Lanka

  y

  8

  7

  7

  9

  Pakistan

  y

  26

  25

  24

  22

  Other South Asia

  y

  1

  1

  3

  3

  Total South Asia

  —

  85

  75

  71

  71

  Botswana

  n

  6

  5

  2

  1

  Cameroon

  y

  4

  4

  1

  1

  Cote D'Ivoire

  y

  8

  9

  5

  5

  Esca Regional Fund (South Africa)

  y

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Gambia

  y

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Ghana

  y

  16

  16

  14

  11

  Kenya

  y

  18

  18

  16

  15

  Lesotho

  y

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Liberia

  y

  4

  4

  5

  5

  Malawi

  y

  11

  8

  7

  3

  Mauritius

  n

  7

  3

  5

  5

  Mozambique

  y

  7

  7

  6

  6

  Namibia

  n

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Nigeria

  y

  3

  3

  4

  4

  Seychelles

  n

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Sierra Leone

  y

  3

  3

  3

  2

  South Africa

  n

  9

  14

  14

  20

  Sudan

  y

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Swaziland

  y

  12

  11

  10

  8

  Tanzania

  y

  15

  17

  15

  14

  Uganda

  y

  11

  10

  8

  6

  Zambia

  y

  15

  16

  16

  13

  Zimbabwe

  y

  16

  15

  9

  7

  Other

  y

  2

  3

  2

  3

  Total Sub-Saharan Africa

  —

  177

  176

  149

  136

  Argentina

  n

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Barbados

  n

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Belize

  n

  5

  5

  6

  4

  Bolivia

  y

  4

  4

  5

  4

  British Virgin Islands

  n

  1

  2

  4

  4

  Cayman Islands

  n

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Costa Rica

  n

  17

  15

  15

  15

  Cuba

  y

  2

  3

  3

  3

  Dominica

  n

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Dominican Republic

  y

  8

  9

  11

  11

  Ecuador

  y

  6

  7

  5

  4

  18W
  We continue to work with UN agencies and international NGOs to improve assessment of humanitarian needs and evaluation of impact. This includes funding through the UN Office of the Security Co-ordinator (UNSECOORD) and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA) (including part funding of a senior humanitarian specialist) in support of strengthened co-ordination and security for humanitarian agencies working in the North Caucasus, including Chechnya.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) investments were held and (b) new investments were made by the CDC in (i) South Asia, (ii) Sub-Saharan Africa, (iii) countries defined by the CDC as poorer and (iv) in total in (A) 1998, (B) 1999, (C) 2000 and (D) 2001, broken down by country. [52251]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:
  19W

  Country

  Poorer (yes/no)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  El Salvador

  y

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Grenada

  n

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Guatemala

  y

  3

  4

  5

  3

  Guyana

  y

  6

  6

  8

  8

  Honduras

  y

  9

  9

  7

  6

  Jamaica

  y

  10

  9

  6

  5

  Mexico

  n

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Nicaragua

  y

  4

  5

  5

  4

  Peru

  n

  0

  1

  2

  3

  St. Lucia

  n

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Trinidad and Tobago

  n

  3

  2

  1

  1

  Other—Americas

  y

  1

  0

  0

  1

  China

  y

  0

  0

  3

  4

  Fiji

  n

  4

  4

  2

  0

  Indonesia

  y

  18

  19

  13

  12

  Laos

  y

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Malaysia

  n

  4

  4

  3

  3

  Mauritius

  n

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Papua New Guinea

  y

  12

  11

  11

  9

  Philippines

  y

  10

  8

  9

  10

  Singapore

  n

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Solomon Islands

  y

  4

  4

  3

  3

  Thailand

  n

  13

  13

  12

  11

  Vanuatu

  y

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Vietnam

  y

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Other—Asia Pacific

  n

  0

  0

  1

  1

  (b) Number of new investment

  South Asia

  —

  10

  4

  7

  8

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  —

  51

  43

  32

  31

  Poorer

  —

  73

  60

  60

  40

  Total

  —

  96

  90

  86

  63

  Bangladesh

  y

  0

  1

  1

  2

  India

  y

  6

  3

  3

  2

  Sri Lanka

  y

  2

  0

  2

  3

  Pakistan

  y

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Other South Asia

  y

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total South Asia

  —

  10

  4

  7

  8

  Malawi

  y

  4

  4

  1

  0

  Mozambique

  y

  3

  2

  1

  0

  Zambia

  y

  3

  3

  2

  1

  Zimbabwe

  y

  4

  3

  1

  1

  Kenya

  y

  5

  4

  4

  3

  Esca Regional Fund (South Africa)

  y

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Mauritius

  n

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Tanzania

  y

  11

  6

  9

  5

  Uganda

  y

  5

  2

  1

  1

  Swaziland

  y

  2

  3

  2

  2

  South Africa

  n

  8

  9

  5

  13

  Cote D'Ivoire

  y

  1

  2

  2

  0

  Ghana

  y

  2

  5

  2

  2

  Nigeria

  y

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Sierra Leone

  y

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total Sub-Saharan Africa

  —

  51

  43

  32

  31

  Papua New Guinea

  y

  3

  2

  2

  2

  Solomon Islands

  y

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Barbados

  n

  0

  4

  1

  1

  British Virgin Islands

  n

  0

  1

  4

  2

  Cayman Islands

  n

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Cuba

  y

  2

  3

  0

  0

  Dominica

  n

  1

  3

  0

  0

  Guyana

  y

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Jamaica

  y

  1

  1

  1

  0

  St. Lucia

  n

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Argentina

  n

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Belize

  n

  3

  5

  2

  1

  Bolivia

  y

  3

  2

  2

  1

  Costa Rica

  n

  7

  7

  6

  2

  Dominican Republic

  y

  4

  1

  6

  2

  Ecuador

  y

  1

  1

  0

  0

  20W

  21W

  Country

  Poorer (yes/no)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  El Salvador

  y

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Guatemala

  y

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Honduras

  y

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Peru

  n

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Latin America

  y

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Mexico

  n

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Nicaragua

  y

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Asia Pacific

  y

  0

  0

  1

  0

  China

  y

  0

  0

  3

  2

  Indonesia

  y

  0

  4

  6

  2

  Malaysia

  n

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Laos

  y

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Philippines

  y

  2

  3

  2

  2

  Singapore

  n

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Thailand

  n

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Vietnam

  y

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Note:

  Numbers of individual investments do not reflect benefits to poorer developing countries overall.

  Poland
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Rural Development Project in Poland. [49162]

  Clare Short
  This project was formally reviewed in June 2001 and has been monitored on a regular basis since then. It is an institutional building project focused at national and local government levels, NGOs and civil society. The project is assisting the Polish authorities in changing the way regional planning is implemented in line with good EU practice by the instruction of a more participative and bottom-up approach to decision-making processes.

  DFID assessments have shown that the project is providing value for money in terms of its impact on (i) the progress being made in the Lubelski voivodship in building local capacity and networks and (ii) links being made into the national policy debate to inform regional policy in preparation for Poland's accession to the EU and its future effective use of structural funds.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposed changes in the rules relating to the use of right to buy receipts; from when the new rules will operate; what changes are envisaged for debt-free authorities; for what reason debt-free authorities will be required to set aside a percentage of prior receipts in future; what the percentage will be; how this money will be redistributed to other authorities: under what statement these changes will be introduced; whether it is Government policy to match exactly the higher allocations to support general borrowing as a result of the ending of the authorities' ability to finance expenditure from receipts; which authorities he estimates will be affected, and how much will be redistributed in each case; what consultation he will undertake before introducing this change; and if he will publish the results of the consultation. [53955]
  22W
  Ms Keeble
  The local government White Paper—"Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services"—set out our intention to pool a proportion of housing capital receipts arising in debt free authorities to finance new housing investment in areas where it is most needed. The change will put the treatment of housing capital receipts in debt free authorities on an equal footing with their treatment in other authorities. It also removes a real disincentive to authorities to take up the new borrowing freedoms planned as part of the simplification of the local authority capital finance system described in the White Paper.

  The change will be introduced alongside the wider changes to the local authority capital finance system which require primary legislation; the timing of this is still to be decided. The detailed arrangements for pooling, including the proportion of receipts to he pooled, and the allocation of resources from the pool are currently being considered. The new arrangements will not apply to receipts already realised. We will be consulting on detailed proposals and will report on the outcome of the consultation.

  The number of authorities that will be affected by the change will depend on what happens to debt levels and on housing stock transfers between now and the introduction of the pooling arrangement. A list of the authorities that were debt free at 1 April 2001 was given in reply to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 9 April 2001, Official Report, columns 330–32W. Housing capital receipts are mainly generated from the sale of dwellings and around 30 of these authorities own council housing. The amount of additional resources for allocation from the pool to fund new housing investment will depend on the proportion of receipts to be pooled and future levels or receipts for debt free authorities.

  Planning Policy
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish a report on the progress on adoption of area-wide local plans and unitary development plans. [55053]
  23W
  Ms Keeble
  The report on the progress on the adoption of area wide local plans and unitary development plans is published today and details the progress made by local authorities in England in preparing and reviewing their development plans.

  Although it was considered that the publication of the planning Green Paper would raise uncertainties in respect of local authorities preparing plans, this report gives a clear indication that local authorities are continuing with development plan work. We have yet to achieve 100 per cent. national coverage and there are still 13 per cent. of LPAs who have not produced an adopted development plan. The continuing delays in adopting local plans and, subsequently, altering or replacing those plans adds weight to the recommendations in the planning Green Paper on the need for reform of the planning system to introduce faster and more flexible arrangements.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which proposals in the planning Green Paper would require(a) primary legislation and (b) secondary legislation to be implemented. [54448]

  Mr. Byers
  A number of the proposals will require changes to primary legislation. Among them the proposals to abolish structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans and replace them with the new Local Development Framework, and introducing statutory Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) to replace Regional Planning Guidance. Powers would need to be introduced for major infrastructure projects to be referred to Parliament and any changes to the current system of planning obligations. A number of development control measures such as putting funding for planning aid on a statutory basis and introducing a planning checklist are likely to require primary legislation. While some legislative amendment may be required for the introduction of business planning zones.

  Many of the changes in the Green Paper can be made by secondary legislation. In particular those development control measures designed to speed up and made the process more transparent such as the proposals to enable electronic submission of planning applications and appeals, and the requirement on local authorities to make copies of plans and planning applications publicly available at low or no cost. A number of the proposals will requires amendments to be made to the General Development Procedure Order.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the Court of Appeal decision in Newport BC v. Secretary of State for Wales on the application of PPG8. [54444]

  Mr. Byers
  Our revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 8. 'Telecommunications' takes account of this decision and makes reference to it.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the appointment of consultants to advise on the responses to the Planning Green Paper was subject to a competitive tendering process; when expressions of interest were invited; and how many firms tendered. [54446]
  24W
  Mr. Byers
  Smith and Williamson were appointed under a framework agreement under which each work assignment commissioned forms a contract in its own right (in accordance with the terms and conditions of the overarching framework). The framework was let following a competitive tender exercise conducted under the EC Restricted procedure, i. e. service requirement advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities, Expressions of Internet (EOIs) invited from potential suppliers, EOIs sifted to select those to be invited to tender.

  The framework was awarded on 31 October 1997 and ends on 31 October 2002. It is being retendered.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish a Planning White Paper. [54447]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government intend to make a Policy Statement before the summer parliamentary recess.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which consultants were appointed to analyse the responses to the Planning Green Paper; and what are(a) their terms of reference and (b) the timetable for completion of their work. [54449]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department appointed Smith and Williamson management consultants on 5 December 2001. The consultants were appointed to analyse and data process standard responses to the Green Paper. They were asked to produce quantitative data on the overall response and by respondent type. Smith and Williamson delivered their findings on 29 April.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the proposals in his Planning Green Paper. [54443]

  Mr. Byers
  Following the coming into force of the Human Rights Act, all government policy and legislation needs to be considered for its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. Should any of the proposals in the Green Paper result in primary legislation, the Ministers responsible will make a statement as to the compatibility of the relevant provisions to both Houses.

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning applications for mobile phone masts have been determined under delegated authority in each of the last five years, broken down by local authority. [54445]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department does not collect such information.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions his Department has had with telecom operators on the shared use of mobile phone masts. [54439]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government's policy is to encourage mast and site sharing where that is the optimum environmental solution in a particular case. Planning Policy Guidance Note 8, "Telecommunications" provides guidance on this.
  25W
  The Department is currently drawing up, in partnership with representatives of the mobile phone operators and local government, a revised Code of Best Practice, which will include advice and best practice on siting and design of mobile phone mast development. In drawing up the advice, mast sharing has been discussed. I expect the revised Code of Best Practice to include advice and best practice about mast sharing.

  Local Public Service Agreements
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reasons district councils are not directly involved in local public service agreements; and what plans he has to extend them to district councils. [54799]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 557W.

  Flood-risk Housing
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many houses(a) have been built in areas deemed as high risk of flooding in each year since 1997 and (b) are planned in such areas. [54235]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on 7 November 2001,Official Report, columns 294–95W. The most recent land-use change statistics will be published shortly.

  Assisted Living Units
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many assisted living units per local authority there were in England in each of the last five years. [53767]

  Ms Keeble
  Prior to the introduction of the Supporting People programme most local authorities were not involved in the practice of mapping supply of assisted living units in their area. It is therefore not possible to provide the information you require. However following the 'supply mapping' deadline for the Supporting People programme, which is the end of May 2002, an accurate picture of the number of units per local authority should be available.

  Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to issue guidance to commissioning bodies under the Supporting People scheme on partnerships with social services. [53765]

  Ms Keeble
  Commissioning Bodies are a partnership of housing, social services, probation and health who will together plan the Supporting People strategy for their local areas. Comprehensive guidance was published in October 2001. It can be found on the website www.spkweb.org.uk under Emerging Policy.

  British Red Cross
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial support his Department has given since 1 April 2000 to projects in the UK run by the British Red Cross. [52967]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Since 1 April 2000 an examination of accounting records has revealed that DTLR(C) has made no contributions to the state funding of the British Red Cross or to projects run by the British Red Cross.

  Public Services
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that district authorities have the flexibility to fund and deliver high quality public services to local people. [52467]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Local Government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", published December 2001, sets out our broad vision for local government. The White Paper contains our commitments to provide local authorities with wider powers and increased financial flexibility, and for Government to decrease unnecessary control over authorities to assist with the delivery of improved public services and better community leadership.

  Public Transport Workers (Assaults)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assistance is given to public transport workers who are assaulted at work. [53642]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department is very concerned about the number of public transport workers who are assaulted at work. The Department is raising awareness and addressing the issue through research programmes and good practice guidance for public transport operators.

  Work-related violence is a health and safety issue, and employers have a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to protect their staff from the risk of violence in the course of their work. The specific assistance given to public transport workers who are assaulted at work is a matter for the individual transport operator. For example, London Underground staff receive support from their managers in the form of sympathetic treatment, home visits, hospital visits (if applicable), gradual reintroduction to the work place (including move of location if appropriate), assistance in legal proceedings (support at court) and assistance with CICA claims. They may also receive support from in-house Employee Assistance.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the installation of a train protection system; if he will make a statement on the recent report from the Commission for Integrated Transport on this subject; and if he will make a statement. [53448]
  27W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Railway Safety Regulations 1999 require automatic train protection (ATP), where reasonably practical, or otherwise the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS), to be fitted on all trains and throughout the network by the end of 2003. The rail industry estimates that TPWS should mitigate over 80 per cent. of ATP-preventable risk. Mandatory common technical specifications (TSIs) developed under the European rail interoperability directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC will mean that a European form of ATP, known as the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), should be fitted to all high speed and many conventional rail lines in Great Britain when they are constructed, upgraded or (conventional lines only) renewed.

  The public inquiry report into train protection systems, chaired by Professor Uff and Lord Cullen, recommended that ERTMS be adopted as the standard form of train protection in this country. On 25 April the rail industry published a report setting out what it considered a feasible timetable for fitting ERTMS to Britain's railways. I have asked the Health and Safety Commission, as the independent rail safety regulator, to review the industry report. They will want to have a constructive debate on all the issues raised including costs and timing before they report back to me with formal recommendations. I look forward to receiving the Health and Safety Commission's recommendations and then deciding the best way forward.

  The report from the Commission for Integrated Transport argued that level 1 of ERTMS would reduce capacity on high speed, high capacity lines, causing travellers to switch to roads, with a much worse safety record than rail, leading to more fatalities overall. The industry report on ERTMS makes a similar point. I would expect the HSC to consider these points when reviewing the report and making their recommendations.

  Rail Freight
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when the contracts resulting from the SRA's freight innovation competition were signed with(a) Blue Circle industries, (b) Exel and c Minimodal; [54452]

  (2) when the contracts signed by (a) Blue Circle Industries, (b) Exel and c Minimodal have been renegotiated; and if he will make a statement; [54454]

  (3) what the results were of the mechanical engineering checks that were carried out as part of the SRA's freight innovation competition; [54456]

  (4) what the criteria were against which the entrants for the SRA's freight innovation competition were judged; [54451]

  (5) if he will place in the Library the Heads of Agreement for the contracts signed by a Blue Circle Industries, (b) Exel and c Minimodal, following the SRA's freight innovation competition; [54453]

  (6) on what date the winners of the SRA's freight innovation competition were announced; [54450]
  28W
  (7) how much has been spent by (a) the Department, (b) the SRA and c other Government bodies as part of the SRA's freight innovation competition. [54455]

  Mr. Byers
  The winners of the Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA's) freight innovation competition were announced on 13 June 2000. The contracts were signed on 26 January 2001 in all three cases and none of these contracts have been renegotiated. The terms of the contracts are commercially confidential and could not be disclosed without the agreement of all parties to the contracts. The Authority selected projects submitted which scored highest against the published criteria and these were audited by a consultant to assess their deliverability in all areas including vehicle acceptance and operational issues prior to selection. The guidance notes for applicants, which include the criteria used to judge the competition, have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Up to the end of the year 2001–02 the SRA, which is wholly responsible for financing the competition, has spent £4.52 million as a result of it.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 569W, what contractual arrangements exist for access to the network by rail freight operators. [54281]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Freight train operators need to hold access contracts with Railtrack. These are subject to approval by the Rail Regulator in accordance with the provisions in sections 17 to 22c of the Railways Act 1993 (as amended by the Transport Act 2000).

  Deep Sea Ports
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the average cost to hauliers to transfer freight onto(a) the rail network and (b) the road network at deep sea ports in the United Kingdom. [54603]

  Mr. Byers
  The charges are a confidential contractual matter between the port and its customers.

  Road Signs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the use of kilometres on road distance indicator signs in the UK. [53510]

  Ms Keeble
  The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 1994 do not permit the use of kilometres on directional or road works signs, or on distance plates used with regulatory or warning signs.

  Fuel-cell Powered Vehicles
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to support the development of a hydrogen infrastructure for fuel-cell powered vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [54266]
  29W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The draft of the Government's "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy for encouraging the shift to low-carbon vehicles and fuels highlighted the Government's role of supporting the development of new fuel infrastructures. Hydrogen is likely to be a key component in this shift to low-carbon transport.

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget announced that the Government intended to exempt hydrogen from fuel duty for a period to encourage it's development and early take-up. He also announced his intention to provide enhanced capital allowances for hydrogen infrastructure. The Government are also providing fiscal support for the pilot trials of fuel-cell buses to be carried out next year by Transport for London, which will include a hydrogen refuelling facility.

  Vehicle Registration Documents
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average time taken to replace lost vehicle registration documents was in the last 12 months. [54876]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For the year 2001–02 in respect of registration documents issued in response to customers notifying changes to their own or the vehicle's details, the agency processed 95 per cent. of all transactions within 8.4 days.

  A1 (Newark)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when he expects the carriageway repairs on the A1 south of Newark to be completed; [52608]

  (2) what reasons the carriageway repair work being carried out on the A1 south of Newark is not being carried out on a 24 hour basis. [52609]

  Mr. Spellar
  The carriageway repairs on the A1 south of Newark finished on 29 April 2002, six days earlier than originally expected. Before they began, the Highways Agency consulted Kesteven district council and it was agreed that work would not be done overnight to avoid causing disturbance to nearby residential properties.

  Drivers will now benefit from a smoother, quieter ride and the residents of Long Bennington will notice a marked decrease in noise.

  Vehicle Ownership
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many households with(a) one and (b) more than one vehicle there were in (i) St. Helens, (ii) Merseyside, (iii) the north-west, (iv) England and (v) Great Britain in (A) 1990, (B) 1995, (C) 1997, (D) 1998, (E) 1999, (F) 2000 and (G) 2001. [52256]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information for St. Helens and Merseyside are only available from the 1991 Census. This is shown in Table 1 together with corresponding data for the north-west Standard Statistical Region (SSR) (comprising Cumbria, Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside), England and Great Britain. 2001 Census data will be available in 2003.30W

  Table 1: Number of households—1991

  Thousand

  No cars

  One car

  Two or more cars

  All households

  St. Helens

  25

  30

  14

  69

  Merseyside

  248

  217

  86

  551

  North-west SSR

  935

  1,031

  501

  2,467

  England

  6,080

  8,201

  4,485

  18,766

  Great Britain

  7,314

  9,525

  5,058

  21,897

  Estimates for the north-west, England and Great Britain for other years are shown in Table 2. Data for the north-west relate to the SSR for 1990 and 1995 and to the Government office region (i.e. north-west SSR less Cumbria) for subsequent years. Data for 2001 will be available in autumn 2002.

  Table 2: Number of households

  Thousand

  No cars

  One car

  Two or more cars

  All households

  North-west

  1990

  941

  1,096

  467

  2,504

  1995

  889

  1,160

  549

  2,598

  1997

  871

  1,256

  699

  2,826

  1998

  905

  1,246

  691

  2,842

  1999

  855

  1,265

  732

  2,852

  2000

  867

  1,295

  711

  2,874

  England

  1990

  6,114

  8,460

  4,446

  19,020

  1995

  5,939

  9,074

  5,019

  20,032

  1997

  5,955

  9,042

  5,367

  20,364

  1998

  5,594

  9,174

  5,772

  20,540

  1999

  5,840

  9,208

  5,695

  20,743

  2000

  5,577

  9,419

  5,884

  20,972

  Great Britain

  1990

  7,314

  9,827

  4,999

  22,140

  1995

  7,080

  10,556

  5,679

  23,315

  1997

  7,081

  10,567

  6,046

  23,694

  1998

  6,651

  10,621

  6,623

  23,896

  1999

  6,862

  10,699

  6,559

  24,120

  2000

  6,588

  10,947

  6,839

  24,374

  Airport Capacity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had regarding a new airport in the Thames estuary area; and if he will make a statement. [53926]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following press speculation in March about the potential location of a new airport on the Hoo peninsula in Kent my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport agreed to meet a group of local MPs and, separately, the leader of Kent county council. At these meetings he explained that the press articles were speculative and was able to confirm the approach we have taken to identifying and narrowing down options in the south-east airports study.

  We hope to publish the public consultation on the shortlisted options next month.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the composition is of the Aviation Working Group looking into deep vein thrombosis; and when it will report. [54474]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The permanent members of the Aviation Health Working Group are the Department for Transport Local Government and the Regions (chair), the Department of Health, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. Representatives from the aviation industry and consumer groups and other interested parties such as medical specialists are invited to participate in selected meetings.

  The Aviation Health Working Group was established to advise Ministers on all issues relating to aviation health. This includes, but is not confined to, deep vein thrombosis. The group oversaw the publication of advice on travel-related deep vein thrombosis in November 2001, and is the focal point for the UK's support of the World Health Organisation's research programme into possible links between air travel and deep vein thrombosis. There are no plans for the group to report separately on deep vein thrombosis.

  Flight BA 2069
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made in reviewing the circumstances of the incident on board flight BA 2069 on 29 December. [54559]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Civil Aviation Authority has reported to me on the outcome of its review of the incident on 29 December 2000 and I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a report of the Authority's findings. I am satisfied that the security and safety lessons from the incident for the travelling public have already been fully taken into account in the actions taken since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.

TREASURY

  Part-time Workers (Pensions)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implementation of ECJ decisions concerning the eligibility of part-time public service employees to participate in their public service pension scheme. [53941]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public service employers will implement in full the European Court of Justice ruling concerning the right of part-time public service employees to gain retrospective access to their pension scheme. All part-timers have had the right to join their occupational pension scheme since 1995, and in many public service schemes from an earlier date. The current ruling on the Preston case concerns the treatment of part-timers' service prior to 1995 (or the relevant date of full admission). The Employment Tribunals are currently considering a number of issues, which will determine the eligibility of part-timers and their entitlements under the ECJ ruling.

  Financial Services Authority (Registration)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firms of(a) solicitors and (b) chartered accountants in (i) Scotland and (ii) England and Wales were registered with the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of investment business under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in (A) 2001 and (B) April 2002. [51965]

  Ruth Kelly
  The transition to the new regime for professional firms established under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) for regulation of professional firms lasted until mid-December 2001. During the transition from the regime established under the Financial Services Act 1986 (FS Act) firms could opt for direct regulation by the FSA if they conducted "mainstream" investment business or opt for oversight by their professional body if their investment business was incidental to their professional services.

  At 31 March 2001 the number of these professional firms certified by their recognised professional bodies under the FS Act was as follows:
  The Law Society (ie England and Wales)—6,646
  The Law Society of Scotland—525
  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—4,718
  The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland—397.

  The number of these professional firms currently regulated by the FSA is as follows:
  The Law Society (ie England and Wales)—361
  The Law Society of Scotland—151
  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—660
  The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland—55.

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what subjects and on which dates his Department has consulted organisations representing young people; and if he will list such organisations. [52502]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and would be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Treasury is committed to the new core principles for the involvement of children and young people published by the Minister for Young People in November 2001. The Treasury will shortly be publishing an action plan setting out for the first time how it will implement these principles to extend the participation of children and young people in the design, provision and evaluation of policies and services that affect them.

  Milk
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the UK's current balance of trade in(a) milk and (b) milk products. [52907]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  According to information compiled by HM Customs and Excise, in 2001 the UK had a crude trade surplus worth £170 million in milk and a crude trade deficit of

  33W
  £799 million in milk products. Milk products include yoghurt, buttermilk, ice cream, whey, butter, cheese and curds.

  UK exports are valued at the cost of goods whereas imports also include the costs of freight and insurance. The difference between exports and imports is referred to as a "crude" trade balance to reflect this difference in valuation.

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much money the Bank of England has spent on legal fees to date in defence of the proceedings against it by the liquidators of BCCI SA; [54125]

  (2) if he will estimate the legal costs of the Bank of England defending the proceeds brought by BCC1 SA, up to and including trial and subsequent appeals. [54124]

  Ruth Kelly
  These are questions for the Bank of England, not the Treasury.

  United Kingdom GDP
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the contribution made by immigrants to United Kingdom GDP since 1972; and if he will make a statement. [54513]

  Ruth Kelly
  There are no direct statistics on the proportion of UK GDP accounted for by immigrants, and the data required to produce indirect estimates do not extend back to 1972. However, in 2001 foreign-born people accounted for around 8 per cent. of total UK employment, and the average gross weekly pay of foreign-born employees was about 16 per cent. above the average for all employees. On this basis, and assuming that relative wage rates proxy relative labour productivity, it can be estimated that the foreign-born population accounted for around 10 per cent. of UK GDP in 2001.

  Community Development Venture Capital Fund
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Department will be administering the new Community Development Venture Capital Fund announced in the Budget; who the intended recipients of this fund are; what guidelines have been drawn up for those wishing to bid for this fund; and if he will place a copy of these guidelines in the Library. [54727]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Community Development Venture Fund is a private sector venture capital fund in which the Government is investing. The fund will be run by a professional team of venture capital fund managers working for Bridges Community Ventures Limited. The fund will be able to invest in eligible businesses in deprived communities in England, defined as the most deprived 25 per cent. of wards according to the DTLR's Index of Multiple Deprivation. The criteria for eligibility will be published by Bridges Community Ventures Limited under the terms agreed between them and the Small Business Service.

  Terrorist Finance
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he will take to implement 34W
  Recommendation VII (information whose originator to be included in funds transfer messages) of the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations on Terrorist Financing. [54683]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will shortly publish a consultation document on this issue.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men aged over 65 years and (b) women aged over 60 years are in full-time employment. [53879]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 7 May 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the numbers of men aged over 65 and women aged over 60 in full-time employment. (53879)
  The latest Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimate for the three month period ending in February 2002 are 98,000 men aged 65 and over in full-time employment, and 152,000 women aged 60 and over in full-time employment. These estimates are not seasonally adjusted.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. [53877]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 7 May 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of men and women who have benefited from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage (NMW). (53877)
  The table shows the number of jobs held by men and women which were paid below the NMW levels prevailing in the years 1998 to 2001.

  Number of UK jobs paid at less than National Minimum Wage rates

  000s

  Men

  Women

  Spring 19981

  420

  1,100

  Spring 19992

  200

  380

  Spring 20002

  100

  200

  Spring 20013

  110

  210

  1 Figures for spring 1998, before the NMW was introduced, are for the number of jobs paid at less than £3.00 per hour (aged 18–21) or £3.60 per hour (aged 22 and over).

  2NMW rates of £3.00 per hour (aged 18–21) or £3.60 per hour (aged 22 and over).

  3 NMW rates of £3.20 per hour (aged 18–21) or £3.70 per hour (aged 22 and over).

  Greater London (Migration)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of migration of people into the Greater London area from the rest of the UK was in the last three years. [54188]
  35W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 7 May 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question on the level of migration into Greater London from the rest of the UK. (54188)
  The attached table shows the flow of inward, outward and net migration for Greater London during the last three years from 1998 to 2000.

  Number of people moving to and from the Greater London area from the rest of the UK during the years ending June 1998, 1999 and 2000

  Thousand

  In

  Out

  Net inflow

  1998

  171.2

  217.9

  -46.7

  1999

  163.2

  218.4

  -55.2

  2000

  163.1

  233.0

  -69.9

  Note:

  These data are mid-year estimates

  Source:

  Figures on migrants within the UK are derived from the re-registration of NHS patients

  Departmental Policies
  James Purnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact his Department's policies have had on the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency since 1997. [54333]

  Ruth Kelly
  Stalybridge and Hyde, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken since 1997 to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment.

  Claimant count unemployment in the constituency, for example, has fallen by over 970, or 42 per cent. since May 1997.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay for lower and middle income families, and to reduce child poverty. The Government are also committed to enabling all persons to share in the country's rising prosperity.

  To the end of January 2002, the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 1,117 young people in the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency gain valuable skills and experience—620 (56 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The working families tax credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle-income families. In November 2001, 2,728 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC. 11,566 families in Stalybridge and Hyde are benefiting from increases in child benefit to £15.75 for the first child and £10.55 for subsequent children.

  As a result of the 2001 pre-Budget report, all pensioners, including 14,600 in Stalybridge and Hyde, will receive at least a rise of £100 for single pensioners and £160 for couples each year from April 2003. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since
  36W
  November 2000—including around 6,400 in Stalybridge and Hyde. 3,500 pensioners are also benefiting from the minimum income guarantee being increased in line with earnings for the rest of this Parliament. 15,700 pensioners in Stalybridge are benefiting from £200 a year winter fuel payments for the rest of this Parliament.

  These data are all available in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by his 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. [39096]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is set out in the table, which has been placed in the Library.

  VAT Schemes
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses participate in the VAT Annual Accounting Scheme; what his estimate is of the total number of businesses eligible to participate; and if he will make a statement. [54459]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1 April 2001, the VAT annual accounting scheme has been available to some 1 million businesses, but less than 10,000 have so far taken it up. In the consultation document "Easing the impact of VAT", the Government explained that "despite the administrative and cash flow benefits, take up of the scheme is currently very low" and set out plans to reform the scheme to encourage greater take-up. These reforms were introduced on 25 April and are expected to achieve a significant increase in take-up of the scheme.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimates are of(a) the number of businesses eligible to participate and (b) the revenue that would be forgone in a full year, if the upper turnover limit on the proposed flat-rate VAT scheme were raised to (i) £200,000 and (ii) £250,000. [54457]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the Budget, the Government announced that—from next April—the flat rate scheme will be available to 700,000 small businesses with turnovers up to £150,000. If the upper turnover limit of the flat-rate scheme was extended to £200,000 or £250,000, approximately 80,000 or 130,000 additional traders would respectively be eligible to join. The costs of such an extension would depend on the details of such proposals, including the rates applicable under the scheme.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses have participated in the farmers flat rate VAT scheme in each of the last three years; what his estimate is of the total number of businesses eligible to participate; if he will make a statement. [54458]

  Mr. Boateng
  There were 807 businesses using the agricultural flat rate scheme in 1999, 994 in 2000 and 1,062 in 2001. All businesses whose non-farm income does not exceed the VAT registration threshold, and who supply goods, or goods and services (but not services
  37W
  alone), which qualify for inclusion in the scheme are eligible to join. No estimate has been made of how many businesses in total are eligible to participate in the scheme.

  Budget (Responses)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received(a) in favour of and (b) critical of his Budget. [54491]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Between 17 April and 1 May, HM Treasury received a total of 1,983 pieces of correspondence, many of which will have addressed Budget theme and announcements.

  Fuel Smuggling
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the origin was of the motor fuel seized by HM Customs and Excise in November 2001 on the M6; and how much fuel was seized. [54299]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise did not make any notable seizures of oil on the M6 during November 2001.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many vehicles, with what carrying capacity, have been seized by HM Customs for alleged smuggling motor transport fuels into Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [54296]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs seizure records do not disaggregate between smuggling and other types of hydrocarbon oils fraud nor do they record the fuel carrying capacity of vehicles seized. However, the total number of vehicles seized in relation to oils fraud in Northern Ireland since 1998–99 are as follows:

  Financial year

  Vehicles seized

  1998–99

  39

  1999–2000

  98

  2000–01

  312

  I regret that information for 1997–98 is not available. Northern Ireland vehicle seizure figures for the financial year 2001–02 are being collated and will be published in due course.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the origin was of the motor fuel seized by HM Customs and Excise in Basildon in February; and how much fuel was seized. [54300]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise broke up a laundering plant near Basildon, Essex in February 2002. They seized a total of 61,000 litres of unlaundered and laundered rebated gas oil (red diesel). The rebated gas oil (red diesel) which was being laundered was purchased on the UK mainland.

  It is not Customs general practice to comment publicly about the existence or nature of investigations of individuals or companies not yet accused of criminal offences. To do so could risk prejudicing any ongoing inquiries or future criminal proceedings.
  38W
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to stop cross-border smuggling of motor transport fuels into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [54297]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Pre-Budget Report document 'Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud' which sets out the Government's action to date in Northern Ireland to tackle oils fraud and to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on 23 April 2002,Official Report, column 126W.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings have been held between Ministers or their officials and their Irish counterparts since 1997 to discuss the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [54298]

  Mr. Boateng
  UK Customs have long enjoyed good relations with their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland including the Revenue Commissioners and the Criminal Assets Bureau.

  UK and Republic of Ireland Ministers and officials have met regularly during this period to discuss a wide range of issues including oils fraud. Only last October I visited the Revenue Commissioners in the Republic of Ireland and had a very productive meeting with the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the evidence submitted to HM Customs and Excise by the fuel retail industry on the smuggling of motor fuel oils into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [54295]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs officials have met with representatives from the fuel retail industry on a regular basis and believe that a constructive dialogue has been established at both operational and strategic levels. Customs pay particular attention to evidence provided by the trade bodies in Northern Ireland in assessing the nature of the Northern Ireland oils fraud problems.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Department has spent on encouraging members of the public to report tax evasion in each of the last 10 years. [53750]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue puts considerable resource into tackling non-compliance but does not generally hold financial information in a way that allows them to isolate spending over the last 10 years solely and specifically on encouraging members of the public to report tax evasion.

  Energy Efficiency
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to develop economic instruments which may be used to improve household energy efficiency; and if he will make a statement. [53717]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are considering ways in which economic instruments may be used to improve household energy efficiency, consistent with their objective of eliminating fuel poverty and not introducing new taxes on household energy. This work is being taken forward in
  39W
  the context of the Government's work to develop a White Paper on energy, following the publication of the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit's report "The Energy Review" in February.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the total cost to the Treasury(a) has been at the outset of its introduction and (b) is projected to be in the next three years of the enhanced capital allowances for investments in energy saving technologies introduced in April 2001; [53736]

  (2) what the total cost to the Treasury (a) has been at the outset of its introduction and (b) is projected in the next three years of the enhanced capital allowances for investments in (i) heat pumps, (ii) radiant and warm air heaters, (iii) solar heaters, (iv) energy efficient refrigerator equipment, (v) compressor equipment and (vi) energy-saving technology investments in assets for leasing. [53715]

  Mr. Boateng
  Actual costs of the enhanced capital allowances scheme introduced in April 2001 are not yet available. Estimates were published in the FSBR 2001, Appendix A2, p150. Estimates of the annual costs of extending the scheme to include the further energy-saving technologies from April 2002 are, from 2002–03, £5 million, £15 million, £20 million, with the majority of these costs attributed to refrigeration cabinets, heat pumps, and compressor equipment. These figures exclude the costs of extending the entire scheme to assets for leasing from April 2002: these are estimated to be, from 2002–03, £15 million, £20 million, £15 million. All costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 23 April 2002,Official Report, columns 127–28W, if he will make a statement on (a) the management and (b) the funding of the targeted programme of support measures for business investing in energy-saving technologies and practices. [53067]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.(a) The Carbon Trust, an independent body grant funded by my Department and the devolved Administrations, will recycle climate change levy funds to industry through a range of programme activity designed to accelerate the take up of cost-effective low-carbon technologies and measures to the non-domestic sector.

  The Carbon Trust will shortly take over the management of the enhanced capital allowance scheme, which enables businesses to claim 100 per cent. first year capital allowances on investments in energy saving equipment.

  In addition, the Carbon Trust is developing a Low Carbon Innovation Programme that will support new and emerging low-carbon technologies. The Carbon Trust will also take over management of the non-domestic part of the Government's Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme, which provides energy-efficiency advice and information to organisations in the public and private sectors.

  (b) The Carbon Trust is funded by my Department and the devolved Administrations from recycled climate change levy receipts and the Government's Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme. This is expected to be up to £50 million a year for this year and next, subject to relevant parliamentary approvals.
  40W
  The enhanced capital allowance scheme is funded from recycled climate change levy receipts and is worth an estimated £200 million in its first two years (2001–02 and 2002–03), depending on take-up.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of changes announced in Budget 2002 in relation to(a) fuel duty, ((b)) vehicle excise duty, (c) enhanced capital allowances relating to transport and (d) changes relating to income tax and NICs free mileage, on individual and total vehicle emissions; and if he will make a statement. [53725]

  Mr. Boateng
  The assessment of the impact on vehicle emissions of measures announced in Budget 2002 can be found in Table 7.2 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report. The impacts of these measures are quantified where possible.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much income tax would have to rise if all local government expenditure currently funded via council tax arid business rates was transferred to income tax. [53608]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Projected receipts from business rates and council tax in 2002–03 are shown in Table C7 of the April 2002 Financial Statement and Budget report (HC 592). The direct effects of illustrative changes in income tax are given in table 4 of the "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" published in November 2001, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House. This table will be updated in the statistics area of the Inland Revenue website on 31 May.

DEFENCE

  Colchester Garrison
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the modifications to the Colchester Garrison are on schedule; if they have remained within his Department's estimated budget; and if he will make a statement. [46866]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 April 2002]: Financial Close, originally planned for December 2000, is now planned for late 2004. This is due to a number of issues, including planning considerations and problems associated with necessary diversions of footpaths. Consequently the completion of construction work has also been delayed from 1st quarter 2004 to Autumn 2008. The financial impact of this delay is under review but I have every reasonable expectation that the project will remain within budget.

  Essential work in many areas of the Project Agreement is nearly complete. We are now in the process of negotiating a risk and cost sharing plan to take the project forward, to ensure that these new timescales are not

  41W
  delayed further. Part of these negotiations will review the current proposed construction programme to ascertain if it is possible to reconfigure the programme to minimise the impact of delay on the provision of Single Living Accommodation.

  Armed Forces (Deployment)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Army, (b) navy and (c) RAF personnel are (i) assigned to operations but not deployed and (ii) are assigned to or deployed on public duties. [53527]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 23 April 2002 (Official Report, column 195W).

  Around 1,200 Army and 115 RAF personnel are assigned to public duties, mainly in the London Area.

  Manning Control
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many soldiers subject to manning control were subsequently offered short-term (S-type) engagements in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [54232]

  (2) how many soldiers in (a) the Army and (b) the 3 Battalion, the Parachute Regiment have been subject to manning control in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [54231]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of soldiers in the(a) Army and (b) the 3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, who have been discharged in each of the last five calendar years following a Manning and Control Point review, is shown in the following table.

  Year

  Army

  3rd Battalion parachute regiment

  S-type

  1997

  231

  2

  2

  1998

  175

  0

  1

  1999

  93

  0

  1

  2000

  66

  0

  2

  2001

  47

  1

  1

  2002

  3

  0

  0

  Total

  615

  3

  7

  The number of such soldiers subsequently offered S-type engagements is not recorded. However, the number who re-engaged on an S-type engagement is also shown separately in the final column above.

  Foreign Personnel
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign military personnel, and from which countries, have been involved in military training in the United Kingdom in the last 12 months. [54630]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, 3,925 overseas military personnel were trained at United Kingdom military establishments. A full breakdown of the numbers trained by country is shown in the table.
  42W

  Overseas military personnel trained in the UK between 1 April and 31 March 2002

  Country

  Students trained

  Albania

  13

  Algeria

  2

  Argentina

  11

  Australia

  105

  Austria

  11

  Bahamas

  2

  Bahrain

  29

  Bangladesh

  3

  Barbados

  1

  Belgium

  86

  Belize

  30

  Bermuda

  14

  Botswana

  13

  Brazil

  15

  Brunei

  182

  Bulgaria

  10

  Canada

  357

  Chile

  6

  China

  40

  Croatia

  8

  Czech Republic

  29

  Denmark

  34

  Egypt

  19

  El Salvador

  1

  Estonia

  5

  Fiji

  2

  Finland

  12

  France

  49

  Gambia

  1

  Georgia

  6

  Germany

  120

  Ghana

  8

  Greece

  47

  Guatemala

  4

  Guyana

  6

  Hong Kong

  2

  Hungary

  29

  Iceland

  1

  India

  17

  Indonesia

  1

  Ireland

  107

  Israel

  13

  Italy

  164

  Jamaica

  33

  Japan

  7

  Jordan

  90

  Kazakhstan

  3

  Kenya

  9

  Korea (South)

  10

  Kyrghistan

  1

  Kuwait

  312

  Latvia

  17

  Lebanon

  2

  Lithuania

  12

  Luxembourg

  1

  Macedonia

  7

  Malawi

  5

  Malaysia

  17

  Malta

  2

  Moldova

  8

  Morocco

  5

  Mozambique

  5

  Nepal

  34

  Netherlands

  259

  New Zealand

  38

  Nicaragua

  0

  Nigeria

  31

  Norway

  202

  Oman

  184

  Pakistan

  53

  Papua New Guinea

  3

  Paraguay

  3

  43W

  Overseas military personnel trained in the UK between 1 April and 31 March 2002

  Country

  Students trained

  Peru

  1

  Philippines

  10

  Poland

  24

  Portugal

  39

  Qatar

  64

  Romania

  16

  Russia

  10

  Rwanda

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  55

  Senegal

  15

  Sierra Leone

  23

  Singapore

  125

  Slovakia

  20

  Slovenia

  7

  South Africa

  17

  Spain

  25

  Sri Lanka

  6

  St. Vincent

  2

  Swaziland

  1

  Sweden

  25

  Switzerland

  10

  Tanzania

  9

  Thailand

  29

  Tonga

  5

  Trinidad and Tobago

  6

  Turkey

  72

  Uganda

  2

  Ukraine

  37

  United Arab Emirates

  108

  United States of America

  128

  Uruguay

  5

  Yemen

  7

  Zimbabwe

  1

  Total students

  3,873

  Total countries

  104

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many submarines are operational in the Royal Navy. [54642]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 26 April 2002,Official Report, columns 487–88W.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 425W, on service personnel, how many service personnel (a) with children and (b) without children in (i) the Army, (ii) the Navy and (iii) the RAF are earning under £92.90 per week after tax and national insurance deductions; and if he will make a statement. [54180]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 May 2002,Official Report, columns 966–67W.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what pay, conditions of service and pension rights are offered to recruits from Commonwealth countries that differ from those offered to UK-born recruits; and if he will make a statement. [54315]
  44W
  Mr. Ingram
  Unlike Gurkhas who are recruited in accordance with the 1947 Tri-Partite Agreement (TPA) between the Governments of India, Nepal and the UK, recruits from Commonwealth countries are employed as individuals and fully integrated into the armed forces. With the exception of the following allowances, recruits from Commonwealth countries have the same pay. conditions of service and pension rights as United Kingdom-born recruits. The allowances that are specifically designed to meet the needs of recruits from the Commonwealth are:Commonwealth Enlisted Compassionate Travel Scheme
  Domiciled Collective Leave Scheme.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will estimate the additional annual cost to his Department if Gurkhas were offered the same pay, conditions of service and pensions as UK armed forces personnel; and if he will make a statement; [54316]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that the conditions of service, pay and pension right of Gurkha soldiers are commensurate with the pay and conditions and pensions of other UK armed forces personnel; and if he will make a statement; [54314]

  (3) what the cost to his Department was of pensions for former Gurkha soldiers in each of the last five financial years; if he will estimate in each case the cost to his Department if Gurkha pensions were paid at the rates paid to UK members of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement; [54318]

  (4) if he will estimate the cost to his Department if surviving former Gurkhas who are drawing pensions related to their service in the UK armed forces were paid in a lump sum additional moneys in order to make up the difference between what they have been drawing in pension and what they would have received if they had the same pension rights as UK members of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [54317]

  Mr. Ingram
  Gurkhas are recruited into the Army in accordance with the 1947 Tri-Partite Agreement (TPA) between the Governments of India, Nepal and the UK. This is the basic instrument that enables both the UK and India to raise and maintain formed Gurkha Regiments and aims to ensure that both Armies are able to recruit on an equal basis. As a result Gurkhas Terms and Conditions of Service, including basic pay and pensions, remain linked to those of the Indian Army. We have no plans to review these arrangements.

  There have, however, been significant enhancements to Gurkha conditions of service in recent years. Gurkhas are now paid a cost of living allowance known as Universal Addition for service in all theatres outside Nepal. This allowance is uplifted annually to ensure that the combination of Gurkha basic pay at Indian Army rates and Universal Addition brings their remuneration broadly into line with the net pay of comparable British Service personnel. These arrangements have been in place since 1997.
  45W
  The approximate cost to the Ministry of Defence of the pensions paid to former Gurkha soldiers in each of the last five financial years is as follows:

  1997–98: £5.3 million

  1998–99: £6 million

  1999–2000: £8.2 million

  2000–01: £23.9 million

  2001–02: £26 million (includes forecasted expenditure).

  The significant increase in expenditure for the financial year 2000–01 reflects the outcome of a comprehensive examination of Gurkha pensions conducted by the Ministry of Defence at that time. This led to all Gurkha pensions being at least doubled and they now compare favourably to professional salaries in Nepal, where all Gurkhas are discharged. The vast majority of Gurkha pensioners, who continue to be entitled to an immediate pension after only 15 year's service, welcomed the outcome of the examination. British service personnel discharged at this point of service would receive no pension until they reached the age of 60. We remain of the view that the arguments for an immediate pension on discharge in Nepal are compelling.

  Because of the different terms of service and career structures that apply, it is very difficult to make the direct comparisons that are sought. The cost of transposing British service personnel pay and conditions of service to Gurkhas cannot be computed accurately, and not without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gurkhas are in service in the UK armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [54312]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 1 April 2002, there are 3,449 Gurkhas serving in the British Army. They serve in a variety of roles, mainly in the infantry but also with significant numbers of engineers, signals and logistics specialists. We expect Gurkha manning to remain at around this level for the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former Gurkhas drawing an armed forces pension are resident in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Nepal and (c) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [54313]

  Mr. Ingram
  Residency details for former Gurkhas drawing an armed forces pension are not held. Data regarding the location in which payments are made are set out in the table.

  Location from which paid1

  Number of pensions paid2

  United Kingdom

  14

  Nepal

  26,881

  Elsewhere

  206

  Notes:

  1Pensioners may reside in a different location.

  2Includes all types of Gurkha pensions—normal, disability and family.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British armed forces are stationed in Sierra Leone. [54636]
  46W
  Mr. Ingram
  We currently have some 360 shore-based military personnel deployed in Sierra Leone, supported by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel Sir Geraint, and we will maintain our presence at that level over the period of presidential and parliamentary elections in May 2002. We are also contributing 15 military observers and seven headquarters staff to UNAMSIL, the UN operation in Sierra Leone.

  RAF Pilots
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many successful applicants for RAF pilot officer have been unable to secure a flying training position in each of the past three years. [54885]

  Mr. Ingram
  Pilot Officer is a rank and it covers all RAF officer branches not just pilots and navigators. Potential pilots and navigators are selected for the General Duties Branch and applicants are recruited as either a Pilot Officer, Flying Officer or exceptionally as a Flight Lieutenant.

  Usually all pilot or navigator applicants that have been successful at Initial Officer Training are offered a flying training place. On rare occasions there may be exceptions. Withdrawal could be for a range of reasons, such as personal, medical or issues of conduct. We do not keep a specific count of these instances because they are infrequent. A trawl of our records for the last three years identified only one officer that was unable to take up flying training. All other officers in the period would have been offered or are in the process of being offered a flying training place.

SCOTLAND

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the future of Gaelic broadcasting following consultations on the Milne Committee report and the publication of the draft Communications Bill. [55066]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government has published today the draft Communications Bill and an accompanying policy document on a number of matters, including Gaelic broadcasting. We plan to secure improvements in the current delivery of service in various ways. We propose to build on the strengths of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee by extending its representative base and by giving it a new statutory power to plan strategically for development of the service. The policy document indicates also our intention that I will assume a power of approval for appointments to the new committee as part of improved accountability procedures. We are considering within the Spending Review the scope for some additional investment to support these and other changes. Urgent talks convened by my Department will now begin on the detail of the proposed committee role and on the possibility of creating a more unified structure in the oversight and transmission of Gaelic programmes.

  The Milne Committee recommendations have helped to focus on the need for overhaul of the current structures but we do not agree that the scale of change and extra resourcing they proposed is feasible or justified. I believe

  47W
  our policy intentions represent a constructive response to meeting some of the Gaelic speaking community's aspirations for a better co-ordinated service. We look forward to working with the community's representatives and with the broadcasting interests to make it happen.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  BSE
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for additional testing of sheep in relation to possible BSE infection; and what representations she has received from the Food Standards Agency regarding the adequacy of present research. [8294]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: Because of the difficulties of collecting sheep brain material that is in a suitable condition for strain typing by conventional bioassay in mice, and because of the length of time it takes to get the results from such studies, work is in hand to develop and evaluate molecular methods of distinguishing BSE from scrapie. SEAC has recently endorsed a programme of work at the Veterinary Laboratory Agency which includes a statistical analysis of the robustness of molecular approaches, retrospective testing of 1,400 sheep brains which were positive for a TSE in the VLA archive and prospective sampling of the brains from all clinically reported suspects which prove to be positive for a TSE.

  I received a letter from Sir John Krebs concerning this issue and wrote to him on 24 October 2001 to explain the position.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when copies of(a) the report of the Rural Task Force and (b) Lord Haskins' report were made available to the media. [9922]

  Margaret Beckett
  I regret that this reply has been overlooked. Copies of both the report of the Rural Task Force and Lord Haskins' report were made available to the media at a press conference held in my Department on 18 October 2001—the day of publication.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what instructions regarding preparations for foot and mouth were issued to the Meat Hygiene Service between 1 December and 1 February 2001; and if she will make a statement. [52312]

  Margaret Beckett
  No new or special instructions were issued.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what effect foot and mouth had on the Krebs experiment. [53911]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Field operations associated with the trial were suspended during the foot and mouth disease outbreak because of the disease risk posed by operatives on agricultural land. The Independent Scientific Group (ISG) has considered the
  48W
  impact of FMD on the trial and advised that the delivery of results will only be delayed by three to four months to 2004–05.

  Sustainable Development
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to develop goals and targets to confront negative environmental economic and social impact of development within and outside the European region. [44371]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department is engaged in a wide range of regional and international processes to combat the principal threats to sustainable development. Many of these are referred to in recent answers to my hon. Friend. As far as the European Union is concerned, the Government has strongly supported the recent agreement by the European Council on a sustainable development strategy for the EU which sets high-level objectives and targets and aims to provide a more coherent framework for the EU's policies. This strategy is expected to be extended at the Seville European Council to cover the EU's external responsibilities, notably on trade, aid and governance.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter dated 3 December 2001 from the hon. Member for Leominster on behalf of constituents Mr. and Mrs. Pledge about liquid petroleum gas. [48975]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: I am sorry for the long delay in replying. You will be aware of the difficulties DEFRA faced last year in processing correspondence, following the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak, and the creation of the new Department. Steady progress is being made towards eliminating the backlog of cases, and performance on incoming letters was considerably improved. I can assure you that all efforts will continue to be devoted to this area until the problems have been fully resolved.

  Your constituents letter raises issues on the use of liquid petroleum gas, which is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. The correspondence was sent to the DTI on 25 April, for them to reply direct.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Parliamentary Secretary intends to reply to the letter dated 25 January from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding the monitoring of quota uptake. [50071]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: I am sorry for the delay in reply to the hon. Member's letter. A reply was sent on 18 April.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many letters received by her Department since June 2001 received a substantive response in(a) less than four weeks, (b) between four and six weeks, (c) between six weeks and two months and (d) over two months; and if she will make a statement. [51468]
  49W
  Mr. Morley
  The Department suffered severe disruption last year due to allocating top priority to defeating the Foot and Mouth epidemic. Furthermore the sheer volume of correspondence following the creation of DEFRA had a major impact on the Department's performance, resulting in a large backlog of letters. Mechanisms are now in place to prevent any further recurrence of the problems experienced, and a range of work is in hand to tighten both quality and the speed of our response to Member's letters. The events of last year were exceptional, and their impact is still being felt across a range of Departmental activity.

  Letters answered from 8 June 2001 to 18 April 2002

  Number of letters which received a response

  In less than four weeks

  2,689

  Between four and six weeks

  1,078

  Between six weeks and two months

  1,086

  Over two months

  2,471

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on 12 February, Ref. 36001. [51955]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 930W.

  National insurance
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the impact on(a) employers in rural areas and (b) agricultural and related industries of the increase in national insurance contributions announced in the Budget. [51984]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith) on 29 April 2002, Official Report, columns 544–45W.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the cost in the next 12 months of the budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to (1)(a) her Department, (b) agencies of her Department and (c) local government carrying out functions within the responsibility of her Department; [52071]

  (2) the (a) agriculture, (b) food processing businesses, (c) retail food outlets and (d) horticulture. [52072]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith) on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 544W.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the letter of the Minister for the Environment, Ref. 162822, of 26 March 2002, what the outcome is of the discussions with interested parties on EU food labelling rules requiring a GM presence to be indicated. [51179]
  50W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: In my letter to the hon. Member I noted that current EU food labelling rules are based on a 1 per cent. threshold for incidental GM presence. My reference to discussions with interested parties related to the issue of how GM and non-GM crops might co-exist at farm level. My officials have had preliminary talks on this with various stakeholders. These revealed a wide range of views and we are now considering how to take the matter forward. The Food Standards Agency lead on the specific issue of food labelling.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste sets different targets for different materials in the packaging chain; and if she will make a statement. [53212]

  Mr. Meacher
  The EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste 94/62/EC sets targets for overall recovery, recycling and material-specific recycling of packaging waste. The first targets to be met under this Directive were due in 2001 and were:Between 50 per cent. and 65 per cent. of packaging waste to be recovered;
  Between 25 per cent. and 45 per cent. to he recycled; and 15 per cent. of each packaging material to be recycled

  Material-specific targets for recycling ensure that at least a minimum level of recycling is carried out in each major material and allow those involved in the collection and recovery infrastructure to plan ahead. In the Commission's proposed revision to the Directive, new differentiated material-specific targets are proposed. The levels proposed are based on work for the Commission by the environmental consultancies, RDC and PIRA.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will to make a further announcement about a vaccine for bovine TB; and if she will make a statement. [53247]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: TB in cattle is one of the most difficult animal health problems we face and the increase in its incidence is continuing to give considerable concern. The Government have, with advice from the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG), put in place a wide-ranging research programme to tackle the disease. An important element of the programme is vaccine research on which the Government are spending £1.4 million annually. Although the sequencing of the "M. bovis" genome announced recently is an important step forward, the ISG has cautioned that it is likely to be 10 years or so before a successful vaccine is found.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms have had animal movement restriction orders placed on them due to bovine TB in each year since 1980. [53760]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Data on the number of herds under restriction each year is available only from 1996. Data from ealier years could not be collated except at disproportionate cost.

  51W

  Number of herds under restriction

  1996

  1,603

  1997

  1,657

  1998

  2,109

  1999

  2,400

  2000

  2,516

  2001

  1,731

  Notes:

  1. Data from 1996 to 2001 taken from DEFRA website www.defra.gov.uk. Figures from 1999 are provisional.

  2. Data for 2001 are not comparable with other years. During the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, TB testing was significantly reduced.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the latest research she has commissioned on the linkage between bovine TB and badgers. [53910]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The Government have, with advice from the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG), put in place a wide-ranging research programme into bovine TB. The programme is described in the ISG's reports which are available on DEFRA's website at http://defraweb/animal/tb/.

  An important part of the research programme is the badger field trial which recommenced from 1 May 2002. The trial is designed to evaluate, once and for all, the extent to which badgers contribute to cattle TB and the effects of badger culling on the incidence of the disease. It will provide data on the prevalence of TB in badgers and the spatial distribution of infected badgers and social groups, its relationship to population density, social group size and structure, geographical and physical environmental factors and, most importantly, the spatial relationship between TB in cattle and badgers.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average interval was between tests for TB in dairy cattle over the last 12 months; what the longest time recorded was; and what the optimum is. [53909]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The information requested is not available except at undue cost.

  Routine bovine TB test frequencies for cattle herds are set at the parish level. Parishes with historically higher numbers of confirmed incidents of bovine TB are placed on annual or biennial test regimes. Parishes with low or no disclosed incidents of bovine TB have a test frequency set at once every three or four years. Dairy herds in England and Wales retailing raw milk or supplying raw milk for the manufacture of unpasteurised dairy products are subjected to annual TB testing regardless of the default testing interval for the parish in which they are located.

  In addition herds disclosed as having incidents of bovine TB undergo more frequent testing to check that infection has been cleared so that movement restrictions can be lifted. Further tests are carried out at 6 and 12 months after the removal of movement restrictions to
  52W
  check for recrudescence. If no further TB incidents are reported during this period, the herds return to the default frequency of testing set for the parish.

  TB testing was heavily disrupted during the foot and mouth disease outbreak and a significant backlog of overdue tests has built up, equivalent to a quarter of all GB herds. This is being tackled by the state veterinary service.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many herds of cattle were overdue their six or 12-month test for bovine TB in each of the last 12 months; how many herds are overdue their six or 12-month test for bovine TB; when the backlog of bovine TB testing will be cleared; and if she will make a statement. [54492]

  Mr. Morley
  Raw data on overdue six and twelve month bovine TB tests are only available from December 2001, when testing resumed after the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak. The figures for December 2001 to March 2002 are set out as follows:

  Month

  Overdue 6–12 month bovine TB tests

  December 2001

  1,369

  January 2002

  1,289

  February 2002

  1,261

  March 2002

  1,077

  We cannot say yet when the backlog of overdue TB tests will be cleared.

  Energy Efficiency
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on carbon dioxide emissions of the freeze in the rate of the Climate Change Levy announced in the Budget. [53735]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The environment impact of the freeze in the rates of the climate change levy is set out in table 7.2 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the(a) past and (b) future impact on carbon dioxide emissions of the work of the Carbon Trust, broken down into (i) the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, (ii) the Environment and Energy Helpline, (iii) Administration of the Enhanced Capital Allowance Scheme for investments in energy-saving technologies, (iv) the Low Carbon Innovation Programme and (v) other programmes or schemes. [53729]

  Mr. Meacher
  Previous assessments of the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme (EEBPp) including the Energy Helpline up to 2000 have indicated that carbon savings of around 4 million tonnes of carbon per year were achieved. Work is currently being carried out to assess the impact of the scheme for the last financial year. Management of EEBPp will be transferred to the Carbon Trust.
  53W
  The Enhanced Capital Allowance scheme to encourage take up of energy saving technologies was set up in April last year and it is too early to estimate the extent to which business has taken advantage of the scheme. The Carbon Trust will shortly take over the administration and promotion of the scheme and propose to carry out an impact assessment of the first year of its operation.

  The Carbon Trust is developing a Low Carbon Innovation Programme (LCIP) that will support the development and commercialisation of new and emerging technologies. The Carbon Trust will put into place impact assessment measures to monitor the impact of LCIP and its other programmes.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department will consult on the treatment of waste oil used as a fuel; and if she will make a statement. [53713]

  Mr. Meacher
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will be consulting shortly on the possible ending of the excise duty exemption for waste oil used as a fuel. My officials are working closely with Customs and Treasury colleagues on this issue.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on carbon dioxide emissions of(a) an exemption from the climate change levy of fuel used in dual-use purposes and (b) extending relief to certain processes which compete with those benefiting from the dual-use or non-fuel use exemptions; and if she will make a statement. [53730]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The exemption from the climate change levy for fuel used in dual-use purposes has been part of the design of the levy since it was launched in April 2001. Consequently this exemption has been taken into account in all estimates made of carbon savings from the levy.

  The proposal to extend relief to certain processes which compete with those benefiting from the dual-use or non-fuel use exemptions is not expected to have a significant effect on carbon savings. Most of the processes eligible for this further relief are covered by a negotiated agreement with DEFRA, under which the operators have agreed to energy efficiency targets. However, the exemption will give a further incentive to recycling processes which are more environmentally friendly than the alternative primary production processes.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on carbon dioxide emissions of the extension of the 5 per cent. rate of VAT to apply to the grant-funded installation of(a) factory-insulated hot water tanks, (b) micro-combined heat and power and (c)renewable energy heating systems in the homes of the less well-off. [53722]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  As set out in table 7.2 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, the reduced rate of VAT on the installation of energy-saving materials is expected to save around 0.1 million tonnes carbon by 2010. The extension of the reduced rate in Budget 2002 will lead to further small savings of carbon. The reduced rate will enable
  54W
  further installations of the qualifying measures to be made under grant-funded programmes in homes of the less well-off. By improving energy efficiency, the measures will enable householders to improve comfort levels for the same expenditure on energy as well as to reduce carbon emissions.

  Coalbed Methane Gas
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on(a) air quality and (b) greenhouse gas emission targets of the venting of coalbed methane gas released by drilling and fracturing of the coalseam to the atmosphere; and if she will make a statement. [53793]

  Mr. Meacher
  Methane vented from working coal mines is included in the UK National Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For 2000, methane emissions from working coal mines was 5.04 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, less than one per cent. of the UK's total Greenhouse Gas Emissions. At current atmospheric levels methane does not have adverse air quality impacts.

  Deliberate drilling of undisturbed seams, fracturing the coal and pumping can be used to produce methane. Using this gas would be similar to using natural gas, though not absolutely identical because the composition differs slightly. The emissions consequences of natural gas burning are well-understood.

  Nitrate
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will(a) make a statement on the mg/litre threshold for permissible nitrate levels contained in the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Directive and (b) publish the Environment Agency's data on nitrate levels in rivers located in the Macclesfield parliamentary constituency. [54041]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Nitrates Directive requires identification and protection of surface waters that contain, or could contain if action is not taken, 50mg/litre of nitrate. This threshold is based on standards laid down in the Drinking Water Directive (75/440/EEC).

  (b) The Environment Agency's monitoring data on nitrate concentrations in rivers located in the Macclesfield parliamentary constituency has been made available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the Environment Agency's data on nitrate levels in rivers located in the Macclesfield parliamentary constituency; what comparison she has made of these data with the 50mg/litre threshold contained in the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Directive; for what reason farmland located in the Macclesfield constituency is included in a nitrate vulnerable zone; and if she will make a statement. [54042]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are currently no existing nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZs) in the Macclesfield parliamentary constituency.
  55W
  The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) requires action programmes for reduction of agricultural nitrate pollution to waters to be applied either throughout the whole territory (Option 1 in our recent consultation for England) or within specific NVZs (Option 2).

  Under Option 1, farmers throughout the whole of Macclesfield parliamentary constituency would need to apply Action Programme measures.

  Under Option 2, an indicative map showing the location of possible new NVZ areas, as identified in an initial assessment, was published in the consultation document "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive", in December 2001. Parts of the Macclesfield parliamentary constituency were included in these areas because they were parts of river catchments which contained one or more monitoring points where nitrate levels have been shown, through statistical analysis of the data, to have exceeded the levels specified in the Nitrates Directive.

  We are refining our assessment of these failing monitoring points to take account of data anomalies and long-term nitrate concentration trends. We are also carrying out more accurate mapping work to identify precisely which parts of each catchment would require designation as NVZs. As was explained in the consultation document, such refinements are expected to alter some of the possible NVZ boundaries illustrated in the consultation document.

  A decision on how the Government intends to implement the Nitrate Directive will be announced in due course.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the grid references are of locations in which T-25 genetically modified maize(a) has been and (b) is the subject of field crop trials; and if she will make a statement. [53815]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Listed are the grid references of the locations in which T-25 maize (a) has been grown in the Farm Scale Evaluation (FSE) trials in 1999 (the pilot year of the trials), 2000 and 2001 and (b) is proposed for the FSE trials this year. This and further background information on the FSE trials is on our website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/fse/location/index.

  1999

  SK 979 911

  SU 672 628

  TG 090 179

  TL 101 999

  2000

  SE 442 409

  SJ 356 692

  SJ 570 384

  SJ 619 473

  SK 971 586

  SK 979 907

  SO 566 475

  ST 587 164

  TA 263 382

  56W

  TL 118 130

  TM 051 224

  TM 100 879

  2001

  SE 450 412

  SJ 362 678

  SJ 570 384

  SJ 603 210

  SJ 619 473

  SJ 680 265

  SJ 697 862

  SK 959 902

  SO 566 478

  SO 915 564

  SU 377 977

  SU 748 692

  SY 653 849

  SY 675 847

  SY 680 822

  SY 681 836

  TA 018 008

  TA 224 374

  TG 031 134

  TG 089 169

  TG 092 175

  TM 051 221

  TM 056 221

  TM 068 897

  TM 106 873

  2002

  NZ 206 363

  SE 448 422

  SJ 573 381

  SJ 602 214

  SJ 619 473

  SJ 683 254

  SJ 714 870

  SK 963 898

  SO 556 486

  SO 561 479

  SO 915 565

  SP 154 403

  ST 587 164

  ST 785 091

  ST 813 082

  SU 362 990

  SU 748 692

  SY 667 857

  SY 669 864

  SY 680 822

  SY 681 836

  SY 764 938

  TA 020 010

  57W

  TA 225 374

  TF 040 173

  TF 195 974

  TF 934 241

  TG 090 173

  TM 051 221

  TM 068 897

  TM 106 873

  TM 168 215

  TQ 985 243.

  Marine Stewardship
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the Marine Stewardship Report. [54868]

  Mr. Meacher
  The first Marine Stewardship Report—Safeguarding Our Seas: A Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of our Marine Environment—was published on 1 May. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Aggregates Levy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she(a) has made and (b) plans to make of the impact of the aggregates levy on (i) the development and use of alternative materials and (ii) efficiency in the use of virgin aggregate; and if she will make a statement. [53723]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The higher price of aggregates will provide an incentive to develop and use alternative materials and make more efficient use of primary aggregate.

  The levy will be subject to environmental evaluation in due course. Given that the levy was only introduced on 1 April 2002 it is currently too early to assess its impact.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [39087]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Television Sets
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) analogue and (b) integrated digital television sets his Department has purchased in each of the last 24 months; and if he will make a statement.[38175]

  Jane Kennedy
  As the information requested is not held centrally, I could provide an answer only at disproportionate cost.
  58W
  All officials in the Northern Ireland Office are aware that they are expected to find the most cost-effective solution to meet the desired needs in regards to the purchase of television sets as with all other procurements.

  Volunteers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of his staff in each of the past two years have been granted a day's paid leave to work as a volunteer; and if he will make a statement. [39738]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Office has a special leave policy that allows for paid leave for voluntary work. We do not record centrally the numbers of staff on this kind of leave, as it is a matter dealt with by local management.

  All staff in the Northern Ireland Office are encouraged to undertake voluntary work, training and learning opportunities as part of their personal and career development.

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the functions of his Department that have been(a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case. [43002]

  Jane Kennedy
  No functions of the Northern Ireland Office have been market tested or outsourced to which you refer.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people employed by his Department under the New Deal for Young People in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseeker's allowance or other benefits. [45080]

  Jane Kennedy
  The NIO (and its agencies) have employed seven people under the New Deal for Young People scheme in the last four years and of these seven, six have found unsubsidised employment. We are unable to confirm the position with the other appointee.

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the breakdown is by outcome of cases dealt with by the police ombudsman. [43892]

  Jane Kennedy
  The police ombudsman advises that the outcome of cases received since the opening of the Police Ombudsman's Office on 6 November 2000 until 1 May 2002 is as follows:

  Closed complaint outcomes

  Outcome

  Number

  Per cent.

  Non-cooperation by complainant

  2,193

  53

  Withdrawn by complainant

  359

  9

  Not substantiated after investigation

  245

  6

  Closed for other reason1

  962

  23

  Informal resolution2

  379

  9

  Total

  4,138

  100

  59W

  Status of complaints still open

  Status

  Number

  Per cent.

  Under investigation

  848

  67

  Further inquiries being made3

  243

  19

  Sent for informal resolution4

  120

  10

  With DPP or at disciplinary proceedings

  44

  4

  Total

  1,255

  100

  1Other reasons for closure include complaints being repetitive, vexatious, incapable of investigation, outside remit, ill-founded, etc.

  2Complaints settled by informal resolution are minor non-criminal and non-disciplinary matters. They are settled by a meeting between the complainant and the police.

  3 Complaints which are subject to further inquiries by police ombudsman's staff so that appropriate means of dealing with them can be identified.

  4Complaints sent to the police to arrange a meeting with the complainant so that a resolution may be achieved.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost has been of criminal damage to his Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44824]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information you have requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the(a) Police Authority (b) Royal Ulster Constabulary targets for reducing sickness absence by police officers and civilians were met by March 2001. [45986]

  Jane Kennedy
  The targets for the financial year 2000–01 for police and civilian staff were 16 days and 12 days respectively. These targets were not met as the average sickness absences were 23.11 days and 15.40 days respectively.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he estimates the target for reducing average sickness absence rates for departmental staff in 2001–02 will be achieved. [45993]

  Jane Kennedy
  I am confident that measures are in place to meet the target for reducing average sickness absence rates for departmental staff in 2001–02.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the staff serving the Saville Inquiry and give(a) the annual full cost of their employment to his Department, (b) their salaries, (c) their daily expense allowance and (d) the collective costs of their travel to date. [46022]

  Mr. Browne
  As at 9 April 2002, 35 staff serve the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. This figure includes administrative staff, solicitors and paralegals, but excludes Counsel to the Inquiry.

  Thirty-one of these staff are paid as civil servants according to the NIO pay scales as follows.
  60W

  Grade

  Number

  Salary range(£)

  SCS

  3

  Covers three pay bands:

  44,038–69,178

  48,552–77,869

  53,534–87,598

  A

  1

  30,250–48,750

  B1

  1

  22,750—34,325

  B2

  8

  18,500–27,750

  C

  8

  14,000–23,750

  Dl

  5

  11,000–15,250

  D2

  5

  10,000–13,000

  Total

  31

  12001–02 rates

  In addition to those listed previously, there are currently two Grade C and two Grade D1 temporary staff who have been employed through an agency.

  The total salary costs, including agency costs, to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry Secretariat was £3,493,332 as at 9 April 2002. This can be broken down for each year as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  5,479

  1998–99

  452,362

  1999–2000

  738,758

  2000–01

  1,067,206

  2001–02

  1,229,527

  These costs are inclusive of employer's national insurance and pensions contributions and, in the case of agency staff, VAT.

  Staff expenses are essentially subsistence allowances. These are calculated in line with the rates paid to NIO civil servants and differ according to the individual's circumstances. Listing each would be possible only at disproportionate cost. The sum of subsistence allowances paid to Inquiry staff was £241,410 as at 9 April 2002.

  The total travel costs of Inquiry staff was £712,913 to 9 April 2002. Most of this sum relates to travel between London and Northern Ireland.

  The cost of providing accommodation for these individuals was £363,586 to 9 April 2002. Most of this sum relates to accommodation in Londonderry.

  Prisoner Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what percentage the differential between the cost per prisoner place in Northern Ireland and that in England and Wales has changed in 2001–02. [45992]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost per prisoner place for 2001–02 will not be available for either Northern Ireland or England and Wales until the figures are collated after the completion of the financial year.

  However it is expected that NIPS will achieve its key performance target "to reduce the differential in cost per prisoner place between N. Ireland and England and Wales by 5.7 per cent by March 2002".

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the 2001 target for women's participation in the Northern Ireland Civil Service was met on time. [45987]

  Jane Kennedy
  In its 2001 Departmental Report, the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) declared its continued commitment to progressing Home Civil Service (HCS) and Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) service-wide targets for increased representation of women in the Senior Civil Service.

  The 2001 target of 15 per cent. for NICs staff has already been surpassed since females currently make up 16.7 per cent. of the Senior Civil Service within the NICS group. Women presently make up 13 per cent. of the NCS Senior Civil Service group and, taking account of current trends, we would anticipate reaching the 2002 target of 15 per cent. by the end of the year.

  Women are well represented in the NIO and currently make up 58.6 per cent of the organisation but, as with other Government departments, they are under-represented at the senior grades. The NIO wishes women to be fairly represented at all levels within the organisation and, as an indication of our commitment to this aim, we have actively progressed targets for HCS and NICS staff in the Department.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he expects the 2002 target for women's participation in the Home Civil Service to be met on time. [45989]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I provided to Question ref. 45987.

  Code of Practice (Victims)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the review of the Code of Practice for victims was conducted in 2001 as undertaken in the 2001 Departmental report; and what the outcome was. [45996]

  Mr. Browne
  The performance of the commitments incorporated in the Code have been monitored against the standards set out in the Code. A revised version of the Code has recently been made available including information on the new arrangements for getting compensation.

  DCMS outstanding board appointments as a 31 March 2002

  Body

  Vacant position

  Date vacancy arose

  Expected date of appointment 2002

  Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites

  Chair

  5 October 2001

  June

  Member

  31 March 2002

  July

  Alcohol Education and Research Council

  Member

  31 March 2001

  June

  British Broadcasting Corporation

  Member

  19 December 2001

  July

  The Community Fund

  Member

  17 January 2002

  July

  Horserace Totalisator

  Member

  31 March 2002

  July

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  Member

  8 February 2001

  May

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new initiatives his Department has taken in 2001–02 to assist in achieving its Public Service Agreement targets. [47185]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 12 April 2002.

  Motor Fuel
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many UK-duty paid litres of motor fuel products have been sold in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [54293]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  HM Customs and Excise does not collect information on the destination of diesel or petrol after it passes the duty point, which is normally a refinery or storage facility.

  Estimates of the volumes of oils delivered in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom are published by the Department of Trade and Industry in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics Table 3.9.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Appointments
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list all the outstanding appointments that(a) she and (b) Ministers in her Department have to make, stating for each one (i) the date on which her Department became aware of the vacancy and (ii) when she expects an appointment to be made. [48377]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 9 April 2002]: Details of outstanding appointments are set out in the table, indicating current vacant posts. These do not include appointments which have been left open for operational reasons. For the majority of outstanding appointments, my Department would have been aware of the possibility of a vacancy occurring when the decision was made not to reappoint the existing post holder. This is usually six months before their term of appointment ends and we aim to complete the process to identify a successor within four months. In some instances, however, post holders have unexpectedly chosen to stand down before their terms are due to end.
  63W

  DCMS outstanding board appointments as at 31 March 2002

  Body

  Vacant position

  Date vacancy arose

  Expected date of appointment 2002

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  Member

  New post

  May

  Resource

  Member

  30 September 2001

  July

  Member

  New post

  July

  Theatres Trust

  Member

  5 April 2001

  June

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what subjects and on which dates her Department has recently consulted organisations representing young people; and if she will list such organisations. [52506]

  Mr. Caborn
  Many of the Department's sponsored bodies with which DCMS regularly liaise and consult represent, among other groups, the interests of young people. The information requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department is committed to the new Core Principles for the Involvement of Children and Young People, published by the Minister for Young People in November 2001. The Department will shortly be publishing an action plan setting out for the first time how it will implement these principles to extend the participation of children and young people in the design, delivery and evaluation of policies and services that affect them.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the cost to(a) community and amateur sports clubs and (b) the fitness industry of the proposed increase in national insurance contributions. [52759]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: It is estimated that the changes to employers national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will

  £ million

  Capital facilities (lottery)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Sport England grant1

  City of Manchester Stadium

  0

  0

  10

  56.1

  10.9

  77

  Sportcity non stadium facilities—English Institute of Sport

  0

  0

  0

  9.4

  5.6

  15

  Belle Vue

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2.9

  2.9

  Bisley

  0

  0

  4.6

  1.3

  0.1

  6

  Manchester Aquatics Centre

  6.4

  8.9

  6.7

  0

  0

  21.9

  Bolton Arena

  1.2

  1.4

  7.2

  1.8

  0.2

  11.7

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  134.5

  1 Expected

  In terms of the wider infrastructure necessary for the games, the Northwest Development Agency has contributed £1.6 million and English Partnerships £0.3 million, for the regeneration of the Ashton Canal Corridor, highways and footways reconstruction, and works on the station to stadium shuttle route.

  In addition there are plans for spending a further £0.7 million on the physical infrastructure at the games' village, and at a number of other venues. This money will come from the additional £105 million in games' funding
  64W
  increase the wages costs of community amateur sports clubs and the fitness industry by 0.7 per cent. on average next year.

  Tourism
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the changes that took place in real terms in income of the British tourism industry in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [54014]

  Dr. Howells
  The estimated value of tourism expenditure for the UK in real terms (1999 prices) is:

  (a) 1999: £73.1 billion

  (b) 2000: £73.3 billion

  (c) 2001: £72.1 billion.

  Information is not available in the form requested because the basis of calculation for the UK Tourism Survey was changed in 2000 and not all figures for January to March 2002 are yet available.

  Commonwealth Games
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the total public expenditure for each financial stage, by(a) Government, (b) Sport England, (c) the National Lottery and (d) central Government funding bodies, to build the stadium and infrastructure required to host the Commonwealth games in Manchester. [53796]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England's capital expenditure is detailed in the table, all of which is lottery funding.

  from Sport England, Government and Manchester city council that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 2 July 2001.

  Football League Clubs
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the economic contribution of Football League clubs to the(a) local and (b) national economy. [53884]
  65W
  Mr. Caborn
  Nationwide football league clubs make significant contributions to their local economies, both directly by providing employment and indirectly by stimulating the activities of local businesses. The wider contribution of the Nationwide League, and football more generally, to the national economy cannot be quantified but should be considered alongside football's substantial non-financial contribution to society.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what help she is giving community and amateur sports clubs in applying for the tax reliefs announced in the Budget. [54121]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a package of tax reliefs for community amateur sports clubs in his Budget statement on 17 April. This is included in the Finance Bill.

  Community amateur sports clubs are now able to apply for the tax and other financial benefits of charitable status, which include mandatory 80 per cent. tax relief. I announced the publication of improved Charity Commission guidance for sport on 17 April. Clubs considering applying for registered charity status will be able to receive guidance and information from a regional Sport England advice network, to be established very shortly.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the money from the Capital Modernisation Fund to provide new or refurbished community sports facilities will be allocated. [54122]

  Mr. Caborn
  The money allocated from the Capital Modernisation Fund is excellent news for sport. The Government will use it in partnership with Sport England and the governing bodies of sport to enhance community sports facilities across the country. Detailed allocation plans will be developed over the next few weeks.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has held with UK Sport and the Greater London Authority regarding a future London Olympic bid. [54123]

  Mr. Caborn
  The decision on whether or not to launch a bid for the Olympic games is a matter principally for the British Olympic Association which has yet to decide whether to make a bid for the 2012 games. I have not discussed a bid with UK Sport, the Greater London authority or the BOA. My Department, together with the BOA, GLA and UK Sport, is sponsoring a cost-benefit analysis of a possible London Olympic bid, and we will take decisions once that work is complete.

  National Lottery
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the National Lottery has been distributed to projects related to ethnic minorities in each of the last five years. [54466]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not held by this Department nor across distributors. In October 1999, however, distributors signed up to a Statement of 66W
  Principle on Minority Ethnic Group Access to Lottery Funding Opportunities which included an agreement to monitor in appropriate funding programmes the number of applications from, and the number and value of awards made to projects directed at, or of particular relevance to, minority ethnic communities. Distributors have since put the necessary monitoring systems in place and are now collecting data.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will take steps to increase the share of lottery proceeds given to the Community Fund for distribution; and if she will make a statement. [54468]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have no plans to increase the current share of lottery income going to the Community Fund.

  National Stadium
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement about the National Stadium project. [54914]

  Tessa Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made to the House earlier today.

  Departmental Policies
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what impact her Department's policies have had on the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency since 1997. [54334]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, there have been 73 National Lottery awards to Stalybridge and Hyde totalling £1,935,708 from 1 January 1997 to 2 May 2002.

  Thirteen Millennium Award winners have been identified from Stalybridge and Hyde at a commitment of £31,005.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,600 people aged 75 or over living in the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency.

  Artsmark Schools

  Last year Longdendale High School in Hollingworth was among the first schools in the county to apply successfully for an Artsmark award.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency. These include:

  Sport England
  The Greater Manchester Active Sports Partnership which includes the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency has been awarded £2,399,957 from the lottery programme.

  Libraries
  Tameside library service has been awarded grants of £457,102.80 for People's Network ICT infrastructure and £65,415 for librarian ICT training by the New Opportunities Fund (NOF). According to Resource, the body responsible for monitoring implementation of the People's Network, all 10 public libraries in Tameside offer public internet access through the People's Network.
  67W
  Museums
  Residents in the Stalybridge and Hyde Constituency can benefit from the Government's policy of free admission to all, introduced at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester (MSIM) on 1 December 2001 (and prior to that the introduction of free admission for children and over 60s). In the first four months of free admission, MSIM has welcomed more than 180,000 visitors—a 114 per cent. increase on the same period in 2000–01.

  English Heritage
  One grant offered on the 12 December 2000 to St. Michael and all Angels Church, Mottram in Longdendale for repairs totalling £62,591.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Access to Information
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the administrative manuals and internal guidance which his Department has made public as required by Part 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and which of these were first made available after May 1997. [45402]

  Mr. Wills
  Administrative manuals and internal guidance are listed in the Department's Information Asset Register (www.inforoute.hmso.gov.uk). They will form part of our forthcoming publication scheme, as required under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  The following administrative manuals and internal guidance are either currently publicly available or are open to public inspection on request.

  Adoption Proceedings—A New Approach

  Approval procedures for PPP schemes to provide serviced courthouse and related accommodation

  Certificated Bailiffs—A Guide

  Checklist for LCD policy makers

  Complaints Handling Guide—Court Service

  Complaints procedures—Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters

  County Court Index of Place Name

  Court Business

  Court Funds Office—A Guide for Staff

  Court Service Programme Management Guidance

  Court Service Project Management Guidance

  Court Service Project Management Guidance for Minor Projects

  Court Service Welsh Language Scheme

  Court Users Guide to the Civil Justice Reforms

  Crown Court Manual

  Directions for Determining Officers

  Disability Discrimination Act and the service we provide

  Employee Handbook (Court Service)

  Energy Management Manual

  Estates Management Manual

  Finance Manual (subject to deletion of sensitive sections)

  68W

  Graduated Fee Guidance Manual

  Guidance on outside activities and interests

  Guide to County Court Fees

  Guide to Family Proceedings Fees

  Guide to proceedings in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division

  Guide to Supreme Court Fees

  Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs

  Guidelines on written consultation

  LCD Guide to Parliamentary Business

  LCD guidelines on the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information

  LCD staff handbook

  London County Court Directory

  Ministers cases—LCD guidance

  Quality Audit Manual

  Record Management Service User Guide

  Risk to the public—a framework for identifying and managing risks resulting from or requiring Government intervention

  Sex Offenders Act 1997—requirement to register

  Speech preparation in LCD

  Supreme Court Costs Office Guide

  Taxing Compendium

  Taxing Officers' Notes for Guidance

  The Accounts And Investments Practice Manual

  The Administrative Court—Notes for Guidance on applying for Judicial Review

  The Clerical Procedures Manual

  The Investments Manual

  Wider Markets Initiative—Opportunities in the Lord Chancellor's Department, its Agencies and NDPBs.

  Information on when they were first made available is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Aid (Asylum Seekers)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money has been spent on legal aid for asylum seekers in each of the last three years; how much of this was for the initial application; how much of this was for fighting appeals; how many asylum seekers were involved in legal aid procedures in both categories; and if she will make a statement. [46673]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission is not able to provide the information in the format requested. The commission is able to provide figures relating to legal aid for all immigration and asylum work from April 1999.

  Total payments for all immigration and asylum advice, assistance and representation are as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure(£ million)

  1999–2000

  61.4

  2000–01

  88.3

  2001–021

  129.7

  1 The figures provided for 2001–02 are provisional estimates

  The commission's systems do not record expenditure according to the stage a case has reached, so figures cannot be provided for expenditure on initial applications or fighting appeals. Neither can figures be split between

  69W
  asylum immigration work and non-asylum immigration work. However, it is known that asylum currently accounts for over 90 per cent. of expenditure in the immigration and asylum category.

  Since August 2000, the commission has recorded the number of matters started in asylum immigration as distinct from non-asylum immigration. In the 18 month period from August 2000 to January 2002 132,800 asylum matters were started. Each matter is an act of assistance not a client assisted so the figure is not necessarily reflective of the number of individuals involved.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the costs have been for legal aid granted to the Afghans who landed at Stansted in February 2000 in a hijacked aircraft; and what the other costs have been of the judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings concerning their cases. [52771]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is not possible to provide the information requested. For legal aid, a number of claims have yet to be determined and therefore it is not possible at this stage to say what the total costs have been. Nor is it possible to provide the costs for the judicial proceedings. That information, which will include among other things, judicial costs; the costs to the prosecution, witnesses and juror expenses, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Census (1901)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what contingency plans exist in the Public Records Office to keep the 1901 census online in the event of financial failure at QinetiQ. [50532]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As is standard in PPP arrangements of this kind, the PRO's contract with QinetiQ includes a clause which would allow it to terminate in the event of contractor default and to acquire the contractor's interests in the services infrastructure. In the highly unlikely event of a default because of financial failure at QinetiQ, the activation of this clause would provide the basis for an alternative way of delivering the 1901 online census service.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent by his Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52697]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has spent £2,700 on voice coaching in 2001–02 for five senior officials. No specific spending on voice coaching was made in the previous years.

  £

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  0

  2001–02

  2,700

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent by 70W
  his Department on training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52736]

  Mr. Wills
  The Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts has not provided any training to the Lord Chancellor's Department in the last five years.

  Census Online
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what value of pre-payment vouchers for 1901 Census Online sold by the Public Record Office(a) has been refunded, (b) is eligible for refund and (c) is ineligible for refund by virtue of having been opened. [52753]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The answers to the hon. Member's questions are as follows:

  (a) It is estimated that vouchers to a total value of £1,380 have been refunded, of which the PRO has refunded £560 and QinetiQ the remainder.

  (b) Total sales of vouchers to date amount to £285,000, some of which have been completely used or opened and partially used. All vouchers that remain intact may be returned by the purchaser to the point of purchase for a refund.

  The value of vouchers which have been opened and are therefore ineligible for a refund is not known. However, their validity has been extended for a further six months, starting from the date when the online census service resumes.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when internet access will be restored for 1901 Census Online. [52921]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  General online searches over the internet will be available as soon as practicable following the completion of the testing programme, which will include availability of the online census at the service centres.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much revenue the Public Record Office has received from the sale of pre-payment vouchers in connection with the 1901 Census Online service. [52752]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Under the terms of the PRO's PPP arrangements with QinetiQ Ltd., the latter is responsible for the sale of pre-payment vouchers. To date QinetiQ has received a total of £278,019 from the sale of these vouchers.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will instruct the Public Record Office to consult their counterparts in Scotland on lessons to be learned from the launch of an Online Census service in Scotland. [52751]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The two sites are very different in character—the Scottish census site manages 4.5 million names as opposed to 32.5 million names on the 1901 Census for England and Wales, and the present population of Scotland is approximately a tenth of that in England and Wales. The payment model chosen for the online sensus in Scotland imposes an initial £6 charge for access to the site and units of £6 thereafter. The 1901 Census for England and Wales has an entirely free index search facility, which can be used without any restriction; the
  71W
  minimum fee for access to transcriptions or record images is £5, in return for which the user can obtain between six and ten copies. The PRO undertook extensive consultations with users who indicated that, out of a range of possible payment models, their preference was for a payment system based on the delivery of record images.

  Families of Murder Victims
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what financial assistance for legal action is available to families of murder victims where the convicted murderer is related to the victim and has a claim as a beneficiary of the deceased estate. [53264]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Matters of probate are included within the scope of public funding under the Legal Services Commission's (LSC's) Funding Code which is approved by Parliament under the Access to Justice Act 1999. As a result, public funding for Legal Help or Legal Representation (formerly legal aid) could be available in such a case to individual family members who could demonstrate their financial eligibility, subject to a funding assessment of the merits of the case by the LSC.

  Financial eligibility is determined by assessing the gross income, disposable income and capital of the applicant; a funding assessment is carried out to establish whether it is reasonable, taking all the circumstances into account, for public funding to be granted.

  Access to Information
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much his Department is planning to spend on advertising the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information to the general public in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [53372]

  Mr. Wills
  None. Information about the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information is available on the websites of the Lord Chancellor's Department (www.lcd.gov.uk) and the parliamentary ombudsman (www.ombudsman.org.uk).

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what subjects and on which dates her Department has consulted organisations representing young people; and if she will list such organisations. [52497]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not held centrally and a comprehensive reply can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, it is the practice of this Department to consult organisations, including those representing young people, both in the circulation of formal consultation papers and by way of on-going discussion. For example, in March 2002, the consultation paper 'Promoting Inter-agency Working in the Family Justice system' was sent to the National Council for 72W
  Voluntary Child Care Organisations and the Association of Lawyers for Children, while the Connexions service is consulted regularly on a whole range of operational issues.

  In addition, this Department is committed to the new core principles for the involvement of children and young people published by the Minister for Young People in November 2001. The Department will shortly be publishing an actin plan setting out for the first time how it will implement these principles to extend the participation of children and young people in the design, provision and evaluation of policies and services that affect them.

  Immigration Advice
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will provide a breakdown of the number of(a) solicitors' firms and (b) not-for-profit advice providers holding a Legal Services Commission contract in immigration and the number of matter starts for each such contract in each of the National Asylum Support Service-designated asylum dispersal areas. [54062]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As at 30 April 2002, the Legal Services Commission (LSC) had issued 492 solicitor immigration contracts and 78 not-for-profit agency immigration contracts.

  The commission cannot at the present time provide a breakdown of the contract figures by National Asylum Support Service designated asylum dispersal areas. Figures can be provided by the Legal Service Commission regions. The table shows the number of contracts issued, and the contract awards by LSC region. Not-for-profit contractors are awarded 'hours' rather than 'matter starts'.

  LSC region

  Number of solicitor contracts

  Matter starts allocated

  Number of Not-for-profit-contracts

  Number of hours allocated

  London

  312

  103,711

  38

  68,347

  South-east

  24

  5,864

  3

  21,340

  South-west

  13

  1,250

  4

  7,700

  Wales

  9

  2,034

  3

  4,290

  West Midlands

  31

  9,272

  5

  15,326

  North-west

  23

  3,652

  9

  20,364

  North-east

  14

  4,114

  1

  0

  Yorkshire

  28

  7,628

  4

  21,450

  East Midlands

  19

  6,738

  5

  6,186

  Eastern

  16

  3,416

  4

  3,520

  Merseyside

  3

  1,420

  2

  4,400

  All regions

  492

  149,099

  78

  172,923

  Television Licences
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the(a) number and (b) total cost of television licences paid for by her Department. [54072]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on television licenses purchased by courts is not held centrally and total figures for the Lord Chancellor's Department could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many subscriptions to(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable are held by her Department for services in departmental buildings from which Ministers work, stating for each subscription its (i) cost and (ii) purpose. [54071]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None.

  Registered Enduring Powers of Attorney
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many registered enduring powers of attorney there were in each year since 2000. [53781]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total number of registered enduring powers of attorney was 55,710 in the year 2000 and 61,163 in the year 2001. The number of new applications for registered received was 12,340 in the year 2000 and 13,110 in the year 2001.

  Digital Radios
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many digital radios are owned by her Department for use in departmental buildings from which Ministers work; and what the(a) cost and (b) date of purchase of each radio was. [54073]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None.

  Sex Offenders
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department under what circumstances schedule 1 sex offenders are allowed unsupervised contact with children. [41974]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  Schedule 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is a list of cruelty, violent and sexual offences against children. This list has been used by various agencies as a way of identifying those committing these offences as posing a risk to children, although not all necessarily do so or do so currently. Some of those guilty of offences on the list, for example, may have committed the offence many years previously, may themselves have been children at the time and the offence may have, for example, involved a fight with another child of a similar age. Others convicted of offences on the list may have been engaged in mutually agreed sexual activity, albeit with someone under the age of legal consent, to whom they were relatively close in age. There are no specified requirements flowing from commission of an offence on Schedule 1 of this Act that prohibit offenders from having unsupervised contact with children. There are, however, other more recent means of achieving this and of protecting children from the risk that violent and sexual offenders pose.

  Those offenders sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment are released subject to a licence which can include, in relevant cases, a requirement not to have unsupervised contact with children. Breach of these conditions can result in a return to prison. Moreover, a similar prohibition can be included in a Sex Offender
  74W
  Order, for which the police can apply to magistrates' court with respect to a convicted sex offender whose current behaviour indicates they pose a risk of serious harm. Breaching the terms of the order may result in a maximum sentence of up to five years imprisonment.

  Part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 provides for certain of those convicted of offences against children to be disqualified from seeking or taking employment, whether paid or unpaid, with children in the future.

  The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act also placed a statutory duty jointly on the policy and probation services to put arrangements in place for assessing and managing the risk posed by sexual and violent offenders. These arrangements enable a risk assessment to be undertaken and plans to be devised for managing the risk that such offenders pose.

  Despite these measures, it nonetheless remains important for parents to be vigilant about those to whom they entrust the care of their children, particularly when they are not present to ensure their safety.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Members' Pensions
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on progress made on hon. Members' pensions. [55068]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  On 5 July 2001 the House considered the latest report of the SSRB on the parliamentary pension scheme. The House agreed to four of the eight recommendations of the SSRB and invited the trustees of the scheme to consider the remaining recommendations. The trustees are now reaching agreement on how to implement all eight recommendations, including extension of entitlement to unmarried partners and continuation of entitlement to surviving partners who have subsequently remarried. The trustees will be able to fund these improvements with no additional charge to Members.

  The House also voted to increase the accrual rate from 1/50th to 1/40th. The Government do not accept the proposal in the resolution that all the cost should fall on the Treasury. It has therefore referred the cost of this improvement to the SSRB and invited their advice on how it should be funded.

  The SSRB has been asked to report by 1 July. Thereafter the Government will table a statutory instrument giving effect to all recommendations of the SSRB.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Whitehall Refurbishment
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if outstanding orders of sapele timber for the refurbishment of 22 Whitehall have been cancelled; [54351]

  (2) if he will set out the steps which he took to ensure that all timber for the refurbishment of 22 Whitehall derived from legally certified and sustainable sources; [54352]
  75W
  (3) when, by whom, and on what basis, it was agreed that sapele timber would be used in the refurbishment of 22 Whitehall. [54353]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 19 April 2002,Official Report, column 1251.

  My Department is currently, with Balfour Beatty, undertaking a full investigation and will report back to the House.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those regulatory impact assessments published during the latest six-month period. [55067]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are necessary, give effective protection, balance cost and risk, are fair and command public confidence. In accordance with this, we require Departments to produce and publish RIAs for all regulatory proposals likely to have an impact on business.

  I have presented to Parliament today a Command Paper listing RIAs published between 1 July and 31 December 2001. Copies of those listed have been placed in the House Libraries. This is the sixteenth such Command Paper.

  Public Servants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his definition is of the term "wider public servants" used in the Cabinet Office publication Taskforces and the Advisory Groups and Reviews published in October 2001; and whether it includes hon. Members. [53010]

  Mr. Leslie
  The definition "wider public servant" in the context of membership of taskforces refers to public sector employees who are not civil servants.

  There is nothing to prevent hon. Members being appointed to taskforces and other ad hoc advisory groups. Should that be the case, it would be recorded in the Taskforces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews: Annual Report, under the heading of "wider public servant".

  Public Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which public bodies have been(a) set up, (b) abolished, (c) announced but not yet established and (d) targeted for future abolition since 1997. [54242]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on all public bodies is set out in the annual 'Public Bodies' publication. The most recent edition gave the position as of 31 March 2001, copies of this and earlier editions are in the Library of the House. Individual entries in 'Public Bodies' are qualified, where necessary, with a footnote indicating if the body, though announced, has not yet been set up or if it has been targeted for abolition.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what are the levels of pensions as a proportion of average weekly earnings in(a) the UK and (b) each other EU member state. [19956]

  Mr. McCartney
  The most recent figures available date from 1994–95 (except those for Italy where they are from 1993–94). They do not take account of the fact that since 1997 this Department has taken a number of measures to improve the income of pensioners, particularly the poorest of this group. Over 2 million pensioners benefit from the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), currently £98.15 for a single pensioner and over 10 million pensioners benefited from the above inflation increases in basic Retirement Pension. Over 11 million Winter Fuel Payments, at a cost of around £1.7 billion, were sent out last winter.

  Since 1997 single pensioners in receipt of MIG, Winter Fuel Payments and free TV licences are at least £18.00 a week better off and pensioner couples have gained by more than £27.

  A further step is the Government's intention to introduce Pension Credit in October 2003. Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible for the Pension Credit—5.1 million individual pensioners or 3.7 million pensioner households stand to gain (excludes those living in residential care and nursing homes). On average, they will gain £400 a year, with some getting up to £1,000 a year.

  It will get more money into pensioner's pockets and ensure that no single pensioner need live on less than £100 a week (£154 a week for couples).

  The level of average UK pension income from all sources of income as a proportion of average weekly earnings is not available. The level as a proportion of population net income is 78 per cent.

  Information for other EU member states is available on the same basis. This is in the table.

  Percentage

  Country

  Pension Income as Proportion of Population Income

  France

  90

  Sweden

  89

  Austria

  87

  Netherlands

  86

  Germany

  86

  Italy

  84

  Finland

  79

  Belgium

  78

  UK

  78

  Greece

  77

  Ireland

  75

  Norway

  74

  Denmark

  73

  Notes:

  Data is for 1994 and 1995 except Italy, 1993.

  Quoted in 'Cross-country comparisons of pensioner's incomes'.
  Research report No. 142, DSS, p22.

  Source:

  Labour Market and Social Policy—Occasional Papers No. 42. OECD.
  77W
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking in conjunction with the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority to monitor and control pension liberation schemes. [52254]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and the Inland Revenue are working closely together to investigate a number of such cases that have been reported to them. It is important that any malpractice is identified quickly and eliminated. Meetings including officials from the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, the Inland Revenue, the Financial Services Authority and my Department are being held, and my officials are keeping in close touch with the investigations.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list the countries in which UK recipients of the state retirement pension do not receive regular upratings; and what the estimated annual cost is of extension of upratings to each such country; [52122]

  (2) for what reasons United Kingdom recipients of the state retirement pension resident abroad receive upratings in some countries and not others. [52123]

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in which countries British pensioners living abroad(a) have and (b) do not have their pensions increased in line with inflation. [54473]

  Mr. McCartney
  Annual upratings have never been generally paid abroad. Exceptions apply under the EC's Social Security Regulations, which apply to pensioners who have a UK pension living in the European Economic Area, and under reciprocal social security agreements with other countries, which allow for increases to be paid there. The countries with which the UK has reciprocal agreements which allow pension upratings to be paid are: Barbados, Bermuda, the Channel Islands, Cyprus, Israel, Jamaica, Malta, Mauritius, the Philippines, Switzerland, Turkey, the USA and the now separate republics of the former Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia Montenegro, Bosnia Herzegovina), Croatia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Pensions are not uprated in any other country.

  To bring everyone up to the current rate they would receive if they had remained in the UK, but not to pay arrears, would cost around £400 million in 2002–03.

  Uprating is paid in some countries because the Government are either legally required to do so or have previously entered into reciprocal agreements to do so. However, the underlying intention of uprating is that it is meant to cover increases in the cost of living in this country.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the percentage difference in maintenance between the new child maintenance formula and the formula currently operated on standardised assumptions excluding departures and variations for the convenient steps of net income up to £104,000 per annum. [44263]
  78W
  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: The information is in the table.

  Percentage change in average maintenance assessment under new scheme, by net income

  Net income (£)

  Change in average maintenance assessment (percentage)

  Under 10,0001

  16.6

  10,000 to 20,000

  -23.0

  20,000 to 30,000

  -18.2

  30,000 to 40,000

  -7.6

  Above 40,000

  5.6

  All

  -11.2

  1 Includes non-resident parents on benefit who pay nothing in the current scheme.

  Source:

  5 per cent. scan of the Child Support Computer System, August 1998 so may not reflect current average assessments.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the target time will be in 2002–03 for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members and (b) officials in his Department to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44954]

  Maria Eagle
  Our aim is to reply as soon as possible to hon. Members who write to Ministers and members of the public who write to Ministers or the senior official with responsibility for operational issues within a maximum of 20 working days. We aim to reply as soon as possible to other letters received directly from members of the public within a maximum of 10 working days or 15 working days in the case of the Appeals Service.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the letters dated 28 February and 3 April from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. [53770]

  Maria Eagle
  I replied to the hon. Member on 29 April.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the number of subscriptions to(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable television held by his Department for services in any departmental building from which Ministers work, stating for each subscription its (i) cost and (ii) purpose. [48355]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions' access to television services in Richmond House is maintained by the Department of Health, as the major occupier for this building. I therefore refer you to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health [Ms Hazel Blears], on 23 April 2002, Official Report, column 272W.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times Ministers in his Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47101]
  79W
  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 9 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 11 April 2002, Official Report, column 552W.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the target has been in each of the last five years for efficiency savings as a percentage of total running costs for each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and if the target was met. [49633]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department sponsors four executive non-departmental public bodies: the Disability Rights Commission; Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority; Pensions Compensation Board; and Remploy. Value for money is a key principle and overarching theme when the Department is agreeing targets on the efficiency and effectiveness of individual bodies' operations. Each body listed above produces an Annual Report which provides details of the organisation's operational and financial performance. Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

  Jobcentres
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of time is spent by personal advisers(a) on advising on benefits claims and (b) advising job seekers. [50691]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive, Leigh Lewis. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Miss Anne McIntosh dated April 2002:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the proportion of time spent by personal advisers on a) advising on benefits claims and b) advising job seekers. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The main purpose of personal advisers is to help people move into or closer to work. Advisers therefore spend the majority of their time at interviews discussing jobs, training and other opportunities that are available to help people into work. As part of this, they will often provide information about Tax Credits and those benefits that people may receive when in work. More generally, depending on the circumstances of the person they are interviewing, personal advisers will seek to ensure that any questions or issues relating to benefits are satisfactorily resolved either by providing information or help themselves or by ensuring that it is provided by colleagues with the appropriate knowledge.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Rent Service
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 888W, if he will place in the Library the information received from the Rent Service in support of its estimate of the likely increase in the number of localities following the Court of Appeal judgment on local reference rents in Stockport; [53014]
  80W
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 16 April 2002, Official Report, column 888W, what organisations he consulted on the impact on the number of localities of the Court of Appeal judgment on local reference rents in Stockport; and if he will publish details of that advice.[53015]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We did not request a formal report from the Rent Service and none was provided. The likely increase in the number of localities was an informal estimate for England provided by the Rent Service at that time in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment.

  We did not consult any organisations about the impact on the number of localities following the Court of Appeal judgment. There was no need for such consultation because it was clear that had we not put new legislation in place, the increase in the number of localities following the Court of Appeal judgment would have proved unworkable for the Rent Service. Such an increase would have run counter to our policy that local reference rents should reflect the generality of the market and thus be based on broad geographical areas.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many localities the Rent Service has used to determine local reference rents in each year since their introduction. [53016]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire on 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 340W.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications have been made to the Access to Work scheme in the last five years; and whether the scheme will be open to those small employers who will be required to make adjustments prior to the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in 2004. [53032]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Between April 1996 and March 2001 37,236 disabled people have applied for and received Access to Work help1.

  Access to Work is available to disabled people in paid employment, whatever size of employer they work for, where they have additional employment needs resulting from disability. Focusing eligibility on the individual, rather than the employer, allows Access to Work to tailor help to meet the needs of the disabled person and to help an increasing number of disabled people to enter or remain in paid work each year.

  1 Source: DWP Access to Work Management Information.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what adjustments have been made to her Department's premises following the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and what the cost of these adjustments was as a proportion of the Department's budget. [53028]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Since the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 adjustments carried out to premises occupied by this department include installation of door bells, installation of induction loops, installation of some signage, marking

  81W
  of disabled parking bays, adjustments to counters, reconfiguration of public waiting areas to accommodate wheelchair access, improvements to external lighting and installation of access ramps.

  These works have been carried out as part of a planned programme to ensure that all buildings occupied under the PRIME contract comply with the requirements of DDA in advance of 2004. Under the terms of the PRIME PFI agreement, the costs of these adjustments are the responsibility of our private sector partner, Land Securities Trillium.

  For those buildings in the DWP estate not covered by the PRIME contract it has been recommended that work to ensure DDA compliance should be incorporated into existing and future refurbishment plans. Also, the department will require that all new property acquisitions are fully compliant with the Act.

  The costs of adjustments carried out solely in relation to the introduction of DDA are not recorded separately. The information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Benefits Decision Makers
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will remove the overall responsibility from decision makers on benefit entitlement to more senior officials; and if he will make a statement. [54152]

  Maria Eagle
  No. Decisions on benefit claims and applications are made by the Secretary of State. In practice he delegates this function to decision makers who are suitably trained and experienced. The seniority of the decision maker is not pertinent. The important point is whether the decision maker has the requisite skills to do the job to the required standard.

  Income Support
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the ratio of income support and its precursor to basic retirement pension for a single person was in each of the last 30 calendar years. [53942]

  Mr. McCartney
  The benefit system has undergone radical changes in the last 30 years. For this reason, it is not possible to compare like with like. From 1972 until 1988, supplementary benefit was in payment. The assessment of entitlement for supplementary benefit was complex, and the introduction of income support addressed and simplified this assessment. Income support continues to be paid through the minimum income guarantee. There were considerable differences between the benefits, for example, on some occasions, supplementary benefit was uprated 82W
  twice a year. The figures quoted are based on benefit years (April to March) rather than calendar years—rates may be different to published rates as they represent an average over the benefit year, eg in 2002 MIG was uprated on 9 April therefore we have assumed there were eight days when MIG was still at the old rate.

  For the purposes of this question, all figures quoted are in nominal terms for the appropriate year, eg 1972 rates are quoted in 1972 price terms and reflect the basic entitlement of a single pensioner aged 65 to 75.

  The information requested is in the table.

  Benefit rates by year from 1 April to 31 March

  Supplementary benefit/MIG (£)

  Basic state pension (BSP)(£)

  Ratio MIG/BSP

  1972

  6.72

  6.37

  1.05

  1973

  7.65

  7.25

  1.06

  1974

  9.71

  9.31

  1.04

  1975

  12.61

  12.21

  1.03

  1976

  14.45

  14.05

  1.03

  1977

  16.53

  16.13

  1.02

  1978

  18.26

  16.16

  1.02

  1979

  21.36

  20.96

  1.02

  1980

  24.91

  24.65

  1.01

  1981

  28.22

  28.02

  1.00

  1982

  33.20

  30.76

  1.00

  1983

  33.20

  33.28

  1.00

  1984

  34.65

  34.65

  1.00

  1985

  36.31

  36.65

  0.09

  1986

  37.77

  38.57

  0.98

  1987

  38.64

  39.49

  0.98

  1988

  43.90

  41.10

  1.07

  1989

  46.05

  43.54

  1.06

  1990

  48.45

  46.83

  1.03

  1991

  53.31

  51.90

  1.03

  1992

  57.10

  54.12

  1.06

  1993

  61.17

  56.04

  1.09

  1994

  63.88

  57.56

  1.11

  1995

  65.07

  58.82

  1.11

  1996

  67.01

  61.11

  1.10

  1997

  68.77

  62.43

  1.10

  1998

  70.43

  64.67

  1.09

  1999

  74.86

  66.69

  1.12

  2000

  78.36

  67.48

  1.16

  2001

  91.85

  72.39

  1.27

  2002

  98.15

  75.50

  1.30

  Pension-related Benefits
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of how much money would be accrued by the delay in payment of pension-related benefits by two years at age 67 years. [54338]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 1011W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Under-fives Provision (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding she has made available for provision for under—fives in Liverpool in each year since 1997; and how much she plans to make available in 2002–03. [51942]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have made a number of direct grant funding streams available to Liverpool local education for under fives' provision:early years education funding which will increase the number of free early education places available for three and for-year-olds and enhance the quality of the education provided;
  funding for the National Childcare Strategy. While this funding is not specifically targeted at under fives (the age range is 0 to 14) they will benefit from the increase in child care places that are being created. £3.4 million has also been made available for the provision of neighbourhood nurseries across the 2001–04 financial years;
  revenue funding for children under four in Liverpool through the Sure Start programme. Further revenue funding will be available in 2002–03 once the four fifth wave programmes receive approval. In addition, each of the eight Sure Start programmes in the city will receive up to £1 million of capital funding over its first five years.

  The table shows the amount of central Government funding made available to Liverpool local education authority for the provision of early years education, the National Childcare Strategy and Sure Start between the 1997–98 and 2001–02 financial years as well as estimates of the funding that will be available in the 2002–03 financial years.

  £

  Early years education funding

  National childcare strategy

  Sure start revenue funding

  1997–98

  5,629,524

  N/A

  N/A

  1998–99

  497,129

  N/A

  N/A

  1999–2000

  953,110

  577,600

  224,681

  2000–01

  2,123,107

  774,460

  929,203

  2001–02

  1,590,711

  1,646,374

  1,569,594

  2002–031

  1,965,548

  1,032,650

  2,409,882

  1 Allocation.

  Notes:
  In 1997–98, all four-year-old nursery education places were funded through specific grant. In 1998–99 only four-year-old places in the private, voluntary and independent sectors and new places in the maintained sector were funded through specific grant. Existing maintained places are funded by local authorities from their resources.
  Since 2001–02 four-year-old nursery education places have been funded by local education authorities from their resources.
  Specific funding for the provision of free early education places for three year olds was introduced in September 1999.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the new requirements(a) placed on and (b) removed from head teachers in the last year for which information is available. [52120]

  Mr. Timms
  The main changes to requirements on head teachers made during 2001–02 are as follows:

  During 2001–02, the right to mainstream education for children with special educational needs was strengthened. Where particular mainstream schools do not wish to
  84W
  educate children with statements of SEN, they will have to show that the education of such children is incompatible with the provision of efficient education for other children, and that there are no reasonable steps they can take to prevent this incompatibility. The revised SEN Code of Practice has been designed to decrease bureaucracy while improving the SEN framework. The Code includes guidance on the new duty for head teachers to ensure that a Transition Plan is drawn up for pupils with statements of SEN in year nine of their schooling.

  In 2001–02, head teachers prepared for the introduction of Consistent Financial Reporting, which will benefit all schools by improving the framework for benchmarking, as well as streamlining financial administration. Head teachers had to implement modest changes to target setting for Key Stage 4. They also had to process claims for the Welcome Back Bonus, an incentive to encourage teachers returning to the profession.

  Administration of the Standards Fund was considerably simplified last year, so that head teachers and others had much less paperwork to contend with in securing additional funds for their schools. Moreover, for the first time it was possible to merge schools' annual reports with prospectuses, again freeing up valuable head teacher time.

  Wanless Report
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the costs to further and higher education of the expansion of the NHS set out in the Wanless report. [52442]

  Margaret Hodge
  Following a review of the medical workforce, published in December 1997, and the commitments made in the NHS Plan in July 2000, the number of places available to study medicine in England will increase to almost 6,000 in 2005–06. Of the additional places, over 45 per cent. will be at new medical schools or centres of medical education. The report "Securing Our Future Health: Taking A Long-Term View" (the Wanless report) makes no recommendation for further increasing the number of students entering medical training. The cost of training nurses, midwives, health visitors and other health professionals is met by the NHS.

  Sixth Forms
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what formula the Learning and Skills Council uses to determine future funding for school sixth forms. [52510]

  Margaret Hodge
  The formula for funding school sixth forms is the responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the Council's chief executive, to write to the hon. Member providing the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many sixth forms the LSC expects to experience budget reductions in the current financial year. [52511]

  Margaret Hodge
  The LSC calculated two figures for each school sixth form—what it would receive under the real terms guarantee which protects funding relative to the baseline year of 2000–01, depending on changes in pupil
  85W
  numbers; and what it would receive under the LSC's own funding formula, which reflects the nature and number of programmes being studied. The LSC allocation for the school is the higher of these two figures. Almost two thirds of schools are being funded under the LSC's formula in 2002–03, so are receiving more than they would under the real terms guarantee.

  The LSC notified LEAs of the sixth form funding allocations for their schools in early March. It was for LEAs to set overall budgets for all their schools by the end of March, incorporating the LSC allocations. Schools receive the funds from the LEA as one pot of money and are not required to account separately for the LSC allocation. However, LEAs are required under the rules of fair funding to ensure that schools receive for their sixth forms at least the real terms guarantee and one third of any difference between that and the LSC formula allocation, rising to the full amount by 2004.

  Employers' National Insurance Contributions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received from British universities about the impact of the increase in employers' national insurance contributions. [52526]

  Margaret Hodge
  None.

  Graduates
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she collates on the average earnings of(a) graduates and (b) non-graduates with equivalent A-level or similar qualifications. [52919]

  Margaret Hodge
  Estimates of average gross weekly earnings by level of qualification are regularly obtained from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). On average, people with a first degree or higher qualification earn over 40 per cent. more than those whose highest qualification is two or more A-levels or another Level 3 qualification. The table shows that in spring 2001, average gross weekly earnings for all graduates with at least a first degree were around £580, compared to £410 for non-graduates with a Level 3 qualification.

  Estimated average gross weekly earnings of graduates and non-graduates of working age in full-time employment

  Highest qualification

  Average gross weekly earnings £

  First degree or higher qualification

  580

  2+ A-levels or another Level 3 qualification

  410

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, spring 2001, GB figures

  Work-based Learning
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to ensure that the Learning and Skills Council has adequate funds to widen successful participation in work-based learning. [53087]

  Margaret Hodge
  The LSC's budget for 2002–03 is £7.3 billion, a 5.9 per cent real terms increase on the 86W
  previous year. This will enable the LSC to make progress towards its key targets. These include increasing the participation and achievement of young people in learning (including work based learning) and increasing the demand for learning by adults and employers. We have also increased the flexibility available to the LSC to meet its priorities by simplifying the budget structure and removing unnecessary restrictions on how the grant is spent. We have worked with the LSC to agree clear outcomes which include promoting equality by highlighting outcomes for under-represented groups in work-based learning.

  The Government have contributed substantial financial support for Modern Apprenticeships (MAs). Between 1997 and 2002 over £3.7 billion has been allocated to Government-supported work-based learning, of which it is estimated that in excess of £1 billion has been used to support MAs. As a result of this investment, the number of young people on MAs has risen from 75,000 in 1997 to over 220,000 today. We are investing an additional £180 million over three years 2001–04 to support and further develop MAs, a clear sign of the importance we attach to their role in raising skills levels in the workplace, and in offering young people high quality vocational and work-elated options for post-16 learning. The Government and the LSC recently agreed a target of over a quarter of young people between the age of 16 and 21 entering MAs by 2004 and the LSC will have sufficient funds to meet this target.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with the Adult Learning Inspectorate on the use of unpublished benchmarks to measure achievement in work-based learning. [53096]

  Margaret Hodge
  There have been no discussions between the Secretary of State and the Adult Learning Inspectorate (the ALI) about benchmarks. In her January 2002 grant letter to the chair of the ALI the Secretary of State expressed concern about the downward trend in inspection grades awarded to providers for work-based learning. To investigate the reasons the Department commissioned the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) to carry out a research study. When finalised, we will consider the evidence and take appropriate action. This will include reviewing how we measure achievement in work based learning.

  Work Force Development
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects the Learning and Skills Council to publish its work force development strategy; and which organisations have been consulted in the preparation of the strategy. [53090]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the council's chief executive, to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.
  87W
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of referrals from Business Links to local learning and skills councils in respect of work force development requirements of small and medium sized enterprises. [53099]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the council's chief executive, to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Learning and Skills Council
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much on average the Learning and Skills Council will allocate in 2002–03 to each member of its staff for personal development purposes. [53094]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the council's chief executive, to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Child Care
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Learning and Skills Council has to support the training of child carers for 2002–03. [53095]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the council's chief executive, to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps her Department is taking to support National Childcare Month. [53110]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department is making available over £200,000 of sponsorship which is being channelled through the five major national child care and early years education organisations1. This will enable children, parents, staff including child minders and volunteers in local playgroups, out of school clubs and nurseries to highlight and celebrate the valuable services they provide in their communities.
  1 Daycare Trust, Kids' Clubs Network, National Childminding Association, National Day Nurseries Association and the Pre-School Learning Alliance.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average annual increase in teachers' salaries has been in each of the last 10 years. [53347]

  Mr. Timms
  Annual increases in teachers' salaries to March of each of the years shown are as follows.88W

  Increases

  1993

  7.5

  1994

  0.2

  1995

  2.5

  1996

  2.4

  1997

  2.3

  1998

  2.8

  1999

  3.8

  2000

  3.9

  2001

  9.8

  2002

  5.4

  These figures reflect the effects of annual pay awards in April each year; of incremental drift caused by progression up pay scales and the recruitment of newly qualified teachers to replace teachers who retire; and of performance-related pay progression. The increases in the years to March 2000 are actual increases; those for 2001 and 2002 are estimates. Occasional and unqualified teachers are not included.

  Citizenship Education
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are being taken to improve education for international understanding, as part of the UK programme of citizenship education. [53588]

  Margaret Hodge
  From September 2002, when citizenship becomes statutory in secondary schools, pupils will be taught about the world as a global community, and the political economic, environmental and social implications of this. Pupils will learn about the United Kingdom's relations in Europe, including the European Union, Commonwealth and the United Nations and the wider issues and challenges of global interdependence and responsibility.

  The DFES is funding organisations to produce resource materials to support schools. For example, we worked with Department for International Development (DfID) and the Development Education Association (DEA) to produce a guide "Developing a Global Dimension in the school curriculum". In addition, detailed guidance produced by the QCA, sent to all secondary schools, include a unit—"Debating a global issue" which encourages pupils to develop international understanding. The guidance is available at www.dfes.gov.uk/citizenship.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she has introduced since 1997 to aid recruitment and retention of lecturers in higher education. [53628]

  Margaret Hodge
  The recruitment and retention of staff is the responsibility of higher education institutions. However, our spending plans for the English higher education sector include £50 million in 2001–02, rising to £110 million in 2002–03 and £170 million in 2003–04, to underpin the human resource strategies which institutions have drawn up, and which address recruitment and retention as well as the modernisation of reward systems.

  School Budgets
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the proportion of a school's budget in the current financial year which is available as discretionary spending for the head teacher. [54273]
  89W
  Mr. Timms
  In general, it is for the governing body of each school to determine the extent to which authority to spend the public funds available to the school should be delegated to the head teacher. The proportion of a school's budget which is under the head's control will accordingly vary from school to school, and no statistical information on this point is collected by the Department.

  Teachers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the reason for the change in the number of retirements due to ill-health by teachers since 1997. [54277]

  Mr. Timms
  The criteria governing entitlement to ill health retirement benefits were amended in 1997 to require that, despite appropriate treatment, applicants have a medical condition that would render them permanently incapable of undertaking any further teaching. In this context, permanent is defined as lasting at least up to the scheme's normal retirement age of 60. This replaced the previous less stringent criteria that required the presence of a medical condition that would prevent teaching only for the foreseeable future (defined as lasting at least 3–4 years).

  The Department also commissioned the Faculty of Occupational Medicine to produce occupational health guidance specifically aimed at the employers of teachers. This guidance was published in December 2000. The reduction in the number of ill health retirements since 1997 is therefore a consequence of a greater awareness among teachers' employers of the benefits of effective occupational health provision, including consideration of alternatives to ill-health retirement such as part-time working or redeployment to less demanding duties, and the more rigorous criteria governing entitlement to ill health retirement benefits.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her written answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 572W, where such assets are held if the scheme is unfunded. [54275]

  Mr. Timms
  The valuation of the Teachers' Pension Scheme is conducted on a notional basis. There are no tangible assets, but in carrying out the valuation the Government Actuary calculates what the assets of the scheme would have been if a real fund had been in existence.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what happens to the money paid by teachers and employers as pension contributions if their pension fund is unfunded. [54274]

  Mr. Timms
  Contributions to the Teachers' Pension Scheme by teachers and their employers are paid into the Exchequer and used to defray the cost of paying benefits under the scheme.

  School Attendance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many prosecutions have taken 90W
  place for non-attendance at school in each year since 1997; how many have resulted in convictions; and what sentences were passed. [53890]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Information on prosecutions brought under Education Act 1996, section 444 "failing to secure regular attendance at school", will be available for the first time in 'Criminal Statistics for England & Wales 2001' which will be published by the Home Office in September of this year. This section of the Act has only come onto the criminal statistics code book for 2001; previously it was grouped within all prosecutions under the Education Act 1996 and it is not possible to separate the different sections of the Act.

  School Provision
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in what circumstances the obligations under education legislation(a) to provide schooling and (b) for parents to ensure school attendance may be disapplied for children of compulsory school age resident in the United Kingdom. [53943]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Local Education authorities are obligated to provide suitable education for all children of compulsory school age at school or otherwise than at school under the Education Act 1996 (sections 13, 14 and 19 as amended).

  The parent of every child of compulsory school age is obligated to cause him to receive suitable full-time education either by regular attendance at school or otherwise (Education Act 1996 section 7). If a child of compulsory school age who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly at the school, his parent is guilty of an offence. However the child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly under the circumstances outlined in the Education Act 1996 section 444 subsections (3) to (6).

  Local Education Authority Funding
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 23 April 2002,Official Report, columns 163–67W, on LEA funding, what the comparable figures are for each of the last five years. [54357]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested in respect of the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 has been placed in the Library. Because of the changes in the structure of the school funding system which took effect in April 1999, it is not possible to provide corresponding figures for previous years.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what post-16 budget support grant is payable to each local education authority in England; and in each case what the category is under which the grant is payable. [54327]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows the post-16 budget support grant payable to each local education authority in categories 1a, 1b and 2. Because Category 3 grant depends on adjustments to be made to Learning and Skills Council grant during the course of 2002–03, the amount of that grant cannot be given. (The information given on
  91W
  categories 1 and 2 supersedes that given to the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 30 April).

  Post-16 budget support grant

  £ million

  Category

  LEA

  1a

  1b

  2

  Total

  201 City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  202 Camden

  0

  0

  0

  0

  203 Greenwich

  0

  0

  0.451

  0.451

  204 Hackney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  206 Islington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  0.075

  0

  0

  0.075

  208 Lambeth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  209 Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  210 Southwark

  0

  0

  0

  0

  211 Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  0

  0

  212 Wardsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  213 Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  301 Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  302 Barnet

  0.800

  0

  0

  0.800

  303 Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  304 Brent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  305 Bromley

  0.457

  0

  0.064

  0.522

  306 Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  307 Ealing

  0

  0.146

  0.228

  0.374

  308 Enfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  309 Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  310 Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  311 Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  312 Hillingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  313 Hounslow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  0.129

  0

  0.008

  0.137

  315 Merton

  0

  0.110

  0

  0.110

  316 Newham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  317 Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0

  319 Sutton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  320 Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  330 Birmingham

  0

  0

  0.223

  0.223

  331 Coventry

  0

  0

  0.656

  0.656

  332 Dudley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  333 Sandwell

  0

  0

  0.044

  0.044

  334 Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  335 Walsall

  0

  0

  0

  0.000

  336 Wolverhampton

  0

  0.060

  0.180

  0.240

  340 Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  341 Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  342 St. Helens

  0

  0

  0

  0

  343 Sefton

  0.561

  0

  0

  0.561

  344 Wirral

  0

  0.208

  0

  0.208

  350 Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  351 Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  352 Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  353 Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  354 Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  355 Salford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  356 Stockport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  357 Tameside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  358 Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  395 Wigan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  370 Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  371 Doncaster

  0.111

  0

  0

  0.111

  372 Rotherham

  0

  0

  0.116

  0.116

  373 Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  380 Bradford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  381 Calderdale

  0

  0.457

  0

  0.457

  382 Kirklees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  383 Leeds

  0

  0

  0

  0

  384 Wakefield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  390 Gateshead

  0

  0.109

  0

  0.109

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  0.282

  0.282

  392 North Tyneside

  0.223

  0

  0

  0.223

  92W

  Post-16 budget support grant

  £ million

  category

  LEA

  1a

  1b

  2

  Total

  393 South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  394 Sunderland

  0

  0.029

  0

  0.029

  420 Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  800 Bath and North East Somerset

  0.426

  0

  0

  0.426

  801 Bristol, city of

  0

  0

  0

  0

  802 North Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  803 South Gloucestershire

  0.931

  0.505

  0

  1.437

  805 Hartlepool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  806 Middlesbrough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  807 Redcar and Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  808 Stockton-on-Tees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  810 Kingston upon Hill, City of

  0

  0

  0

  0

  811 East Riding of Yorkshire

  0.575

  0

  0

  0.575

  812 North East Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  813 North Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  815 North Yorkshire

  1.093

  0

  0

  1.093

  816 York

  0.316

  0

  0

  0.316

  820 Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0.190

  0.190

  821 Luton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  825 Buckinghamshire

  0

  0

  0.080

  0.080

  826 Milton Keynes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  830 Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  831 Derby

  0

  0

  0

  0

  835 Dorset

  1.222

  0

  0

  1.222

  836 Poole

  0.301

  0

  0

  0.301

  837 Bournemouth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  840 Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  841 Darlington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  845 East Sussex

  0

  0

  0.149

  0.149

  846 Brighton and Hove

  0

  0

  0

  0

  850 Hampshire

  0

  0

  0.010

  0.010

  851 Portsmouth

  —

  —

  0

  0

  852 Southampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  855 Leicestershire

  1.731

  0.114

  0

  1.844

  856 Leicester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  857 Rutland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  860 Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0.000

  861 Stoke-on-Trent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  865 Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  866 Swindon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  867 Bracknell Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  868 Windsor and Maidenhead

  0

  0

  0.010

  0.010

  869 West Berkshire

  0

  0.254

  0.042

  0.297

  870 Reading

  0

  0

  0

  0

  871 Slough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  872 Wokingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  873 Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0.094

  0.094

  874 Peterborough

  0.428

  0

  0

  0.428

  875 Cheshire

  0.387

  0

  0

  0.387

  876 Halton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  877 Warrington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  878 Devon

  0.625

  0

  0

  0.625

  879 Plymouth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  880 Torbay

  0

  0

  0

  0

  881 Essex

  0

  0

  0.243

  0.243

  882 Southend-on-Sea

  0

  0

  0

  0

  883 Thurrock

  0

  0

  0

  0

  884 Herefordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  885 Worcestershire

  0.536

  .0242

  0

  0.778

  886 Kent

  0

  0

  0.479

  0.479

  887 Medway

  0.041

  0

  0.138

  0.179

  888 Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  889 Blackburn with Darwen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  890 Blackpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  891 Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  892 Nottingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  893 Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  894 Telford and Wrekin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  908 Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  909 Cumbria

  0.470

  0

  0.009

  0.478

  916 Gloucestershire

  0

  0.397

  0

  0.397

  919 Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  93W

  Post-16 budget Support grant

  £ million

  Category

  LEA

  1a

  1b

  2

  Total

  921 Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  925 Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0.041

  0.041

  926 Norfolk

  0

  0

  0.159

  0.159

  928 Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0.081

  0.081

  929 Northumberland

  0.568

  0.300

  0.010

  0.877

  931 Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0.014

  0.014

  933 Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  935 Suffolk

  0.466

  0

  0

  0.466

  936 Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  937 Warwickshire

  0.672

  9

  0.024

  0.696

  938 West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grand total

  13.144

  2.930

  4.025

  20.099

  Truancy (Surrey)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the truancy figures are for secondary schools in Surrey for each year since 1997; and how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions for non-attendance at these schools there have been since 1997. [54325]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Unauthorised absence for maintained secondary schools in Surrey is as follows:

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absences

  Year

  Percentage

  1996–97

  0.4

  1997–98

  0.4

  1998–99

  0.5

  1999–2000

  0.7

  2000–01

  1.0

  As part of their local public service agreement, agreed with the Government in April 2001, Surrey local authority have chosen to have a target to reduce the percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absence in primary and secondary schools.

  Information on prosecutions brought under Education Act 1996, section 444 "failing to secure regular attendance at school", will he available for the first time in 'Criminal Statistics for England and Wales 2001' which will be published by the Home Office in September of this year. This section of the Act has only come on to the criminal statistics code book for 2001; previously it was grouped within all prosecutions under the Education Act 1996 and it is not possible to separate the different sections of the Act.

  Selection (Schools)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of the relative performance of non-selective schools in areas with grammar schools, by comparison with comprehensives. [54893]

  Mr. Timms
  None. An assessment carried out two years ago comparing the performance at GCSE of pupils at grammar schools and their equivalent ability cohort in comprehensive schools showed a modest advantage to the latter.

HEALTH

  NHS Pay
  10. Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the(a) Royal College of Surgeons, (b) BMA and (c) Royal College of Nursing over pay; and if he will make a statement. [52781]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health is currently negotiating new contracts for consultants and other NHS staff involving the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. A framework agreement for the new General Medical Services contract was negotiated between the NHS Confederation and the BMA's GP Committee and was published for consultation on 19 April 2002.

  NHS Consultants
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants were working in the NHS in 1997; and what the latest available figure is. [52782]

  Yvette Cooper
  In 1997, there were 21,370 consultants working in the national health service. The latest census figures (September 2001) show that there are now 25,690 working in the NHS, an increase of 20 per cent.

  Harassment
  12. Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of sexual abuse and harassment have been reported since the NHS guidance "Safety, privacy and dignity in mental health units" was issued in June 2000. [52783]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not hold this information centrally, but in line with the Department's guidance issued in June 2000, there should be monitoring and recording of all incidents of violence or threatening behaviour at trust level and the board will monitor all complaints to enable identification of problems relating to the safety and dignity of patients.

  Patient Lists
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the right of GPs to remove patients from their list. [52784]

  Mr. Hutton
  General practitioners have the right to remove patients from their list but in so doing they should comply with the guidance provided by the General Medical Council. Patients should be removed only as a last resort and GPs should as far as possible give reasons for the removal. Changes to the procedures for removing patients from GP lists are being renegotiated as part of the new contract for GPs.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals are in place to develop the roles of Area Child Protection Committees. [52786]

  Jacqui Smith
  The role of Area Child Protection Committees (ACPCs) is set out in Government guidance, "Working Together to Safeguard Children" published in December 1999. We are aware that the Victoria Climbie
  95W
  Inquiry is discussing the role of ACPCs as part of phase two of the inquiry and we await the report of the inquiry, later this year, with interest.

  Anti-smoking Measures
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to promote the use of laser therapy to assist smoking cessation. [52787]

  Yvette Cooper
  This Government are committed to promoting effective interventions that are proven to help people stop smoking. At present we are not aware of robust scientific evidence which shows that laser therapy helps people to quit.

  NHS Management
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will reduce the number of management priorities set for the NHS. [52788]

  Mr. Hutton
  Yes. The Planning and Priorities Framework issued for 2002–03 contained a reduced number of priorities compared with previous years.

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to increase recruitment and retention of NHS staff. [52789]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government are implementing a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention of all staff. These include improved pay, support for flexible working and child care, increasing training commissions and reducing student attrition. This work is being supported by national and local recruitment and return to practice campaigns.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage more people to become nurses and doctors. [52792]

  Mr. Hutton
  Annual national recruitment campaigns have succeeded in raising the profile of careers in the NHS and promote the NHS as an employer of choice.

  Trusts and Workforce Development Confederations build on national advertisement material targeting people of all ages.

  NHS careers provides information on careers and flexible entry routes.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on dispensing fees for pharmacists. [52790]

  Ms Blears
  The current basic dispensing fee is 94.6 pence per prescription item.

  Residential Homes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds for elderly people there were in residential homes in(a) May 1997 and (b) April 2002. [52791]
  96W
  Jacqui Smith
  On 31 March 1997 there were some 261,600 places for older people in residential care homes. The number of places on 31 March 2001 was 260,100, a reduction of 0.5 per cent.

  Haemophiliacs
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of recombinant treatment to adults with haemophilia. [52793]

  Yvette Cooper
  Recombinant clotting factors are provided in England for new haemophilia patients and children under 16 (from April 1998). The United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctor's Organisation has advised that recombinant clotting factors are available to those who are eligible to receive them.

  Small Pharmacies Scheme
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on future funding levels for the essential small pharmacies scheme. [52794]

  Ms Blears
  The Essential Small Pharmacy Scheme supports pharmacies providing NHS pharmaceutical services in areas which might otherwise not be well served. We review regularly the terms and conditions and levels of allowances for the Scheme.

  Looked-after Children
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Government plan to ensure more stability for looked-after children. [52795]

  Jacqui Smith
  Improving placement stability will be achieved by better assessment of need using the Government guidance "Framework for Assessment of Children In Need and their Families", and by placing children in appropriate well-supported placements.

  In addition to the current work to maximise permanence through adoption, the Government is now carrying out 'Choice Protects', a review of commissioning placements and fostering services. This review aims to help councils deliver improved services for their looked after children.

  Waiting Times
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been waiting 13 weeks or more to see a consultant; and what the figure was on 31 March 1997. [52796]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) earlier today.

  NHS Dental Services (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on NHS dental service provision in Lancashire. [52797]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since the beginning of October last year, Ministers have replied to three Parliamentary Questions and one letter from an hon. Member on this subject.

  NHS Debt
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the increase in funding for the NHS announced in the Budget will be used to write off the debts of those health authorities and NHS trusts that are in debt. [52798]

  Mr. Hutton
  No.

  Resources will continue to be allocated on the basis of the relative needs of Primary Care Trust populations.

  It will be used to build capacity to allow more patients to be treated and more people cared for more quickly and to higher standards.

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards a reduction in hospital-acquired infections. [52799]

  Yvette Cooper
  For the first time this February we published methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus rates for all English acute hospital trusts. This will provide a baseline to measure improvements in hospital acquired infection. A range of actions to reduce HAI is under way and a targeted action plan is being developed as part of the infectious disease strategy.

  Patient Referral
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will restore patients' rights to seek referral by their general practitioners for publicly funded treatment in any NHS hospital. [52800]

  Mr. Hutton
  Previous arrangements only gave some general practitioners, not patients, choice over where patients were treated. We are committed to giving all patients choice, for the first time, over where and when they are treated. By 2005, all patients, together with their GPs, will be able to choose the date, time and place of their treatment.

  Through the additional resources made available to the national health service each year, we are demonstrating our commitment by piloting patient choice from July 2002. Funding for the NHS announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer further demonstrates this commitment.

  Hospices
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase funding for hospices to compensate for higher national insurance contributions. [52802]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government are making an extra £50 million available for specialist palliative care, including hospices by 2004. This investment must be based on locally agreed strategic plans for palliative care. We are monitoring progress in providing this extra investment. We would expect the national health service to take all matters including national insurance contributions into consideration when deciding the level of funding for hospices.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of in-patient hospice services are provided by the independent charitable sector. [48722]
  98W
  Yvette Cooper
  About 80 per cent. of all in-patient specialist palliative care beds are provided in voluntary hospices.

  NHS Dentistry
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives are given to dentists to practise within the NHS in socially deprived areas. [52803]

  Ms Blears
  Health authorities have the power to commission local personal dental services contracts with dentists. This provides for the occasional treatment of non-registered patients and is particularly useful in making up shortfalls in urgent treatment. The Government supported this scheme with over £1 million funding in 2001–02 and we are currently considering ways of building on this provision during 2002–03.

  This is an especially valuable service to patients in deprived areas where registrations with dentists are particularly low. In addition, dental access centres are increasing opportunities for employment of salaried dentists in a number of socially deprived areas.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) children and (b) adults in England are registered with an NHS dentist. [52808]

  Ms Blears
  60 per cent. of children and 43 per cent. of adults were registered with a General Dental Service (GDS) dentist in England at 28 February 2002.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS dental services. [52809]

  Ms Blears
  Arrangements are now in place to ensure that patients can gain access to National Health Services simply by calling NHS Direct. This means that even if a patient chooses not to register with a dentist it will still be possible for that patient to access all forms of dentistry that are provided by the NHS.

  Over the last 18 months we have spent £100 million on modernising NHS dentistry. £10 million of this was for the dental care development fund and the dentistry action plan fund to support local plans to improve access. This money enables health authorities to assist dentists seeking to set up new practices and to expand and modernise existing ones.

  The modernising project "Options for Change" is looking at all aspects of the delivery of dental care, and has involved the profession at a high level throughout.

  Officials have developed a positive relationship with the profession, and are continuing to work with them to improve the remuneration system, and provide incentives for dentists to remain in the NHS. This year the commitment payment scheme, which has been well received by the profession, was extended to include dentists with five years of service in the NHS.

  Senior Health Managers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to establish an international centre of excellence for the training of senior health managers. [52804]
  99W
  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Modernisation Agency and NHS Leadership Centre provide leading edge training for senior health managers and clinicians drawing on national and international experts in the fields of leadership development, strategic change management and service redesign. Close links are being made with the National Health Service University as it develops its curriculum.

  Property Prices
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of rising property prices on the number of private nursing and residential care homes. [52805]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is funding the personal social services research unit to examine the reasons behind home closures. The most commonly cited cause was found to be business failure. Among the other factors identified was the high value of property, making it attractive for care home owners to cash in their investments.

  As announced on 17 April by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are increasing the resources for personal social services by an annual average of 6 per cent. in real terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06. Local authorities will be able to use these substantial extra resources to stabilise the care home market and to enable them to pay fair and realistic fee levels.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the costs to the national health service in this financial year of alcohol abuse; and if he will make a statement. [52806]

  Ms Blears
  Three independent studies have been undertaken looking at the costs of alcohol abuse.

  In 1987 a study by Godfrey and Maynard estimated the cost to the National Health Service was £400 million. A further study by Godfrey and Hardman in 1994 estimated the cost to the NHS in 1992 was around £200 million. The most recent study by the Royal College of Physician published in 2001 estimated the cost as £3 billion.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on steps he is taking to deal with alcohol abuse and its impact on health services. [52810]

  Ms Blears
  We are undertaking a number of initiatives to reduce alcohol misuse, for the benefit of both patients and public services. These include work on health promotion and education, the piloting of a new alcohol training course for general practitioners and practice nurses to help them to support patients who need to cut down on their alcohol consumption, the funding of nearly 500 alcohol treatment services in England and cracking down on violence towards NHS staff through the NHS zero tolerance zone campaign. The national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse, which the Department will be implementing by 2004, will also consider the impact of alcohol misuse on the public services and wider society.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability of alcohol care services. [52811]
  100W
  Ms Blears
  A recent study carried out for the Department indicated that there were nearly 500 alcohol treatment services in England. The provision of alcohol treatment services is principally a local matter. Primary care trusts carry out assessments of local need and commission services to meet that need.

  Dispensing Fees
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on dispensing fees for pharmacists. [52807]

  Ms Blears
  The current basic dispensing fee is 94.6 pence per prescription item.

  Maternity Statistics
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what maternity statistics the Government plan to publish; and by what means and when user organisations will he involved in discussions on this. [38776]

  Yvette Cooper
  The third in the series of statistical bulletins "NHS Maternity Statistics, England", covering data for the years 1998–99 to 2000–01, was published in April 2002. This contained similar information to that in the second bulletin, "NHS Maternity Statistics, England", 1995–96 to 1997–98, which is available in the Library and also on the website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/ public/sb0114.htm.

  Following publication it is planned to consult the health statistics users' group regarding the content of future bulletins.

  The NHS Maternity Statistics bulletin is produced by the Department and summarises information from the Hospital Episodes (HES) System relating to NHS maternities in England. It contains information such as labour onset method and delivery method, including caesarean rates, at hospital/trust level. It also has regional information about the place of delivery, length of stay in hospital, use of episiotomy, type of anaesthetic used, and national information for numbers of singleton and multiple deliveries by birthweight and gestation and day of week of delivery. Tables also show percentages of pregnancies and deliveries with antenatal and postnatal problems by diagnosis and delivery method and similar tables for problems with the newborn.

  The first bulletin was published in December 1997 and covered the first six years of maternity HES 1989–90 to 1994–95. The second bulletin published in June 2001 covered data for the next three years 1995–96 to 1997–98. Data for 1998–99 to 2000–01 was published in April 2002. It is expected that the bulletin will then be published annually.

  Variant CJD
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has assessed the costs to the NHS of instruments destroyed following the CJD incident panel consultation report. [41803]

  Ms Blears
  The CJD Incident Panel consultation is not yet complete. An open meeting is planned on 17 April 2002 to discuss the results of the public consultation process.
  101W
  Information on national health service instruments destroyed or removed from general circulation is not routinely collected. Nevertheless, based on Panel advice to date, the Department is aware of the destruction of three pairs of NHS forceps, together valued at approximately £100. This does not take account of action taken by individual trusts on their own initiative in cases where the panel's advice has not been formally sought.

  Health Checks (Over-75s)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve take-up of over-75 health checks. [42087]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department will review the effectiveness of the over-75 health check, and the relationship to the single assessment process for older people, in the light of results from comprehensive research commissioned by the Department and the Medical Research Council. Findings will be reported in 2003.

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reduction in waiting times for cataract operations there has been in South Staffordshire since 1997. [42509]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table shows information on ophthalmology in-patient waiting times for South Staffordshire health authority. (Ophthalmology data include cataract operations).

  Ophthalmology waiting lists for South Staffordshire health authority

  Over 18 months

  Over 15 months

  Over 12 months

  1997–98

  0

  0

  31

  1998–99

  0

  0

  29

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  107

  2000–01

  0

  0

  23

  2001–02

  0

  0

  0

  Reduction on 1997 (percentage)

  —

  —

  100

  Source:

  Department of Health

  Medical Services
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve access to medical services for individuals Whose first language is not English. [42406]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Plan recognises that we live in a diverse society and sets out as core principles that the national health service will shape its services around the needs of the patient, be responsive to the needs of different groups and individuals within society and challenge discrimination on the grounds of age, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability and sexuality.

  1997–98

  1998–99,

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust

  50,947

  53,611

  53,845

  54,489

  Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  23,288

  24,311

  25,660

  26,418

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  7,148

  8,431

  8,832

  9,307

  Shropshire Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  1,680

  4,449

  4,297

  4,301

  102W
  The NHS Plan sets out a target of having translation and interpreting services available throughout the country by 2003. The Department has designated NHS Direct as the gateway to the whole NHS for those whose first language is not English by 2003. These services will be a pivotal building block in achieving the patient-centred services envisaged in the NHS Plan and the targets set in the national service frameworks. The development of telephone based support via NHS Direct and organisations such as language line (used in the NHS walk-in centres) offer alternatives to help with the delivery of languages needed in a co-ordinated way.

  The vital connection also sets out the need for local health and other organisations to develop integrated communication strategies as part of the health improvement and modernisation plans.

  Also, the NHS Plan includes a commitment that from 2002 it will be a pre-condition of qualification to delivering care in the NHS, that an individual has demonstrated competence in communications with patients. Plans to deliver on this target include the development of core curriculum in communication skills.

  It is the responsibility of primary care trusts to ensure that the local health service reflects the needs of local communities.

  Accident Response Times
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average response times were for the medical services to reach an accident on(a) a motorway and (b) an A-road in each of the last three years. [42785]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave her on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 456W.

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the functions of his Department that have been(a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case.[42998]

  Ms Blears
  The Department ran market-testing programmes in 1995 and 1997, which generated substantial savings.

  Market testing was subsequently replaced by Better Quality Services (BQS) initiative in July 1998, which was introduced to ensure that all services provided by central Government are regularly reviewed and that action is taken to achieve improvements.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patient admissions there were to Shropshire hospitals in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [44679]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Child and Family Support Service
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed in the Child and Family Support Service. [45486]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the whole-time equivalent number of staff employed by councils with social services responsibilities in England in relation to child and family support services at 30 September 2001 is shown in the table. These figures exclude central and strategic staff and certain other categories of staff who provide more generic services across the range of council responsibilities. No information is available centrally on the numbers of people in the private and voluntary sectors who are providing services to children and families on behalf of councils with social services responsibilities.

  Staff employed by councils with social services responsibilities in England on child and family support services—whole time equivalent at 30 September 2001

  Type of staff

  Number

  Area office staff (including social work staff)

  21,380

  Day care staff

  Family centres

  3,715

  Nurseries and play groups

  2,260

  Residential care staff

  Children with learning disabilities

  2,045

  Community homes for children looked after

  8,685

  Occupational therapists

  105

  Source:

  Form SSDS001, annual return of staff employed in social services departments made by local authorities to the Department of Health.

  Hospitals (Shropshire)
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the budgets for(a) the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, (b) the Princess Royal hospital, Telford and (c) the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt hospital in each year since 1995. [45732]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: Budgets for the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust, the Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust and the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt NHS Trust from 1998 to 2001.

  £000

  Financial year

  Princess Royal

  Trust Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt

  Royal Shrewsbury

  Total

  1998–99

  36,212

  25,723

  69,406

  131,341

  1999–2000

  40,216

  30,447

  84,600

  155,263

  2000–01

  43,770

  32,077

  80,280

  156,127

  Source:
  Annual accounts of the Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust, the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Hospital NHS Trust and the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital Trust.

  The budgets have been assumed to be the total income of the trusts during the financial years for which information is readily available.

  Smoking
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of adults smoked in each year since 1992(a) in total and (b) by social class. [45781]
  104W
  Yvette Cooper
  Smoking prevalence among the adult population (persons aged 16 and over) in England is measured by the General Household Survey; figures are available by manual and non-manual socio-economic group.

  The latest results available are from the 2000 survey. In surveys prior to 2000, the results have been presented as unweighted data to compensate for under-representation of people in some groups. Therefore, 1998 data have been presented in the table as both weighted and unweighted to allow for comparisons between 1992 to 1998 (unweighted) and 1998 to 2000 (weighted).

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking since 1992—All persons, and by whether household reference person is in a non-manual or manual socio-economic group1: 1992 to 2000, England

  Percentage

  Unweighted

  Weighted

  Persons aged 16 and over

  19923

  19943

  19963

  1998

  1998

  2000

  Non-manual

  23

  21

  22

  21

  22

  23

  Manual

  33

  32

  34

  32

  33

  31

  All persons

  28

  26

  28

  27

  28

  27

  1Head of household in years before 2000. Persons whose head of household/household reference person was in the armed forces or a full-time student are not shown as separate categories, but are included in the totals.

  2Trend tables show unweighted and weighted figures for 1998 to allow for direct comparison between 1998 and 2000 and to give an indication of the effect of the weighting.

  3Figures for 1992 to 1996 are taken from the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Statistics on Smoking: England, 1978 onwards".

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics "Living in Britian: results from the 2000 General Household Survey"

  London Stationery Office

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that district general nurses have protection if they blow the whistle on care homes that are suspected of failing standards. [45699]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: We expect a climate of openness and dialogue in the national health service and a culture and environment that encourages staff to feel able to raise concerns about healthcare matters sensibly and responsibly without fear of victimisation.

  Guidance issued in Health Service Circular (HSC) 1999/198 on 27 August 1999 reinforced the above message. The HSC stated that all NHS trusts and health authorities are expected to issue guidance to staff so that they know how to raise concerns in a reasonable and responsible way. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) gives significant statutory protection to employees who disclose information reasonably and responsibly in the public interest and are victimised as a result.

  All employees would be protected for raising concerns with their employees under PIDA. District general nurses who may be employed either by the NHS, a local authority or the private sector can now raise concerns with the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) who is responsible for inspecting the quality of service provided in a variety of care establishments.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Energy Management Scheme for the North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49514]

  Ms Blears
  The business case justifying the individual schemes estimated the net savings in present value terms (ie all future costs and benefits discounted to their present values) compared with publicly funding the scheme as follows:

  Net present costs of PSC v PFI option

  £000s

  Trust

  PFI

  Public

  1Savings

  Difference

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  3,914

  4,340

  426

  11%

  1In net present value terms.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Graylingwell hospital reprovision for the Sussex Weald and Downs NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49542]

  Ms Blears
  The business case justifying the individual schemes estimated the net savings in present value terms (ie future costs and benefits discounted to their present values) compared with publicly funding the scheme as follows:

  Net present costs of PSC v PFI option

  £000s

  Trust

  PFI

  Public

  1Savings

  Difference

  West Sussex Health and Social Care NHS Trust

  3,772

  3,491

  281

  7.45%

  1In net present value terms.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Patient Management Centre for the North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49523]

  Ms Blears
  The business case justifying the individual schemes estimated the net savings in present value terms (ie all future costs and benefits discounted to their present values) compared with publicly funding the scheme as follows:

  Net present costs of PSC v PFI option

  £000s

  Trust

  PFI

  Public

  1Savings

  Difference

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,081

  2,289

  208

  10%

  1In net present value terms.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the private finance initiative contract for the MRI 106W
  Scanner for the North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust by comparison with a non-private finance initiative alternative. [49527]

  Ms Blears
  The business case justifying the individual schemes estimated the net savings in present value terms (ie all future costs and benefits discounted to their present values) compared with publicly funding the scheme as follows:

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Net present costs of PSC v. PFI option

  PFI(£000)

  2,487

  Public (£000)

  3,130

  Savings in net present value terms (£000)

  643

  Percentage difference

  26

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions; [49140]

  (2) what the cost was to his Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated. [49098]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 929W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 11 March from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West enclosing correspondence from Mrs. Galloway. [48732]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 22 April.

  NHS (Adverse Incidents)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to issue guidance to implement a new system for independent investigations and inquiries into adverse incidents in the NHS; and whether this will replace HSG (94) 27. [49776]

  Ms Blears
  In the report "Building a safer NHS for patients" published in June 2000, the Department set out its proposals for a new system for managing and reporting adverse events in the national health service which involved patients. This guidance will be issued within the next 12 months.

  Health service guidelines (HSG) (94) 27 provides guidance for the health service on investigations into the care and circumstances of people in contact with specialist mental health services who commit homicide. "Building a safer NHS for patients" stated that such investigations would be covered in the new guidance; further guidance will be issued over the next year. In the meantime HSG (94) 27 remains in force.

  Marfan Syndrome
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been invested in research into Marfan syndrome since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [48845]

  Ms Blears
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC's total spend on Marfan syndrome since 1997 is approximately £3.5 million.

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department also provides national health service support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS. Management of much of the research supported by national health service research and development funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department.

  Details of ongoing and recently completed research projects funded by, or of interest to, the NHS are available on the National Research Register (NRR) at www.doh.gov.uk/ research/nrr.htm. The NRR projects database show that there are currently two ongoing and 23 completed research projects related to Marfan syndrome.

  Strokes and Dysphasia
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what speech therapy treatment is available to patients recovering from strokes and sufferers from dysphasia who are under 65 years of age in the New Forest; and if he will make a statement. [49016]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the location of local services is not collected centrally.

  We recognise that there is a need nationally for additional speech and language therapists. The NHS Plan, published in 2000, announced an increase in the number of training places for therapists and other health professionals, including speech and language therapists. By 2004 we intend to have established 4,450 more training places.

  Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total level of Government funding for research specifically related to Duchenne muscular dystrophy in the last six years has been; and what percentage this represents of the Government's total commitment to medical research in the last six years. [51141]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Dr. Hywel Francis) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) today.

  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much funding went into research that is directly related to finding a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy in the last 12 months; [51830]
  108W
  (2) what percentage of the Government's annual medical research budget research on finding a cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy represented in the last 12 months; [51831]

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated on total funding in each of the past three years for research on Duchenne's muscular dystrophy.[52050]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology.

  In the last six years the Medical Research Council (MRC) has spent around £3.8 million on muscular dystrophy as a whole. It is not possible to pull out Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy spending from this total, as much of the work is basic in nature and could apply to all forms of the disease. This represents 0.2 per cent. of the MRC's gross expenditure over this period.

  MRC spending on muscular dystrophy research for 2001–02 is an estimated £950,000 which represents 0.24 per cent. of the total £394 million gross expenditure.

  MRC spend in muscular dystrophy research for the last three years is in the table:

  £

  MRC spend

  1999–2000

  587,000

  2000–01

  1,108,000

  2001–02

  950,000

  Note:
  Figures for 2001–02 are estimates only. The figure for 2000–01 is higher than the £920,000 previously notified in parliamentary questions, UIN numbers 37124 and 37125 which we replied to on 26 February 2002. The MRC has now been able to produce a revised figure for spending on muscular dystrophy.

  Clinical and laboratory services for Duchenne muscular dystrophy are available through existing networks of regional genetics centres. There has been an increased level of investment in genetic services in general. In his speech in April 2001 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £30 million investment aimed at improving national health service genetics services, which families of people suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy will benefit from.

  The Department has provided support over the last decade to the umbrella charity the genetic interest group, of which the Duchenne family support group is a member organisation. This funding has been targeted to a range of initiatives intended to raise awareness of all inherited diseases.

  Alcohol Awareness
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to raise awareness of the issue of alcohol consumption among children of primary school age. [51557]
  109W
  Ms Blears
  Drug education, including alcohol education, in maintained schools is statutory part of the national curriculum. At Key Stage 2, 7 to 11-year-olds should learn that tobacco, alcohol and other drugs can have harmful effects.

  In addition to this, three years of focused effort has increased awareness among teachers and pupils of the dangers of alcohol misuse by:
  the production of guidance for schools;
  the launch of the joint Department of Health and Department of Education and Skills National Healthy School Standard (NHSS) in October 1999, of which drug, alcohol and tobacco education is a key component; and
  the publication of the Personal, Social and Health Education Framework (PSHE) in November 1999.

  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government's alcohol strategy will include a framework for raising awareness of the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption when pregnant. [51825]

  Ms Blears
  We believe that it is important to ensure that women are aware of the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption during pregnancy and we will certainly consider ways in which the national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse could be used to raise awareness.

  Alcohol Consumption (Students)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had regarding binge drinking and excessive alcohol consumption among the UK student population; and what plans he has to limit the form and content of alcohol advertising. [51555]

  Ms Blears
  The Government work closely with the alcohol industry and regularly conducts meetings with a wide range of organisations within the industry. The Portman Group, which represents a range of bodies, is closely involved in meetings with Ministers and departmental officials and is consulted on policy developments along with other interested bodies and individuals. Alcohol advertising is governed by a voluntary code of practise which works well and there are no current plans to limit the form or content of alcohol advertising. The code of practise ensures alcohol advertising is socially responsible, and does not specifically target young people. All authorities operate complaints procedures.

  Student Doctors
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 674W, on student doctors, how many students who registered to study medicine degree courses, subsequently dropped out of their courses before completion. [53322]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The available information on non-completion rates is contained in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education in the UK" published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). This gives an overall non-completion rate for all full-time first degree courses
  110W
  of 17 per cent., but this figure is not available for individual subjects. The UK has the second lowest dropout rate among OECD comparator courses.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on augmenting the personal allowances from pensions payable in care homes to take into account the level of savings of the individual pensioner. [53940]

  Jacqui Smith
  We intend that pensioners in residential care and nursing homes will gain from pension credit as other pensioners do. The Department is currently considering the details for achieving this.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many ambulances there are in(a) England, (b) the West Midlands and (c) Coventry; and how many on average have been operational at any one time in the last 12 months; [53936]

  (2) what measures he has taken since 1997 to increase the number of available ambulances.[53937]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of ambulance vehicles, and the number that are operational at any one time, is not collected centrally.

  In 1999–2000, an additional £21 million was invested recurrently in additional frontline ambulance staff and vehicles.

  Health Services (Solihull)
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate(a) the additional revenues accruing to Her Majesty's Government in national insurance contributions from the constituency of Solihull and (b) the additional resources which will be available to improve health services in Solihull as a result of the Budget. [52488]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested in regard to national insurance contributions is not available. However, I can confirm that as a result of the Budget, the national health service in England will receive an annual average real terms growth in resources of 7.4 per cent. for the five years from 2003–04 to 2007–08. Local allocations to primary care trusts will be announced later this year.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each(a) NHS region, (b) health authority and (c) NHS trust for each quarter of each of the last four years the (i) monetary value of approvals to use capital for revenue purposes, (ii) the number of approvals and (iii) the total capital allocation. [41846]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The majority of the information requested is contained in the tables which have been placed in the Library. Data is only readily available in the format requested for the last two financial years. Information about the number of approvals is not collected by the Department in the format requested.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to page 37 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency, what are the wider enforcement issues of relevance to the agency and its stakeholders that have been considered by the local authority enforcement liaison group. [49223]

  Yvette Cooper
  The local authority enforcement liaison group, which in November 2001 became the enforcement liaison group, has considered a number of issues that are not specifically covered by the framework agreement on local authority food law enforcement. These include: food surveillance mechanisms; sampling of imported foods; the Food Standard Agency's (FSA) communications strategy; schemes to increase the transparency of hygiene standards in food businesses; support for local authority food law enforcement work; traceability in the food chain; issues arising form the FSA's monitoring and audit of local authorities; and funding arrangements for local authority enforcement services.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the quality of the website of the Food Standards Agency. [49072]

  Yvette Cooper
  The structure of the Food Standards Agency's (FSA) new website, launched on 10 December 2001, reflects the FSA's core values of independence, openness and accessibility and has been well received by consumers and stakeholders. This is reflected in the considerable rise in traffic to the site.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the new cross-cutting arrangements for dealing with food incidents referred to on page 34 of the 2001 Food Standards Agency report were in place to coincide with the move of the Food Standards Agency to Aviation house. [49212]

  Yvette Cooper
  The arrangements for dealing with food incidents were reviewed prior to the move to Aviation house in spring 2001, and a new incidents room was established within the new office building. Subsequently a Food Standards Agency (FSA) wide food incidents committee has been established to monitor the FSA's handling of incidents.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken by his Department further to the Service Delivery Agreement target of the Food Standards Agency to publish a consultation document on future labelling policy. [49251]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) published a wide-ranging action plan on food labelling in September 2000 based upon issues identified as priorities in public consultation and consumer research. The FSA is consulting stakeholders on each individual initiative in the action plan as it is taken forward.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many open fora of the Food Standards Agency have been held since 31 May 2000. [49254]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Food Standards Agency held an open forum at Villa Park, Birmingham on 31 May 2000, where members of the public were invited to give their views on how the agency should operate and what they 112W
  saw as its priorities. Since then, the agency has held six similarly wide ranging open fora on food issues in Cardiff (May 2001), Dundee (June 2001), Bristol (September 2001), London (November 2001), Orkney (November 2001), and Inverness (November 2001). The agency has also held numerous public meetings across the UK dealing with specific issues such as the agency's review of BSE controls, BSE and sheep, food labelling, nutrition, genetic modification and folic acid fortification.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the agreed recommendations of the Pooley report which are within the remit of the Food Standards Agency have been implemented. [49244]

  Yvette Cooper
  There were originally 29 recommendations in the Pooley report for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to take forward, including those relating to meat inspection and the work of the meat hygiene service. One of these recommendations was subsequently transferred by agreement to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Of the remaining current 28 recommendations for the FSA, six require EU approval, and these are being worked on; 11 have been completed; 10 are being acted on; and one requires action this year.

  Progress on all these matters is detailed on the FSA website at http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/meat/redtapegroup and is updated monthly.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the result was of the discussions referred to on page 42 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency, between the Food Standards Agency and the trade unions about reviewing the FSA's pay arrangements; [49209]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the result of the approach by the Food Standards Agency to the Cabinet Office, referred to on page 42 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency, in pursuit of pay delegation. [49233]

  Yvette Cooper
  Pay delegation approval was obtained from the Cabinet Office in 2001 for the Food Standards Agency to develop and negotiate agency-specific pay arrangements. A two-year pay agreement was reached with the trade unions, effective from 1 August 2001.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken following the publication in February 2001 of the final report on the consumer surveys of attitudes towards food issues and the Food Standards Agency. [49252]

  Yvette Cooper
  The results of the Food Standards Agency's annual consumer attitudes survey are used to track changes in consumer preferences, attitudes and behaviour and to inform agency priorities and activities. Since the publication of the first survey in February 2001, the second survey has been published and key changes noted. Consumer priorities, behaviours and concerns continue to be reflected in agency priorities and activities. These include meat safety including BSE, food poisoning, food hygiene in catering outlets, feed given to livestock, pesticides, food labelling and healthy eating.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Food Standards Agency has met its service delivery agreement to increase the availability of its research results. [49075]
  113W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Food Standards Agency has improved the availability of its research results through publishing reports on its website, press releases, information leaflets and articles in popular and specialist publications. In addition, the agency encourages its research contractors to publish research results in the scientific press.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the target date of April 2001 for the development of the IiP action plan for the Food Standards Agency was met; [49226]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the deferral of the IiP website, referred to on page 41 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency. [49230]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency was prepared, the criteria in the assessment method for obtaining IiP accreditation have changed. Given the cyclical nature of some of the key processes, such as business planning and performance appraisal, the target date of April 2001 was deferred. The FSA now plans to begin to seek accreditation by the end of 2002. In support of this an action plan has been developed. The IiP website for the agency has also been established and is available to all staff.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the consultation(a) began and (b) ended on the hazard analysis and critical control points strategy prepared by the Food Standards Agency; [49239]

  (2) with reference to the 2000 spending review service delivery agreement targets, what percentage of food premises have implemented HACCP food safety management systems; [49235]

  (3) when the Food Standards Agency strategy was implemented for the promotion of hazard analysis and critical control points throughout the food chain. [49238]

  Yvette Cooper
  The paper on the hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) strategy, which was submitted to the board of the Food Standards Agency in November 2001, was produced following consultation with a range of organisations and relevant stakeholders.

  On the basis of a questionnaire sent to UK local authorities in September 2001, the FSA estimates that about 20 per cent. of food businesses operate HACCP based controls.

  The FSA is now considering detailed measures to take forward the HACCP action plan to implement the HACCP strategy.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action has been taken following the Research Review Group chaired by Sir John Arbuthnot review of the Food Standards Agency's future strategy for research; [49224]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the outcome of the review of the Food Standards Agency's research programme. [49253]

  Yvette Cooper
  The agency's board has accepted all 34 recommendations of the review of the Food Standards Agency's research portfolio and research management system. Thirteen of these recommendations have been implemented already in the 10 months since the report of 114W
  the review was published, in July 2001. The agency aims to complete the remaining 21 recommendations over the next four years.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvements have been made by the Food Standards Agency to hygiene assessment scores, as referred to on page 28 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency. [49242]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the performance of the meat hygiene service (MHS) against its targets for the year ended 31 March 2001, including that in relation to the improvement in hygiene standards in plants with low hygiene assessment system (HAS) scores, is currently being assembled in order for an assessment to be carried out and reported to the board of the Food Standards Agency. The outcome will be reported in the MHS's annual report and accounts which will be laid before Parliament before the House rises for the summer.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on development work around diversity issues, referred to on page 41 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency; [49228]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the preparation of the Food Standards Agency's diversity strategy. [49232]

  Yvette Cooper
  Development work has covered a range of diversity issues including the recruitment and development of agency staff, diversity training and the setting of agency-specific targets. A diversity action plan has been produced.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the introduction of 360-degree feedback for the senior civil service, referred to on page 41 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency. [49214]

  Yvette Cooper
  The first 360-degree feedback programme for members of the senior civil service in the Food Standards Agency has been completed.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what unannounced State Veterinary Service audits have been conducted by the Food Standards Agency in fresh meat establishments as referred to on page 28 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency. [49243]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 the State Veterinary Service made 173 unannounced visits to fresh meat premises. The purpose of these visits was to audit the Meat Hygiene Service enforcement of the controls on specified risk material.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the service delivery agreement referred to on page 26 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency, what new approaches that harness recent developments in e-technology have been published to provide advice for consumers. [49074]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Food Standards Agency website www.food.gov.uk provides an e-mail subscription facility which updates consumers and other stakeholders with food-related news and advice, including food hazard warnings, as they are published. The website is also available as a wireless application protocol facility.
  115W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which outside specialists, referred to on page 26 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency, have been appointed to carry out qualitative consumer market research on food safety and standards; and at what cost. [49071]

  Yvette Cooper
  The reference on page 26 is to quantitative market research. The Food Standards Agency annual consumer attitudes survey is conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres under Central Office of Information management. The research agency was appointed following a competitive tendering process.

  Costs for the most recent survey (conducted in autumn 2001 and published in February 2002) totalled £150,000.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of local authorities have been covered by the Food Standards Agency's targeted audit programme encompassing law reforming local authorities. [49240]

  Yvette Cooper
  In line with the targets published in the 2000 spending review service delivery agreement, the Food Standards Agency audited 10 per cent. of local authority food law enforcement services during 2001–02. Local authorities were selected for audit to represent a cross section of authority types, which included low performing local authorities. During 2001–02, 40 local authorities in England, 32 local authorities in Scotland and two in Wales were audited. In Northern Ireland, all five authorities scheduled for audit this year will have been audited by May 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if electronic transmissions of the quarterly returns of local authorities to the Food Standards Agency is undertaken by all local authorities. [49217]

  Yvette Cooper
  The vast majority of UK local authorities have submitted their final returns for 2001–02 in an electronic format and others are in the process of doing so. A small number of local authorities are, due to local IT difficulties, unable to make their return electronically. The agency has agreed these local authorities can submit data clerically, and is giving advice on resolving the IT difficulties.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the pieces of independent advice to Ministers which have been published by the Food Standards Agency since its inception. [49076]

  Yvette Cooper
  The agency routinely publishes advice to Ministers on issues of public importance and interest.

  Since its inception the Food Standards Agency has published, for example, significant advice to Ministers on:
  The public health implications of the contamination of certain crops with GM seeds
  The proposed MAFF strategy for Scrapie in sheep
  The immediate implications of the report of the BSE inquiry
  Its review of BSE controls
  The need for measures relating to BSE in French beef
  Implementation of EU maximum residue levels for pesticides.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the outcome was of the national programme of Food Standards Agency seminars arranged for January to March 2001 to improve the quality of local authority monitoring returns. [49210]
  116W
  Yvette Cooper
  12 seminars were conducted in the UK during the period, with a thirteenth in Northern Ireland in July. Some 650 local authority officers received half a day's training and guidance from agency officials on the new monitoring arrangements to be implemented with the introduction of the framework agreement.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the results of the baseline survey by the Food Standards Agency of salmonella in UK retail poultry. [49219]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Food Standards Agency survey of fresh and frozen raw chicken on retail sale was carried out between April and June 2001. The overall salmonella contamination level was 5.8 per cent. and these preliminary findings were announced on 16 August 2001.

  The level of salmonella contamination is markedly lower than in previous surveys of retail chicken in the UK. The findings from the 2001 survey indicate that substantial progress has been made in tackling this problem in the UK and, as a result, the agency's target of reducing salmonella contamination of UK retail chicken by 50 per cent. in five years has been met ahead of schedule.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the 2000 spending review service delivery agreement targets, if an audit unit within the Food Standards Agency in Scotland and an agreed local authority audit scheme were in place by April 2001. [49236]

  Yvette Cooper
  From 1 April 2001, The Food Standards Agency Scotland have had permanent staff appointed to carry out programmed audits of local authorities in Scotland.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has(a) been taken and (b) is planned, following the informal consultations by the Food Standards Agency on a proposal for an agency register of food business convictions. [49211]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is not proposing to proceed with the establishment of a national register of food business convictions at this time as this would not provide the most effective means for increasing the transparency of standards in food businesses. The FSA is, however, considering other options for achieving increased transparency.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the latest annual survey of consumer attitudes towards food issues and the Food Standards Agency published by the Food Standards Agency. [49047]

  Yvette Cooper
  The 2001 study is the second annual survey of over 3,100 people across the UK. As in 2000, food poisoning (59 per cent.) and BSE (55 per cent.) remained the major issues of concern. Nearly half of those questioned felt that food safety standards had improved in the last year. The survey revealed a significant increase in awareness of and confidence in the Food Standards Agency between 2000 and 2001.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Welsh translation of the Food Standards Agency teaching packs "Aliens in our Food", and "The Adventures of Safe-T and the H-Squad" has been prepared. [49220]
  117W
  Yvette Cooper
  Welsh language versions of these resources have been developed and copies were distributed by Food Standards Agency Wales to all primary and secondary schools in Wales, as appropriate, during 2000.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to 2000 spending review service delivery agreement targets referred to on page 28 of the 2001 report of the Food Standards Agency, what audits of local authorities targeting specific policy issues are to be undertaken by the Food Standards Agency in 2002–03. [49237]

  Yvette Cooper
  The audit programme for the first quarter of 2002–03 has been announced and is under way. The audit programme for the remainder of 2002–03 is currently being considered by the Food Standards Agency and a paper is to be presented at the next board meeting in May. This will address whether the future audit programme should include audits targeting specific enforcement policy issues.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the service delivery agreement target of the Food Standards Agency to develop a new framework agreement with local authorities by 1 April 2001 to promote high and consistent standards of enforcement throughout the UK was met by 1 April 2001. [49245]

  Yvette Cooper
  Yes. The framework agreement on local authority food law enforcement was published on 29 September 2000. The agreement came fully into effect from 1 April 2001 with the launch of the agency's programme of audits. The agreement includes a standard for enforcement which local authorities are expected to achieve and are audited against.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the upgrade of the Food Standards Agency website, referred to on page 40 of the 2001 Food Standards Agency report, has been completed. [49218]

  Yvette Cooper
  The upgrade to the Food Standards Agency website was completed on 10 December 2001 when the site relaunched as www.food.gov.uk.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the performance of the Food Standards Agency in encouraging local authorities to publish local information about hygiene standards in food premises. [49080]

  Yvette Cooper
  This is a matter for the Food Standards Agency.

  The Food Standards Agency's framework agreement on local authority food law enforcement which came fully into effect from 1 April 2001 requires that local authorities publish local service plans to provide transparency about local food law enforcement services. Local authorities are required to set out in the service plan information about their planned food inspection programme based on the number, type and level of risk of food premises in their area. Service plans are inspected and assessed as part of the agency's audit of local authority food law enforcement services.

  On 1 March 2002 the Food Standards Agency Wales joined forces with Welsh local authorities to launch a national food hygiene award scheme which aims to raise food hygiene standards and consumer confidence by
  118W
  providing public recognition for food businesses that have excellent hygiene procedures in place. Subject to the success of this scheme, it may be used as a model to help improve transparency of standards more widely.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many board meetings of the Food Standards Agency have been held in public. [49077]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since its establishment in April 2000, the board of the Food Standards Agency has held 17 meetings in public.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Local Authority Enforcement Liaison Group in reviewing the operation of the framework agreement developed by the Food Standards Agency for the promotion of high and consistent standards of food safety enforcement throughout the United Kingdom. [49222]

  Yvette Cooper
  This is a matter for the Food Standards Agency. The framework agreement on local authority food law enforcement came fully into effect in April 2001 and is subject to an annual review by the Local Authority Enforcement Liaison Group, which in November 2001 was renamed the Enforcement Liaison Group. The Enforcement Liaison Group has completed its first annual review of the framework agreement and changes were issued to local authorities and other relevant bodies on 2 April 2002. The agency believe that the Enforcement Liaison Group is making a major contribution to food safety enforcement.

  Respiratory Syncytial Virus
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS spent on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) immunisations (synergis) in the last three years for which figures are available. [41476]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available. We have no central information on prescribing in hospitals, where this drug is primarily used.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he provides to hospitals and health authorities on(a) whether to immunise at risk infants against RSV and (b) which infants would benefit from RSV immunisations. [41475]

  Yvette Cooper
  Palivizumab is a monoclonal antibody indicated for prevention of serious lower respiratory tract infection caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) requiring hospitalisation in children born at 35 weeks gestation or less and who are less than six months old at onset of the RSV season, or in children less than two years old who have received treatment for bronchopulmonary dysplasia within the last six months. It is given monthly during the RSV season. This information is published in the British National Formulary.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1153W, on teenage pregnancy, which of the recommendations in the Social Exclusion Unit's report on teenage pregnancy have been completed; and which of the rest have target completion dates. [42551]
  119W
  Yvette Cooper
  The following action points have been completed, as set out in the Social Exclusion Unit's report on teenage pregnancy:

  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30.

  Implementation of all the remaining action points is under way. It is expected that action points 10, 11, and 20 will be completed by the end of 2002.

  Action point 13 was to deliver guidance on the circumstances in which different health professionals may prescribe, supply and administer contraceptives to under 16s. Research is being commissioned to identify the extent and nature of confusion among health professionals to inform whether further guidance is needed.

  The target completion date for action point 29 is 2003.

  While the bulk of the original action plan has now been implemented, considerable further work is needed to ensure that activity is sustained and monitored, and to assess the impact of pilot programmes. Our focus remains delivery of the headline goals of halving under 18 conception rates by 2010 and increasing the participation of teenage parents in education, training and employment. The Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy published their first annual report in November 2001 which set out 49 recommendations of further action to underpin delivery of these goals. The Government will publish its response to this report later this year.

  Patient Advocacy and Liaison
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those trusts which have not established patient advocacy and liaison services. [47859]

  Ms Blears
  Chapter 10 of the NHS Plan states that Patient Advice and Liaison Services (PALS) will be available in all NHS trusts from April 2002. To underpin this commitment £l0 million has been made available to health authorities for PALS development this year. A large number of trusts already have PALS in operation and others are actively developing their service, appointing staff and are expecting to be operational in the near future. A number of primary care trusts are in the process of being set up, and therefore will need to look at incorporating PALS as part of their establishment. At this stage, therefore, there is no full list of those trusts which do not currently have PALS. However, we are in the process of setting up a system for monitoring PALS implementation.

  Birmingham

  West Midlands

  England

  CAMHS mental health grant for local authorities for latest available years

  1999–2000

  99,559

  724,642

  10,000,000

  2000–01

  97,559

  832,642

  10,000,000

  2001–02

  256,559

  1,227,642

  15,000,000

  NHS modernisation funding for latest available years

  1999–2000

  114,000

  1,099,000

  10,000,000

  2000–01

  800,000

  2,197,000

  20,000,000

  2001–02

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1 2000–01 funding now in HA baseline

  Source:

  Department of Health

  Staff Magazines
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the magazine publications aimed at staff produced during the last year, and the cost of producing each one. [47025]

  Ms Blears
  The Department produced 50 separate publications for the national health service and social care staff last year. A list with details of the target audience, method of publication, frequency and cost will be placed in the Library.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to deliver a world class mental health service as described on page 115 of "Securing Our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View". [47433]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement outlined substantial additional resources to ensure a modern health service. There is no doubt that the increase in national health service expenditure over the next decade will see substantial increases in spending on mental health. The Department is studying the Wanless report with great interest and it will be an important source of analysis and information in the allocation of resources to the service.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were on the waiting list for Tier 3 child and adolescent mental health services in each locality team in Birmingham at the end of the 2001–02 financial year; what the year end average waiting time was for such services in each locality; and what the total number of referrals per 1,000 child population was in the year for each locality. [52576]

  Jacqui Smith
  Official child and adolescent mental health services waiting list data for March 2002 will not be published until mid-May 2002.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total expenditure was on child and adolescent mental health services in(a) Birmingham, (b) West Midlands and (c) England in each of the last six years at current prices. [52577]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table shows central funding in support of the child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) development strategy for Birmingham, West Midlands and England from 1999 to 2002.

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03. [50409]

  Ms Blears
  The estimated cost of the Department's pay increase to staff was at the time of settlement £4,167,200 in 2001–02 and £5,446,998 in 2002–03. These figures are for the civil service staff in the Department and agencies.

  Figures for non-departmental public bodies cannot be provided as these organisations are not included in the Department's pay settlement.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible in each of the last five years. [50296]

  Ms Blears
  The information on salary costs for the Department's non-departmental public bodies is shown in the table. Unless shown, the information requested is not yet available for 2001–02.

  £

  Total salary costs

  Commission for Health Improvement (CHI)

  2000–01

  4,791,000

  1999–2000

  1592,000

  1998–99

  n/a

  1997–98

  n/a

  General Social Care Council (GSCC)

  2001–02

  21,311,298

  2000–01

  n/a

  1999–2000

  n/a

  1998–99

  n/a

  1997–98

  n/a

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)

  2000–01

  701,958

  1999–2000

  699,268

  1998–99

  622,889

  1997–98

  556,767

  National Biological Standards Board (UK)

  2000–01

  8,299,000

  1999–2000

  8,095,000

  1998–99

  7,639,000

  1997–98

  7,298,000

  National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB)

  2000–01

  8,102,000

  1999–2000

  7,694,000

  1998–99

  7,652,000

  1997–98

  8,019,000

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board (PHLS)

  2000–01

  79,286,000

  1999–2000

  77,524,000

  1998–99

  74,771,000

  1997–98

  72,547,000

  1Part-year costs. CHI was established on 1 November 1999.

  2Part-year costs. GSCC was operational from 1 October 2001.

  The National Care Standards Commission is excluded from the table since it was not in operation before April 2002.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 1046W, regarding the cost and value of empty properties, if the property that has been empty since July 2000 is now occupied and being used by the national health service. [50337]

  Yvette Cooper
  The property referred to by the hon. Member is the Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre, at Erdington in Birmingham. Following closure in July 2000, a feasibility study has been completed to adapt the centre for reuse by the South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust and the capital funding bid is awaiting imminent approval by the Department. It is currently unoccupied and being managed on a cost-effective, care and maintenance basis.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer on 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 943W, regarding the National Care Standards Commission, how many applications had been (a) received and (b) not received by the National Care Standards Commission by the 31 March, how many statements of purpose were (i) received and (ii) not received by 31 March; how many care homes should have completed the (a) statement of purpose and (b) applications; and what steps he is taking to ensure all care homes which should have completed their statement of purpose and application form but have not, will comply with the Care Standards Act 2000 Part 11, section (1) as soon as possible. [50563]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: As of the 1 April 2002 the National Care Standards Commission had received approximately 2,500 applications from providers and managers who were required to apply for registration by that date. It is not possible to say how many of these applications are from care homes since the commission is still assessing from which service areas the applications originated and the associated documentation sent with them. It is probable that once the commission has processed all of the applications sent to it prior to 1 April 2002 there will be significantly more than 2,500 applications.

  All care homes are required to produce statements of purpose from 1 April. The NCSC will take copies of the statement of purpose from existing providers at the time of the first inspection this year in the spring and summer. New care homes seeking registration and those previously exempt providers required to apply before the 31 March should attach their statement of purpose with their application for registration. The NCSC has indicated that it will work with providers during the registration process to ensure that statements are drawn up appropriately by providers.

  Providers required to apply for registration by 31 March are given protection from section 11(1) of the Care Standards Act as long as they have submitted their application forms and until a decision to grant or refuse registration is made by the commission. When registration is granted by the commission a provider is automatically deemed as complying with section 11(1). Where a

  123W
  provider deliberately seeks to evade registration under the Act the commission will take appropriate enforcement action.

  Town/Village Greens
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those sites which are part of NHS hospitals on which applications have been made to be registered as town or village greens; which of these have been successful; which are outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [51180]

  Ms Blears
  The following hospitals have sites that have been subject of applications for registration as town or village greens:

  Hospital

  Outcome

  St. James Hospital, Portsmouth

  Successful

  Northowram Hospital, Halifax

  Outstanding

  Newton Hill, Wakefield

  Outstanding

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham

  Unsuccessful

  Second application, same site

  Unsuccessful

  Monyhull Hospital, Birmingham

  Unsuccessful

  Second application, similar site

  successful

  National Patient Survey
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost of the National Survey of NHS Patients being carried out by the National Centre for Social Research. [51285]

  Ms Blears
  The cost of the current survey of GP services, which the National Centre for Social Research began on behalf of the Department in January this year, is expected to be £1.6 million.

  Reporting this summer, the survey will enable the Government to find out what people think of the care and treatment they receive when visiting their GP. Its coverage will consist of a sample size of 261,000 people drawn from the electoral registers.

  It is designed to produce a minimum of 375 returned questionnaires from each of the primary care organisations in England, that is 150,000 completed questionnaires. The findings will inform both the national 'star' ratings and provide feedback to primary care trusts, so that where appropriate, service improvements can be initiated.

  Alcohol Consumption
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics the Government collect on alcohol consumption(a) by gender, (b) by age and (c) by region. [51827]

  Ms Blears
  Data on alcohol consumption are collected in a number of surveys. For adults aged 16 and over, these include:

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) General Household Survey, published as "Living in Britain—Results from the 2000 General Household Survey". This includes analyses by gender, age group and region and is available on the internet at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/lib.index.html.
  124W
  The Department of Health: Health Survey for England; published as (for example) "Health Survey for England 1998—Cardiovascular Disease". This includes analyses by age group and gender and data from 1993 to 2000 is available on the internet at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/stats/trendsl.htm.

  For young people aged 11 to 15, the Department of Health commissions a school survey from the National Centre for Social Research and the National Foundation for Educational Research. Data for 2000 was published as "Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2000" and is available on the internet at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/stats/trendsl.htm.

  Preliminary findings from the 2001 survey were published as a Department of Health Statistical Press Notice: "Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England in 2001: Preliminary Results" in March 2002. The press notice is available on the internet at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/press15march02.htm. Both surveys include analysis by gender and age group.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the Food Standards Agency has met its service delivery agreement target to set new targets for the Meat Hygiene Service; [49478]

  (2) with reference to the 2000 spending review service delivery agreement targets, what annual targets have been set for the Meat Hygiene Service to ensure the application of clean livestock policy, health marking and strict enforcement of specified risk material controls. [49234]

  Yvette Cooper
  Performance targets for the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) for the year 2001–02 were agreed by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) board in May 2001. The targets were placed in the Libraries of the House, announced by FSA press release and put onto the FSA website, on 15 May 2001. Among others, the targets required the MHS:to fully apply the Clean Livestock Policy;
  not to apply the health mark stamp to any meat showing visible faecal or alimentary tract contents contamination;
  to strictly enforce the specified risk material controls in licensed meat plants.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the new targets for the Meat Hygiene Service, referred to on page 36 of the 2001 Food Standards Agency report, have been met; [49221]

  (2) if the service delivery agreement target of the Food Standards Agency to ensure that specified risk material controls are fully enforced, and to improve ante- and post-mortem inspections, has been met. [49248]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) against its targets for the year ended 31 March 2001, including that in relation to the enforcement of specified risk material controls, is currently being assembled in order for an assessment to be carried out and reported to the board of the Food Standards Agency. The outcome will be published in the MHS's annual report and accounts which will be laid before Parliament before the House rises for the summer.
  125W
  As regards improving ante- and post-mortem inspections, the FSA confirms that the MHS achieved full-time veterinary supervision in all full throughput abattoirs in line with EU requirements as from November 2001. This subject was dealt with in more detail in an answer given to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on 8 January 2002. Official Report, columns 634–35.

  Natural Health Therapies
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to include natural health research and therapies in policies aimed at tackling cardiovascular disease and cancer. [53352]

  Yvette Cooper
  Decisions on what specific services and treatments to use are mostly made at a local level, so that national health service organisations may fund some natural health therapies, particularly in the care of cancer patients.

  The National Institute of Clinical Excellence has been commissioned to produce guidelines on supportive and palliative care for cancer patients, which will be published in 2003. These guidelines will include the role that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) might play. The Department funds some research into CAM. A programme to build capacity in research into CAM will be launched shortly, and the Department is also planning to commission new work on the use of CAM techniques in the care of patients with cancer.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of mycobacterium bovis (bovine TB) there have been in humans in each year since 1987; and how many fatalities there have been. [53758]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: Information provided by the Public Health Laboratory Service show the number of cases of mycobacterium bovis (bovine TB) in humans for each year since 1987 as follows:

  Year

  Cases

  1987

  50

  1988

  53

  1989

  40

  1990

  31

  1993

  47

  1994

  49

  1995

  32

  1996

  37

  1997

  45

  1998

  40

  1999

  40

  2000

  28

  Data was not produced by laboratories in 1991 and 1992 and is therefore not available.

  Reports of deaths from tuberculosis do not include details of the infecting organism. Therefore the number of deaths from M. Bovis is not available.

  Salt
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition reviewing the available evidence in relation to salt in the diets of adults and children plans to report; and whether its report will be published. [49811]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: The subgroup of the Committee has recently started its work. I am advised that at this stage it is not possible to be definite about a publication date, but the Committee hopes to produce a report before the end of the year.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been presented to the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition's sub-group on salt, other than the submissions sent to the secretariat in response to the call for evidence. [53198]

  Yvette Cooper
  All of the representations presented to the committee arose from the call for evidence.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition's sub-group on salt plans to produce an interim report of its review on the evidence on salt. [53200]

  Yvette Cooper
  At present there are no plans for the committee to produce an interim report. Papers relating to the activities of the sub-group on salt can be found on the SACN website at www.sacn.gov.uk.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, the amount spent(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad by (i) his 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. [34416]

  Angela Eagle
  Full detailed information is not available in the format requested. To provide the hon. Member with a full answer will incur disproportionate cost. I can, however, provide information on mobile phones and associated equipment purchased via our central procurement unit since 1997, which is as follows:

  Total expenditure, mobile phones and associated equipment

  £

  1997

  175.00

  1998

  5,516.16

  1999

  163,933.83

  2000

  146,201.48

  2001

  46,491.25

  The increase in the number of phones and associated equipment purchased mirrors trends set nationally by private consumers.

  Yarl's Wood
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will install a warning signal for use in the event of escapes from detention and remand centres; if he received representations to install a warning siren during the construction of the Yarl's Wood remand centre; and if he will make a statement. [38781]

  Angela Eagle
  The decision not to install a siren was taken as part of the process of consultation between Group 4 Amey Immigration Ltd. and the local emergency services in the drawing up of contingency plans.

  Court Transcripts
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to whom court transcripts are provided free of charge; and what the cost of purchasing court transcripts is. [53439]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  A transcript of both civil and criminal trials will normally be produced where one of the parties to the action wishes to lodge an appeal. In civil cases, an unrepresented appellant in poor financial state can request that the cost of the transcript be borne at public expense. It is for the judge to decide whether to grant that request. In criminal cases, where the appellant has a representation order, the cost of the transcript will also be borne at public expense. The cost of the transcript depends on its length as transcribers charge per folio (72 words) and will therefore vary from case to case.

  Sexual Abuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of sexual abuse were heard by the Court of Appeal; of these how many were(a) upheld and (b) discharged in each year since 1996; and if he will make a statement on the (i) reasons for discharge and (ii) classification of the cases discharged. [53415]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  The records kept by the Court of Appeal do not record, electronically or in manual form, this type of information. The only means available to extract this data would be to resort to manual scrutiny of every case dealt with since 1996 and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on overtime payments for staff in his Department. [49124]

  Angela Eagle
  Non-industrial staff in the core Home Office work conditioned hours of 41 in the London area and 42 in the national area. Any authorised hours in excess of these conditioned hours worked by staff below the senior civil service will be paid as overtime as follows:

  Staff up to and including executive officer (EO) level and equivalents
  Weekday: Time and a half
  Saturday: Time and a half plus a half time premium payment (this represents a total payment of double time)
  Sunday and bank holidays: Payment at double time
  Privilege holidays: Time off in lieu
  128W
  Higher executive officers (HEOs) and senior executive officers (SEOs) and equivalents
  Weekday: Plain time rate
  Saturday: Plain time rate plus a half time premium payment (this represents a total payment of time and a half)
  Sunday and bank holidays: Payment at double time
  Privilege holidays: Time off in lieu

  Grades 7s and 6s
  Generally Grades 7 and 6 do not receive overtime payments. However, they can receive discretionary payments for the hours they work in excess of conditioned hours, subject to a qualifying period. For work at weekends Grade 7s (but not Grade 6s) receive the following premium payments:
  Saturday: Half time
  Sunday: Plain time
  Staff who work as part of a shift roster, depending on the incidence of night duties, receive in addition to their normal salary shift disturbance allowance between 12.5 per cent. and 20 per cent. Higher rates may be paid in very exceptional circumstances.
  All overtime, premia and shift disturbance payments are subject to a ceiling. Overtime payments are not pensionable but premium payments are.

  Agencies

  In our Agencies, the arrangements are exactly as set out above except as follows:

  United Kingdom Passport Agency
  Saturday overtime for HEOs and SEOs is paid at plain time rate, there is no additional premium payment.

  Forensic Science Service
  All overtime premia and shift disturbance payments are paid at individual hourly rates, they are not subject to a ceiling. Shift disturbance allowance is paid between 10 per cent. and 25 per cent.
  Overtime has to be approved by managers in response to a business need and within budget limits and having regard to welfare and work life balance considerations.

  Staff (Locally Elected Representatives)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of staff at his Department are locally elected democratic representatives; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become locally elected democratic representatives. [44537]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Staff in the Home Office (including the Prison Service) who are elected members of a local authority are allowed up to 18 days special leave with pay to perform their duties. This total may be increased to 24 days if the Department is satisfied that the duties equate to those of a Lord Mayor. Consideration will be given to granting paid special leave to other locally elected democratic representatives on an individual basis.

  The Home Office is the lead Government Department for the active community initiative. Staff can take paid leave for volunteering in certain public capacities (e.g. school governors up to six days, magistrates up to 18 days). Staff in the non-agency Home Office can also take up to five days paid leave a year for any other voluntary activity.
  129W
  A volunteering manager has recently been appointed, seconded from the voluntary sector, to actively promote volunteering among Home Office staff, ensure that a wide range of opportunities are available, monitor participation and evaluate the benefits to the individual and the Department.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of staff at his Department are justices of the peace; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become justices of the peace. [44552]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Staff in the Home Office (including the Prison Service) who are justices of the peace are allowed up to 18 days special leave with pay to perform their duties plus reasonable travelling time, to permit up to 26 attendances.

  The Home Office is the lead Government Department for the active community initiative. Staff can take paid leave for volunteering in certain public capacities (e.g. school governors up to six days, magistrates up to 18 days). Staff in the non-agency Home Office can also take up to five days paid leave a year for any other voluntary activity.

  A volunteering manager has recently been appointed, seconded from the voluntary sector, to actively promote volunteering among Home Office staff, ensure that a wide range of opportunities are available, monitor participation and evaluate the benefits to the individual and the Department.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which public service agreement targets that are scheduled to be met in 2002 will not be achieved by the due date. [44842]

  Angela Eagle
  Information about progress on public service agreement targets will be published in the Department's 2002 Department report in mid-May.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people employed by the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible under the New Deal for Young People in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseekers' allowance or other benefits. [49596]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on the New Deal programme has never been collected centrally for non-departmental public bodies, and those Home Office non-departmental public bodies that employ their own staff do not monitor new dealers who have left their employment.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many private finance initiative 130W
  projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed; and what has been the financial effect in each case. [50285]

  Angela Eagle
  The following Private Finance Initiative projects have been subject to post contract refinancing;Her Majesty's Prison Altcourse (Fazakerley) Prison Service Effect of refinancing;
  Prison Service subject to increase of liability to £1 million in the event of premature termination of contract.
  Year: 1999
  Her Majesty's Prison Parc (Bridgend) Prison Service;
  Refinancing subject to ongoing negotiation between contractor and Prison Service.
  Year: 1996
  Hassockfield Secure Training Centre Youth Justice Board (YJB);
  The contract allows for re-financing but, does not allow YJB to share in benefits of re-financing or obtain details of benefits that may accrue to the contractor.
  Year: 1999.

  Asylum Seekers
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the running of accommodation centres for asylum seekers will be contracted out to the private sector; [48941]

  (2) who will be responsible for the administration and management of each accommodation centre for asylum seekers. [48940]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Our intention is to identify the most cost effective option which delivers the required standards of design, build and operation.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people he expects to be employed at each accommodation centre for asylum seekers; and what estimate he has made of the salary costs of each centre. [48942]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on 26 March 2002, Official Report, column 895W. Estimates for staffing costs have not been made.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sites are under consideration for the provision of the pilot asylum seeker accommodation centres. [52351]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: They are as follows:
  Qinetiq (formerly Defence Evaluation Research Agency (DERA)) Pershore, Worcestershire (Mid Worcestershire).
  Royal Air Force (RAF) Hemswell, West Lindsey, Lincolnshire (Gainsborough).
  Sully Hospital, Barry, South Glamorgan (Vale of Glamorgan).
  Hooton Park, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire (Ellesmere Port and Neston).
  Land vacated by Ministry of Defence (MOD) Logistics, Bicester, Oxfordshire (Banbury).
  Air West Edinburgh (formerly RAF Turnhouse), Edinburgh (Edinburgh, West).
  RAF Newton, West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire (Rushcliffe).
  National Energy Site Killinghome, near Grimsby, North Lincolnshire (Cleethorpes).
  131W
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance will be provided to local authorities and other providers of public services in whose areas asylum seeker accommodation centres are developed. [52354]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 360W, we expect that, nationally, accommodation centres will reduce the burden on local authorities due to the range of facilities provided on site. This includes education for children and adults, and primary health care facilities. We will, however, take funding considerations into account as we continue to develop our policy.

  Street Robberies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many street robberies there have been in each of the London boroughs in the last three years. [50877]

  Mr. Denham
  The table contains figures for total recorded robberies (including robberies of personal property and business property) in London boroughs for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The Home Office did not collect borough figures prior to April 1999. The Home Office will publish national statistics for 2001–02 in the summer in its crime bulletin. The Metropolitan police have already published figures for this period, which are available on its web site.

  The Metropolitan police force area is one of the 10 areas included in the Government's wider street crime initiative, which involves a concerted response to street crime across all the criminal justice and social agencies.

  The 10 Force Street Crime Initiative began in April 2002 across the 10 force areas with the biggest robbery problem. The police and criminal justice agencies are working together in these areas to target and fast-track all street crime offenders. The initiative also brings together the resources and expertise of non-criminal justice system agencies to help tackle the causes of street crime and take preventative action.

  Metropolitan police—total robbery offences by basic command unit (BCU), financial years 1999–2000 to 2000–011

  Year ending

  BCU

  March 2000

  March 2001

  Barking and Dagenham

  514

  731

  Barnet

  876

  1,041

  Bexley

  289

  417

  Brent

  2,014

  1,941

  Bromley

  518

  685

  Camden

  1,645

  1,906

  Croydon

  1,094

  1,568

  Ealing

  1,702

  1,510

  Enfield

  1,013

  1,163

  Greenwich

  471

  469

  Hackney

  2,437

  2,275

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  853

  911

  Haringey

  2,008

  2,340

  Harrow

  607

  559

  Havering

  240

  392

  Heathrow airport

  6

  6

  Hillingdon

  401

  472

  Hounslow

  574

  717

  132W

  Metropolitan police—total robbery offences by basic command unit (BCU), financial years 1999–2000 to 2000–011

  Year ending

  BCU

  March 2000

  March 2001

  Islington

  1,761

  1,511

  Kensington and Chelsea

  828

  991

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  175

  245

  Lambeth

  3,390

  4,691

  Lewisham

  1,277

  1,547

  Merton

  321

  397

  Newham

  1,736

  2,106

  Redbridge

  652

  900

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  160

  236

  Southwark

  2,008

  2,162

  Sutton

  228

  240

  Tower Hamlets

  1,589

  1,757

  Waltham Forest

  943

  1,281

  Wandsworth

  1,217

  1,427

  Westminster

  2,468

  2,397

  'Squads'

  0

  1

  Grand total

  36,015

  40,992

  1Based on force boundary since 1 April 2000

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate the Government have made of the level of direct European Union funding for the voluntary sector in the United Kingdom in the last 12 months. [51208]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: The most recent Government estimate of funding provided by the European Union (four structural funds) to voluntary and community organisations in the United Kingdom, in total, is £232,061,849 for the 2000–01 financial year.

  Special Constabulary
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the strength was of the special constabulary for each of the 43 police authorities in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [52058]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of serving special constables in each police force area from September 1997 to September 2001 are set out in the table.

  September

  Police force

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Avon and Somerset

  629

  584

  482

  416

  391

  Bedfordshire

  186

  175

  148

  134

  119

  Cambridgeshire

  336

  308

  293

  214

  197

  Cheshire

  491

  416

  358

  307

  233

  Cleveland

  157

  136

  108

  122

  98

  Cumbria

  184

  210

  193

  167

  125

  Derbyshire

  414

  355

  303

  286

  263

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,079

  916

  908

  836

  780

  Dorset

  325

  303

  287

  278

  258

  Durham

  178

  159

  169

  155

  146

  Essex

  641

  590

  528

  478

  413

  Gloucestershire

  287

  245

  221

  197

  153

  Greater Manchester

  657

  567

  498

  408

  355

  Hampshire

  681

  747

  720

  500

  400

  Hertfordshire

  306

  267

  232

  214

  177

  Humberside

  348

  289

  263

  198

  207

  Kent

  588

  565

  484

  416

  366

  Lancashire

  500

  465

  397

  362

  325

  Leicestershire

  402

  350

  303

  202

  155

  Lincolnshire

  273

  233

  218

  179

  160

  133W

  September

  Police force

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  London city of

  84

  69

  66

  46

  34

  Merseyside

  407

  463

  467

  452

  507

  Metropolitan police

  1,528

  1,214

  1,173

  754

  753

  Norfolk

  346

  351

  317

  270

  240

  Northamptonshire

  314

  262

  210

  195

  184

  Northumbria

  480

  352

  356

  323

  276

  North Yorkshire

  337

  302

  245

  189

  186

  Nottinghamshire

  597

  530

  405

  411

  281

  South Yorkshire

  295

  266

  236

  193

  189

  Staffordshire

  643

  558

  460

  461

  395

  Suffolk

  300

  402

  420

  376

  322

  Surrey

  231

  226

  205

  168

  176

  Sussex

  465

  415

  377

  317

  301

  Thames valley

  694

  587

  514

  463

  377

  Warwickshire

  379

  323

  260

  260

  208

  West Mercia

  558

  499

  512

  443

  364

  West Midlands

  949

  784

  697

  662

  604

  West Yorkshire

  604

  590

  572

  452

  371

  Wiltshire

  150

  176

  182

  172

  160

  Dyfed Powys

  241

  237

  237

  193

  174

  Gwent

  149

  114

  110

  131

  148

  North Wales

  388

  336

  262

  233

  203

  south Wales

  362

  360

  331

  254

  250

  Note:

  Figures provided by Research, Development and Statistics.

  The proposals in the White Paper "Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform" set out a radical and ambitious programme of reform, with the overall aim of reducing crime and the fear of crime and tackling antisocial behaviour. The special constabulary has a key role to play in the fight against crime and the fear of crime. The Government are accordingly introducing a wide range of measures to improve the recruitment and retention of specials. These include improvements to the recruitment, training, conditions, management and deployment of specials—focusing their role on intelligence-led, high visibility patrolling and local crime reduction initiatives.

  Golden Jubilee
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers serving in the Humberside police authority will be eligible for the Golden Jubilee Medal [51820]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed criteria for the award of the Golden Jubilee Medal are being developed and it will then be for the chief officer of each force to establish how many of their officers are eligible.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight dated 21 March concerning antisocial behaviour orders. [52098]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply to the hon. Member was despatched on Wednesday 24 April 2002.

  Vehicle Speed Detection
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) to what extent the VASCAR vehicle speed detection device relies on human inputs. [52443]
  134W
  (2) if he will make a statement about the accuracy of the VASCAR vehicle speed detection device. [52444]

  Mr. Denham
  The VASCAR vehicle speed detection device relies in part on the operator accurately and consistently operating switches. These start and stop a clock and, where necessary, a distance measurement from the vehicle's odometer. The instrument can, alternatively, be pre-fed with the distance between two selected marker points.

  Guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) requires operators to be trained and to pass a test as to their performance. They must demonstrate in a sequence of five measurements that none has an error greater than two miles per hour and that the average error across all five is less than 0.75 miles per hour. They are also trained on the selection, for pre-fed operation, of road marks, in order to minimise parallax errors.

  VASCAR also relies on frequent distance calibration checks. ACPO guidance requires these to be carried out at the start and, where VASCAR has been used, at the end of shifts. There are minimum distances over which measurements are made. The clock in the device is crystal controlled and its errors are insignificant.

  Where the operator is fully trained and the ACPO guidance followed, I am satisfied that the VASCAR device is accurate.

  Police Discretion
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police have discretion whether to record a reported crime; and whether a complainant may be requested to attend a police station if the crime is to be recorded. [52335]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: Under the National Crime Recording Standard, introduced in all forces in England and Wales from April 2002, all reports of incidents, whether from victims, witnesses or third parties, and whether crime-related or not, will result in the registration of an incident report by the police. Following the initial registration, an incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable offence) if the circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law and if there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

  Police officers will determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether an incident amounts to a crime, based on their knowledge of the law and of Home Office counting rules. In most cases, a belief by the victim (or person reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim) that a crime has occurred will be sufficient to justify its recording as a crime. Once recorded, a crime would remain recorded unless there was credible evidence to disprove that a crime had occurred. A complainant could be requested to attend a police station in the normal course of police inquiries, but this would not be a pre-condition of an incident being recorded as a crime.

  In several forces "assault clinics" have been set up in order to improve the level of service provided to victims of minor assault and/or harassment. An initial report of an incident leads to a victim being given an appointment at the clinic, where the victim's statement is taken and the crime is recorded. A review by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) of the system in one force found

  135W
  that in some cases the victim did not subsequently attend the assaults clinic, leading to the incident not being recorded as a crime. The force is now changing its processes to ensure that this no longer occurs, and other forces have been advised accordingly.

  Merseyside Police
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) police standard spending assessment and (b) Home Office provision were for Merseyside police in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98, (iv) 1998–99, (v) 1999–2000, (vi) 2000–01 and (vii) 2001–02; and what the projected figures are for (A) 2002–03 and (B) 2003–04. [51617]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: The information is set out in the table. Figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  £million

  Year

  Police grunt

  Standard spending assessment

  Total

  1995–96

  106.672

  108.325

  214.997

  1996–97

  112.589

  109.297

  221.886

  1997–98

  113.660

  113.674

  227.334

  1998–99

  119.122

  114.153

  233.275

  1999–2000

  118.702

  117.557

  236.259

  2000–011

  123.723

  120.102

  243.825

  2001–021,2

  131.700

  125.883

  257.583

  2002–031

  133.793

  126.752

  260.545

  1 Grant figures include principal formula police grant and payments from the crime fighting fund (estimated for 2002–03).

  2The figures for 2002–03 are not directly comparable with 2001–02 owing to the change in funding arrangement for the National Crime Squad/National Criminal Intelligence Service. On a like-for-like basis the comparable total figure for 2001–02 is £252.173 million.

  Note:

  Standard spending assessment (SSA) figures include capital financing SSAs.

  Offences (DNA)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what class of offences DNA samples are(a) taken and (b) held even where prosecution does not proceed.[52942]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Under the provisions of section 63 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), the police may taken non-intimate DNA samples from all those charged with, informed they will be reported for, or convicted of a recordable offence.

  The police may also take a non-intimate sample from those suspected of a recordable offence where there were grounds for believing the sample will tend to confirm or disprove the suspect's involvement.

  Samples can be taken with consent in any case.

  Pursuant to section 64A of PACE samples may be retained in all cases, even following acquittal or a decision to drop a prosecution, except where the sample was taken as part of a mass screening process and the individual does not consent to the retention of the sample. Retained samples can only be used for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution.

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the newspapers subscribed to(a) Monday to Saturday and (b) on Sunday by his Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52837]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Communication Directorate purchases newspapers for its use and for some other parts of the Home Office. The totals for these are shown in the tables.

  Information is not held centrally on the purchase and cost of newspapers for the Department as a whole.

  A breakdown of the newspaper subscriptions and the total expenditure on this basis could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Title

  Copies

  Unit price £

  No. of days

  Total price £

  (a)Monday to Saturday

  Financial Times Monday-Friday

  2

  0.90

  19

  34.20

  Financial Times Saturday

  1

  1.00

  5

  5.00

  Times Monday-Friday

  2

  0.40

  20

  16.00

  Times Saturday

  1

  0.70

  5

  3.50

  Daily Telegraph Monday-Friday

  2

  0.50

  20

  20.00

  Daily Telegraph Saturday

  1

  0.85

  5

  4.25

  Guardian Monday-Friday

  2

  0.50

  20

  20.00

  Guardian Saturday

  1

  1.00

  5

  5.00

  Independent Monday-Friday

  2

  0.50

  20

  20.00

  Independent Saturday

  1

  0.90

  5

  4.50

  Daily Mail Monday-Friday

  2

  0.40

  20

  16.00

  Daily Mail Saturday

  1

  0.60

  5

  3.00

  The Express Monday-Friday

  2

  0.35

  20

  14.00

  The Express Saturday

  1

  0.50

  5

  2.50

  Daily Mirror Monday-Friday

  2

  0.32

  20

  12.80

  Daily Mirror Saturday

  1

  0.40

  5

  2.00

  Sun Monday-Friday

  2

  0.30

  20

  12.00

  Sun Saturday

  1

  0.40

  5

  2.00

  Daily Star Monday-Friday

  2

  0.30

  20

  12.00

  Daily Star Saturday

  1

  0.35

  5

  1.75

  Jewish Chronicle Friday

  1

  0.60

  4

  2.40

  New Statesman Thursday

  1

  3.95

  1

  3.95

  Campaign

  2

  3.50

  1

  7.00

  Marketing

  2

  2.40

  3

  14.40

  PR Week

  1

  2.10

  2

  4.20

  Marketing Week

  1

  2.40

  3

  7.20

  Radio Times Tuesday

  1

  0.85

  1

  0.85

  Economist

  1

  3.80

  1

  3.80

  Press Gazette

  1

  2.00

  2

  4.00

  Time Out Wednesday

  1

  3.60

  1

  3.60

  Voice Weekly

  1

  0.78

  4

  3.12

  Spectator

  1

  2.40

  1

  2.40

  Police Review Friday

  1

  1.75

  3

  5.25

  New Scientist Thursday

  1

  2.50

  1

  2.50

  AG Railway Guide Janua

  1

  8.25

  1

  8.25

  Private Eye Wednesday

  1

  1.50

  2

  3.00

  Auto Express

  1

  1.50

  4

  6.00

  MJ

  1

  2.75

  2

  5.50

  Government Chronicle

  1

  3.40

  3

  10.20

  Caribbean Times

  1

  0.50

  3

  1.50

  Computer Weekly

  1

  2.10

  2

  4.20

  Wired

  1

  3.99

  1

  3.99

  Evening Standard

  6

  0.35

  19

  39.90

  What Car

  1

  3.60

  1

  3.60

  Monthly total

  361.31

  (b)Sundays

  Sunday Times

  1

  1.20

  4

  4.80

  Observer

  1

  1.20

  4

  4.80

  Sunday Telegraph

  1

  1.00

  4

  4.00

  Independent on Sunday

  1

  1.20

  4

  4.80

  Mail on Sunday

  1

  1.10

  4

  4.40

  Sunday Express

  1

  1.00

  4

  4.00

  137W

  Title

  Copies

  Unit price £

  No. of days

  Total price £

  News of the World

  1

  0.65

  4

  2.60

  Sunday People

  1

  0.65

  4

  2.60

  Sunday Mirror

  1

  0.65

  4

  2.60

  Monthly total

  34.60

  Annual cost

  415.20

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the magazines and periodicals subscribed to by his Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52838]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]Communication Directorate purchases magazines and periodicals for its use and for some other parts of the Home Office. The total for 2001–02 was £59,000.

  Information is not held centrally on the purchase and cost of magazines and periodicals for the Department as a whole.

  A breakdown of the subscriptions to magazines and periodicals and the total expenditure on this basis could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of each police authority's total budget was accounted for by police pensions in the financial years(a) 1998–99. (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; and whether he is undertaking a review of police pensions.[51485]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: Figures for police pensions as a proportion of net expenditure are set out in the table.

  As we made clear in our White Paper 'Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform', we are aware of the need of police authorities and officers for a system which brings greater clarity about pensions obligations on individual police forces. The Home Office and Treasury are reviewing the options for a revised system which would bring this about.

  Percentage

  Police Authority

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Avon and Somerset

  14.09

  14.84

  16.16

  16.65

  Bedfordshire

  12.62

  11.94

  12.48

  12.84

  Cambridgeshire

  12.04

  12.33

  12.98

  12.69

  Cheshire

  9.92

  11.07

  11.25

  13.63

  City of London

  18.14

  14.19

  15.36

  16.05

  Cleveland

  13.75

  14.47

  15.18

  14.85

  Cumbria

  14.85

  14.78

  15.37

  15.25

  Derbyshire

  11.72

  11.34

  13.41

  12.37

  Devon and Cornwall

  13.96

  14.29

  13.96

  14.81

  Dorset

  13.08

  14.53

  14.00

  15.05

  Durham

  11.10

  12.64

  12.04

  12.54

  Dyfed/Powys

  12.98

  12.90

  13.24

  13.41

  Essex

  12.39

  12.00

  11.30

  12.94

  Gloucestershire

  13.54

  13.40

  14.20

  14.26

  Greater Manchester

  15.63

  15.92

  15.21

  16.25

  Gwent

  9.93

  11.34

  10.81

  11.92

  Hampshire

  10.07

  11.48

  10.84

  11.35

  Hertfordshire

  9.24

  11.22

  9.80

  9.51

  Humberside

  12.77

  13.33

  14.15

  14.49

  138W

  Percentage

  Police Authority

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Kent

  11.22

  11.35

  12.50

  12.94

  Lancashire

  12.82

  12.64

  13.54

  14.35

  Leicestershire

  12.22

  11.54

  12.11

  12.63

  Lincolnshire

  14.58

  15.33

  16.25

  16.86

  Merseyside

  14.54

  15.33

  15.65

  16.43

  Metropolitan Police

  12.72

  11.70

  13.25

  12.87

  Norfolk

  12.22

  11.63

  12.64

  12.55

  North Wales

  14.49

  13.72

  14.72

  14.81

  North Yorkshire

  13.79

  16.50

  16.31

  17.19

  Northamptonshire

  10.96

  10.74

  11.91

  10.83

  Northumbria

  14.94

  13.87

  14.27

  14.41

  Nottinghamshire

  13.44

  13.79

  13.66

  15.30

  South Wales

  15.18

  14.29

  15.34

  15.97

  South Yorkshire

  9.42

  10.68

  10.59

  12.18

  Staffordshire

  13.67

  15.59

  14.84

  17.03

  Suffolk

  13.05

  14.86

  13.54

  14.34

  Surrey

  11.32

  10.32

  9.32

  9.48

  Sussex

  14.19

  14.82

  15.99

  15.94

  Thames Valley

  9.39

  9.23

  9.78

  9.90

  Warwickshire

  13.04

  14.47

  15.25

  16.51

  West Mercia

  12.39

  12.21

  13.26

  13.65

  West Midlands

  11.45

  11.32

  11.89

  12.45

  West Yorkshire

  13.16

  14.07

  14.18

  14.98

  Wiltshire

  10.93

  11.14

  11.11

  12.26

  Total

  12.75

  12.72

  13.30

  13.67

  Source:
  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police statistics [Actuals] 1998/99-1999/2000 and [Estimates] 2000/01–2001/02. An actual net pensions figure for Leicestershire was not available in 1998–99 so the figure from the Police statistics Estimates 1998-99 has been used.

  Operation Antler
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost in each year, to(a) his Department and (b) Wiltshire Constabulary of Operation Antler, including salary and support costs; and how many officers have worked on the case in each year.[52413]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: The chief constable informs me that Wiltshire Police Authority salary and support costs for Operation Antler, since it commenced in August 1999, have been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1999–2000

  223,457

  2000–01

  715,823

  2001–021

  742,002

  Total

  1,681,282

  1To February 2002. Figures to the end of March are not yet available.

  A special grant in relation to the additional costs of the Potion Down investigation was made by the Home Office to Wiltshire Constabulary in August 2000 for £870,000.

  I understand from the force that to March 2000 there were 14 staff on the investigation (10 Wiltshire police officers, two Wiltshire support staff and two Ministry of Defence (MOD) police officers); at its peak from January 2001 there were 26 staff (14 Wiltshire police officers, five Wiltshire support staff, two MOD police officers and five military investigators). The current staffing level is 18 (10 Wiltshire police officers, six Wiltshire support staff, one MOD police officer and one military investigator).

  Police Forces
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police force members there were in(a) Avon and Somerset police force, (b) the south-west region and (c) England and Wales in each year from 1997 to 2001. [52694]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested information is given in the table:

  Full-time equivalents

  Avon and Somerset

  South-west region

  England and Wales1

  31 March 1997

  2,989

  9,425

  127,158

  31 March 1998

  2,976

  9,508

  126,814

  31 March 1999

  2,999

  9,420

  126,096

  31 March 2000

  2,934

  9,313

  124,170

  31 March 2001

  2,994

  9,576

  125,682

  30 September 2001

  3,040

  9,693

  127,231

  1The England and Wales totals include secondments to the National Crime Squad (NCS), the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), Central Services and Inter-Force Units

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 22 April; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement.[53111]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 25 and 26 April 2002 in Luxembourg.

  A points;

  The A points were approved as in document PTS A 19 (a copy of which has been placed in the Library).

  Proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in member states;

  A general approach was reached on the draft Directive, subject to consideration of two Parliamentary Scrutiny reserves (the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and the European Parliament's opinion.

  Illegal immigration and trafficking of human beings by sea;

  The Council agreed conclusions on action to combat illegal immigration and human trafficking by sea, in particular the need for migration issues to be integrated into the European Union's relations with countries of origin and transit.

  Proposal for a Council Decision adopting an action program for administrative co-operation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration;

  Political agreement was reached on the Council Decision establishing the ARGO programme to fund projects to facilitate co-operation and training in these fields.

  Operation on evaluation of the risk in the European Union Airports. Information point;
  140W
  The Presidency reported on the risk evaluation exercise which was undertaken on 3,4 and 5 April to detect illegal immigrants at airports within the European Union.

  Meeting of the Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA) with the participation of the heads of the external border control services (11 April 2002). Information point;

  The Presidency reported on a meeting of the Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA) with border control chiefs which discussed the priority areas of the Comprehensive Action Plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings.

  Meeting on Co-operation with the United States of America in the field of Asylum, migration and frontiers (12 April 2002). Information point;

  The Presidency reported on a meeting between the SCIFA and United States experts to discuss border control and migration management following 11 September.

  Amendments to the Europol Convention—Europol's participation in joint investigation teams and Europol's right to ask member states to initiate investigations in specific cases;

  The Council reached a general approach on proposals to amend the Europol Convention. These will provide for Europol's participation in joint investigation teams in a support capacity and Europol's right to ask Member States to initiate investigations in specific cases. The Council will now consider how to implement the amendments.

  Proposal for a Council Decision concerning security in connection with football matches with an international dimension;

  A Council Decision was adopted creating a network of experts intended to improve co-ordination and the exchange of information in relation to football disorder.

  Draft Council conclusions on the fight against racism and xenophobia;

  The Council agreed conclusions calling for action against racially motivated violence, in particular, reinforced police co-operation, the approximation of criminal law and the role of the European Monitoring Centre on racism and xenophobia. The Commission was also invited to submit proposals to raise public awareness.

  Request for a negotiation mandate for the Presidency with the United States of America, on judicial co-operation in criminal matters on the basis of Articles 38 and 24 TEU;

  The Council authorised the Presidency to open negotiations with the United States on behalf of the European Union for an agreement on co-operation in mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and extradition. I will write separately to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee regarding those negotiations.

  Draft Council conclusions on the approach to apply regarding approximation of penalties;
  141W
  The Council agreed conclusions on the use of penalty ranges as a means of approximating criminal penalties for common offences. I will write separately to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee with the details of the methodology to be applied.

  Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography;

  The Framework Decision was remitted for further consideration of the penalties for these offences and of an Italian reservation on the proposed exemption from criminal liability in cases involving persons over the age of sexual consent.

  Any other business;

  Italy gave an update on the feasibility study into the creation of a European Border Guard which would be presented to a Ministerial Conference in Rome on 30 May 2002. Germany proposed an initiative for an European Union fund to assist the victims of terrorism. The Council also had exchanges of views on the treatment of Palestinian asylum seekers and on the negotiation mandates for agreements with Switzerland concerning their participation in the Schengen and Dublin Conventions. The Presidency reported on the outcome of the European Union/Mediterranean conference which took place in Spain on 22–23 April 2002.

  Meeting with Russian Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs in the margins of the Council;

  Justice and Interior Ministers met with their counterparts from Russia in the margins of the Council to discuss action to combat organised crime and the management of migration and borders. A joint Declaration establishing a network of contact points to facilitate the exchange of information on organised crime was adopted.

  Community Wardens
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the powers of arrest given to community wardens under the Police Reform Bill. [53141]

  Mr. Denham
  Community support officers and members of community safety accreditation schemes, as contained in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Police Reform Bill, will not have powers of arrest. It is the Government's belief that, where appropriate, the chief officer of police should be able to give community support officers the power to detain someone for up to 30 minutes, pending the arrival of a constable, and, as a last resort, to use reasonable force to enforce this.

  The Government would also like to allow the chief officer of police and the person's employer, to give members of community safety accreditation schemes, (which could include warden schemes) the power of detention, but without the use of reasonable force.

  The provisions which would have made the power of detention available in this way were removed in another place. We have already stated our intention to re-introduce these provisions during consideration of the Bill in this House. The provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 4 are enabling, not prescriptive. It will be for each chief officer of police to decide whether and how to use community support
  142W
  officers and community safety accreditation schemes to combat crime and disorder and increase public reassurance.

  Families of Murder Victims
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the procedure is for distribution of homicide information packs by family liaison police officers to families of murder victims. [53263]

  (2) how many homicide information packs were handed out by family liaison police officers in the last year. [53262]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The exact figures as to how many of the Home Office pack "Information for Families of Homicide Victims" are handed out by police family liaison officers (FLOs) are not available.

  In cases of homicide, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) family liaison strategy states that FLOs should provide the pack to one or more family members at as early a stage as possible in order for bereaved people to establish some control over their access to the information. The FLO's own knowledge of the criminal justice system and coroners' processes should be used as appropriate to suggest to a family member that they may look at the pack or part of it, on their own, with another family member, with the FLO, or with Victim Support, as issues arise for them. Furthermore, the obligation of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in explaining any decisions made in accordance with its Victim's Charter should be explained and, where appropriate, a meeting facilitated.

  Police
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have left Sussex constabulary in the last 12 months through(a) retirement, (b) early retirement, (c) injury and (d) other employment. [53298]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: In the period from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, figures for Sussex were as follows:

  (a) Normal retirements—82

  (b) Early retirements (ill health)—11

  (c) Injury retirements—5

  (d Transfers to other employment—13.

  In addition, 77 officers left Sussex before retirement age with no transferral of pension rights to other employment.

  Sirius Project
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Sirius project; and what contingency plans his Department has for the project not being completed on schedule. [53483]

  Angela Eagle
  The information technology 2000 contract, placed with the Sirius consortium, provides the Home Office with information technology and related services. It has been providing the Department with information technology since 5 February 2001, and is
  143W
  expected to do so until February 2011. Business continuity plans are in place and kept under regular review.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of each version of the internal guidance which have been drawn up by his Department since 1 January 1999 to assist staff in his Department to answer subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. [53381]

  Angela Eagle
  No. Department-wide guidance has been issued on the handling of subject access requests, but advice has been issued within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) and in the Prison Service, the two areas where most subject access requests are received. I am placing copies of the relevant guidance in the Library. In the case of the IND instructions certain sections have been edited for operational and security reasons.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to accelerate the asylum application process; and what steps he has taken to ensure that the asylum application process is clearly understood by applicants. [53142]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 May 2002]: The measures set out in the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" published in February 2002, and in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill are designed to accelerate the asylum process. The introduction of a managed system of induction, accommodation, reporting and removal centres will secure a seamless asylum process and maintain contact with applicants. The appeals system will be streamlined to minimise delay and cut down barriers to removal.

  Asylum seekers will attend an induction centre for detailed briefing by the voluntary sector and the Home Office. A pilot induction centre opened in Dover in January 2002.

  Racism and Xenophobia
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what definition of (a) racism and (b) xenophobia is used by his Department. [53961]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The terms "racism" and "xenophobia" are not defined in the United Kingdom's domestic law. Our law deals with those who act on racism through, for example, racial discrimination or inciting racial hatred, behaviours which are defined in our legislation. Where these terms appear and are not defined, such as in Article 29 of the Treaty of European Union, in the view of United Kingdom Government the terms should be given their ordinary accepted meaning having regard to the context in which they are used. This is also the approach taken within the Home Office.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Coolants
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what coolant will be used for the building services water chilling system for the new GCHQ building.[52045]

  Mr. Straw
  The consortium (Integrated Accommodation Services) building the new GCHQ accommodation are using the refrigerant HFC 134A to chill the water. This is a commercially available non-ozone depleting refrigerant.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent by his Department on training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52750]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Nothing.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent by his Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52725]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Since 1997 the FCO has spent £1,995,213 on the delivery of leadership skills and other management or job related training programmes.

  The Secretary of State and current ministerial team have not attended the programmes provided by CMPS or the in house FCO programmes.

  £

  Cost per year

  Top management programme1

  1997–98

  128,780

  1998–99

  145,630

  1999–2000

  51,535

  2000–01

  —

  2001–02

  —

  Total

  209,945

  Band C management development programme2

  1997–98

  —

  1998–99

  —

  1999–2000

  —

  2000–01

  206,749

  2001–02

  198,821

  Total

  405,570

  Band D management development programme3

  1997–98

  —

  1998–99

  —

  1999–2000

  —

  2000–01

  502,953

  2001–02

  611,783

  Total

  1,114,736

  SMS management development programme4

  1997–98

  —

  1998–99

  —

  1999–2000

  —

  2000–01

  91,174

  2001–02

  50,647

  Total

  141,821

  145W

  £

  Cost per year

  Strategic leadership for senior managers5

  1997–98

  —

  1998–99

  —

  1999–2000

  —

  2000–01

  11,868

  2001–02

  89,300

  Total

  101,168

  Deputy head of mission programme6

  1997–98

  —

  1998–99

  4,000

  1999–2000

  4,000

  2000–01

  325

  2001–02

  1,148

  Total

  9,473

  Heads of mission programme7

  1997–98

  —

  1998–99

  —

  1999–2000

  —

  2000–01

  —

  2001–02

  12,500

  Total

  12,500

  Total costs

  1,995,213

  1Provided by London Business School 1997–2000

  2Provided by International Training Service (ITS) 2000–02

  3Provided by Ashridge 2000 to date

  4 Provided by Innermost 2000 to date

  5Provided by Innermost 2001 to date

  6Provided by in house speakers from the Senior Management Structure 1999 to date

  7 Provided by in house speakers from the Senior Management Structure 2001 to date

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent by his Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52720]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 April 2002 Since 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has spent £257,533 on the delivery of presentation and media skills training.

  The FCO provides in-house training in Effective Speaking, Presentation Skills for Senior Grades, Presentation Skills for Occasional Speakers and Media Skills and Techniques for FCO Officials. The FCO employs professional training providers, via competitive tender, to deliver presentation and media skills training.

  The Secretary of State and current ministerial team have not attended programmes provided by Centre for Management and Policy Studies or FCO in-house courses.

  Effective Speaking for Officers in Band B and above and Effective Speaking for Senior Grades

  Training provided by:
  Effective Speaking Ltd. 1997–99
  Crystal Media 1999 to date
  A two day course to help officers prepare presentations, improve their vocal technique and increase confidence and a one day course to help senior officers prepare a presentation, improve their vocal technique and take questions from the floor.
  146W
  Cost per year:

  2000–01:£84,490

  2001–021:£83,729

  Total:£168,219

  Effective Presentation Skills for Occasional Speakers

  Training provided by:
  Effective Speaking Ltd. 1997–2001
  Crystal Media 2001 to date
  A one or two day ad hoc course for individuals to help them prepare and deliver an effective presentation.

  Cost per year(£)

  1997–98

  —

  1998–99

  6,000

  1999–2000

  10,558

  2000–01

  7,231

  2001–02

  28,821

  Total

  52,610

  Media skills: "BBC" In-House; Radio and Telephone Skills; TV, Radio and Telephone Skills (1997-2000) Media Skills and Techniques (2000 to date)

  Training provided by:
  FCO in-house trainers with ad hoc input from Crystal Media 1997 to date

  Cost per year:

  2000–01: £18,283

  2001–021: £18,421

  Total: £36,704

  Total costs: £257,533

  1No records available prior to 2000.

  Israel
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in other European Union countries on seeking compensation from the Israeli Government for damage to or the destruction of EU-financed projects in Gaza and the West Bank as a result of Israeli military action. [53436]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The damage to EU and other donor funded projects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip caused by Israeli military actions was first discussed by EU Foreign Ministers at the 28 January General Affairs Council. Following that meeting the EU demanded that this practice stop and reserved the right to demand compensation in the appropriate fora. That remains our position. The European Commission continues therefore to monitor and cost the damage arising from recent IDF operations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with European and United States counterparts about the situation in Israel. [53938]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to US Secretary of State (three times since Saturday), and has had regular discussions with his European Union colleagues about the situation in Israel and the occupied territories. The middle east peace
  147W
  process was discussed at the General Affairs Council on 15 April and at the Valencia EuroMed meeting on 23 April.

  Fiji
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people from Fiji have received entry clearance to reside in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [53908]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: I list below details of entry clearance applications received and issued in Suva for settlement since 1997. We do not record the nationality of those applying for settlement and applicants can apply at any post in the world.

  To differentiate between nationality of each applicant. we would need to ask all 166 entry clearance posts to carry out a manual search of their records. This could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Received

  Issued

  1997

  36

  36

  1998

  42

  39

  1999

  22

  20

  2000

  42

  42

  20011

  7

  7

  12001 statistics cover period 1 January to 31 March 2001

  All entry clearance posts submit an annual statistical return from which the above statistics were obtained. This information is collated in the Entry Clearance Annual Statistics booklet, copies of which are currently available in the House Library. The latest year for which this information is available is 2000.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the written questions asked of him between(a) 1 to 30 June 2001, (b) I to 31 July 2001, (c) 1 to 30 September 2001, (d) I to 31 October 2001, (e) 1 to 30 November 2001, (f) 1 to 31 December 2001, i(g) 1 to 31 January 2002, (h) 1 to 28 February 2002, (i) 1 to 31 March 2002 and (j) 1 to 30 April 2002 that had not received a substantive answer by 30 April; and if he will state (i) the name of the hon. Member asking the question and (ii) the reasons the question had not received a substantive answer. [54080]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 2 May 2002, Official Report, column 949W.

  The following questions have not yet received a substantive reply.

  (a) None

  (b) None

  (c) None

  (d) None

  (e) None

  (f) None

  (g) None

  (h) None

  148W
  (i) Three questions from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). Due to administrative errors the processing of the questions was delayed. The question from the hon. Member for Buckingham has been answered and the questions from the hon. Member for Meriden and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will he answered shortly.

  (j) On 30 April 26 questions were awaiting a substantive reply from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson), my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King), my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), the hon.. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray).

  Those questions which have not already received an answer will receive an answer shortly.

  Conflict Prevention
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times his Department has discussed the two Whitehall budgets for conflict prevention, referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in a speech to the Royal College of Defence Studies on Thursday 25 April, with(a) the Ministry of Defence and
  (b) the Department for International Development; when these discussions took place; and what (i) spending commitment and (ii) countries were discussed on each occasion. [54142]

  Mr. Straw
  I (and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)), have met colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and Department for International Development to discuss the global pool on 30 November 2000, 15 March 2001 and 25 February 2002. We decided priority regions and themes for the pool as well as discussing administrative procedures for the pool. The current priorities for the global pool are Afghanistan, the Balkans, Belize/Guatemala, Indonesia/East Timor, central and eastern Europe, Russia/FSU, middle east, South Asia, small arms and light weapons, UN reform, OSCE/Council of Europe reform, and EU civilian crisis management.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who chairs the Africa Pool Ministerial Group, has met colleagues on 25 October 2000, 7 December 2000, 27 February 2001, 23 July 2001, 22 October 2001, 10 December 2001 and 4 February 2002. These meetings considered country and thematic

  149W
  priorities as well as management arrangements for the Africa pool. The country priorities agreed by Ministers are Sierra Leone, DRC and the Great Lakes, Sudan, Nigeria and Angola. Thematic priorities are building African peacekeeping capacity and tackling the economic causes of conflict.

  In addition officials meet on a regular basis.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the two Whitehall budgets for conflict prevention, referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in a speech to the Royal College of Defence Studies on Thursday 25 April 2002, have been spent on(a) by date and (b) by spending commitment. [54143]

  Mr. Straw
  A report on the activities of the pools in their first year will be published later in 2002 and will describe the programmes funded by the pools.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have benefited from the two Whitehall budgets for conflict prevention, referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in a speech to the Royal College of Defence Studies on Thursday 25 April; and in what ways. [54144]

  Mr. Straw
  Most of the funds allocated to the global pool have been divided among a set of geographical and thematic priority areas:

  The Balkans

  Central and Eastern Europe

  Russia and the Former Soviet Union

  Indonesia and East Timor

  The Middle East and North Africa

  Afghanistan

  Belize/Guatemala

  South Asia

  Small Arms and Light Weapons

  Strengthening the UN

  EU Civilian Crisis Management

  The OSCE and Council of Europe.

  The thematic priorities are of potential benefit to countries in both pools.

  The Sub-Saharan Africa pool has prioritised the following areas and themes:

  Sierra Leone

  Nigeria

  DRC and the Great Lakes

  Sudan

  Angola

  Building African Peacekeeping capacity

  Tackling the economic causes of conflict.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from which existing funds the money for the two Whitehall budgets for conflict prevention, referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in a speech to the Royal College of Defence Studies on Thursday 25 April, was taken. [54141]

  Mr. Straw
  The money for the Sub-Saharan Africa and Global Conflict Prevention Pools came from relevant existing funds held by the Ministry of Defence, the 150W
  Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office plus an additional contribution from HM Treasury.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to spend the two Whitehall budgets for conflict prevention, referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in a speech to the Royal College of Defence Studies on Thursday 25 April. [54140]

  Mr. Straw
  Spending under the Sub-Saharan Africa and Global Conflict Prevention Pools is well under way. The PSA target of the pools is improved effectiveness of the UK contribution to conflict prevention and management as demonstrated by a reduction in the number of people whose lives are affected by violent conflicts and a reduction in potential sources of future conflict, where the UK can make a significant contribution. Activities funded by the pools are tailored to meet this target.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the (a) size and (b) nature is of the two Whitehall budgets for conflict prevention, referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in a speech to the Royal College of Defence Studies on Thursday 25 April. [54145]

  Mr. Straw
  Following a review of the Government's conflict prevention and resolution activities, the FCO, Ministry of Defence and Department for International Development agreed to pool relevant existing funds to allow for a more co-ordinated approach to conflict prevention and resolution activities. Two conflict prevention pools were established on 1 April 2001: Sub-Saharan Africa (Africa pool) and another for the rest of the world (global pool). The Africa pool has been allocated £50 million per annum from 2001–04 to spend on conflict prevention programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa. The global pool budget will be £60 million for 2001–02, £68 million for 2002–03 and £78 million for 2003–04.

  In addition, the pools contribute to the additional costs of the UK assessed and non-assessed contributions to support UN and other peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations. In 2001–02 these included commitments in Sierra Leone, DRC, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Macedonia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and the Iraqi no fly zones.

  Plane-spotters
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Dutch Government concerning co-operation regarding the British and Dutch plane-spotters in Greece.[54147]

  Mr. Straw
  I have had no direct discussions with the Dutch Government concerning this case. However since the arrest of the aviation enthusiasts, on 10 November 2001 until their release on 14 December 2001, our embassy in Athens were in almost daily contact with the Dutch embassy at consul, consul-general and ambassadorial levels. On 9 December, our ambassador along with the Dutch ambassador visited the defendants while in prison. On 19 April this year both the British and
  151W
  Dutch consuls in Athens met with the group's defence lawyers, and sat together during the trial between 24–26 April.

  Greece
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet his Greek counterpart on a bilateral basis. [54148]

  Mr. Straw
  I have no plans for a bilateral meeting with the Greek Foreign Minister, George Papandreou, although I hope to see him at the Brussels GAC on 13 May.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his answer of 30 April 2002 to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble),Official Report, column 651W, if he will make a statement on the meeting between the Minister for Europe and his Spanish counterpart on 2 May. [54915]

  Peter Hain
  As I informed the House on 30 April 2002, Official Report, column 651W, I met my Spanish counterpart in London on 2 May. We had a friendly and constructive meeting. We made further progress. Substantial difficulties remain. We remain committed to reaching an agreement if possible.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what requests his Department has made since 10 December 2001 for information concerning smuggling between Gibraltar and Spain; [54182]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of information it has received prior to 10 December 2001 concerning smuggling between Gibraltar and Spain; [54184]

  (3) when his Department last received information from the Spanish authorities concerning smuggling between Gibraltar and Spain; [54183]

  (4) what assessment his Department has made of information it has received since 10 December 2001 concerning smuggling between Gibraltar and Spain. [54181]

  Mr. Straw
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on 10 December 2001.Official Report, column 633W, we have asked the Spanish Government to make available to us any current evidence that they have of significant cross-border smuggling. We will continue to do so whenever complaints are made, and would, with the Government of Gibraltar, investigate any evidence received. We have not seen any recent evidence of large-scale smuggling.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his visit to Gibraltar on 3 May. [54329]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign Secretary visited Gibraltar on
  3 May. He met the Chief Minister, opposition leaders Mr. Joe Bossano and Mr. Joe Garcia; and other leading Gibraltarians during meetings with a range of representative organisations. He took part in a phone-in 152W
  organised by the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation. He also saw for himself the recent changes at the border. He met the commander, British forces.

  The Foreign Secretary explained our objective is a settled, secure and prosperous future for Gibraltar. He underlined that no agreement would be better than a bad agreement and that the people of Gibraltar would have the final say in a referendum.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has asked Spain to relinquish its claim to full sovereignty of Gibraltar as part of the talks under the terms of the Brussels process on the future status of Gibraltar. [54354]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 451, and to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 24 April 2002, Official Report, columns 294–95W.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government of Gibraltar was advised of his intention to visit Gibraltar in May. [54328]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has stated his intention to visit Gibraltar on a number of occasions. The Foreign Secretary told the Chief Minister on 30 April of his intention to visit on 3 May.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department is preparing for UK citizens who will visit Greece (a) this summer and (b) for the Athens 2004 Olympic games with regard to activities which are legal in the United Kingdom but illegal and imprisonable in Greece; and if he will make a statement. [54139]

  Mr. Straw
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Travel advice is kept under constant review, and is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website at www.fco.gov.uk/travel. The travel advice for Greece includes guidance on local laws and customs. Specific travel advice for the 2004 Olympic games will be prepared nearer the time. Currently the advice for Greece headed Local Laws and Customs reads:Visitors should not become involved with drugs of any kind. Possession of even small quantities can lead to long terms of imprisonment.
  Driving any vehicle whilst over the legal drinking limit is heavily penalised and can result in stiff fines and/or imprisonment.
  Visitors seeking employment in bars or night clubs should be aware that they are required to have a Health certificate/licence issued by the local authorities to work in such establishments. Failure to have such a certificate is punishable by a fine and or imprisonment.
  Do not take photographs or make notes near military or official installations. Seek permission before photographing individuals.

  Should we become aware of any other laws that differ significantly from those of the United Kingdom and which may impact adversely on British nationals we will, of course, highlight them in the travel advice.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department was first informed of the arrest of the Britons related to bombing incidents in Saudi Arabia; and when he and officials in his Department made representations to the Saudi Government on behalf of the accused. [53916]

  Mr. Straw
  The five British nationals accused of involvement in bombings in Saudi Arabia were arrested on separate occasions between 17 December 2000 and 8 June 2001. FCO officials learned of each arrest shortly after it had happened.

  Ministers and FCO officials have made repeated representations on these cases from the outset. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made representations on numerous occasions directly with the Saudis. We will continue to do all we can for the detainees.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department was informed of the sentences passed on the Britons accused of the bombing campaign in Saudi Arabia; and what sentences were passed against each of the accused. [53917]

  Mr. Straw
  The Saudi authorities have not informed us that sentences have been passed on the five British nationals accused of involvement in the bombings. We cannot release details of individual consular cases and the men have a right to confidentiality.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will widen the scope of the UK/EU travel ban against Zimbabwean officials to include businessmen. [54146]

  Mr. Straw
  Any possible further measures against Zimbabwe will depend on the outcome of the current inter-party dialogue between ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with European colleagues regarding military action against Iraq; and which European countries have made a commitment to supplying troops for military action against Iraq. [53939]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We stay in close touch with European and other Governments about the situation in Iraq. Since no decision has been made on military action against Iraq, no Government, including the UK, have made troop commitments.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at which meetings of the UN Security Council Professor Hans Koechler's report on the appeal proceedings at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands was(a) on the agenda and (b) discussed.[53542]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Convention on the Future of Europe
Lord Howell of Guildfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they next expect a report to be made to Parliament on the activities and progress of the current Convention on the Future of Europe; and at what intervals future reports will be made.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government will inform Parliament whenever there are significant developments to report regarding the Convention on the Future of Europe. In addition, the parliamentary representatives will keep their respective Houses fully informed of progress by reporting to the appropriate committee, as they did to the Select Committee of this House last week.
My right honourable friend the Minister for Europe also appeared before your Lordships' European Union Select Committee on 30th April and answered questions about the convention. He stands ready to do so again in the future.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I was aware of the European Union Committee's extremely successful and useful meeting the other day, to which I was invited. But, as she indicated, the missing character from that meeting was the Minister for Europe, who is a member of the delegation to the convention. It would be helpful to know how his and the Government's evolving views on the convention will be monitored by the other place and by this House.
Given that there are alternative models for the future of Europe which the convention is looking at, how will those be presented to the parliaments and people of Europe and of this country; or will there be one conclusion from the convention which we will have to take or leave?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are talking about a long period. We are still very much in the phase of listening to views about how this matter should go forward. As the noble Lord knows, the whole process will finish in about a year's time. There will then he a period for parliaments throughout Europe to consider the matter before we get to the intergovernmental conference. But it is important to remember that my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe gave his evidence separately. It is
986
not that our Select Committee has not heard from him. I am sure that he will do so again on future occasions when asked.
In addition, as I have already said, we will be issuing statements both in your Lordships' House and in another place as and when there are significant developments.
If the noble Lord has some further suggestions he would like to put forward about how we might monitor this, I should be very happy to listen to them.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how reassured we all are in view of the Government's statement that before any conclusions are accepted as suitable for the United Kingdom they must be clear and unambiguous?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend listened very carefully—I am sure that he did—to what I said. We are going through what is being called—much as I dislike "jargonistic" phrases—the "listening phase"—listening to what is being put forward for the convention's attention. The proposed end for the convention is between March and June next year. Then there will be an opportunity for national parliaments to debate what has come out of the convention. There will be time for that to be concluded before the IGC starts towards the end of next year—that is towards the end of 2003.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, since the task of the convention is to produce a constitutional document which assists the European Union more effectively to promote the interests of its citizens and to reflect their democratic aspirations—that process will gain momentum during the summer and in the autumn after the national elections in Europe—can the Minister indicate what are the Government's preferences? Do the Government intend to publish a White Paper at some stage in the process; or, better still, to initiate a sequence of parliamentary debates geared to the key topics under consideration in the convention to enable Parliament to give full and timely consideration to those issues before the recommendations of the convention are set in a single frame?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who is an alternate member of the convention—and we are delighted that we have two such alternates in your Lordships' House—may know, my right honourable friend the Leader in another place has indicated that thought is being given to how the report back to Parliament should take place from the Government's point of view. It is important that your Lordships remember that there is not only the government report back from my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe but—your Lordships will also be interested to know—the report back from the parliamentary representatives, of which the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Tomlinson are examples. I would be very grateful if noble Lords with views about how they

987
would like to see the report back take place in your Lordships' House would come and see me; let us have a discussion about this. The Government's mind is reasonably open on this point. We would very much like to take advice from those of your Lordships intimately associated with this aspect to see the most appropriate way forward.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister go a little further and tell us what exactly will be the status of the document when we get it? What will be the effect of any debate which Parliament has upon it? Is it amendable? Is it guidelines? How do we influence the future and not merely express our opinions upon it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that I have gone quite far already in suggesting to your Lordships that there are a number of ways in which we might try to influence this debate. It is important to remember that we will be issuing statements and, as always, the Government will listen carefully to what your Lordships say as we reach various decision points in the convention. Also we shall have the opportunity, subject of course to what the usual channels say, of looking at what our own Select Committee is saying on this matter. Further to that, at the moment I really cannot give any cast-iron undertakings. But, as I have already indicated to the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Elton, and to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, I would be very interested to discuss this matter with your Lordships to see what progress we can make which will be satisfactory to your Lordships.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that perhaps it is a little premature to get too worried about the conclusions of the convention at this stage? Is it not perhaps very important that the widest range of opinions developed in your Lordships' House should be made available to the convention? Is it not therefore important that reports from the European Union Select Committee, such as the report on the second chamber, the report on common, foreign and security policy and the report on the future of the Court of Auditors should be submitted in the name of the House of Lords to the convention, so that before it reaches its conclusions it has the opportunity of taking into account some of the very valuable deliberation that has taken place in your Lordships House?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Of course it is premature at the moment, at the very outset of this process, to be discussing conclusions. That said, I understand the natural concern of Members of your Lordships' House not only to have the opportunity to put forward their views to the Government but to have them listened to in Europe, where the decisions will be taken on the outcome of the convention.

Commonwealth Development Corporation
2.44 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Commonwealth Development Corporation has reduced its investments in sub-Saharan Africa and in the agriculture sector of developing countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, in 2001, almost half of CDC's new investments were in Africa. CDC remains a significant investor in the agribusiness sector both in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere.
CDC's reasons for selling investments in the agricultural sector may vary from case to case, as in other sectors. Considerations may include poor rates of return, fluctuating commodity prices or the opportunity to sell a successful investment to a business better placed to take it forward commercially.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the Minister paints a rosy picture. Why has overall investment in Africa by CDC capital partners dropped by one-third between 1996 and 2000 and agricultural investment collapsed to just five per cent? Why are the Government abandoning the poorest and most needy countries in Africa?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not at all agree with the noble Lord. I made clear in my Answer that we are committed to investment in Africa and we continue to be committed to its agricultural sector. I must make clear that we absolutely support the current process of change in CDC. Noble Lords will recall that we debated legislation in this House under which CDC has been directed to become a provider of equity capital for business in poor countries. A switch has been made from debt to equity in all sectors. We continue to support the agricultural sector in Africa in a number of other ways. Noble Lords will know that sustainable development—a key part of which is agricultural development—remains a key part of our strategy.
I repeat that under the investment policy, 70 per cent of new investment as measured over a rolling five-year average must be in poorer countries. CDC should aim to make 50 per cent of new investments each year in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Those targets have been met.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, no policy change meets with universal approval or is without controversy. Having said that, is my noble friend satisfied that the current changes, designed to move the poorer countries of Africa out of the poverty to which they have been condemned for far too long, have the balance about right?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. We are considering investment and

989
development in Africa in a number of ways. Noble Lords will know from previous debates that development assistance is but one aspect of that. The engine and motor for change in African countries will be economic growth and investment. We are committed to ensuring that such investment occurs in the right way.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a similarly worded Question was asked in her absence? There were many press reports at the time about how concerned everyone was about the extreme change of emphasis whereby big, smart offices were being set up and great emphasis was placed on business success without any thought for agriculture or for really poor people. It was said at the time that it was a great pity that the Minister was not here, as she would have been able to answer the Question. Does she appreciate how concerned are those of us who are interested in helping the poorest of the poor and how, frighteningly, the new policy does not appear to be directed in that way?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I understand that extreme concern has been expressed not only in the House but elsewhere and I have read press reports of the change that has taken place. If I may say so, the concern comes from a lack of understanding of our strategy and policy. We remain committed to the policy set out in the 1997 White Paper, which is to work towards the elimination of world poverty. We are considering how best to achieve that. One aspect of that is to promote economic growth and investment and to create the right conditions within African countries to attract that investment but also to retain the savings within African countries—40 per cent of savings in African countries leaves those countries to he invested elsewhere.
But we have also developed our own rural and sustainable development policies. Since 1998, the Department for International Development has committed more than £580 million to projects that directly support sustainable agriculture. So, although CDC may be moving away from investment in smaller agricultural projects in Africa, the large-scale infrastructure projects to which it is committed match our commitment to ensuring that there is ample investment and growth. That means that the poorest of the poor will benefit.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, on their funds of £1 billion, the hotshot investment bankers who now manage CDC produced a negative total return—a loss—of £155 million last year? Does she accept that, given such a performance, there is no chance of its raising and managing private sector capital and that the public/private partnership that the Government have tried to launch for five years is a dead duck?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with that at all. All noble Lords will know that last year was a difficult year in investment generally. Noble Lords
990
who have private investments will recognise that. We want to see a public/private partnership, and we are committed to ensuring that it happens. It will lever private sector investment into African countries. I do not accept that that will not happen. We are committed to it and are considering several ways in which we can ensure that it happens.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that economic growth is not a matter that readily comes to the mind of a woman in a remote village in Tanzania? Sub-Saharan Africa is not exactly rolling in milk and honey. The CDC was doing an excellent job in agriculture. I do not know whether the Minister has seen it at work, but I certainly have. That help is still greatly needed.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree that CDC has done a good job and continues to do an excellent job. I agree that economic growth is not what springs to the mind of a woman in Tanzania who lacks access to water and sanitation. However, if the poor in Africa are to be pulled out of poverty, African countries need an average growth rate of 7 per cent per annum. We must help them to achieve that.

National Museums: Appointment of Trustees
2.52 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has issued a directive advising national museums not to appoint trustees over the age of 50.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, no, we have not.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. I might add that I have no thing to declare, as, although aged, I am neither great nor particularly good.
Many of the people who help most with our museums and galleries are people with vast experience. Some of them are Members of your Lordships' House. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have no intention of dissuading museums and galleries from appointing older people?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the Government were to issue a directive of the kind to which the noble Lord referred, we would court a certain amount of trouble. I need look only at the Front Benches on this and the opposite side of the House for evidence of that. Were a directive to be issued suggesting that no body over 50 could be on those Benches, they would be rather empty.

991
The Government want to have a wide age range represented in our museums and galleries, and we are trying to achieve just that. I shall give the noble Lord a couple of statistics that might interest him. In the past financial year, 72 per cent of all appointments at the DCMS were of people over the age of 50. For museums and galleries, the figure was 81 per cent. So, there is lots of scope for Members of your Lordships' House to take part.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on the fact that such a directive has not been issued. Will the Minister assure us that it is not still being considered, as it could be construed as interference with the independence of national museum trustees?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is the first time that I have been congratulated because a directive has not been issued. The independence of our national museums and galleries and their boards is important. At the same time, they are non-departmental public bodies in receipt of substantial amounts of government money. From time to time, the Government might want to make encouraging noises, in certain respects.
If I may, I shall bore your Lordships' House with some more statistics. Only five per cent of trustees of museums and galleries are under 40; only 20 per cent are aged between 40 and 49. For that reason, we want to see boards recruiting more young people, and we encourage them to do so.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, does not the European Charter of Fundamental Rights ban discrimination on grounds of age, although not necessarily at the age of 50?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure that the European Charter is relevant to this area, as it is to many others.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question is interesting because ageism is as alive and well in this country as it is anywhere in the developed world? In the arts—the fine arts, in particular—there is a great fear that distinguished directors of galleries and museums will not be able to take up a role in which they can use their expertise, once they go beyond early middle age. One example is Sir Timothy Clifford, whose work in Scotland has been of incalculable value to that country. We hope that he will come home to England, but will we lose the scholarship and the eye apparent in his most successful career because he will be just under or over 60?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall not comment on an individual case, but I am sure that Sir Timothy Clifford has huge experience and expertise, which, I hope, he will be able to use in various contexts. However, all posts in public life come to an end at some point because we have retirement ages. I assume that
992
the noble Viscount is not proposing that people should never retire from such posts or move on and make other contributions to public life, without necessarily fulfilling a full-time executive role.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I join in the congratulations on the non-directive. However, does the Minister recall the case of Price v. Civil Service Commission? That was an early case of indirect sex discrimination, which resulted in the removal of most—if not all—age limits for entry into the Civil Service. Does the Minister agree that the test for all jobs or appointments should be whether the applicant has the qualifications and experience required? That should also apply to re-appointment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in discussing appointments to the Civil Service, we are moving a long way from the Question on the Order Paper. I am afraid that I do not recall the case cited by the noble Baroness, but we want to see the best possible use of people with qualifications and expertise. We are achieving that for museums and galleries, and we have many people who give their time freely to support the work of our museums and galleries. It would, however, be an advantage if we could find and encourage rather more younger people to take part as well, given the statistics that I have just given the House.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is the contents of museums that should be old, not the trustees?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the contents of museums can be old and new, and the same ought to apply to their trustees.

Palestine: Civic Infrastructure
3 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken by the European Union Council of Ministers to seek compensation for European Union-financed infrastructure destroyed by military action in the Palestinian territory.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the damage to EU and other donor-funded projects caused by Israeli military actions was first discussed by EU Foreign Ministers at the General Affairs Council on 28th January. Following that meeting the EU demanded that this practice stop, and reserved the right to demand compensation in the appropriate fora. The European Commission continues to monitor and cost the damage arising from recent IDF operations.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I have no interest whatever in laying blame but, according to the European Union Commission, the total value of the destruction of the civic infrastructure of Palestinian

993
territory was of the order of 19 million euros. Approximately two-thirds of that sum was provided by bilateral aid from individual EU member countries. The destruction included Gaza airport, the Palestinian Broadcasting Authority and at least five of the new civil police camps which have been established as a result of EU aid.
Does the Minister agree that, if we are to create a Palestinian state with the kind of infrastructure which will offer young Palestinians some hope that might lead them away from terrorism, it will be vital to replace that infrastructure? At a meeting of the so-called Oslo donors on 25th April, it was estimated that the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure would be at least 2 billion dollars, of which 800 million dollars still has to he found in this year alone. Does she consider it vital that, when the four-part conference meets next month, it considers how donors can be given proper guarantees that neither side will involve itself in the destruction of the infrastructure, which is so vital to the future of the Palestinian territory?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that the recent incursions in the West Bank have caused extensive damage not only to the physical infrastructure but also to institutional capacity. A damage assessment is being conducted by the international agencies; a joint World Bank/L NESCO report is due to be circulated by 13th May; and follow-up action will then be discussed at a local aid co-ordination committee meeting later that week .The European Commission has pledged to lend its full support to the reconstruction of the destroyed infrastructure and the rebuilding of the Palestinian Authority. I agree with the noble Baroness that this will be an important part of the peace-building effort.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, on 23rd April 2002 (Hansard, col. 125) I asked the noble Baroness the Minister whether she would confirm that the British Government still regarded the Palestinian Authority, under its elected President, Yasser Arafat, as the legitimate administrator of the Occupied Territories. By what I fully accept was an oversight, the noble Baroness failed to answer my question. In the light of Prime Minister Sharon's reported attempts to exclude President Arafat from the peace process, and in the light of the regrettable statements reported as having been made by Mr Netanyahu in Trafalgar Square yesterday, comparing President Arafat with Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, may I now ask for a reply to my question?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the answer is, yes, it is for the Palestinian people to chose their leader.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, when considering the question of financing the Palestinian Authority, can my noble friend tell the House how much of the finance that has been provided, by the European Union or otherwise, has provably been used for the purposes for which it was provided, and what
994
has happened to the rest? Furthermore, can she kindly tell us how much has been paid by the Saudis, the Iraqis and the Iranians to cover the cost of the intifada and the suicide bombing?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the EC's humanitarian budgetary assistance for the Palestinian Authority is framed firmly within a number of conditions which are designed to ensure financial probity. These include keeping expenditure within a pre-agreed austerity budget, non-accumulation of arrears, consolidation of revenues under the Ministry of Finance and satisfactory proposals for reform. Those arrangements are closely monitored by the IMF and payments are transferred to the Palestinian Authority only after the IMF has verified that the money has been properly spent according to the agreed purpose. We have no reason to believe that there has been any misuse of EC money.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, of course the civic infrastructure of a future Palestinian state must be rebuilt and we all recognise that. However, will the Minister accept that there have been some concerns in the past that the transfer of moneys from outside, in particular from the European Union, have not always ended up in the right place, and that there is evidence that some of it has gone to weapons rather than infrastructure and to terrorists rather than to the civic order? Will she assure us that for any future moneys to be transferred from the European Union, and I am sure that there should be, proper safeguards will be in place to ensure that the money goes into infrastructure and not into undesirable purposes?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think I made it clear in my previous reply when I mentioned the arrangements which have been made to monitor the European Commission's humanitarian budgetary assistance to the Palestinian Authority, that the money is well-monitored by the IMF and is transferred to the Palestinian Authority only after there has been verification that the money has been properly spent.
The IMF is satisfied with the accounts it has seen to date, but there is always room for improvement. The World Bank is planning to undertake a detailed assessment of the Palestinian Authority's financial management processes and systems with a view to designing ways of improving their transparency and their effectiveness. I hope that that review, and the outcome of that review, will reassure noble Lords.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the draft communications Bill. After that, my noble friend

995
Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat a reply to a Private Notice Question in another place on Wembley Stadium.

Land at Palace Avenue, Kensington (Acquisition of Freehold) Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It may be of assistance to noble Lords who wonder what it is about if I say that the Bill is a technical one. It allows the acquisition, subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State, of a small amount of freehold in an area of land adjoining an hotel in Kensington which, I understand, is by way of being a flying freehold, although that is subject to correction if anybody wants to check it. At present the land is leased to the hotel under the Crown Lands Act of 1702, which I believe was designed to stop the king of that time flogging off the Crown lands. The land cannot be disposed of except by way of a lease for a maximum of 31 years. The effect of the Bill is to disapply that Act and allow a leasehold of a longer period. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Education Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Exemptions available to qualifying schools]:
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 38A:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert "or local education authority"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 38A, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady David, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43A and 47A. I had intended to start by making an acerbic remark or two. The exodus from the Chamber helps me enormously in that.
Education and local education authorities used to be dear to the hearts of my noble friends, but given their lack of contribution to the Committee stage of this Bill, clearly times have changed. However, I still live in hope that, apart from my noble friend Lady
996
David and myself, one or two other colleagues might occasionally join the debate as it develops over the next 12 hours or so.
Local education authorities and local government in general feel neglected and unloved. Not only is that true generally, as I have said, but it is particularly true in relation to this Bill. My own view is that, apart from their important role in terms of local democracy, the contribution made by LEAs to education has been vital over the past century and, in my judgment, should continue to be so. However, it is difficult to interpret the Bill in any way other than to suggest that LEAs will continue to be neglected and unloved, given the emphasis placed by the legislation on all kinds of other organisations rather than LEAs themselves. The fact is that LEAs still have a leadership role to play in education and, more importantly, I do not believe that the law either has been changed or is proposed to be changed to such a degree that the earlier responsibilities of LEAs will disappear. It is still the case that, when things go wrong, LEAs will at the centre of having to put them right.
Those are my background remarks. The amendments have allowed me to make those observations, but they also reflect my particular concern that, in this part of the Bill, provision is being put in place for successful schools to vary both the national curriculum and matters such as teachers' pay and conditions as part of their earned autonomy. That move was heralded in the education Green and White Papers.
Last Thursday I argued that I was not happy with the part of the Bill enabling schools to vary teachers' pay and conditions from nationally agreed scales. I do not resile from my worries over that matter. However, what appeared to concern most noble Lords was whether schools would bid above nationally agreed scales in order to obtain scarce staff and thus produce adverse local effects. I believe that I was alone in suggesting the reverse danger; that of schools bidding down teachers' pay and conditions. I have to admit that no one agreed with me; nevertheless, I have gone on record in saying that movements in both directions are worrying.
Continuing with pay and conditions under this general rubric, my second-best position is that, if such a freedom is to be granted to certain schools, then it should also be granted to local education authorities confronting problems within the schools for which they remain responsible. As I said, I am not particularly keen on the freedom in the first place, but if it is to be conferred, then I see no logic in denying it to LEAs.
Turning to the national curriculum, I shall refer right back to the 1988 Act which my noble friend Lady David and I dealt with from the Opposition Benches in this House. We then took the view that the curriculum should be small and limited and should not be made too prescriptive. Beyond that, schools should be given a great deal of freedom. I recall an amendment tabled in my name and that of the late lamented Lord Joseph asking for precisely that. There are certain basic elements of education that are so fundamental that they should be made compulsory within the national

997
curriculum, but no more than that should be stipulated on a compulsory basis. Guidance and the freedom to choose should obtain beyond that point.
For those noble Lords who are new to your Lordships' House, that Bill was passed in the bad old days when there were vast numbers of Tory hereditary Peers in the House. Although very many of those Tory Peers agreed with our view, in those days the Whips simply said, "No, the Bill must be carried and we do not want to accept amendments of this kind". Such an approach was not unknown at the time. Happily, however, experience gained in the intervening years has shown that the need to have a flexible curriculum built around a core in which there was no flexibility was right and everyone has followed our thinking. I am only sorry that Lord Joseph did not live, as I have, to see that what we argued for then turned out to be correct.
I still believe in flexibility within the curriculum, but I do not see why that flexibility should be restricted to a certain group of schools. Thus the other reason for tabling the amendments is to enable my noble friend on the Front Bench to explain to the Committee why, if such flexibility in the curriculum is a good idea with regard to "earned autonomy"—in future I shall not be using that expression very often—the case made in support of that position should not also apply to local education authorities.
To summarise, my argument is twofold. I wish to express my general support for local education authorities, which I hope will be echoed by my noble friend, and I seek to change the Bill so that what is good enough for a sub-set of schools should also apply to LEAs. Thus the freedom could be applied to all the maintained schools for which an authority is responsible in any one area. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord opened with his acerbic comments, which I shall leave for the record to show. He went on to discuss the importance of LEAs maintaining their role and, again, I have no argument with that position. Perhaps I may put one or two questions to the Minister.
I assume from the amendments that an LEA would be free to apply on behalf a single school, a group of schools or, indeed, all the schools in its area. Given that, if a single school and/or a group of schools wished to be considered for earned autonomy, why should they not make the application themselves? One argument that has a certain appeal is that, if a group of schools wishes to exercise the freedom, then what the noble Lord suggests may well provide a means of cutting down on bureaucracy. But if we apply what the Minister has stated so far in the debate with regard to applications being made for earned autonomy, then each school will have to be considered on its own merits as regards whether it is a fit and proper institution to be awarded earned autonomy. I am not sure that much time would be saved.
I wonder whether the Minister will say that a group of schools could be considered and that an overall judgment would be made on whether the group was
998
capable of accepting responsibility for exercising such a form of management. When we discussed the clauses covering earned autonomy, we argued that there should be a presumption that all schools could gain earned autonomy unless, for one reason or another, the Government believe that a certain school was not a fit institution to take advantage of it. The Government did not appear to like that suggestion.
Indeed, the papers giving further information on these clauses suggest that only 10 per cent of our schools may be given permission to enjoy earned autonomy. I still have serious reservations about that. I would imagine that 30, 40, 50 or even 60 per cent of our schools would be more than capable of running their own affairs. Indeed, I would suggest that that would be the case for an even higher percentage. Many schools will be upset if the criteria are drawn so tightly that only 10 per cent of all schools are allowed to exercise earned autonomy.
There is an underlying question that I should like to put to the Minister. What would be saved if an LEA made an application on a school's behalf, given that earned autonomy is granted when an institution itself declares that, "We believe that we have sufficient expertise to meet the criteria set by the Government for running our own affairs", and thereby gains exemption from a number of pieces of legislation designed to raise standards in schools? Am I right in saying that, whether it applies in a group or through a whole LEA, each individual school would be subject to a school-by-school critique as to its suitability for earned autonomy?
Baroness David: I do not want to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her arguments; I want to follow what my noble friend Lord Peston said about local education authorities. I said at Second Reading that one of the things I like about the Bill is that it gives greater opportunities for local education authorities, which had been downgraded under the previous government. I hope that during the course of proceedings on the Bill my noble friend the Minister will give more importance to LEAs and their roles. This amendment gives her an opportunity to do that.
Lord Dearing: At the risk of being repetitious—I confess it—I wish to speak again on this clause. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in regard to not undermining the position of local education authorities. I declared an interest previously as a vice-president of the LGA and I do so again.
My question concerns the principle of "earned" autonomy as opposed to "needed" autonomy. It is a false idea that you earn autonomy. The issue is what is needed for the best education of young people. We are moving towards that in the Green Paper for those aged 14 to 19—and three cheers, say I—but there is a serious problem in particular areas and in particular schools with regard to those aged between 11 and 14, where we lose too many children from education because they cannot engage with the mandative curriculum.
I have argued previously that there is no need to relieve a duty to apply the curriculum in schools where there are excellent results; it is not a handicap to them

999
But I have spent some hours in the past week in a school which has serious problems, and part of those serious problems involves engaging all the young people, particularly from 11 to 14. The curriculum is the problem. I believe that through the good offices of the LEA—okay, the school cannot be trusted entirely—and its judgment that this would help to achieve better results, then there is a case for "needed" as opposed to "earned" autonomy.
As to pay, I have said before that it is the most expensive game I know to engage in unless you are an expert. I fear that the trade associations would be much more expert than schools and it could be a worrying game.
Schools in difficulties are losing teachers in a competitive market in languages and in science, where there are scarcities. Teachers are naturally attracted to the successful schools with good GCSE and A-level results. Perhaps the need for flexibility in the other schools is more significant in the context of good education. Again I would argue for the role of the LEA in taking judgments—certainly in being involved in the decision.
Lord Lucas: I largely support the noble Lord, Lord Peston—there is a role for LEAs. I do not share the noble Lord's views as to precisely what that should be, but it is no good having everything centralised and then the central organ deciding it needs a lot of quangos locally because it does not know what is going on. The LEA is there to provide that kind of function.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I do not know how long it is since the Minister—or, perhaps more recently, anyone in the Box—has looked at what the 11 to 14 science curriculum looks like, but I suggest that they pick up a copy of GCSE Bitesize, or something like that, look at it and see if there is one fact, method or anything else in there which they have used since they were 11 to 14. It may be used in a trivia quiz but, frankly, there is so much in there that is extremely boring. Anyone who has half an eye turned to the practical world rather than to succeeding in academia will easily be turned off by that kind of thing.
I cannot confess that I have explored other areas of the curriculum. There is probably more fascination in English, history and other areas, but certainly the science—and I am a scientist—at 11 to 14 is extremely dull. I can quite see why schools which are having a difficult time in educating their children may think that there are better areas in which they could contribute. They could contribute much the same kind of skills if they were to look at the rather more practical applications of science than the stuff that has been washed up in the curriculum.
As to whether LEAs should be allowed to apply for exemption in the same way as schools, I share my noble friend's view that where it is a matter for schools, then schools should apply. But there are several areas in which an LEA may well benefit from that kind of exemption—for example, in the area of transport. School transport has been a problem for a long time.
1000
It is expensive, it is difficult to organise and there have been various cut-backs over the years. In the Bill we are looking at transport for 16 to 18 year-olds, but there is already a three-mile limit. I do not suppose noble Lords know many people who would let their kids walk three miles to school. The whole business has got caught up in the way that legislation is phrased. For instance, you are not allowed to charge people for school transport so you make them pay for other forms of transport. There are all kinds of inflexibilities. At last one or two experiments are taking place and we are looking at new ways of providing transport: for example, yellow bus schemes. Some kind of flexibility for LEAs in this area could well be a benefit.
I should also like to see flexibility for LEAs in the area of special educational needs provision. You can get into a terrible jam in an LEA if you suddenly find that you have more serious autism cases cropping up and you do not have within your patch the provision to cater for them. It can cost anything up to £250,000 per year per child to deal with severe autism, but if you can provide for it in your patch or in conjunction with another neighbouring local authority or two, you may well be able to manage it for £100,000 or £150,000. With 10 or a dozen kids, that would be an enormous saving of money, but you cannot do it under current regulations.
Other problems also flow from the inflexibility of SEN legislation and the other legislation governing the way local authorities work. We should allow local authorities to look at different ways of providing, particularly when dealing with rarer and more complicated special educational needs—for example, by getting together with other providers or cross border and so on—and if they need exemption from the law, certainly the Secretary of State should be prepared to consider that. So I support the words of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but not entirely the spirit behind them.
Baroness Walmsley: I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the way science is taught in schools these days. I have observed a number of science lessons quite recently and in most of them the children were very interested in the subject. It depends on the way it is taught.
As to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in regard to the curriculum, we on these Benches have long promoted the idea of a minimum curriculum entitlement with a certain amount of flexibility around it. That flexibility would give the opportunity to add more relevant science lessons for the kind of children referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
My noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford mentioned last week that we on these Benches are not happy with the concept of the very limited earned autonomy in the Bill. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that all schools should have earned autonomy unless there is a good reason why they should not.

1001
For those reasons, I support the amendment. When making applications for autonomy the local authority must be involved. It has responsibility for all the children in an area and anything that one school does affects all the others. It is absolutely crucial that. the LEAs are central to this issue.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I intervene simply to remind the Minister that many of the most interesting and important innovations that have taken place in education in the past decade have come from local education authorities—from local management of schools, to school-based teacher training, to innovations in civic responsibility in the curriculum. I could name dozens more very good innovations. I refer, for example, to the way in which new teachers are introduced into the profession and so on.
Local authorities have played a major role in innovation—in terms of new thinking in relation to the curriculum, as well as in the new organisation of schools. It would be an insult to the splendid history that local authorities have, and to their current involvement with schools, if they were not allowed to apply for exemption where they have a sensible plan for innovation and if they were not allowed to coordinate and comment on applications from individual schools within their area.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The debate has been an interesting opening to the second day in Committee. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed.
Perhaps I may say immediately to my noble friend Lord Peston that I, too, am a great supporter, as are the Government, of the role and work of local education authorities. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I pay tribute to the innovation that they have given us in the past, as they no doubt will in the future.
I am not against the principle behind the amendment. I agree that successful LEAs, as well as schools, should be able to earn additional freedoms and flexibility. I am glad that my noble friends Lord Peston and Lady David tabled the amendment. It gives me the opportunity to make it clear that, in practice, LEAs can already do so.
In committing themselves to deliver enhancing, stretching outcomes in local public service agreements, local education authorities already have the opportunity to earn additional freedoms and flexibility. Indeed, some 36 local authorities have signed a local PSA with central government; and nearly all of the remaining upper-tier authorities are scheduled to do so.
There are a number of local authorities—although perhaps I may focus on one—where the PSA has focused specifically on education. There is a local authority that has examined, for example, the attainment of ethnic minority children within its area and set itself a challenging target to ensure that their needs are met.
1002
Turning to issues raised, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to the 14 to 19 strategy. I agree that it is an important part of where the Government are trying to move for the future. I understand his comments about schools in challenging circumstances. It is precisely because we want to make sure that schools are able to think of new ideas that we have developed the power to innovate, which I trust the noble Lord will support. That power is available to any school that wishes to apply for it. Indeed, our hope and aspiration are that schools facing difficulties will come forward with ways in which they can develop new ideas. Local education authorities are able to come forward under the power to innovate in just the same way as schools.
I think I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on the 11 to 14 science curriculum. I have 12 year-old who is in the middle of it. I quite enjoy it at the moment—he will appreciate that remark. It is partly why we are working hard on our key stage three strategy, to ensure that the dip that we see in the achievement of some children when they move from primary to secondary school is dealt with, and that the transition is dealt with better so that they continue to grow. Science is one of the areas on which we shall focus. Our children do exceptionally well at primary school at five; that does not carry through to key stage three in the same way. We should like to see that addressed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked a specific question about schools applying for the criteria. She was right: it will be for individual schools to apply. We want to make application as easy as possible. Therefore, we shall be ensuring that schools know what the criteria are, so that in a sense they are able to see their eligibility and the system is not complex. I fully endorse the points made about special educational needs. Again, we trust that the power to innovate will be used, as will earned autonomy, to support children with special educational needs.
I do not believe that the amendment would provide an appropriate way in which to give LEAs earned autonomy. The flexibilities on offer relate specifically to the curriculum and to teachers' pay and conditions—matters on which we believe schools, not LEAs, are best placed to decide what is appropriate. That is not to say that LEAs should not be consulted and, where appropriate, have an important contribution to make.
On the question of the number of schools able to apply for earned autonomy, I remind the Committee that I have committed the Government to a reexamination of the criteria. We are committed to proceeding with caution in the best interests of the education of our children, while recognising that we want earned autonomy to develop. Therefore, whatever we are looking for in terms of numbers now is where we begin and not where we end. I have made a commitment to re-examine the matter, and I shall bring forward further ideas on Report. I hope that with those reassurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend for her reply. I also thank Members of the Committee who have taken part. Our short debate has illustrated a point that I made right at the beginning; namely, how difficult it is, certainly for me, to understand the Bill. I found, for example, the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, particularly enlightening. She interpreted this whole area quite differently from the way in which I had interpreted it. I am not saying that the noble Baroness is wrong and I am right; I simply draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Bill is not clear.
Equally if not more significant was the distinction made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, between "earned" and "needed". I had taken it for granted that any changes were in large part needed and not earned. Again, I may misunderstand the Bill totally.
I had assumed also—a point that emerged, perhaps unintentionally, from my noble friend's remarks—that many problems and needs are frequently not to do with a specific school but with a whole local authority area. I very much follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, on the subject. My interpretation was that the solution was not to be found within an individual school but within the whole LEA. If the LEA does not have the powers to do that—and I shall reflect on whether it does or not–
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I want to make the point that the power to innovate, which is available to local education authorities, is specifically geared for schools in challenging circumstances. We are looking to schools that are successful and well led to have earned autonomy, which will be permanent. The term "earned autonomy" may not suit everyone but at least it describes what we are trying to do. That is the difference.
Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am sorry if I interpreted the provision wrongly. My understanding was that the clauses related to individual schools receiving earned autonomy. My understanding was that when an LEA was included as an applicant it would apply for the schools in its area.
I agree with the Minister that innovation is there for the schools referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing; namely, those that require more help and want to do more for those young people who are dislocated from mainstream education. The clauses on innovation are more appropriate for that.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lord Lucas spoke about freedom for LEAs to be exempt from legislation. That was the question answered by the Minister. She did not appear to answer the question about an LEA acting on behalf of its schools. We know now about an LEA earning autonomy, but I do not know the Minister's response to the idea of an LEA acting for the schools in its area.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We are framing autonomy in such a way that it is for schools to apply
1004
individually, not as a group. We have not yet considered the idea of a group application. The basis on which we wish to go forward is with schools applying individually.
Lord Peston: I thank everyone for their interventions. I have not finished yet! I am not for a moment saying that the interpretation of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is wrong; I am simply pointing out that it is different from mine, and I shall think about it. I am more than willing to think that I am wrong.
I cannot resist a remark or two on the science curriculum, although I shall wait until we reach the part of the Bill dealing with the 14 to 19 science curriculum to comment on that. However, I have a sinking feeling that it will arise at a time when I am unable to be present for the debate. As regards the earlier curriculum, when we debated religious and moral issues late last Thursday the distinction between value judgments and other propositions emerged.
As always, when one goes home from this House, one thinks of infinitely better arguments than one used when on one's feet. Following the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I decided that the argument that I should have used was this. In elementary Newtonian mechanics I was taught how to calculate the range and trajectory of a gun, and that kind of thing. I was quite good at it. But I was not taught that it was a bad thing to point guns at people, let alone fire them. It seems to me that there is that distinction there, but I would not get the one confused with the other.
To go back to my main point, although I have never had the need to calculate the range and trajectory of a cannon or anything else, it is an important part of the syllabus. If I were teaching it and a young person said he was bored, I would say it was good for him to be bored, because that is the nature of teaching elementary Newtonian mechanics. I used to say that about economics generally to anybody.
Having said that, I shall think further, as my noble friend the Minister has said that she will, too, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 5, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may from time to time publish statistics to inform the public of the effects of the application of this Chapter."
The noble Lord said: Returning briefly to the previous amendment, if the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wants a modern illustration that will fascinate people, how Beckham bends a football is a rather more interesting and topical way of looking at Newtonian mechanics than firing cannon shells. Sadly, the curriculum has not caught up.
I apologise for not having been here yesterday, which is when I should have been here in order to make sure that Amendment No. 40 was grouped with Amendment No. 363, which sets out the main reason

1005
for it—to deal with the general question of the Government's statistics. In the circumstances, perhaps we should leave Amendment No. 363 to another day and concentrate on Amendment No. 40. I shall say merely that if we have a lot of experimentation and variation in the system, it is important that we should be given a good range of information from which the public can draw conclusions and that that information should be presented regularly and, most of all, consistently. I do not have any particular views on the form in which it is presented. In the past, developments such as education action zones have been characterised by a lack of information rather than by a presence of it. I hope that these reforms will be different. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I support Amendment No. 40. If the Bill results in a lot of experimentation, the general public will be very interested and I am sure that they will want good quality factual information on which to base their judgments on these measures.
Amendment No. 50, which is also in this group, returns to the subject of parliamentary scrutiny, specifically the need for an annual report to Parliament about the earned autonomy provisions. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State's decisions on allowing certain schools to be exempt from education legislation are subject to parliamentary scrutiny at least once a year. Subsection (2) of the amendment specifies that the annual report shall include details about the level of negotiations in schools that have opted out of the pay and conditions document. Rather than seeking to provide for teacher negotiations on the face of the Bill, as did an amendment to Clause 6 that we debated last week, this amendment offers a less prescriptive compromise. The aim is only to ensure some account ability for all opted-out schools in relation to teachers' pay and conditions.
What accountability would be in place without the clause for schools that opted out of the teachers' pay and conditions legislation? Last week, the Minister suggested that the Secretary of State will lay orders and that that puts matters on the public record. The Secretary of State laying orders for regulations is not the level of accountability that we seek. I wonder whether the Minister can make any comment about that.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: There is a question that the Government have to answer here. We understand that there is a great deal left to consultation and a great deal left for detail to follow in regulations. In responding to the previous amendment, the Minister said that the Government have been advised to proceed with caution on their proposals for earned autonomy. They are apparently envisaging about 10 per cent of schools earning autonomy. The Minister will know that a number of us on all Benches believe that a much larger number of schools will qualify for earned autonomy by any criteria. The Government have two choices: either they draw the criteria so tightly that no more than 10
1006
per cent of schools would get through and qualify for earned autonomy; or they draw them in the normal way, as they would want to draw them, but then award autonomy to only 10 per cent, either on a first come, first served basis or by selection. The schools which will be most affected by the proposal should understand how that 10 per cent will be selected—whether the criteria will be drawn artificially to keep the numbers down or whether the criteria will be general, but only 10 per cent of schools will be selected.
The question is pertinent to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas about evaluation. Either this is a pilot or it is not. This is a Bill for the future. Schools will earn autonomy or not, as the case may he. If it is a pilot, the parameters within which it will operate must be written on the face of the Bill, or at least known at this stage of our discussions so that we understand with what we are dealing.
Lord Peston: I have one question for my noble friend the Minister. The Government are fully entitled to say that their thinking is going in this direction and that they require support from your Lordships to go ahead and try it. One aspect that has troubled me— the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, put her finger on it by using the word "experiment"—is that this is not an experiment. This may be a misinterpretation, but schools that get such autonomy will have it once and for all. We have all wondered what happens once those who earned the autonomy are no longer there and those who have replaced them could not conceivably have got it if they had applied. That is my definition of an experiment. We would then have to think about the issue again. I thought that the Government's position was that autonomy could be earned once and for all. Could we have some clarity on that? The issue is not unrelated to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about reports. If autonomy is earned once and for all, there is no point in reporting, because it is done. The report would simply lead to a standard response of, "I told you so", which is not much use. Will my noble friend clarify whether the use of the word "experiment" is right? I have a strong feeling that it is not, because earned autonomy will be given and then that is it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support the general tenor of the remarks that have been made thus far about the need for some accountability in the working of the system in the future. We do not necessarily want to place a burdensome responsibility on a new body or an existing body for annual reports. Does the Minister consider that if Ofsted or Her Majesty's Inspectors are going into schools in any event and reporting to the department, they could also look at the way in which the system operates? In that way, some information might flow back to the department and, through the department, to Members of both Houses.
Baroness Walmsley: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about whether it is worth publishing statistics, public information or an annual report, on the grounds that once it is done it is done. We are looking

1007
at the aggregate of all schools. Such information would certainly inform future decisions by the schools, the LEA or the Secretary of State as to whether similar changes were desirable and in the interests of children. It would certainly be worth publishing such information for the sake of future application.
Lord Peston: I must confess that I have already made a bit of trouble in that part of my contribution. My only comment is that if the reports showed that the idea had been a mistake and we learnt that we should not let other schools do it, that would not solve the problem of the schools that had been allowed to do it.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I rise very briefly to support Amendment No. 50 and draw attention to the specific reference there to the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment provides that,
"the Cabinet Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales shall lay … an annual report as to the operation",
of these provisions. It is very important indeed that that should happen, particularly as the Bill provides for a great deal of secondary legislation and legislation yet to be provided by the Assembly to make the Bill work. It is very much in the interests of parents, teachers and all interested authorities in Wales that they should see the effect of all that secondary legislation which is still to come, and the effects of the Bill in Wales as well as in England.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Perhaps I may begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I am indeed glad that he is leaving Amendment No. 363 to another day. I look forward very much to discussing it with him.
It is clearly important for the public to know the impact of a school's use of any freedom, and we already publish statistics and quantitative data on school performance through Ofsted reports and performance tables. This framework ensures that schools remain accountable for their performance. In particular, it informs the public about the school's performance. This framework will continue to be in place for all schools, including those with earned autonomy.
I say to my noble friend Lord Peston that this is not a "once and for all" matter. I remind noble Lords that, as the documents we have placed in the Library state, and as I have previously said, earned autonomy may be withdrawn or restricted if a school's performance,
"falls significantly below the top 15 per cent mark in their free school meal band for 3 years running; or … falls below the median performance level in that free school meal band in any one year; or … is judged by Ofsted to fall below excellent or very good in two of the three aspects above".
Furthermore, when any school exercises any right to earned autonomy, the exemptions will be brought into force by statutory instrument. Consequently, there will be a complete record of all exemptions whether relating to the national curriculum or to teachers' pay and conditions which are being applied. We are keen that monitoring arrangements should be
1008
proportionate and do not burden schools unnecessarily and do not duplicate information. With this caveat, I am pleased to reassure noble Lords that, in line with departmental guidelines, we shall of course monitor the use of earned autonomy. We also certainly expect to make public that monitoring.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked specifically about accountability on pay. That is a matter of earned autonomy, and in a sense we have to let go of it. General employment law will of course apply, just as it does in thousands of other small and medium-sized enterprises, if I may term schools as such in this context. We do not think it appropriate to make the unnecessary burden of requiring every school to report every year on how they have settled their teachers' pay. The statutory instrument will record the fact that the school has earned autonomy. Obviously, however, the local machinery for determining pay will be local and relevant to that school.
I believe that Amendment No. 50 might have the unfortunate effect of discouraging schools from applying. The amendment also does not make clear the underlying purpose of an annual report. As I said, however, exemptions will be brought into force by statutory instrument in the case of any school exercising this right, and there will be a record. Consequently, I cannot accept that part of the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: The amendment asks for the Secretary of State, not individual schools, to lay an annual report before Parliament. The Secretary of State should have an overview of the situation and should be able to do that. Therefore, I do not think that the amendment would discourage schools from applying by imposing an additional burden of bureaucracy. Far be it from us on these Benches to suggest that schools should have any further paperwork at all. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed I shall. The amendment would in fact require us to collect information from each school in order to make that annual report. That of itself would require schools to provide us with that information at all times.
Baroness Walmsley: Surely in actually making the application the schools are providing the Department for Education and Skills with the information they are applying and the basis on which they are applying. The department would already have that information and would not need to go back to schools to ask for it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall give an example. A school may be in discussion with its staff about changing the way in which the school operates. The staff may, for example, be prepared to agree to run breakfast clubs as part of the school day, to provide opportunities and an example for children who do not have new technology at home. At the time of applying for earned autonomy, however, the school and the

1009
teachers may not yet have decided all the details. Moreover, the details may change over time. We believe that the amendment as currently drafted would require schools to provide us with that information on an on-going basis.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is asking whether we would be prepared to provide information during the course of our monitoring arrangements, as I said, we would be happy with such an arrangement. I am simply saying that the amendment would not work because it asks schools for so much information. We want schools to use the autonomy to get on with educating at a local level and to make the system work for them and—most importantly—for the children whom they are educating. We are perfectly content with providing information as a part of our normal monitoring. Moreover, Ofsted will be examining the relationship between earned autonomy and the results, particularly in schools for which autonomy has not worked. Al though we hope that there will be no such schools, that information will be available.
Lord Lucas: I am not sure that the principle of not knowing what is going on is a good one; it is certainly not the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would manage the economy. I also do not think that it is the way in which the Department for Education and Skills should be operating. The department should have learned a little from education action zones, where none of us know what is going on, and from individual learning accounts, where only the crooks knew what was going on. It is a very good idea to have a bit of information available.
The Government promised that we will have fully electronic government by 2005. It would not take me long to write something that schools could use to keep themselves up to date, on the government web, about the exemptions for which they had applied. It really is not complicated. It would take just a few tens of thousands of pounds to do a Rolls-Royce job on it, using commonly available techniques. It should not be beyond a web-aware government to put in place this sort of arrangement. Nevertheless, as this Government still cannot answer my Written Questions by e-mail, I am not surprised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 5, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) In so far as regulations made under this section relate to a curriculum provision, they shall, in addition to providing for an exemption or modification, require persons responsible for the delivery of the curriculum in any school to have regard to the need to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum in that school."
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that pupils in a school which is allowed an exemption from or a modification to some provision of the national curriculum retain an entitlement to curricular breadth and balance. The
1010
amendment probes the Government's intentions in this regard. In the policy statement accompanying this part of the Bill, the Government state:
"Without removing the fundamental entitlement of all pupils to a broad and balanced curriculum, the Government wants to give successful and well-led schools greater flexibility in recognition of their success, their professionalism and their strong leadership".
Under previous legislation, this right to a "broad and balanced curriculum" was extended to every registered pupil of compulsory school age attending a maintained or grant maintained school. This amendment would place on the face of the Bill a similar guarantee for pupils in those schools able to "opt out".
In January 1998, David Blunkett, the then Secretary of State for Education, announced his intention to introduce "new, more flexible arrangements" for the curriculum in primary schools, to ensure that they focused efforts and attention on the national literacy and numeracy strategies. Initially, many welcomed, the prospect of reduced prescription afforded by this new and more flexible arrangement. Nevertheless, the implications of the announcement were of concern to those who had always believed that a broad and balanced curriculum was a fundamental criterion for good primary education.
The foreword to the national curriculum handbooks signed by David Blunkett and Sir William Stubbs in 1999 states:
"An entitlement to learning must be an entitlement for all pupils. This National Curriculum includes for the first time a detailed, overarching statement on inclusion which makes clear the principles schools must follow in their teaching right across the curriculum, to ensure that all pupils have the chance to succeed, whatever their individual needs and the potential barriers to their learning may be".
The first line of that inclusion statement states:
"Schools have a responsibility to provide a broad and balanced curriculum for all pupils".
These "opt-out" powers for successful schools contradict the Government's stated commitment to inclusion and raise fundamental questions about the concept of a national curriculum. It is true that the current curriculum remains overcrowded with content and that a rigid system of testing and assessment allows little room for dynamic adaptability. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley argued recently, in that sense we support the concept of a core curriculum. There is a strong argument therefore in favour of greater flexibility within the national curriculum. The need for adaptability is emphasised in the current national curriculum document. However, this should apply to all schools and not just to successful ones.
At the same time there must remain a national framework which secures a balanced and broadly based curriculum entitlement for all pupils. In both the Green and the White Papers there was welcome recognition of the importance of sports, arts, drama and music. It is vital that the place of such activities is considered within the framework of a curriculum entitlement, not just as optional extra curriculum activities. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: We do not know how these clauses will turn out in practice when schools receive autonomy. I agree with the noble Lord Peston, who is no longer present, that one of the problems with the Bill is that it is low on detail. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is right to pose the question that she did. In their responses the Government have constantly said that they believe in a broad and balanced curriculum and that it is inconceivable that an application would be accepted if it did not offer a broad and balanced curriculum. If that is what the Government are saying, it ought to be on the face of the Bill. As the Bill is written, it is an "anything goes" clause, unless, that is, a particular Secretary of State takes a particular view of education at any particular time.
I believe that we are all trying to say that the framework within which schools are expected to operate and the framework within which schools are expected to apply earned autonomy should be well understood. At the moment that is not the case. As the Bill is written, any part of the legislation can be exempted from the national curriculum and pay and conditions provisions. It seems to me that in this area at least there should be some codification on the face of the Bill as regards the nature of the curriculum offered to each child.
There is another question which I believe pertains to the individual in a school. Under the law as it stands, each child in this country has an entitlement. If, under earned autonomy, that entitlement is infringed in some way, where are we? It will be infringed. Some schools will enjoy exemption. If the response is that no child's right to entitlement will be infringed, earned autonomy is a very narrow issue indeed and will not be consistent with what is written on the face of the Bill. It is time for the Government to tell us what they mean. How open-ended is earned autonomy? If it is not open-ended and if the Government believe in a broad and balanced curriculum, in what way will they define that? What about the status of the child's entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum as regards all the aspects of it which are written into other statutes? How will that be protected?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Last Thursday and in another place there was much discussion of schools' requirement to deliver a balanced and broadly based curriculum in relation to earned autonomy and the powers covered in Chapter 1. I hope that I can assure the Committee that protections are in place, particularly with regard to the earned autonomy provisions where the curriculum flexibilities available include only the national curriculum. This is set out in subsection (3) of Clause 5. Duties which are not a legislative part of the national curriculum cannot be disturbed by that provision.
The basic curriculum as set out in the Education Act 1996, and as re-enacted by Clause 74, is required to be balanced and broadly based. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will know, there are two broad aims: to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and
1012
physical development of pupils at school and in society and to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life. I am sure that the Committee is aware that Clause 75 re-enacts the Secretary of State's, local education authorities', governing bodies' and head teachers' duties to ensure that maintained schools satisfy the requirements to deliver a balanced and broad curriculum. Those duties are unaffected by the provisions of Chapter i as they are not part of the national curriculum and therefore not subject to exemption or modification. It follows that the legislation will still require the Secretary of State, local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to ensure that the school curriculum is balanced and broad based.
I recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is saying about the Bill. However, it is worth reminding the Committee that the policy statements set out our detailed intentions. As regards considering flexibilities within the curriculum, I draw attention to our strategy on 14 to 19 year-olds which addresses issues of developing the curriculum while ensuring that students are able to follow a curriculum appropriate to their needs. We are also clear that the Delegated Powers Committee was content with our use of regulations here. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Will the Minister spell out a little more whose responsibility it is to make sure that schools that take advantage of the earned autonomy provisions in the Bill nevertheless still adhere to a broad and balanced curriculum? As she explained on the previous amendment, those who apply for earned autonomy can do so without spelling out precisely what they intend to do when they apply for it. At least, that was the implication of her remarks. If that is the case, it applies also in relation to the curriculum. Therefore, until they have chosen to go the earned autonomy route and are pursuing that route, we do not know whether they will still maintain a broad and balanced curriculum. Whose responsibility is it to make sure that the school concerned is adhering to the overall provisions of an entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum? Is it the responsibility of the local education authority or that of Ofsted? Whose responsibility is it?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The responsibility lies with the governing body, the local education authority and, indeed, the department. In considering this matter we are trying to ensure that schools operate within the broad and balanced curriculum. Last week I said that the areas we are looking at, particularly as regards key stage 3, focus not so much on getting rid of any subjects within the national curriculum but on ensuring that flexibility can be applied within programmes of study. We have moved on in our debate as regards the 14 to 19 strategy. However, we would expect schools to be clear about what we are trying to do as regards earned autonomy and to report

1013
in the normal way to parents through governing bodies, to the local education authority and, of course, through Ofsted.
Baroness Blatch: I follow up the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I noted what the noble Baroness said in the initial response to the amendment. I say at the outset that it is difficult to divide innovation from earned autonomy in this matter as some schools are already innovating; that is, they may well have modified the national curriculum before they qualify for earned autonomy. However, I go back to the words in the Bill. Clause 2(1)(a) states:
"conferring on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation".
That is a total free for all.
We should also consider Clause 6, to which the amendment relates. It states:
"Regulations may for the purposes of this section … designate any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provision as attracting exemption as of right … designate any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provision as attracting discretionary exemption … designate modifications of any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provision as being available as of right, and … designate modifications of any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provision as being available on a discretionary basis".
There is no protection there whatever—for the entitlement of the individual child, for a broad and balanced curriculum or for any national curriculum requirement. It would be helpful to know where in the Bill those protections are. There is no qualification of Clause 6(1).
Lord Northbourne: May the exemptions to the curriculum—the legal requirements—include exemptions to what I believe are the very extensive guidance notes issued by the department? My impression is that it is often those detailed directions as to exactly how a subject should be taught that are burdensome to teachers and unsatisfactory in terms of pupils of varying abilities.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Further to the question of my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, put her finger on the problem earlier when she asked about the conflict that might arise if a child's entitlements were not being met by the need to provide a properly balanced and broad curriculum. If the school were to fail in delivering such a target, what would happen? What sanctions could be used against the school, and how would one go about rectifying the failure to provide what the noble Baroness described as the proper entitlement?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall reiterate what I said about the broad and balanced curriculum so that noble Lords can understand what I am trying to say. Clause 74 re-enacts the Education Act 1996. We have two broad aims, which I have described in detail—a broad and balanced curriculum. The phrase "curriculum provision", as the noble Baroness said, is
1014
defined in Clause 5(3). As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, the power to innovate is a separate provision in that regard.
It is clear that we need to protect the entitlement of young people to receive a broad and balanced curriculum. It will be for schools to notify us at the time of applying that they are indeed looking at the curriculum. We would expect governing bodies and schools, as part of their work, to be absolutely clear in that regard. It is the responsibility of all education organisations—local education authorities, governing bodies and Ofsted—to ensure that that is the case. If schools acted outside the provisions or regulations on earned autonomy, we should act to ensure that that was brought to an end. That is clear.
I understand the desire of Members of the Committee to be as categorical as possible. I assure them that it is our desire, too, to ensure that within the framework we are clear about what students are entitled to receive.
We have already said that our thinking moves on in the context of the strategy for 14 to 19 year-olds. We want to ensure that we do not end up in the position in which students in one school learn a set of subjects that we all recognise and consider to be appropriate within the curriculum but that those in another school do not. That is what I should call the basis for an entitlement for students to continue to receive education.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister keeps invoking Clause 74. There is no reference in Clause 6 that states that, subject to Clause 74, schools may modify, relax, deviate from and so on. Moreover, there is no reference to Clause 6 in Clause 74. In what way does Clause 74 override Clause 6? If the Government do not do so, we shall table an amendment that states, "Subject to the requirements of Clause 74, the following can be done". That would get close to what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is trying to achieve in the amendment. That would at least—it takes on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton—protect those young people in relation to a subject that I suspect is very vulnerable in this regard; that is, religious education for all children.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We believe that religious education is protected and that the Bill is correctly worded. However, in the interests of moving on, I am happy to go back and ensure that that is the case. My understanding is that we are absolutely clear that we are re-enacting, through Clause 74., the Education Act 1996, as it refers to a balanced and broadly based curriculum. I shall report back to the House at a later stage if that is appropriate.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her promises. I believe that the clause to which she refers is Clause 76, which is entitled,
"Basic curriculum for every maintained school in England",
rather than Clause 74.
We have had a good debate, which has shown that there is concern about this matter on all sides of the Committee. I am glad that the Minister has taken our

1015
concerns to heart. We look forward to any proposals that she may bring forward at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Draft Communications Bill
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and myself on the draft Communications Bill, produced jointly by our departments and published today. Copies have been placed in the Library and are available from the Vote Office, along with a policy document and Explanatory Notes. It is also available on the world wide web.
"The White Paper in December 2000, A New Future for Communications, set out the Government's objectives: creating a dynamic market; universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest quality; safeguarding consumers and citizens; and minimising regulation. Everything we announce today flows from those principles.
"The communications industry is of immense importance to this country, so we are determined to proceed wherever possible with the fullest consultation and consensus. That is why we consulted further on media ownership. That is why the Bill published today is in draft and subject to scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses.
"That degree of consultation on major legislation is perhaps unprecedented, but it is important that the legislation has the confidence of the industry and the public.
"There is general agreement that the existing regulatory framework has become outdated by the rapid changes in technology, markets and consumer behaviour over the past six years. The communications industries are regulated in different ways by separate regulators, yet they are coming increasingly closer together in their ownership and their operation.
"The evidence is all around us. TV and radio companies are linked to newspapers, traditional media are developing web sites and cable companies deliver television, radio, telephony, interactive services and broadband Internet.
1016
"This converging industry needs a converged regulator, providing industry-specific regulation with a light touch—a framework which protects the citizen while setting business free and a regulatory framework which offers certainty where it is needed for business plans and investment, and flexibility where it is needed in a fast-moving environment.
"Previous legislation in 1984, 1990 and 1996 has left us with clumsy regulation that inhibits investment and reduces efficiency. The ownership rules send the signal that the UK is not open for investment in our communications industries. The rules on newspaper ownership are opaque, discriminatory and still retain criminal sanctions. The rules on news on ITV have seen investment in ITN fall.
"Furthermore, technology is changing, throwing up new challenges and new opportunities. The case for change is compelling. The twin ideals of regulation are to be light in touch yet effective. The current rules are neither.
"The communications industries are vital to the health of the British economy and to our democracy. Every week we watch over 1 billion hours of television, listen to over 1 billion hours of radio and buy 100 million national, regional and local newspapers. The BBC licence fee costs each viewing household £112 a year and raises £2.5 billion. We send billions of text messages a year. Three-quarters of adults use mobile phones, and 24 million people have Internet access in their homes.
"Crucially, our democratic debate could not take place without the newspapers, television channels, radio stations and Internet sites that tell what is happening. These sources can be biased, sometimes wrong and occasionally strident. But there are many of them, and people can hear many voices. This plurality must be protected at all costs.
"The White Paper proposed one regulator—Ofcom—to replace the ITC, the Radio Authority, the Radiocommunications Agency, the Broadcasting Standards Commission and Oftel. It also suggested the following: Ofcom to have sector-specific powers to promote competition; quality public service broadcasting to be protected; measures to ensure universal access to public service broadcasting channels over all main platforms; the consolidation of ITV, subject to competition rules; the simplification of regulation for commercial radio; BBC regulation to be brought within Ofcom for basic standards and for specific PSB requirements, while retaining the regulatory role of the BBC governors; and the promotion of broadband. Since then, policy has been developed and you see the detail in this draft Bill, supplemented by the policy document.
"I turn now to the structure of Ofcom. Its top board will operate at the highest strategic level. It must be able to move quickly and with agility to address issues in a fast-moving sector. At the heart of its operations will be its sector-specific

1017
responsibility to promote competition to curb abuses of dominant market positions and to ensure fair access to dominant network systems and platforms. In addition, all broadcasters, including the BBC for its commercial services, will continue to be subject to the Competition Act.
"Ofcom will have a number of other duties to promote certain interests, especially those of the nations and regions. That is why we are providing for Ofcom to establish a content board as an integral part of its structure. It will be a significant body, bringing together diverse interests, including those of the different nations of the United Kingdom. There will also be a consumers panel, able to articulate the needs and views of consumers—again, with strong representation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
"The draft Bill proposes a regulatory regime which will be lighter in touch, with greater reliance on self-regulation by all broadcasters. Ofcom will be taken out of day-to-day regulation and will use its backstop powers only if licensed broadcasters fail to deliver.
"Ofcom's responsibilities will extend to the BBC for the basic broadcast standards and for agreed quotas for such things as regional production, while also setting the general standards across the industry. It will be responsible for general reviews of public service broadcasting.
"However, the quality of BBC output under its public service remit will remain fully regulated by the governors. This regime, with its detailed scrutiny by governors, is a measure of the special role the BBC fulfils. This system has developed because the BBC's obligations are the greatest, not the least.
"But we recognise that the media of the future must provide the high-quality public service broadcasting that people have enjoyed in the past. Competition alone cannot guarantee this. Public service broadcasting nurtures creativity. It is vital to independent producers. It provides training grounds which sustain the whole sector. It meets the particular needs of local and regional communities, both in programming and in production. And, in the case of the BBC, the £2.5 billion raised annually by the licence fee is venture capital for the whole of British broadcasting.
"Most importantly, public service broadcasting works for the public. The draft Bill therefore proposes for the first time to define 'public service broadcasting' and to consolidate in statute the hierarchy of public service broadcasting that viewers and listeners will readily recognise.
"The draft Bill is much more than a new system for regulating the content of TV and radio broadcasting. Telecommunications become ever more important to our economy and to our society. By bringing together the functions of Oftel and the Radiocommunications Agency with those of the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards
1018
Commission, we will ensure that content, economics and technology are viewed as a piece, not as fragments.
"The competition responsibilities for Ofcom are intended to deliver dynamic competitive markets in networks and infrastructure as well as in content. Our economy needs access to networks to be opened up. That needs a regulator that is light in touch where possible but powerful where necessary.
"The new regime for telecommunications will enable Ofcom to operate within a harmonised European framework, providing greater certainty so that UK companies are better able to sell their services abroad. The new regime will be lighter in touch, removing the requirement for licensing of telecommunications systems, thereby removing about 400 licences, and replacing it with a much simpler regime for electronic communications. The new regulator will have the right responsibilities and powers to promote competition, tackle abuses and make sure that consumers' interests are protected.
"We will also extend the principles of deregulation and market competition to the allocation of the radio spectrum by introducing spectrum trading. Spectrum is to the modern age what iron and steel were to the first Industrial Revolution. It must be used efficiently.
"Companies need to know that they can gain access to spectrum so that they can bring their ideas to the market. In future, as well as being able to apply for a licence, firms will also be able to buy spectrum from an existing user. This should prevent the hoarding of spectrum, increase the number and range of users, deliver significant benefits to businesses and consumers, and promote the innovation on which future UK competitiveness depends.
"These proposals are broadly in line with the recommendations of Professor Cave's independent review of spectrum management, published in March. We intend to respond to this review by the summer and I would therefore emphasise that all the spectrum management provisions are subject to revision.
"The draft Bill will continue our policy of not imposing regulation on the operation of the Internet, although we will continue to work with the industry to improve the standards of protection available through self-regulation.
"Lastly, I come to media ownership. Competition, and competition rules to regulate undue economic power, are increasingly recognised here and abroad as the best means of delivering innovation, investment and employment. It is our intention to apply the same principles to the communications industry.
"But the media are different from other industries in one crucial respect—They are uniquely import ant to the debate that underpins our democracy. Citizens need access to a range of different media

1019
voices if they are to take informed decisions. We need a system that delivers a plurality of owners, none dominant, and a diversity of output.
"Our approach is simple and proprietor-neutral. We will deregulate' where it is possible to rely on competition law to maintain a wide range of voices. Where it is not, we will establish clear, predictable rules. The changes we are proposing today will remove barriers to investment, will encourage innovation and will allow companies to consolidate and expand.
"Ofcom will combine the important twin roles of promoting competition while protecting plurality and diversity. Within TV, radio and newspaper markets, competition law will tend to encourage dispersed ownership and new entry. We will therefore remove most ownership rules within those markets, retaining only those we need as minimum guarantees of plurality.
"Overall we intend to remove or relax most rules concerning media ownership while keeping those necessary to protect the public interest. We will strengthen safeguards for news and other broadcast content. The rules we will scrap include those which prevent single ownership of ITV; those which prevent large newspaper groups from acquiring Channel 5, and those which prevent ownership of more than one national commercial radio licence. We will ease the complex rules preventing consolidation of ownership of local commercial radio. We will scrap the criminal sanctions that apply in the newspaper merger regime.
"We also intend to scrap the inconsistent rules that prevent the non-European ownership of some broadcasters. It makes no sense that French, Italian or German companies can own TV and radio licences but Canadian, Australian or US companies cannot. The resultant inward investment should allow the UK to benefit rapidly from new ideas and technological developments. New blood, new competition, will help give our industry the edge.
"The recent CMS Select Committee report on communications, for which I thank my right honourable friend and his colleagues, made a case for relying on competition law. But we do not believe that this alone will guarantee the plurality of ownership that democracy demands. We will therefore retain three key limits on cross-media ownership to safeguard debate at every level: national, regional and local.
"First, recognising that most people get their news and information from national newspapers and from terrestrial television, we will keep a simple rule that any newspaper group with over 20 per cent of the national market will not be able to own a significant stake in ITV, the only commercial public service broadcaster with universal access to a mass audience, currently 25 per cent of all TV viewing. Secondly, a parallel 20 per cent rule will prevent anyone with a dominant position in local newspapers owning the regional ITV licence in the same area. Thirdly, there
1020
will be a scheme to ensure that at least three commercial, local or regional media voices exist—in newspapers, TV and radio—in addition to the BBC in almost every local community.
"Where necessary we will retain and strengthen content regulation to ensure the quality, impartiality and diversity of broadcasting services. Ofcom will have the power to investigate the news and current affairs programming of any local radio service if it has concerns about accuracy or impartiality. It will have a new duty to protect and promote the local content of local radio services. It can vary any licence on change of control to ensure the character of the service is maintained. For ITV, this will protect regional production and programming requirements. It will oversee the nominated news provider system for ITV to ensure high-quality and independent news on freeto-air public service television.
"In sum, these changes will be deregulatory. We will depend more on competition, and on competition law exercised by a sector-specific regulator. Ownership regulations will disappear or be reduced. Self-regulation will be extended wherever possible. Complex schemes for licensing networks and access to them will be scrapped and replaced with a streamlined system. All regulations will be reviewed regularly.
"The rules that will remain will be simple and purposeful: a streamlined system for newspaper mergers; simple limits on cross-ownership of ITV and the largest newspaper groups; minimum levels of ownership for local radio, and for cross-ownership by local newspapers; content rules in broadcasting to ensure UK production, regional production, local and regional programmes and accurate, impartial news and information; and public service broadcasting protected in the digital future as it has been in the analogue past.
"Reform of the regulation of this vital sector is a major task. The draft Bill will exceed 250 clauses. The accompanying documents also indicate areas of policy not yet fully reflected in the draft clauses, notably those giving effect to the policies on media ownership which I have announced today. Like the changes to the BBC agreement, these will be published shortly so that they can be considered alongside the draft Bill.
"Our proposals are subject to a three-month consultation period and I am delighted that both Houses have agreed also to subject the draft Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny. We shall bring forward the Communications Bill itself as soon as parliamentary time allows.
"My right honourable friend and I want Britain to have the most dynamic communications industry in the world. We want Britain to continue to have the best quality TV and radio in the world. This Bill is the route map to making these ambitions a reality. We look forward to hearing the views of honourable Members, and we commend the draft Communications Bill to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. There is much to welcome within it, as far as we can appreciate from the lack of detail. Certainly, its length—I do not complain about the length at which it had to be made—reflects the sheer complexity of the Bill and the wide array of issues it covers.
I welcome the commitment to the promotion of competition and the fact that there will be an attempt to define public service broadcasting within the Bill, welcome the relaxation of onerous regulation, which is no longer justified. However, when we see the detail the acid test will be whether the Government can deliver. When I entered the Chamber I was not able to get hold of a copy of the Bill or of the Explanatory Notes, which I understand are contained in a volume that is as large as most Bills, if not larger. Indeed, the policy statement is another lengthy government publication. There is much for us to consider before we come to decision on the detail. However, overall the acid test will be whether the Government are able to achieve light-touch regulation, ensuring that Ofcom is powerful where necessary—I welcome that commitment by the Government—or whether we end up with a heavy-handed regulator which deals with micro-management rather than stepping back from detailed regulation.
The lengthy Statement today seems to slide by the fact that as long ago as 1997 the Government promised in their manifesto that this Bill would be upon us. At that stage we did not expect that it would be only a draft Bill. However, here we are. After all those years of gestation the broadcast and telecoms industries have moved on rapidly yet we have a Bill that is defective, in the Government's own admission, because it omits significant sections on cross-media ownership and spectrum.
The question we have to consider is how the Joint Committee will be able properly to scrutinise the Government's proposals on those matters alongside the draft Bill clauses. The Minister states that there should he efficient use of spectrum. I welcome that commitment. We all agree with that. The question is how she will achieve that. The noble Baroness said that the Government intend to respond to Professor Cave's independent: review of spectrum management by the summer and that all spectrum management provisions are therefore subject to revisions.
The Minister went on to say that the changes to the BBC agreement and to cross-media ownership will be published shortly so that they can be considered alongside the Bill. However, she then stated that all the proposals are subject to a three-month consultation period. That means that the working period of the Joint Committee will be parallel to the period of consultation on those significant proposals which should he in the main Bill. The question is how the Joint Committee will be able properly to organise its work to take into account the responses which must
1022
necessarily be sent to the Government on the Bill unless it is in a position to hear evidence from all those organisations which will respond to the Government.
The Joint Committee has a tough task ahead. The telecom and broadcast industries have had to wait a long time for the Bill. It is important that we look at the issues in detail. However, I should like to ask a few general questions today.
The Minister referred to the relationship between Ofcom and competition law. How will the Government resolve the relationship between Ofcom and the Competition Commission? Who will have primacy in decision making when decisions relate to both? Can the Minister explain what protection consumers will have by virtue of the special treatment being accorded to the BBC which still leaves it partly outside the remit of Ofcom? Does the Minister agree that it is important for Ofcom to deal fairly with all the broadcast and telecom providers with regard to the specific aspect of the electronic guide?
I welcome the Minister's comment that the Government want to be neutral when dealing with cross-media ownership issues. I direct her to the Government's approach to people who are platform providers in broadcast and telecoms. How do the Government intend to ensure that there is fair access to the electronic programming guide? A similar question arises in relation to fair access to platforms.
The failure of ITV Digital casts a long shadow over the digital broadcast business. I hope that we shall all be able to work together to force that shadow back as rapidly as possible for the health of our broadcast industries. Do the Government still set their target date for the switching off of analogue as 2006 to 2010? Does the Minister accept that a viable digital terrestrial platform system is essential to the digital future of telecoms and broadcast industries and that the DTT platform should give their customers access to pay-TV as well as to free-to-air channels to avoid their being treated as second-class consumers?
I believe that the Joint Committee's members have a difficult task ahead. I pay tribute to all members but noble Lords will appreciate that I have to say a particular thank you to my own Bacic-Benchers who have agreed to serve on the committee: the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Pilkington, in this House, and my honourable friend Mr Andrew Lansley in another place.
Before concluding today, I think it appropriate better to acquaint the press with what may or may not happen behind the scenes in your Lordships' House. I was disappointed to read the press stories about who may or may not be chairman of the Joint Committee. When the issue was raised in this House, there was a cross-party agreement that pressure should be put on the Government for the establishment of a Joint Committee. The Government agreed to that. It was a case of the House working together.
The stories have been, first, that a Conservative Peer would chair the committee. I do not know of that. It was not a decision taken. There were stories also that the Government had put pressure on the

1023
committee to elect a Labour Peer as chairman. That is not for me to know. I am of the opinion, as I am sure are my noble friends, that it is for the committee to decide who the chairman will be. As a personal matter, I fully support whatever decision the committee makes. I know that my colleagues would also say happily now that we respect the integrity and ability of both Labour Peers, with whom this House has worked for some time, who are to serve on the committee. We would accept with equanimity the nomination and election of either of those Labour Peers. Indeed, we would welcome either as chairman of the committee. Their abilities would be respected and we would work happily with them. I hope to knock on the head some of the somewhat ridiculous stories in the press. Ministers are unable to serve on the committee. In wishing to follow the spirit of the rules, shadow Ministers therefore did not press their suit to become members of the committee.
I shall follow the proceedings very carefully indeed. I was pleased to learn that the BBC will help me. If I cannot be there in person looking over the shoulders of the committee, the BBC has stated that it has made careful—I think rather clever—arrangements to ensure that the proceedings will be available either on broadcast channels or via the Internet, thereby performing its public broadcast remit.
Finally, I have one basic question with regard to the operation of the committee. If the Joint Committee makes a recommendation that the Government do not wish to accept, will the Government publish the reasons why they refuse to accept the committee's recommendation?
4.47 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, having referred to the press gossip, I was rather disappointed when she announced that the Conservatives are willing to accept a Labour nominee for chairmanship of the Joint Select Committee. My ears pricked up. I had thought that we might have a total deadlock between the Government and Opposition Front Benches whereby some humble Liberal Democrat might emerge as likely candidate. However, hopes were dashed again.
As the noble Baroness said, we have been awaiting the Bill for some time. Although there is a welcome, it is a "better late than never" welcome. On the other hand, it is important not to feel pressed to make snap decisions. Various crises and emergencies will always arise in the communications industry as in any other industry. I hope that we are legislating for the long term and will not be subject to premature "bounces". For that reason, like the noble Baroness, we welcome the decision to set up the pre-legislative Select Committee.
We also welcome the approach that the Government have taken to the BBC. In previous decisions, they have given the leadership and funding
1024
to prepare for the digital age. The noble Baroness recognised the special role of the BBC. Whoever thought of the phrase that the fee is,
"venture capital for the whole of British broadcasting",
has my admiration. It is a better and more accurate description than that of a poll tax when describing the good that it does for all broadcasting.
It is important that the period ahead should be one of transparency and access for all who want to express their views. I welcome the Minister's statement that the Bill and its documents are on the world-wide web. I hope that the new technologies will be used to broaden consultation. It is also good that underlying the Statement was a rejection of the view of the Select Committee in another place that these matters could be left solely to market forces—something that we on these Benches do not accept.
For many reasons the Minister emphasised the democratic factors at work—the underpinning of the communications industry of our democracy. However, it is equally important that we have a communications industry which underpins and helps to strengthen the values of our culture and our regional differences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised the question that will be in many minds given previous experiences of turf wars between regulators. If Ofcom is to have responsibility for competition, will it have the final say; or will we get into long-drawn out tussles between the views of Ofcom and the competition authority? That point needs to be clarified. We welcome the content board, the consumer panel and the promise of regional representation. Will such regional representation be determined by the regional assemblies and the Scottish Parliament?
The devil will be in the detail. However, we welcome the Government's general gist that they envisage the restriction of cross-media ownership as essential for quality, diversity and choice in the media.
While giving the idea of a single ITV company a broad welcome, we need to ensure that the regional and public services commitments of the existing ITV companies are carried over into a single ITV company. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I should like further clarification of the Government's thinking on the digital/terrestrial platform vacated by ITV Digital. We see this as an opportunity to introduce some real lateral thinking. It certainly should be used as a launch pad for the free-to-air offer. There again, if the Government really mean to keep to the 2006–10 framework, they must put muscle behind a campaign about the free-to-air offer. Far too many people still associate digital television with subscription television. We shall not reach the targets required unless we ensure that people understand that there is now a very high-quality, free-to-air service available to them.
I turn to one of our main concerns regarding some of the phrases used in the Statement; for example—a "streamlined system", "simple limits on cross ownership", and "minimum levels". It does not seem so very long ago that we were talking about the

1025
communications revolution in terms of it providing cheaper and wider access to communities, individuals, and small interest groups. We were told that it would be the "great liberator", but now legislation seems to emphasise making it easier for the big boys to get bigger, to get consolidation, with its concentration on all those words like "profitability", "cost efficiency", "shareholder value", "market share", and so on. Such phraseology may make sense to big, international conglomerates, but it may not be in the interests of local communities, local interest groups, and, indeed, our civic well-being in general.
Can the Minister tell us what will happen now to Channel 5? Is it really up for grabs? Perhaps I may leave the following thought in the Minister's mind. When the Sun newspaper was bought it was an almost defunct, former TUC newspaper; in other words, the nature of its influence depends on who owns it and what is done with it.
This Bill could be one of the defining pieces of legislation of the 21st century, provided that a framework for communications recognises the unique contribution that the communications industry makes not only to our democracy, but also to our culture and regional and national identities. Communications do not represent just another product like a tin of beans. Public service broadcasting is not simply a euphemism for market failure. If the Government demonstrate a belief in those maxims, they will have our support in creating a piece of legislation of which we can all be proud.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to both speakers from the Opposition Front Benches for their very thoughtful comments about this big and complex piece of legislation; and, indeed, for the questions that they have raised. Due to the length of the initial Statement—about which I apologise—and the detailed questions that followed, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I take a little longer to respond than would normally be the case.
I am grateful for the broad welcome for the Statement expressed by both the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I accept that the acid test will be light-touch regulation, the avoidance of micro-management, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, and, at the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, protection for the interests of local listeners and viewers so that it does not become simply a matter of deregulating for big business.
I shall try to deal with some of the specific questions raised thus far. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised a point on the BBC and consumers. As I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, viewers and listeners should make their views known principally to the broadcasters. The BBC's significant responsibilities are set out in its Charter and Agreement. The BBC governors are best able to ensure that the corporation does deliver; and, indeed, other public sector broadcasters are being put into a similar position, which is something I believe the noble Baroness will welcome.
1026
The noble Baroness asked what the Government's response might be to the Joint Committee's report. We shall publish a reasoned response as soon as we are able to do so after the completion of the report. The noble Baroness also made some general comments about timing. She seems to regret the fact that we have not travelled further down the road in this respect. I believe that she is being a little hard on the Government. We have said that Ofcom will he up and running by the end of 2003; and we are still on track to achieve that aim. We issued a White Paper, which obviously took some time to prepare. This was followed by a consultation period and, subsequently, a further consultation period on cross-media ownership.
While I am on the subject of consultation, I should tell the House that we are consulting separately on the Cave review. We can ensure that responses are available to the Joint Committee. It is important for us to consider such issues both properly and thoroughly. Parliament will have plenty of opportunity to debate any resulting changes when the Bill is eventually introduced.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about the relationship between Ofcom and the Competition Commission. I can confirm that Ofcom will have concurrent powers with the commission. It will normally be clear which is in the lead, but there will, of course, be some boundary issues—indeed, I shall not pretend that there will not—which will have to be agreed between the two bodies, so that industry knows early on which one will be in the lead. Clearly, they will have to work extremely closely together.
The noble Baroness also asked about electronic programme guides. I believe that our proposals add both clarity and certainty to a system that is already regulated by the ITC and Oftel through a joint working group. As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, EPGs could become more important in the future; and, therefore, we need a statutory scheme. As for the issue regarding the switch from analogue to digital, I can confirm that our target is still to achieve this by the year 2010. That deadline has not changed as a result of the demise of one commercial company in the area.
I believe that I have answered most of the questions raised. However, in the light of one of the noble Baroness's comments, there is one important point that I should make clear with regard to the legislation; namely, the issue of late clauses and the Joint Committee. Where it has not been possible to provide draft clauses in the Bill published today, we shall make them available as soon as possible. We shall certainly do so while the Joint Committee is undertaking its work.
Finally, on the membership of the committee and its chairmanship, I just think that one should never believe anything that people write in newspapers. But I am extremely pleased to hear that the noble Baroness would be very happy with either of the nominated Labour members chairing the committee.
5 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister a question on cross-media ownership. I very much welcomed the points made in the early part of the Statement; that matters such as plurality and diversity are important and that mere economic matters should not be the only ones considered when deciding whether or not cross-media ownership is to be allowed.
The latter part of the Statement mentioned that although a number of perhaps tiresome and detailed regulations on cross-media ownership are to go, three limits—I cannot remember each one—are to remain. But I hope that I do not do the Statement an injustice by saying that they seemed to preserve into the indefinite future what one might call the "20 per cent rule".
Since the obviously approved criteria in the Statement of the need to have diversity of views throughout our media and diversity and plurality of ownership—which are for newspaper mergers at the present time, but only for such mergers enshrined in the Fair Trading Act—why could we not do away with all inflexible rigid rules, such as the 20 per cent rule? These matters could be determined in the first instance by Ofcom but then the Competition Commission and, if necessary, the competition appeal tribunal, which is set up in the Enterprise Bill.
The trouble with the 20 per cent rule is that it is inflexible and rigid. It may have been appropriate at the time of the Broadcasting Act 1996; it may be appropriate in 2002; but who knows whether it will be appropriate in 2010 or subsequently? Why not allow the appropriate authorities—I may not have mentioned them in their correct form—to determine in the circumstances in 2005–2010, whenever it is, whether, in considering the criteria of the need for diversity and plurality, the proposal for cross-media ownership should or should not be permitted?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps it will be helpful to my noble friend Lord Borrie if I run through the regulations we are removing and those we will keep. My noble friend said that it was not completely clear from the Statement. Foreign ownership rules will be scrapped. Regulatory barriers to a single ITV are removed, apart from the competition authority's scrutiny. That means that there can be a merger between Carlton and Granada. Joint ownership of TV and radio stations is allowed. Large newspaper companies can now buy Channel 5 and an increased range of radio stations. Significant consolidation will be permitted in radio markets. The regulatory burdens on newspaper owners of the special merger scheme are scaled down. That is a substantial change in the direction that the noble Lord wants to see happening.
The 20 per cent rule will remain in relation to newspapers purchasing television companies because we believe that newspapers and TV are the most influential media in terms of news and opinions. But
1028
Ofcom will review these rules at least every three years. That will provide the flexibility that I think that my noble friend is asking for.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I start by welcoming the bipartisan spirit in which my noble friend's Statement today has been approached and which will carry on into the Joint Committee. Perhaps I may also—in danger of breaching that—say that it is good that this Bill has been produced now—albeit with gaps and albeit that some people would have liked to see it earlier rather than the Government giving way to the endless temptations to delay, to consult in private and to negotiate with powerful vested interests.
In the light of the fact that some clauses are not in the Bill and others, the Government have made clear, are even greener than the Bill as a whole, does my noble friend see virtue in the Joint Committee following the example set by the committee on the Financial Services and Markets Act in producing its report in two stages—one on the first set of proposals that are fully articulated, and, if necessary, another one later on the clauses that are not at present in the Bill.
Finally, in recognising that this is a communications Bill and not just a broadcasting bill, does my noble friend agree that the issue of the precise relationship between the BBC and Ofcom, although important, is not all-important? Does she hope with me that our debates and the Joint Committee's debates do not get bogged down on that one terribly tempting subject—on which many of us have opined at great length—but instead cover the whole waterfront of the commercial as well as the contents implications for this vital legislation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for his welcome of the greater transparency and openness of the whole process with respect to the Bill. He asks whether there is any virtue in following what happened with the Financial Markets and Services Act by having two staged reports, with the second stage on the clauses that are not in the Bill as published today. I shall certainly take that matter back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, I would hope that if we can get these additional clauses drafted quickly the committee will be able to complete its report in one go, thus avoiding a second stage. If we have a second stage, it delays the Government's response to the committee's report, which could in turn delay the introduction of the Bill whenever parliamentary time is available.
I share my noble friend's view that it would be a great pity if the Joint Committee spent a huge amount of time debating the relationship between the BBC and Ofcom. There is so much else in the Bill of enormous importance. If the committee were to do that, it would be a real abrogation of its responsibility to undertake a proper perusal of the whole of the Bill and all its complexities.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is the whole point, is it not? I must confess that I arrived in the

1029
middle of the Statement, but I have read it. This is an enormously wide subject. It is absolutely right that it should be given what I can only describe—and as my noble friend on the Front Bench almost described it—as an elephantine gestation period. Whether she was commenting or complaining was not entirely clear to me and possibly was not entirely clear to other Members of your Lordships' House.
Be that as it may, I also think that it is right that this should be one of the first Bills—if not the first— to go through the novel experience of having a pre-legislative scrutiny stage. But there are ideas circulating in your Lordships' House that where a Bill has a pre-legislative scrutiny stage it may also be subject to a carry-over Motion. Clearly, I cannot ask to bind anyone else, so can I have the Minister's personal assurance that she will not encourage moves in that direction in this case or, indeed, in any other?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I should say to the noble Lord that elephantine pregnancies sometimes produce good results and I hope that that will be the case here—that the amount of time, work and thin king that will have gone into the Bill will in the end produce a better Bill and a better regulatory system. The issue of carry-over is really a matter not for me but for the business managers to decide. All that I can say is that the Government's hope and intention is that the Bill will be on the statute book by the end of July 2003.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I give the Statement a warm welcome. I shall resist the temptation to make a Second Reading debate speech today and leave it for the appropriate time. Instead, I shall ask my noble friend one specific question. I welcome the brave effort to define public service broadcasting. I cannot wait to get out of here and get my hands on the Bill to read what it says. Whose responsibility will it be to define public service broadcasting as regards the BBC-on the assumption that it will be for Ofcom to define it for other broadcasters?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, public service broadcasting will be defined in the Bill and will apply to all broadcasters, whoever they may be, including the BBC. It will be up to the BBC to ensure that it lives up to that definition and up to the governors to ensure impartiality and the qualitative aspects of content.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, while welcoming the news that there is to be a content board and various representation of consumer interests, will there be a parallel carriage board—otherwise, it may be thought that content is on a different level from communications and competition? Can the Minister explain why there should be a special board as part of Ofcom for that side of its deliberations? In view of the importance that she has rightly attached to the power of the media to influence us all, has she given further thought to individual human rights concerning
1030
unfairness or infringement of privacy? Will those questions be taken more seriously by a more independent—and transparently independent—body?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure that I heard what the noble Baroness asked about an additional board—it sounded like a parish board.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, to clarify, I said carriage—content and carriage—because originally there was an idea that there should be two separate boards. My point is that just setting up a content board may appear to make it something of a second-class citizen that will receive less consideration underneath the all-embracing Ofcom board.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the thinking behind the need to establish a separate content board was that the range and responsibilities of Ofcom across a huge range of tier one and tier two issues, as well as some tier three issues, will make its task difficult, as noble Lords have implied. Many responses in the consultation considered it desirable to have a content board to represent the wide public interest in what broadcasters put out—in content. Having a separate board will allow greater scrutiny of content aspects of the regulation of broadcasting.
On the issue of human rights, as I understand it, the infringement of privacy is currently the responsibility of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, which is independent of the broadcasters, and that that will be retained in Ofcom—it will play that role.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister warmly on the clarity and comprehensiveness of the Statement, especially as its scale meant that it took 19 minutes to deliver. Better right than wrong, whatever the timetable, is the best guide of all. When the Minister said concerning Ofcom versus the Competition Commission that it would generally be clear which was in the lead, did she mean that the clarity would be a priori or that it would derive from the new legislation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure how to answer that question. The new legislation will provide a substantial amount of clarity about their respective roles, but as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, there are clearly some boundary issues where there may be some blurring and where both sides will need to agree exactly who does what.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the fact that the Statement—and therefore, presumably, the Bill—puts such emphasis on the need for continuing regulation in this complex field, even in the 21st century, when the technology is so complicated and the global ownership of media so extensive. In that regard, and perhaps contrary to my noble friend Lord Borrie, I welcome the continuation of what he described as the 20 per cent rule.

1031
Will my noble friend expand a little on the phrase that she used about opening up market trading in spectrum? I think that the Statement referred to that as being something equivalent to iron and steel in the first Industrial Revolution, which in itself is an interesting concept. Will my noble friend expand a little on that notion?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her welcome for the retention of the 20 per cent rule. On spectrum, as I said, we shall respond in some detail in the summer to the Cave review and may then be able to provide a clear answer to that question. A wide range of recommendations were made to try to maximise the economic and social benefits from what is of course a finite resource. Rather than raising some of those issues now, perhaps it would be better if I could respond later. Ofcom will certainly have a separate duty of spectrum management and ministerial powers of intervention should be limited. I gather that the response to the consultation will be published soon. That will set out a number of detailed options.

Wembley Stadium
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to a Private Notice Question in another place on Wembley Stadium.
"I explained to the House on 19th December that the Government were willing to support the Football Association's National Stadium project provided that the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd came forward with fully detailed and funded proposals within a reasonable timescale.
"In the light of the David James-Berwin Leighton Paisner report, I asked that they should address four points: first, to commission an independent valuefor-money assessment of the proposed contracts with Multiplex; secondly, to make papers relating to the project available to the Comptroller and Auditor General; thirdly, to make corporate governance changes to produce a management structure capable of delivering a complex project with procedures acceptable to the public sector; and finally to confirm that financial support is adequate and fully committed. I also explained to the House that I had asked Sport England to commission a detailed technical evaluation of new proposals for athletics in the stadium.
"Since 19th December, the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Limited have been working closely with stakeholders and banks to develop the stadium project at their preferred location—Wembley—and address the issues I have
1032
outlined. Significant progress has been made. Wembley National Stadium Limited carried out my request to make available to the Comptroller and Auditor General papers relating to the project.
"WNSL also commissioned Cyril Sweett Ltd—a company with no previous or known likely future involvement in the national stadium project—to undertake a value for money study. Cyril Sweett Ltd concludes that the Multiplex contracts do represent value for money. I have considered the report carefully and accept the conclusions. The full report necessarily contains much commercially sensitive information and cannot therefore be published. I have asked WNSL to commission a publishable summary, which I shall place in the Library of the House.
"WNSL has committed itself to meeting the required standards of corporate governance, and I am pleased to be able to say that significant improvements have been made. The WNSL board has been strengthened with experience in construction, finance and marketing. The new chairman, Michael Jeffries, has construction and project management experience. The Government remain in discussion with the FA, WNSL and the other stakeholders about these important issues. WNSL also invited the Office of Government Commerce to undertake a gateway review of the project which recommended that the project should proceed to contractual completion and that it was well managed and viable.
"Sport England has completed its athletics study, which has been prepared in close co-operation with UK Athletics, the British Olympic Association, UK Sport and the International Association of Athletics Federations. My predecessor rightly drew attention to the extremely long timescale and the exorbitant cost for the installation and removal of the original platform and the fact that there was no legacy for the sport from the project. I am pleased to report that the new design conforms to the standards required by the IAAF, is considerably quicker to install and remove and the costs associated with it have substantially reduced. I have asked Sport England to publish its study.
"The matter of a legacy for athletics is the subject of separate discussions involving my department, Sport England and UK Athletics. I hope that they will be concluded in the next two weeks.
"Finally, while much of the necessary work to secure the financing of the stadium project has been completed, the Football Association has requested more time to enable its current discussions to come to a conclusion. In the light of the progress the FA and WNSL have made in meeting the conditions I set out on 19th December, I have agreed to refrain from reaching my final decision on Government support for the national stadium project at Wembley at this point.
"I understand that that decision will be a disappointment to many people in the West Midlands and honourable Members for that region,

1033
but it would he quite wrong for the Government to withdraw their support at this crucial stage. The FA is closer than it has ever been to making Wembley the home of English football again. I do not believe that it would be right or reasonable to pull the plug on that project when the prospects of success look better than ever.
"Subject to the successful conclusion of the continuing discussions with FA and WNSL, to final confirmation that the financing is adequate and fully committed and to the terms of Patrick Carter's final report, the Government will be content to support the national stadium project at Wembley. My final decision will be taken only after full consultation with Sport England and in the light of Patrick Carter's final report.
"I fully recognise the public and parliamentary pressure to see an end to the process and to see the start of the construction of a world-class stadium. I will make a further statement to the House before the Whitsun Recess".
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in another place a short while ago.
It is nearly six years since Wembley closed its doors to sport and after £120 million of our lottery players' money was dedicated to building a national stadium there: we still do not have a decision. The Government told us, first, that the deadline would be 30th April, if all the conditions were met and that, if the conditions were not met, Birmingham would be given its chance. Today, the Minister has given the Government's excuses or reasons—whatever one wants to call them—for why that deadline should be abandoned. It is only right that the people of Birmingham should now be able to say whether they think those excuses are acceptable.
We must know the real deadline. The Minister concluded by saying that there would be a Statement before the Whit Recess. I note that another place goes off on holiday on 23rd May, somewhat earlier than your Lordships—I might say, "as ever", but I shall not. It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that my noble friend Lord Glentoran has a Question down for Oral Answer for 20th May. Can we expect a Statement by that date—or on it?
The Minister referred to the fact that the Government set four tests last December. She said that the requirement for the value for money assessment had been met satisfactorily. I welcome that. She said that a summary would be placed in the Library. When will it hit the Library's shelves?
Secondly, she referred to the fact that WNSL was to make its papers available to the Comptroller and Auditor General and said that that had been done. However, the Minister did not refer to the second part of that condition. In the Statement, it was said that the Comptroller and Auditor General would decide whether he wished to examine the matter further. What happened about that? Has any such decision
1034
been taken by the Comptroller and Auditor General? The third issue is financial support. We are told that there is still much to do and that much of it is commercially confidential. That makes it difficult for Parliament properly to scrutinise the appropriateness of the process.
There were two parts to the requirements that the Government laid down with regard to athletics. First, there was to be a technical evaluation of the proposals for the facilities at Wembley. Secondly, a cost benefit analysis had to be prepared, comparing the new proposals with those made in 1999. We need more detail than the Minister gave us about the response on those matters. In December, I asked what the Government meant by saying that the new stadium should be athletics-compliant or athletics-capable, the two rather odd descriptions that the Government used. Again, I ask what level of competitive sport will the new stadium be capable of supporting. The Minister said that the new plans met IAAF standards. For what? The world championships? The Olympics? What are we getting for our money?
There are stories in the press that, despite the Government's worst efforts to exclude the Olympics from the stadium—or, after the Pickett's Lock fiasco, any kind of stadium—the plans may well accommodate an Olympics bid. Can the Minister confirm or deny those reports? If the Government support an Olympics bid, does that mean that they have been able to resolve the problem of the lack of warm-up tracks? That would be a great problem if any championship of any standing were to take place there.
Secondly, does it mean that the Government have resolved the problems surrounding the seating capacity and the sight lines? The Minister referred to problems about the platform being resolved, saying that new plans may enable the platform to be raised for athletics and then taken down. Do we know what time-scale is now appropriate for that? How long will it take to erect and dismantle the new platform as opposed to the previous one.
Finally, one must ask about transport to the site. That matter was raised by those people who supported Birmingham's bid. Will the transport links be in place in time for the opening of the new stadium and will they be good enough to cope with the safe and speedy evacuation of a full-capacity crowd? Sadly, in this day and age and after last year's problems, we must be aware of the health and safety needs of spectators and the need for them to be evacuated. When will the Government publish plans for the redevelopment of Wembley Park Underground Station?
The Government have delayed too long on this project. Our sporting reputation has been irreparably damaged. It is now time, in the interests of all our sportsmen and women throughout the country, to get on with it and get a result.
5.31 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The Statement must come as a disappointment to the

1035
press and media, which must have expected a definitive Statement, and an even greater disappointment to those who supported a stadium in the West Midlands. They, too, were expecting a definitive Statement sooner than today and had the criteria not been met would have galvanised themselves into action to make an alternative bid.
There is, however, a great deal of value in the Statement. The Government have made it today because it is a serious matter to extend such a deadline when so many problems and criticisms have been made of the project. The noble Baroness previously told us that her right honourable friend required four criteria to be met and that Sport England had been asked to provide a detailed evaluation of the new proposals for athletics in the stadium. The Statement makes it clear that, thankfully, those criteria have been satisfactorily met.
On the previous occasion I spoke of the contract with Multiplex and did so on the basis of newspaper reports. I agree with the Minister that one should not believe everything one reads in newspapers and I may well have overstepped the mark. Since the Government are now satisfied with the proposed contracts, that is all well and good.
The Comptroller and Auditor General has the information made available to him together with the vital matter of whether the financial support for the project is adequate and fully committed. We do not know whether it is. The Government would not have extended the deadline and made the Statement were they not very confident that the project was going to go ahead. Having made such extensions, if the project does not go ahead difficult questions will be asked in this House and in another place.
As regards the athletics stadium, speaking on behalf of these Benches I have never made any bones about my view that Wembley is not a "national" stadium in the accepted sense of the word. It is a football stadium with various attachments which may well qualify it to be a national stadium. The fact is that the Government are not fully committed to a national stadium. On Sunday, the Secretary of State said on David Frost's programme that the Government were involved in the project only because of the public funds; in other words, the lottery moneys of £120 million which were invested in it. She said that otherwise it was a commercial project subject to a contract between various parties. But of course the Government are involved for many other reasons.
In the light of that, perhaps the Minister would enlighten me on three points. What is the nature of the significant improvements to the standards of corporate governance which the Government sought? They say that the changes are substantial, but that in itself is worrying. What were the standards like before they were considerably improved? Does that give us confidence in the project?
Secondly, how much quicker and cheaper than the original proposal is the new athletics adjunct to the project? I understand and accept that Sport England
1036
has approved the project in consultation with various interested parties. That in itself is encouraging. How long will it take to erect the athletics part of the stadium and how much will it save on the original proposals, which were deemed by the Secretary of State's predecessor not to be viable?
Thirdly, having had in my business experience an interest in projects of various kinds—none as big or as difficult as this, I am pleased to say—I should like to know what is expected in terms of the usage of the completed stadium. A figure of 20 days is being bandied around. To anyone making a few sums on the back of a cigarette packet—that is always what one does on these occasions—it does not seem that such a project would be viable, bearing in mind the investment that is being made in connection with it. Will the Minister say whether the stadium will be used for more than 20 days or fewer? How will the 20 days or more be shared between football and athletics and will the stadium have other uses that will, importantly, be bearers of revenue and income to the project? Otherwise, it is difficult for us to see how the investment, which has not yet been put in place and for which the deadline has been extended, can look forward to a clear and profitable future.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Viscount for their comments on the Statement. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I am extremely sympathetic to the people of Birmingham and those who have supported its bid and I understand the disappointment that they will obviously feel. The key point is that the Football Association has made substantial progress in satisfying the conditions laid down on 19th December. However, it has not been able to complete the final agreement and has asked for a little more time to conclude the last stage of its negotiations with the lead bank with which it is negotiating. It would therefore be wrong for the Government to withdraw support at this late stage and force the Football Association to pull the plug on what have been very long and complex negotiations.
As I said earlier in my remarks, a further Statement to update the House on progress will be made before the Whitsun Recess. However, I cannot give an assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that it will be made in time for the Question tabled by her noble friend Lord Glentoran which is to be answered on 20th May. We shall have a few more sitting days after that date before both this House and another place rise.
The noble Baroness asked about the National Audit Office. The office is independent of government and it is up to the NAO itself to decide what it wishes to do. She also asked about transport arrangements and whether the improvements that are to be made to Wembley Park station will be completed in time. I can tell the noble Baroness that both the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Greater London Authority have already committed a further £7 million towards the

1037
improvements to be made to the station. Substantial funds are now available over and above the £20 million already committed to general, non-stadium infrastructure improvements.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked a number of questions relating to athletics. I am not sure that I can give precise answers to all the questions that were put to me with regard to exactly how long it will take to put in place all the athletics facilities or, indeed, exactly how long it will take to put them all back. Furthermore, I cannot give a precise figure on what the savings will be. However, I can say that all the parties agree that the original platform proposals were far from optimum. In December, Sport England indicated that it thought that a platform could be developed more cheaply and could avoid all the disruption associated with the original proposals. Its latest report demonstrates that the new platform proposals do meet UK Athletics and IAAF technical standards for major championships, which answers a question put by the noble Baroness to which she particularly requested a response.
The noble Baroness also asked about warm-up facilities. We are convinced that there are now sufficient warm-up track facilities available but, again, that will be covered in the report from Sport England. It will be published very soon. To that end, the noble Baroness asked about the timing of publication of the Cyril Sweets report. That will depend on our receiving a summary from WNSL. As soon as we receive it, we shall publish. I should say that the report was in fact commissioned by WNSL, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Football Association. Therefore it is not for the Government to decide the exact timing. We shall publish it as soon as we receive it. I hope that those remarks answer most of the questions that have been put to me.
I think that I have covered the main points, but perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the Government's proposals are a big improvement on what was originally set out, but that we are also continuing to hold discussions with WNSL about them.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the reason why this Statement does not address the Birmingham and Solihull bid is that that would acknowledge a clear breach of an unqualified promise given by this Government; namely, that unless the Wembley proposals were finalised by the end of April, then the Birmingham and Solihull bid would be considered? Does she understand that not only the people of Birmingham and the West Midlands, but also seven out of every 10 football fans and 53 out of 56 club chairmen will regard this Government as having behaved in a duplicitous manner?
On 19th December, the Government claimed that they were neutral as regards the siting of the stadium, whereas in the other place today the Secretary of State
1038
made absolutely clear what a number of people have suspected all along; that is, that the Government were in fact committed to Wembley and Birmingham and Solihull had been wasting their time.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should remind the House and my noble friend, who I know feels very strongly about this matter, that the deadline of 30th April was set by the Football Association and not by the Government. It is only reasonable to allow the association more time, for the reasons that I believe were set out quite clearly both in the Statement and in my response to the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen.
I can only repeat what I said: I understand my noble friend's disappointment, but the Football Association has made it clear from the outset that it believes that Wembley would be a more commercial proposition than Birmingham.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I agree entirely with the views just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. This is a totally unsatisfactory situation, not only for the West Midlands but also for many people throughout the whole country. Public money is involved and therefore the Government have a responsibility here.
So far as concerns the assurance, it seemed to me—as I believe it seemed to most other people—that an assurance was given, endorsed and underlined by the Government to the effect that this long process of consideration, which has been going on for year after year, would come to an end on 30th April 2002. That was the clear impression given. I do not think that the noble Baroness can move away from that.
We are now told that further consideration will be given and a further deadline set. Surely the noble Baroness recognises that that cannot be the right way to do business in this country. Furthermore, surely a widespread impression will he given around the country that the Government have gone back on their word with regard to this project.
Above all, in my view and, I believe, in the view of many others, frankly this is the wrong decision and the wrong direction. As my noble friend remarked, at this stage Birmingham should be given a chance. The sensible site for the national stadium, with its superior communications and infrastructure already in place, always has been at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham.
I shall say this to the noble Baroness: this decision will be widely condemned in the West Midlands. In the region it will be perceived as, frankly, a kick in the face. That is not a happy situation to have reached as a result of this Statement.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Lord's connections with the West Midlands. Of course he takes that position; I understand it completely. However, although the decision might be condemned in the West Midlands, I am sure that that this Statement will be widely welcomed in

1039
London. On a difficult question of location such as this one always has two sides. I know for a fact that many people in London greatly welcome the fact that the national football stadium is to be sited in London. They believe that the capital city is the right place for it. Indeed, I have heard people who have no connection either with London or the West Midlands—they can thus be said to be reasonably objective—also take the position that the stadium should be sited in London. Of course different views are going to be expressed on a matter of this kind.
However, it is for the Football Association to reach a final decision, which is the position the Government have maintained and made absolutely clear all along. This is not a decision to be reached by my department or, indeed, by the Government. I can only say again that it would be entirely wrong at this late stage in the negotiations being conducted between the Football Association and those involved in providing the finance and, indeed, in building the stadium to drop all that work and move on to a totally different proposal.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about an Olympic stadium. An Olympic stadium has certain characteristics. It has a 400 metres race track; it has space in the middle for all the field sports; it has a huge amount of parking and is accessible by all forms of transport; it has a village which can be reached reasonably quickly from the stadium, to and fro; and it has access to, and is not too far away from, a swimming stadium, and so on. Can anyone honestly believe that such a project could be constructed in London? I am a Londoner born and bred and it would be wonderful to have a football stadium at Wembley, but an Olympic stadium is quite different. Is this or is this not to be an Olympic stadium? If it is not, we are talking at cross purposes to a certain extent.
It is not so much the sporting reputation of this country that is in doubt—that is rather high at the present moment in a wide variety of sports. What is in doubt is the capacity of this country, through the Government and the various institutions, to take a sensible decision in reasonable time, with some eye on when we might make an Olympic bid.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not respond to the noble Baroness's earlier question about whether Wembley would be used for the Olympics. I can clarify straightaway that there is no intention of the stadium to be built at Wembley being used for the Olympic Games. It would not be suitable. That has been absolutely clear from the beginning and I am somewhat surprised by the tenor of the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. If there were to be a bid from London for the Olympic Games, the British Olympic Association would have to consider with the mayor and other London bodies where a main stadium for the Olympic Games might be placed. I believe that the mayor has expressed a view that it should be in east London.
1040
That does not mean that the national football stadium would not be used if London made a successful bid for the Olympic Games. It would be used, for example, for the football tournament. There would be some use for it, but it is not designed or meant to be a stadium for an Olympic bid.
I also failed to answer the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about the number of events that will take place at Wembley. WNSL plan to hold around 30 events. The main events will be flagship sports events such as the FA Cup Final and some concerts will be held there. It is a little difficult to anticipate at this stage exactly how many concerts will be held in the stadium. That will obviously depend on the demand at the time. The important point is that WNSL believes that the income from the premium seats it will sell will be sufficient to sustain the project.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my thanks to her for repeating the Statement made in another place are almost in exact inverse proportion to my appreciation of its contents? Does she appreciate how uncomfortable it is for me to find myself being much more in agreement with the Opposition Front Benches in relation to this matter than I am with my own Front Bench? It is the first time in a long life in politics that I have found myself publicly having to state that as my position.
Does she further appreciate that the Statement represents not only a betrayal of the legitimate interests of the West Midlands but flouts the assurances that she gave on behalf of the Government in a previous Statement in this House when she said that the deadline for the end of April was set for Wembley? To pretend otherwise, as she did in the answer she gave to my noble friend Lord Corbett, is an act of inadequate sophistry.
Perhaps she will remind the House of the precise phrase that she used at the end of her previous Statement, when she said quite clearly that the end of April was a deadline and that if at that time the FA had not become clear about its intentions, then the West Midlands would have its chance.
Finally, will my noble friend reflect on the last answer that she gave and tell the House how she can be so sure of the merits of the London case when she cannot answer a simple question about the number of events? On what basis is the business plan drawn up so that she can justify the capital costs without having any idea whatever of the revenue which will be generated from that capital expenditure?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's lack of appreciation for the content of the Statement but I have nothing to add to what I have said already to my noble friend Lord Corbett and to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I know that they all speak for the West Midlands. Their views are perfectly valid from a West Midlands point of view but not from the point of view of the Football Association, which has ownership of the project. Nor are they consistent with the views of many Londoners who believe that the national football stadium should be in London.

1041
As to my noble friend's final question, he is being extraordinarily unfair in the tone of his question and, indeed, in the nature of his question. I made it perfectly clear that there will be around 30 events in the national stadium including a minimum of five concerts. It is ridiculous to suggest that I or anyone else can predict exactly how many concerts over and above the minimum of five WNSL believes it will be able to commit to. It may well be there will be more in which case its financial position will be even better.
I have made it clear to my noble friend and to the House that the amount of revenue that will be available as a result of the number of projected events for the new stadium will be adequate for it to operate effectively.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the Government seem to be in a muddle over athletics and we are all concerned about the £120 million provided by Sport England. As the noble Baroness said, if we are not having the Olympics, the World Championships or the European Championships, why on earth do we want a 100,000 seater stadium for athletics?
Can the Minister give some details of the cost of converting the stadium from football to athletics, bearing in mind that an eight-lane running track will to a large extent encroach on to the seating capacity of the stadium. How long will it take and who will pay for it each time? You cannot expect athletics to pay for the changeover after it gets its £120 million benefit. It seems that athletics has been put on a shelf and promised that it will get something, but the noble Baroness has given us no details of how this will be achieved.
As to the use of the stadium, the rugby league people are very happy going to Edinburgh or to Cardiff. Is there any guarantee that they will always come to Wembley?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's question about athletics, I thought that I had given some indication of Sport England's report on this matter. It demonstrates that the new platform proposals meet UK athletics and IAAF technical standards for major championships, as I have indicated, and there is no reason why major championships of that kind should not take place at Wembley. It also concludes that there are sufficient options for warm-up facilities. The details will emerge when the report is published, as I have promised that it will be.
The noble Lord asked about what has become known as the athletics legacy. The Statement in no way affects that. Discussions between UK Athletics, Sport England and the Government are making good progress. Again, we shall make an announcement about the matter shortly.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a project of some significance, to be accomplished at some cost? Will she give the House an assurance that this important matter, which
1042
has clearly evoked wide interest, went before the Cabinet? Did the Cabinet have art opportunity to consider the question—and if not, why not?
In the course of the investigation that unknown quarters of the Government have arrived at, what reliance did they place on what is oddly called "commercially confident information"? Breaches of commercial confidence are of no con sequence when a project of this kind comes to be considered. More importantly, is my noble friend further aware that a question of honour is involved?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is not normal practice for Ministers to reveal what is or is not discussed in Cabinet. However, I can assure my noble friend that widespread consideration across government has been given to this project.
With regard to my noble friend's question about commercially confident information, I am sure that he is as aware as I and other Members of the House are that where an organisation—in this case the Football Association—is negotiating the details of a major contract involving contractors, architects and the banks that will support the project, it would be wholly wrong for a Minister to stand up and give this House the details of that commercially confident information.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I believe I heard the Minister say that it was not possible at this stage to forecast the level of revenue to be obtained from the 30 events that are projected. Notwithstanding that, surely British banks—which are generally recognised as being somewhat generous—will require, first, to have a detailed business plan and, secondly, to know exactly what revenue is forecast before lending several hundred million pounds. At this stage, they must therefore expect to be given the information in advance of any commitment on their part. So why cannot this kind of information be made available to the House?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have already made clear that what I can say to the House is that the level of revenue that will be produced by the current proposals for the usage of the new stadium will be adequate for it to operate successfully. What I cannot do is reveal to the House, prior to the publication of reports which are not government reports but which have been commissioned by the Football Association, those kinds of details; nor do I think it would be right for me to do so.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the fury of my noble friends Lord Corbett and Lord Tomlinson, and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, opposite on behalf of the West Midlands would be much better directed to the Football Association rather than to the Government bearing in mind that the Football Association decided a considerable time ago that Wembley was its preferred choice and the Government, very properly, in December, insisted that

1043
various changes in corporate governance should be made, that the stadium should be proved to be capable of accepting athletics and that the involvement of Multiplex in the contract should be properly sorted out? It seems to me from the Statement that those conditions have been met, that it is not unreasonable for the Football Association to ask for a little more time; and if people do not like the idea of the stadium being at Wembley, they should direct their anger at the Football Association.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, at last a little support! I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. Yes, he is absolutely right. As I have been trying to say for the past 20 minutes or more, this is a matter for the Football Association. It would be wrong, however, for the Government at this late stage to tell the Football Association that it cannot pursue the last stage of its detailed negotiations on siting the national stadium at Wembley.

Education Bill
6.5 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 6.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may not make an order under this section unless the following have been consulted, as appropriate, having regard to the content of the order—

(a) associations of local education authorities;

(b) local education authorities;

(c) bodies representing the interests of governing bodies of schools; and

(d) bodies representing the interests of teachers."

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44, 46 and 47, which are about requiring consultation with appropriate groups before Clauses 6 and 7 are allowed to be put into operation.
The clauses exempt qualifying schools from pay and conditions and curriculum requirements, some of which are by right and some of which are at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 42 requires consultation with associations of education authorities, with LEAs and with bodies representing school governors and teachers, as well as with the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, before any order under Clause 6 is made.
Amendment No. 44 to Clause 7 requires the governing body to consult with parents, teachers, the LEA and bodies representing teachers before making changes to the pay and conditions of staff and curriculum changes. It is important that the governing body consults with relevant people before deciding whether and how to apply for these exemptions.
1044
We on these Benches are concerned at the wide-ranging discretion that these clauses make available to schools. There is little evidence to date of schools wishing to have more flexibility in these areas. Indeed, it is one of the many matters in the Bill in regard to which my noble friend Lady Sharp might ask: is the Bill really necessary?
Provisions in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 allowed grant-maintained schools to apply to the Secretary of State to be exempt from the statutory pay and conditions arrangements. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 amended these provisions. However, only a very small number of schools took advantage of the flexibility provided by these statutory provisions. I cannot believe that schools are now crying out to be able to do more of this. However, if they do, we believe that it is appropriate for associations of local education authorities to be consulted. The detailed arrangements may well raise other concerns. In terms of the consultation arrangements for Clause 7, it is vital that, in addition to LEAs, teachers and parents should be consulted about variations to the curriculum.
Reliance on the discretionary provision set out in Clause 7(2)(c) is inadequate. The actions of individual schools will clearly have an impact on other schools within the local authority area. Therefore, changes to the curriculum and to pay and conditions should not be facilitated on an isolated case-by-case basis.
Amendment No. 46 specifies that the parents of disabled children and children with special needs should be consulted too in regard to how any curriculum changes might affect them. That is in the spirit of what was achieved by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act last year. We and the Special Education Consortium are concerned that, unless this amendment is included in the Bill, it would be possible for a school to earn autonomy even though it might not be addressing adequately the educational needs of disabled children and those with special educational needs. As the Bill stands, such children might be further disadvantaged by the exemptions that the school earns—for example, a narrowing of the curriculum or reliance on classroom assistants to teach them, with the qualified teacher there only to consult.
It might also be possible for a school to proceed with exemptions even though parents of such children were very unhappy about the development. These provisions are for successful schools. Their success will qualify them for the exemptions. We therefore want to ensure that schools seeking earned autonomy should be expected to demonstrate that they have been successful in promoting the education of children with disabilities and special educational needs. They should also be required to show how the impact of any exemption or innovation on such pupils will be evaluated and to demonstrate that they have achieved the support of the parents of those children for the changes they propose. That is to ensure that the changes do not affect those children disproportionately.

1045
Amendment No. 47 would require bodies representing teachers to be consulted on applications referring to pay and conditions. In the context of severe difficulties for recruitment and retention, the Government should exercise extreme caution before moving to deregulate pay and conditions and to introduce even more flexibility. Many schools are of the view that they already have quite enough flexibility, so it would be preferable to remove that provision completely from the Bill. In the event of the Government remaining committed to the provision, it is vital that full consultation takes place, given the implications for teachers. That should be done not just for teachers, but for all those who have the detailed knowledge and expertise to understand the implications of what is proposed. There is also doubt in some quarters as to whether the omission of the right to negotiate complies with the ILO convention. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 45, which is in this group, would include the parents of children with special educational needs. There are only two kinds of children: those with special educational needs and those without. That covers all children in our schools. Clause 7(2)(a) says that,
"where the application relates to a curriculum provision",
the governing body shall,
"consult the parents of registered pupils at the school".
However, that could exclude parents representing the interests of children with special educational needs. That is why the amendment is important.
Any exemption from national pay and conditions arrangements would be best introduced with as much consensus at local level as possible, and certainly not against a hostile reception. Without going into the detail of every proposal included in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, consultation with certain bodies is crucial as a matter of courtesy and of very real information, as well as in an attempt to achieve a basis of consensus at local level. The local education authority and parents should be informed. In particular, parents of children with special educational needs should be informed so that their specific needs can be taken into account in any arrangements subject to the exemption.
Lord Rix: As the father of a daughter with a learning disability who was denied any schooling because she was born in 1951, many years before the Education (Handicapped Children) Act 1970, and as the grandfather of a one year-old boy with Down's syndrome, I am obviously extremely interested in the future of special educational needs provision. It is vital that parents are linked with the special educational needs process whenever it has consequences for their child. I hope that the Minister is minded to support the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 45, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and Amendment No. 46, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because they underline the basic need for common
1046
sense and understanding in dealing effectively with many a distraught parent's hopes and wishes for their disabled son or daughter.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support what my noble friend Lord Rix and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, have said about children with special needs. I worked with children with special needs for several years nearly 30 years ago, and my wife is a speech therapist in the National Health Service who 'works in schools with children with special needs.
I particularly endorse what my noble friend Lord Rix said about parents feeling dispirited if they do not consider that proper provision is being made for their children. There is already a patchwork quilt of provision in the UK. Anything that exacerbated the problem would be a retrograde step.
The general thrust of the Government's attempts to create diversity, flexibility and autonomy in schools as far as possible is extremely worthy and I support it, but the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has put his finger on an important issue. If children with special needs are involved, there must be uniformity of provision. We must not go back to the days when the chances of someone with special needs receiving a proper education were extremely remote. Many of us have heard from parents over the years about how their children have been stigmatised or removed from the normal ambit of educational provision because of a disability. During my days as a constituency Member of Parliament, I often listened to agonised stories of people who not only suffered grievously as a result of being rejected by friends, neighbours and relatives because of someone being different and having some special need or requirement, but who also hit the same set of buffers when they had to deal with authority, which should have known better.
Great progress has been made over the past 20 years under successive governments. We should be pleased that we have been able to take enlightened action and we should not put the clock back in any way. I Earn sure that the Minister will be able to give the Committee those reassurances.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 42, 44 and 47. I said earlier that we want the process by which schools earn autonomy to be as simple, effective and unbureaucratic as possible. Amendment No. 42 would require a wide range of representative bodies to be consulted in addition to those bodies and individuals who will have to be consulted by governing bodies under Clause 7. A requirement to consult with those representative bodies on the content of even a selected number of orders relating to exemptions from the national curriculum or the pay and conditions provisions is unnecessary and would be difficult to operate. First, it presumes that the bodies outlined in the amendment have a direct interest in all such orders and will both want and have the time and resources to comment on them. Secondly, provision is made for the key

1047
stakeholders who may be directly affected by the application to be consulted by the governing body before an application is made.
For example, Clause 7 makes it clear that before making an application, the governing body will need to consult with the appropriate parties, including every teacher employed in the school, in relation to pay and conditions, and parents, in relation to curriculum matters, as well as other appropriate persons. Similarly, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will not be able to make orders unless proper consultation has taken place.
The amendments do not appear to take account of the key point that under employment law, any changes to teachers' contracts that could follow on from pay and conditions exemptions orders cannot be imposed unilaterally on teachers but can take effect only following appropriate negotiation, which may, of course, involve teaching unions. At the final stage, when changes are applied to contracts in respect of pay and conditions orders, negotiating machinery would not be needed in every case. Of course, if a school secured extensive exemptions from national pay and conditions, to the extent that the annual national pay award did not apply, some local determination machinery, which could well involve unions, if appropriate, would be needed to replace the national machinery. But these earned autonomy provisions allow the possibility of quite minor modification and exemptions to suit local circumstances.
I therefore do not believe that it is necessary to require consultation on every change, no matter how small, to involve all teacher unions. If teachers at the school were in favour of the application and the unions at local or national level were not, it is hard to know what the governing body would be expected to do with responses. Surely what matters is what teachers at the school concerned think of the application. Any teacher in such a position would be fully entitled to seek advice from his or her union. I should reiterate that no governing body will seek to disadvantage any of its teachers through the terms of an earned autonomy application.
An additional point is that adding such consultees adds to the bureaucracy and burden on schools. Even if the application were to enable a small change—for example, to pay bonuses to staff—the unions would need to be consulted directly. This is not good use of time or resources. Governing bodies have a relationship with and a responsibility to the teachers at their school, and the teachers are therefore the ones to be consulted. I should add that the Government have never had any formal indication from the International Labour Organisation that we are in breach of regulations.
I therefore believe that the wording of the Bill as it stands is quite appropriate. This wording requires governing bodies to take account of any guidance, which the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may issue, when they are considering whom to consult, but the final decision is with the governing
1048
body. This gives the appropriate level of flexibility for the school and, we believe, confidence for everyone involved.
Amendment No. 44 would effectively require a school to consult all parents on what may be a minor modification relating to teachers' pay and conditions, which would restrict the working of the clause as it stands at present.
It would also require governing bodies to consult teacher unions before making any application for national curriculum as well as pay and conditions exemption or modification. They would need to take account of any guidance, but the amendment is worded so as to ensure that the guidance does not allow for any exceptions. I do not agree that any requirement for consultation with unions, prior to every single application, is a helpful way forward.
I should further point out that the amendment would replace the existing paragraph (c) in Clause 7. This paragraph is of wide effect and will require the governing body to take account of any guidance which the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may issue when considering whom it is appropriate to consult. This guidance might, for example, cover the diocese, in the case of church schools, if changes proposed are very significant, or local or national teacher unions, perhaps in cases where major exemptions from or modifications to pay and conditions provisions are being proposed.
It will still be for the governing body to determine whom it is appropriate to consult, but the guidance will be helpful in that process of consideration, and they will need to take it into account. Amendment No. 44, however, would entirely remove subsection(2) and require consultation with parents, teachers, LEAs and teacher unions in all circumstances, while at the same time removing all discretion from the governing body in terms of the consultation process and potentially limiting the range of consultees.
My view, therefore, is that we should not accept Amendment No. 44. Governing bodies need discretion to make their own decisions, taking account of guidance. I do not believe that they should be required in all cases, irrespective of the nature of the application, to do so. I therefore hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, will not press the amendment.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. I take this opportunity to reaffirm to the Committee the Government's commitment to ensure that all schools provide for their children with special educational needs and children with disabilities. These proposals on earned autonomy do not alter that commitment in any way. I entirely agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that it is important that parents of children with special educational needs have a voice in the decision-making process.
In Clause 7, we make it clear that the governing body must consult the parents of pupils at the school where that governing body is applying for earned autonomy in respect of any curriculum provision. It is absolutely clear that this will include, and must

1049
include, parents of children with special educational needs. It is a requirement that the parents of those children—statemented or not, wherever they are on the spectrum of special educational needs—are consulted. Where parents are opposed to the change being proposed, they will make their views known. The governing body will consider those views, and I do not believe that the governing body of a successful school would disregard the views of the parent population. Successful schools are schools that address the needs of all their pupils. That must include children who have special educational needs and children with disabilities.
Furthermore, Ofsted will of course continue to inspect schools exercising their earned autonomy" and will continue to be concerned with the education that the school provides for all of its children, including those with special needs. I hope that that assures the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, and that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, and before the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, replies on Amendment No. 42, I should like to pose two questions. Where in the Bill is this obligation to consult with the various bodies specified in the amendments? Where in the Bill, for example, is the obligation to consult with the parents of children with special educational needs? I cannot find it.
Secondly, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, which is pertinent to this point, I pointed out a tension between the Bill and Section 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which places on LEAs a legal obligation to raise standards in their schools. As I said, in this legislation, LEAs are not even statutory consultees. The Minister has not made it clear which part of the Bill imposes a legal obligation to consult with LEAs.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Clause 7 imposes the duty to consult with all parents, which includes parents of children with special educational needs. Those parents are encompassed within "all parents". We expect schools to consult with all their parents, and that includes the parents of children with special educational needs. I am very concerned that we ensure that the pa rents of those children are involved right across the spectrum in the decisions that schools make. It is very important that that is done. We believe that we have covered the point by saying that all parents must be consulted. As for the issue of LEAs, we intend to specify in guidance that LEAs should be consulted before any application is made.
Baroness Blatch: Guidance is not enough. As LEAs have a legal obligation under Section 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, they should have a legal obligation to consult in this Bill.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am very happy to tell the noble Baroness that I shall take away the matter and come back.
Baroness Walmsley: The Minister said that the Government intended to avoid unnecessary
1050
complexity in the legislation. However, what is more important is that we get it right. If that requires a little more bureaucracy, we should support such a proposal. The Minister's comments simply emphasised that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, was right 'when he said that the last thing that schools want is to become involved in pay negotiations, and that there is therefore no need to extend schools' powers in that sphere.
As for who should be consulted on variations to teachers' pay and conditions, although every teacher may be consulted, not every teacher has the expertise of the teachers unions, for example. Neither do individual teachers represent the whole body of teachers; each teacher represents only herself and perhaps the teachers in her own school. There is therefore still a need for statutory consultation of the bodies representing teachers.
I thank the Minister for her reassurances on the parents of children with special educational needs. It is quite clear from our debate that we shall return to the issue on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Applications for orders under section 6(2)]:
[Amendments Nos. 43A and 44 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert "and, in particular, the parents of pupils with special educational needs"
The noble Baroness said: In the light of the dogged determination not to put the interests of special needs on the face of the Bill, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The Question is that Amendment No. 45 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content", the contrary "Not Content". I think that the "Not Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
6.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Byford, B.

Addington, L.

Caithness, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Barker, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Clement-Jones, L.

Blatch, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Boardman, L.

Craigavon, V.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Burnham, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Buscombe, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

1051

Denham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montrose, D.

Falkland, V.

Moynihan, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newby, L.

Flather, B.

Noakes, B.

Freeman, L.

Northbrook, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Glentoran, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Goschen, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plumb, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Hamwee, B.

Prior, L.

Hanham, B.

Rennard, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Renton, L.

Haslam, L.

Rix, L.

Henley, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Holderness, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hooper, B.

Roper, L.

Howe, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Selborne, E.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hylton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jopling, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kimball, L.

Stewartby, L.

Laird, L.

Strange, B.

Listowel, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Liverpool, E.

Tebbit, L.

Luke, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Waddington, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNally, L.

Walmsley, B.

Maddock, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ahmed, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Alli, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Amos, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Andrews, B.

Filkin, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gale, B.

Bach, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Barnett, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grenfell, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Grocott, L.

Borrie, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bragg, L.

Harrison, L.

Brennan, L.

Haskel, L.

Brett, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Brookman, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Hoyle, L.

Christopher, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Jeger, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Jones, L.

Crawley, B.

Layard, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

David, B.

Lipsey, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dixon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Elder, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

1052

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Sawyer, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Sheldon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Simon, V.

Mitchell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Morris of Manchester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Northbourne, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Varley, L.

Pendry, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Peston, L.

Whitaker, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Whitty, L.

Puttnam, L.

Wilkins, B.

Radice, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.40 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Removal of exemptions]:
[Amendment No. 47A not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Determination of pay and conditions during and after exemption]:
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Powers of governing bodies to form or invest in companies to provide services etc]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 6, line 33, leave out "companies" and insert "bodies corporate"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments that are grouped with it.
All of the amendments seek to leave out the word "company" or "companies" and insert the words "bodies corporate" or "body corporate" into the Bill. The amendment is intended to probe the Government on their proposals regarding companies. We on these Benches believe that it would be better to keep company law out of the education system in order to avoid placing additional bureaucratic burdens and responsibilities on head teachers and governing bodies.
School governing bodies already have a statutory status: they have been bodies corporate since 1998 under the School Standards and Framework Act, and even—perhaps—under the Education Act 1993. That status protects an individual governor's personal wealth and property from liabilities but it does not involve onerous levels of administration and other responsibilities, as company status does under the Companies Act 1985. Companies Act companies are legal entities in their own right and limited liability limits the liability of those setting up the company to

1053
their initial stake provided that they do not, by their own misconduct—whether fraud or malpractice—cause the immunities to he lifted by a court.
Those "benefits", so to speak, also involve responsibilities. There are a considerable number of checks written into the process of setting up and running a company, which help to filter out those vulnerable to malpractice. In addition, the requirements of the annual audit and report are considerable.
Governors, as last year's survey by the National Association of Governors and Managers indicated, already find their responsibilities as governors somewhat onerous. We on these Benches do not understand why any governing body should seek to add significantly to its burdens by agreeing to set up and run a company. What benefits are to be gained from doing so? Is not the existing legal status of the governing body as a body corporate sufficient to meet the needs of Clauses 25 and 26, which are about the provision of community facilities, and of Clause 29, which relates to the joint discharge of functions? Can the Minister please tell us why the Government believe that it is necessary for such enterprises to be undertaken by Companies Act companies, rather than under the powers that governing bodies already have as bodies corporate? I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I want to give some support to what the Government are seeking to do in this part of the Bill. Although I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, properly probed the Government on the details, we should not detach ourselves from the spirit of what this part of the Bill seeks to achieve. It is erroneous to suggest that there is currently no link between education and companies law. In higher education—certainly, within the universities system—many universities have spun off their own companies very successfully. Those companies have gone on to create job opportunities and to enhance the value of the local economy in their area. I refer the noble Baroness to the example of Merseyside in that respect. At the universities there, significant new enterprises have been created and spun off from universities. They have gone on to make a significant impact locally in terms of the numbers of people employed and the creation of material, via those departments, which has been recycled in the education system and the economy generally.
Although this proposal would not be done on the same scale, the precedent is clearly there. There has been no difficulty in operating those companies in terms of safeguarding the governors of the universities and the staff who get involved. I add that some of the staff have gone on to lead the universities. They have gone out into the wide world, having created those companies, and created some extremely viable and interesting new companies and endeavours. We can be encouraged by such efforts.
The noble Baroness said that the responsibilities may be onerous on governing bodies, which are already over-stretched and which may not feel the need to take on additional responsibilities. As I understand
1054
the clause—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—there is no requirement on governing bodies to create such companies. That is done when they feel that that would be useful to them. For example, a school may have developed software for computer programmes or come up with an innovative way of dealing with a history programme or a science project in the national curriculum, and it could offer that to other schools. If that school in turn receives some remuneration for doing so and is able to redirect that back into its school budget, that is clearly advantageous to the school.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I point out to the noble Lord that in such cases there is nothing stopping individuals from setting up companies. With universities, in most cases it is individuals who set up companies. Sometimes that is done with capital from the universities, which have become, in that regard, shareholders. They are set up outside the framework of the university. In this regard, we are concerned with governors who set up a company as a group of governors. That is a slightly different issue.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Again, I refer the noble Baroness to the example of Merseyside, in which the universities collaborated to set up what was called the "hothouse" from which various new companies were initiated using ideas that were then in circulation around the faculties. It was possible to create enterprises that have gone on to be supported externally—for example, with European Union funding, as part of the objective 1 programme for the regeneration of the area. They have become a catalyst for the growth of the economy and the creation of jobs.
Schools will not be in a position to take on major initiatives of that kind. However, it is not impossible to foresee circumstances in which, as I suggested, a good idea that a school has developed could be used in an innovative way. That will not be a regular pattern in our schools. The Government are not suggesting that. This is surely an enabling measure that will allow schools to do that if they so wish. That is in line with the spirit of the legislation, which is about freeing schools to try imaginative initiatives and to be innovative and enterprising. We should not place unnecessary constraints in their way. For example, a few months ago, my nine year-old was doing a project on the Aztecs. I was intrigued to look on the Internet to see what the best sites were. I thought that the best site was offered by a primary school that had developed its own programme, which was linked to the national curriculum. That is precisely the sort of software package that could be sold to other schools that will do the project in future. Similarly, where other intellectual capita] has been created by a school, why should there not be a way of drawing back some sort of benefit to the school from which the idea originated?
My only concern is about safeguarding the governors, who become involved in authorising such a project. I want to hear a word from the Minister on that. My understanding of company law—his is much

1055
greater—is that the appropriate safeguards are in the legislation but that one would always be concerned about the liabilities that governors would enter into and the safeguarding of the individuals concerned.
Lord Dearing: I want to offer comment in the form of a question. I support enlarging rather than constricting the opportunities that are open to schools. If a body corporate comprehends also a company, I have no problem because that enlarges the specificity of a company. But if it does not, I should regret not opening up the possibility of a company—perhaps one limited by guarantee—because that is the type of instrument with which a commercial partner, which is a company, might feel comfortable in entering into a joint venture.
I can envisage such a situation, for example, in the provision of leisure. A school may have the land and a developer may be interested in providing the buildings and equipment. They could conceivably form a joint venture which would have to be a legal entity, and I suspect that that legal entity would be a company. In order to become involved in that, the school might need to set up a company limited by guarantee. Therefore, my concern is not with A or B being right but with avoiding confining the possibilities open to schools, especially as we are encouraging them to reach out into communities and to be centres of community.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I also express support for the sentiment echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and, to some extent, for that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I welcome these clauses in the Bill. Under the pre-1988 position in the education system, the only body to which schools could turn was the local education authority. That, apparently, was the fount of all wisdom and knowledge, not only in curricular development but in the whole organisation and running of schools.
The big breakthrough came with the introduction of delegated budgets. They had been experimented with in the early 1980s and were put into effect by the time of the Education Reform Act 1988. That legislation gave to schools a much greater degree of freedom and independence, and schools quickly realised that they could run a large part of their organisation which had previously been run by the LEA. That was a tremendous breakthrough. I believe that, in virtually all cases, schools which have had delegated budgets have welcomed them. More and more schools have received them.
Of course, this power will be extended only to schools with delegated budgets. Therefore, one is talking about schools which have had some experience of carrying out their own repairs and of moving into the provision of their own catering arrangements and going well beyond that. As I understand it, these clauses envisage that they will be able to form companies, if the governing body so recommends, and provide other services. I welcome that very strongly.
1056
Some of the schools with delegated budgets have developed considerable expertise, perhaps in technical, legal and financial areas. I believe that it is absolutely right to allow them to capitalise upon that knowledge. As the noble Lord said, that is already happening. He quoted the example of software development. A great deal of very good software development is now taking place at school level throughout our education system. There is no reason why a school should not try to sell that to other schools not only in this country but in other countries as well.
Such developments are taking place because there is a great freeing-up of the old, monolithic education system. In one area, not only has the Telford City Technology College become one of the most, if not the most, successful school in the country, but it is now sponsoring another school with the help of a nurses' company. The setting up of another school—a state-maintained school at that—is, as it were, the extreme element of this proposal. Again, Telford and other city technology colleges have developed packages of one type or another which they make available to other schools.
Therefore, I look upon this as a very welcome development and a way in which an enterprising school can increase its financial resources in a sensible, measured way. I am sure that many questions about detail will be raised but, in general, I want to express my support for these clauses in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: It may come as a surprise to the noble Lord that, in principle, I, too, welcome more commercial freedom for schools. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that these clauses need to be seen as enabling clauses. No one will be required to set up a company; they are simply enabling clauses. But there my concern starts rather than ends.
My concern is in relation to the detail. I say to my noble friend Lord Baker that the detail is worrying. My noble friend spoke in the context of Telford college, which is almost fully autonomous, and in the context of what were grant-maintained schools, which enjoyed a great deal of autonomy. We still have the Thomas Telfords of this world, the city technology colleges and, indeed, the city academies. But we have lost the wholesale autonomy enjoyed by the grant-maintained schools. Those schools are now back with their local authorities.
I am concerned about the detail of the way in which these companies are to be set up. They will be companies under the full panoply of company law, and that is very different from what I believe is being described. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave the university sector as a very good example. Of course, the universities are autonomous in that sense, and they are masters in their own house. But, as I said, schools are not.
Even so, if the noble Lord looks at the words in the Bill, he will see that schools must work in concert with the LEA and not, as my noble friend Lord Baker believes, separate from it. Schools cannot even take this step without the LEA being involved. The LEA

1057
forms the supervisory body. Therefore, another tier is involved, and the Secretary of State holds the power to intervene.
Therefore, we are not talking about an autonomous company but about an arrangement with layers of other people superimposed upon it. I believe that that is a recipe for disaster. We should look, for example, at the Government's record on individual learning accounts. The Government introduced a scheme in which they gave autonomy to a company to go away and involve itself in a government scheme commercially. It was widely open to fraud, and the National Audit Office's report of what went on there makes fairly horrific reading. Therefore, the Government's record on this matter is not good.
I shall have a great deal more to say about Clause 10 when it comes to the Question whether the clause stand part because I believe that some real concerns exist in relation to it.
Perhaps, in passing, I may refer to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I believe that he was talking about his son working on an Aztec project. He spoke about a primary school which had the most marvellous technological software—the best to be found. At present there is nothing to stop any primary school from developing that software and making it available to other schools. In fact, a school can even charge for that service. The money is received by the school and used for the benefit of the school. That can occur in the same way as playing fields, for example, can be used with different scales of letting charges. Schools can charge one level of fee to the voluntary and charitable sectors; they can be generous in their lettings policy for other schools in the area; they can act in a commercial manner if a commercial organisation wishes to use the facilities; or, indeed, if weddings take place on the school premises, again, they can be very commercial.
Therefore, there is a great deal that schools can do in order to exploit the facilities that they have and the developments that they have made in education. However, as I said, I shall have much more to say when it comes to the Question whether clause stand part. My concern is about the detail and not about the principle of giving more commercial freedom to schools at a local level.
Lord Peston: Before my noble friend replies, I have two factual questions to ask him. As I am trying to learn about education from the Bill, can he explain the existing legal position? What law prevents existing maintained schools from forming companies? In other words, what net is there in the Bill? Can he direct me to that? I assume that the answer to that is very clear and that I am simply ignorant.
My second question is: can he give me an example of what one can do by forming a company which one cannot do under the present situation? Can he give an absolute hard-and-fast example of something that schools can do once they become companies which they are prevented from doing now?
7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: At the beginning I almost felt that my role in this Committee was not necessary because the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others successfully answered most of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Because of the promise of further debate on the wider issues in Clause 10, I shall attempt to confine myself to this group of clauses and to the issues raised in connection with them, and I shall not stray on to the issues which we shall inevitably debate later.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, opened by talking as though we were imposing burdens on governors and schools. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, responded to that point very effectively. There is no obligation on any school or any group of schools to make use of the powers provided for by Clauses 10 and 11. The use of those powers is purely voluntary.
If we take the amendments literally, the issue comes down to whether we have companies under the Companies Act 1985 or a statutory body whose rules would be set up under Amendment No. 58 by the Secretary of State. I am a little surprised al that because the thrust of much of the debate on the Bill has been the extent to which there has been delegation to the Secretary of State, particularly by regulation. To use the Companies Act, which is provided for in primary legislation and is well known, rather than to give additional regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State as Amendment No. 58 would do, is a little counter to the thrust of the argument that I have heard.
The reason for proposing to use the Companies Act 1985 is simple: it is there; it works; the rules are all set out and it is easy for anyone to use. One can buy a company off the shelf readily. There are no new legal or accounting procedures to be learnt. The constraints on and protections of limited liability are well known and have been so for many years.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the two kinds of company that we expect to be formed are first, mainly companies limited by guarantee but, secondly, possibly—I shall explain the circumstances, perhaps in response to later amendments—companies limited by shares. In the case of companies limited by guarantee, the responsibility of the members of that company is limited to £1 or £10 or whatever sum is the initial guarantee. In the case of a company limited by shares, the responsibility is limited to the amount of the shares subscribed for. Therefore, the financial protection of those who take part in these companies is clear.
It is necessary for me to say a word about the three kinds of activity of the companies, because that is significant in explaining why we have gone along the route of the Companies Act. We envisage that the companies should have three purposes. One would be collective purchasing where the purchasing power of a group of schools in one authority or, indeed, more than one authority, would be greater than that of a single school. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, a supplier to a school is more protected if he is

1059
supplying to a limited company than to a corporate body in the more vague sense that a governing body is a corporate body.
Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend for giving way. Perhaps I may ask him whether he is certain of the answer he has just given as regards a supplier being more protected. Surely, if a school orders goods and writes a cheque, the supplier is fully protected. How can he be more protected? Unless things go on in schools about which I do not know and do not want to know, I do not see what problem could possibly arise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Ultimately, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right in the sense that if a school defaults, the local education authority is ultimately responsible. If a company set up under Clause 10 defaults, the local education authority is ultimately responsible. In the end, the responsibility and the protection are the same; it is a question of the route taken to get there. This, again, is in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who I believe would be happy with companies limited by guarantee, with the restrictions that there are.
I shall return to explaining the three purposes of the companies before I am diverted too far. The first is purchasing. The second is one of which examples have been given; that is, the common provision of services, of which software development is a good example. In the model runs carried out by the department, even without the powers existing, within Havering Borough Council education authority 12 schools are getting together for service delivery. There is the whole question of whether that vehicle is suitable for use for joint ventures. That is a matter which we can debate later if necessary. However, that has not been raised and I shall not raise it further.
Fundamentally, I want to respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about what she called the full panoply of company law. It is exactly because company law is so well established; because everyone knows what it is and because there are models to work from that the measure is proposed as the way into co-operation between schools. It may be said as regards purchasing that the local education authority may have greater purchasing power than a company of that kind. I anticipate that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, may make that point in reply. If that is the case and the schools are satisfied with the purchasing provision of the local education authority, there will be no temptation to form a company for that purpose. However, we understand that that is not always the case and that there may be some schools which want to make their own arrangements. That can, indeed, be done.
The answer to all of those questions is, fundamentally, that this is a voluntary provision. Nobody is required to do this. The provision enables groups of schools, if they wish, to do things which they might not be able to do now; for example, to gain larger discounts when they are purchasing; to have a vehicle for selling on service developments which may
1060
be of a wider value than to their own schools, and ultimately, if necessary, for the purpose of joint ventures. I can go into more detail on that point if necessary. However, in any of those cases it is desirable for the schools to be companies and not bodies of the form proposed by the amendments.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Before he sits down, perhaps I may ask one further question. For the purpose of people following our debate outside the Chamber, can he underline the fact that this is not about private gain; that if, indeed, any surplus was to accrue from the activities of a company inside a school, that that money would be ploughed back into education and the running of that school?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are amendments tabled to that purpose, to which I propose to reply. However, I shall give a precise answer. When the company is being established for purchasing purposes, the benefits will go entirely to the school. The answer I have not yet given to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is that a corporate body can purchase, but it cannot purchase on behalf of other schools, so it is a group of schools getting together to form a company.
When we come to a company limited by shares, for example software development, it may be necessary to bring into a company other bodies or individuals together with the schools in order to achieve the objective. It may be necessary, for example, for the company to have as participants printers, marketing people or further software developers. I am thinking on my feet because I do not know enough about the subject, but it may be necessary to bring in people who would be participating for profit. Those would be the circumstances in which there would be a company limited by shares rather than a company limited by guarantee. In those circumstances, shareholders in a company of that kind would be looking to it for profit. Although according to the rules that we shall set out they would have to be organisations with a significant involvement in education, I cannot give an absolute assurance that under those circumstances all the profits would go back to the school.
Lord Peston: Did my noble friend answer my question about what now prevents schools from forming companies? I missed that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: An individual school can form a company but it cannot form a company with other schools, which is the main purpose of this exercise.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply although he leaves me slightly more mystified than when I started. Perhaps he would like now to answer the two questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Am I right that the current status of governing bodies is that of bodies corporate? I did

1061
not think that a body corporate could establish Companies Act companies. However, the Minister tells me that they can.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: A single school could form a company for its own purposes. Our intention is that groups of schools should form companies for the purposes set out. They cannot do so now.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: What can they do as companies which they cannot do now? The only answer given is that they can purchase jointly. The noble Lord rightly pre-empted my response to that. Is he rediscovering the local education authority? It does not seem a sufficient reason. If schools can already form companies, is the reason only that they should do so jointly? If they can already form themselves into Companies Act companies as governors, why do we need this legislation? It seems yet another example of an unnecessary piece of legislation.
Another issue worries me. It has been raised by others. If the company established—to which a governing body as governing body is party—goes bust, the local education authority has to pick up the tab. What is the purpose of establishing the companies? If at the end of the day the risk will have to be borne by the local education authority, we should leave the situation as it is. As has been indicated, schools can do a wide range of things. Without this legislation, many schools in Havering are getting together and promoting software. Telford City Technology College and the Birmingham 3E's are companies set up to exploit what the schools are doing. I cannot understand why we need this additional legislation.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister answers the noble Baroness's questions, perhaps I may extend the questioning. What is to prevent an individual school from forming a company and selling its wares to a neighbouring school or another school across the country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It cannot form a company for the benefit of other schools. It can set up a company for the purpose of running its own school. I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred to. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 10 to the School Standards and Framework Act provides that power. It cannot set up a company jointly with other schools. It could not set up an Internet site or, under the School Standards and Framework Act, undertake software development with other schools.
Baroness Blatch: That is not my question. What is to stop an individual school from setting up a company, selling its wares to another school, neighbouring or across the country, for profit which benefits the individual school which sets up the company?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If a school were to do so, it would be using the resources of more than one school and the resources of those schools would
1062
together be more powerful than the resources of an individual school. That is why under Schedule 10 a Companies Act company would have an advantage. But, of course, if it is only for the benefit of a single school the power already exists.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. The situation is not entirely satisfactory. I think that we shall return to the matter in Committee when debating whether Clause 10 shall stand part and on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 57 not moved.]
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 7, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) The governing body of a maintained school may not impose charges in respect of education provided at the schools."
The noble Lord said: I tabled the amendment at a time when I thought that I understood Chapter 3 of the Bill. My noble friend has educated me in many matters over many years, but I have to say that I certainly know less than I did before we debated the previous amendments. I am sorry that we shall have debate on whether Clause 10 shall stand part. I believe that we should give the Minister a chance to think again about some of the answers he has given us and perhaps debate the matter on Report. However, that is up to the noble Baroness when she reflects on what will happen after dinner.
I have sought hard to get into the mindset of whichever lunatic dreamed up Chapter 3. We are supposed to be discussing an education Bill. I find it hard to connect education as I understand it to Chapter 3. The Government must have something in mind. I had assumed that it was to do with things schools could not do previously. The question of charging seemed central if one were setting up a company. A company set up without deep thought on charging would be a most peculiar company.
My noble friend Lady David and I tabled the amendment to see what was involved with regard to charging. I took it for granted that the answer to the simple question, "Could a fee-paying element be introduced into education as a result of this section of the Bill?" would be a categoric "No". I hoped to receive such an answer. However, the answer given to the question by the Minister in another place was, "We have no intention of doing that". The response to my question on Thursday on selection by ability was, "We have no intention". But "we have no intention" does not answer the question, "What does the Bill say and allow?" Does the Bill in any sense whatever allow the charging of fees for education? I hope that the answer is no; or, "Yes, it looks as though it does so, we had better change the Bill to ensure that that does not happen".
There clearly must be charging. If the company is set up and provides facilities and services, it must charge for them. The principles by which those charges will be levied is not clear to me. Will they simply be full cost charges with no profit element? Alternatively, will they

1063
include a profit element? My noble friend partly answered my next question. If there is a profit element, who does it belong to? Again, I had assumed that it would belong to the company rather than a specific school.
I had thought that the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would be that all the money would then be confined to education. However, unless I misheard that was not quite my noble friend's answer. I hope that he might again reflect on that.
I refer to one aspect of the clause which troubles me. In Clause 10(8) the words "company", "relevant local education authority functions", "facilities", "maintained school" and "participating school" are defined. However, the word "services" appears in Clause 10(1 )(a) but is not defined. Therefore, can my noble friend say whether the reference to "services" merely mean educational services, or whether it means services in some broad sense? If it refers to educational services, does it mean that no fees can be levied for them? Alternatively, if it means services in a broad sense, can my noble friend say what fees can be levied in that regard?
Let us consider an example of the sort that my noble friend did not consider. Let us assume that someone sets up a company that decides that its expertise will be in the teaching of foreign languages—a topic raised last Thursday. The company decides that it will be the expert on the technology of teaching foreign languages, including websites, and so on, and that it will sell such services to other participants. As those services would be educational, we can see how very close that would get to charging for education. There is a slight distinction here between charging the buying school and the parents. At this point the school only is paying, not the parents, and the free education criteria would not have been broken. Is there any possibility that by, say, defining the services as "extra" and, therefore, not central to the school, the parents could be charged at a later stage?
We must not be naïve about the situation. At present, there is a fairly arbitrary distinction between what schools can, or cannot, charge for; indeed, in my experience, schools are pretty reasonable and not stupid in the way they behave. They are not currently charging for education. However, I cannot see what stops them doing so. Perhaps we can take the obvious example of school trips, which, in many ways, are justified on educational grounds. As I understand existing law, for which many people in your Lordships' were responsible, you cannot charge for school trips. You can say only that people may voluntarily contribute to the cost. For those who know about pressure, the difference between not charging and contributing voluntarily is rather difficult to define, but I believe that you cannot charge under the law. Let us suppose that a company is formed specifically to organise school trips and that it levies charges for doing so. How would the voluntary principle apply in that situation?
1064
I ask all those questions simply for elucidation. I cannot believe that this Government—here I go into "creep mode"—would ever do anything that was other than excellent when it comes to education. None the less, I still believe that we need some replies to those questions. We also need some assurance on what this legislation would permit when enacted, and on what the Government would do. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is talking about one form of charging, but there is another sort of charging involved. One relates to charging individual children for education; the other relates to whether or not one charges other schools for educational services. We are dealing with two different concepts. The noble Lord seeks to add the words set out in his amendment to subsection (5), which reads:
"The governing body of a maintained school may provide staff to any company in relation to which they have exercised a power conferred by any of subsections (1) to (4)".
The noble Lord rightly referred back to subsection (1)(a) of the clause.
I believe that I have some fairly disturbing news for the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Perhaps I may refer to Standing Committee G in another place on 13th December last when my honourable friend Mr Chris Grayling said:
"While the Minister is clarifying these points, will he tell us the degree to which the provision for the companies involves the delivery of educational services? Is it conceivable that a governing body would have the right to sack its head teacher and its staff, and bring in a company established by a more successful school to run the school? In theory, could a governing body subcontract out the entire management and educational management of it school to a more successful school?"
The Minster replied:
"That does not sound like a likely scenario. The governing body has clear responsibilities in this area, which it will exercise normally. The scenario is possible—subsection (1)(a) makes this clear";
in other words, it is possible. This Bill actually makes that a possibility. I repeat what the Minister said:
"The scenario is possible—subsection (1)(a) makes this clear—because we are considering services provided to schools by other schools. We want more examples of that".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 13/12/01; cols. 157–8.]
That was the Minister's response. The Government want more of that; they say that that scenario is possible. That is not charging individual pupils; it is actually selling educational services.
I return to my earlier question to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As I understand his reply, it is possible for an individual school to set up a company, and for an individual school to sell its wares to another school. The latter could be computer software programmes, a particular educational project developed within the school, or it could be practical services like catering and/or cleaning, caretaking, and so on.
I wish to extend my question to the noble Lord. As I understand it, it would be possible under the Bill for a school to set up a company to sell, say, catering, cleaning or educational services for profit. That possibility was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord

1065
Peston. So I believe I am right to assume that we are not talking about a "not-for-profit" operation. Unless it is for profit, the school will derive no benefit. Perhaps the noble Lord can confirm.
Finally, governing bodies setting up such companies can lend their staff; indeed, not actually lend their staff but allow their staff to become part-time, and so on. They can release them for part-time or full-time membership of these companies. I wish to put this point to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who is speaking for the Government on the issue. We are discussing an educational Bill. Teachers and head teachers are there for one purpose only—namely, to educate the children. Against the background of a teacher shortage crisis, and—dare I say it?—a governor crisis, I do not believe that any school at present has the capacity to allow its staff to become part of a commercial proposition that is ostensibly making money to bring back into the school without risking some form of culpability or liability falling on the school.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I hope that it will not embarrass the Minister if I rise, again, to support what he is about to say in reply to this debate. It seems to me that his answers this evening have been quite lucid. They reflect the correct definition of educational law, and they are very clear. He specified what a school can do now; namely, set up a separate company if it does so by itself, as well as partaking in all the activities that are worrying noble Lords on both sides of the Committee. He also explained what these clauses allow schools to do in conjunction with other schools. He is absolutely right in his explanations.
I believe that the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is somewhat exaggerated. He has really started another debate on the whole question of parental charges. I do not believe that the mechanism being established by the Government will allow that to happen, indeed, that is quite a separate matter. On the question of foreign languages, a company may be set up in conjunction with schools. As a result of several schools joining in the process, a range of foreign languages instruction could be provided that was much wider than any school could achieve on its own. There might even be, for example, a school with pupils who wished to learn Portuguese. As that school had no Portuguese teachers, it might approach the company to ask whether it could provide such teaching, and at what cost.
No doubt private companies, quite apart from the one in question, would also be able teach Portuguese, so there would be a competitive element involved as well as a constraint upon what the new company could charge for its services to that school. However, there would be an element of profit and there is no harm in that. The profit would remain in the company; the company would be owned by other schools; and it would remain within the school system, with the services being distributed to other schools. I see no worries in that respect. It is a very sensible step forward. I should also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I do not believe that charging could
1066
be introduced as a result of that process. The school wanting the Portuguese teacher would have to provide that service from the delegated budget of the school. It would need to ask itself whether or not it could meet the charge. It will not charge the parents of the children who want to learn Portuguese for special services. So I think that some of these anxieties are somewhat exaggerated. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that much of this happens already with schools as a result of the greater freedom that schools have been given. These clauses allow even greater freedom, which I completely welcome.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I was not going to intervene in the debate but I have been stirred to do so by a number of contributions. One of the answers to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is that for many years now—as he will know perfectly well—schools have co-operated with each other. For example, those that do not teach Portuguese have co-operated with those that do. That has happened on a co-operative basis without any necessity to set up a profit-making company. Profit-making companies take money out of already very thin education budgets. Why do we have to make extra profit out of this situation? There is already co-operation between schools without having to make a profit out of it.
The second issue is the setting up of companies to perform functions. Schools already have the power to set up companies. We have the example of the 3e's company which is running a school in my area—Guildford. It very satisfactorily runs Kings College in Guildford and is now running a number of other schools in Surrey. It is the local educational authority rather than the governors which has called in the company to run the school. It does not make a profit because it has pledged to put any profit it makes back into the system. But that is not true of companies such as Nord Anglia Education Plc which is making a profit out of running the schools and doing very nicely on the Stock Exchange, thank you very much.
So there are those—I am not someone who has to creep in any sense—who see the underlying purpose of this clause to encourage the takeover of schools by companies such as Nord Anglia. In other words, as someone on the far Left might say, "It is privatisation by the back door". Perhaps the Minister can assure us that that is not what is meant by these provisions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When my noble friend Lord Peston started I had a nice simple answer, since when—as it says in the serials—"the issue has got muddied" both forwards and backwards in what should be the order of proceedings.
The answer to my noble friend Lord Peston is categorically "No". In other words, the Bill does not change what charges can be made. The law governing charges is contained in Sections 450 to 458 of the Education Act 1996 and specifically in Section 451 which prohibits any charge being made—by anyone—for education provided to a registered pupil at a maintained school during school hours. There are

1067
certain exceptions; for example, music lessons and—more dubious perhaps—school trips where I understand that there is pressure which is short of compulsory charges. There would be a change if the amendment were agreed to because the clause would say that,
"a maintained school may not impose charges in respect of education provided at the schools",
which would not only make it impossible to charge for music lessons—my noble friend Lord Peston might be happy with that—but to charge adults for attending evening classes in the school. I suspect that he would be less happy about that. Let us leave it at the simple fact. The fact is that the Bill does not change the law regarding charging in a maintained school.
Now we turn to where the waters start to get muddied—charging for facilities and services and the definition of "facilities" and "services". In dealing with the previous group of amendments, I attempted to give examples of the kind of facilities and services about which we are talking. Those are broadly educational facilities and services. I do not know what Members of the Committee would call "purchasing"—for example, is the purchasing of materials for a school educational purposes, or educational when it is textbooks and not educational when it is material for cleaning the lavatories? We are into theology here. The important issue is that Clauses 10 to 12 give groups of schools an ability to do things that they cannot do at the moment but only if they want to. There is no threat in terms of charging parents. There is no threat in any of the other ways which were referred to, but which will have to be referred to in more detail when we come to the Clause 10 stand part debate.
Of course the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would never intentionally muddy the waters. But she was quoting the Minister of State for School Standards in the Standing Committee in December last year. The Committee was debating the power to innovate when he gave the clear commitment that in no circumstances would the Government ever allow charging for state school education. I think that that is as simple an answer as there can be. There are circumstances in which charging is possible, as we have said, for music lessons and between schools for services which they provide to each other. But nothing in the Bill—and this is the important point—increases the possibility of charging.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, I certainly did not attribute to Mr Timms in another place that children could be charged for education. I agree with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh: I do not believe that under the Bill it is possible to charge children of statutory age in mainstream education other than what the law allows for in, for example, music.
I was saying that it is possible under the Companies Act—and the Minister in another place confirmed this—to dismiss all the staff of a school and to buy in management. Equally, it would be possible to sell management to run another school.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not as a provision of this Bill, is the fundamental answer to that. Again, we shall
1068
debate this matter when the amendment is less restricted. But that is why we have provided, first, for a supervisory authority and, secondly for an LEA to give approval. There are two layers of control now. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, does not like that, but it is the protection to which she refers. There is no greater possibility arising from this Bill for the kind of takeover that she is talking about.
Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend. I feel a little more enlightened. I now understand that the whole clause is about jointness between schools. I shall certainly reflect on that matter. That is certainly something that I have learnt. He said categorically—prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Baker—that no new charges can be introduced. I am not convinced. The Portuguese example is a very good one. Let us assume that a company is very good at teaching Portuguese and the school wants Portuguese taught. The company says, "We shall charge you so much" and "the teaching of Portuguese involves a trip to Portugal plus access to a particular website that we own", and matters of that kind. The school would have to go back to the parents and say, "We are sorry but we cannot teach your child Portuguese" because of that charge.
Then we get into the music teaching business where the parents say, "Well, couldn't we pay for all this?" Let me add that I do not approve of children having to pay for music lessons. I could go on to give other examples of what they have to pay for.
We now get very close to pressure for charges. Although I am about to withdraw my amendment until we debate these matters on Report, I do not think that the matter is quite as simple as is set out in the earlier legislation about not charging, because we get very close to the difference between a charge and a voluntary payment under pressure. Parents might feel obliged to say, "Yes", particularly if they live in a part of south London where, I might add, there is a significant Portuguese community. They may feel that they should agree to pay so that their children can learn to speak Portuguese.
So I accept entirely what my noble friend has said at a formal level. But I do not think that the question of charges, including charges to pupils, when it involves the definition of educational services is quite as dead as my noble friend would suggest. It is certainly not dead enough for me not to want to consider it further before Report. But of course all my amendments have been tabled solely for clarification, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.41 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Consignia
7.40 p.m.
Lord Hoylerose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they are doing to improve industrial relations in Consignia.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must declare that I am a member of Amicus. A section of Amicus is the Commercial Managers Association, which has 15,000 members in Consignia.
Although we are discussing industrial relations, we cannot escape from what I believe is a dire threat to the postal service that is not solely the pride of this country but has in many ways been the envy of the world, because it provides a universal service at a uniform price. That is being endangered by the proposals of Postcomm. The only way that the Post Office can meet the competition is if we follow the European directive, which calls for competition to be introduced, but gradually, at a pace that Consignia can withstand, so as to he beneficial. Postcomm's proposals, far from going along that line, may destroy what the Post Office is committed to do: provide a universal service at a uniform price. That is the danger.
I am not sure whether Postcomm realises that it is putting that at risk, but any competition should benefit all—not only the large user but the small user; those in both urban and rural areas. Cherry picking is taking place on a large scale. In its proposals, Postcomm has got its figures wrong. The figures have been examined by Consignia, the unions and independent authorities.
In the first phase, 2001–04, far more of the market is being opened up. For example, 50 per cent of the market by volume and 40 per cent of the market by revenue will be opened up. That contrasts with Postcomm's figures of 40 per cent by volume and 30 per cent by revenue. Cherry picking on that scale puts at risk the profitability of the Post Office and puts at risk the universal service, because to meet that figure will cause a large increase in stamp prices, as has occurred in Sweden.
The tragedy, which people appear to be unable to get through to Postcomm, is that once it does that—once the damage has been done to the postal service we cannot pick up the pieces of the jigsaw and put it back together again.
I do not intend to take 10 minutes, as my noble friends and other noble Lords have been reduced to so few minutes, but it is against that background that we must consider industrial relations. Industrial relations have been poor—largely due to bad management; I have always said that management gets the industrial relations and unions that it deserves—and there has been a good deal of unofficial action. For instance, last year, more than 60,000 employee days were lost—a 20,000 increase on the previous year. The Post Office has a poor record on harassment and bullying at work. Almost 10 per cent of employees admitted that they had suffered from harassment. That is not a good thing; it is the wrong kind of foundation on which to build.
1070
Thanks to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Sawyer and the Sawyer report, we have avoided a crisis—we could have been on the eve of a national strike tonight but, thank goodness, common sense has prevailed. Thanks to the Sawyer report, industrial relations in the Post Office are becoming more stable, official action has almost ceased and the two sides are talking together.
The partnership concept offers the way forward. It is absolutely necessary because—I speak as a member of Amicus, which has knowledge of many industries—the centralised command and control method in the Post Office belongs many years in the past. I hope that the concept of partnership will take over. It is absolutely necessary because only in February this year, the CMA commissioned an inquiry among senior managers. I do not want to go into too much of the report's detail, but it found that most managers did not feel that the present top management was up to the task of meeting the challenges that lie ahead for the Post Office.
One would have thought that that would have set alarm bells ringing in Consignia. Although that survey of senior managers was sent to the chief executive, John Roberts, and the chairman, Allan Leighton, in February, as I speak we have not received an acknowledgement, let alone a meeting about it. Surely, that is not the way to run industrial relations. As I said, if it were not for the Sawyer report, which talks of partnership, I should be painting a fairly bleak and black picture. That is the only way forward. When there has been talk of 30,000 redundancies in the industry, we need to use all the skills, talents and expertise not only of managers but of the workforce. They must pull together in partnership if they are to meet the competition.
That is the problem facing Consignia and its employees. That is why morale has been low. But with the new concept of partnership there is now hope that it can move forward. But I must tell my noble friend—I hope that he will reply to this point—that it cannot move forward while the sword of Damocles in the form of Postcomm's proposals hangs over the industry The Government cannot hide behind what the regulator says. They must accept responsibility for the present position, face up to it and take measures to ensure that we have a viable Post Office that continues to provide a universal service at a uniform price.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hoyle for introducing this debate. I have no doubt that it was the report of my noble friend Lord Sawyer that prompted it.
Since my noble friend's report was published, a great deal has happened. On 25th March, there was a major announcement, stating that far-reaching reorganisation would take place in the postal service and that more than 12,000 jobs would go. The newspapers speculated that over 40,000 jobs would disappear and that 3,000 urban post offices would close. To some degree, all those circumstances have an impact—directly or indirectly—on industrial relations.

1071
All proposed change in the workplace breeds feelings of insecurity and suspicions among those at the sharp end—the workforce. Without labouring the point, I must say that that was the case for the Luddites. The Luddites were condemned for retarding progress by smashing the machines. However, their motive was not stopping progress but safeguarding jobs, their livelihoods and those of their families, all of which were to be taken away by the introduction of machinery. Nobody in the management bothered to consider their plight. In the headlong drive for productivity—that word was not used then—and greater profit, the workers were forgotten. Management actions became counter-productive.
That was a long time ago. By the 21st century, we ought to have learnt more about industrial relations in the Post Office than my noble friend's report suggests. I have spent the greater part of my working life in industrial relations in the private sector, mostly representing low-paid workers in food manufacturing, retail distribution, wholesale grocery and catering, to name but a few. In most cases, I represented women workers and part-time workers. From all that, I learnt that partnership was more beneficial to those whom I represented than conflict. My union, USDAW, was one of the first to initiate that approach.
When I was general secretary of USDAW, I signed a partnership agreement with the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth, who was chairman of Tesco. Today, Tesco is one of the most advanced retailers in Britain. Nearly 100,000 of its staff are members of USDAW, and the workforce is among the best paid and provided for in the retail sector. That is, undoubtedly, an example of good industrial relations.
It is important that management must believe in good industrial relations and must work to achieve them. Managers must respect those who work for them and convince them that they do. They must be totally interested in the well-being of those whom they employ and ensure that they are confident of that. Regrettably, that picture is not reflected in the report produced by my noble friend Lord Sawyer. The picture is more that of a them-and-us situation, rather than a partnership working for the good of all.
Of course, the fault is not all on the side of management. Often, justifiable criticism can be directed at workers and their representatives. However, I know from decades of experience that, if a them-and-us culture of conflict is to be removed, it is management who must do the most work. Attitudes must change; there must be patience and tolerance. Understanding and respect must be the name of the game. Only in that way can mistrust and lack of confidence among the workers be removed, making a clear way forward for the benefit of a culture of partnership for the benefit of all. There will be progress and increased economic solvency for the postal service, security of employment and improved conditions for staff and an improved service for the consumer. That is not just a theoretical forecast; that is exactly what happened with Tesco.
1072
When I first became involved with Tesco, it was a pileit-high and sell-it-cheap company that hired and fired at will and had no industrial relations. We should compare that situation to where they are today.
I thought that I might run out of time in this debate. It looks like I must stick to four minutes, so I shall come to the end of my speech.
In a previous debate, my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead said:
"I said that one penny on postage would produce £180 million. If it had been two pennies—still the cheapest postal service in Europe—we would have wiped out the deficit that the Post Office faces today".—[Official Report, 25/3/99; col. 38.]
Although I have the greatest respect for my noble friend, I am not persuaded that that would have been helpful. I also suspect that such an approach may have been used in the past to solve immediate problems, while leaving core difficulties undealt with. We must ensure that Consignia—not the Government—uses the services of ACAS in order to develop a culture of partnership and remove the existing conflict.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle for allowing us to have this important and timely debate.
I spoke about Consignia and its industrial relations in a previous debate during which worries similar to those being voiced today were expressed. Between then and now, I have had the opportunity to meet those who run Consignia, and I feel somewhat more assured than I did then. They appear to recognise what is needed to ensure the continuation of high quality postal services. That recognition is, at least, a starting point.
I shall concentrate on the position of workers who are employed as managers in Consignia and who face decided difficulties in that organisation. I declare an interest as a former national official of Amicus, the union that organises the managers in their CMA section. I have also talked to those managers and know how eager they are that Consignia should succeed. Those managers are keen to work within Consignia to ensure its success. They are in a unique position, squeezed between powerful forces. They take the pressure from above—from those who run Consignia and who are eager to reform it and its working practices—and from workers at the sharp end who encounter daily difficulties that sap their morale and increase their fears.
It is obvious that managers are pivotal to Consignia's success and that they must be allowed to exercise discretion and judgment in many different circumstances. Unfortunately, the managers do not believe that they are being allowed those freedoms. They believe that their voice is rarely listened to and that their views are ignored. Those men and women want to play a considered and respected part in Consignia. If their knowledge of how the postal system works is ignored, it will be Consignia and the public who will lose out. No one will gain.

1073
Industrial relations are not a concept that applies only to employers and workers in urban areas. Employers and workers in rural areas are affected too. I still worry about services in rural areas. Rural postal workers are not just postal employees; they are part of the life of their area. Postmen and postwomen play a large part in their community. They know the local populace; their knowledge is second to none. They take messages from neighbour to neighbour, especially if houses are spread widely around a village or hamlet. They can keep an eye on the elderly, the lonely and the young family who may need help. In cases of illness, they know whom to contact when the doctor needs calling or a son, daughter, mother or sister needs to be told. They are a fundamental part of the rural scene. If the rural postal worker goes, a part of the social network goes too.
In a recent interview, Allan Leighton, the chair of Consignia admitted that,
"the management needed to hold their hands up because they had made mistakes in the past".
On industrial relations, he said:
"There has been too much in-fighting in Consignia, when it should have been looking after its people and its customers".
He recognised that an improvement in industrial relations must be the foundation for turning round the Post Office and that the better industrial relations achieved in the six months since the publication of the report by my noble friend Lord Sawyer represented a platform that could be built upon. The CMA likewise is on record as welcoming the partnership initiative and sees it as the best way forward.
Finally, in the repeated Statement of 25th March, which has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated:
"I have made it clear to the new chairman that there needs to be an effective partnership relationship between the management and the workforce if we are to deliver [the competitive postal markets of the 21st century]".
He also said:
"And we will do everything we can through the Employment Service, and other agencies, to provide support, assistance and new opportunities to those losing their jobs".—[Official Report, 25/3/02; col. 33.]
The Consignia management has stated that it will resist compulsory redundancies. I want to place on record tonight that we are watching to ensure that both the government and the Consignia pledges are adhered to.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hoyle, in his customary fashion, set out his views on how best industrial relations in Consignia could be improved. Those of us who are interested in industrial relations and the postal service should be grateful to him.
The debate, following the loss of the quite amazing and much loved Baroness Castle of Blackburn, somehow brings into perspective how in many respects relationships between government, employers and employees have moved on. Being actively involved as a
1074
trade unionist throughout the Conservative years of government, and to be here now in the House of Lords witnessing positive legislation such as the minimum wage, trade union recognition and the working time directive to name but a few, is heart-warming. Most noble Lords here today have made a considerable contribution to industrial relations and the industrial relations world. Indeed, one noble Lord was overheard to say, "I see the mini TUC is on duty tonight!".
Much has been said about the independent review initially sought by the CWU some two years ago. That review, which I have read, looked at industrial relations in Royal Mail. My noble friend Lord Sawyer, who I see in his place, chaired that independent review and he, together with the two other members, Ian Borkett and Nicholas Underhill QC, should be congratulated. It is an honest, common-sense analysis, outlining a series of recommendations which I am advised are slowly but surely being implemented. That is good news to us all.
Reading the independent review, I felt a little uncomfortable. For example, knowing many fine people in the CWU and reading that there was a,
"lack of accountability to the national union",
by a very small number of branch officials made me wince. Industrial relations have suffered and will continue to do so while certain management employ macho management ways and bark out orders in a military style. Front-line managers seeing their role as authoritarian and purely directive is counterproductive. Against those views expressed in the review, it was extremely pleasing to read of the breakthrough last week on pay and other matters. The review's key message of common sense has prevailed.
However, this debate refers to the Government and their position. Thirty thousand job losses have been declared and we have seen headlines such as that from Consignia's chairman, Allan Leighton, saying, "Why am I sacking 30,000 pasties? Because we're in the mire—big time". His position is clear: the sacrifice of some to save the many.
That approach concerns me. All my working life I was involved in one way or another in the steel industry. It was once publicly owned and British Steel corporation employed some 250,000 people when it was formed in 1967. Now renamed Corus—that is significant, is it not?—the company employs about 40,000 people world-wide. Throughout the years it has been relentless in its approach—"cut to survive". So my point is that clearly what is missing in this country of ours is relevant participation, consultation, workers involved in matters such as rationalisation and, yes, closures where they occur, so that possible alternatives can be found or at least considered.
The situation should not be as Mr Leighton described:
"It was a sad day, last Monday [25th March] arriving at 6.15 a.m. at the East London depot of Parcelforce to tell employees it was to close after 27 years".
That is not proper consultation, partnership, stakeholdership or any other form of satisfactory industrial relations. What we need—and what Consignia needs—is the ability for those who bear the

1075
brunt of change to have a voice prior to the changes being announced. That would bring about better industrial relations, trust and commitment. I await with interest to hear my noble friend's response to my final remarks.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hoyle for initiating the debate and to my noble friends on this side of the House for giving their time, knowledge and experience to this difficult issue. I want briefly to do two things. First, I want to comment on the progress that has been made since the publication of our report. Secondly, I want to comment on what needs to be done in the future.
First, as regards progress, the avoidance of the pay dispute and the use of mediation—the agreement to a two-year pay deal—is, in my opinion, sensible and a great victory for the use of mediation and arbitration and for the use of ACAS. That is the way in which the business should conduct its industrial relations in the future.
Secondly, the general moratorium on unofficial strikes still holds. It has been in place since August and the effect on quality of service has been marked. If the management and unions can continue the moratorium, that will hold them in good stead in the future.
Thirdly, the doubling of the number of managers attending training courses and the emphasis on the courses being moved from the application of agreements to behaviours to dealing with issues such as harassment, bullying, diversity and how to get people to work in co-operation rather than adversity is much to be welcomed.
Fourthly, the establishment of the 17 trial partnership boards is still waiting to take place. It is ready but is being held in abeyance because of the pay dispute. With the new two-year deal, people should be able to divert their energies to making the partnership boards work. They will bring great benefit to the business. We have seen the appointment of Mr Rupert Midalon and Ms Francis O'Grady who I am sure some of my noble friends will know from her work at the TUC. They will be two new independent members of the national partnership board and I welcome those appointments.
We have also seen the establishment of an independent support team, headed by Sue Marsh. That will be independent from both the unions and management and it will have employees and union representatives seconded to it. It will work entirely on the development and implementation of partnership communications, behaviours, the application of agreements, management development and union participation in the business. All those joint project teams will work behind the scenes doing good and useful work. That is to be commended but we rarely read about it in the newspapers because none of the constructive industrial relations work attracts the kind of headlines produced by strikes.
1076
As regards the future, the real issue is commitment. We need more than words. That is no criticism—to some extent I have only been able to produce words—but we need action in the field, among people working together daily on partnership projects. We need commitments from the Government to partnership and Ministers speaking on platforms and at the Dispatch Box about the benefits of partnership.
The chairman and chief executive recognise that the commercial success of the business can be achieved through partnership. It cannot be achieved through the normal business channels which might apply to other commercial companies. In this business, commercial success can come only from the commitment of the workforce. That message needs to come loudly and clearly from the top. Managers must be listened to. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hoyle that it is important that managers who are keen and willing to play a role in partnership are listened to and are given an opportunity to be heard.
I want to put on record my thanks to Mr Peter Skyte, an official of the CWU who over the past few months has played a constructive role in difficult circumstances. Finally, I say to my friends in the CWU that now the pay dispute is out of the way I want to see the resources and energy of that great union devoted to building a completely different and new model of industrial relations based on partnership. I hope that in moving forward they will have the good sense to listen to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead, who still has many wise words of counsel to offer in this business.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle for making it possible. I am sure that I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House to have become rather worried by the large advertisement which appeared in the April edition of the Parliamentary Monitor. It was from the Communication Workers Union, warning against the possible loss of the universal postal service as a result of the proposals of the Post Office regulator, Postcomm—bent, as it said, on increasing competition. The union stressed that some 30,000 jobs could be lost.
Of course I was concerned about possible job losses but, as a member of the public and as a consumer of post office services, I was also concerned about the possibility that the universal postal service could be damaged or disrupted. I have a great respect for the men and women who run our postal services. There may be occasional blips, but in general it is a first class service.
My specific interest is that my union, Amicus, has within its membership managers who work in the postal service, already referred to by my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. The Communication Managers' Association is an autonomous section of my union. The association has provided me with a copy of its response to the Postcomm proposals. It is not against competition; it recognises that EU directives impose an obligation to introduce some competition, but it is

1077
critical of the way in which Postcomm has sought to implement those directives. The association points out, quite correctly, that Postcomm has a statutory duty to ensure the continuation of a universal service at a uniform price. According to the National Audit Office, however, Consignia might find it hard to finance the provision of a universal service at current prices and at current levels.
That the present exercise in restructuring will mean job losses is also confirmed by the incumbent chairman of Consignia. Much of what he has said also confounds those who claim that the present difficulties within the Post Office arise from its failure fully to embrace competition. Until recently this was an institution which declared large profits every year—before there was any competition. Why has there been a change? The chairman asserts two reasons; first, that postal prices have remained low compared with the rest of Europe and, secondly—perhaps more important—the fact that most of the large profits made in previous years went to the Treasury. "We needed that money to invest in our business and in our people", he said.
Under Postcomm proposals, Consignia faces having one-third of its market opened up to cherry-picking competition. The market could be opened up entirely to competition within the next two or three years. It seems unlikely, with the profitable sectors hived off and privatised, that Consignia would be in a position to sustain a universal postal service at a uniform rate and at a reasonable cost. Inevitably, there would be redundancies—not as many, it is hoped, as forecast by the CWU, but far too many to be sustained from a social viewpoint.
What happens to the remaining rural post offices? That point was raised by my noble friend Lady Gibson. Again, it is the poorest and most vulnerable in our society who will feel the pressure the most. They depend on post office services in a way that the better off do not. Generally speaking, older, poorer citizens do not have access to e-mail. The services provided by rural post offices are necessary to them.
Those communication managers who are members of my union point out that much of the research on which Postcomm based its proposals is not all that accurate. The impression has been given that total liberalisation is general throughout Europe, but apparently that is not the case. In fact, the competitive market outside the UK consists of Sweden, Finland, New Zealand and Argentina. The market has been relaxed, although only to a limited extent, in the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and the US. None has suffered the maximalist approach about to descend on Consignia.
It is to be hoped that further progress down this route will be halted so that further consideration can be given to the very well-informed objections from the trade unions concerned.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble and very good friend Lord Hoyle asks what the Government are doing to improve industrial relations at the Post Office. I hope
1078
that my noble friend will forgive me for responding to a Question with a question: what are industrial relations at the Post Office to do with the Government? Surely industrial relations are a matter for the management and the unions, working together in partnership. Industrial relations form part of the style, the vision and the ethos that management and the unions have for the work of running the Post Office. It is not a matter for the Government, neither in their capacity as shareholders nor in their government capacity.
That is doubly true now that the Government have appointed a new chairman, Mr Allan Leighton. The other reason why the Government should not get involved in industrial relations at the Post Office is that industrial relations are an important element of the restructuring of the Post office. Restructuring is obviously essential. All the signs have been there for some time: a high turnover of staff; losses in spite of income holding up; costs obviously out of control; and many post offices not only unprofitable but also in the wrong place. In a purely commercial world, such a company would lose out to competitors and go out of business, but there are social and political considerations which mean that the Post Office must continue in business, providing a universal postal service. That makes industrial relations even more complex and difficult.
So as well as reasonable terms for those who go, there has to be encouragement for experienced employees to stay in order to maintain the service. That is a tricky bit of industrial relations, again best left to management and the unions. We have seen that setting rates of pay is also best left to them and to arbitration. In the Post Office, which has to be restructured in order to continue, it may be more efficient to pay above the going rate, because that reduces staff turnover and encourages the good people to stay.
My noble friend Lady Gibson spoke of managers. Presumably, post offices too will be rationalised, and so will their managers. Not only should there be an inducement for sub-post masters to retire early; there will also have to be inducements for some sub-post masters to move from the old areas that do not need as many post offices to new areas that require more.
So I do hope that, when my noble friend on the Front Bench comes to reply to the debate, he will say that he has no intention of becoming involved in industrial relations at the Post Office. It is a most unsuitable case for government meddling and interference. Industrial relations form part of the work of management and the unions in restructuring the Post Office. The Government must give them the time to develop, once again, that wonderful affiliation to the Post Office that staff have had over the years. It is the kind of affiliation referred to on many occasions by my noble friend Lord Clarke. It is a valuable affiliation that will motivate and enable every employee to deliver the good results that we all want to see in the Post Office of the future.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, like other speakers, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hoyle

1079
for giving us a chance once again to talk about the Post Office. I declare my usual interests. I joined the Post Office in 1946 as a telegraph boy. I then became a postman and, later on, I became a trade union representative in the industry.
I shall have to rush because there is so much to say. Four minutes is nowhere near long enough; I shall need four minutes just to respond to the final comments of my noble friend Lord Haskel. I agree 100 per cent with my noble friend that there is no room for government in industrial relations.
If only that were true. Over the years, I have seen Post Office management representatives run to the telephone to find out whether they could come to an agreement with the union. I have seen government interference when people have asked for tariffs to be looked at; I have heard the telephone calls and seen the letters going backwards and forwards. My noble friend Lord Haskel should not tell this House that there is no place for government interference. I agree with my noble friend, but until the time comes when governments stay out of industrial relations, we shall have problems. However, they are of course a lot better since the report produced by my noble friend Lord Sawyer.
Last week we learned that the head of Consignia is to be replaced by someone as yet unknown to those outside the circle where such decisions are made. Of course it will not be the Post Office which makes the decision, it will be the Government. We all know that. I do not expect my noble friend on the Front Bench to comment in any detail about what I believe to be an act of scapegoatism.
I should like to place on the record of this House that I believe beyond any doubt whatever that Mr John Roberts has given unstinting and loyal service to the Post Office in all the positions he has held during a career that started in 1967. At all times an honourable man, he deserved better. I wish him well for the future. I wonder whether it has anything to do with the fact that John Roberts was able to stand up to Postcomm and its interference in the running of the Post Office. Is it a coincidence—or is it just bad luck for John Roberts?
Industrial relations in the Post Office have been bedevilled by political interference for so long. Last week—unusually for me—I read a paper. I read that a Cabinet Minister is frustrated by John Roberts. I expect John Roberts and his friends in senior management have been frustrated by the interference that they have had to put up with from the Government, not only this one but the previous one and others before that. It has always been difficult.
Now that my noble friend Lord Haskel has had time to calm down from his outburst, I can say, "Yes, get the Government out of it"—but let the Post Office run in a way that enables it to do the things that Tesco does. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity referred to Tesco, but I wonder whether Tesco has been able to keep its costs 13 per cent below the 1988 level of the retail prices index. The Post Office has had to do that at the direction of government.
1080
For many years, Post Office workers have seen change after change after change introduced but few have been of any visible benefit to the people who do the job. Those people produced a £3.8 billion profit over the past 20 years, but as my noble friend Lady Turner said, 70 per cent of that £3.8 billion went straight into the Treasury's coffers.
Both management and the union deserve praise for reaching agreement on the pay deal. I agree that there is still work to be done, but I should like to give a piece of advice to my noble friend the Minister in regard to the pressure and the bullying about which we have heard: call the dogs off—otherwise, with the best will in the world, it will happen again despite working together and the harmony that has been created. At the moment people in Romec, the profitable arm of the Post Office which is responsible for cleaning, maintenance and engineering, are facing outsourcing and the loss of their jobs. I ask my noble friend the Minister to take note of that.
It is worth remembering that days lost through strikes during 1999–2000 were recorded as the lowest since records began in 1891. That year, days lost in the postal service were 0.2 per cent of all days lost. The sorrowful story of industrial relations in the 1990s is one of government interference—interference that has led to the holding down of postal prices to the lowest in Europe. That has contributed to the change of financial fortune in the Post Office and I reject entirely the idea that if you keep your prices low somehow or other manna will fall from heaven and pay your people the wages they deserve. I hope that government dogma do not lead us back to industrial unrest in our once great postal service.
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap. The error is mine. I had always intended to take part in the debate today. I shall make two quick points.
I should like to add my voice to those who have condemned the attempt to open up our postal services to European competition by 2006. Why do we have this obsession with beating other European countries to the implementation of directive after directive? How does Consignia view this decision? Does the Minister accept that this will bring greater pressure on Consignia management and staff?
I declare an interest as a patron of ViRSA, an organisation which has done a lot of work with post offices, particularly rural post offices.
I cannot allow a debate on the Post Office to pass without mentioning that last year saw the closure of 547 sub-post offices and that another 3,000 may close with the rationalisation of the urban system. Payment of pensions and child benefits and encashment of giros forms a large part of the work of rural and urban post offices. The Government are in the process of moving this work to the banks. Will the Minister explain why, when the Post Office has its own national savings ordinary account, it could not use this account and keep the work within the Post Office system? The system

1081
works only as long as the holder has money on deposit at the post office. It does not offer overdrafts and is ideal for people who have little or no money apart from benefits. Has this system been considered? Can it not be used for the automated credit transfer of pensions, child benefits and emergency payments?
This weekend on "Any Questions", Janet Daley pointed out that the welfare state exists to pay benefits according to the objective criteria. She criticised the Prime Minister for using them to coerce people into a certain behaviour pattern. It is even more reprehensible for the Government to use them to force people into a certain commercial pattern.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for the opportunity in this debate to express our hopes for the future of Consignia. We all want a continuation of a universal service and confidence in the future of Consignia for those involved in it.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for initiating the debate. It is eloquent testimony to the state of industrial relations in Consignia that the debate is necessary at all. It is inconceivable that we would have a similar debate on other sectors of the economy where industrial action was once rife—for example, the motor industry—because over the past 20 years industrial relations have been transformed. Why has this not happened in the Royal Mail?
Some of the reasons are set out in the latest report from the group of the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer. He referred to an inability of front-line managers and union representatives to work together; he referred to the problems of leadership and communication; and he referred to the fact that problems were caused by a reluctance to accept that change was necessary at all.
He reached two conclusions: first, that there must be an end to industrial action; and, secondly, that there must be a change in the culture to develop a partnership method of working. In terms of industrial action, clearly the responsibility rests with both the CWU and the individual groups of workers whose unofficial action has bedevilled the Post Office for many years. Everyone must have been relieved when the latest threat of strike action was withdrawn, and equally relieved and encouraged by the dramatic falls in official action which have taken place over recent months.
But leadership in terms of a partnership system of management to introduce more efficient working methods must come from management itself, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, argues that management at the top has accepted this principle. If so, some of the comments over recent months by both the chief executive and chairman of Consignia about redundancies—made in advance of any form of consultation— appear, unfortunately, to be based on the command and control approach which has served the Post Office so badly in the past.
On the positive side, some of the proposals in the latest package for change, which are now the subject of further negotiation, clearly are long overdue and should
1082
be widely welcomed—the five-day week is one such. Other proposals, such as longer delivery rounds associated with the ending of the second post, are more contentious, but they, too, are surely necessary to make the efficiency gains which Consignia now desperately needs.
A partnership between management and workforce is clearly essential and progress is being made, but success also depends on the attitude of Postcomm and the Government. For Postcomm, there must be a clear recognition that the postal service can be successful and efficient only if it can respond to change within an adequate timescale and with adequate resources. The initial proposals for liberalisation were simply too fast. Liberalisation must take place over a longer period. Equally, there is now virtually universal acceptance of the need for the cost of stamps to rise in order to improve the revenue situation. There is clearly popular support for such a move.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, made clear, the role of government over a number of decades has been far from benign. The constant policy of draining funds from the Post Office made it impossible for it to respond to the changing environment in which it was operating. This was extremely frustrating both to management and to unions and helped to foster poor morale and poor industrial relations.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that industrial relations within Consignia should not be a matter for government, but clearly government still play a major role in the direction of Consignia. I would particularly welcome any comments which the Minister feels able to make on the role which the Government are playing in terms of the further development of the Postcomm proposals.
Everyone who cares about the postal service is willing the Sawyer process to succeed. The sign of real success will be when the House no longer debates Post Office industrial relations because the problems of today have become the problems of the past.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, one must come to the conclusion that the blame for the dire state of industrial relations in the Post Office lies fairly and squarely on management and unions alike. This is an organisation which only a few years ago was regarded as a model for other post offices around the world for the unequalled reliability of its delivery service, but which now manages to lose a million items a week; an organisation that was producing an annual profit of £600 million a year, compared with its current loss, which is running at almost £550 million a year.
Although the blame for poor industrial relations lies with the two sides I have mentioned, another party has contributed massively to the lack of motivation and poor morale of both management and staff. That is, of course, the Government.
In a recent Statement, the Secretary of State blamed the previous Conservative government. She said that,
"successive Conservative Governments … allowed the Post Office to stagnate and starved it of investment".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/02; col. 565.]

1083
Perhaps she overlooked the fact that the present Government have been in power for five years and, since 1998, have taken £2 billion in dividends.
I turn to the report of the Sawyer committee review of industrial relations in the Royal Mail. I have time merely to point to key issues in this well-balanced report. In the year to March 2001, the Post Office lost 66,000 days in industrial action. Staggeringly, this equates to half the number of days lost to industry and commerce in Britain in 2000–01.
I can do no better than quote the report:
"There is a clear divide between management and staff which is exacerbated by the lack of trust and respect for each other".
The report adds that,
"there is a constant threat of industrial action, official and unofficial—and when it occurs it can be highly intimidating",
including instances of both threatened and actual physical assaults on managers. One must seriously question whether, with this head-in-the-sand attitude, there is any hope for improvement in industrial relations in the Post Office.
In conclusion, I can do no better than quote once again the report:
"The primary responsibility for stopping strikes inevitably lies with the union … but too often strikes are a response to high handed or insensitive management behaviour".
It calls for a,
"fundamental change in the industrial relations culture",
in Consignia, and states:
"We expect both Royal Mail and the CWU at the highest level to take all steps in their power to prevent further industrial action—official and unofficial".
Therefore, it is most encouraging to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, say that the moratorium on strikes is holding at present. One hopes that it will continue. That should be the message, bereft of party politics, from all sides of this House.
8.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Hoyle on securing the debate. My noble friend and other noble Lords have raised a number of issues on the important subject of industrial relations within Consignia. I am grateful for the many constructive comments that have been contributed.
First, I must say that although there are without doubt problems in the company, there should be no implied criticism of individual postmen and women, who provide magnificent service to the general public in all weathers. They have been immensely loyal and hard working, and that must continue to be recognised.
The problems within Consignia are, of course, not a recent development. There is a history of industrial relations problems. Since the late 1980s, the Post Office has experienced great difficulty in agreeing or fully implementing new working practices that were intended to bring benefits to the business and its
1084
employees and to improve services. For example, in 1996, over 800,000 days were lost during a national dispute. That cannot be the right way to continue. Therefore, let us have no nonsense about the previous government's record on this or not intervening in industrial relations matters.
The Government, of course, share the concerns about the poor industrial relations climate that exists within Consignia. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Haskel that industrial relations are a matter for the company and the unions. Government intervention would go against the thrust of our reforms of the postal services market and would seriously undermine what we have achieved in giving the company the freedom to act commercially at arm's length from government.
I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke. In the past, government have intervened too much in the Post Office and that has not been at all helpful. I do not think, however, that there should be any desire to continue this. It has to end, and we have to make industrial relations clearly matters for the company and the unions. We have made the government position on this clear to both of them.
The Government have, on the other hand, consistently encouraged the management and the unions to work together to resolve disputes at local, regional and national level. They are best placed to achieve this. The Government will also help where appropriate—for example, by helping to facilitate change through the Partnership at Work Fund and to resolve disputes through ACAS services. In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, the Government will speak out and will make clear that they stand firmly behind the partnership approach.
The review by the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, has been mentioned several times. It is an excellent review. It makes a clear and independent assessment of the existing problems in Consignia and of the best practice that exists. It was also encouraging that the Royal Mail and the unions jointly asked for the review to be undertaken. I agree with my noble friend Lady Gibson that this provides a platform on which to build.
The review made two main recommendations. The first was that industrial action should come to an end. The second was that the existing culture should be changed throughout the business through developing partnership ways of working. Working together in partnership is the only way to improve the industrial relations climate within the business, which is crucial if Consignia is to improve morale, turn its position around and regain the confidence of its customers.
It is also encouraging that the management and unions have responded positively to the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer. The moratorium jointly agreed last September, under which the Royal Mail agreed not to implement changes in working practices at local level without involving the national parties and the CWU suspended any threats of industrial action, is still in place. Although some unofficial action has occurred, it has

1085
been reduced significantly: 2,656 days were lost between August and February, compared to 48.704 between April and July.
The joint steering group of the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, consisting of senior members of Royal Mail, the CWU and the Communication Managers Association, is through a series of meetings continuing to progress recommendations in his report.
A National Partnership Board, chaired by the noble Lord, has been established and is due to meet on 23rd May. The approach to partnership working has been shaped by the partnership vision developed by the joint steering group and the TUC partnership principles. A six-month pilot of regional and area partnerships boards in London, Scotland and the East Midlands will begin in June. A partnership support team has also been set up to support the National Partnership Board in delivering the partnership vision and the Sawyer recommendations.
It is also encouraging that Jonathan Evans, formerly UK human resources director of Orange, has recently joined Consignia and is part of the team with specific responsibilities for implementing the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Gibson that middle managers and junior managers are critical to this process. I welcome the fact that a leadership development programme is now in place for all managers to be rolled out over the next two years and joint approaches are being developed to training and development and improving behaviour.
Communication is also crucially important at a time of change within the company. The unions and the workforce need to be consulted and kept informed of developments on a regular basis. There should be no surprises in what is being done to secure the future of the business.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, raised the question of the Postcomm proposals. Postcomm is carefully considering the responses to its consultation document and will determine in the light of the evidence how best to introduce competition for the benefit of consumers consistent with its statutory duties, including its primary duty to ensure the provision of the universal service. The Government have followed that process closely and are in dialogue with the various players, but it is not for the Government to take on the role of a company or the regulator. They must each act in accordance with their own responsibilities and duties.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the new chairman of Consignia has made it clear that he wishes to establish a new relationship between the company and the regulator—a constructive rather than a negative approach that recognises the opportunities and challenges of operating in a more competitive environment. That is very encouraging. As with industrial relations within Consignia, the way forward between the company and the regulator has to be through effective dialogue, not confrontation.
1086
However, I must point out to my noble friend Lord Hoyle that blaming one side or the other is not the way forward. All sides need to realise that they must get their industrial relations right or they will not be able to deal with the competition that they have to face.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, it is not for the Government to intervene with the work of Postcomm. Postcomm is an independent regulator, established under primary legislation that has been passed by Parliament. Post Office management and the unions supported the creation of an independent regulator.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, made it clear that a partnership approach can flourish in a competitive climate. I support that point. There is no climate in which it is more essential to have a partnership approach, because one cannot afford to have the lapses of service that occur when there are industrial relations failures.
The noble Lord, Lord Brookman, raised the question of redundancies. We very much want there to be consultation, but the problems of the business have to be tackled. It is only because similar problems in the steel industry were tackled that we still have a steel industry in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked why the company had turned a profit into losses. We need look no further than the accounts of the Post Office. In the past two years, turnover has gone up by 7 per cent and 8.3 per cent. At the same time, group operating costs have gone up by 7.8 per cent and 13.7 per cent. Those are not issues that are forced on the business; they are within the hands of the business. It is up to the management and the people who work in the company to get them right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the introduction of ACT. I do not believe that that is forcing people to do anything. It is a simple introduction of new and modern methods into the Post Office. I also do not think that it has much relevance to the industrial relations of the Post Office.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I think that—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Oh!
Baroness Byford: My Lords, am I not allowed to ask?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are over the hour already.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, implied that ACT had no implications for the Post Office, its workings, strikes and everything else, but I think that it does.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that ACT has an impact on industrial relations. It is a highly desirable introduction of modern methods. We

1087
are only doing efficiently what the previous government attempted to do and we shall continue to do it.
Over the years, industrial relations in the Post Office have been nothing short of disastrous. As I said earlier, more than 800,000 days were lost to strike action in 1996–97 alone. The review by the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, has given us a clear statement of the way forward. He believes that there is a genuine commitment to change on all sides in the Royal Mail. That commitment must be acted upon. The culture of change needs to be implemented quickly or the impetus will be lost. In Allan Leighton, the Government believe that they have appointed the right man for the job. He is a good communicator and genuinely wants to make Consignia a great place to work. That is what the Government—and the House, I am sure—wish to see. It will not be easy, particularly at this difficult time, when the company needs to cut its costs through restructuring and, regrettably, reducing jobs. Everyone in the company needs to be clear that unless it sorts out its industrial relations it will not be able to compete effectively in a marketplace that will inevitably, over time, become increasingly liberalised, with all that that means for profitability and jobs.

Education Bill
8.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 10.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We have already debated the clause fairly widely, but one or two questions remain to be asked. The power for governing bodies to form or invest in companies was not made explicit in last September's White Paper, Schools—achieving success, and was therefore not subject to consultation. The proposal is far more radical than simply enabling private companies to provide support or to manage schools and LEA services. The Government have issued no justification for the move and no obvious educational benefit has been identified.
There are a number of important questions. Where do the funds come from to support the initiative? What happens if it goes wrong? Schools are funded not only by government grant, through the SSA process, but also by the local education authorities from local council tax. Although there has been a reduction in recent years in the number of LEAs spending more than the sum identified in the education SSA, £6 billion of a total education budget of £50 billion is still provided in that way. It is not reasonable for schools to be able to siphon off funds raised by council tax payers if there is no proper democratic accountability for their decisions.
Who is responsible if it goes wrong? There is a lack of clarity in the liability for debts. The Minister has said that the LEA is responsible if the organization
1088
goes wrong. Let us consider experience in further education. A college in Derbyshire purchased a night club, ostensibly linked to a curriculum area. When the night club went bust, considerable pressure was placed on the college budget.
What protection is there for the school budget if the company goes wrong? Under local management of schools it has always been possible for schools to vire their annual delegated budget. That budget is obviously intended for revenue expenditure, but many schools have utilised the freedom to build up unspent balances, often with the express intention of spending the money on large-scale capital projects. That has resulted in a reduction in staffing levels. If schools are able to establish companies, the potential for siphoning off delegated budgets for the purposes of funding the company will be huge. The experience of virement under LMS can lead only to the conclusion that there are likely to be detrimental effects on the funding of mainstream education.
What will happen to terms and conditions for staff? As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has pointed out, Clause 10(5) allows governing bodies to provide staff to a company. There is a real danger that the concentration on forming companies, in particular the provision of staff, could be counter-productive to the standards agenda, with governing bodies and teachers being distracted from their main focus on the provision of high-quality education to pupils on the roll. Although the Bill makes no specific reference to teaching staff being provided to the company, they will undoubtedly be included in the generic term. This is a particular concern in the context of the crisis in teacher recruitment and retention and the severe problems of excessive workload now acknowledged by the Government.
The Government were forced to change their provisions on advanced skills teachers on the grounds that schools and individual teachers found the requirement to spend time supporting other schools unattractive and difficult to manage. It is regrettable that the Government have not learned from that experience but continue to advocate the sharing of staff.
What will happen if everything goes wrong? It is likely to be argued that the safeguard to the provision to form and invest in companies is in Clause 11 and its subsections which specify that the consent of the LEA would be required before the governors were allowed to embark on that course of action. However, again it is totally unclear whether in the event of the LEA withholding consent the Secretary of State has the power to intervene and overrule the LEA. The relationship of the Secretary of State's powers as detailed in Clause 12 to Clause 11 and its subsections still needs to be clarified.
All told, there are still many questions to be asked and answered in relation to Clause 10. That is one reason why I question whether it should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: We have heard a great deal in our discussion of Clause 10 about the possibility of

1089
profit, but now we are beginning to hear about the possibility of loss, and who is ultimately responsible for such a loss. There is a prior question about companies to which I should very much like to know the answer. What will happen when a company of the type proposed in Clause 10 borrows money? Of course it has to have the consent of the LEA. However, I believe that the borrowing may very well count against the local authority's borrowing. I should like some clarification of whether that is a correct understanding of the position.
Moreover, not only one local authority—the local authority of the school—would be involved, as demonstrated by clauses subsequent to Clause 10. Indeed, the Minister has told us about the idea of schools grouping together to form companies and to benefit as companies. So more than one local authority would be involved, and a number of local authorities could be involved. However, although there will be a designated supervising authority, in the event of loss, what is the liability of the other authorities supervising schools which are part of the group forming the company? Not only would I like an answer to that question, but local authorities are somewhat anxious about the position.
Baroness Blatch: The unfortunate aspect of this debate is that we are arguing not about the principle, but about the dearth of answers to many of the questions posed. I read with great interest the discussions that took place in another place, but the quality of the answers given in those discussions left a great deal to be desired. Consequently, we shall have to ask the questions again, in the hope that we shall receive clearer answers.
More commercial freedom for our schools is a good thing. As we know, our schools have much to offer their local communities in many ways. As we also know, there is much that they are able to do already under current law. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, confirmed earlier that schools are already able, if they so wish, to set up companies, sell their wares to another school and join together in consortiums for procurement purposes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Will the—
Baroness Blatch: I shall, if I may, tell the noble Lord that, 20 years ago, when I served on my local authority, we did just that. We established a joint procurement operation which schools in four counties could buy into. We bulk ordered books and equipment for our schools. Nothing stopped us from doing that 20 years ago, and I see nothing at all stopping us now. That is not forming companies, but forming consortiums to gain the advantage of bulk purchasing. As I understand it, that is what the Bill is proposing. However, schools can already make sense of their buying power by coming together in larger numbers. I am talking about doing what makes sense for schools at a local level.
Although my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, are not in the Chamber, I want to make the point that schools are
1090
very different from city technology colleges and from universities. City technology colleges are independent schools, albeit in the state system, and universities also are independent. They are masters of their own affairs and own the responsibility for all that they do. They gain or not, as the case may be, by their own actions. The proposals are very different from that. The proposals impose a number of layers, the first of which is the school governing body together with any other schools, companies or outside bodies with which they join up. Superimposed on that is the local authority. Superimposed on that is the supervisory body, which may be the local authority. Superimposed on that is the Secretary of State. That makes for a fairly chaotic management line for running a company.
Moreover, the proposals are being made in the context of a shortage of teachers, a shortage of governors and a crisis in core funding for education. The Government do a great deal of boasting about how much they are putting into education, and, within a matter of days or weeks, we shall undoubtedly hear about a great deal more funding coming from on high to education. However, it is the core funding into our schools that is seriously depleted. Only today, I received notice of yet another project, this one for £27 million. However, every time the Government launch another such programme from the centre, more money is taken from the education budget, making less money available to schools.
These days, it is quite difficult to recruit governors—unpaid volunteers who can barely keep up with the new burdens imposed on them by much recent legislation. They are extremely responsible and give a great deal of time and commitment to their work. The Bill, however, proposes imposing on them a very complex set of arrangements, the operation of which will depend very much on guidance and regulations. In another place, Members from all parties pleaded with the Government to provide draft regulations so that we could actually see some of the detail which we have been trying to elicit from Ministers. Although those have not yet been produced, we have been given a policy paper to which I shall refer in detail later.
Meanwhile, I have tabled to the Government some Questions for Written Answer. On 23rd March, I asked,
"What would be the liability of governors, head teachers and other partners if a company, set up under Chapter Three of the Education Bill, were to fail; and who would be responsible for assessing the risk".—[Official Report, 25/03/02; cot WA 26.]
The Answer stated that,
"we would expect the liability of each company member to be limited to a nominal sum.
In other words, presumably, those who were owed money would simply go to the wall. The Answer continued:
"In the case of a company limited by guarantee, this would be the nominal guarantee figure of perhaps £10".

1091
That is not much of a guarantee. It is certainly not much of a guarantee for those who might be let down by the company's failing. It continued:
"In the case of a company limited by shares, this would be any amount outstanding on the shares, which we would anticipate to be a nominal sum".
If the value of the shares decreases, someone is going to lose out. If the company fails, the shares will become worthless to those who own them. The Answer continued:
"For member schools, the liability would not rest with individual governors or the head teacher".
That is good for the governors and the head teacher, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, the culpability and liability will lie with the LEA. What pot of unused money do LEAs have to deal with the failures of the companies? Who would settle the outstanding accounts? The Answer continued:
"Other partners could include other company members whose liability would be limited in the same way as school company members. The situation of LEAs would differ depending upon the type of company. Just as schools spend their delegated budgets as agents of the LEA, so a purchasing company, when spending those delegated budgets, would also be acting as an agent of the LEA. This would not be the case for service provider companies, who would be spending income from contracts".
It continued:
"It would be up to a school governing body to assess operational risks".
That really is putting a burden on a school. The Minister stated that financial liabilities for school companies which failed would not rest with governors or the head teacher. Who will settle outstanding liabilities? The Government stated that the delegated budget of individual member schools would not be at risk. In the case of a purchasing company, the company would be spending member schools' delegated budgets and therefore would be deemed to be acting as an agent of the LEA. The LEA would be liable for the company's debt in the event of company failure. It is clear that someone somewhere would have to pay and from within the system. If it is the LEA, it would come from money that it would otherwise spend on education in its area.
The policy paper which is meant to be helpful in terms of detail states at paragraph 1.2:
"A great deal of work is under way both as part of the Department's New Models pilots and independently to investigate new ways of discharging LEA responsibilities in partnership with others in the public, private and voluntary sectors. The model of a more focused and strategic LEA, combined with that of the self-managing school".
It is hardly self-managing. If a school is not controlled by the LEA, it is controlled by the Secretary of State and self-management becomes far removed from what it was under the grant-maintained system. Paragraph 1.3 goes on to say:
"The first is that of enabling LEAs to contract out additional core functions to groups of schools as well as to other bodies".
1092
LEAs can contract out now; they can contract out their services either to schools or to a third party to provide services for schools. The document continues,
"examining alternative provision for auditing"—
auditing can be contracted out—
"grounds maintenance"—
that can be contracted out—
"building maintenance"—
that can be contracted out—
"cleaning and security"—
that can be contracted out. The document then goes on to say,
"carrying out a market scan of alternative broker/provider organisations".
What does that mean? Can the noble Lord help me on that?
Paragraph 1.5 refers to PFI contracts. I accept the point that is made by the Government but I do not think that this is the way to resolve it; namely, that the preparation of PFI contracts needs a great deal of expertise and certainly is a difficult and daunting task for schools. I say to the right reverend Prelates that it is particularly difficult for Church schools to cope with the complexities of putting together a PFI bid. I refer to either buying in the expertise to do that or working with other schools. I believe that it can be done without forming companies. However, the noble Lord will have to disabuse me of that view.
Paragraph 1.5 goes on to say:
"More efficient ways of procurement are needed and ideas being developed involve more collaboration between LEAs, schools, central government and the private sector".
It would be helpful—outside of what can already be done under the law—if the noble Lord could give examples of what needs to be underpinned by new legislation that would help schools in this situation. As I say, a group of Church schools coming together could, if they wished, corporately together purchase the expertise that they would need in order to put together a PFI bid. The document continues:
"Schools would be able to form companies to purchase collectively goods and services for member schools".
As I said, that was done 20 years ago and I see no reason why it cannot be done now. The document continues:
"schools would also benefit from a division of labour using a dedicated staffing resource so as to free teaching staff".
What does that mean? Paragraph 1.9 states:
"Schools with particular strengths and capacity would be able to share their experience and expertise with other schools, and use the proceeds of any sales of services to invest in improving their capacity further".
Again, that can be done now. As I said earlier using the phrase,
"under the panoply of company law",
a company would need a managing director, a chief executive, a company secretary and would need servicing in some way. We are talking about teachers, head teachers and people who are running schools. If they have to buy the expertise for someone to run a

1093
company, why do we not have the example of the 3E's or some such company which can do all of the things that are required by the Government; in other words, be entrepreneurial, commercial and assist schools to do their jobs better, but also become independent enterprises without using the precious staff of the schools?
In paragraph 1.11 there is already a significant demand for financial, legal and technical expertise in the development of PFI, to which I have referred. Which schools, even if they all come together corporately, have spare lawyers or spare financial experts? They do not have that; they would need to buy it in. That they can do now. Regulations are mentioned 11 times in the paper. How many sets of regulations will there be? What will they cover? Schools are saturated—we shall come to this on a later amendment—with guidance, guidelines and regulations. As I say, there are 11 references to regulations. It would be helpful to know how many sets of them we shall see. I do not know how many sets of guidance have been referred to by the noble Lord and by the Minister earlier.
Paragraph 2.3 refers to regulations which,
"may prohibit organisations other than maintained schools from joining service delivery or purchasing companies, unless they are specified in regulations. Bodies allowed to join would be: LEAs, independent schools, private sector companies … voluntary organisations … further education institutions, local authority owned public sector companies, individuals, except those with certain criminal convictions".
Tell that to the people who invented individual learning accounts. It seems to me that the Government have a lot to learn there. Co-operation between independent schools and maintained schools has never been better. There is a great deal of co-operation at the moment in terms of equipment, using technology centres, music centres, drama centres and all the rest.
Paragraph 2.5 states that, because members are private companies, they
"are the only people who will have shares (or a guarantee) in the company and the only way in which the company can be 'taken over' is by those members agreeing to sell all or some of their shares or allowing persons to become members by giving guarantees. They will not be able to sell shares to or allow guarantees to be given by anyone outside the permitted list of members otherwise the company will breach the regulations".
That does not appear to be in the Bill. It would be helpful to know about the conditions under which they would be free to sell shares or to invite new shareholders in. What protection is there against being taken over? In terms of protection from being taken over, how different are they from companies under company law?
Paragraph 2.8 of the paper states that,
"regulations will not specify the details",
and that that will be left to companies themselves to agree. We are talking about voluntary governors in that regard, who are already terribly busy running schools. The paper states that we will not give them details and that we will tell them to work it all out for themselves. Is that really the best use of governors' time?
1094
Paragraph 2.10 states:
"The precise arrangements may have to vary according to the circumstances of the individual company. Following consultation, we will ensure a proper balance between protecting the public money spent by those companies and enabling them to operate without undue restriction".
How will that happen?
Paragraph 2.12 states:
"If a member school's budget were to be suspended, the school would not normally be required to leave the company as this could be unduly disruptive but would become a 'silent member, contributing no further money or time to the company until their budget is restored to the school".
I find it inconceivable that a school that has been suspended would remain part of the company as a silent member and that absolutely nothing would be done about that. If a school that has had its budget suspended cannot join a company, how can a school with a suspended budget remain part of a company? That seems to be a contradiction.
Paragraph 2.13 states:
"Regulations may require the designation of a supervising authority for each company".
I believe that the supervising authority of each company would have to be a local education authority but it would be helpful to have that confirmed. Who will set it up? Who will serve on it? What powers of intervention will they have? Who will meet the costs of that company? Will it be a cost to the school budget, the LEA or the Secretary of State? Or would it, like so many other projects, come from the global education budget?
Paragraph 2.14 asks:
"Which LEA would be the supervising authority"?
According to the paper, that would be determined by local agreement. If one LEA had more schools as members of a company than any other LEA, it might make sense for the LEA with most schools to be the supervising authority. Again, where is that in the Bill? It is merely stated in a policy paper.
Paragraph 2.16 deals with borrowing. It states:
"Regulations may include a requirement for any company wishing to borrow to seek permission from the supervising authority".
It has to go to the LEA in order to set up a company and to the supervising body to get permission to borrow. Would the supervising authority consider the financial state of each of the schools, or would the corporate body—the company—be considered? The supervising authority would consult other LEAs that have schools as members of the company. Where will schools find the time to do all of that? Moreover, that proposal is not in the Bill.
Paragraph 2.18 states:
"In order to be able to claim VAT back, purchasing companies are deemed to be acting as agents of the LEA as they are spending their budget share. The LEA therefore becomes liable for debts".
Again, where will those funds in the LEA come from? As I asked earlier, can those companies offer services on a profit-making basis? If not, there would be no benefit to the company. If so, it makes a nonsense of what Members opposite have said about wanting no

1095
private sector involvement in education unless that is on a non-profit-making basis. It would be helpful to have some confirmation of that.
Paragraph 2.20 states:
"The Code of Practice on Local Education Authority—School Relations contains guidance on when LEAs can exercise their powers of intervention in schools".
Is that code of practice the one that is already in existence? Is it likely to be updated as a result of Clauses 10 to 12?
Paragraph 3.1 states:
"The power is drafted widely to enable flexible policies to be pursued".
It also states that the Government envisage,
"that the first use of the power would be to provide an alternative way to enable voluntary-aided schools to make use of the PFI to deliver their major capital investment needs".
What is the problem that has brought the Government to that view?
In paragraph 3.2 the Government say that they are investigating the use of joint venture companies to assist with these problems. Initially they expect to form a joint venture company with the Church of England, the National Society for Education and possibly with Partnerships UK. My first point is that the Government do not have a locus in all those organisations. What, in any event, is there to stop the Church of England, the National Society for Education and even Partnerships UK from forming a consortium? So far as I know, in law there is nothing to prevent that. Why do they necessarily have to form a company under Clauses 10, 11 and 12? It seems to me that they are independent of the state system and therefore should be able to operate in their own right.
I understand that a similar company is likely to be set up with the Catholic Education Service and that possibly another will be set up for all voluntary aided schools. Again, I do not argue against that. The point that I made earlier to the right reverend Prelate is that I believe those schools need more collaborative working in order to exploit for their own benefit both PFI and other possible commercial ventures.
Paragraph 3.4 states:
"Schools would be able to take advantage of the powers in Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill to participate in a company and LEAs have powers in the Local Government Act 2000 to do the same. The Secretary of State might decide to join one or more of these [other] companies, by agreement with the other parties involved".
As I said, I consider that it would be a recipe for disaster if the Secretary of State, the LEA and one or more schools were involved in a consortium as a company under company law. They would face the possibility of shares growing or failing, of profits rising or falling, and the possibility of succeeding or failing. Culpability would perhaps lie with the schools and the companies, and liability would lie with the LEAs.
I am not concerned about the principles underlying these clauses; I am concerned about the detail. Thus far, we have not had a satisfactory answer to the questions raised in relation to the detail.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Question before the Committee is whether Clause 10 shall stand part. We have heard one speech about Clause 10 and, from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, a very thorough going-over of the policy statement, which of course refers to Clauses 10, 11 and 12. I shall have to start somewhere in responding to her.
I begin by responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I believe that fundamentally she asked where the idea came from, who needs it and why we cannot do it in other ways. On the other hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, went on to say, "Yes, it sounds all right in principle but there are huge difficulties in practice". Therefore, I believe that they are approaching the issue from rather different positions.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in the work that the department has been doing, particularly in its new models work, over a considerable period there have appeared to be gaps in the powers that schools have to innovate. Those gaps have appeared not only to the department but to schools which talk to the department. The schools appear to believe that they are constrained by difficulties in getting together and constrained by the powers that they have when they do get together for mutual benefit. Many schools believe that the department should devise ways of freeing them from the restrictions which inhibit their innovative ability.
Of course, there are proper questions to be raised. In opposing the group of amendments starting with Amendment No. 51, I have already said that it appears to us that the Companies Act model is by far the simplest. It does not have to be reinvented; it does not require new sets of regulations; and it does not require intervention by the Secretary of State. One can buy companies off the shelf; one knows what the responsibilities and limitations are; and one knows what the limitations on liabilities are because, after all, companies have limited liability—that is what they are about. And one can fairly readily, with a modicum of expertise which may have to be brought in but which might easily be found among the members of a group of governing bodies, find the professional expertise which is necessary to set up a company. Virtually anyone can do it. It does not cost much to start or keep a company going, although perhaps it costs a little more to start it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked where the initial funds come from. My answer is that they are very minimal for a group of schools with any spare capacity. Rather than find funds, they must determine what they want a company to do—whether it is to be a service provider or a purchasing company—and what the business plan for it is. They will have to produce a proper business plan and have objectives and a memorandum of articles. There must be within the memorandum of articles a statement of what they intend to do with their company. They will have to satisfy a supervisory authority, which will normally be the local education authority, that it is a good business plan and that the objectives are genuinely for the educational benefit of the member schools.

1097
I was asked what happens if it goes wrong. It is true that in the end, just as now, if anything goes wrong in a school the local education authority is ultimately responsible. If a maintained school overspends its budget, a solution has to be found. In the end, if there are creditors they have to be paid and the matter comes to the local education authority. However, there is nothing new about that. There is nothing to lead us to expect that a school company will be more likely to get into debt than a school at the present time.
I was given the example of a night club set-up by a Derbyshire college. Let me make clear that there is no possibility that a school company will get into that position. It will not be permitted for them to have a general trading object. As regards the relationship with the school budget, it simply is not possible for the company to drain the school budget in that way. It is not possible for a company to take over a maintained school. The governing body of the school is in all circumstances responsible for the conduct of the school. A company formed by schools cannot do anything that any other company cannot do. There is no justification for thinking that the fact that a school can set up a company means that it can charge for education—we have been through that argument—or do other things that are specifically prohibited.
I come back to the starting point of all this. No governing body or group of governing bodies is required to establish a company. If it does not want to do so, that is its choice. If it has a good relationship with its local education authority, as in the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, of 20 years ago, or if it wants to form a larger consortium in a different way, there is nothing to stop it doing that. The proposal is in response to a communication from schools which said that in certain circumstances this could be helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked about borrowing.
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether in the course of the debate we can see the information from schools which have been clamouring for this. Apart from Thomas Telford, I do not know of one. That would be helpful. Perhaps I may go back to a comment made by the noble Lord about what schools could not do and read again from col. 157 of Standing Committee G on 13th December. Chris Grayling, MP, asked:
"Is it conceivable that a governing body would have the right to sack its head teacher and staff, and bring in a company established by a more successful school,
that is another school, which could come in,
"to run the school? In theory, could a governing body subcontract out the entire management and educational management of its school to a more successful school?"
The Minister replied:
"That does not sound like a likely scenario. The governing body has clear responsibilities in this area, which it will exercise normally. The scenario is possible—subsection 1(a) makes this clear—because we are considering services provided to schools by other schools. We want more examples of that".
1098
He is saying that these clauses would allow a school to provide a full management service to another school.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that that is what Stephen Timms meant. I do not have the text in front of me. On a matter as complicated and textual as this, it is better that I write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and others who have taken part in the debate and put a copy in the Library. What I have said throughout is that there is nothing in the Bill which creates a new vehicle for contracting out the running of schools. That is the fundamental point. I am not prepared to answer definitively whether there is provision in previous legislation which makes it possible under certain circumstances, but there is not here.
I return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, about borrowing. Borrowing would have to be approved by a prescribed person. That is the provision. The normal situation which we expect the regulations to prescribe is that the prescribed person will be the local education authority acting as the supervisory body.
I admire the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for going through our policy document from paragraph 1.1 to 3.5 covering three clauses and the regulations. She raised a series of questions which would take me at least 45 minutes to respond to if I had the ability to do so in these circumstances, and I do not. I shall try to respond to those points which seem to me significant now. I shall read the points she made and write her a rather long letter—I apologise for its length now—again with copies to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, with a copy placed in the Library.
We are talking here about maintained schools whereas the example—the 3E's in Guildford and other parts of Surrey—is a city technology college. It is independent and nothing to do with what is provided for in the Bill. We are now talking about something which is possible for maintained schools. It may have been possible for other schools in the past but not for maintained schools. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness when she speaks of the difficulties of finding enough teachers and governors. That is common experience. By making the provision as simple as possible, it is our intention that a limited amount of staff and governor time should be taken up in providing this vehicle; and—I repeat—only if they want to do so. The availability of a statutory model which has existed for a long time should make that considerably simpler. The intention is that there should not be any diversion from any core funding of the school and no diversion from the determination of the schools to devote themselves to achieving standards.
With regard to Answers to Written Questions, it is probably better if the answers come officially in response to the noble Baroness's supplementary Written Questions rather than my attempting to elaborate on the Answers to Written Questions that she has already received. I confirm that the limitation on the liability of members in the case of a company

1099
limited by guarantee is to the guarantee, which will normally be a nominal sum; and in the case of a company limited by shares to the amount outstanding on the shares.
The noble Baroness is right to say that a local education authority can contract out now. That is a route which is more likely to be widely pursued than the school company route. I express a personal opinion, but I think that where there is a good relationship between schools and the local education authority, where schools ask the local education authority to provide services or to purchase functions and are assured that it can be done and done properly, that is what will happen. I think it likely that this will be a minority activity.
The noble Baroness answered herself when she talked about the PFI contracts. She talked about the examples given in the policy statement of the relationships with the Church of England. Those are by no means complete; indeed, they cannot be complete because the legal framework for them is not yet in place. However, if one reads the policy statement and takes note of what the Government and the Church of England are thinking of doing, it must be seen to be positive.
The noble Baroness also asked how many groups of regulations would be introduced. The answer is one: they will be produced in the form of one group. I was asked more than once about the freedom to sell shares and about new shareholdings, as well as the possibility of take-overs. The answers to those points is that this is no different from any other Companies Act company. It is always possible for a Companies Act company to protect itself by ensuring that the sale of shares, which in any case can only take place within the permitted categories, will be constrained by its memorandum and articles. Any sensible school company—indeed, any company that is advised by a supervisory body—would ensure that that is the case.
I believe that I have gone as far as I can in dealing with the detailed points raised. The fundamental lesson that I want to leave with the Committee on Clause 10 is that we are doing no more here than respond to a certain amount of indication—not perhaps, a large amount—that schools would like to have greater freedom than they have at present. This was expressed, and examples given, at a conference in London in April organised by the Centre for Education Management, where 20 representatives of schools and LEAs indicated interest in the powers to form companies for a variety of purposes. If there is a report of that conference and I can make it available to noble Lords, I shall gladly do so. Clause 10 is intended to be a responsive clause. It is not intended in any way to be an imposition on schools or on local education authorities.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Limits on powers conferred by section 10]:
9.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwymoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 7, line 35, after "authority" insert "and any similar authorities affected"
The noble Lord said: The amendment is inspired by concern on the part of the Welsh Local Government Association that governing bodies forming companies should have the consent of their local education authority not simply for forming companies or participating in them but for borrowing money. As I said during the clause stand part debate, the association is worried because such borrowing would count as borrowing by a local authority. That seems to me to be a very fair starting point.
In his reply to the clause stand part debate, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that such consents as would be necessary for borrowing would be provided—or not provided, as the case may be—by the designated supervisory authority. Local authorities tell me that the consent of such an authority is insufficient. They point out that as their schools would be participating in the company, they, too, should be involved in the matter of consent, especially in the case of borrowing. I am bound to say that the consent required under Clause 11(1) appears to be uncertain in its scope. Similarly, it is not clarified later in the clause.
It is not just the local authority mainly responsible for the governing body that may be involved; other local authorities and their governing bodies which may participate in the company could also be involved, as anticipated in subsection (5)(a) of this clause. The Minister has already acknowledged that one of the purposes of these clauses is to encourage schools to cooperate and act as consortia companies.
Amendment No. 62 addresses the point about the multiplicity of authorities which may be affected. It requires their consent as well as that of the designated supervisory authority. My noble friend Lady Blatch in the course of her speech said that all the references have been to the consent of the designated supervisory authority. As many authorities, as well as many schools, may be involved in these consortiums it would surely be as well to ensure that their consent is secured. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With due respect to the Welsh education authorities, I do not understand the amendment. If the schools in a group seeking to form a school company are with one local education authority then that authority's permission is needed.
What can "similar authority" mean? It may mean another local education authority. But it is not necessarily limited to that. How an authority which is not an LEA would be affected is not clear to me. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, means that if the schools from more than one LEA want to join a company, each of them should seek the consent of

1101
their own LEA. If that is what the noble Lord seeks, I can assure him that that is what the Bill means. It may have to say so in regulation—I do not know.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clarification, but I must tell him that it is somewhat different from everything that we have heard today. When we have talked about these companies and participation by other schools in such companies, the reference with regard to consent has always been to the designated supervisory authority and that authority alone. But clearly a company that involves participation by schools in other authorities has a responsibility to those authorities too. It is natural for an LEA to be concerned, particularly if that company becomes involved in borrowing money. That is the concern of the local authority. It is not sufficiently covered on the face of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that there may be confusion between consent to form a company and becoming a supervisory authority afterwards. The amendment seeks—maybe it is not intended—to bring a body, possibly other than a LEA, into the consent procedure. I am saying that the consent procedure is very clear. If all the schools are in one local authority, obviously consent is needed from that LEA; if they are from more than one authority, then each of them should seek the consent of their own LEA. In other words, if one has five schools in authority A and one school in authority B, the five schools should go to authority A for consent and the one school should go to authority B for consent, but they should not have to seek consent from each other's LEA.
The question of who is the supervisory authority afterwards is a different question which is not addressed by the amendment. I should be happy to consider any amendment on that issue at a later stage.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am again grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I am bound to tell him that I am not entirely satisfied. I shall obviously study what he has said and what has been said in our previous debates on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 7, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) A governing body may not require any person employed to work at the school to provide services in connection with the activities of any company in relation to which the governing body has exercised a power under any of subsections (1) to (4) of section 10 otherwise than under a contract entered into for that purpose.
( ) No person employed to work at the school for purposes other than those of a company in relation to which the governing body has exercised a power under any of subsections (1) to (4) of section 10 shall be dismissed, nor be subjected to any disciplinary process, nor in any other way be disadvantaged by reason of his unwillingness to provide services in connection with the activities of any such company nor shall any person be refused appointment to a post other than for the purposes of a company because of such unwillingness.
1102
( ) Sections 115 to 127 shall not apply in relation to any employment for the purposes of any company in relation to which the governing body has exercised a power under any of subsections (1) to (4) of section 10."
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 65 and to speak to Amendment No. 79. The amendments are designed to probe whether a member of staff of a school that had set up a company could be required to take on company duties, be dismissed for refusal to do so or have his or her remuneration affected by the exercise of the school's power to form a company.
Amendment No. 65 would ensure that teachers and other staff would not be forced to take on company duties and, if they were to refuse, that they would not suffer any disadvantage. It would ensure that teachers were not put under any pressure to run or to work for such companies and that refusal to take part would not affect the teachers' careers.
We on these Benches are concerned that the proposals for schools to form companies could mean that good teachers who have what we used to call a vocation for teaching—who love the job and do it well—may be pushed into doing all sorts of other things or risk damage to their opportunities for career progression. At a time when there is such a concern about the impact of excessive workload and bureaucracy on teacher morale, the amendments' safeguards are necessary.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers report on teacher workload by the Department for Education and Skills states:
"Teachers in many schools perceive a lack of control and ownership over their work, undertaking tasks—particularly documentation—which they do not believe are necessary to support learning".
We are concerned that the Government expect more and more of teachers, heads and governors in relation to school improvement. It is therefore vital that they are not also expected to deliver additional services that may previously have been conducted by LEAs, social services or the health authorities without additional resources.
So far, we have received very little in the way of assurances on the matter. On the contrary, last October the Secretary of State told the Education and Skills Select Committee:
"I do not think we can get better public services without asking more of those who work in them. That is an inevitability. Where we have a responsibility, and I have a responsibility, is to make sure that in pushing forward that change and implementing that change we explain things carefully, we make sure what we do is on a clear evidence base, we resource it sufficiently, we offer professional development opportunities for those in the front line and we understand the pressure that we put on them".
That suggests that teachers will be asked to train as company managers as part of their professional development, that more will be asked of them as long as the No. 10 Policy Unit can trump up an evidence base for the establishment of companies within schools and that more pressure will be put on teachers. Can the Minister give us an assurance that teachers and other

1103
school staff will not be required to perform company duties in addition to their existing responsibilities? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: In view of the fact that my earlier citation of comments made by Mr Timms in the Standing Committee apparently turned out to be wrong—I cannot quote him now because I have sent off my copy of the Standing Committee report—perhaps I may paraphrase him, I think pretty accurately. He said that schools would be free to second teachers full-time or part-time and that schools would also be free to contract out their teachers full-time or part-time. It would be helpful to know if that is the case.
To pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, teachers are concerned that when schools that are already part of a company are recruiting they will be looking for teachers with that expertise—they will be touting for the kind of teacher that they want, who will not philosophically object to working within a company. That would work against the interests of teachers who come into teaching to teach and not necessarily to run companies.
One of the answers that the Minister may give to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in response to the amendment will be that no teacher will be forced to do anything against their will. Mr Timms also said that in another place, adding that teachers would get involved only by agreement. However, there is such a thing as pressure. There is the pressure that will come from people who will say that the company is buzzing and that it is making a lot of money for its school. If that becomes the predominant activity, rather than running the school and teaching the children, there will be pressure on teachers to become involved in order to keep their job or stay in the school in a positive role. That pressure may make them feel inhibited, and, against their better judgment, they may feel it necessary to get involved.
Although the technical answer is that no teacher will be required to act against their will, there should be some safeguard. There should be no prejudice against a teacher whose mission in life is to teach, not to be a member of a company.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree entirely with the principle behind the first two paragraphs of Amendment No. 65 and with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about pressure on teachers, even if the formal position is that nothing can be done without agreement. All of us have worked in circumstances in which pressure is put on people to do things that they do not want to do. It is a fact of working life. Sometimes, it is justified; sometimes, it is not. We must make sure that the occasions on which it is not justified are kept to a minimum.
Clause 10 defines the functions that may be performed by school companies. Companies that want to share their expertise and skills with other schools
1104
will, to some extent, involve the staff of schools that are company members. That must be understood. Amendment No. 65 would prevent staff being forced to work for—or, indeed, act in connection with the activities of—a company.
I agree with the first two parts of Amendment No. 65: staff should not be required to work for companies against their will, and they should be protected. They are, of course, protected, not necessarily by this Bill, but by employment law. They are employees like anybody else and, under employment legislation, a company cannot force an employee to work for a second employer. Before any member of staff could be asked to work for a school company, they would first need to agree to do so. There is no compulsion.
I hope that the Committee will agree that, beyond that, details of working arrangements are best left to local agreement between staff, the school and the company. Amendment No. 65 would introduce rather rigid requirements that could stifle innovation and could replace local agreement, which would be better.
The first part of Amendment No. 65 would put in place a requirement that no member of staff could be forced to work for—or in any way deal with—a company, other than by a specific contract. The second part would provide that staff should not be disadvantaged by their refusal. That is where pressure comes into it. There are many ways in which a member of staff could work for a company. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, a teacher could be on temporary secondment or could spend part of the working week with the company. There would have to be remuneration arrangements for that.
The amendment would mean that a member of staff could not be required to have normal dealings with a school company. I am sure that it was not intended that it should mean that, but it does. A book order could be placed with a company, rather than with a traditional supplier. It would be inappropriate to require the contract of a member of staff to be specifically amended before he or she could be asked to deal with the ordering of books in such circumstances.
Baroness Walmsley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The amendment does not state that teachers will be prevented from dealing with a company. It refers only to their being forced to work for a company.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: Perhaps I may make a contribution to the debate. It seems to me that we are all with the spirit of what is behind the amendment, but, sadly, I question whether we are in the real world. Let us take the recent example of the head teacher in Grimsby. As he justified his absence, he spoke of himself not as a teacher but as a principal. I may regret that, but it seems to me that much will depend on the nature of the company's activities. I can see teachers relishing educational activities in which companies may wish to engage or want to sponsor.

1105
Therefore, while I am with the spirit of the noble Baroness's amendment, I wonder whether we are addressing the situation in many of our high schools where with delegated budgets teachers are being asked to do, and want to do, things which I, with my vision of teaching, would rather they did not do. However, we need to protect those who do not want to do that from being forced to do so. I want to encourage teachers to teach; managers to manage; and company experts to "companify" or whatever the word is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with all that. I was saying—and my comments may have been unworthy—that the words,
"unwillingness to provide services in connection with the activities of any such company"
could be interpreted as "dealing with". I know that it is not intended and I should not make textual criticisms of amendments having spent 14 years in Opposition and having had to make up amendments. I know what that means.
Let us be clear. I believe that we are all in agreement on the matter. It is understood that we cannot have force, but we do not want unreasonable pressure. I hope that if sufficient companies are set up they will free teachers to carry out their core activities and that duties which they are presently required to do but which could be contracted to a company may be done by someone else rather than a professional teacher. That would be my objective for this part of the Bill and I hope that any regulations involved will be written in that sense.
The final part of Amendment No. 65 relates to pay and conditions and appraisal. Amendment No. 79 relates to the same subject. I have made it clear that there is no sense in which a school company can take over a school. We are giving schools the powers to form companies so that they can pursue innovative means of working. They will not assume responsibilities for running member schools; that will remain the responsibility of the governing body and the head teacher. The clauses do not alter that in any way.
Clause 11 provides for regulations to cover various aspects of company operation. Amendment No. 79 would provide an enabling power that regulations could make provision regarding the pay and conditions of persons employed with school companies. We anticipate that there will be circumstances in which companies recruit staff and become the employer. I understand the need to ensure that staff employed by a company have proper terms and conditions—they might not and probably would not be the same as those of teachers—and that that is a matter for local decision.
We do not want to specify the terms and conditions of locally employed staff when they will be covered by existing employment law, but we intend to issue guidance to governing bodies which consider forming or joining a company. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that the guidance will refer to
1106
appropriate approaches to the employment of staff. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the reassurance she seeks.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his response and I welcome his reassurances that there will be no force on teachers to work for companies if they do not want to do so. However, teachers would be a little more reassured if the point were on the face of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 67:
Page 7, line 43, leave out ", if regulations so provide"
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 67 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 68. The purpose of the Amendment No. 67 is to make mandatory in primary legislation the three conditions listed in Clause 11(3). The provisions would then not allow those conditions to be discarded by the absence of regulations; in other words, rather than, "if regulations so provide", a company set up by a school shall meet the conditions listed in subsection (3).
In addition, we propose a further subsection. Subsection (3)(b) is already in place and is significant in this context because it requires any company set up under these proposals to be a company limited by guarantee rather than a company limited by shares. The new proposed subsection set out in Amendment No. 68 would reinforce that provision and specifically ensure that any profits made by the company would be ploughed back into the school rather than distributed to shareholders.
This proposal takes up once more elements of our earlier discussions about the form of any company, but I should like to say a few words about exactly what is a company limited by guarantee. Such a company has its own distinct identity. It does not issue shares as a tradable commodity. Members of such a company simply guarantee that they will contribute a fixed amount from their personal property to meet the company's debts. Often this will be set at no more than a nominal amount.
Such companies normally exist for charitable or other similar public good purposes. A great many companies limited by guarantee are in fact charitable companies. Member guarantees do not represent an investment in the company from which members might expect to derive a personal profit or gain; the expectation is that any profits from the company's business will be returned to serve the purpose for which the company was formed. Member guarantors can form companies with their own legal identity to pursue good causes in a trading environment, but they can do so without putting at risk their personal property. Companies limited by guarantee are not generally regarded as commercial propositions for acquisition, take-over or merger.

1107
In our discussions until now we have assumed that the companies set up by schools either could be companies limited by shares or companies limited by guarantee. I read that as meaning that, on the whole, it is more likely that such companies would be companies limited by guarantee. For that reason, I would be interested to learn from the Minister what is the Government's interpretation of this subsection, and whether, if profits are made, they would normally be ploughed back into the school. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me start by saying what I hope is what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, really wants to hear; that is, there will be regulations. The phrase, "if regulations so provide", has been used because, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of Clause 11(3) refer to prescribed requirements, while sub-paragraph (b) does not.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am most grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I may point out that the phrase, "if regulations so provide" implies an element of discretion. When the phrase is left out, there is no discretion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is absolutely true, but if the phrase were to be left out, then the level of discretion would be reduced because it would be more difficult to introduce different regulations for different purposes. Basically, aside from joint ventures, there are two kinds of companies, one of which is a purchasing company while the other is a service provider company. It could be appropriate for companies to have different structures.
A purchasing company formed by a school to purchase goods and services could well be suited to being limited by guarantee. However, in the case of a service delivery company then the situation already anticipated by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, could arise, where one would want a company limited by shares because one would want to have people outside the member schools participating in order to bring in certain expertise. There is a list of the permitted members of such a company. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, read it out during the debate on Clause 10 stand part. The policy statement which she dissected with such skill is our brief for the regulations, as I am sure the Committee understands. So one might want to have a company limited by shares for those purposes because one might want to have partners in the company who would be interested only if there were shares and the possibility of profit for them. I do not believe that anyone would say there was anything wrong with that. We have not formalised the regulations because we have not yet had the opportunity for public consultation on them.
Clause 10 also enables schools to join companies to obtain services through PFI contracts. Given the Secretary of State's likely involvement in such a company, one would not necessarily have the same regulatory regime for that. I do not feel very strongly
1108
about Amendment No. 67, but I believe that it is too restrictive to allow the flexibility that we need for these different kinds of companies.
Amendment No. 68 seeks to restrict the ability of a company to run its affairs as it sees fit. Preventing any profit being used for purposes other than education in participating schools may in practice mean that it cannot be paid to company members other than schools. That is an unnecessary interference. There is no reason why schools should not innovate in potentially profitable ways and there is no reason why they should not bring in outside partners to help them to achieve that. They will still benefit financially from it, but that may be achieved only if they have outside partners who can participate for a profit.
If we accepted Amendment No. 68 there would be no incentive for any organisation other than schools to join companies as it could not take its share of any profit earned by its activity. We intend to allow local education authorities, further and higher education providers and private and voluntary sector companies with an educational or training focus to join companies. We shall make this clear in the regulations, on which we will consult.
As to the distribution of profit, I emphasise that the constitution of the company—that is, its memorandum and articles—should and will specify how profit could be used. We envisage a situation where profit would be used for developing the aims of the company—for example, by purchasing new equipment—or it could be paid to members at a level recommended by the directors of the company, dependent on the nature and circumstances of the company and approved by the members of the company in general meeting. So the prospect of profiteers coming in and taking advantage of such a structure is not only remote but inconceivable.
Baroness Blatch: Is a member the school, or can a member be an individual? For example, can an individual of a school become a member of the company? In which case, if it was a profit making company, he or she could be in receipt of a share of profits.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Basically, the member is the school, not an individual within the school—a governor, a head teacher, a teacher and so on. As an extreme example, in addition to the school being a member it is possible that one could have someone connected with the school as a director or an outside member of the company. But those involved in such a way would have to take very great care about potential conflicts of interest.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am left a little uncertain. Presumably when the Minister indicated that the school would be the member, he meant that it would be the governing body of the school.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would be a corporate body.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: As a body corporate it could be a member of a company. Indeed, it might be the only member of a company.
The Minister is not quite right to say that there would be no incentive to form a company if the profits had to be ploughed back into the school, as suggested in my second amendment. If we think about the amount of time that schools spend running fairs, jumble sales and other such projects—all the funds from which are ploughed back in for the benefit of the school—we see that there is a great deal of altruism around. People are prepared to take part in such activities. Schools are already selling software and ploughing the money back into the school.
What is envisaged here for the typical school that wants to start a company is a company limited by guarantee. Any profits it made would almost certainly be ploughed back into the school. Therefore, very little restriction would be imposed. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for his reply. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 68 to 81 not moved.]
Lord Roberts of Conwymoved Amendment No. 82:
Page 8, line 31, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: Clause 11 (7) provides that,
"Regulations may restrict the circumstances in which a local education authority may refuse to give any consent applied for under subsection (1)".
It is worth asking what the circumstances are in which such regulations might be brought into force.
This provision has caused some consternation in Wales. My friends in the local government association are simply asking in what circumstances it would be proper for the National Assembly for Wales to over-rule the local education authorities. Therefore, the amendment proposes the deletion of subsection (7).
I have some sympathy with the local government association. Why should the Assembly have this power to override the local education authority, which is, after all, a democratically elected body? The same argument applies to local education authorities in England. Again, they can be over-ruled by regulation so far as concerns the matter of consent. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Without the provision in Clause 11(7), there would be no power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to restrict the circumstances in which an LEA might refuse to give consent to a governing body applying to form or join a company. If we took that literally, and LEAs did not want schools to have companies, this could vitiate the whole purpose of Clauses 10 to 12 and there would not be any, because the wicked LEAs would say, "We don't want schools to engage in this initiative". That is not what we want, and I do not think that it is what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, wants either.
Perhaps I may explain the intention of the restriction. We understand that schools as well as LEAs would welcome clear principles setting out when
1110
local education authorities can withhold this consent. We have therefore provided for regulations under Clause 11 to give schools more certainty about whether their application to join or form a company is likely to be successful.
In Committee in another place it was stressed that there was a need for a clear indication in regulations of when permission could be denied. We expect that under these regulations an LEA would be able to refuse consent when, for example, it had concerns about the leadership, management or financial health of a school. Other sensible circumstances would include when the school had serious weaknesses or was subject to special measures. We have given more detail on that in the policy statement that has already been referred to. We shall consult on the regulations and allow schools and LEAs to comment on the circumstances that we propose. We do not want local education authorities to have the power to refuse schools the opportunity to take part in this initiative just on a whim, but we think that they should have the power to refuse if, given their special knowledge of the schools, they consider them to be unsuitable for such a venture.
Baroness Blatch: There is no doubt in the case of a school that has serious weaknesses or is in special measures. That is a publicly known state of affairs. It could be automatic that any school in that situation need not apply. The Minister referred to an LEA believing that a school had serious weaknesses. It is possible that some LEAs with a philosophical objection to the setting up of a company could use that as a reason. Is there any right of appeal for the schools that would form the company against a malicious or vexatious withholding of consent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a useful consideration that could be taken into account when we consult in public on the regulations. Regulations could say that.
I have a specific Welsh point for the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He knows that the National Assembly for Wales has said that it supports the proposals and will make a commencement order when it wants the provisions to apply in Wales. It is for the National Assembly for Wales to consider what it will put in its regulations, just as the Secretary of State will do for England. The same arguments apply, but in the end it is for the National Assembly for Wales to make its own decision on what the regulations contain.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Although many questions could arise, the comparative lateness of the hour dictates that I should suppress them for the time being. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: The Minister will be pleased that I am not going to go back over our earlier debate on

1111
Clause 10. He rightly said that I dealt with all three clauses in some detail. However, there are one or two outstanding questions. One relates to a company that had school body members and a wholly commercial member involved. I take it that it would be either a company by guarantee or a company with shares. Although the school bodies would be interested in education, the commercial member would be a separate independent body making a profit for its own purposes, which may, incidentally, have something to do with education, but may not necessarily. Am I right in thinking the body would have to be either a share-based company or a company by guarantee and it would not be possible to have a mix? If a commercial venture was underwritten by shareholders, they would be walking off with a great deal more of the profit than the school-based members, who were limited by guarantee. I do not know the answer. I am asking as someone who is not as au fait with company law as the Minister is.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the words, "if regulations so provide". Why are those words used here, when every other reference in the Bill says that regulations "may" or regulations "shall"? What prevented parliamentary counsel from saying—there has to be a reason; there always is a reason—that "regulations may provide for the prohibition by its constitution from admitting", and so on? It would be helpful to know that. The provision says that the company must "if regulations so provide", but where does that leave the company if regulations do not so provide? The word "must" allows no flexibility.
Finally, subsection (3)(a) provides that the company,
"must, if regulations so provide … be prohibited by its constitution from admitting to its membership any person who is not of a prescribed description".
Who will prescribe?
10.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer to the first question is a basic tenet of company law: one cannot have a company in which there is a mixture of limit by guarantee and limit by shares. It has to be one or the other. If it were a company limited by shares rather than limited by guarantee—in other words, if outside people had to be shareholders rather than members in the guarantee sense—one would have to write the memorandum and articles to protect the interests of shareholders who are bodies corporate—in other words, schools. It would have to be clear that the extent to which they are responsible for the activities of the company and responsible for any risk taking is reflected in what they get out of the company, so that the schools' financial interest is protected. I do not think that it will be possible to write that in regulations, but it will certainly be possible to write it in terms of a model memorandum and articles for the companies. I am sure that we would wish to do that.
The second question was about the phrase, "if regulations so provide". The phrase puzzled me. My understanding is that paragraphs (a) and (c) of
1112
subsection (3) continue to use the word prescribe, so that there will have to be regulations in respect of them, whereas paragraph (b) does not. I think that it is simply a matter of drafting that three paragraphs with different relations to regulation have been included together. If there is any better explanation than that, I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Baroness Blatch: I think that that is a very skilful answer. If it is correct, and I suspect that it may well be, the word at the beginning of the subsection should be not "if" but "where". It should therefore read, "The Company — where regulations so provide".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall see that that view is conveyed to parliamentary counsel. I shall not go any further than that. I have also forgotten the third point.
Baroness Blatch: Who will prescribe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If it is necessary to do so, it could be prescribed in regulations. Our wish, however, would be to have as much local decision-making as possible.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [General powers of the Secretary of State in relation to companies]:
Lord Roberts of Conwymoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 8, line 34, after "State" insert "(in relation to England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in relation to Wales)"
The noble Lord said: There is some doubt as to whether Clause 12 applies to Wales, and one purpose of my amendment is to give the Government a chance to clarify the position. The Government may well say that the position is already clear. Indeed, the Wales Office brief notes Clause 12 as applying to England only, and the Assembly Minister for Education, Jane Davidson, told the Assembly as much on 10th January.
The Welsh Local Government Association, however, points out that the clause as drafted appears to give the Secretary of State power in respect of England and Wales. The association refers in particular to Clause 209(4). What it is getting at, I think, is that Clause 12 comes into force on the day on which this Bill becomes an Act and that there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State from forming or participating in companies which may operate on an England and Wales basis. I think that the association is probably right in its interpretation.
The Welsh Local Government Association is not partial to this clause and would not favour the amendment that I have tabled in order to clarify the situation. My amendment would give the Assembly the same power to set up companies as the Secretary of State has. The present Assembly Lib/Lab government do not wish to have the power either. However, a future Welsh administration might have a different view, especially if it found that the power was successfully applied in England.

1113
I am bound to say that the deliberate refusal of the power sits oddly with the power taken in Clause 10. Clause 12 is obviously complementary in many ways to the power of governing bodies to form companies. It allows the Secretary of State a similar power if he or she wishes to participate or operate on a larger, possibly national, England and Wales basis. On that basis it is a power that I should have thought should be available to the Assembly as well as to the Secretary of State if it is to be available at all. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can hear from here the rejoicing in the Valleys at the prospect of a Conservative government in Wales. I shall live long enough to see it!
The difference between England and Wales concerns a difference of the existing law. Section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 gives the Assembly the power to form a company if it should in future choose to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, rightly said, the National Assembly for Wales sees governing bodies as having a role to play in forming, joining and investing in companies which are covered in Clauses 10 and 11, but it does not see a need to be able to form companies in this area because it already has the power under the 1998 Act. If a specific power were included in the Bill, it would carry the implication of limiting the Assembly's general powers to form companies, which I think would be accepted as being unhelpful.
Baroness Blatch: If it has the power under the 1998 Act, it must be a power that has been passed by this Parliament and it must be a power that also applies to England.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, I am talking about the Government of Wales Act. The provisions of the Government of Wales Act apply to Wales and not to England.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I believe that the National Assembly for Wales is a corporate body. I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84 to 86 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 87:
Page 9, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 11 shall apply to any company referred to in subsection (1) as they apply to companies in relation to which a governing body has exercised a power conferred by subsection (1) of section 10."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 87, I wish to speak also to the Question that Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill.
Amendment No. 87 brings us back to the whole issue of a company by guarantee but it is set in a different context. Clause 12 concerns a company being established by the Secretary of State rather than by a
1114
school or group of schools. The question posed by the amendment is whether such a company should not also, as is proposed in Clause 11(3)(b), be a company limited by guarantee meeting prescribed regulations.
The advantage of the company being limited by guarantee is one to which I drew attention on previous occasions; namely, that the profits made by that company would be ploughed back into education. The issue is whether the Secretary of State should be involved in a business that is making profits out of education. The possibility of the Secretary of State being a participant in a company and making profits out of education is raised by Clause 12. The fact that profits can be made in education is illustrated by the degree to which companies such as Nord Anglia are successful these days. For example, Capital Strategies, an analyst of the education market, indicated that share prices in the top 25 education firms during the five years 1996 to 2001 rose by 293 per cent. It predicts that the value of the education market will double to more than £5 billion in the next five years. In other words, it is a good investment, if any Members of the Committee are looking for good investments at the moment.
Companies that derive large parts of their income from the education sector are already performing three times as well as the average stock market company. The growth of the UK education market could be compared with the situation in the US. Education management organisations over there have increased from one to 45 companies in five years, and every major brokerage firm in the country now has an education division.
I turn to the clause stand part debate. There was a time when there was a clear distinction between the public sector and the private sector. Many objected to the public sector entering enterprise of any sort—public or private enterprise—because the public sector could raise capital at unduly preferential rates. It was felt that a public sector company had an unfair advantage over other companies. That was one of the main arguments against nationalised industries for many a long year.
We are now seeing a merging of the public and private sectors in several spheres. That is not necessarily something from which to run away. The Government are probably anxious to promote that merger. However, it raises problems, in particular with regard to the Secretary of State as an active player. One can understand the way in which local authorities—hospital trusts—can play a part in PFI contracts.
Another problem involves the whole question of public sector workers and the concept of the ethos of the public sector. For example, in a recent submission to the Select Committee on Public Administration, the TUC said that the values that constitute the foundations of the relationship within the public sector were trust, professionalism, concern and respect, that those are essentially non- commercial and that to introduce a wholly commercial motive would lead to a worse result for both parties.

1115
In Just Capital, Adair Turner states:
"There is a danger that the introduction of overt commercial relationships cannot be achieved without eroding those intrinsic motivations [as opposed to the commercial motivations]… The market economy is a tremendously powerful tool to achieve ends, but it should not pretend to reflect the full range of human motivation and aspirations".
I therefore pose the question: what will happen to educational services if the Secretary of State does create companies? Will those companies be companies limited by guarantee? What happens if the company goes bust or into administration? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Those are important questions. I know that the Minister probably knows more than most of us about company law but it seems to me that if the Secretary of State is to set up companies himself and/or participating companies limited by guarantee is he guaranteeing himself? Is he underwriting his own activities? It is either that or Mr Gordon Brown has to bail him out; I am not sure which is the case. If there have to be calls on the guarantee or on the failure of the company, would that come from the global fund for education?
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall deal first with Amendment No. 87. The amendment seeks to provide enabling powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations which could require companies in which the Secretary of State is investing—that is, under Clause 12—to comply with the same requirements as companies formed by governing bodies under powers conferred by Clause 10. I hope that I have that right.
Under the amendment, any company in which the Secretary of State invested would have to prohibit membership for non-prescribed persons, meet restrictions as to its constitution and other matters connected with the company's affairs, and obtain permission to borrow money from a prescribed person. One of the main objects of the clause is to provide more efficient and less expensive means of procurement and management of facilities for and services to schools and LEAs. The amendment would slow down those processes and increase costs to government.
The requirement to place these companies under the same regulatory controls as those formed by governing bodies is unnecessary because all companies in question will be subject to the requirements of company law. The directors of the company will have a legal duty to ensure lawful and effective financial controls. Although the suggestion sounds superficially reasonable, it would be unnecessarily restrictive to the conduct of efficient business.
I turn now to the broader issue of Clause 12 and the Question whether the clause should stand part. I start by saying that there are those who argue that the Secretary of State already has inherent powers to do everything that is in Clause 12. Indeed, the department's lawyers believe that to be the case. However, by placing this clause in the Bill we want to
1116
clarify the position and put the matter beyond doubt, not only for the sake of government but for the sake of anyone who is likely to deal with a company of this kind.
The existence of a specific statutory provision will reassure prospective partners in any company who are more comfortable with written statutory powers than with looking up the cases and evidence, which the department's lawyers have been looking up, as to whether the Secretary of State has the powers. For example, they will be familiar with Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, or, in relation to the National Assembly for Wales, Section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, or Section 4 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. We want the power to be set out in one place; we want it to be clearly stated; and we want other people to be able to understand where it is. That will save people seeking expensive, independent advice if they want to deal with a company set up in this way.
Taking part in companies will not simply involve a handing over of cash. Each company with which the Secretary of State is involved will have to demonstrate, as do all other companies, value for money and robust business plans. They will have to seek to protect the public investment at all times. Individuals who seek to exploit this provision will find themselves subjected to close scrutiny before any decision to invest is taken and close shareholder scrutiny thereafter. In putting this clause on the face of the Bill, we believe that we are making it easier for companies to understand what is involved, but we do not believe that we are making it easier to take part in the sense of lowering any of the barriers.
Experience has shown that schools—particularly small schools and those in the voluntary-aided sector—often have difficulty in obtaining access to advice and services through conventional means, other than by incurring considerable costs. A single school might incur costs of several hundred thousand pounds for legal, financial and technical advice which may not be of the quality it would expect. Therefore, we are taking these measures to develop, in the first instance, the use of joint venture companies which will provide advice, procurement and contract management services to individual schools, local education authorities or representative bodies of voluntary-aided schools, such as faith groups.
To some extent, we have already talked about the experience of the discussions between the department and representatives of the National Society (Church of England) for Promoting Religious Education. They are working through the processes to establish the first of these companies, which will be able to take place when the Act has been passed. They will develop a partnership that will enable the national society, the Government and, more importantly, schools to minimise the time and cost involved in delivering large-scale capital projects. The first project for the new company will be to secure the necessary funding to ensure that as many of the 20 or so Church of England primary schools chosen for this project are refurbished or replaced to enable them to continue this

1117
Government's drive to raise standards and to provide an improved learning and working environment for pupils and teachers.
The Church of England project will be only the first use of the clause and we shall use the experience of this project to inform future developments in handling and financing major capital projects for local education authorities, establishing a consultative user group within the Church of England project that brings together representatives from a wide range of partners such as LEAs, the Local Government Association, local diocesan officers and other faith groups. In that way we shall seek to take the views of those most affected by these ways of working. The projects will have to demonstrate value for money and will have to be approved by the project review group, which is chaired by the Office of Government Commerce before any contracts for PFI projects can be signed. Indeed, as this will be a commercial venture we expect to see any profits ploughed back into enhanced services for those schools making use of the joint venture company.
Concern has been expressed about the liability of the Secretary of State. The answer to that is that which I have given throughout. We are talking here of a limited liability company. Those who deal with limited liability companies know what is meant by "limited liability". It is no different for companies set up under Clause 12 than for those set up under Clauses 10 and 11.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I intervene briefly to support the Government's intention in Clause 12 and to hope that, indeed, it does stand part. Much of what I intended to say the Minister has said on my behalf. We are all keen to improve educational standards. However, I have listened a lot in the last two days of debate on the Bill. Given that we are a revising and probing Chamber, it seems that we are slightly reluctant to give the powers of innovation in order that these fresh initiatives to raise standards may be achieved. This is an enabling power to ensure that the Secretary of State has the powers which many believe the Secretary of State already has. It clarifies that and clears it away.
I am tempted to say a word about Mammon. However, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, it seems to me that the motivation for commercial enterprise can be good. There are companies which are motivated to market a good product and to provide employment almost as much as to make a significant profit, or at least there should be. We are concerned that innovative projects go ahead in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, remarked earlier today, which would not go ahead without a power of this kind. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for referring to that earlier in this group of amendments.
The Minister spoke about the PFI and the national society initiative. I declare an interest as chairman of the council of the national society. No one is forcing the 20 or so small schools to go into this. They have self-selected themselves. However, there is no way that
1118
they could achieve this on their own without an umbrella organisation such as the national society engaging with the Secretary of State in the Conflation of such a company. I hope that with those few remarks I can support the inclusion of the clause and hope that it does, indeed, stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply and take on board the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate. However, I remain somewhat unconvinced. It seems to me, as I understand it better now, that the proposal is a vehicle for PFI. As always, one sometimes wonders whether PFI is necessarily the best way forward for some of these initiatives. As the Minister well knows, from these Benches we feel that on occasions the Government could raise money more cheaply outside PFI than within a PFI context. In those circumstances, it is only the somewhat arcane rules of the Treasury which prevent Government from raising capital in that sense. Nevertheless, having heard the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I shall be brief as I spoke to this matter in debate on whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill.
First, the right reverend Prelate mildly criticised those of us who have spent quite a lot of today sounding hesitant and cautious about what the Government seek to do. I have made clear, and continue to say, that I have no difficulty with the principle. However, we have given up on another place acting as a check and balance on the Government. This is the Chamber which does so. We have a duty to protect the interests of all those who will be involved. At the end of the day they could be deemed culpable if the companies fail.
My second message is serious. The Government's venture into the world of privatisation was through the individual learning account. We have just received the report. Having read it over the weekend, it makes fairly awful reading. Some innocent people have been harmed. Companies have gone bust as a result of that exercise. Many are in grave difficulty. Potential students who would have taken advantage of individual learning accounts have been left with no provision. We await with bated breath some substitute scheme. Real people have been hurt: teachers, school staff, non-teaching staff and people who we feel have a primary duty to education and children, not to private companies. Whatever happens as a result of these clauses—it may be the most exciting development we have had in a long time—it is right that we challenge the detail and ensure that if the measure goes back to another place it is with many of those questions answered because that is important.
I think that parliamentary counsel must have had an attack of the vapours. I have never known parliamentary counsel to be flexible. For

1119
parliamentary counsel to agree that an otiose provision should be in the Bill seems to be a real coup. I do not know who managed to convince them that it is worth putting a clause in the Bill that is unnecessary. Perhaps parliamentary counsel are changing the habits of a lifetime.
I am not convinced that one needs this vehicle for the PFI exercise which is being talked about. I am not sure that a company needs to be set up with regard to the collaborative effort to exploit the PFI schemes for the benefit of faith schools. However, we have another stage of the Bill to explore that issue. I withdraw my objection to the clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is incumbent on me to do two things. First, we shall pass on to those who wrote instructions to counsel the congratulations of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It is not true to say that the provision is otiose. There is a significant value in having in one place the powers of the Secretary of State so that those who are dealing with such projects know what to rely on without extensive constitutional research.
Secondly, without in any way seeking to excuse what happens with individual learning accounts, this is a very different beast. We are talking about local projects with people who know each other. It is very different from the scale and procedures of individual learning accounts.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Power of Secretary of State and National Assembly for Wales to give financial assistance for purposes related to education or childcare]:
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 88:
Page 9, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: We come again to a provision to which I have no objection in principle. Clause 13(1) says:
"The Secretary of State (in relation to England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in relation to Wales) may give, or make arrangements for the giving of, financial assistance to any person for or in connection with any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)".
Among the items mentioned in that subsection are services related to childcare. It also makes provision in relation to higher education. However, in moving this amendment I wish to speak specifically about childcare services.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, who is not now in the Chamber, has tabled a later amendment for which he will receive my wholehearted support. I am worried about the finances for education. As noble Lords will be aware, education has a global budget that starts with Mr Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then moves to education—which has beaten all records for top-slicing money held by the centre to spend on whatever the idea of the day may be. Indeed, only today I received yet another missive from the Department for Education and Skills regarding the
1120
spending of £27 million on another project. In themselves these projects are sometimes very attractive and sometimes very quirky. However, every time that £27 million, £1 million or even £1 is taken off at the national level, such money does not find its way to local government. If that is the case, it does not find its way into schools. The perennial point that I have been making is that the core funding of schools is being depleted all the time.
We are constantly adding to the burdens of local government. Every time we do so there is a cost involved which has to be met. If the cost is met, it is met from the education budget. The increasing incidence of national government and local authorities holding back money continues to deplete schools' core budget. The provision in Clause 13 to pay for childcare services represents a new burden. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will not be moving his later amendment tonight. However, it provides that any funding spent in this area "must relate" to education. If that is not the case, it is not a genuine call on education funding.
I am concerned that we are imposing functions on the education budget that properly belong under the umbrella of social security or social services; or, indeed, which should come under the Home Office. Such functions do not always belong to education. As I read the clause, childcare services relate to a child from a very early age through to the point of moving into statutory education at the age of five. As there is no reference in the financial memorandum of the cost involved, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether that cost will come from within the education budget. Alternatively, will there be a new allocation, or a transfer from another department into the education budget? Further, what kind of service is envisaged in totality that will require proper funding? We are not talking about inexpensive services; indeed, they are very expensive. This is not an argument against the principle of doing what we can to ensure that young people below the age of five are better prepared to take advantage of mainstream education when they reach the statutory age.
I do not wish in any way to deny the merits of the case that will be put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, because he will have my support. I know that the noble Lord will argue most strongly for the policy. However, I believe that there needs to be some honesty in politics at this point. If it is a new burden and it is to be properly met, local authorities should be given the wherewithal to deal with it. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 89, which is tabled in my name. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her view that proper funding for new functions imposed on the DES ought to be provided. However, the purpose of my amendment is rather different.
At the end of the 19th century, a small minority of children arrived in school disabled by rickets or tuberculosis. It was only when medical science discovered the causes of those diseases that society moved in to prevent their causes—malnutrition, poor

1121
ventilation, poor housing and so on. Today there are few, if any, children who arrive at school with rickets. There are, unfortunately, a very few who arrive with tuberculosis.
However, in the 21st century a significant minority of children arrive at school disabled mentally or emotionally by the environment in which they have lived during the first years of their lives. I argue that the foundations of education are laid in the years before the child reaches his second birthday. That is the period of his life when a major part of his brain development takes place. That development is influenced not only by heredity but also by the environment in which the child grows up.
If those foundations are laid wrong the damage may be hard to change later. I add, in parenthesis, that much of the knowledge of this subject has become available only in the last decade or two through new neurological discoveries based on more powerful brain scanners.
Rather like the situation with rickets and tuberculosis, now we have new information on which arguably we should be acting. A child who arrives in school with learning difficulties which arise from the environment in which he grew up, may not be statemented but he is a disadvantaged child and a potential problem for the school.
So, is there not a case for taking measures in the early years which would reduce the number of children who arrive in a school in that category? I predict that within five years, and perhaps within two years, the Secretary of State will come to the conclusion that that prevention is worthwhile. I think that nearly all parents of young children start off wanting to do their best for their child. I believe and am confident that many parents welcome information, support and help, provided that it can be given without being stigmatising or intrusive. From my experience of the Parenting Forum I believe that it is possible to do this. My amendment, therefore, is simply permissive. It gives the Secretary of State the power to act if and when she decides that it is right to do so.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I speak to Amendment No. 89. Although I understand the reason the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, moved Amendment No. 88, I am not really in favour of it.
I start by congratulating the Government on the clause. Frankly, I would have given my eye teeth for it at a time in the 1960s when people were scrabbling around to get funds to start pre-school playgroups, adventure playgrounds in deprived areas and to use school premises for other community purposes.
In those days, state pre-school education was minimal. Any expansion of it was prohibited until the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, managed to abolish circular 8/60. Again I congratulate the Government and their predecessors on the fact that nursery education is available for some 90 per cent of three-year olds.
1122
However, as the author in those times of a pamphlet entitled Under 5, I always felt that the nought to three year olds were a particularly vital age—particularly for supporting especially vulnerable parents and children. All of that and the reasons for it, which have now grown, have been most ably explained by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. Therefore, I shall not expand further on that matter.
I was especially pleased that Ofsted's annual report noted the nought to sixes as one of six key issues on which it hopes to focus in coming decades. So presumably it considers the nought to threes to be within its education remit. I hope that the Minister, too, considers the nought to threes—the nought to sixes, but specifically the nought to threes—to be within her education remit. I also hope that in response to the amendment, she will provide examples of how the clause could be used to help families in deprived areas where the earlier that educational support, whether childcare or whatever, can be given the greater the hope of a successful, fulfilling statutory educational period for both the child and, I would argue, the teacher.
Baroness Walmsley: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I remember clearly a remark made to me by a reception teacher whose lesson I was observing many years ago as part of my teacher training. She said, "You know, when they arrive in my class, in many cases their educational attainment is already determined. If they are lively and curious when they enter the reception class, we can develop them and they will do well. But if they arrive incurious and with a dull look in the eye, they are already lost and it is difficult for the best of schools to bring them back in again". My experience as a parent backs that up.
Best practice in early years education acknowledges that the development of children's verbal skills, physical co-ordination, emotional development and social skills in those early years, before they go to school, are most important. Of course, those things do not start at the age of three when they enter a nursery setting. They start at the age of zero. Those who are most influential in assisting a child to develop all those things, which are so important for the beginning of formal education really to take off, are parents.
I heartily endorse the amendment to give support to parents to understand how children develop and to find ways efficiently to further that development so that when they enter the nursery setting they can take advantage of what one hopes will be good quality nursery education and that when they enter formal education—perhaps not quite as early as four—they will really fly.
Lord Rix: I know that my noble friend Lord Northbourne is especially anxious to ensure adequate support for young children who may suffer mental, emotional and cognitive disabilities as a result of their early upbringing before entering school. That concern is laudable, and as such I support Amendment No. 89. However, I am sure that Mencap and the Special

1123
Education Consortium would want to add to the list of potentially deprived children those born with a learning disability. Additional financial assistance for their early education would be welcome, as would the maximum possible guidance and support for their parents. The amendment accords with my aspirations, and I should be glad to hear whether the Government's putative plans in that direction are indeed beginning to take shape.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I add my voice in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. In particular, I support what my noble friend Lord Rix said about the importance of parents being involved in,
"the task of developing the child's emotional, educational or physical potential"—
the words used in the amendment.
There is always a temptation to assume that the institutional care offered by the education system to children of any age can, in some way, compensate for the involvement of the parent in the child's upbringing. I was struck by what Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss said in an interview with The Sunday Times about three weeks ago. She said that we all needed to revisit the arguments of the 1970s and consider the importance of both parents being available during a child's upbringing. She was particularly emphatic about the emotional scarring that could happen to a child if one or other parent was not available.
We should not lose sight of that part of the amendment proposed by noble friend Lord Northbourne. According to one survey, 800,000 children no longer have contact with their father. The absence of male figures from the upbringing of children has a profoundly disturbing effect on those children and is one of the reasons why we see youngsters behaving in the dysfunctional ways about which so many people are now rightly concerned.
The amendment should cause us all to pause and think about what we want of the children coming through our schools. Where does the process start? For children at such an early age, it starts in the home and the school. However good teachers in nursery schools or early years education may be, they are not a replacement for parents who are not engaged in the process, playing their important role. We would be foolish to think that they could be a substitute.
11 p.m.
Lord Jones: Parents carry a great responsibility, and I hope that the Government will make even more effort to ensure that they do. I hope that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will get more than a sympathetic response from the Dispatch Box at this late hour. As long ago as 1976, when I was a young Minister with an education brief, I was able to make the first grant ever to the Pre-school Playgroup Association in Wales. I realise that I did that without access to the pamphleteering skills of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote.
1124
Will the Minister tell us where she believes our local education authorities are going? In the series of mini-debates that I have heard tonight, it has been clear that our schools are—necessarily—getting more and more power, more discretion and more authority. Do Ministers believe that the local education authorities will, over time, wither on the vine? Do they have confidence in the local education authorities? Do they believe that the powers now being vested in our schools are at odds with the long-term future of the local education authorities?
I end as I began: I hope that the amendment gets more than a sympathetic hearing.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It has been an interesting debate in which everyone has spoken in support of the principles behind support for childcare. I welcome that. The Government are pleased that we are well on the way to fulfilling our ambition of providing an early education place for all our 3 and 4 year-olds whose families want one. At the same time, we are expanding the number of childcare places by stimulating the growth of provision in the private sector through the introduction of subsidies aimed particularly at the disadvantaged.
We all know that there is still a significant gap between demand for affordable, accessible, good quality childcare and what is available, especially—as Members have said—in disadvantaged areas and for disadvantaged groups. One of our aims is to respond to parents' wishes for early education and childcare to be more closely integrated. Findings emerging from the effective provision of pre-school education illustrate the educational benefits of integrated services. Centres providing integrated provision are consistently associated with greater developmental progress in other centres. Individual combined centres scored highest in the assessment of quality.
That is the background against which we are debating the amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that parents play a most important role in the early development of their children. I also agree that it is important that both parents are involved—although we know that that is not always possible and occasionally not always desirable.
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, spoke of special educational needs for the early years. We are looking to develop that more, in particular for our children in early years education. With the development of special educational needs co-ordinators, we are now working closely to enable us to do what we have always wanted to do; that is, to identify special educational needs as early as possible in order to address them and equip children. I often say in the department, and I believe I have previously said it in this House, that I want all children to arrive at school with their rucksacks containing their apples and rulers and their special educational needs kits should they need them to enable them to receive the appropriate provision to develop educationally.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for our proposals. In referring to the nought to three year-olds, it is important to remember

1125
our Sure Start programme. That has been funded with £449 million in order specifically to work with parents and children, and in particular to focus on the physical, intellectual and social development of babies and young children under four. We are working closely to realise that ambition in order to ensure that in our most disadvantaged neighbourhoods we have Sure Start programmes in operation and to develop the programme so that everywhere we can support our children.
I want to deal specifically with the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and, as she rightly requested, to do so with honesty. We are concerned to ensure that we have provision for childcare, particularly in our early-years work. The providers in the voluntary and private sectors want to be able to access it more easily. It is about cutting down on regulation, bureaucracy, guidelines and so forth by encompassing those within one power.
However, it will not be drawn from the school's budget. There would not be provision within that for a school to move money within its budget. It is about a separate funding scheme coming together. It is part of the spending review currently before the Treasury and it will be part of a separate pot of money. I know that the noble Baroness feels passionately about attempts to move money out of education and I agree with her. Our scheme is about a separate budget. It lives within the Department for Education and Skills and part of it is aimed at working with our providers in the public, private and voluntary sectors who are also providing early education.
We want to provide what we describe as "wrap-around" care; to provide for some children the ability to have their early education and to be cared for beyond that in the same setting in a childcare way, not in an education way. That is the purpose behind the proposal to include childcare within the provision.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. It proposes to add support for early years education to Clause 13(2)(b). I should make it clear that the definition already in place in Clause 13(2)(a) to support education or education services will include pre-school children such as those in receipt of nursery education. In addition, the amendment includes services to support carers with the emotional, educational or physical development of children aged nought to three. We are doing that through the Sure Start programme, as I have indicated.
I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jones: Before my noble friend concludes her remarks, will she consider the question I posed about the long-term future of local education authorities?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise to my noble friend Lord Jones. I knew as I was about to sit down that I had missed something of great importance. Local education authorities have a great role to play. I do not see them in any way withering on the vine—the expression used by my noble friend.
1126
Local education authorities are developing in ways that will enable them, particularly through the Education Bill, to develop their strategic role. But we as a Government are not committed to seeing them disappear. We are interested in ensuring that schools are able to do things that schools can do best and local education authorities are able to do things which we believe they can do best
Baroness Blatch: On that point I think we should say that the jury is still out. Certain colleagues of the noble Baroness in other departments are talking about the development of regional government. As a result, the position of county government has now become rather vulnerable. The notion of regional and district government means that local education authorities could either become even more local or they could expand up to the regional level. Furthermore, we must consider devolution, which certainly reflects the ambition of some of the political advisers in No. 10 Downing Street. I do not think we have heard the last with regard to the future of local education authorities, or at least government at county level, in which most authorities reside.
I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the proposal in the amendment seeking to remove this power merely served as a mechanism to stimulate the discussion that we have now had this evening. I thought that it was important to address not only the policy aims which were enshrined in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—and which I support—but also to ensure that the poor old local education authorities, which ultimately will have to deliver the policy, are given the wherewithal to do so. If they are not, then we have a situation where LEAs have to rob Peter to pay Paul. It was important that the position was made clear.
The noble Baroness has promised totally new money. We shall be looking for that in the CSR review when it is announced. The noble Baroness is right to point out that cross-departmental arrangements are continually developing both through the previous government and with the present Government. I know that the Home Office has worked with both the education and health departments. That is good, but it has always been difficult to arrange cross-departmental funding. Persuading one department to pay for a function in another department is always difficult. If this is a pot of new money that will reside in the education budget, I hope that it will be sent down to the local education authorities, as is their due.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I should point out to the noble Baroness that we already fund childcare. Because we are already doing that the funding is already is existence. I would not want the noble Baroness to think that a new pot of money was being introduced because we were not already making headway in this area.

1127
What I sought to indicate was that the money for childcare is currently a distinct sum that we are spending. When we look to allocate moneys in the spending review, they too will be distinct.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for those comments, which lead me to the next point I wish to make: why have these provisions been included in this part of the Bill? The power to give financial assistance for childcare is already in place. Indeed, the entire list of educational provision set out in subsection (2) repeats powers that are already in existence. I do not know whether this reflects the attack of the vapours to which I referred earlier; namely, that this is a another clause which is not strictly necessary but it has been included in order to put the position beyond doubt.
It would be most helpful if the noble Baroness could say what is distinctive about subsection (2)(b),
"the provision, or proposed provision, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, of childcare or of services related to childcare",
and explain why it has been included at this point, given that the provision is already in existence elsewhere.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The point of the clause is to bring together a series of different funding streams that are currently in operation. At present they are being handled in several separate ways. Perhaps it would help if I cite one or two examples for the noble Baroness.
At the moment we have the Standards Fund, but we have to limit the use that schools can make of it because it has a separate basis on which it is organised and recognised. We cannot allow schools the freedom to use the fund in the ways they might wish to. We were unable to use educational funding powers to support the threshold pay costs for those employed by local authorities to work in care homes. That, too, is a separate funding stream. We are now bringing those funding streams together under one power, thus enabling the Secretary of State to use the money for these purposes.
Baroness Blatch: I am puzzled by the noble Baroness's words because the power here is one only to make financial provision. There are already powers to make financial provision. If the Government wish to reduce the amount of money in the Standards Fund and then use some of that money for childcare purposes, the Secretary of State does not need further legislation to allow him to do so. In fact, the Secretary of State always alters the Standards Fund on an annual basis. In one year it may cover X, but then the following year it will cover X-minus or X-plus. I cannot understand why it is included as a new power. I queried it because if it is a new power there should be new money. But the Minister said that there would be a specific additional sum of money which would not come from the existing education budget, and that is what we shall look forward to in the forthcoming review.
1128
My fundamental point in initiating the debate on the whole funding issue was that it should not be a financial burden at the expense of core funding for schools. With that, I rest my case and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Northbournehad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 89:
Page 9, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) the provision of early years education;
( ) the provision of services, support or guidance to parents or other carers to help them in the task of developing their child's emotional, educational or physical potential during the period between birth and the age of three;"
The noble Lord said: I am not sure whether or not I shall move the amendment. I intend only to respond briefly to the Minister.
The Government deserve to be congratulated on what has been achieved in childcare for three and four year-olds. However, the debate today has raised a number of interesting questions about funding. I should like to read the debate rather carefully before Report stage.
As to the question of nought to three year-olds, the noble Baroness has been able to tell me only that this issue is being dealt with by the Sure Start programme. I should like to know a great deal more about the programme—how it is going; how much has been achieved; whether it is only a talking shop, which is the impression that one gets; examples of projects that are underway; how much money has been spent so far and by which department. I believe that this should be a matter, at least in part, for the Department for Education because the education of a child essentially starts when its mind begins to develop, and that is at conception but certainly at birth.
Perhaps it will be possible for me to have a dialogue with the Minister or her officials before Report stage. On that basis I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 91:
Page 9, line 39, leave out "but does not include higher education,"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 91 relates to a rather pedantic point about accurate drafting. Clause 13(3)(b) states:
"social and physical training (including the promotion of the development of young children), but does not include higher education".
However, subsection (2)(c) states:
"enabling any person to undertake any course of education, or any course of higher education provided by an institution within the further education sector".
I know exactly what it means but it does not say what it means. It means that it is not funding higher education in higher education institutions but it will fund higher education modules which are taught in further education institutions.

1129
There needs to be some qualification of the meaning of "does not include higher education" in subsection (3)(c). I do not know how that is to be done. I have not been critical of parliamentary counsel; I have referred to its uncharacteristic behaviour. However, this issue should be attended to because otherwise it looks contradictory. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall try to explain precisely what it means and, I hope, address the problem raised by the noble Baroness.
Clauses 13 to 17 are aimed at rationalising and simplifying our currently disparate powers to support childcare, early years, school education and further education. We believe that it is important to cover all these in one consolidated power so that funding systems can deal consistently in areas of overlap. We have briefly discussed the issues between childcare and early education, and of course, in pushing forward with our ambitious agenda for 14 to 19 year-olds spanning schools and further education, the existing fragmented powers stand in our way of ensuring that financial assistance can be provided in a simple and fair manner. That is the basis for the clauses.
We have found, as the noble Baroness rightly said, our current powers for funding the Higher Education Funding Council for England—in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992—to be fully adequate, and do not see the need to make changes there. We have ensured that Clause 13 covers some very specific areas of overlap between schools or further education and higher education, in terms of teachers' professional development, support for people undertaking courses of higher education at a further education institution, and so on. Beyond that, it is our belief that there is no need to change the existing funding regime for higher education, and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I understand the explanation, but it is my belief that the drafting is wrong. That was my point. I understand perfectly—although I always thought that HEFC was the body that funded higher education modules in further education, and I did not think that there was a need for this—and I accept the Minister's explanation. Wording such as "not including higher education provided in higher education institutions" might be used. Subsection (2)(c) includes the words,
"or any course of higher education",
and subsection (3) includes the words,
"does not include higher education".
That is contradictory. There ought to be some qualification as to precisely what the Minister means and what I believe she means.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall try. In subsection (2)(c) the first occurrence of "education" does not include higher education; but subsection (2)(c) also makes explicit reference to higher education, which is therefore an omission. We hold the view that the drafting is okay. However, in the light of
1130
the very positive contribution that the noble Baroness has made to the egos of parliamentary counsel, I am more than prepared to take this matter away and check it out.
Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Terms on which assistance under section 13 is given]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 10, line 19, after "terms" insert "as prescribed by regulations"
The noble Baroness said: The reason for the amendment is to write some form of accountability into the grant-giving powers given to the Secretary of State under Clauses 13 to 17.
These provisions have received wide approval from all sides of the Committee. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out in speaking to the amendments to Clause 13, there is not a bottomless purse of money. Resources dispensed in grants by the Secretary of State mean less money being distributed to schools by LEAs.
It is for the Secretary of State to balance the pros and cons of resources being devoted to one cause or another. But at some point the Secretary of State has to be answerable to Parliament for those decisions. It may seem odd that from these Benches we should be seeking more, rather than fewer, regulations; but the mechanism of a regulation provides—especially if such regulations require an affirmative resolution—for the Secretary of State to come before Parliament and justify his or her decisions before Parliament. That is why we seek to include the amendment in this clause.
An increasing share of our resources in education are now being channelled through the Secretary of State. This set of clauses enlarge and consolidate the powers of the Secretary of State in this respect. It is important that these powers should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Since the purpose of this clause is to provide the Secretary of State with a single, simple power, it needs to cover many different payments and grants—from the substantial sums paid to local education authorities through the Standards Fund, to the grant-in-aid which supports the National College for School Leadership, to one-off individual payments; for example, to provide a particular service such as a training programme.
Were a requirement for secondary legislation to be incorporated in the power, as proposed, then the benefits of simplification and reducing bureaucracy that the power is intended to bring could hardly be realised. Different regulations would introduce

1131
different rules, accounting practices and restrictions—precisely the situation that the new power is intended to move away from.
It is worth putting on record that more than 85 per cent of the funding for education and childcare would not be provided under this power. That funding—the main support for schools and LEAs in the local government finance system—is provided with no secondary legislation governing the purposes to which it is put.
There remain many mechanisms by which Parliament would be informed of and decide upon the funding of education and childcare: through voting funds in the first instance and monitoring their use through the department's annual report, through Select Committee inquiries, through debates and through parliamentary Questions. The detailed terms and conditions under which grants and other financial support are made are fundamentally administrative considerations rather than matters for statutory instruments. Their inclusion in secondary legislation creates cumbersome and lengthy instruments that are inflexible and subject to lengthy amendment processes when required. That is why, in framing this funding power, we have followed the example of Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973, which provides similar broad powers to support training programmes. Similarly, the powers under which the higher education funding councils and the learning and skills councils are funded do not require secondary legislation. This power simply puts another major strand of support for education and training on the same footing as that already agreed by Parliament elsewhere.
Other major aspects of public expenditure are not governed by secondary legislation. For example, defence spending is made on the authority of the vote without recourse to any further primary legislation. The same is true of grants for social care services. On that basis, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I hear what the Minister says. I am not totally satisfied with her answer, but I shall ponder on it further. At this late hour, I shall not take the matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Baroness Matchmoved Amendment No. 92:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
"REDUCTION OF REGULATION
(1) In relation to the conduct of education in schools and nursery schools, the Secretary of State and local education authorities shall have an overriding duty to minimise regulation and to reduce the amount of material they send to governing bodies and head teachers.
1132
(2) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report to Parliament setting out the progress he has made in the preceding year in reducing the number and volume of regulations, circulars and codes of practice that he or his predecessors have published.
(3) Each set of regulations, circular or code of practice issued by the Secretary of State shall include a statement by him of the time he expects it will take for governing bodies or head teachers of schools or nursery schools, as appropriate, to read, consider and implement the regulations, circular or code of practice concerned.
(4) In making his estimate under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall impose no additional burden on schools or nursery schools to provide him or local authorities with information."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would require the Secretary of State and local education authorities to minimise the amount of regulation and bumf going to schools and nursery schools. Even as we speak, we are already endorsing the provision of more regulation. A great deal more guidance and bumf will end up going into schools. If the policy papers that I have received are any indication, schools will receive a large amount of paper.
Between 1997 and July 2000, schools received more than 1,000 publications and regulations from the department. In the first six months of 2000 alone, the DfES sent out 140 circulars to teachers—one directive for every working day. A recent report by the National Union of Teachers found that 57.8 per cent of teachers leaving the profession were doing so because of the workload. That is well documented and we have discussed it in other debates.
Local education authorities now have to produce 17 different plans for the department, including a plan of plans, bringing together all the other plans—in fact, the mother of all plans, the local government plan. In a very good pamphlet on the subject for the Centre for Policy Studies, Andrew Povey said that it would take more than 1,000 man hours for teachers and local authorities to consider and complete all the plans that the Government have imposed on teachers.
The crisis of teacher shortages is building nationwide. The Government's response so far has been complacent and inadequate. One action that they could take today is to stop the flow of unnecessary directives and paperwork that the department sends out, much of which merely ties teachers up in form-filling when they would prefer to be working in the classroom. That extra work is driving many teachers out of the profession and preventing them from doing the job that they know best—teaching.
No doubt the Minister will tell us that the burden has been considerably reduced. That does not show on my desk. Every day when I come in I find not just one, but often two, three or four releases from the department—and I receive only the press releases, not all the papers and reports that come out of the department. I certainly receive only a fraction of what schools receive.
I understand from an announcement in the past week that one answer proposed by the Government is to employ more people in the classroom to assist the teachers to cope with that level of bureaucracy. The fundamental question is this. Would it not be more effective to cut the level of bureaucracy in the first

1133
place? Then, we could put both teachers and teaching assistants to better use in the classroom, to teach the children. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise very briefly to support Amendment No. 92. We on these Benches have long argued for rather less regulation and rather fewer directives being issued by the Secretary of State. I entirely endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on the amount of paperwork that arrives on the desks of noble Lords, let alone on those of head teachers and teachers. If there is a way of limiting the flow of paper, it would be an excellent matter to pursue.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Clause 19 deals with the composition of governing bodies, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has just said, Amendment No. 92 touches on the very important point of the build-up of bureaucracy and the build-up of requirements on teachers and governing bodies. When I was a young teacher, one of the joys of teaching was the fact that one was not encumbered with vast amounts of bureaucracy. My friends who have remained in the profession complain bitterly about the sheer volume of paperwork that is now inflicted on them. It seems to diminish their capacity to do their job properly as teachers.
Knowing that the Government are concerned to increase the number of people serving on governing bodies—and I entirely support them in that ambition—we should look at ways of trying to reduce the burdens placed on governors. In saying that, I should declare a non-pecuniary interest as a foundation governor of the Liverpool Bluecoat School. Moreover, like the Minister, I have also served on the governing bodies of maintained sector, voluntary aided and independent schools. In performing that role, I have found, just as I did as a local councillor, that the paperwork has exceeded anything that I was warned to expect. It could be a major disincentive in encouraging people to take part in school governance. People could be put off by the sheer scale of the paperwork that can arrive on their desks. I also think that much of that paperwork is repetitive and unnecessary.
Although it may not be necessary to include in the Bill a provision along the lines of the fairly dirigiste Amendment No. 92, we should all warmly support the spirit of the amendment. If the Government can give it a fair wind and say that they will look at ways of trying to reduce bureaucracy, everyone will be much happier.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I think that we all share the objective behind Amendment No. 92, to reduce the bureaucracy, paperwork and regulatory burdens placed upon our schools. I could not agree more with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on that issue. Not today, but later we shall discuss governance issues and how to ensure we have a good system that enables us to recruit and retain our governors, who play such an important voluntary role
1134
in our schools. This objective is an important part of that, and I take nothing away from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in moving the amendment.
I understand from parliamentary counsel that the effect of the amendment would be to reduce the level of regulation to nothing. Although I know that that is not what the noble Baroness is proposing, it is worth putting that on the record. We all recognise that there needs to be some regulation and bureaucracy within the system. It is also very important to ensure that we give schools the right kind of information. As a Minister, I tackle that issue every day. We are seeking a balance in ensuring that schools receive good information. I am particularly concerned with special educational needs. We have to ensure that we give schools the right type of information about the different types of special educational needs, for example, while not overburdening them with paperwork, as noble Lords have said.
The department is guarding against requiring schools to jump through bureaucratic hoops when there is no need to do so. Last year, we said that key measures in the Bill would be implemented according to best practice, including looking at their implications for those working in schools. We are doing that with the aim of lightening the load on our schools as far as possible. We have set out in the Government's regulatory reform action plan our programme to reduce the burden of regulations on the schools sector. Moreover, as noble Lords have said, we have significantly increased the number of support staff to help tackle the type of work that teachers can genuinely hand over to other people, leaving them free to teach. I know that the Committee agrees with that. On the basis that I support the spirit of the amendment even if I cannot accept it, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that reply. Certainly, I should not want an onerous burden to be placed on the Government given that I argue that there should not be an onerous burden placed on local authorities or schools. It is important that the Government should indicate that the Secretary of State is conscious of the workload that is being imposed upon local authorities, governing bodies, head teachers and schools. I see now what the noble Baroness meant when she said that parliamentary counsel envisaged a situation where no measures of the kind we are discussing would exist. If every year one had to report a reduction on the previous year, eventually they would disappear altogether. That would be a heavenly situation for schools but I believe that even they would argue that they required some information from those on high.
However, I believe I can find a suitable form of words here. The very fact of a report being made to Parliament each year on the volume of information that had been disseminated in the school system would constitute a control on the Government's appetite for sending out circulars, regulations, codes of practice etcetera. Given that there has been some welcome of the intention behind the amendment, I shall take it

1135
away and try to find some way to beat parliamentary counsel at their own game with an acceptable form of words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
1136
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before midnight.

  Freedom of Information Act Training
  Freedom of Information Act Training
  Development Assistance
  Development Assistance
  Victor Bout
  Victor Bout
  Home Office: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Home Office: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Street Crime
  Street Crime
  Terrorist Offences
  Terrorist Offences
  Army Training Exercises
  Army Training Exercises
  Gulf War Illnesses
  Gulf War Illnesses
  Warship Support Modernisation Initiative
  Warship Support Modernisation Initiative
  Defence Equipment Exports
  Defence Equipment Exports
  Explosive Remnants of War
  Explosive Remnants of War
  Biological and Toxin Weapons
  Biological and Toxin Weapons
  Information Security Breaches
  Information Security Breaches
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Regulations
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Regulations
  Terrorist Crimes
  Terrorist Crimes
  Benefits Paid through Post Offices
  Benefits Paid through Post Offices
  Meat Imports: Presence of Spinal Cord
  Meat Imports: Presence of Spinal Cord
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Smallpox Vaccine
  National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group
  National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group
  Digital Terrestrial Signal
  Digital Terrestrial Signal
  BadTrans Virus
  BadTrans Virus
  Cabinet Meetings
  Cabinet Meetings
  Spectator Article
  Spectator Article
  Evening Standard: Purchase for House of Lords Library
  Evening Standard: Purchase for House of Lords Library
  Golden Jubilee Medal: Palace of Westminster Collection
  Golden Jubilee Medal: Palace of Westminster Collection