Sitting of 14 May 2002

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

    Drugs Trade
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What role the United Kingdom is playing in combating the international drugs trade. [54368]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): I want to convey to the House my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's apologies for the fact that he is not here today. He is attending the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Foreign Ministers meeting in Reykjavik, a long-standing commitment of which I understand he informed you, Mr. Speaker.
    On my hon. Friend's question, it is a key, if unsung, aspect of Foreign and Commonwealth Office work to cut off, disrupt and delay the flow of heroin and cocaine to the United Kingdom. She will be aware that more than 90 per cent. of the heroin reaching the UK originates from the opium poppy grown in Afghanistan. I should like to inform the House that the Interim Administration in Kabul today announced the eradication of 16,000 hectares of opium poppies, which is about half the size of the New Forest, with a street value in Britain of approximately £5 billion. The United Kingdom has taken the lead with the Interim Administration in that task, and work to eradicate opium poppies continues as I speak. I congratulate the Interim Administration on the progress that they have made so far. The details of the eradication programme, maps and a video of what has been done will be placed in the Library of the House.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, especially the excellent news from Afghanistan. Does he agree that we have a rare opportunity to address the problems that led to the drugs trade flourishing in Afghanistan in the first place? Does he also agree that poverty, law enforcement and education are crucial considerations in achieving that? What will our Government do to address them?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend knows about the investment made in Afghanistan by the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and the
    626
    Ministry of Defence. The very good news about the opium poppy eradication programme shows that farmers are ready to turn away from opium poppy production and from drug barons and drug traffickers, to build new lives for themselves and their families, with the help of further investment. That is the next stage of the vital campaign to turn Afghanistan into a normally functioning, albeit poor, state.
    Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister spoke about the welcome reduction in poppy production in Afghanistan. What has been the effect of that on the streets in the United Kingdom? Has there been a reduction in the supply of heroin? Has it had an effect on the origin of heroin coming to the UK? What has happened to the price of heroin on the streets?
    Mr. MacShane: I think that those are matters for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office. The Foreign Office is responsible for what happens outside these shores; we are not yet responsible for what happens within the UK.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: In respect of that answer, surely the point of having a policy is to have an effect, which in this case is to reduce the amount of drugs taken in this country. Will the Government and the Minister consider the fact that attempts to affect the supply of drugs have proven singularly ineffective with regard to the amount of drugs being taken? Indeed, this country has the worst heroin record in western Europe. On the other hand, if we affect the demand side by prescribing heroin, we will destroy the market and make many people much happier and much safer. It may not be in the Minister's remit to do that, but it is extremely important that he considers it.
    Mr. MacShane: As the father of four school—age children, I worry about those problems. I listened to the debate on the "Today" programme this morning with interest and welcome the initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and, indeed, my hon. Friend to raise many of the issues. My hon. Friend is right that demand has to be tackled, but at the same time let us disrupt, delay and cut off supply where we can. We are dealing with organised networks of crime, and it is not just drugs that are involved. It is right that the Foreign Office works hard overseas to interdict those criminal networks.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome any step that is taken to bring about crop substitution in Afghanistan. However, looking elsewhere on the globe, will the Minister comment on the policing of ships and planes departing the Caribbean that might be involved in the transport of drugs? Newspapers have reported a significant increase in drugs trafficking by air, and we are also informed that the Atlantic patrol task ship, usually positioned in the Caribbean sea, will concentrate far more on hurricane relief than on working with the United States, French and Dutch navies to counter drug movements. What are the facts behind the deployment of that ship?
    Mr. MacShane: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is concern, which is being taken very seriously by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, about the air transport of so-called drugs mules into this country. I have not been out to sea on my visits to Latin America, but I have talked to our people there about the high level of co—operation between the naval and other elements of Her Majesty's forces and their partners in Latin America. Given the tremendous damage that hurricanes cause in central America and the Caribbean, if one of our ships is on hurricane relief duty, I welcome that. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, if he so desires, with a detailed answer to his question.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: No one here would want to undermine the heroic work being done by the Interim Administration in Afghanistan in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, but my hon. Friend will recognise that the amount of the poppy harvest that has been grubbed out under the eradication programme is only a small proportion of the total. What additional efforts are being made to assist the countries that border Afghanistan, such as Iran, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, through which trafficking routes pass, to break the links in the international drugs trade?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend draws attention to important points. The amount that has been eradicated is a substantial part of this year's crop, and the programme is not yet over, so that good work will continue. We have intense discussions with the neighbouring countries. Certainly, I know of work in the Balkans, one of the trafficking routes, where officials from the Foreign Office and other Departments are in place seeking to disrupt, delay or cut off that route and reduce the growth of the criminal networks that cause so much damage through drugs and other activities.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Speaking of the criminal networks, the Minister will be all too well aware that FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and the ELN, the National Liberation Army, both systematically exploit the drugs trade to gain weapons and resources to prosecute their murderous war against their own people. Can the Government, with their European Union partners, proscribe those organisations in the United Kingdom, so that at the very least they do not have the incentive to continue their activities in this country?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of south America is appreciated in the House, and I associate myself with his definition and description of the two organisations that he mentioned. I would add to those the paramilitary AUC, a third group that causes great harm in Colombia and is linked to the drugs business. It is of course for the Home Office to decide which organisations are proscribed, but I believe that FARC is not an organisation that we can treat other than in terms of its links to drugs criminality and its use of terrorist tactics in Colombia.

    Extremism (Europe)
    Mr. Michael Weir: What recent discussions have taken place between his Department and EU partners regarding right-wing extremist political parties in Europe. [54369]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): The European Union rose out of the ashes of a war fought against racism and extreme nationalism, and today Europe must fight extremism and racism with a five-point plan. First, the EU must be the world's biggest job creation factory, with economic reform to create full employment by the end of the decade. Secondly, the mission of the convention on the future of Europe must be to kill off the far right by bridging the gap between Europe's leaders and its citizens. Thirdly, by expanding the membership of the EU eastward we can reunite Europe's citizens and fight the forces seeking to divide us. Fourthly, Europe must be the toughest crime-fighting body in the world. Fifthly, we need a European asylum policy to stop human trafficking by criminal gangs.
    Mr. Weir: I thank the Minister for that full answer. I accept the need for relations with other EU Governments, but does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is appropriate for the UK Government to pursue their much-vaunted special relationship with Mr. Berlusconi, whose neo-fascist party is in a governing coalition, especially given the united but short-lived EU action against Austria? Does not that inconsistency in the EU send out the wrong signals about the need for all parties to unite against racism and xenophobia throughout Europe?
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman knows all about nationalism. The Prime Minister of Italy is an elected Prime Minister and Italy is an important member of the European Union. Our Prime Minister and Government would be failing in their responsibility if they did not establish a good relationship with that Government and that Prime Minister.
    Mr. Peter Pike: While I accept the five points to which my right hon. Friend referred—we certainly do not want right-wing and racist extremists elected anywhere in Europe, including this country—does he agree that we need to look not only at why people on the right vote for those parties but why people on the disenchanted left are sometimes attracted to do so? We should look at the reasons for that and tackle the core problems that sometimes cause people to vote in that extreme and unacceptable way.
    Peter Hain: If my hon. Friend is saying that there is wider disenchantment with conventional politics across Europe, I agree; the five-point plan is designed to address that. We need to tackle people's sense of insecurity. It is disturbing that Le Pen, who is a racist and an anti-Semite, has strong support around the borders of France. There is paranoia that he fed on a fear of outsiders. We need to take account of that, and the five—point plan is designed to do so.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister agree that as deplorable as the result as in which the British National party won three council seats

    629
    in this country, there is no comparison between the minuscule support for fascists here and the significant and growing support for fascists and neo-fascist parties on the continent?
    While not in any way wishing to write off the prospect of democracy proving triumphant on the continent in the long run, will the Minister at least acknowledge that that is one reason why some of us, at least in the Opposition, have grave doubts about moves towards political unification with the continent when its political system is much more likely to elect extremists than ours?
    Peter Hain: I really think that that shows appalling complacency. We have a serious problem with racism in Britain, particularly in certain parts of the country, and with the far right, including the neo-Nazis and the BNP. We must work with our European colleagues across Europe; I think that the hon. Gentleman should be a little more charitable about many of our European partners who have few or no race problems in their communities. We need to learn from each other and tackle the problem together, rather than allow the hon. Gentleman to indulge in his usual point scoring against the European Union.
    Ms Meg Munn: I, too, welcome the plan set out by the Minister. However, does he believe that it is important to have a stronger connection between the people of Europe and the EU institutions to dispel the scaremongering of right-wing parties?
    Peter Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, which is precisely why the Government and I, as the Government's representative on the convention on the future of Europe, are seeking a set of reforms in Europe to ensure that European leaders are much more accountable to European citizens and that the Council of Ministers provides a strategic political direction on tackling things such as rising crime, threats to security and unemployment. A body composed of Ministers from elected Governments who are accountable to their citizens should drive Europe's strategic direction; the convention's reform objectives have that aim as their priority.
    Mr. David Chidgey: The Minister has a deserved reputation as an active campaigner in the past against discrimination, which we all applaud, but how does he square that with reaction to his recent remarks on isolationism in certain Muslim communities? Does he not agree that the real challenge for him and his colleagues is confronting illiberalism, bigotry and ignorance wherever they occur, in whatever community of whatever faith?
    Peter Hain: Of course I agree, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to give me any lessons in fighting racism. The Government and the Labour party have encouraged the appointment of Muslims in all walks of life—we have more councillors in the Labour party from the Muslim faith than ever before and more than any other party; we are proud to have Muslim Members of Parliament and to have helped to appoint Muslims to the House of Lords. However, there is a tiny minority of isolationists in the Muslim community, just as there are tiny minorities of fundamentalists and fanatics in all religions, including, for example, in Northern Ireland. We stand four square against that to build a tolerant anti-racist society.

    Afghanistan (World Service)
    Ross Cranston: What assessment he has made of the recent impact of the work of the BBC World Service in Afghanistan. [54370]
    Mr. Michael Moore: What assessment he has made of the value of the BBC World Service's Arabic radio and online services. [54374]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): First, I pay tribute to the former managing director of the World Service of the BBC, Mr. Austen Kark, who died in the Potters Bar tragedy. He was an outstanding servant of that outstanding and uniquely British institution.
    The BBC World Service has played a key role in the middle east and Afghanistan since 11 September, especially through its radio and online services in local languages. The new relay station in Oman, which will come into operation later this year, will improve reception for some 50 million people in the region.
    Ross Cranston: I congratulate those on the Front Bench on the additional funding that they have made available for the World Service since the events of 11 September. However, the online service that my hon. Friend mentioned and others towards which the World Service is moving—FM, for example—are costly. Will my hon. Friend add my name, as an unreserved supporter of that great public institution, to the list that he can exhibit to the Chancellor in the current discussions on the next spending round?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend's name will follow mine, together with the names of all 659 Members of the House, I expect.
    Mr. Moore: The Minister is right to praise the World Service. Since 11 September, its Arabic service has moved to 24-hours-a-day operation and the number of online users of its Arabic service has increased by a million. The American Government have recognised the importance of broadcasting in the region, with the announcement of an extra $30 million for the Voice of America service. Given the fraught situation in the middle east and the need for a fair and impartial broadcaster for the region, will the Minister add my name to the list and make sure that the Foreign Secretary and the entire Foreign and Commonwealth Office support the bid for the modest increase that the BBC World Service needs in the next comprehensive spending review?
    Mr. MacShane: I am glad to say that this Government have provided an immodest increase for the World Service—an extra £100 million between 1999 and 2004, and an extra £64 million in the present spending period. It is not just in the Arab regions that the World Service counts; listenership has doubled in the United States. On visits to Washington, I am always surprised at the fact that leaders of the State Department and other US Government Departments turn to the BBC World Service, the

    631
    Financial Times and The Economist to get their news and views. The special relationship exists through the media, at least.
    Donald Anderson: It is right to pay a well-deserved tribute to the World Service in general, and to point out, for example, that it won the top honours at the recent Sony radio awards, and that Mr. Baqer Moin, the head of the Persian and Pashto service, won the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association award. I hope that my hon. Friend will not only add his name to the list, but ensure that the Chancellor's signature is added.
    Mr. MacShane: My right hon. Friend has, I suspect, far more influence with our Chancellor of the Exchequer than I am likely to have.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Let the record speak for itself.
    Does the Minister agree that it is essential in present circumstances to recognise the value of the World Service, and in particular its broadcasts in Arabic and other languages throughout the whole of the middle east? Is not the World Service uniquely able to give an objective and impartial analysis of current events in the middle east—for example, the decision at the weekend of the Likud party to reject the idea of a Palestinian state, which many feel would unduly complicate the prospects of achieving a peaceful settlement in the middle east?
    Mr. MacShane: The Arabic radio service of the BBC has about 10 million listeners and BBC Arabic Online receives almost 9 million page impressions a month. There is FM rebroadcasting in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Sudan. I am sure that most key leaders in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem also either listen to or log on to the BBC World Service, which gives a view of what is happening around the world that is not only unique, but above all impartial and not propagandistic in any way.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I add my congratulations to Bager Moin, head of the Persian and Pashto services? If money is available for the proposed bombing of Iraq, could one tenth of 1 per cent. of that amount be found for the World Service?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend knows more than I do, but to my knowledge there is no plan to bomb Baghdad or Iraq. As I said, the Government have put more money into the World Service than it has ever received from any Government in the 60-odd years of its wonderful existence.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: May I associate myself with the tribute paid by the Minister to Mr. Austen Kark, who lost his life last Friday at Potters Bar?
    Given the vital role of the World Service's Arabic radio service in promoting wider understanding of our international objectives—as we have just heard, that is especially important in the context of the coalition against terrorism and the regional threat posed by the development of weapons of mass destruction—does not the Minister agree that the message conveyed by the World Service should be consistent? In relation to potential future action against Iraq, which he just
    632
    mentioned, will he tell us what the message is? Is it the Prime Minister's reported assertion last week that Britain will not back United States military action against Iraq unless such action is also backed by the Security Council of the United Nations, or the earlier assertion by the Secretary of State for Defence that
    "we would be perfectly entitled to use force without the support of a UN Security Council resolution"?
    Which is the true position of the Government and the one that they would like the World Service to convey?
    Mr. MacShane: I worked briefly at the World Service in a previous incarnation, and I must say that the Government never told it what to report. When the Government's position is clear, no doubt the World Service will report it accurately. As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have made it clear that actions with regard to Iraq or anywhere else will take place within the context of international law. That is well known and understood, and it will be reported by the World Service.

    Venezuela
    Mr. David Borrow: If he will make a statement on the situation in Venezuela.[54371]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): The Government deplored the removal of President Chavez from office following the strike organised by the CTV trade union confederation and the employers federation against him and we welcome the return of constitutional democracy in Venezuela.
    Mr. Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that, under President Chavez, Venezuela has played a much more active role in OPEC. Will he explain what discussions have taken place between the British and Venezuelan Governments about the importance of oil price stability and tell us whether those discussions have been successful?
    Mr. MacShane: When I was in Venezuela, I had a long conversation with President Chavez on that very subject. The assurance that he gave me is important and is worth putting on the record not only in this country, but internationally. He assured me that he would play a full part in guaranteeing that OPEC price stability would be maintained—when I spoke to him, there was a threat that Saddam Hussein would cut off oil production—and that there would be no threat to oil supplies and no threat of a sudden rise in the price of oil. He said that he would telephone Mr. Ali Rodriguez of OPEC to convey that message immediately. I was very grateful for that assurance.
    Derek Conway: Does the Minister accept that the all-party group on Venezuela, which I happen to chair, will be very grateful for and pleased with his comments? Will he tell the House whether President Chavez offered the British Government

    633
    any of the proof that he claims to have showing that two United States military agents were involved in plotting the coup, recorded on video and in photographic evidence?
    Mr. MacShane: The answer is no. I am pleased that an all-party group of MPs will shortly visit Venezuela.
    I have seen no evidence at all to back up any of those allegations, which were not, to my knowledge, made directly by the President himself, but by a number of newspaper reporters. What is important is that as soon as his removal from office became public news, every Government in Latin America, many of whom are quite critical of him, said, as did the British Government, that only a return to democratic and constitutional law and politics would be accepted in Venezuela. That was the right approach by the Government, and we should sustain that position.
    John Cryer: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the failure of the coup, although I do not remember his saying that at the time when the coup was happening. Will he take this opportunity not only to condemn the plotters and coup masters, but the United States Government for their failure both to condemn the coup when it was going on and to welcome the return of President Chavez?
    Mr. MacShane: I am responsible, in this area, for what this Government do. If my hon. Friend would care to turn to www.fco.gov.uk and look for my statement of Friday 12 April, he will see a condemnation of the coup and a demand that constitutional democracy be restored. As far as I know, other than Latin American Governments we were one of the only leading Governments to make such a statement at the time. That is the message for Latin America—democracy rules. Perhaps my hon. Friend could have a friendly talk with some of his trade union friends in Venezuela, who organised the strike that led to President Chavez's disappearance.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Minister think that it serves democracy when on the day after an elected President is removed from office he is described by a Foreign Office Minister as a ranting populist demagogue?
    Mr. MacShane: I am happy again to place on the record the fact that the Government condemned the coup and called for the return of constitutional democracy. Having been a Member of this House for eight years, I have had continually to listen to ranting populist demagogues on the Benches opposite, and I need no lessons from that quarter in how I describe people around the world.

    NATO Enlargement (Baltic States)
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What recent discussions his Department has had with (a) Estonia, (b) Latvia and (c) Lithuania about the political aspects of proposed NATO enlargement. [54372]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We have had frequent discussions with all three Baltic states. We have made clear the importance that we attach to the political, as well as the military, responsibilities of NATO membership.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I recently visited Estonia and Latvia with the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as I had the chance to see for myself, those countries have made great strides in reintegrating themselves into the new Europe?
    Given that the NATO meeting in Reykjavik today is considering the whole issue of enlargement and applications for enlargement, will the Department continue to stress to those Governments the importance of the political dimension in the responsibility of NATO membership? In particular, will it emphasise the need to reassure and to give equal access to citizenship for Russian minorities in the countries concerned, so that we are able to reassure those minorities that membership of NATO will be a force for stability and integration in their countries?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Of course. We are very pleased with the progress that the Baltic states have made in integrating and improving the human rights of their minorities, especially the Russian minority. It is particularly pleasing that Latvia is in the process of changing its electoral law to remove the language barrier that might have discriminated against its Russian minority. That shows one of the political benefits—not only for NATO, but for the countries concerned—in countries aspiring to and, eventually we hope, joining NATO.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: If the three Baltic nations specified in the question are admitted to NATO—we would welcome that—will they join the genuinely transatlantic alliance that constitutes NATO now, or the European pillar of a defence community that was proposed two weeks ago by the chairman of the EU Military Committee, General Hägglund? Does the Minister agree with the general that
    "the new EU-NATO would also take part in long-term peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions",
    while the US-NATO
    "would be responsible for … worldwide crisis management missions as well as rooting out terrorism at the source"?
    How can that divisive proposal be reconciled with the Foreign Secretary's words in Washington last week? He said:
    "NATO is the principal instrument for sustaining the means for European military collaboration with the US".
    Mr. Bradshaw: Those nations will join NATO, which is and will remain the cornerstone of our strategic defence. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Hägglund out of context. He was making the point, with which we agree, that the European Union is developing the capability to manage crises in its backyard, as the United States has pressed us to do for a long time.
    Jane Griffiths: My hon. Friend knows that the Foreign Minister of Estonia will visit the United

    635
    Kingdom next month. Will he discuss the matters that we are considering with that Minister? Will he join me in congratulating Estonia on its victory last year in the Eurovision song contest and its forthcoming hosting of the event?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am happy to congratulate any country that enjoys a victory in that contest. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether it is a blessing.
    Of course the Foreign Minister of Estonia will be warmly welcomed. Estonia has made great strides towards democracy and probably leads all the Baltic countries in its preparedness for NATO accession.
    Mr. Ancram: The Minister cannot brush aside General Hägglund's remarks so easily. The general said:
    "It would be appropriate to build this community"—
    he meant a defence community—
    " … on two mutually supporting pillars: a European and a North American pillar."
    I understand that Javier Solana, the EU foreign affairs envoy, saw his speech in advance. Is not that yet another element in a creeping agenda to undermine NATO and create a separate European defence policy, decoupled from that of the United States? How can the remarks be reconciled with the Prime Minister's insistence in 1999 that the European defence project would reinforce, not oppose NATO? It is time that the Government came clean. Do they agree with the European view on defence or not?
    Mr. Bradshaw: It is time that the Opposition ended the infantile anti-Europeanism that drives their agenda. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is no conflict or contradiction between the role of NATO, the cornerstone of our strategic defence, and the European security and defence policy, which will be responsible for Petersberg tasks.

    EU Enlargement
    Rosemary McKenna: What measures his Department is taking to help United Kingdom businesses prepare for EU enlargement. [54373]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): We are working hard with Trade Partners UK to help more than 15,000 British companies take advantage of the enormous opportunities in what will be the largest single market in the industrialised world. On 12 June we will brief British business journalists about them.
    Rosemary McKenna: My right hon. Friend knows the importance of commercial assistance to UK companies that are trying to set up in the pre—accession countries if we are to be truly competitive and increase employment in the UK. He will know of the serious anxieties that have been expressed through our embassies and consuls about the available resources. What steps has he taken or can he take to improve matters?
    Peter Hain: A third of our diplomats abroad are commercial officials, responsible for driving Britain's trade strategy and helping businesses. There are enormous opportunities in the countries that want to join the
    636
    European Union. Ten are on target to do that and to complete their negotiations by the end of the year. That should be a wake-up call to all British business to go out and take advantage of those opportunities. Britain is perceived as a champion of European enlargement, the best friend of candidate countries. Our businesses would find an open door. They would be welcomed through it to great opportunities of which they could take advantage.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Before EU enlargement proceeds, some unfinished business needs to be tackled about people in the EU who are currently disfranchised. The Minister realises that I am referring to people in Gibraltar who have repeatedly been promised the opportunity to vote in European elections. Despite the Government's—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is not about Gibraltar.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Does the Minister recall that the last time I aggravated Ministers on the question of European Union enlargement. it was to ask why no Labour Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had visited the principal accession countries? Has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—as distinct from a junior Minister—visited Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic or any of the other accession countries? If not, why not, and when is she going? What is more, will he kick the backside of Britain's commerce and industry, particularly the financial sector, which have been unbelievably tardy in their approach to central Europe, and still believe that it consists of far away countries of which we know little? The Germans, French, Swedes and others are engaged in this process but we are not. The British Government have been tardy on this, and so have commerce and industry.
    Peter Hain: I know that my hon. Friend is really on my side on this matter, and on other matters of Government policy. I acknowledge his interest in central Europe, and his long association with it. I have been to Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia and Cyprus—half the candidate countries—and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is due to visit many of them in the next few weeks. Every time we go, we assist British business, as do our officials who are in post in those countries all year round. Moreover, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will listen carefully to my hon. Friend's strictures.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: In preparing UK businesses for enlargement—which the Minister knows is an objective that the Conservatives prize—will he ensure that British businesses are not discriminated against? That applies particularly to British farmers, as our large farmers might be discriminated against in favour of smaller European farmers.
    Peter Hain: One of our driving objectives in reforming Europe is to get a sensible agricultural policy, which we certainly do not have at present. The common agricultural policy needs radical reform, and enlargement will increase

    637
    the pressure for that to happen. Indeed, I do not think that the CAP as it is structured will bear the weight of enlargement.

    Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Mr. Eric Joyce: What recent discussions he has had on the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [54375]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to his French and Belgian counterparts about the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 23 April and visited the region earlier this year.
    Mr. Joyce: Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the work of the Association of Western European Parliamentarians for Africa, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) was a founder member? The AWEPA works towards the development of parliamentary democracies in parts of Africa that do not have them—notably, at the moment, the DRC and the surrounding countries. The association receives limited funding from some European countries, but none from the United Kingdom. Would the Government consider extending modest financial support to its efforts?
    Mr. MacShane: I shall pass on that request to my noble Friend Baroness Amos, the Minister with responsibility for Africa. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to build democratic and parliamentary links, but we should also note that sub-Saharan Africa now has largely democratic Governments—with the notable exception of Zimbabwe—and that is a step in the right direction.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Does the Minister agree that the role of Zimbabwe in the DRC is simply helping to extend the conflict? Does he also agree that, unless President Mugabe withdraws his logistical and military influence, there is little chance of peace? What work are the British Government doing with the UN special representative to the DRC and with our friends in southern Africa to bring pressure to bear to stop this damaging involvement?
    Mr. MacShane: The simple answers to those questions are yes, yes and a lot. The work is exemplified by the visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the region, and his constant contact with our European and other partners. Our commitment to NEPAD—the New Partnership for Africa's Development—means that, possibly for the first time in a generation, this Government are focusing on Africa in its totality. Restoring democracy to Zimbabwe is undoubtedly one of the big challenges that we all face.
    Ms Oona King: What is my hon. Friend's assessment of the UN Security Council's recent decision to deploy troops from Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda along the eastern border of the Congo? May I draw to his attention the fact that, if we had that same troops—to—land ratio in the Congo—where 2.5 million people have died in the last three years alone—we would
    638
    be looking at 10 million UN peacekeepers? Although that is totally out of the question, will the British Government none the less ensure that there will be a viable force to end the bloodshed in that region?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend's personal commitment to and knowledge of the region are second to none in the House—and, I suspect, in the rest of SW1. She will know that the Congo is gripped by three major conflicting parties, all willing to commit themselves to using arms. What we are working for is a peace agreement. President Mbeki is in London today; he is one of those acting as facilitators in an attempt to bring the parties together.
    The peace agreement must be followed by effective deployment of troops, and, much more important, by economic investment enabling this tragic region to devote its heart and energies to a better material future for its people.

    Indonesia
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What recent steps have been taken to assist the Indonesian Government to protect their citizens against terrorism. [54376]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The British Government have taken a number of measures to help Indonesia address the threat of terrorism and intercommunal violence. They include high—level information—sharing and visits to Jakarta by a counter—terrorism expert, representatives of the Ministry of Defence and representatives of the police. We continue to urge the Indonesian Government to take firm action to limit the activities of extremists.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will know of the latest upsurge, which happened at the end of last month. Is it possible that the Indonesian Government will need further help from other countries dealing with international terrorism? Can he say whether Laskar Jihad has any links with al-Qaeda, and can he say what steps are being taken to help a Government in charge of a tremendous expanse of land but with few resources to deal with a problem that affects both Christians and moderate Muslims?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We have no evidence of links between Laskar Jihad and al-Qaeda. It is difficult to see some of the intercommunal problems in Indonesia in the context of the campaign against terrorism. I know that many hon. Members are very interested in this subject, as I receive many letters from them. I must tell them that there is not a monopoly of virtue on either side in places such as Sulawesi.
    There have been improvements recently: the signing of the Molino agreement has been helpful, and we believe that the Indonesian Government are serious about clamping down on intercommunal violence. There are signs that refugees are returning home. Nevertheless, we will of course consider what more the British Government can do to help reconciliation.
    Mike Gapes: Will the Minister pay tribute to all who kept the flag flying for the liberation of

    639
    part of Indonesia—the independent state of East Timor—and congratulate Xanana Gusmao on his election as President of that United Nations member state?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Indeed, and the British Government's role in securing Gusmao's safety when he was in exile in Jakarta should never be underestimated. This Sunday, God willing, I shall have the privilege of passing on my hon. Friend's congratulations to Gusmao in person when representing the British Government at the celebration of East Timorese independence.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: As the Minister knows, Indonesia is not the only country facing terrorist threats. Has he discovered any alliances, or any connection, between the terrorists in Indonesia and the Maoist guerrillas in Nepal, who now control 45 per cent. of that country? Representatives of the Nepalese Government were here recently, asking Her Majesty's Government for assistance. What assistance will the Government give?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We are already giving Nepal a great deal of assistance. The hon. Gentleman is right: the situation in Nepal is extremely grave. The Maoist terrorists, as I prefer to call them, have been exhibiting a savagery that is almost unprecedented.
    We will certainly consider extra ways of helping the fledgling democracy in Nepal to resist the insurgents. Immediately after Question Time I shall have a meeting with Nepal's Prime Minister, who has already met other leading figures in this country. As far as we are aware, there is no contact between any organisations in Indonesia and the Maoist insurgents in Nepal.

    China
    Ian Lucas: What indications he has received that China is prepared to engage with United Nations human rights mechanisms. [54377]
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: What representations he will make to the Government of China on their human rights record before the Olympic games. [54378]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): At every meeting with Chinese Ministers and officials, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or I raise human rights issues, in which China's record leaves much—very much—to be desired.
    Ian Lucas: Although trade with China is an important issue, will the Minister continue to impress on the Chinese authorities that China will never be fully accepted into the international community until it fully respects human rights and the UN's role in enforcing them? In particular, will he point out that the Chinese people will not be accepted as people with whom we wish to do business until they respect the rights of the people of Tibet?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right, but what we ask of the Chinese Government is no different from what we ask of every other Government: simply to respect
    640
    international laws and the conventions that the Chinese Government themselves signed up to. That demand remains on the table, and it will be pressed by Ministers of this Government.
    Mr. Carmichael: Is the Minister aware that Amnesty International estimates that some 240 Falun Gong practitioners have died in custody in China since January last year? Is he also aware that, according to a recent report, the Chinese Government have set up a special taskforce, known as the "610 Office", which is tasked with running a systematic and apparently officially sanctioned campaign against Falun Gong practitioners? Will the Government take advantage of increased world attention on China in the run—up to the 2008 Olympic games, in Beijing, to bring increased pressure to bear? Will they also make it clear that they will take a lead by encouraging athletes and sportsmen and women not to attend those games unless the situation improves markedly?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the brutal treatment inflicted on Falun Gong practitioners, and such issues are raised regularly with Chinese officials. He is wrong, however, to start demanding now a boycott of the Beijing Olympic games. Other Olympic games and World cups that have taken place in Asia in the past 40 years have without exception contributed to an opening up of, and a relaxation of, previously authoritarian or closed regimes. I am confident—although it is a hope rather than a guarantee—that the same movement will take place in China in the next few years.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: When the Minister is next able to raise the question of Falun Gong with the Chinese authorities, will he make particular mention of their refusal to renew the passports of Chinese citizens temporarily resident in this country? That is not only a denial of human rights but restricts the ability to travel of, for example, scientists on temporary assignments in such countries.
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Like the right to speak and to organise, the right to travel is a fundamental human freedom that should be available to every Chinese citizen, just as we insist that such freedoms be available to every citizen throughout the world.
    Mr. James Gray: One important issue discussed during yesterday's No. 10 summit with the Nepalese Prime Minister will have been the threat to human rights in Nepal, particularly from the Maoist guerrillas to whom reference was made a moment ago. Cherie Booth, QC, was recently appointed by the Nepalese to fight a human rights action against the British Government. Will the Minister undertake that she did not meet—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the question concerns China, not Nepal.
    Michael Fabricant: I have got a Chinese one.
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I shall call Michael Fabricant, then.
    Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr.Carmichael) is right to raise the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, but as the Minister will know, the small Christian community, the even smaller Jewish community and the gay community in China are also persecuted.
    As China has now become a part of the World Trade Organisation, can we bring any pressure to bear through the WTO to ensure that human rights are maintained in China?
    Mr. MacShane: Again, Chinese treatment of minorities and gay Chinese is to be deplored, but I am not sure that the World Trade Organisation is the right place to bring those issues to the world's attention. The hon. Gentleman said that he has a Chinese one. I am not sure what the one is, but perhaps one day he will wear pigtails in the Chamber. I am sure that he himself can raise those matters as he wishes to.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Does my hon. Friend accept that we all want to see China integrated into the practices of the western and civilised world in its trade and its behaviour towards its citizens? As a member of the all-party China group, I want to see China take on board more strongly the admonitions of my hon. Friend and his colleagues. Has he attempted to raise with the Chinese the fear that they are going backwards and that some of the behaviour of which they have been accused on mainland China has now spread to Hong Kong, which was a British protectorate for 100 years? It is not acceptable to this Government or to the rest of the world that the Chinese should deny people in Hong Kong the right to peaceful demonstration as they have previously denied it to their citizens on the mainland. Will my hon. Friend raise that point with the Chinese Government in the near future?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members contribute to the understanding between Britain and China through the all-party China group, which does excellent work. I recently met Miss Emily Lau, the Hong Kong legislative council member, to discuss those issues and the British position is clear. The basic law—the joint declaration that protects human and civic rights in Hong Kong—must be respected. I have also appreciated the talks that I have had with human rights non-governmental organisations, activists and campaigners, and journalists, who are able to maintain a
    642
    level of freedom in Hong Kong as part of China that sends some good signals for the future. Things should be better and we shall keep pressing for them to improve.

    Nicaragua
    Julie Morgan: If he will make a statement on relations with Nicaragua.[54379]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): The United Kingdom enjoys good relations with Nicaragua. I briefly met President Bolanos at the inauguration of Costa Rica's new President last week and I look forward to meeting him at the summit of EU, Latin American and Caribbean states in Madrid this Thursday and Friday. We particularly welcome the headway he is making on tackling corruption.
    Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What advice is given to British citizens who plan to buy islands off the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua? Is he aware of the Channel 4 documentary, "No Going Back", which featured a family in that position? Is he also aware of the 1987 constitution and its provision for the autonomous coast of Nicaragua that gives the rights to those islands and that land to the indigenous people of Nicaragua?
    Mr. MacShane: I have never fully understood the attraction of buying one's own island, but undoubtedly some people have that ambition. I have been informed about the Channel 4 documentary and the tragic circumstances of the family in question, and the great help that our ambassador and staff there provided to them. I would advise anybody anywhere in the world to have the closest regard to local property laws and, especially in central and Latin America, the rights of indigenous people, whose needs and priorities are being raised and discussed throughout the region. I would have thought that we have plenty of pretty coastline and even the odd island off the British Isles that might be bought first.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: While the whole House will be much gratified to learn of the excellent relations between the Government and Nicaragua, will the Minister tell the House the aims and objectives of the Government's policy towards Nicaragua?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is an island unto himself. His new—found interest in Nicaragua is much appreciated. The key—which I discussed last week with our ambassador to Nicaragua—is to root out corruption inherited from the Sandinista Administration and their successor. I congratulate the Bolanos Government on the headway that they are making in combating corruption, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is as keen on rooting out corruption as I am.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In making this point of order, I wish to make it clear that no blame or discredit should attach to Lord Rooker, who has made strenuous and characteristically courteous efforts to ensure that the House is properly informed on this matter. However, a written question due for answer today asks the Home Secretary when he will announce the sites about which he will seek planning permission for accommodation centres. It transpires that the answer to that question appeared in the Independent on Sunday at the weekend. The newspaper correctly identified the three sites in question, which include Throckmorton in my constituency. The Home Office gave an assurance yesterday that the report was sheer speculation.
Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that that is a gross discourtesy to the House? The matter is of huge importance to my constituents and to the asylum seekers who will be so inappropriately housed in accommodation centres. Should not the matter have been handled more properly? Given that there has been a leak from the Home Office, do you have any power to ask the Home Secretary to conduct a leak inquiry?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), made an announcement in Standing Committee E this morning, and that the hon. Gentleman was also contacted by a Home Office Minister beforehand. No doubt Ministers are as concerned as the hon. Gentleman over the leak. I am sure that they will take note of the comments that he has made on the matter.
Sir Michael Spicer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have kindly given
644
the House a judgment on the matter of the leak, but will you say something about the manner in which the matter has been brought before Parliament? When an announcement is slipped out as a parliamentary answer in the afternoon, hon. Members have no chance to ask questions about it. In this case, the Government have even supplied their own question and answer, but the question is different from the one that I wanted to ask. I was interested in the independence of the planning procedure. Can you, Mr. Speaker, give a judgment on that matter?
Mr. Speaker: It is up to the individual Minister to judge how to let the House know about such matters.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the Order Paper is not your exclusive responsibility, but it is clear that some of today's questions in Foreign Affairs questions were somewhat lacking in topicality. That is because they have to be put down a fortnight in advance, and circumstances in foreign affairs can change very quickly. I wonder, when you are next consulted about the contents of the Order Paper, whether you might give some regard to the circumstances in which it might be possible to question Foreign Office Ministers about issues that have become topical since the Order Paper was drawn up. Is it possible that questions of a more open nature than has become the custom might once again be in order?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Procedure Committee is looking at parliamentary questions at the moment. I advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take his complaint to that Committee. I do not have powers to change the order of questions that come before the House on any given day, including today.

Planning (Publication and Infrastructure)
3.34 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require applications for planning permission to be published at the time notice of the application is given; to require planning permission for new housing or business development to be conditional upon fulfilment of planning obligations relating to infrastructure; and for connected purposes.
They say that an Englishman's home is his castle. I hope that they say that of women, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish too. Since the second world war, our housing policy has been largely to build houses and/or—sadlyhigh-rise flats for our poorest people.
The movement to build high—rise flats as a solution for our housing crisis came from the strong utopian—some say socialist—thinking led by the Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier. His experiment in Marseilles—Unité d'Habitation—became better known as a village on stilts. When United Kingdom architects, planners and developers borrowed from these experiments, they failed miserably but, alas, not before many of our inner cities—and some of our outer ones too—had decided that that type of housing was the cheapest means of providing rabbit hutches in the sky. I know of only one architect of public high-rise flats who was prepared to live in them. That probably says a lot about our architects.
After the war, we seemed to forget the lessons of Saltaire, Port Sunlight, Bournville, New Earswick, Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City. I do not wish to upset certain hon. Members or their constituents, but of the new towns built since 1948, how many are we really proud of in terms of architecture, infrastructure and housing densities? Would we truly want to give grade 1 listed status to a Basildon, a Cumbernauld, a Milton Keynes or a Crawley as examples that can hold a light to our 19th century philanthropists who ultimately gave us the garden city movement? Thankfully, though, that is still a matter for debate.
Housing, especially in the south-east, has become, along with public sector pay and the need for a truly 21st century infrastructure, the key to the quality of life for everyone. House prices make it essential that we look again at extending the London allowance into a south—east allowance, but that alone will not solve our severe housing shortage.
I do not want this to be a Bill for the south—east—far from it. However, the way in which developers work in tandem with our unelected planning departments is a joy to behold. Developers can work with planners for two or three years without an elected councillor or the people whom it might affect knowing anything. The first part of the Bill would end the secrecy of developers and the relationship that they have with planning departments. It would make it law that when an architect, developer or whoever first contacted a planning department, whether by e-mail, letter or telephone, that department would have to put an advertisement in the local paper explaining the proposed development. It would also have to put that information on its website, inform all the elected politicians of the application. including borough and county councillors, Members of Parliament and Members
646
of the European Parliament and inform all the relevant statutory bodies. The current system is undemocratic, open to abuse and unfair.
The second part of the Bill goes to the heart of the problem, and I shall cite examples from my constituency, parts of which resemble a building site. When families moved into the village of Bapchild, they were told that there was a primary school less than 400 m away. They were not told that the primary school had no spare places. Consequently, those children have been fitted into the primary schools all over Sittingbourne, with some families having to drive nearly three miles across the town in the rush hour.
On the outskirts of Milton—fast becoming a suburb of Sittingbourne—on the Meads estate, more than 500 new houses have been or are being built. I will resist commenting on the way in which developers such as Redrow Homes and David Wilson Homes have attempted to build these houses. Families were told that there was to be a new primary school built under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They were also told that there would be a new doctor's surgery on site, shops and even a village hall. They still might, if they cross their collective fingers, one day in the future actually see the shops and the play space, but I would not hold my breath. Families are now driving back to Gravesend or Maidstone to see their former general practitioners and there is no new primary school, so there is no planning gain. No wonder the developers love planning departments. They love them because the odds are stacked in their favour. This must stop.
In another area of my constituency, the developer has been allowed to build and, at the same time, take down the woodland that shielded the new houses from the noise of one of the busiest highways in the county. The result is that not even triple glazing prevents the din. Worse still—because that development is almost in the countryside—is the fact that as my constituents sit in their gardens all they can hear is the drumming of cars and lorries on the concrete.
The most insidious part of planning that goes unchecked relates to the number of houses that can be built on a site. My guess is that no developer who puts in for 350 houses actually builds 350 houses. Anecdotal evidence suggests that developers will try anything on. Their initial instruction may ask for 350 houses but by the time the development is finished, there could be as many as 500 houses on the site. That benefits only the developer.
To the communities that we represent, more houses mean a greater strain on our already overworked infrastructure. We already suffer shortages of teachers, nurses, policemen and women, doctors and firemen and women. Our train service is becoming oversubscribed and, in the rush hour, it is beginning to be stretched beyond the bounds of safety.
We can continue to pretend that we need houses, but before we build them—especially on greenfield sites—the agencies that serve our people must agree to that new build. It should not just be a matter for planning departments. The second part of the Bill would provide for a legally binding, multi—agency document for planners, developers, trade unions, statutory bodies, including health, education and police, to detail the infrastructure needs, the funding and the time scale for implementation before any housing permission is granted.

647
I hope that will mean that some of our public workers will be able to receive a new type of social housing as part of the planning gain.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Derek Wyatt, Paul Farrelly, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Gwyn Prosser and Dr. Howard Stoate.

Planning (Publication and Infrastructure)
  PLANNING (PUBLICATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE)
  Mr. Derek Wyatt accordingly presented a Bill to require applications for planning permission to be published at the time notice of the application is given; to require planning permission for new housing or business development to be conditional upon fulfilment of planning obligations relating to infrastructure; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed [Bill 136].

Modernisation of the House of Commons
[Relevant document: The Second Report from the Liaison Committee, HC 692, Session 2001–02, on Select Committees: Modernisation Proposals.]
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House to move motion 2, it may be helpful to say how I propose to proceed.
Yesterday, the House agreed to a business motion which requires me to put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions 2 to 12 not later than four hours after the start of the debate on motion 2. I propose that motions 2 to 12, and any amendments to them that have been selected, be debated together. At the end of four hours, I will put the questions necessary to dispose of motion 2. I will then call Members to move formally motions 3 to 12 and any amendments selected to them that Members wish to move. The House will have an opportunity, if it so wishes, to vote on each motion and amendment. A list showing my selection of amendments has been placed in the No Lobby and in the Vote Office. After all proceedings on motions 2 to 12 have been completed, we will move to the debate on motion 13 on the code of conduct.
3.44 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons relating to Select Committees, House of Commons Paper No 224-I, and in particular welcomes its commitment to more specialist and support staff for select committees; is of the view that the package as a whole will strengthen the scrutiny role of the House; and invites the Liaison Committee to establish common objectives for select committees, taking into account the illustrative model set out in paragraph 34 of that report, namely
to consider major policy initiatives
to consider the Government's response to major emerging issues
to propose changes where evidence persuades the Committee that present policy requires amendment
to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills
to examine and report on main Estimates, annual expenditure plans and annual resource accounts
to monitor performance against targets in the public service agreements
to take evidence from each Minister at least annually
to take evidence from independent regulators and inspectorates
to consider the reports of Executive Agencies
to consider, and if appropriate report on, major appointments by a Secretary of State or other senior Ministers
to examine treaties within their subject areas.
The origin of this debate goes back to July last year when the House rebelled over the names put to it for appointment to Select Committees. There was feeling among a majority of the House that an injustice had been done to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who had been left off Select Committees that they had chaired until the general election. I remember that debate vividly. It was one of the more interesting afternoons that I have spent in the House, as it fell to me to propose the motions and to listen to Members' comments on them.

649
During the debate, there was much criticism of the Committee of Selection, which put a list before the House without questioning it. Rightly or wrongly, it was held partly responsible for the difficulty in which the House then found itself. I promised during the debate that the procedures for how we nominate Select Committees would be one of the first matters that the new Modernisation Committee would consider. Today's debate on the first report of the Modernisation Committee fulfils the commitment that I gave the House last July.
My first point is to invite those who were unhappy with the position in which the House found itself to recall how they felt on that occasion. They should remember that they owe it to themselves to support the recommendation that is before us so as to prevent the House from ever again finding itself in that position.
Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way so early in his speech, but will he confirm that, even if many Members were unhappy then and look for a solution now, the proposals before us need not be the only or the right solution? The Modernisation Committee has done its work and the Leader of the House has come here with the result of its deliberation, but it is not a question of take it or leave it. If the House felt that the solution was not a proper one to the problem, it would be entitled to say no at this stage and to ask the Committee to do more work.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The House is always entitled to say no, and can say no in four hours from now when a vote is taken. However, this is not a new matter. We have been mulling it over for three or four years and it goes back to reports of the Liaison Committee in the past Parliament. Close on a year's study of the matter by the Modernisation Committee is before us, and there have been many ups and downs in trying to find the formula that is before us today. I have to say in all honesty and candour that, although the House is perfectly entitled to say no, I do not imagine that it will be feasible for the Modernisation Committee to come up with a better balance or one that is likely to command a greater consensus.
My second point in support of the proposal is to stress that the recommendation will improve and certainly amend the process by which the House receives nominations for Select Committees. It does not and cannot interfere with the process by which each party selects its members for those nomination lists. The measure replaces the role of the Committee of Selection in putting nominations before the House but it does not replace the initiative of political parties in resolving who should represent them on those lists.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I confess to my right hon. Friend that I have serious doubts about his proposals because I do not understand on what basis the proposed Committee of Nomination will put aside the recommendations of a party making its list. If it will not put that recommendation aside, what is the point of giving it the right to do so?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a point that goes to the heart of the debate that we had last July when the Committee of Selection was criticised precisely because it did not put aside two of the proposals to the House. The Committee of Nomination will not be a court of first instance and it will not have the initiative to decide who should be on the lists, but it will be a court of appeal and be there to ensure that fair play is observed in each of the parties. It would be able to intervene if, as was the case last July, there was a sense that, in two of the names on the list, there had been an absence of fair play.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am interested in what the Leader of the House has just said. Surely there is a court of appeal now—it is the House of Commons. Although the Government faced problems last year and although my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was once removed from a Select Committee, there have been only three occasions in the past 20 years when the system has perhaps been found lacking. Therefore, why do we have proposals for such widespread change?
Mr. Cook: Three occasions make an argument for change. Unfortunately, one of those occasions was only last year and that is why I undertook in the debate that we would re-examine the matter. If I had failed to carry out that undertaking to the House, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have been among the first to criticise me for failing to do so.
I would say to the colleagues who have intervened that I am confident that any list submitted by the Labour party would stand up to robust scrutiny in the light of our new democratic process. We have changed our procedures since last July. We have made the process more democratic and put it in the hands of Labour Back Benchers. I welcome that reform. Indeed, I served on the review committee that drafted that reform. So the choice of Labour representatives now rests with Labour Members.
The choice of Conservative representatives lies with Conservative Members—or some of them at any rate. I regret to say that the Conservative party has not taken the same steps as we have taken to make the process democratic. That is not a matter of responsibility for me; I cannot remedy that by changing the rules of the House, but I can ensure that those rules provide for the fair processing of the names and for fair play in their preparation.
David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Committee of Selection became totally discredited because, as with the previous Government and at the beginning of this Parliament, it simply approved, almost without discussion, the political party nominations? If the Committee of Nomination, which is being recommended, were to do the same, it would also be discredited. It is absolutely essential that the party Whips or the party management—hon. Members can call them what they like—on both sides of the House do not decide who will serve on the Select Committees; otherwise we will have the row that has led to the present position.
Mr. Cook: I have a lot of sympathy with that point. My hon. Friend identified the nub of the matter, which is that

651
Committees of Parliament, appointed by Parliament to scrutinise the Executive, should be free from party influence, particularly the party representing the Executive. The decision should be taken by Parliament, and it should be ultimately in the hands of Parliament and those whom it trusts to take an impartial decision. That is why we welcome the agreement of the Chairman of Ways and Means to act as the convener of the Committee of Nomination.
Mr. John McFall: My hon. Friend knows that the parliamentary Labour party has changed its position on this matter. He has lauded its democratic structures and the fact that it is in the hands of Back Benchers. In exceptional circumstances, could the Committee of Nomination overturn nominations from the PLP, or indeed those from the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrat party? I should like that aspect to be clarified.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to confirm the fact that, of course, the Committee of Nomination, as the body responsible for putting the nominations on the Order Paper, will have the right to query the nominations of any party in the House. Indeed, we stated in our report that if it were unhappy with any list of nominations—for example, if it found itself in the position that the House found itself in last July—it would, in the first instance, refer back that list for the party to think again. I would imagine that, in those circumstances, almost every party in the House would indeed think again.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: Perhaps I could finish answering the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I shall then happily give way to my hon. Friend.
I am personally very confident that now that we in the Labour party have a more open, transparent and democratic system its nominations will survive scrutiny by any fair-minded and impartial Committee.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I wish to make the same point. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what gives him such confidence that seven individuals will provide a fairer and more democratic system than the rules agreed by the PLP or the committee of appeal that the House currently affords us?
Mr. Cook: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I am not suggesting for a minute that the Committee of Nomination would supplant the PLP process. The PLP process is a very important basis on which to decide who the Labour party wants to occupy the Labour places on the nomination list. The role of the Committee of Nomination will be to transfer those lists into nominations to put before the House and, in doing so and considering
652
nominations from any party, including the Conservative party, to ensure that there is fair play. We can safely say, with hand on heart, that fair play was done.
Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
Mr. Dismore rose—
Mr. Cook: I have multiple opportunities, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) because I fear that I shall be unkind to him later.
Mr. Thomas: At the risk of alienating the Leader of the House even more from his Back Benchers by giving him some support, may I say that the difference between the previous system and what he proposes is that the Whips controlled the party lists and then the Whips approved the lists in the Committee of Selection? He proposes a far more open and accountable process for the House and all its Members. It is time to blow away the cobwebs that cause confusion and hide the processes of the House from the public.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman provides a fair and accurate précis of the basis of many of the speeches to which I listened last July when the House was unhappy with the proposals before it. That is why we proposed the remedy offered on this occasion. I recall some of my hon. Friends sharing the criticism that the hon. Gentleman has just made.
Mr. Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have been generous in giving way, and I owe it to the House to treat it to a speech, not just a series of answers.
I was grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for having agreed to act as convener of the Committee of Nomination. In our report, we identified as the criteria for the Committee of Nomination that its members should have
"a proven ability to perform with impartiality and a broad knowledge of the strengths and special interests of back—benchers."
No one will better fulfil those criteria than the team of Chairs whom we elect to oversee our proceedings. [Interruption.] I remind my hon. Friends that we elect all of them. One of the advantages of having the Chairman of Ways and Means to convene the Committee is that, if we want to move quickly, he is one of the few people in office immediately after a general election. The Chairman of Ways and Means would therefore bring to the role of convening the Committee of Nomination the authority of having been freshly elected with the confidence of the House.
It is, of course, important that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be kept free of party influence, and should also be kept free from great controversy, which I hope will be of reassurance to those who are apprehensive that the Committee of Nomination might meddle too much. The Committee of Nomination will not needlessly seek controversy, and will not needlessly interfere with the list submitted to it unless it feels that there are compelling grounds of an absence of fair play. It is best considered as a court of appeal, representative of

653
Parliament not of party. In many ways, it would provide a forum for Members who felt that there had not been fair play, so that the matter could be rectified prior to it coming before the House.
Barbara Follett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it has not exercised it, the Committee of Selection has the right to overturn a party nomination, in much the same way as the proposed Committee of Nomination?
Mr. Cook: It is perfectly true—[Interruption.] I am unable to participate in the discussion taking place among my hon. Friends, but it is perfectly true that the Standing Orders provide that the Committee of Selection could vary a nomination coming before the House. In practice, as the House heard when this was debated last July, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection made it perfectly clear that he would regard it as improper to vary the list submitted by party Whips. That is precisely what prompted the search for a body that would be impartial and would not meddle or interfere unduly, but which would apply judgment when considering whether there had been fair play in the preparation of those lists.
Mr. John McWilliam: I merely wish to intervene to support my right hon. Friend. He is quite right. There was a Division in the Committee of Selection on this matter, which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) initiated. A vote was taken, and the motion was overturned.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend spoke at length at the start of our debate last July. His speech influenced the view that emerged about the need for another process to handle the matter. My hon. Friend was vigorous, robust and frank, on all of which he is to be congratulated, in making plain that he did not regard it as the job of the Committee of Selection to change the party lists that were submitted to it.
Mr. McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already, and I have given way several times during my speech. If I may, I shall make progress.
The Liaison Committee has endorsed the proposal that I am putting before the House. It says that it is a sensible new mechanism that is worth trying, and I agree with that. It appears, however, that in seeking to provide a Committee of Nomination to remove the controversy from nomination of Select Committees, I have not removed the controversy from the nomination of the Committee of Nomination. I understand the force of view of those who argue that the formula appears to reward gravity rather than to encourage freshness. [Interruption.] I am not sure on which side the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) places himself, but I am grateful for his concurrence.
My initial proposal to the Modernisation Committee was that, as Leader of the House, I should nominate its members. The Committee decided that I was a suspect partisan source for a Committee that is not meant to be partisan, and I bow to its collective wisdom—hence the
654
formula before the House which removes the basis of nomination to the Committee of Nomination from any party political influence.
I recognise, however, that many of the newer Members think that the balance in the formula possibly rewards too heavily those who were here before them, so I propose to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), which has the effect of re-balancing the membership of the Committee of Nomination and appointing to it two Members from each side—four in total—who were elected in the preceding Parliament. That would allow one third of the Committee of Nomination to be Members who were elected in 1997.
Mr. McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman does a deal with me and allows me to proceed with my speech thereafter, I will give way to him for the last time.
Mr. McLoughlin: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Committee of Selection has four Members from the 1997 intake?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing the strength of my hon. Friend's amendment to have four Members from the 1997 intake on the Committee of Nomination. I welcome the opportunity to make common ground with the hon. Gentleman on that narrow point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) has tabled sub-amendment (h) to amendment (d), tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central. It would insert the word "current" before "previous Parliament", thus allowing the four new Members to be drawn from the current election to Parliament in 2001, not just from those elected to the previous Parliament in 1997.
At this moment in Parliament, one year on from the last general election, the amendment is perfectly sensible. I only remind my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda that in future Parliaments, the Committee of Nomination will be one of the first Committees to be set up, one hopes within two weeks of polling day. Whether in practice in those circumstances any party would choose as its representative a Member who had only just been elected is a matter of judgment.
Mr. Forth: What about Alastair Campbell?
Mr. Cook: I am not aware that Alastair Campbell is seeking a nomination to this place. I am sure if he does arrive here, we will all await his interventions with great anticipation. I have not the slightest doubt that the House will be full to hear his first one. However, I doubt that his first ambition would be to be appointed to the Committee of Nomination.
Mr. Peter Pike: There are many rumours about the press man at No. 10 wanting to take my place when I leave the House. He assures me that there is absolutely no truth in them, which he has made clear more than once. I am sure that he is correct in that.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I am, of course, open to take interventions from any other hon. Member who wishes to give a similar assurance about their constituency.

655
As the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda is permissive and leaves the choice open to the political parties concerned, I will be content, if my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central is minded, to accept his hon. Friend's amendment to his amendment, which I, in turn, accept—I hope that the House is still with me. If we do accept both amendments, we will write into Standing Orders for the first time specific recognition of the right of new Members to be represented. That is another step forward for modernisation and sets a precedent that I hope the newer Members will support in the Division Lobby this evening.
The Modernisation Committee took the opportunity of its review of the nomination process to go much wider and review the present state of Select Committees and how they might be improved. The result before the House today is the most comprehensive package to strengthen the Select Committee system in the 20 years since it was set up. It offers a number of gains that Select Committees have been seeking for some years, the first of which is more resources to assist them in their work.
More specialised staff will be available to support all members of Select Committees, and there will be more administrative staff to help the Chairmen with their burden. There will be more professional help to assist with the design and layout of Select Committee reports. We want to harness the most modern technology and the most attractive design so that we can get across to the public the views of Select Committees. We have made some progress in recent months. I am pleased to tell the House that since January we have removed all Roman numerals from Committee reports. Significant though those steps are, there is a long way to go, which is why we propose that we should have available to us the best professional help in designing the reports.
In return for those additional resources, we are looking for greater focus and discipline in the way in which Select Committees approach their role. That is why we have suggested an illustrative model of the core tasks of Select Committees. I stress that it is illustrative. We are inviting the Liaison Committee to consider the model that we have proposed, to refine it further if it wishes and to make whatever changes it thinks appropriate in the light of its greater knowledge of the working of Select Committees. However, one has to start somewhere, and it is good that the Modernisation Committee has put on the table what we believe should be the core tasks and duties of Select Committees.
Mr. David Curry: As the Leader of the House has in the past two or three minutes removed the possibility of at least two votes, perhaps I can help by removing the possibility of a third. My concern was that the list was very prescriptive and all those tasks would be mandatory on the Committees. Given the number of weeks in the year in which we meet, even with Sub-Committees that list would constitute an intolerable burden that would be undeliverable and exclude the possibility of doing a little free thinking, which is one of the tasks of the Committees. If the Leader will make it clear that those are suggestions of the sort of agenda that
656
the Liaison Committee would want to look at, and that they are not intended to bind it, I will be more than content to withdraw my amendment when the time comes.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer. Of course we would welcome the views of the Liaison Committee, which cannot be bound by the Modernisation Committee; indeed, we do not seek to bind it in the motion before the House, which leaves it to the discretion of the Liaison Committee how it proceeds with the list.
I believe, however, that there is a lot of common ground between the two Committees. For instance. I welcome the strong passage on financial scrutiny in the Liaison Committee's response to the report. Indeed, I thought that the Committee was possibly erring on the side of being rather stern with Select Committees when it described their performance of financial scrutiny as relatively patchy and being the fault of the Committees. That is a touch harsh. Financial scrutiny is necessarily a challenging and technical task.
What might help Select Committees with that is our recommendation, before the House today, that we take up the offer of the National Audit Office to second staff to the new unit of special advisers which we are proposing. That will make it more practical for Select Committees to carry out financial scrutiny as we suggest in our core tasks, and it may make that scrutiny more penetrating.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Following his response to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), will my right hon. Friend be a little more specific? The concern of many Select Committee Chairmen is that the flexibility of Committees is very important. My Committee, the Education and Skills Committee, recently was pleased to hold an inquiry into individual learning accounts. The prescriptive bullet points before the House do not include such inquiries. There is only so much time to do the work of the Committee, and it is important to be flexible, and not to be in a straitjacket.
Mr. Cook: I wish to be helpful to my hon. Friend. If he looks again at the list of proposed duties, he will see that his important inquiry into individual learning accounts comes squarely into the second category—considering the Government's response to major emerging issues. We appoint Select Committees for a Parliament so it should be possible for all of them to touch on each of the duties that I have outlined.
Mr. McFall: I welcome my right hon. Friend's common objectives for Select Committees, but I agree with several of my colleagues on the Liaison Committee that, to date, the examination of reports on main estimates, annual expenditure plans and annual resource accounts has not been our top priority. To effect change, we need much more support. My right hon. Friend mentioned the National Audit Office. What discussions has he had with Sir John Bourn and others, and what will the central support unit consist of, as it will have an onerous, but welcome, task, if undertaken properly with adequate resources?
Mr. Cook: I welcome what my hon. Friend said. The Modernisation Committee and the Liaison Committee

657
share common ground in their belief that we have not achieved rigour or consistency in financial scrutiny, which should be at the heart of Select Committees' work.
On the question of resources, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General has said that he is willing to second staff to assist Select Committees—and not just the Public Accounts Committee—with the work of financial scrutiny. I cannot think of a better source of expertise to support Select Committees, which could use NAO contacts to access the NAO's entire network. I hope that we can turn that offer into reality in the next year.
I should like to refer to one more proposed duty for Select Committees. The House will be aware that, over a period of years, I hope that the publication of Bills in draft will become the norm, rather than the exception. If Parliament wants a real influence on the shape of public Bills, it has to get in on the act much earlier than Second Reading, when party positions are already set in stone, so it needs to see Bills in draft. The report explains that pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills should normally be the job of the appropriate Select Committee.
Donald Anderson: Is not another danger of those illustrative examples the fact that the agenda will be set by the Executive, not the legislature? The legislation to be examined in advance is Government legislation; public appointments to be examined are by definition appointments made by the Government; the examination of Green Papers is, again, an Executive initiative. If, with the limited time available, a Committee followed slavishly the tick list of examples, there would be little time left for initiatives by the legislature itself.
Mr. Cook: I refer my right hon. Friend to the list in today's Order Paper, the third objective of which is
"to propose changes where evidence persuades the Committee that present policy requires amendment".
That is not dependent on the Government or Executive taking the initiative; it leaves it entirely open to the Select Committee to decide when policy needs to be changed. That said, it is difficult to get away from the fact that if Select Committees are the main instrument for scrutinising the Government, they will have to spend some of their time scrutinising what the Government propose to do. In the last Parliament, my right hon. Friend's Committee did a good job in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill setting up the International Criminal Court, for which I was grateful; it helped us to get the Bill through the House more quickly than we otherwise would have done. Pre-legislative scrutiny will be of benefit to both the House and the Government in making sure that when Bills come before Parliament, they are better thought-out and their rough edges have been rounded off.
Jean Corston: My right hon. Friend will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, has in the past 18 months undertaken to examine all legislation, as published on Second Reading, for compliance with various human rights instruments. It is difficult to do that under current parliamentary procedure, given restraints both on time and the opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to absorb the lessons of pre-legislative scrutiny.
658
More time would allow the Government to reflect at greater length on the outcome of the pre-legislative scrutiny and make for better legislation all round.
Mr. Cook: I am very much aware of the challenges to the Select Committee that my hon. Friend chairs. She and I have discussed the issue before, and we have sought to be helpful to the Committee. I entirely endorse her point. The more we produce Bills in draft, the more it will be possible for all the various investigative and scrutiny Committees to make their contribution, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
It must be right that the people who perform that pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill are the Members with the specialist interest and knowledge whom we find on the Select Committees. That is why we propose in the first instance—not always, but in the first instance—that pre-legislative scrutiny should be a duty on the Select Committees.
Taken together, the package will strengthen the Select Committee system. It has been warmly welcomed by the Liaison Committee. Indeed, in its press release about the paper from the Modernisation Committee, the Liaison Committee described it as "excellent"—a view that, I hope, will last at least as long as the debate this afternoon.
There was one issue to which—I must be frank with the House—nearly all members of the Liaison Committee objected violently: our proposal that the size of Select Committees be increased to 15. The proposal was born of the problems of last July, when we discovered that far more hon. Members wanted to get on to a departmental Select Committee than there were places for them. Even now, 186 Beck Benchers are not on any investigative Select Committee. Our proposal to increase the membership of departmental Select Committees to 15 would have provided an additional 50 places for those hon. Members.
At my meeting last week with the Liaison Committee, I was exposed to strong arguments to the contrary. In particular, the Chairs of the Select Committees expressed their worry about the danger of a loss of cohesion if the Select Committees became larger, and the problem of making sure that there was consensus among a greater number. I was struck by the force of the point from the Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration, who told me that his recent report on House of Lords reform would not have been unanimous in a larger Select Committee.
Given that discussion and those views, I have reached a compromise with the Liaison Committee that is expressed in the motions before the House, in which the decision to increase the size of a Select Committee will be in the hands of each Select Committee. If the Committee decides to increase its size, it is free to do so up to 15, but it is not under any compulsion to do so. I hope that that sensible, permissive compromise will command general agreement in the House.
Conversely, I proposed a reduction in the size of the Liaison Committee. In the Committee's response, I found that, unfortunately, that proposal was almost as unwelcome as my proposal to increase the size of other Select Committees. I am therefore not proceeding with it tonight, but many on the Liaison Committee recognise that there is a problem with the size of the Select

659
Committee, and that the problem is likely to be aggravated if it proceeds to hold public hearings, especially if those public hearings are as high profile as with the Prime Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has tabled another amendment that addresses the issue. I regret to say that on this occasion I cannot help my hon. Friend by commending it to the House. Its narrow effect would be, for instance, to leave out of the Liaison Committee the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which I do not think would be right. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a problem, and I very much hope that the Liaison Committee will be willing to consider it and propose a solution.
Pete Wishart: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Select Committees need a minimum of 15 members, to ensure that we in the minority parties are represented? At present, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish national party have no place on a non—regional departmental Select Committee, and we find that unacceptable.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has found the argument that would most commend itself to hon. Members on the Benches behind me. As he is aware, I understand that the parties to which he refers did not receive the best allocation of places last time round, when they were represented in the discussions by the Liberal Democrat party. As he knows, we have addressed that issue and those parties are no longer represented by the Liberal Democrat party; indeed, many hon. Members in other parts of the House would wish to commend them on their freedom from the Liberal Democrats. Over time, we shall see what remedy there may be, but I do not think that the House is likely to vote for an increase to 15 members simply because of the position of those who represent—if I may be frank—4 per cent. of the total membership of the House.
Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: Yes, I shall on this occasion, but I must then make some progress if others are to speak.
Kevin Brennan: On the size of the Liaison Committee, while I accept the point that my right hon. Friend makes about the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and I, does he recall that I raised the matter in business questions last week? Does he agree that when the Prime Minister appears before the Liaison Committee, the House will be as much under the spotlight as the Prime Minister is? If the Committee has 34 members, including those from the domestic Committees, the House will not be seen in the modern light in which we would like it to be shown.
Mr. Cook: I agree that there is an issue that must be addressed. I am happy to say that when I spoke to the Liaison Committee last week, it volunteered the fact that it will be as much under examination as the Prime Minister when he appears before it. I hope that the
660
Committee will listen in the intervening period to the views expressed in this debate and consider what consensual solution it might offer.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House indicate to the Liaison Committee that a degree of self-interest seems apparent on that issue? Is it not somewhat ironic that a Committee of 34 members thinks that it is impossible for other Committees to come to a sensible conclusion with only 15 members, while its own membership of 34, which is already in place, is apparently entirely logical?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point with great force and eloquence. As I am seeking hard to build the maximum possible consensus, he will forgive me if I do not endorse what he suggests on this occasion, but the whole House will have heard it.
Mr. Alan Williams rose—
Mr. Cook: I was probably wise not to give my endorsement.
Mr. Williams: I speak in the spirit of good will that emanates from my right hon. Friend and in recognition of the fact that I am the poor man who will have to chair a Committee of 34 members trying to carry out an investigation. The Liaison Committee indicated in response to the Modernisation Committee that it did not see any point in removing representation of the domestic Committees because such a change would reduce its membership by only six and because we are not an interrogatory Committee. It is only in the past three weeks that we have taken on an interrogatory role like that of other Committees. Therefore, our judgment was made in one context, but we are being criticised in another.
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend's statement is very encouraging. I recall that when I appeared before the Liaison Committee last week, it was repeatedly put to me that the problem about Committees with 15 members was that not everyone would be able to put a question to the witness. I think that that argument must apply with even greater force to a Committee of 34 members. He and his colleagues would be wise to address that point as a matter of urgency.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I was not unsupportive of him in the Liaison Committee last week? If the Select Committees are to undertake their core tasks, all of which are very valuable—I refer not least to proper scrutiny of estimates and expenditure—I am concerned that it may be necessary for Committees to increase their membership from 11 to 15. They may have to do so if they are to undertake their essential tasks of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government of the day to account.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman deserves a mention in dispatches as the only member of the Liaison Committee who supported me on the increase in size, but regrettably he and I together do not a consensus make.
I remind hon. Members that the motion—I hope that it will be accepted, because it was a compromise with the Liaison Committee—provides for Select Committees to

661
increase their size. Come the next Parliament, we will of course be required to establish them with a minimum membership of 11 so that they can first take the decision on whether they wish to increase their size. In the circumstances of a fresh general election, a new Parliament and many Members disappointed at not having been appointed to a departmental Select Committee, Committees will find that they are under pressure to contemplate some increase in size, even if not up to 15.
I wish to refer to one last point from the report before I conclude. We have given the House the opportunity to reach a decision on whether the Chairs of Select Committees should be paid. We made no recommendation to the House on that—indeed, the Modernisation Committee was split on the issue—but we agreed unanimously that it was right that the matter should be put to the House to enable hon. Members to reach a conclusion. That is why there are two alternative motions. The only point of argument that I would make is that if the House were to vote for salaries for Chairs of Select Committees, that would give extra force to motion 7, which provides that no Chair should remain in office for more than two Parliaments.
Mr. Forth: For those of us who believe that the matter should he looked at in a wider context—sadly, amendments in my name that would have reflected that were not selected—it would be helpful if the Leader of the House could indicate whether, if the House were to approve the motion on Select Committee Chairmen and additional pay, his Committee would be prepared urgently to consider the wider issue of whether additional pay might be appropriate for other Members with additional responsibilities. I, for one, would be reluctant to single out Select Committee Chairmen, despite their great worth and distinction, then leave it at that, because others—for example, the Chairmen's Panel—may deserve similar treatment. Can the Leader of the House help me on that matter?
Mr. Cook: The Modernisation Committee considered Chairs of Standing Committees, but concluded that they did not have the same weight of responsibility and administration that falls on Chairs of Select Committees. The decision before the House is therefore limited to Chairs of Select Committees.
Andrew Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I should like to respond to the last point before I give way again.
I would not wish to make the decision that the House takes conditional on what might happen next, but it is of course always open to us to return to the matter in the context of wider issues.
Andrew Bennett: Before my right hon. Friend finishes, will he give a little more thought to term limitation? One or two Select Committees are not over-popular. For example, there is not a great queue of Members wanting to get on to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Having served on it for 28 years—for half that time making it clear to the Whips that I would be pleased to be replaced—it seems a little unfair to penalise someone who is serving on one of the less popular Select Committees.
662
Another difficulty is that of the changing names of Select Committees. Presumably, Members who have chaired the Committees covering matters that are dealt with by the Department with responsibility for the environment would not be covered by the amendment.
Mr. Cook: I am familiar with the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. He has done sterling work on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In retrospect, it is perhaps a pity that there is no amendment on the Order Paper that would enable us to confine the effect of the motion to those on the investigative Select Committees, who we had in mind when making the proposal on salaries. I assure my hon. Friend that I will be happy to revisit the matter in the event of the motion being carried, so that we can protect his position before another 28 years have passed.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend remind us of the other non-ministerial appointments that draw a salary from the public purse? I understand that the Opposition pairing Whip is currently paid—for what, I do not know. Clarification would be useful.
Mr. Cook: I understand that, apart from members of the Executive, those who receive a salary are: members of the Speaker's team, the Leader of the official Opposition and, I believe, the Opposition Chief Whip and the Opposition pairing Whip. It is for every hon. Member to consider whether that constitutes the most rational choice of priorities. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst obviously regards it as rational.
Mr. Forth: I said the opposite.
Mr. Cook: Hon. Members will consider a motion on the payment of Chairs of Select Committees. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman's amendment on the subject was not selected. It is well beyond my capability to fix that on his behalf, and it has obliged me to remove a whole five minutes from my speech. I apologise for that. However, to cheer him up, I am prepared to accept his surviving amendment on term limits. It would provide for a maximum period of service of two Parliaments or eight years as a Select Committee Chair. I offer that to the right hon. Gentleman as a modest consolation prize.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I can cheerfully comment on all the proposals because, whichever amendment is accepted, I shall probably never serve on a Select Committee again.
Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that Chairmen who oppose payment do so because we believe that the strength of Select Committees is that all members are equal? They all work together and appoint their Chairmen, and we strongly believe that payment would make Select Committee chairmanship another office of patronage under whatever arrangements prevailed.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to say that there are strong and sincerely held views on both sides of the question. It is fair to say that the majority of the Liaison Committee favoured payment when it was last discussed. That is not necessarily a self-serving perspective. As the

663
Modernisation Committee report points out, if hon. Members want to show that they attach equal value to scrutiny and service on the Executive, they must consider whether the only real opportunity of additional salary should be for those in the Executive rather than those who commit themselves to a career of scrutiny.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: How can I resist?
Mr. Mullin: I agree with my right hon. Friend, but emphasise that the nettle must be grasped if we are serious about Select Committees. Otherwise we are destined to watch the best and brightest continually seduced away by office or its prospect. Some members of my Select Committee have lasted as long as two months before becoming someone's Parliamentary Private Secretary. The only hope of reversing the trend is increasing the status of Select Committees by some of the methods that my right hon. Friend suggested.
Mr. Cook: In fairness to my hon. Friend, the House should know that he was seduced away from the Executive to be the Chair of a Select Committee. He makes the fair point that hon. Members must tackle the issue and make a clear decision. I warn hon. Members that if motion 5 is carried, motion 6 cannot be put. Those who share my hon. Friend's view must therefore defeat motion 5 and carry motion 6.
We have taken the opportunity of the debate to implement several agreed recommendations on other matters from the Liaison Committee, the Procedure Committee and various Joint Committees. They are expressed in motions 8 to 12, none of which is controversial, and I hope that hon. Members can accept them formally.
The other measures add up to the biggest package for strengthening Select Committees since they were established 20 years ago. They stand alongside the historic decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to give evidence twice a year to the Liaison Committee. It is the first time that any Prime Minister has agreed to be questioned by any investigative committee. Taken together, the measures demonstrate our commitment to working with the House to make the Select Committee system a success.
I have often said that good scrutiny makes for good government. I commend the package to the House as providing for better scrutiny and better government, if that is possible.
4.34 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: I am aware that a lot of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to take part in the debate, so I do not intend to detain hon. Members as long as the Leader of the House did.
I start by paying tribute to all the hard work undertaken by all Members from all parties who serve on Select Committees. They do an invaluable job, and they have the
664
time to explore in detail many of the issues that are too complex to be examined in depth on the Floor of the House. We owe them all our gratitude.
I also pay tribute to the work of the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, the Leader of the House. It is clear from his energy, involvement and initiative that he not only takes his role seriously but is genuinely interested in bringing about change. For that reason, I must advise him that he needs to watch his back, because it is clear that not all his ministerial colleagues share his enthusiasm for what he is seeking to do. Indeed, the Modernisation Committee is still reflecting on whether all his proposed changes are necessary in the interests either of modernisation or of scrutiny. The right hon. Gentleman has an agenda, however, and some parts of it are clearly desirable.
The first motion on the Order Paper in the right hon. Gentleman's name has our support, and I commend it to the House unamended. It seeks to increase the support staff for our Select Committees, and to strengthen the scrutiny that they give the decisions of the Executive.
The Leader of the House was, I think, incorrect when he said that Select Committees had been with us only for some 20 years. My understanding is that they have been used by the House for centuries. They may have been with us in their present form for only 20 years, but the setting up of a small group of Members constituted to gather information, interview witnesses if appropriate, and produce detailed reports is not new to the House.
In their scrutiny work, Select Committees use a variety of working methods. Their work can vary from the holding of a full inquiry, with the gathering of oral and written evidence leading ultimately to a published report, to taking a single evidence session to focus attention on a particular issue. Sometimes the Committees decide to visit people and places, here in the UK or overseas, to discover how problems can be handled or approached in different ways. At any one time, most Select Committees have several subjects under consideration.
Currently, it is up to each Select Committee to decide how to interpret its terms of reference. The Conservatives want to see that independence maintained. I do not think, however, that it comes amiss for the Modernisation Committee to suggest certain core tasks, such as those listed in the motion. Some right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), are concerned that that motion will result in the loss of a Committee's discretion as to how it goes about its business. I want to underline what the Leader of the House said by referring my right hon. Friend to the word "illustrative" in the motion, which I hope will reassure him that although the activities mentioned are core tasks of which each Select Committee should take note, they will in no way inhibit the absolute right of a Select Committee to carry out its work as it sees fit.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I support what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, but will he take on board the fact that at least one Committee—the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, on which I serve—is not a departmental Select Committee, and therefore does not shadow Ministers or legislation from any particular Department? Those core tasks are not quite so appropriate for that Committee. Will he bear in mind that we need to

665
keep the flexibility of such Committees, which consider the work of all Departments and the sustainable development of all the Government's workings, so that they, too, can operate with the additional resources if necessary?
Mr. Knight: I agree. I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 13 of the Modernisation Committee's first report. Paragraph 33 states
"Inevitably the specific work of the scrutiny committees"
that is, departmental Select Committees—
"will vary and each should retain the freedom to balance its work in the light of the duties of its Department or in response to emerging issues."
The report makes it clear that the Committee does not seek to take away the current flexibility.
Mr. Pike: Should we not be reminded repeatedly of the many successes that Select Committees have achieved in their present form? Those successes are often underestimated, not just here but in the country as a whole. Is not the report's main purpose to strengthen the Committees, in line with what the Liaison Committee suggested in the last Parliament? Before the general election the Government did not seem prepared to do that, but the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee has gone a long way towards meeting the Liaison Committee's requirements.
Mr. Knight: I agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson). I think that Select Committee Chairmen should have the right to venture into areas that they consider important within their remit, rather than merely walking in the footprints and the shadow of the Government of the day.
Amendment (d) to the motion on modernisation of the House of Commons, tabled b) the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), expresses the concerns that exist in some parts of the House about minority representation, and I am a little worried about that.
The representation of minority parties used to be dealt with, quite adequately, through the usual channels. I believe that when my party was in government and I was part of the usual channels, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) undertook, on behalf of the third largest party, to ensure that all minority parties were represented fairly. The Leader of the House touched on that in his speech. I understand that the system has broken down somewhat, in that the current Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), has decided that he is not able, or willing, to undertake the task, and it has now been given to the Government Whips Office.
I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle will not need to press his amendment, and that further discussion through the usual channels will alleviate the concerns that clearly exist. I must say I am rather surprised that the Modernisation Committee has two Liberal Democrat members; perhaps they will be prepared to give up one of those places to another minority party.
Pete Wishart: It was less a question of the Liberal Democrats' abandoning that task, and more a question of our discharging them from it. We will vote on this issue, because we have grave concerns about the representation
666
of minority parties. I think it only fair that we should be able to represent ourselves properly in the Committee structure.
Mr. Knight: I hear that the minority parties have no confidence in the Liberal Democrats. I cannot say that I am at all surprised, but I hoped that they would be able to develop a working relationship with the Patronage Secretary. Perhaps as the debate proceeds, they will be prepared to engage in "behind the curtain" discussions in an attempt to resolve the matter.
Lady Hermon: Rather than writing us off as a minority party, will the right hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, all Members—address a serious issue? I refer to the representation of the people of Northern Ireland. The Labour party, regrettably in my opinion, does not even operate in Northern Ireland, so no Northern Ireland Labour Member will be returned to the House. Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates regularly lose their deposits at Northern Ireland elections. The Ulster Unionist party is the largest party in Northern Ireland, and represents the majority of people there. Surely to goodness it should be represented on Select Committees, which is a good reason for increasing their size. This should not be a minority party argument; the people of Northern Ireland need to be represented.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady has gone well beyond an intervention.
Mr. Knight: I shall not risk being ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by getting involved in the politics of Northern Ireland, but I do believe that minority parties should be properly represented. Increasing the size of the Committees is one way of doing that, but the point that I was trying to make is that other methods exist. One is to ensure that the Liberal Democrats are not claiming two places on the Committee when the minority parties perhaps ought to have one of them. I hope that the matter can be looked at again.
The Leader of the House has tabled proposals to set up a Committee of Nomination, to allow Select Committees to change their size after having been established, and to introduce term limits on the service of Select Committee Chairmen. The setting up of a Committee of Nomination gives rise to two issues, the first of which is whether we really need to make any changes. If the answer is yes, we then need to decide what form those changes should take. I have always been unconvinced of the need for change, and as the Modernisation Committee is aware, I have remained an agnostic on this issue throughout its deliberations. I take the view contrary to that expressed by some Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). The current nomination system works rather well, and it is a gross distortion to say that it is totally discredited.
The Committee of Selection has existed for more than 20 years. In that time it has twice taken decisions that could rightly be criticised, and which it perhaps should not have sought to implement. The first instance involved a member of my party, and the second and more recent one involved two members of the Labour party. However, in my experience the Whips' influence on the Committee of Selection is not malign. The Whips Offices of all major parties have a vested interest in keeping their

667
parliamentary colleagues happy. In my experience, if they feel that an injustice has been done, some attempt is usually made in another arena to right the perceived wrong.
Tony Wright: I am slightly perplexed by the right hon. Gentleman's last point. As recently as 12 February last year, the official Opposition used a Supply day to table a motion in support of the Liaison Committee's report, "Shifting the Balance", on the basis that they were dissatisfied with the way in which such matters operated, and that they wanted an independent mechanism. Perhaps he can explain why his view has changed in the space of a year.
Mr. Knight: My view has remained constant since 1983, when I first became a Member of this House. I have not changed my opinion at all. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Members often support a Committee's report when they agree with more than 50 per cent. of its contents. The fact that they support it does not necessarily mean that they agree with every paragraph and word.
Mr. John Taylor: I should point out to the House that, like my right hon. Friend, I have participated in every meeting of the Modernisation Committee, and he made his position clear in at least three such meetings. With regard to change, he is something of an agnostic and is tolerably satisfied with the status quo. Because we are a smallish minority, we have tended to take a consensual view.
Mr. Knight: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's protection.
Dr. Ladyman: I am trying to understand the advice that the right hon. Gentleman is giving the House, and I think that I agree with him on the point that he is making. I like the current system, and the parliamentary Labour party now has a mechanism, free of the Whips, for deciding whom we put forward. However, the right hon. Gentleman advised us to support the motion on modernisation of the House of Commons, which approves the report hook, line and sinker, including the principle of changing the mechanism for selecting members of Select Committees. The first motion on Select Committees deals with the detail. If the right hon. Gentleman is against the principle, he should surely advise the House to vote against the modernisation motion.
Mr. Knight: No, that is not the case. We have separate motions on the Order Paper and I have dealt with my views on the first of them. I am now addressing the specifics of setting up the Committee of Nomination, from which arise two questions. First, does the House wish to bring about change? I am not convinced that the present system has failed us. I am tolerably satisfied with it, so I do not seek any change. However, as a member of a Select Committee on which the majority of members wished to bring about change, I was faced with a second question. Did I leave the debate and allow the other members to carry on in my absence, or did I play a full and constructive part in the debate about change without advocating it myself? I chose the latter course of action.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: The right hon. Gentleman made a couple of points about the old
668
Committee of Selection. First, he said that in his experience it had made only two wrong decisions. Surely the problem with the Committee was that it never made any decisions at all. The second, allied point he made was that it was not a corrupted body because the Whips on it had a vested interest in keeping their own punters happy. However, is it not true that in most cases Whips used the power of appointment to Select Committees to control their Members, not to keep them happy? In those circumstances, what sort of a court of appeal was the Committee on Selection?
Mr. Knight: The Committee made two decisions that were clearly wrong, and which offended many hon. Members. Those were the two matters that I mentioned earlier. I did not say that the Committee made only two errors of judgment. I pointed out those two glaring mistakes, but two in 23 years is not a bad record. I do not accept, either, that the Committee of Selection has always been a Whips' rubber stamp. When I was a member of the Government Whips Office, the Chairman of the Committee, the late Sir Marcus Fox, did not always follow the advice of his party's Whips, and on more than one occasion the Committee made a decision that was not in accordance with the wishes of the Whips. The Committee did show an element of independence, which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests was lacking.
Mr. John Taylor: Is not it clear—not least from that intervention by a Labour Member—that Conservative Members have a more comfortable relationship with their Whips Office than do Labour Members?
Mr. Knight: There are many parts of my shadow portfolio that I find less agreeable than others, but I do not wish to start speculating about the relationships of Labour Members with their Whips Office. None the less, my hon. Friend makes his point well.
If—I emphasise that word—a majority of Members want a change, the most appropriate way forward is that proposed by the Modernisation Committee. Therefore I do not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), and I do not recommend them to my hon. Friends.
In the third motion on Select Committees, the Leader of the House proposes that term limits be introduced for Select Committee Chairmen for the first time, and suggests that each Chairman should serve for a maximum of two Parliaments. I have always regarded term limits for Select Committee Chairmen as desirable, all the more so if we decide to pay Chairmen for their extra work on our behalf. I therefore support the proposal, but as part of a package; I shall urge Opposition Members to support the proposal that Select Committee Chairmen be paid.
Mr. McCabe: I accept the argument about term limits for Select Committee Chairmen, especially if those Chairmen are to be paid. However, is there not also an argument for imposing term limits on members of the Committee of Nomination? The Committee's quorum of seven very powerful people will orchestrate the proceedings of the House. Should there not be a term limit for them?
Mr. Knight: I have no difficulty with that suggestion.
The Leader of the House was good enough to say that he would be prepared to accept amendment (a) to the third motion on Select Committees, which stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The motion would limit the term of a Select Committee Chairman to two Parliaments, but in our system we do not have fixed-term Parliaments. The period covered by two Parliaments could therefore be anything between one year and 10 years.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it slightly illogical to say that we should trust Select Committees to appoint their Chairmen and decide their programmes, but we should not trust them to appoint a Chairman for a third term?
Mr. Knight: In many Parliaments around the world it is accepted that people freely elected to be Chairmen of powerful Committees ought to have some limit to their tenure. The United States of America offers an example that confirms my argument rather the hon. Lady's.
To return to my point about the period covered by two Parliaments, I am sure that the House remembers what happened in 1974, when we had two general elections in the same year. That could easily happen again in the future.
I firmly expect that after the next election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) will be in No. 10 Downing street, where he will remain for many years. However, what if the massive Conservative revival that everyone expects is not quite enough to get him there? What if the arithmetic after the next general election is such that the two main parties have the same number of seats, with the Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power with perhaps three or four seats in total?
In that scenario, two general elections could take place in quick succession, as the outgoing Prime Minister desperately tried to cling to power before the Conservative party ultimately won through. Most attention would focus on the final result, but what about the poor Select Committee Chairmen? They would be condemned to serve for only a fraction of the time that the House could reasonably have expected. That is why amendment (a) would add
"or a continuous period of 8 years, whichever is the greater period."
The amendment is fair and equitable, and I hope that the House will approve it.
Dr. Ladyman: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's rosy predictions about the Conservative party's fortunes, may I suggest that he remember the writings of Horace, who said that the shortness of life prevents us from entertaining far-off hopes? Do his remarks not suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is correct that the judgment should be left to the Select Committees, and that we should not interfere?
Mr. Knight: No, I do not agree. Eight years is a fair crack of the whip for anyone: any Minister who serves for eight years thinks that he has been very lucky. To give a Select Committee Chairman, however good, a term limit
670
of eight years is reasonable and fair, because it would allow other talented Members, who might otherwise not have the chance, to be considered for that position.
We accept the proposals about the size of Committees. Indeed, the proposition tabled by the Leader of the House is very similar to a suggestion that I made to the Modernisation Committee a few weeks ago.
Our Select Committees have served Parliament and the public well, and I believe that the first motion on Select Committees will make their role even more effective by providing additional resources for specialist support staff. If that enables Parliament to keep the Executive under more effective scrutiny, surely we should all welcome it.
5.1 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: On behalf of the Liaison Committee, may I welcome the undeniable commitment of the Leader of the House in trying to modernise and update the procedures of this House—whether one agrees with every proposal or not? I think my right hon. Friend deserves full credit for that from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It has been a dramatic few months for those of us who have been involved in scrutiny for many years. For more than 12 years, the Public Accounts Committee saw Chancellor after Chancellor try to get access not just to some but to all the quangos and to open the door that was permanently closed to Government companies. Yet three months ago, after the Sharman committee—which was set up following pressure from the Public Accounts Committee—the Government accepted all those recommendations. The National Audit Office now has full access, as requested by the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Commission has already invited the Comptroller and Auditor General to submit proposals for examining the quangos and companies regarding extra budget and value for money.
Three weeks ago, as the Leader of the House said, the Liaison Committee had a quite unexpected approach from the Prime Minister; there was a message saying that he would call at 12.30 pm. The Prime Minister asked whether the Liaison Committee would welcome the opportunity to have full and public sessions with him twice a year.
We are still negotiating the details, but I can tell the House that the first session will take place before the summer recess. The Prime Minister will not know the questions in advance. We are looking at times and venues. Because of Prime Minister's Question Time and Members' Monday travel arrangements, it looks as if Tuesday mornings will be an appropriate time. Because of the anticipated extra demand from people to attend and the size of the Liaison Committee, we are looking into the possibility of holding the hearings in the Boothroyd Room in Portcullis House.
Mr. Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend has referred to the size of the Liaison Committee. He mentioned to me earlier that he has investigated the number of seats in the Boothroyd Room. I think that there are 27 seats, whereas there are 34 members of the Liaison Committee. Bearing in mind the objections of the Leader of the House to my amendment, will the Liaison Committee consider a self-denying ordinance whereby only departmental Committee Chairs, my right hon.

671
Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee would take evidence?
Mr. Williams: There are 27 chairs in the horseshoe, so only 27 Members would be able to question the witness, but members of the Liaison Committee get on well together. At our meeting on Thursday, we shall consider that point, among other practical, logistical issues. We shall also discuss how to use our time to the best advantage of the Committee, the House and the Prime Minister.
To some extent, the proposals of the Modernisation Committee have to be taken in conjunction with the consultative document issued by the Leader of the House and currently under consideration by the Committee. Throughout its consideration of the proposals, the Liaison Committee has used the same criterion—effectiveness: whether the proposals would add to or diminish the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. All Members work on the premise that without accountability there can be no democracy and that—in the way that the House works—without Committees there is no meaningful accountability.
The Committee especially welcomes pre-legislative scrutiny, which will not only produce a major change in the way in which the House holds the Government to account but will enable it to participate in the evolution of policy before Bills are finally drawn up. That is a dramatic advance and we must take that proposal into account, especially as regards the roll-over of Bills where change is long overdue. It is illogical that a Bill can progress through almost all its stages, but must then be reintroduced in the next Session. The roll-over of Bills will remove the buffers—the time limits that give the business managers the excuse to curtail discussion. Pre-legislative scrutiny and the roll-over facility will considerably enhance the powers of Back Benchers.
As regards back-up resources, I told members of the Liaison Committee that I could not believe that there had never been any pragmatic analysis or assessment of the resources needed to operate a full Committee system. That is why I suggested that we brought in the National Audit Office to make an objective assessment of the structure and resources that were needed. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for accepting that suggestion.
We welcome the review of the powers of Committees to call witnesses, as well as the opportunities offered for Sub-Committees. My right hon. Friend said that Committees would increasingly have to turn their attention to financial scrutiny and many of them may choose to do so by means of Sub-Committees. I have held discussions with almost all the Chairmen and have been most impressed with the open-mindedness of their approach to dealing with the challenges offered by the proposals.
However, a one-size-fits-all formula does not make sense. The estimates requirement envisaged in the core duties is not relevant for Committees dealing with devolved matters—the Scottish Affairs Committee or the Welsh Affairs Committee. In fairness, we must remember that the core duties as listed are illustrative and that the
672
Liaison Committee is asked to turn them into practicality. I assure the House that it is the wish of the Committee's Chairman that we do that effectively.
I know that there are doubts about the format of the Committee of Nomination. However, other Members have made the point that it will be more independent than the system that it is replacing. We should give that Committee fair wind to see whether it works effectively. The composition of the Committee will be a matter for the House.
The Liaison Committee's reservations related mainly to the size of Committees. The membership of many Committees will increase by a third, so I wish to make the point that I made to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he appeared before us the other day. The Chairmen of the Committees have no vested interest in keeping the Committees small if Committees will be more effective if they have more members. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will, no doubt, describe his experience of trying to run a large Committee and the problems involved with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has expressed her opinions and I hope that she will describe the problems that arise with the size of the Committee that she has to handle.
The Chairmen of the Committees came to an almost unanimous conclusion on the size of the Committees and they did so in pursuit of the fundamental criterion of whether the proposals will enhance or diminish Committees' ability to hold Ministers to account. The Chairmen thought that enforced enlargement would diminish rather than enhance Committees' ability to do that. That is why they took the stand they did.
Mr. David Kidney: Will my right hon. Friend consider the wider view and the effectiveness of our democratic institutions? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told us that 286 Back Benchers did not serve on any Select Committee. Is that not a dreadful waste of talent? Even if all those Back Benchers were uninterested—I know that that is not the case; many of them want to serve on a Committee—do they not have a democratic duty to contribute? Is that not more important than the ease of managing 15 Committee members rather than 11?
Mr. Williams: I think that is wrong. Tails on seats is not the basic requirement. The basic requirement of a democratic system is to hold the Executive firmly to account. Nothing should undermine that. The problem has been the House's inability to hold Governments to account. We must not damage a system that is working just to get people involved in Committees or to give them the opportunity to say that they are members of Committees.
Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Williams: I am coming to the end of my remarks.
I have been a Back Bencher for many years and I have been a Front Bencher for many years. Whether I have or have not been serving on Committees, I have never found it particularly difficult to keep myself gainfully occupied

673
as a Member of the House. Perhaps one or two Members should use a little more imagination in their approach to the time they think is wasted at the moment.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for meeting us this week and for the detailed discussions that we had. I also thank him for responding positively to those discussions and for the flexibility that he has shown in the proposals before us.
5.14 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I join the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and the Chairman of the Liaison Committee in paying tribute to the leadership that the Leader of the House has given to the Modernisation Committee. I have been on the Committee since its inception at the beginning of the previous Parliament. I can honestly say that the momentum that we now have and the consensus that has now been built up between the parties has not been matched at any other moment in the Committee's short life. That is partly down to the Leader of the House, and it is partly down to the demands that the House has placed on the Committee. We have begun this exercise—or indeed our wider exercise of working out how to make Parliament more effective in scrutinising and holding the Government to account—not because we think that it is a nice idea or a good thing to do or because it gives us a warm feeling but because the House has given us that responsibility. That is why the report is very timely.
Of course this is a matter for the House. I should say that my colleagues will have a free vote, but I am interested to find that there is basically consensus among my colleagues on most of the issues before us this evening, with one important exception, to which I shall return later.
The origins of the report were, of course, the events of last summer, as other hon. Members have said.
Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: I have hardly started, but of course I shall give way.
Mr. Sheerman: In fairness, those us who have served on the Liaison Committee even for a short time would have to say that the content of the Committee's two reports, much of which is attributable to the now Lord Sheldon, have to be part of the reason why we are discussing this important topic today. I very much admire the work that the Leader of the House has done, but Lord Sheldon was a moving force in making the Liaison Committee a campaigning Committee to change the business of the House.
Mr. Tyler: I was just about to make that point. We have built on the work that had already been undertaken, but we would not have done so but for the fact that the Government Whips ignored—let us be honest about it—all the signs that the House had already given that hon. Members were no longer prepared to put up with the incestuous way in which Select Committees were appointed. The point that I want to make is that, if it had not been for last summer's incident, the Liaison Committee's work, frankly, would have gone by the board.
674
It has already been said that attempts have been made under previous Governments to nobble Select Committees, to ensure that trouble makers were kept off and trustees were put on, but it would be fair to say that the Conservative party has tended to be more disciplined, or perhaps more devious, than the Labour party was last summer. Whichever it was, the fact of the matter is that all this has now come out into the open.
I now make my confession: I served on the Committee of Selection for four years. I was, ex officio, a member of that Committee, and I can tell the House—if I am breaking some dreadful convention, I shall no doubt be locked up in the Tower—that most of our meetings took less three minutes. On one occasion, when I was in the Chair as the senior member, a meeting took half a minute. That is not a proper way to take important decisions.
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire referred to a previous regime in that Committee when he said that some of the Whips' nominations were turned down. I think that he will agree that they were not nominations to Select Committees; they were nominations to Standing Committees. There is all the difference in the world between serving on a Select Committee and having that responsibility for scrutinising the Government, perhaps for a whole Parliament, and serving on a Committee that considers a specific Bill. So the House should be fully aware that I know of no one—outside the usual channels—who wants to return to that regime.
We must be very careful this evening that we do not untangle the whole package by pulling it to bits. If we do that, the only winners will be the two main Whips Offices. I have to exclude my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—he is not here at the moment—because my party has been excluded from those discussions all too often in the past.
The consensus is that we have to make some improvements, but let us recognise the fact that the improvements will be experimental by their very nature. Everything that we do in the House is evolutionary—we can return to the issue if the proposals do not work sufficiently well—but we must make progress tonight; otherwise we shall be in real difficulty.
I have no great problem with the proposals for the new Committee of Nomination, except to say that the amendments are excessively complicated. We may well have to consider the issue after the next election. If the two Opposition parties, whichever of the current three they may be, were extremely similar in size, perhaps differing by one or two Members, the arithmetic clearly would not work; nor would it work if—let us suppose that this could happen—women made up 60 per cent. of the House after the next general election, as these gender balance arrangements would be obviously nonsensical. Let us be clear: the proposal is for this Parliament, but we must establish the principle that the House makes the decision rather than having it made for it by Government Whips in collusion with the main Opposition party Whips.
I must say to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee in all sincerity that I am somewhat suspicious of the way in which the Committee approached the issue of numbers. It represents the establishment, the insiders, the people who have got there. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, we are in danger of wasting good talent

675
in the House if we automatically assume that, just because it is easier to manage 11 people, it is not possible for 15 to do an even better job.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would do us the honour of accepting that, if the Committee one is chairing has 17 members, as is frequently the case, it is not fair to any of the members concerned. They do not have the opportunity to ask enough supplementary questions or to pick up a point made by another member, and it simply becomes a question of the Chair trying to get everybody in. That is not how a really effective Committee should work. Unless there is a basis for the objection, under all these rules, I will never sit on another Select Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that what I say about Select Committees is governed by that. It is not possible to chair an investigative Committee effectively if the number of members goes beyond 15.
Mr. Tyler: I entirely understand the hon. Lady's point. As she says, however, the problem comes when the number of members goes beyond 15. No one suggests in the document that we are discussing that the number should go beyond 15. That is now entirely a matter for the Committee to decide. I think that I am right that some of the best work that the hon. Lady's Committee did in the last Parliament was done in Sub-Committees. It is important that there are enough members to sit on those Sub-Committees. There is also the issue of full representation—let us not dodge that. We must try to make sure that Select Committees are fully representative of the House as a whole.
Mr. Kidney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for mentioning my contribution, which is why I want to speak. There are enough places on Select Committees for about 40 per cent. of Members of the House. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in Canada, nearly all Back Benchers serve on a Committee; in Australia two thirds of Members do so; and in New Zealand 80 per cent. of Members do so? Is not the Committee's recommendation to add 50 Members modest in the light of that information?
Mr. Tyler: In my view, it is. If we are to undertake the kind of responsibilities that the Committee wishes to place on Select Committees—the Liaison Committee wishes to do so, and several Chairmen of Select Committees have already taken the point that our list is illustrative and needs to be developed further—there will be a need for more Sub-Committee work. In relation to financial matters—or, dare I say it?—going abroad, it is not necessary for the whole Committee to go to, say, Australia. It is perfectly possible for three or four members, suitably representative, to do a proper job and come back with a report. If that is why the Liaison Committee is apprehensive about an increase in numbers, I suggest that it is in its own hands to exert a little self-discipline.
The only substantial issue on which I disagree with the majority on the Liaison Committee and on the Modernisation Committee is that we should somehow pick out the Chairmen of Select Committees as worthy of
676
special treatment in terms of additional salary. I am not persuaded of that. I shall return to the point, but I have already heard the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) make the point that we do not have difficulty in recruiting very good people to be Chairmen of Select Committees. The difficulty is in being properly resourced to do that job, not in attracting candidates. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is a good example. He took the ministerial biscuit for a few months, but he decided that he could achieve more by coming back to the House and chairing a very influential Select Committee. We have no difficulty in getting recruits; incidentally, we do have difficulty in getting people to go on the Chairmen's Panel, so perhaps the argument would be more persuasive in that regard.
Apart from those who are in the Chair or have ministerial office, Members of Parliament are here to serve their constituents. We all have different ways of doing that. I have personal crusades in which I believe passionately that have nothing to do with my constituency. I also have a responsibility to my party. Above all, however, I am here as a Member of Parliament for my constituency and as a member of this national assembly. In that context, I find it difficult to justify singling out Chairs of Select Committees as special people who need to be provided with a new career path. All that Members who sit as Back Benchers on the House of Commons Commission get are knocks; they do not get plaudits or the opportunity to lead a Select Committee. Why should we not pay them? If it comes to it, why should we pay the pairing Whip for the Conservative party when pairing is almost out of the window?
Mr. Greg Knight: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify what he is saying? Is he saying that he is against the motion because it proposes payment only for Select Committee Chairmen and that he would support it if it was more widely drawn; or is he against additional payment for any Member of Parliament who is not a Minister?
Mr. Tyler: I would have supported the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, because it is fair to consider the issue in the round. Some Members give great service to the House and do not get anything like the kudos or the plaudits attaching to Select Committee Chairs. However, as the right hon. Gentleman's amendment has not been selected, I will vote for the motion that stipulates that we should not pay more to Chairs of Select Committees.
On the controversial amendments, I believe that an illustrative list is helpful, as the Chairman of the Liaison Committee acknowledged. I hope that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), will not press his amendment to a vote.
On the amendments to add new Members to the Committee of Nomination, I have misgivings about the format of the arrangements. The additional newer members would be nominated not by the parties, but by their Chairs. That is a new form of patronage which the Modernisation Committee tried to avoid. I think that the suggestion is a little incestuous and I would have preferred to stick with the original proposal of the Modernisation Committee.
On those Members who are lucky enough to be elected Chairs of Select Committees, the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight)

677
is logical. Eight years or two Parliaments, whichever is the longer, gives someone a good run at the job. There are plenty of volunteers to take over. On the two-Parliament rule, however, I was briefly in the House in 1974 with a small majority, which makes a nonsense of that suggestion.
The exclusion of the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, the Human Rights Committee and, no doubt, others from the interrogation of the Prime Minister or, indeed, anyone else in such circumstances, would be illogical, so I oppose the amendment to motion 10, dealing with the Liaison Committee.
The proposals offer a one-off opportunity to give new strength to the Select Committee system. The Committees have been in place for a long time and ways in which they can improve their performance have evolved, especially with regard to their accountability to the House. What we have not done is to analyse carefully the best way to ensure that they are representative of the House. That is why we must take the opportunity for Back Benchers in particular, of all parties, to regain control.
There is, of course, an obligation within parties to ensure that a proper democratic procedure is followed for the nominations to the Committee of Nomination. There is also an obligation on those who think that the system is not working adequately to use the Committee of Nomination.
Mr. McCabe: If the essence of the Nomination Committee is that it must decide whether the right people have been nominated and make changes if it does not like the party choices, why is there any obligation on parties to ensure that the right people are chosen? The reality is that we are wresting power not only from the Whips but from Back Benchers, and giving it to a Committee of seven people who will decide for the rest of us.
Mr. Tyler: No, I am bound to say that I think that the hon. Gentleman has not read carefully how the procedure will work. I understand his concern, but this procedure will be conducted very much within the parties. I cannot speak for his party but I can speak for mine, and it is incredibly democratic—some of my colleagues think that it is far too democratic. If the nomination procedure does not fulfil all the expectations of individual members of my party in this House, there will soon be a revolution.
Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
Mr. Tyler: No, not again. I accept that the procedure places a great obligation on the party and on the Committee of Nomination. As I pointed out in discussions on the proposals in the Modernisation Committee, the additions to Committees will be easy enough; it is the subtractions that will cause difficulty. We can all imagine circumstances in which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) makes a wonderful case for being on a particular Committee, but when the Committee of Nomination is asked to remove somebody to make a space for him, that may cause some difficulty.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: No, I am about to complete my speech and other Members want to speak.
678
We can put the system on trial for this Parliament, and I believe that it will prove to be worthy of that test. It will fulfil Members' expectations far better than does the Committee of Selection from which we have suffered in the past. Obviously, an important responsibility will be placed on individual Members, on their parties, on the Committee of Nomination and indeed on the House, because as has been said several times, in the end the recommendations will return to the House, and I have not the slightest doubt, after the episode last summer, that if the House feels that a new oligarchy has taken over from the Whips which is equally under the thumb of the party managers, it will rebel. This is the best possible chance to break out of that stranglehold. As I confessed earlier, I am a former member not of the usual channels but of the unusual channels, and I am convinced that they cannot do this job properly.
5.31 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I echo the tributes that have already been paid to the work of the Modernisation Committee and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Today we have an opportunity to reinvigorate the Select Committee process and to re-establish its primacy in the role of non-partisan scrutiny of the Executive, which is fundamental in a free society and a democratic system. The Select Committees have performed that role with some weaknesses.
I remember many years ago serving on the Health Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I am not sure how he slipped through the previous system.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Lloyd: On the point about the hon. Member for Macclesfield? Yes, of course.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is the essence of courtesy, so I am not surprised that he gives way. I recall that when I was a member of the Health Committee, there was an attempt to prevent the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from chairing the Committee. In fact, he was an excellent Chairman. The result was that the Whips removed him from the Committee. If we are to have a Committee of Nomination to make the final decision, as against what I thought the House had decided last time round, how can such abuses be prevented?
Mr. Lloyd: I, too, recall the role played by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, although I do not want this to turn into his obituary. I must point out that it is necessary for Select Committees to have an independent voice and for Chairmen to command respect in the Committee.
My starting principle is that Committee membership is not something casually to be given away. It is important that the membership is of the highest possible quality. Members of Committees must be determined to fulfil the role of independent scrutiny of the Government of the day, without fear or favour, irrespective of their party. That is a difficult challenge for the Government. It was difficult for the previous Government, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) points out that at that time there were successful attempts to

679
nobble the hon. Member for Macclesfield. That was wrong, and it would be equally wrong if the present Government, whom of course I support, sought to nobble the present Select Committee system.
We know that if Select Committees are to command respect, they must be seen to be independent. Whatever the role of the Whips and the perception of the use of Select Committee places for patronage in the past, the fact that such accusations can be made and believed more widely is a good reason to ensure that this Parliament can say that it is clear of that charge. That is why, in general terms, I endorse the Modernisation Committee's approach of having an independent Committee of Nomination, which will command respect in all parts of the House.
Last year, the House did itself no favours in the row about my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson). Parliament got it right in the end when it insisted that they should be reinstated to their Committees. I concede to Opposition Members that Parliament worked in that case.
I strongly agree with the Modernisation Committee that the whole Chamber cannot be responsible for the process of nomination; there needs to be an intermediate process. On a point similar to that made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the parliamentary Labour party now has a procedure that guarantees that the party as a whole, with all its influences—from time to time including, dare I say it, pressure from the Whips Office—decides on the names going forward on behalf of Labour Members. I trust that that will also apply to the Conservative party, although I am not certain. Perhaps Opposition Members will make that clear later.
It is important that there is a sense of independence. We accept that the Government have an in-built majority on Select Committees, but those members of the Committee must be seen to command the respect of their own parliamentary party. The process established by the parliamentary Labour party ensures that that is the case. However, we need a tiebreaker mechanism—the court of appeal that has been referred to. That court of appeal needs to be independent; the present system is not, and can no longer command respect. The Modernisation Committee has suggested a sensible step in the right direction. I am sure that Parliament could have come up with many variations on the proposals, and it could still do so if these do not work.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for considering the amendments in my name and that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant). The criticism of the proposed Committee of Nomination is that it would seem to put power and control into the hands of the old lags, and there is a danger that they would view only those of a similar generation as suitable for inclusion in the Select Committee process. There is considerable merit in trying to recognise the contribution of hon. Members with fewer years on these Benches. Some people make contributions of enormous worth almost on entry into Parliament, while others take a little longer. There is no reason why the Committee of Nomination should not recognise the talent of recently elected Members.
Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and am sorry for being
680
unavoidably late. Does he accept that every Member of Parliament, including those who do not serve on Select Committees, can act as an effective scrutineer of the Executive through activities in Westminster Hall, introducing ten-minute Bills, tabling parliamentary questions and building all-party groups? The House should recognise that every Member has a role to play and we should not be too preoccupied with the role of Select Committees in the scrutiny process.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes an intelligent and valuable point which certainly commands support among Labour Members. We ought to strengthen Parliament's role in scrutinising the Executive. Select Committees are an important part, but not the only part, of that process. We should not seek to diminish their role, because they are often at the cutting edge of scrutiny, at least of Departments. We should therefore try to maintain and even increase their influence. My amendments make common-sense proposals and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda is also sensible, because it allows for the fact that all Members, including newly elected ones, may make a contribution. If a Committee membership is rolled over a Parliament, it would he illogical to bar Members with several years' experience. Together, the amendments would greatly improve the Committee of Nomination, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for endorsing their spirit and practical effect.
Briefly, on the role of Committee Chairmen and the question of payment, I was intrigued by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that we engage in economic bargaining to attract the best people to serve as members and Chairmen of Select Committees. I do not espouse that philosophy in other walks of life, so I am not sure that I should espouse it in the House. Indeed, if we reversed the argument and said that ministerial office was open to competitive bidding—we would take on as Ministers people prepared to undercut others—there would be no shortage of candidates and people who wield the knife behind their colleagues' backs would continue to do so. Members who join the Government or Opposition Front Bench do not do so for the salary. Similarly, some extraordinarily good Select Committee Chairmen have taken on the role with no thought whatever of economic reward. I shall therefore resist my hon. Friend's proposal unless I hear a more convincing argument about the money.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned them, but I am sure that he is aware of at least two other aspects of the argument, including, first, the issue of a career structure or path. I am sure that I do not need to point out that many people think that it is important to try to identify a distinctive career path other than the ministerial one. Secondly, the Modernisation Committee may be aiming at the wrong target: the Chairmen's Panel might be a much better candidate if we wish to acknowledge largely unsung and unseen heavy additional responsibilities and time commitments in the House, as its members undertake such duties for no extra pay.
Mr. Lloyd: As someone who, for reasons I do not fully understand, strayed from his initial career path, I agree that there are more ways of serving our constituents than climbing the ministerial ladder. If we are deluded into

681
thinking that only by creating special payments can we introduce an alternative career path, we shall structure Parliament in an undesirable way. It is nonsense to suggest that a good MP is a good amateur. Nowadays, that is not an accolade, but we certainly have many demands on our time and are asked to perform a range of duties. We ought to encourage involvement in all those duties, and chairing a Select Committee is an important part of that. We should thank colleagues for undertaking that role but, on balance, it does not need financial reward.
I have some sympathy with the suggestion that we may be looking at the wrong group of people. I am not sure whether I am comfortable with special payments for extra work, as we could get into a work measurement system; after my advice bureau on a Saturday morning, I would produce, for fear that my bonus payments would be reduced, a time sheet to demonstrate that my commitment was as great as anybody else's. I therefore need further persuasion that the concept of special payment in the parliamentary system has genuine merit.
I know that many hon. Members want to contribute to our important debate, so I shall conclude. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) said, parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive is fundamental: it is the reason why we are here. The Select Committees are at the cutting edge of scrutiny, so we have got to make them work. The Modernisation Committee report is a serious contribution to achieving that, and those concerned deserve congratulations.
5.46 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to contribute to our debate. I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for his leadership of the Modernisation Committee in this Parliament. He always seeks to achieve consensus, which is helpful in dealing with the matters under consideration. It is also beneficial that Members on both sides of the House are singing from the same hymn sheet and supporting the motions that he has included on the Order Paper.
I am wearing several hats in this debate. Not only am I a member of the Modernisation Committee but, because of my chairmanship of the Procedure Committee, I serve on the Liaison Committee, and have worked closely with its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I commend him again for his ground-breaking initiatives that will be of immense benefit to the House, both in holding the Government of the day to account and scrutinising legislation and Government policy. I am referring in particular to the Prime Minister's acceptance of an unwritten request, albeit one clearly in the offing, to appear before what may be described as the Chairmen's select committee—the Liaison Committee.
The report is long overdue. My name has been mentioned in our debate several times, but I do not wear the same rose-coloured spectacles as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) or my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I remind the House that both my colleagues have been members of the mafia, meaning the Whips Office or the usual channels, as they are affectionately known. I wanted to take the appointment of members of Select Committees out of the hands of the Whips long before my experience in 1992.
I remind the House, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, that the Conservative Whips Office, in connivance with the then Chairman of the
682
Committee of Selection, said that there was a rule that a Conservative Member should not serve on a Select Committee for more than three Parliaments. Of course, they said so to prevent my reappointment, but that dragged two distinguished Members—Sir John Wheeler and Terence Higgins—into the same net, which caused a great deal of unhappiness.
One such incident is more than enough, which is why I share the Government view that we need a new system of appointment. I therefore warmly welcome, as a package, the motions before us today. I shall support a majority of the motions on which the House is to vote. I strongly support the original motion relating to the Committee of Nomination but, like the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I have some reservations about the amendment proposed by the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant). That adds broader membership in certain respects, but overall it does not help the nominations panel. I understand why it has been tabled and I shall not vote against it.
The Leader of the House said that he would accept the amendments and I will go along with that, as I believe that they are part of a package. We need that package, so I shall throw my support behind it. I believe that it is good for the House and that, with no disrespect to the current Chairman of the Committee of Selection, the nominations panel will do a good job of ensuring that the right people, with experience and all the necessary commitment, which I believe is vital to an active member of a Select Committee, are appointed.
Mr. Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, despite the fact that he does not accept the premise of my amendment. He has referred several times to experience. I tabled my amendment because in the original motion setting up the Committee of Nomination, there seemed to be an overvaluing of experience only in the House. I therefore tabled a permissive amendment.
Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman makes a point. I said that I would not oppose the amendments to the original motion that have been accepted by the Leader of the House. However, having been in the House for quite a long time, although as a Back Bencher for all those 31 years in this place, I believe that it is necessary for the members of the Committee of Nomination to know the Members when appointments to Select Committees are made.
I accept that I may be influenced by my own experience. I must tell the hon. Member for Rhondda that when I entered the House, it was very rare indeed for Members to be appointed to a Select Committee in their first term in the House. It was fairly rare even in the second term of office. Now it is much more commonplace. That is one of the reasons why, after some consideration, I have decided to support the motion, as amended.
I accept that the composition of the House has changed dramatically, and I am referring not just to the huge number of new Members who arrived in 1997 and the fairly substantial number who arrived in 2001. I say to the hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches that there has been a fairly substantial shift in gender balance in the House, and it is appropriate to take account of those changes. For that

683
reason, I am prepared to support the Leader of my House—or rather, the House, although after all the years that I have been here, it is almost becoming my house.
I have been reading the debate that took place in 1992, when I had the experience to which I referred. Some very distinguished Members took part. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) intervened and made it clear that in his view, it was wrong for members of Select Committees to be appointed, as it were, at the whim of the Whips. That is how it was done then. Since then the Labour party has dramatically changed the way in which it puts forward the names of Labour Members for appointment to Select Committees. My party has not done that, but there is considerable discussion within the parliamentary party. Individual Members will be able to communicate with the Committee of Nomination and to put their own name forward, if they wish. Of course, the Whips will put forward, on behalf of the Labour party and the Back-Bench Labour party, the official Labour nominations.
In the 1992 debate, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said:
"More important issues are at stake, however. Although the amendments are linked to certain names, they are not about the hon. Member for Macclesfield. His name features, but we are dealing with more important questions than his fate. I hope that hon. Members will vote not on the basis of whether the hon. Gentleman is liked or disliked, popular or unpopular, but on the basis of the debate that they will have heard about the role of Select Committees and their development in our constitution."
That is extremely important.
Similarly, during that debate, the then hon. Member for Worthing, now Lord Higgins in another place, said:
"It is important that these matters should not be handled in such a way"—
he was referring to what had happened in 1992. He continued:
"Instead, they should be dealt with on an all-party basis. I hope that, in the light of the debate, we shall consider what should best be done in future. At present, it is wrong to suggest that there is a rule which has determined decisions. As I have said, these matters should not be handled in such a way."
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is present, also intervened in that debate and said:
"a ludicrous claim has been made that a rule exists when it does not".—[Official Report, 13 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 918-23.]
To me, it is wrong that we should perpetuate what happened on that occasion.
I see the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) in his place. I pay tribute to the work that he has done, with many colleagues from all parts of the House, in Parliament First—a group which, I think, wants to re-establish the sovereignty and integrity of the House. I know that he strongly supported the report produced in the last Parliament. There were in fact two reports, but I am referring to the better known one from the Liaison Committee, "Shifting the Balance"—that is, from the Executive back to Parliament.
Having stated that I intend to support the major recommendations on which we will decide tonight, I turn to the question of payment. I suppose that I would be a
684
beneficiary, whatever formula is adopted, so it is appropriate to declare that. I have the pleasure of being a member of the Chairmen's Panel.
If we are to encourage the most able people to participate in matters relating to the House, not merely to seek to become Ministers and to do all that that requires, we need an alternative career structure. Here I depart from the views expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central. The payment of Chairmen of Select Committees and perhaps, in due course. additional remuneration for those who spend considerable amounts of time chairing Standing Committees, Westminster Hall and occasionally the House would recognise such service to the House. That service prevents hon. Members from undertaking other tasks and jobs, including other jobs outside the House, from which they could obtain additional remuneration. Bearing it in mind that people's final pensions are based on their salaries, there is good reason to consider the matter seriously.
The Leader of the House has acted responsibly. He has not put a firm proposal before the House. He has presented the House with options, so that on a free vote the House can indicate what it thinks and reach a decision. I hope that the House will decide that there will be remuneration, and the matter can then be submitted to the Review Body on Senior Salaries.
In my view, this is a very important debate. As I said, I wish that it had taken place earlier. We need to restore the integrity of this place and to give hon. Members who are committed to this House and its institutions the opportunity to do a good job.
I should like to refer to one other matter: the core tasks that were a major feature of the speech of the Leader of the House. I say to hon. Members that those tasks are very important if Select Committees are to do the job that they are there to do. To my mind, the inquiries undertaken by the Procedure Committee, of which I am Chairman, show that the House's scrutiny of estimates and expenditure is inadequate. Until we take those tasks seriously, we will not be able to hold the Government of the day to account as I believe we should.
Once again, this is a very important debate and I congratulate the Leader of the House on all the work that he has done and the leadership that he has provided. I also congratulate all the members of the Modernisation Committee, who have participated fully to a man and woman in the many lengthy sittings that we have had. To say that we arrived at our conclusions lightly and without proper consideration would be to deny the very hard work that has been put in by every man and woman who serves on the Committee.
I believe that we would do well for this House and its future by voting for the recommendations.
6.1 pm
Tony Wright: I should like to be brief. I want to say a word about the Prime Minister and then to use that word to make a larger point.
The word about the Prime Minister is as follows. The Select Committee system in its modern form was developed 20 years ago, and as has rightly been pointed out, that was only the latest instalment—although it was an important one—in the operation of Select Committees. There was a gap in that system, and that gap was the

685
Prime Minister—a point that was put to me forcefully on many occasions by the great Professor Peter Hennessy, who was responsible for persuading John Major when he was Prime Minister to publish the ministerial code, as it became. Indeed, I sometimes think that Peter Hennessy is the only thing approximating to a constitution that this country has. He forcefully suggested to me that the gap had to be remedied.
We on the Public Administration Committee began to try to provide that remedy. I began a correspondence with the Prime Minister—it has been published in our reports—in which I tried to persuade him that it would be right for him to account directly to the House just as a departmental Minister would. We tried a number of stratagems and identified certain matters for which only he was responsible, pointing out that if he did not account for them, nobody could. The ministerial code was the obvious example, but as No. 10 began to expand and new Departments began to arrive, many people in government were responsible only to the Prime Minister and could be accountable to the House only through him.
When I made those points in our correspondence, the Prime Minister would reply that all the conventions were against what was proposed. I was told that Prime Ministers did not do that sort of thing and did not come to the House of Commons to appear before Select Committees. Of course, that was wrong, as Prime Ministers used to do so. The subsequent convention has developed only since the war. Indeed, it really began only because when the new Select Committee system started after 1979, Mrs. Thatcher did not want to appear before the Defence Committee in the Westland inquiry. If one scratches a convention, one will always find expediency. On consideration, the great weight of convention seemed to disappear. Ramsay MacDonald appeared before a Select Committee, as did Neville Chamberlain. What this House has forgotten are the powers that it used to have.
When I had exhausted my correspondence with the Prime Minister on one front, I went to the Liaison Committee and asked why we did not invite the Prime Minister to come to the House annually to account for the Government's annual report. Again, the same reply came back, saying that Prime Ministers did not do that sort of thing and that all the conventions were against it. Of course, the little tailspin was the removal of the annual report itself.
Against that background, let us notch up the achievement for this House in the Prime Minister's agreement to come and give an account to Select Committees of what he does in terms of his own responsibilities and those of government as a whole. However, in doing so, let us also be aware of the wider significance of that victory, which is that the House is not going into new territory, but reclaiming territory that it used to occupy.
I put it to the House that that is the fundamental point. This House used to be more powerful than it is now. The story of the past century is of this House losing power to the Executive. Either we as a House of Commons want to reclaim some of that power or we do not. When we talk about modernising Parliament, I get rather uneasy, as modernisation can mean two different things. It can mean allowing the Executive to have an easier life and to get their business through in a more straightforward way, as well as tidying up some of the untidy bits of how this House operates, including things that I like, such as
686
ensuring that we get home earlier at night. Those are important matters, but let us not believe for a second that they go to the heart of the constitutional issue, which is that there has been a drift of power away from Parliament and towards the Executive as party discipline has tightened in the past century or so.
We have to decide either that that is how politics now is, play our part in that system, become its slavish adherents in one way or another and find eloquent ways of justifying it, or that that shift has to be reversed. That is the point about the report "Shifting the Balance".
David Winnick: Did not Parliament reclaim the ground because the parliamentary Labour party refused to accept the recommendation that two of our colleagues who had served as Select Committee Chairmen should not be reappointed? Is it not because the parliamentary party made it perfectly clear in the Chamber that we were not willing to put up with that and voted against it that the recommendation is before us today?
Tony Wright: Indeed. I am grateful for that observation, as those events showed that this institution had to reach a certain point before it became clear to everyone that we could go no further down that road. We must be honest with ourselves about that and hope that people outside are not listening. The fact is that we had to decide whether we wanted our instruments of scrutiny, the Select Committees, to be owned by this House or by the Executive. That was the choice that was put to the House by the Liaison Committee in its report. It was a very clear choice as to whether we wanted to continue with a system in which the Chairmen of Select Committees were selected by the Minister whose Department they were supposed to be scrutinise. We had to decide whether those appointments were the prizes of patronage or whether the Chairmen were to act as the instruments of scrutiny and independence on the House's behalf.
Mr. Forth: On that theme, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that a system in which Select Committees always have a majority of Government Members is necessarily the best way of providing for effective parliamentary scrutiny?
Tony Wright: I am not sure that I am as troubled by that as the right hon. Gentleman would like me to be. Having had the experience of chairing a Select Committee, I find that it is possible, almost like an oasis inside this institution, to work on a different cross-party basis, whereby some of the old antagonisms that exist in this Chamber begin to slide away. That is why many of us give such attention to Select Committees—we know that they offer a way of working and of dealing with issues that differs from the knockabout, custard pie approach that we take in here.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is not the hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that his chairmanship of a Select Committee is by virtue of his membership of the parliamentary Labour party? Moreover, in his admirable efforts to close the gap of prime ministerial accountability through the Liaison Committee, is not he ignoring the fact that of 27 members of minority parties in this House, not a single one chairs a Select Committee, and they will

687
therefore have no access to the welcome system of prime ministerial accountability that he has helped to introduce? Does he see that as an anomaly?
Tony Wright: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I do not want to revisit the question of minority party representation, because I hope that that will be helped by the new arrangements.
On his first point, perhaps one should not confess too much on these occasions, but when I expressed an interest in chairing a Select Committee instead of being a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Cabinet Minister, I was told—I had better not say by whom—that that would not be tolerated by the Whips, that it would not be acceptable to No. 10, and that I should forget all about it. Change came about only because members of that Select Committee said, not that they particularly wanted me, but that they would not have someone foisted upon them. Unless we build independence into the system, I am afraid that we shall have the continuation of the system that we know exists now. To echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), that system required the turning of the worm. We had reached a point beyond which we could not continue any longer. When one looks back at the history of Select Committees, one sees the way in which they were once able to send for persons and papers and properly to interrogate the Executive through Ministers, and it becomes clear that they have to relearn those techniques. We are not about to go somewhere that we have never been before—we are reclaiming a small bit of territory that we should never have lost.
As Select Committees, we have much more to do. We have not yet begun to get hold of the real centres of power outside this House. If we really want the House and the Committee system to be the apex of accountability, we must get hold of all those regulators who now determine so much about real life in this country. We must get hold of areas that we have hardly begun to get hold of if we want to put this place at the centre of the nation's affairs again.
Mr. Bryant: Some things have changed over the past 100 years, not least the advent of television, which means that when the Prime Minister appears before the Liaison Committee of 34 members the whole country will see exactly what the establishment of the House of Commons looks like. Is my hon. Friend worried that a Committee of 34 will find it difficult to undertake that act of scrutiny, and does he agree that it would be better done by a smaller Committee?
Tony Wright: I do indeed share that view. I have expressed it in the relevant quarters, and I hope that the issue will be resolved. If we get it right, it will do the House of Commons some good.
There is a mismatch between how we do politics in here and how the country expects politics to be done. Unless we can make these arrangements come together, the reputation and status of this House will not only not be restored, but decline further. I have been pessimistic on this front over the past 10 years, and this is the first time that I can say with honesty that we may just have
688
turned the corner. Under the leadership of the Leader of the House, the House may have begun to understand that we can no longer go on as we have in the past.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way. As I will not be able to speak in the debate, I want to return him to the point made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House about the illogicality of his position. The hon. Gentleman is worried about the independence of the Chairman, but he should also be worried about the independence of the entire Committee. It is not only the inquisition of Ministers that goes on in a Committee, but the line-by-line scrutiny of reports. If the Government of the day has a majority on that Committee, it is likely that the end character and content of such reports will be biased towards the Government.
Tony Wright: I think that I dealt with that point. It is simply not my experience that Select Committees work like that. Indeed, one of the joys of Select Committees is that they do not.
This is the kind of modernisation that deserves the name. It is the kind of modernisation that begins to shift the balance and to point the House in the right direction. I just hope—if I can put it this way—that the dark forces that inhabit this place do not want to prevent this package of reforms from continuing. It is a package—all the bits connect. If we put them together we can begin to see a future for this House that connects us to politics as it should be and to what people outside expect of us. If we do not get it right this time, I am afraid that this House may fall further in public affection and repute.
6.15 pm
Mr. David Curry: I very much welcome the spirit of the Modernisation Committee's report and largely accept its conclusions. It is particularly important because, over the years, as we must all be aware, scrutiny has migrated from this Chamber, which has become largely theatre. If scrutiny is to exist, it must be conducted elsewhere in the institution.
I welcome the initiative of the Leader of the House. I remember sitting in the Liaison Committee under his predecessor thinking that a fairly Stalinist attitude was being displayed towards us, so I welcome the glasnost that he has brought to the debate. I shall not ask him to react to that, because it would break the solidarity that he would wish to express with his predecessor.
I have reservations on three matters, some of which the Leader of the House has partly dealt with: first, the notion of a separate Back-Bench career path; secondly, the core tasks; and, thirdly, the size of the Committee.
Like most of my colleagues, I cannot say that I get terribly excited about the way in which Members of Parliament are chosen for Select Committees. I served on and chaired the Select Committee on Agriculture and now chair the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I have never had the feeling that my colleagues are being nobbled, and I have spent part of my time trying to tone down Labour Members' hostile comments about their own Government. I cannot get quite as exercised about that issue as many people do.
I do, however, become exercised about the very concept of the separate career path because it gives rise to one or two problems, the first of which is the fact that

689
we are trying to graft some of the characteristics of Congress on to a parliamentary system. The United States has powerful congressional committees because of the principle of the separation of powers. Those committees can approve nominations, generate and hone legislation and bargain with the Executive. We can do none of those things, and we should not pretend that we can assimilate them into the concept of Parliament and Government in this House. There may be a case for taking the Executive out of the House. In the context of longer-term evolution, it might be desirable to move more entirely towards a congressional habit of mind in the interests of proper scrutiny—especially given the problems identified by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) as regards the Executive and presidential forms of government that we have now. However, that is not the proposition before us, and I would not wish to overplay its role or the expectations within it.
On paid Chairmen, there is a balance in this place, and its political role could be compromised if Select Committee Chairmen, and they alone, were chosen for receipt of a particular bonus. I hope that my Front Benchers will not take this as a plea for a job, but members of the shadow Cabinet have an infinitely more difficult role than any Select Committee Chairman. Getting the information to hold the Government to account on the basis of the resources available to an Opposition demands an enormous commitment of time and energy. Frankly, it is a much more demanding role than that which I fulfil. If we give Select Committee Chairmen additional money but ask hon. Members to choose between doing the hewing of wood and drawing of water on the Front Bench and becoming a grandee through running a Select Committee—I went from being a Back Bencher to a grandee without an intermediate stage—a serious dilemma will arise.
I also have some reservations about the proposed collegiate nature of Select Committees. I chair a Committee of 17 members, and I look forward to reducing its membership to 15, if the rules permit that. However, the Committee is friendly and largely based on trust—taking people's word and trying to work together. I am worried about what will happen if we introduce gentlemen and players into that system.
If the matter goes before the Review Body on Senior Salaries, I hope that it will he examined in the wider context of hon. Members' motivation. Frankly, an informed, energetic Opposition constitutes the best form of scrutiny that a parliamentary system can provide.
I have some doubts about core tasks. However, in the light of the reassurances that the Leader of the House gave, I shall not press my amendment.
The remit of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee runs from global warming to tuberculosis in cattle, nuclear waste to fisheries management, BSE to bathing beaches and CAP reform to Covent Garden—a heavy remit. We have to deal with five Ministers; six agencies, including the Rural Payments Agency, which pays out billions of pounds in CAP support; 20 executive quangos, including the Environment Agency, English Nature and the Countryside Commission to list only some of the biggest; 31 advisory quangos; two public corporations; five tribunals, and seven other advisory bodies. We can commit ourselves to interrogate them all
690
in a Parliament, but if we do that we set ourselves a series of possibly fruitless tasks that will act as a deterrent to many hon. Members who want to serve on the Committee.
In the statement on House of Lords reform yesterday, the Leader of the House said that we had to start by thinking about what hon. Members want the House of Lords to do. What do we want a Select Committee to do? Let us begin with the tasks. There are three basic jobs. First, Select Committees provide a forum for debating issues of immediate importance when Parliament must be capable of responding quickly to events but cannot provide the detailed scrutiny anywhere else. In Select Committees, detailed and, if necessary, prolonged interrogation can take place. They also have the power to summon witnesses. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills cited the example of individual learning accounts. I could cite a series of cases from my Committee—for example, flooding. We had to respond to that because of public expectation that Parliament is capable of dealing with something that goes bump in the night.
Secondly, we need to scrutinise policy, including quangos, continually. On the whole, shorter, sharper reports that maintain their relevance are better than long, discursive reports. However, the subject of genetically modified foods continues to be considered in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The same applies to organic food, nuclear waste and flood defence. We should keep reverting to and niggling at some subjects. That is the key; we must revert to issues time and again, if only for one-day sessions, and ascertain developments since we last met, such as the Government's response and whether anything in the firmament has changed. That takes time, energy and application, including much staff time. The shorter the reports, and the greater their number, the greater the demands on staff time.
Select Committees must provide a forum for ideas. I would have called that blue sky thinking if Lord Birt and the Prime Minister had not given the expression such a bad name. Governments come into office with a litany of new ideas that they have culled from think tanks and universities, and are good at applying them in their first years. Governments' abiding problem is the continuing ability to assimilate new ideas rather than simply sticking to their agendas. Part of the role of Select Committees is to bring ideas together where they can be ventilated and, if necessary, conflict to create a dialectic. That can be used to tackle the way in which the country is governed.
I do not want to make the tasks so prescriptive that that function cannot continue. They must not exclude free-range thinking or lay down methodologies; even seeing all the relevant Ministers in the course of a Parliament is a good idea, but not as a mechanistic obligation. I fear that that will prove a disincentive to Committee members.
We must also bear in mind the capacity to deliver. My Committee does not have permanent Sub-Committees. We have several Sub-Committees of short duration that are chaired by different members so that everyone has an opportunity to chair and share the load. The main Committee is about to embark on an inquiry entitled, "What the blazes is DEFRA for?" Once we have worked that out, we will consider whether it is engineered to do the job. The purpose of the Department is central, by any definition of core tasks. We also currently have two

691
Sub-Committees. That is a great burden on members' time and entails an enormous amount of work by the staff. If we want the Committees to be successful, the reports must be published quickly. There is no point in waiting three weeks for the end of a Sub-Committee before examining proposals.
If I may make a special plea, the remuneration that we offer specialist advisers is not always sufficient to get the quality of people that we want. We tend to get academics and those for whom advising a Select Committee will look good on a CV, but not people from the private sector, who want more effective consultancy rates.
The Leader of the House and other colleagues said that Select Committees would sit for longer and have many Sub-Committees. If so, perhaps we should consider the other commitments that Members of Parliament make, which we have recently multiplied. For example, we have invented longer sittings in Westminster Hall. I consistently lose members of my Committee because they have a debate in Westminster Hall or want to take part in one. We want to serve on Standing Committees that consider Bills. I do not want to divorce myself from the normal legislative process at the heart of Parliament. I want to be able to serve on a Bill Committee. However, that means that Select Committees lose Members who are recruited for Bill Committees.
The changed hours that are envisaged for the Chamber will create a greater clash between time in the Chamber and that spent Upstairs. The same core of Members usually do the lion's share of the work on Sub-Committees. If we are to multiply them and their functions, we must review some of the other demands, including those that the Chamber imposes on us.
I am grateful for the fact that the Committees will have a chance to determine their size—within limits. I am not sure about the relevance for a Committee such as mine, which already has 17 members. Some colleagues argue that it is better to have more members and give them all a chance, and that that will mean that the jobs are done better. However, the Committee's essential role is scrutiny. We can scrutinise only if we can pursue lines of argument as they arise—if the ferrets can be sent after the rabbits when they appear, to use a metaphor that will appeal to the Leader of the House.
When matters crop up in questioning, they must be pursued. I do not like the formalistic approach to a Committee, whereby all members have an allocation of questions that they ask in turn. I believe in a more informal arrangement that allows people to butt in. However, that must be effective. A large Committee will not have the power to do the job that it is allowed to do. There is therefore conflict and tension between effective scrutiny and the ability to cover the waterfront or to satisfy everyone's aspirations. In that case, we must decide what matters most; in our case, it is the ability to scrutinise.
I am not especially worried about selection methods. I find that the problem is attendance rather than nobbling. There are always difficulties with attendance. That is apparent if one examines the attendance lists. A Committee of the whole House has the same problems because of the enormous demands on hon. Members' time.
692
I make one request to the Leader of the House. It is rare for a Minister to refuse to appear before a Select Committee, but it is common for a Minister to claim that it is difficult to find a suitable date. We do not want to make matters difficult for Ministers, who have commitments in the Council of Ministers or international forums. However, I should like it to be a general rule of ministerial conduct or performance that a summons to a Select Committee, which will always be couched in courteous terms—the Select Committee exists to have a conversation more than anything else to glean information from people—should be tantamount to speaking in a debate in the House. That would save us all a great deal of unnecessary hassle.
The report on which we shall vote tonight is extremely constructive. I agree with the concept that the House is merely reclaiming some of its traditional powers. We still have a long way to go, but I cannot see a better way of doing this than by reinforcing the powers of the scrutiny Select Committees. Let us not, however, be naïve and assume that there is a "with one bound Jack was free" solution. We must be careful that, in altering this particular piece of the mechanism, we do not cause a dislocation across the functioning of the House that we would live to regret.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Many Members are seeking to catch my eye. I appeal for shorter speeches so that as many of them as possible can contribute.
6.30 pm
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): I have been in the House for 15 years and I regret to say that, during that time, apart from the ending of all-night sittings, there have been very few serious attempts at modernisation. I contrast that with the jobs that I have had outside the House, which never lasted more than seven years, and usually only about three. During that time, when I ran whole departments or organisations, there was always massive change. We always wanted to develop and move on. My frustration in this place, having been here for 15 years and seen so little change, has, therefore, been acute.
That has changed only since my joining my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the Modernisation Committee. I pay tribute to him and to his enormous vision, energy and commitment in pursuing the modernisation of this institution. We are expecting to embark on a huge agenda, as was made clear in the memorandum that he provided on a previous occasion. Today, we are tackling only a very small part of that agenda.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) on his excellent speech today, in which he demonstrated clearly just how modest these proposals are. Despite that, the weight of tradition in this place, and some vested interests, have already led to the watering down of some of the proposals in our report, resulting in the proposals that we shall vote on tonight.
The first message that I have for my colleagues is: "If you are a moderniser, and if you want this process to continue, vote for the whole package that has been

693
presented by my right hon. Friend. It has been constructed with considerable difficulty, it hangs together and it paves the way for greater modernisation."
What is wrong with the present system? We have heard from many others tonight, but I want to quote Lord Sheldon when he appeared before our Select Committee. He said:
"The Executive, via the Whips, ought not to select those members of the Select Committees who will be examining the Executive. That is crucial."
He is right. The present system is not only wrong in principle; the process has lacked transparency and denied disappointed Members any right of appeal. The events of last summer served to highlight grievances, and Parliament put things right and challenged the Executive. In doing so, however, we did not provide a mechanism for a permanent solution to the underlying problems.
The proposals of the Modernisation Committee provide a court of appeal and enhance transparency, while leaving the process of producing the party lists for the Select Committees in the hands of the parties themselves. In the Labour party, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, we have already chosen a better method, which is designed to provide greater transparency and fairness in the internal party process. Nothing that comes before the House tonight will change that, except that everyone will know that there is a court of appeal and another scrutiny system, and that, in extremis, a Member could appeal to the Committee of Nomination. I believe that the very existence of the Committee of Nomination means that it will probably never be used, because of the great influence that it will have simply by being there and by affecting the way in which the parties behave. Even if Labour Members think that we have got everything right, surely we ought to care about Opposition Members.
The composition of the Committee of Nomination, as proposed by the Modernisation Committee, has drawn many unfavourable comments: not many have been clearly voiced in the Chamber, but I can assure hon. Members that, out in the corridors, they certainly have been. They always begin with the words, "Those old…" I shall say no more. We now have some new, younger—we presume—people being added to the Modernisation Committee, and we all accept the proposals that are now before us, because we have accepted the amendments. We will, therefore, have 12 Members on the Committee, and they will reflect the different ages and the diversity in the House.
My only regret is that, when the amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), it was not made clear that, of the two Government additions, one should be a woman and the other a man. There is a gender imbalance on the Chairmen's Panel, and it could be addressed by the new amendments. I hope that, if the proposals are passed tonight, the spirit of that will be understood by those who make the appointments. People should look not at personalities, however, but at the independence that will be brought to the Committee of Nomination under the leadership of the Chairman of Ways and Means. This is an extremely modest proposal. but it returns to Parliament what is rightly Parliament's: the power of decision over matters of parliamentary scrutiny.
Our report seeks to address several other problems with the present system, including the size of the Committees. I frequently go to meetings at which I meet colleagues
694
from other European Parliaments and institutions. They always ask me at the outset, "Which Committee are you on?" There is an assumption in many Parliaments—this is now also true of the Scottish Parliament—that every Member will be on a Committee and be part of the scrutiny process, and that they will all have a place. By comparison, our scrutiny system is grossly underdeveloped, and our report seeks to address some of those problems.
In defending the present means of selection and appointment, some new Members have told me that they think it works extremely well and that it is the most interesting part of their job. I am sure that it is, but, by defending the status quo, they deny other new Members coming to the House the opportunity to serve. There should be an increase in the numbers, although I do not agree that that should be achieved in the way that our amendment now suggests. It should have been mandatory. The report recommended that there should be 15 members, and that is what we should have had. At least we should go some way towards that tonight, however, by giving discretion to Committees.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) talked about his Committee of 17 members. While saying that he would like it to be somewhat smaller, however, he also complained about the work load, and the complexities arising from not having full attendance. Any of us should be able to chair a Committee of 15. The Modernisation Committee—a completely cross-party Committee—has had 15 members and has been brilliantly chaired and, if I may say so, has worked extremely well. I agree with what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said about that tonight.
Mr. Curry: This is not a question of the ability to chair a Committee. It is a question of the ability to ensure that the Committee spends its time doing the job that it is supposed to do, in effectively pursuing its witnesses. There is a difference between a management problem and a parliamentary political problem.
Joan Ruddock: I chair the New Deal for Communities board, which is far more diverse than any parliamentary Committee, and has 21 members. I believe that there is a skill involved in enabling people in such circumstances. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, it does not always have to be Buggins's turn. Sometimes the member who is pursuing a point is the one who should be called more often. I accept that, but the fundamental principle here involves the opportunity for many more Members to serve on Select Committees. Because we have absences and conflicts of interest, and because people have to be in other places, having 15 members is a way of making a good Committee and enabling it to work.
There has been talk of costs, but, frankly, this is about scrutiny, which is what we are here to do, and that has to be paid for. It has been suggested that if membership of the Foreign Affairs Committee were larger, it would have people travelling all over the world on freebies. All those things can be sorted out. People have distinct interests, even within a Select Committee, and not everyone has to do everything or go everywhere at the same time.
Mrs. Dunwoody: It is terribly important to understand that, if a Select Committee is divided into a number of small Sub-Committees—or even quite large ones—the

695
other members of that Committee are excluded from considering not only the evidence but the conclusions. I hope that my hon. Friend will not go down the road of assuming that constantly fragmenting a bigger Committee gets a better result. That is not the case, and it actually defeats their purpose.
Joan Ruddock: I bow to my hon. Friend's experience, but I think that these matters can be worked out. I think that, because Sub-Committees concentrate more on specific issues, they sometimes add more to the whole. I do not think there is a complete choice and we are not offering a complete prescription, but I do think the numbers need to be increased.
Donald Anderson rose—
Joan Ruddock: I am trying to observe your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I cannot do so if I give way again.
The report says that the parties—in effect, the Government—will still determine which party chairs which Committee. I believe that chairmanships should rotate, although the Modernisation Committee has not considered that.
Last year, as events demonstrated, the usual channels sought to determine who would chair Committees. Even according to new proposals, and with improved methods of party selection, chairmanship could still be predetermined simply on the grounds of previous tenure and the fact that someone had done a good job. Experience shows that people can remain Chairs for three, four or even five Parliaments. They may continue to produce exemplary work, but I strongly believe that there are others with equal talents who must be given an opportunity to offer those talents. I think that one term, or five years, of a Parliament is sufficient for anyone to occupy the Chair, and it is certainly fairest if payment is involved.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie rose—
Joan Ruddock: I have no time to give way.
I believe that there should be a limit, and I think that the Committee's proposal of eight years is both modest and generous.
Finally, let me put down a marker. One matter was not raised in the Committee, but I think it will need to be raised in the future. The House has environmental and financial audit, but what does not exist for all Departments, Government institutions, quangos and so forth is any auditing of equality. We need an equality Select Committee to consider issues of gender, race and disability. Ours is a fundamentally unequal society, and even now our Government have not been able to address all the inequalities.
That is for another day, however. I appeal to my colleagues to support the whole package presented by the Modernisation Committee, both because of its intrinsic value and because it represents the start of real modernisation. The opportunity will not occur again in the near future.
6.42 pm
Sir George Young: I shall observe your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and try to speak with exceptional brevity.
There has been a transformation in mood and tone since a similar debate during the last Parliament, less than a year ago. Many who are present now have taken part in debates on "Shifting the Balance", and will note that transformation. There are many reasons for it—the pioneering work of the Liaison Committee, the personality of the new Leader of the House, but also, I think, the growing appetite of Back Benchers for the reclaiming of some of the power they have lost. That, I believe, is why this is a much more consensual, constructive debate than its predecessors.
The steam escaped at the beginning of this Parliament, at the end of July, during the debate on the Committee of Selection. What happened in 1992 gave that Committee the yellow card, and what happened in July this year gave it the red card. The system was bust, there was no way the House would accept it, and those outside who take an interest in the House would have been astounded if a discredited system had remained.
My Select Committee was not one of the those for which payments were proposed, and I do not want to be paid, but I think Chairmen of investigative committees should be paid. I take the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the risk of damage to cohesion and integrity if Committee Chairmen were paid, but I do not agree. I think that if the House decided that the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend should be paid, their Committees would work every bit as effectively as they do now. I do not think integrity or cohesion would be damaged if the House decided it was in the interest of building an alternative career structure for Chairmen to be paid.
I do not, however, buy the argument that that generosity should be extended to the shadow Cabinet. What we are trying to do is offer an alternative career path. The advantage for members of the shadow Cabinet is that one day they will be paid as Ministers. It would confuse the issue to start paying them on the back of the argument for remunerating Select Committee Chairmen.
Nor am I persuaded by the eight-year rule. If we are trying to offer an alternative career, why should we place an eight-year restriction on that career when there is no eight-year restriction on a ministerial term? Are we really saying that, had the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) not taken the Queen's shilling, he should not have been eligible to chair the Home Affairs Select Committee? Should a young man be cut off in his prime? The key question, surely, is this: which member of that Select Committee would best chair it, and best hold the Executive to account? We should ask not how long the Chairman has done his job, but whether he is the best at it.
Mr. Greg Knight: Can my right hon. Friend tell us how many Ministers of the Crown have served for more than eight years since the second world war?
Sir George Young: I plead guilty, and I would have been very distressed if after eight years John Major had said "I am very sorry, George, but you have had your eight years; that's it".

697
The key question for the Prime Minister is the question I have just posed: who is best able to discharge the portfolio? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was a Minister for some 18 years. He would say that he was just warming up at the end of that period, and ready for more challenges.
I want to make two final points, the first of which is about the size of Committees. I understand the argument that every Member should have an opportunity to display his or her talents by serving on a Select Committee, and I understand the argument about representation of minority parties, but I do not think that those are the key questions. The key question, in this context, is this: at what size can a Select Committee operate most effectively? What is the right size to enable it to hold the Executive to account? I think Committees should have about 11 or 13 members. The more members are added. the greater the diminishing returns. Each time the membership is increased from five to seven, from seven to nine and from nine to 11, value is added and the value of the extra member is significant, but as soon as it is increased from 11 or from 13 the diminishing returns begin.
I accept the arguments of nearly all members of the Liaison Committee. They argue that they can do their job more effectively with a smaller Committee. There is another point, which has not been mentioned: if more people are appointed to a Select Committee, they are not doing nothing else. It is not a nil sum game. If more people are asked to spend more time on Select Committees, they will probably spend less time in Westminster Hall and on Standing Committees.
My last point is about Prime Minister's Question Time, which I think is a disaster area. It is the worst possible way of holding the Prime Minister to account. It is most unusual to get any information out of the Prime Minister, but, even worse, Question Time gives people an entirely wrong impression of what politics is about. They assume that the House of Commons is always like that. That is one reason why people are switched off politics: they assume that that is what we are like. I think that there is an appetite for a less adversarial, more constructive, more strategic approach to questioning the Prime Minister.
I do not envy my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) his task of chairing the Liaison Committee, but I am sure he will do it well. Perhaps the House will learn from what the Committee does, and the format of Prime Minister's Question Time on the Floor of the House may change if the House discovers that there is a better way of holding the Government to account.
Yes, the balance is shifting; but the momentum needs to be maintained if the House is to return to what should be its position.
6.49 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Although many of the Committee's proposals are good—more resources for Select Committees, the debating of reports, and so forth—I have severe reservations about two or three aspects of them. I shall begin with the question of Committee size, as that is where the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) left off.
Arguing that the size of Committees should be increased to provide more people with more jobs is not very attractive reasoning. It would not make Committees
698
more effective; indeed, evidence from the Liaison Committee and the comments that we have heard today have overwhelmingly demonstrated the opposite. Not only would there be less participation by each Committee member, and therefore less time to pursue particular lines of inquiry, but it is less likely that unanimity would be reached. One of the great strengths of the Select Committee system is the ability to produce unanimous cross-party reports. The greater the number of members, the greater the risk of party political division, and the less cogent the reports would be.
The first solution is to ensure that existing members of Select Committees actually turn up. If they fail to turn up without good reason, they should be replaced. That is the answer to the quorum question, and I am pleased that the Modernisation Committee report deals with it to some degree.
Another solution is to consider the configuration of existing Committees. We have heard about the great work load of some of the bigger Committees. If the work of some groups is sufficiently discrete, they could perhaps be divided into full Select Committees in their own right, rather than being split into Sub-Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) may have a view on whether transport should have a full Select Committee in its own right. The creation of giant Departments is perhaps linked to the current anomaly, as well as to some of the transport problems that we face.
We have considered the creation of new Select Committees. Some Government Departments do not have their own Select Committees. For example, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Officers' Department are lumped in with the Home Office for Select Committee purposes, and it is clear that they do not get the scrutiny that they deserve. Perhaps we should consider establishing a separate Committee to scrutinise those Departments. The same is true of the Cabinet Office; if we genuinely want to achieve joined-up government, perhaps we should establish a Committee that examines it per se.
We already have cross-departmental Committees such as the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Science and Technology Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that we should perhaps establish a Select Committee on equality that can examine such issues across government. In establishing whether the configuration of Committees is right, perhaps we could also create the necessary additional jobs and improve the effectiveness of the scrutiny of Government, rather than simply providing more jobs on existing Committees, thereby potentially weakening their effectiveness.
My other main reservation concerns the Committee of Nomination. I agree with the approach adopted by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). Do we need it, and if so, why? The argument in favour of the Committee of Nomination is that it would ensure fair play and provide a court of appeal, but in what way? Such decisions will be taken by the parties, and it has been accepted that parties will produce their own lists, much as they already do. We seem to have overlooked the fact that since last summer's spat the Labour party has reformed its procedures, thereby almost certainly ensuring that such problems will not arise again.

699
My concern is that complaints already heard in the parliamentary Labour party, and, ultimately, on the Floor of the House, could be heard in yet another forum. We are told that that would happen only in exceptional circumstances, but three such circumstances have occurred already. The danger is that we will create a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Today's proposals certainly do not recognise the changes that the parliamentary Labour party, at least, has already made to its procedures.
I am worried about the possibility that we would be creating a whinger's charter. People who could not convince their own colleagues that they ought to be put on a particular Select Committee would be able to run and tell tales to a group of more senior, unelected Committee members—who, as the Liberal Democrats have pointed out, would have the power not only to accommodate the whinger, but to remove someone who did enjoy the confidence of the party in question. Their acquiring such power would be a natural consequence of the proposal.
The report says that we must come up with a structure that enjoys the confidence of both sides of the House. It is bad enough that a minority of Opposition Members could decide on Government appointments. For example, they would have the power to examine the Labour party's papers, demand explanations of our party's decisions and overturn recommendations. Do the Opposition seriously want a Committee with a Government majority—albeit one that might operate in a non-party political way—to take decisions on their appointments? That surely cannot be good for scrutiny. In fact, it would give a Committee with a Government majority the right to get rid of Opposition appointees and replace them with people more to its liking, which would give rise to potential for great mischief.
Mr. Salter: Will my hon. Friend clarify one important point? The premise of his argument is the retention of the existing Committee of Selection, which is dominated by Whips, and which in the past has been known to meet for some three minutes, or even, in certain cases, 30 seconds. Does he not realise that that process is discredited? Does he not further realise that the House of Commons as a whole would have the power to overturn the recommendations of the Committee of Nomination, just as it can overturn those of the Committee of Selection? In relation to the powers vested in this House and its individual Members, the proposed process is in no way different.
Mr. Dismore: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but he has overlooked the fact that since the problems arose last year, the parliamentary Labour party has reformed its system-although I cannot speak for the other parties. Of course the right already exists to take such matters to the House of Commons. In effect, my hon. Friend is trying to replace one set of people with another.
As for the configuration of the Committee of Selection, an amendment has been accepted that marginally improves matters. However, in effect, existing members of the Committee owe their membership to the principle of Buggins's turn. If the proposed Committee were established today, most of its male members would have been elected between 1959 and 1983. There might be one
700
or two new Members as well, but such a membership would certainly not represent the balance of interests in the House. Nor would they have the knowledge, strengths and special interests of hon. Members as a whole.
A series of complicated amendments has been synthesised into one to deal with that problem, but it has not worked. When I entered Parliament in 1997 I knew a few of my intake, but I knew nothing about the vast majority of the others, and I certainly knew very little about those who had been Members for a long time-excluding what one read in the newspapers, or heard on "Today In Parliament." Moreover, the media give a poor impression of what people are really like. The 1992 intake did not know much about the 1997 intake, and the 1997 intake knew practically nothing about the 2001 intake. We can tinker at the margins by trying to create places for Members from recent intakes, but that will not address the issue of knowing the strengths and weaknesses of Members throughout the House. I am therefore concerned about the concept of the Committee of Nomination and the mechanics of its operation.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dismore: No, because I am drawing my remarks to a close.
I am concerned by the suggestion that the Chairman should be chosen by the Committee itself. I question whether, when the chairmanship of a Select Committee has been allocated to the Opposition, it is right for the Government members of the Committee to be able to choose the Chairman. According to that principle, the Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, would not have chosen our current Chairman-he is a good Chairman-because he is the only Liberal Democrat member of it. The suggestion is therefore rather nonsensical.
I agree that there should be a time limit on the length of service of Select Committee Chairmen, and what has been offered is a reasonable compromise in that respect. However, I want an assurance that we will not be subjected to musical chairs. Where a given Committee is reconfigured as a Department is restructured, the opportunity could arise for someone who has already served two terms to be parachuted in for a third term on a different Select Committee. The principle should be, "Two strikes and you're out", to make room for other people with an equal right to serve in that capacity.
6.59 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend-if I may call him that-the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who sits on the Work and Pensions Committee with me. I enjoy working with him, and as he says, the Committee operates on the basis of consensus. The idea of consensus on a Select Committee is an important point, which I am picking up from the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). He was right to say that people's perception of this place is of confrontational, custard-pie politics.
The work of Select Committees, if they are operating properly, follows from the evidence presented to all their members. They draw conclusions based on the evidence

701
Presented to them. It can be difficult for members from the governing party, but if the evidence is produced they will say, "Yes, there are problems that the Government need to address." That has certainly been my experience. That is the essence of the work of Select Committees, and we need to promote that ethic and change the way in which we work in the House. Otherwise we will continue to fall in the esteem of the public, and that is a matter of great concern for the whole democratic process.
I share the enthusiasm for the tone of the debate and the proposals. I have not seen such an opportunity for change in my time in the House, which began in 1983. Other hon. Members have explained all the elements of the changes earlier in the debate, so I shall not go into those, but I should point out that the Leader of the House has played a key role in the process. The weight of his presence on the Modernisation Committee and on the House of Commons Commission has unlocked doors in a way that I have never seen before. With his authority, he has been able to confront the collective power of the Whips in a way that Leaders of the House in the past—although I say nothing against them—have perhaps not been able to do. The present Leader of the House has used his position to begin a process of change.
The hon. Member for Hendon raised detailed points of concern. He is a thoughtful man, and we would be right to consider his views, but I hope that colleagues will see the proposals as the start of a long journey. A process of evolution could shift the balance, in the way that the Liaison Committee started to identify in the last Parliament.
When we are trying to shift the balance, we should continually remind ourselves of the weight balanced against us. The total sum of money spent by central Government in the fiscal year 2001–02 was £394 billion. The total sum spent by the House on all aspects of scrutiny was £7.7 million. According to my calculations, that is 0.002 per cent. of the total sum spent by the Government. The Public Accounts Committee has control over the National Audit Office, which has 750 staff, and the House has only 150 professionals in its staff complement to support the scrutiny work of Members of Parliament. Moreover, the disproportion has been worsening.
As part of the package of changes, we need to think about how we can shift the balance. I come back to the role that the Leader of the House has played in the process. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I can confirm that the Commission has signed up to the project. Its members have already started thinking about funding for a central unit. We cannot do anything until the disposition of the House is known after the Divisions tonight, but if it is the will of the House, it would be possible to have in place a central unit, with 18 new members of staff, by autumn 2003. That would mean the expenditure of some £850,000. I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 20 years and a member of the Commission for six or seven years, but I have never before known it possible to devote such sums to the House of Commons' work of scrutiny.
Not only the core unit would be funded; the Internal Review Service, with the help of the NAO, is already working on plans for additional support for each Committee's office, in addition to the core unit. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has also played a distinguished and important role in that process.
702
The Commission has already committed itself to trying to assist the political process that has been started, within reason and subject to the budget for the next three-year expenditure plan. Of course there is not enough money to do everything that we would like to do, but in the past 18 months there has been a sea change in the willingness of the House authorities to assist the process, and we should seize that opportunity with both hands.
Mr. Sheerman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the resources represent a wonderful opportunity for the Select Committee system, and we must thank many people for that. However, does he agree that the Select Committee system will be on trial? If in the end people still think that Select Committees are a little ghetto into which some hon. Members disappear and never communicate with the rest of the House, we will have failed. We have to ensure that we are worthy to be given the resources, and worthy of the confidence of the House.
Mr. Kirkwood: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I fear that the list of core tasks mentioned in the motion may become prescriptive, but it at least gives us a measure by which, over a Parliament, we can test the effectiveness of the work that we do. We will indeed need to demonstrate that the changes have made a difference to the effectiveness of the Select Committees.
The proposal to provide salaries for the Chairmen of Select Committees is the right approach, because an alternative career structure within the current system is an essential third part of the package, along with a core unit and adequate staff for each Committee. We need professional Chairmen, especially for Committees such as the Work and Pensions Committee, whose work is becoming ever more technical. It needs a specialist, who spends two, three, or even three and a half days a week on the work. We need to provide the career structure and money that will make that work worth while. For the first time ever, we have an opportunity to bring that about.
I enjoy working with my colleagues on the Work and Pensions Committee—there are 11 of us—in a spirit of consensus. However, I fear the difficulty of trying to achieve that consensus with 15 members. On Wednesday we heard from three different groups of witnesses, with two people representing each group. It was difficult even for the number of Committee members who were present—we always have a good turn-out—to cross-examine six people meaningfully, but with 15 members it would have been impossible. People would have been dissatisfied and demotivated.
As the hon. Member for Hendon pointed out, smaller memberships are necessary to produce powerful consensual reports, because people have the opportunity to get to know each other well enough. I am worried by the proposals to increase the size of Select Committees, although—I would say this, because I am member of one of them—I accept the need to try to ensure that the views of minority parties are reflected on Select Committees.
The hon. Member for Hendon thinks deeply about these issues, but I disagree with his point about the Committee of Nomination. It is an essential part of the package. I served for five years, without time off for good behaviour, on the Committee of Selection. It is difficult for the Government to ensure that all the Standing Committees, including those on delegated legislation, are properly put

703
together, but that is different from the important work that the Committee does in trying to find people to sit on Select Committees.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the Nomination Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a misconception that the Committee needs to be concerned about the identity of individual Select Committee members? Its task is not to replace one Select Committee member with another, but to guard against the abuse of process and the corruption that has been evident for far too long in its predecessor.
Mr. Kirkwood: I agree.
We should try the Committee of Nomination process for the rest of this Parliament. If there are difficulties and it does not work, we can revisit the matter, but it is important to try it. I agree with those who say that it may be a long time before the opportunity arises again.
7.10 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: A very senior member of the civil service recently gave a lecture at which he was asked for his opinion of the role of Parliament as a scrutinising organ. He replied that Parliament did not scrutinise, as the press fulfilled that function. Parliament would have to find another role, he said.
We should take that observation on board. The Chamber has lost many powers to demand answers from Members of Parliament, and many other aspects have been eroded. Much of what we assumed was accepted practice is no longer so. People do not think that it matters that statements are made not to the House of Commons first, but to fit in with press deadlines. They do not think that it matters that, when asked to appear as witnesses before a Select Committee, people can respond that they are Members of the other place or that they have a problem and cannot attend.
For the first time, my Select Committee produced a report about the need for Treasury Ministers to appear before it. Those Ministers have a political role now, over and above the involvement in negotiations about cash that they have always had. We have not even had a reply from the Government.
The House tonight is debating the urgent need for reforms to the system, and what those reforms should be. We must learn the fundamental lesson that every hon. Member is responsible for holding the Executive to account. We must be able to demonstrate to our voters that, in a democratic system, we are serious about asking difficult and often uncomfortable questions. We are not here to be always popular.
I speak as someone who has made a career out of not being popular. When I first came here, the House was fiercely sexist, and now it is ageist. Neither quality has done me much good, so it appears that my political timing has been wrong on all counts.
Select Committees are vital when it comes to finding out what the Government are doing, and why, and what they intend for the future. The system must have proper
704
staffing. The House may not appreciate how much work is done by the Clerks and the specialist advisers. Select Committees are not even able to ask for economic models from the Government such as were produced by the Treasury for public-private partnership proposals. We do not have access to vital bits of information. Select Committees need to have much bigger staff, with much better pay and resources.
I oppose the proposal to pay Chairmen, however. Select Committees work because all members are equal and must work together. I am determined that all members should be able to comment on any report that my Select Committee produces, because they have all contributed to it. It has been said that the only way to get good-quality people to work on Select Committees is to establish an alternative career structure and pay Chairmen, but I believe that that undermines the role of Select Committees.
It is sad that Labour Members are prepared to say that the worth of people can be judged only by what they earn. We should remember how paramedics have had to crawl into damaged train carriages in the past few days. We should ask ourselves whether we as a nation have our priorities right, given the vast sums of money earned by people in the media or other careers. Their work may be useful and entertaining, but they are not vital services. I do not agree that we will get the quality that we deserve only if we pay Select Committee chairmen extra.
That is nonsensical, and it plays into the hands of those who say that Members of Parliament fulfil their true worth only when they disappear into the junior ranks of Government. Many hon. Members become invisible once they do that. They do not take serious decisions or change anything, yet they seem to think that that is the only way they can progress.
All Members of Parliament are here to use their judgment and abilities. We earn a very reasonable salary, and the need to give ourselves extra carrots on top of that raises questions about our political and moral judgment.
Select Committees work because members hear evidence and reach an agreed report. They listen to witnesses and ask questions. That is the basis of the conclusions that they reach. It has been proposed that increasing the membership of Select Committees so that smaller groups can be formed and sent off here and there will improve the quality of scrutiny. That is nonsense. I assure the House that when half the membership of a Select Committee produces a report, the other half—who have not read the evidence, or listened to it—are often full of the confidence of ignorance. They are very happy to tell those who have been active in producing a report that their conclusions are wrong and should be rewritten.
That is not a constructive way to produce useful reports for Parliament. The task of Select Committees is to reply to Parliament, not to Government. We will be in considerable danger if we lose that function.
Modern government is complex and covers many different roles. Many unaccountable methods are employed to get decisions through the system. I am not talking about a Cabinet Office with three different sections and innumerable committees chaired by people who are not elected. I am talking about the business of government, and about the numbers of Departments that have their own quangos, sub-committees and arrangements.

705
The House has still not grasped the extent of the problem. We have lost the ability to demand that the Government remember that they are answerable to hon. Members because we are elected. Until we take back that power, progress will remain limited.
The report is important. It was produced mainly by men, so it is not perfect, but it has a great deal to offer. However, I remind the House that Select Committees are an opportunity and a responsibility. More than that, they are our hope for the future. If we mess up the chance to make them really effective, what hon. Members do elsewhere will not matter. Everything will be a matter of presentation, and the general public will rapidly cotton on to how unimportant that renders us.
7.18 pm
Pete Wishart: I add the congratulations of the Scottish National party to those already extended to the Modernisation Committee, which has produced a thorough and robust report under the stewardship of the Leader of the House.
We very much welcome the broad thrust of the report and support the Committee in its efforts to strengthen and extend the role of Select Committees. We also agree with the Leader of the House that the measures would improve the scrutiny provided by Select Committees and would add to their ability to hold the Executive to account.
I also welcome the remarks about pre-legislative scrutiny. That has been a positive experience in the past, and I know that the Leader of the House was impressed when he visited the Scottish Parliament last year and saw how the committee structure there was focused on delivering pre-legislative scrutiny.
We contend that Select Committees should reflect, as far as possible, all shades of opinion in the House. The Government should go the extra mile and ensure that all the political parties here are represented properly in the House's institutions. We therefore support the increase in the number of members of Select Committees. I hope that the House will support our amendment this evening and that the minority parties will gain extra places.
Under the current situation, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru have no membership of a non-regional departmental Committee. That is unacceptable—we are effectively barred from further scrutiny of important Departments that still have a major remit in relation to some of the constituents whom we are here to represent.
We support the Prime Minister's announcement that he will appear in front of the Liaison Committee. However, it means that once again, we in the minority parties are effectively shut out, as we have no membership of the Liaison Committee. The arithmetic of the House traditionally works against minority parties because of the thresholds required to obtain a place. A body that is 34-strong means that we should be entitled to a place, but the Liaison Committee is composed solely of Chairs of Committees, and we have difficulty in securing a place on a Committee, far less one of the chairmanships. The three main parties will have the opportunity further to scrutinise the work of the Prime Minister while the minority parties will not. That is one more example of how the House can be seen as unrepresentative and not including all shades of opinion.
I am disappointed that the Liaison Committee has come out against increasing the number of members on Select Committees. What would it do to try to increase the
706
number of members of minority parties on Select Committees? I looked carefully at its response to the Modernisation Committee report and found no mention of the minority parties. I found its objection to increasing the size of Select Committees pretty unconvincing and, in parts, feeble.
The Liaison Committee doubts whether there will be enough Members to fill the increased number of places on Select Committees. Only some 40 per cent. of Members serve on Select Committees, whereas 100 per cent. of Bundestag Members serve on Select Committees of that Parliament. Members of the Scottish Parliament serve on at least two Committees. It is argued that Members might not be found to serve on Select Committees. What do right hon. and hon. Members think we are in this place for if not to provide effective scrutiny of the Government?
I think that the real reason why the Liaison Committee has come out so strongly against the increase in numbers is that its members are in real danger of becoming a self-preserving Select Committee elite. I caution it against pursuing that route; it should become a Committee of the whole House.
Right hon. and hon. Members have said, mainly from sedentary positions, that minority parties do not have places on Select Committee because our numbers are so small. We are indeed minority parties, in terms of the basic arithmetic of the House.
Lady Hermon: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the unique position of Northern Ireland? This Government—and I am very pleased that it was this Government—entered into the Belfast agreement and guaranteed the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom unless and until a majority of people voted otherwise. Surely, then, it is essential, in fulfilling the obligations of that agreement, that the main nationalist parties—the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Ulster Unionist party—are represented in this House in all its aspects, including Select Committees?
Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady makes a very good point which demonstrates why minority parties should be included in the membership of Select Committees. Let us start to unravel what we mean by minority parties. I represent the Scottish National party—the principal Opposition party in the Scottish Parliament and the second party of Scotland which is quickly becoming established as the first party. My hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru are the second party and the principal Opposition party of the National Assembly for Wales. The right hon. and hon. Members who sit on the Benches behind me, along with SDLP Members, are the effective Government of Northern Ireland. We have a massive constituency—we represent millions of people. Because of the electoral system and the way in which votes are cast, we unfortunately do not have the number of Members that our votes deserve, but we hope that that will change in the not-too-distant future.
I think that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the House must represent all shades of opinion in the country. Indeed, the House should make every effort to ensure that that happens. The Scottish Parliament includes single Members of three minority parties. They have been given Select Committee places way beyond what the basic arithmetic would suggest. That is a good example, which the House would do well to follow.

707
Our amendment would include the leaders of all the minority parties—or if not the leaders, the Whips. That is a significant achievement. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members consider that when they vote tonight, because we will certainly push the amendment to a vote.
We also tabled an amendment to include a minority party member in the new Committee of Nomination, but unfortunately it was not selected. We believe it important that a voice from the minority parties should at least be given the opportunity to put the case for minority representation on Select Committees. We might not be successful, but at least we should be given the opportunity to put the case.
After the breakdown of our relationship with the Liberal Democrats—an arrangement that all minority parties found unsatisfactory—the minority parties came together. We now deal directly with the Government—an arrangement that has proved very satisfactory. We agree among ourselves who should be nominated for Committee places and present the names weekly to the Government, who then put our case at the Committee of Selection. Although that has been a satisfactory arrangement, it is no substitute for putting our case directly. However, I must say that our new arrangements with the Government and, indeed, the Opposition Whips have been useful, constructive and even friendly. The Government have put our case well and we have managed to secure most of the places that we have sought. Sometimes I wonder where the Whips' fearsome reputation comes from: I found them the most congenial bunch of gentlemen, with whom it has been a pleasure to work.
We reject the composition of the Committee of Nomination not only because we will continue to be frozen out but because it is the same old story. Having seven members of the Chairmen's Panel is fair enough, as the Chairmen's Panel is the first port of call in finding people to fill the new Committee. However, the Committee will also consist of the four most senior members of the governing party, the two most senior members of the principal Opposition party, and one member of the Liberal Democrats. It sounds like the same old arithmetic.
Mr. Salmond: The same old gang.
Pete Wishart: The same old gang, as my hon. Friend says.
In addition, the Committee will include the most senior Government Back Bencher and the most senior Opposition Back Bencher. That looks like our best way in: if, by sheer willpower, we could outlive everybody else on the Opposition Benches, we might secure a place on the Committee of Nomination. I will be inquiring daily as to the well-being and health of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan and doing all that I can to persuade him to remain in this House so that we can secure our place on the Committee of Nomination.
All the places on the Committee will once again be taken by the three mainstream United Kingdom parties, and the minority parties will be shut out. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that it is important that all opinions are represented in the Committees and structures of the House, and that they will support our amendment.
7.27 pm
Ms Julia Drown: My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) and I are not pressing the amendments in our name in favour of those tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant).
There is a controversy over how we move forward on the Committee of Nomination, and real lessons can be learned from this debate. The House is finally beginning to accept that longevity of Members in this place should not count. All MPs—all Back Benchers—should be equal in this place. The attitude has been that every year people spend here adds to their wisdom so that their views count more than those of others. We frequently see such people called to speak first in debates and at Question Time, but there is no basis for that. There were great talents in the 2001 intake of MPs, just as there were in earlier intakes. The views of the 2001 intake and others are equally valid; I see them as equally intelligent. Their constituents deserve to be heard just as much as the constituents of Members who have been in this place longer.
The longevity rules have created a bias against young people, yet we hear increasingly that young people are not involved in democracy. If young people do not believe that they have an equal say in this House, that will continue.
The system also creates a bias against marginal constituencies because, by their very nature, the Members who represent them will have spent less time here. Their constituents—the people in constituencies where there has been more of a political debate—will not be heard so much, whereas constituencies where the votes have been weighed for centuries will continue to have a louder voice.
Parliament has changed too slowly in the past and is still changing too slowly. We need to change dramatically if we are to catch up and bring the British public with us. When 1 discussed my amendment with colleagues, the pervasive view was that perhaps the 1997 intake should be considered, but not the 2001 intake—because "They won't know how Parliament works." However, it is the job of colleagues and Officers of the House to ensure that even if a Member has been here only for a day they can play a full part as a Back Bencher; they can make sensible judgments. In relation to the Committee of Nomination, Members from the 2001 intake could bring the freshest and most independent views.
I regret that the gender balance allowed for in the Modernisation Committee's original report is no longer included. We could now end up with a Committee of 11 men and only two women. If we want women to be more interested in politics and more willing to come forward, we need to ensure that they are more visible.
We must make dramatic moves forward, although I share the consensus expressed in the House today. We are moving further and faster than we have done in the past. I congratulate the Leader of the House on listening to Back Benchers and look forward to further developments.
7.31 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: In the three minutes allowed me, I want to make two points. First, the most fundamental change for Parliament in the long run will come from the fact that the Prime Minister will start to

709
appear before Select Committees. I have long supported that proposal; in fact, I first discussed it a long time ago with John Major when he was Prime Minister. He was not enthusiastic about the idea.
I am pleased that the current Prime Minister has grasped the fact that there is something in it for him and that scrutiny is not a zero-sum game. I would add only that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) is not quite right to suggest that we can rely on precedent. Between the wars, Prime Ministers made only four such appearances; four times in 20 years is not remotely enough.
Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyrie: I do not have time.
My second point is that at the heart of the Select Committee system must be the quality of and the respect accorded to the Chairmen. Chairmen should be elected by secret ballot by the whole House. We should first go through the normal horse trading to decide which Committees go to which party and then nominations should go forward from us for election to Select Committee chairmanships. I support most of the proposals in the report, and that is the only major proposal of mine that has not appeared even as a point for further discussion.
That proposal would fundamentally alter the position of Select Committee Chairmen. If they were elected, they would have a position of great authority in the House and that would bring them far greater media attention. More than any other measure, that would tilt the balance between the Executive and the legislature. The Leader of the House has done a marvellous job so far and I warmly commend him. I hope that I do not damage his career by saying that. He has done a remarkable job and I urge him to reconsider this proposal.
7.33 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) who touched on the fundamental issue, although it has not been fully articulated for reasons that I well understand: it is the anomaly that has existed since the Select Committee system was set up in its present form more than 20 years ago and attempted, valiantly, to replicate the congressional system in this country while rather conveniently ignoring the fact that a legislature that gives birth to and sustains the Executive also attempts to hold that Executive to account.
That fundamental anomaly underlies the difficulty that we have been skirting around all day. It is reflected in the fact, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has just touched on, that the chairmanships of Select Committees are divvied up, or shared out, on the basis of party in the House; and that memberships of Select Committees, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), are apportioned on the basis of party representation in the legislature. Perhaps it is no wonder that ever since 1979 we have not only struggled to identify a role for Select Committees vis-à-vis the Executive but have been asking ourselves why the Executive—or the usual channels, or whatever—are constantly seen to interfere and intervene in the working of Select Committees.
710
Although the proposals are a valiant attempt to deal with that difficulty, it will only be superficial until we have the courage to address that fundamental paradox and anomaly. We must not skirt over the problems arising from the fact that Select Committees have a majority of Government Members. I do not want to dwell on the matter, but the House will remember a recent episode when key members of the Select Committee on the Treasury were absent and the Committee produced a report that was not convenient to the Government.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) let the cat out of the bag when he said, in essence, that it was all very well when Select Committees could operate on the basis of consensus, but that if that was ever threatened—in other words if a Committee got a bit political—the Government majority would ensure that a report was passed that was not critical of the Government. That was the gist of his remarks and it rather gave the lie to the problem and the attitude regrettably held by many Members.
The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), like the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), touched on the odd fact that the problem experienced by the House last year over the treatment of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) was, in the end, sorted out by the House. That challenges the whole thrust of the Modernisation Committee's argument and underpins the proposals that the Leader of the House and the Committee are recommending to the House.
The truth is that in many ways, which have been described by many right hon. and hon. Members during the debate, the existing system has served the House pretty well over the years. When that problem arose last year, it was dealt with by the House of Commons; it did not require some elaborate construct of the kind proposed today—with all the peculiarities of gender and intake balance, seniority and new Members with which we have struggled throughout the debate.
Is the game worth the candle? Is the system sufficiently broke that we feel have to fix it? Is the proposed construct the right answer?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House of Commons was able to remedy that serious wrong because it was an absolutely gross example of the corruption that we have been talking about today? The measures are attempting to catch the smaller corruptions.
Mr. Forth: I do not think that I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's use of the word "corruption" in any sense at all. The system is as it is; most of us understand it pretty well and we found a way of dealing with the problem. It may not have been pleasant for the powers that be—or the powers of darkness, if we want to describe them thus—but in the end the problem was resolved.
The proposals offer a series of elaborate answers to a problem that does not require the solution that is before the House. As I think the Leader of the House implied when he opened the debate, the motions are not some sort of take or leave it. A series of propositions has been put to the House with which, obviously, some Members will agree and others will disagree. I welcome the fact that the House will be able to form its view on each issue—

711
whether it be the size of Committees, the composition of the Committee of Nomination or whatever. We shall vote as we think fit, having—some of us—listened to the debate. We shall then move on from that.
A heartening variety of views were expressed during the debate and I welcome that. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) offered some guidance to my right hon. and hon. Friends, they will all vote as they choose. I am glad to know that Government Members will do the same. I am not convinced that the problem is as it was identified, and I am certainly not convinced that the solution is one that we need follow.
7.39 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I am disappointed that the amendment of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) calling for parity for the Opposition with the Government on Select Committees was not selected. As the danger in it does not now arise, I must point out that I was almost tempted to accept it if only for the entertainment value of watching the Opposition struggling to fill all the extra places on Select Committees when they cannot even fill the present places that they have without drafting in Front Benchers to replace Back Benchers.
My reply can be brief, because I have heard little in the debate that criticises the Modernisation Committee's report. I am sometimes told that some Members are unhappy with the proposals, but I can only point out that, during the debate, one Back Bencher opposed the proposals and 13 others supported most elements of the Committee's report. In fact, most of them supported all the elements in the report. I am very grateful for the generous words about me and the Modernisation Committee that Members have uttered in the debate, but I must warn them that I am a professional politician. I much prefer their votes in the Lobby to their kind words in the Chamber.
It is a fair summary of the debate to say that the House has welcomed the report. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) is regarded as improving the Committee of Nomination and the House will accept the compromise on Committee size that we have put forward today.
Refreshingly, the House has dwelt very little on the question of extra pay for the Chairs of the Select Committees. I do not know how that vote will go, but I hope that tomorrow's press—perhaps even tomorrow's "Today" programme—will not report that the debate was about an increase in remuneration, but was a serious and thoughtful discussion about how the House best discharges its duty of scrutiny through the Select Committees.
The package will greatly strengthen the Select Committees. It will give them more resources, more focus and more transparency. However, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) were right. It is a package and it risks falling apart if it is picked apart piece by piece. In that context, I wish to say a word about what was said in the debate—not in speeches, but in interventions—about the Committee of Nomination. My
712
hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) twice asked why we should replace 410 Labour Members of Parliament with a Committee of seven. That is a fundamental misconception of the role of the Committee of Nomination.
The Committee of Nomination will not replace the party process; it will replace the Committee of Selection, which, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall memorably pointed out, normally meets for 30 seconds to three minutes. That is not adequate time for the free and independent play of thoughts. The Committee of Nomination will not interfere with the party process. I helped to write the new process for the Labour party, and I am proud of that process. I am confident that its democracy and transparency will produce the right outcome.
There is a paradox in the view of some of my colleagues. They are also proud of that process and are confident about its democracy, but they appear worried that anyone else should cast an investigative eye over the outcome. I am not frightened of the Committee of Nomination. It is right that Parliament should have the right to see that fair play is done in the party process. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to be frightened either, but welcome the fact that the Committee will reinforce the standing of Select Committees and make it clear that nomination is independent of the control of party or Executive machine. As a result, the Select Committees of the House will carry greater legitimacy, command greater confidence and bring greater authority to their task of scrutiny.
It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [13 May.]
Amendment proposed: (d), in line 5, after 'House', insert
`welcomes the proposal to increase the size of Select Committees; believes that the Select Committees must represent all shades of opinion in the House and therefore calls for some of these new places to be reserved for the minority parties;'.—[Mr. Wishart.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 352.

Division No. 236]

[7.44 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Heath, David

Barrett, John

Hermon, Lady

Brake, Tom

Holmes, Paul

Breed, Colin

Keetch, Paul

Bruce, Malcolm

Kirkwood, Archy

Burnett, John

Leigh, Edward

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Llwyd, Elfyn

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Mackinlay, Andrew

McWilliam, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Oaten, Mark

Cohen, Harry

Öpik, Lembit

Corbyn, Jeremy

Price, Adam

Dalyell, Tam

Pugh, Dr John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Rendel, David

Ewing, Annabelle

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Fisher, Mark

Salmond, Alex

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Sanders, Adrian

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Stunell, Andrew

Harvey, Nick

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

713

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Thomas, Simson (Ceredigion)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Wishart, Pete

Tyler, Paul

Tynan, Bill

Tellers for the Ayes:

Webb, Steve

Mr. John Heppell and

Weir, Michael

Mr. Fraser Kemp.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Coaker, Vernon

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Ainger, Nick

Collins, Tim

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Connarty, Michael

Allen, Graham

Conway, Derek

Amess, David

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Corston, Jean

Cousins, Jim

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Cranston, Ross

Atherton, Ms Candy

cruddas, Jon

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bacon, Richard

Cummings, John

Bailey, Adrian

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

Baird, Vera

(Copeland)

Baldry, Tony

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Barker, Gregory

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Battle, John

Curry, Rt Hon David

Beard, Nigel

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Begg, Miss Anne

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Bell, Stuart

David, Wayne

Benn, Hilary

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Bennett, Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Benton, Joe

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Bercow, John

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

Beresford, Sir Paul

Best, Harold

Dawson, Hilton

Betts, Clive

Dean, Mrs Janet

Blackman, Liz

Dhanda, Parmjit

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dismore, Andrew

Blizzard, Bob

Donohoe, Brian H

Blunt, Crispin

Doran, Frank

Borrow, David

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Boswell, Tim

Dowd, Jim

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Drown, Ms Julia

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Duncan, Smith, Rt Hon Iain

Brady, Graham

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Brazier, Julian

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Brennan, Kevin

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Efford, Clive

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bryant, Chris

Evans, Nigel

Buck, Ms Karen

Fabricant, Michael

Burgon, Colin

Fallon, Michael

Burnham, Andy

Farrelly, Paul

Burns, Simon

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Burt, Alistair

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Cairns, David

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Flight, Howard

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Flint, Caroline

Casale, Roger

Flynn, Paul

Cash, William

Follett, Barbara

Caton, Martin

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Cawsey, Ian

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Foulkes, George

Fox, Dr Liam

Chaytor, David

Francis, Dr Hywel

Chope, Christopher

Gale, Roger

Clapham, Michael

Gapes, Mike

Clappison, James

Garnier, Edward

Clark, Dr Lynda

Gerrard, Neil

Gibson, Dr Ian

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Gilroy, Linda

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Goggins, Paul

Clelland, David

Goodman, Paul

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grey, James

714

Green, Damian (Ashford)

McDonnell, John

Grieve, Dominic

McFall, John

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Hague, Rt Hon William

McKechin, Ann

Hain, Rt Hon Peter

McKenna, Rosemary

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McNulty, Tony

Hammond, Philip

MacShane, Denis

Hanson, David

Mactaggart, Fiona

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

McWalter, Tony

Hayes, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Heald, Oliver

Malins, Humfrey

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Mallaber, Judy

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mann, John

Hendrick, Mark

Marris, Rob

Hendry, Charles

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hinchliffe, David

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hoban, Mark

Martlew, Eric

Hodge, Margaret

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Hope, Phil

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

May, Mrs Theresa

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Howells, Dr Kim

Miliband, David

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Moffatt, Laura

Hunter, Andrew

Mole, Chris

Iddon, Dr Brian

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Morgan, Julie

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Morley, Elliot

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Moss Malcolm

Jamieson, David

Mountford, Kali

Jenkin, Bernard

Mudie, George

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Mullin, Chris

Munn, Ms Meg

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Joyce, Eric

Norris, Dan

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Key, Robert

Olner, Bill

Khabra, Piara S

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Kidney, David

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ottaway, Richard

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Owen, Albert

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Page, Richard

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Paice, James

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Paterson, Owen

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Picking, Anne

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Pickles, Eric

Laws, David

Pickthall, Colin

Laxton, Bob

Pike, Peter

Lazarowicz, Mark

Plaskitt, James

Lepper, David

Pollard, Kerry

Leslie, Christopher

Pond, Chris

Letwin, Oliver

Pope, Greg

Levitt, Tom

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Prosser, Gwyn

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Purchase, Ken

Lidington, David

Purnell, James

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Quinn, Lawrie

Lloyd, Tony

Rammell, Bill

Loughton, Tim

Randall, John

Love, Andrew

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Lucas, Ian

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Luff, Peter

Robathan, Andrew

Luke, Iain

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Lyons, John

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

McAvoy, Thomas

Rooney, Terry

McCabe, Stephen

Ross, Ernie

McCafferty, Chris

Ruane, Chris

715

Ruddock, Joan

Timms, Stephen

Ruffley, David

Tipping, Paddy

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Todd, Mark

Ryan, Joan

Touhig, Don

Salter, Martin

Trickett, Jon

Savidge, Malcolm

Truswell, Paul

Sawford, Phil

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)

Shaw, Jonathan

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Sheerman, Barry

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Sheridan, Jim

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Tyrie, Andrew

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Skinner, Dennis

Walley, Ms Joan

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Ward, Ms Claire

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wareing, Robert N

Southworth, Helen

Waterson, Nigel

Spellar, Rt Hon John

White, Brian

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Spring, Richard

Wicks, Malcolm

Squire, Rachel

Wilkinson, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Willetts, David

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Steinberg, Gerry

Stinchcombe, Paul

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Wilshire, David

Stringer, Graham

Winnick, David

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Worthington, Tony

Swayne, Desmond

Wray, James

Swire, Hugo

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Syms, Robert

Wright, David (Telford)

Tami, Mark

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Tellers for the Noes:

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mr. Ian Pearson.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the First Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons relating to Select Committees, House of Commons Paper No 221-I, and in particular welcomes its commitment to more specialist and support staff for select committees; is of the view that the package as a whole will strengthen the scrutiny role of the House; and invites the Liaison Committee to establish common objectives for select committees, taking into account the illustrative model set out in paragraph 34 of that report, namely

to consider major policy initiatives

to consider the Government's response to major emerging issues

to propose changes where evidence persuades the Committee that present policy requires amendment

to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills

to examine and report on main Estimates, annual expenditure plans and annual resource accounts

to monitor performance against targets in the public service agreements

to take evidence from each Minister at least annually

to take evidence from independent regulators and inspectorates

to consider the reports of Executive Agencies

to consider, and if appropriate report on, major appointments by a Secretary of State or other senior ministers

to examine treaties within their subject areas.

SELECT COMMITTEES (No. 1)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) the following Standing Order (Committee of Nomination) be made:
"(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Committee of Nomination, to propose to the House the membership of all select committees other than the Committee of Nomination itself and any other select committee for which the House makes other provision.
(2) The committee shall consist of nine members nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall be the following:

(a) the most senior woman member of the Chairmen's Panel belonging to the Government party, and the three other most senior members of the Panel belonging to that party;

(b) the most senior woman member of the Panel belonging to the party to which the Leader of the Opposition belongs, and the other most senior member of the Panel belonging to that party;

(c) the most senior member of the Panel belonging to the second largest opposition party;

(d) the most senior Member of the House belonging to the Government party but not being a Minister of the Crown; and

(e) the most senior Member of the House not belonging to the Government party who is not a front-bench spokesman for his party.

(3) Where a Member who would otherwise be a member of the Committee of Nomination is unwilling to serve, the next most senior Member in the relevant category shall be nominated.
(4) In sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of paragraph (2) of this order, seniority shall consist of length of continuous service as a member of the Chairmen's Panel (other than as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means), and in sub-paragraphs (d) and (e) of that paragraph, seniority shall consist of length of continuous service as a Member of the House.
(5) The Chairman of Ways and Means, or in his absence a Deputy Chairman, shall be chairman of the committee, but shall not vote.
(6) The Chairman of Ways and Means shall report the membership of the committee to the House.
(7) The quorum of the committee shall be seven when the committee is nominating select committees at the commencement of a Parliament and otherwise four, in either case including the chairman.
(8) The committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to report from time to time.";
(2) Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees) be amended as follows:
Line 9, leave out paragraph (2) and add—
"(2) Unless the House otherwise orders, no motion shall be made for the nomination of members of select committees, or for their discharge, unless—

(a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously; and

(b) the motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Nomination by one of its members.

(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a select committee shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament (or for the period of existence of the committee, if that is a shorter period).";
(3) Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) be amended, as follows:
Line 16, leave out from "committees)" to "which" in line 20; and
(4) Standing Orders be amended, as follows:
Standing Order No. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting)
Line 29, leave out paragraph (6);

717
Standing Order No. 140 (Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills)
Line 37, leave out paragraph (4);
Standing Order No. 141 (Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee)
Line 98, leave out paragraph (10);
Standing Order No. 142 (Domestic Committees)
Line 37, leave out paragraph (7);
Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee)
Line 80, leave out paragraph (13);
Standing Order No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee)
Line 29, leave out paragraph (5);
Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee)
Line 27, leave out paragraph (4);
Standing Order No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration)
Line 20, leave out paragraph (3);
Standing Order No. 147 (Procedure Committee)
Line 11, leave out paragraph (4);
Standing Order No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts)
Line 10, leave out paragraph (2);
Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards and Privileges)
Line 26, leave out paragraph (3);
Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee))
Line 126, leave out paragraph (11);
Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments)
Line 34, leave out paragraph (5);
Standing Order No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee)
Line 10, leave out paragraph (3);
Standing Order No. 152B (Human rights (joint committee))
Line 41, leave out paragraph (6);
Standing Order No. 152C (Tax simplification (joint committee))
Line 15, leave out paragraph (4).—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
Amendment made: (a), in line 7, leave out 'nine' and insert `thirteen'.— [Mr. Lloyd]
Amendment proposed: (d), in line 20, at end add 'and
(f) two Members belonging to the Government party, one belonging to the party to which the Leader of the Opposition belongs, and one belonging to the second largest opposition party, in each case first elected to the House in the previous Parliament and proposed by the chairman of the relevant party.'.—[Mr. Lloyd.]
Amendment made to the proposed amendment: (h), in line 4, after second 'the', insert 'current or'.—[Mr. Bryant.]
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment made: (e), in line 21, after '(3)', insert 'In sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of paragraph (2) of this order.'.—[Mr. Lloyd.]
Main Question, as amended, put:—
The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 209.

Division No. 237]

[8 Pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bacon Richard

Allan, Richard

Baird, Vera

Allen, Graham

Barrett, John

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Begg, Miss Anne

Bell, Stuart

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Benn, Hilary

Atherton, Ms Candy

Bennett, Andrew

718

Best, Harold

Hinchliffe, David

Blackman, Liz

Hodge, Margaret

Blears, Ms Hazel

Holmes, Paul

Blunt, Crispin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Brake, Tom

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Breed, Colin

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Brennan, Kevin

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Bruce, Malcolm

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Bryant, Chris

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Buck, Ms Karen

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Burnett, John

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Burnham, Andy

Keetch, Paul

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Kidney, David

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Kirkwood, Archy

Casale, Roger

Laws, David

Caton, Martin

Lazarowicz, Mark

Cawsey, Ian

Lepper, David

Challen, Colin

Levitt, Tom

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Lloyd, Tony

Chaytor, David

Llwyd, Elfyn

Clapham, Michael

Love, Andrew

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Lucas, Ian

Lyons, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

McCafferty, Chris

McDonnell, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

McKechin, Ann

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

McKenna, Rosemary

Corbyn, Jeremy

Mackinlay, Andrew

Corston, Jean

Mactaggart, Fiona

Cousins, Jim

McWalter, Tony

Cranston, Ross

McWilliam, John

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Curry, Rt Hon David

Mallaber, Judy

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Marris, Rob

Dalyell, Tam

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

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

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Miliband, David

Dean, Mrs Janet

Moffatt, Laura

Dhanda, Parmjit

Mole, Chris

Doran, Frank

Morgan, Julie

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Mullin, Chris

Drown, Ms Julia

Munn, Ms Meg

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Edwards, Huw

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Efford, Clive

Oaten, Mark

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Öpik, Lembit

Ewing, Annabelle

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Fabricant, Michael

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Farrelly, Paul

Owen, Albert

Fisher, Mark

Picking, Anne

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Pike, Peter

Flynn, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Follett, Barbara

Price, Adam

Francis, Dr Hywel

Prosser, Gwyn

Garnier, Edward

Pugh, Dr John

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Purchase, Ken

Gilroy, Linda

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Goodman, Paul

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Rendel, David

Hague, Rt Hon William

Robathan, Andrew

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Ruddock, Joan

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Hanson, David

Salmond, Alex

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Salter, Martin

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Sanders, Adrian

Harvey, Nick

Savidge, Malcolm

Heath, David

Sheerman, Barry

Hermon, Lady

Sheridan, Jim

Hill, Keith

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

719

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Webb, Steve

Squire, Rachel

Weir, Michael

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

White, Brian

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wicks, Malcolm

Stunell, Andrew

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

(Swansea W)

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Winnick, David

Timms, Stephen

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Wishart, Pete

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Tyler, Paul

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tynan, Bill

Younger-Ross, Richard

Tyrie, Andrew

Vis, Dr Rudi

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walley, Ms Joan

Mr. John Heppell and

Wareing, Robert N

Mr. Fraser Kemp.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Dawson, Hilton

Ainger, Nick

Dismore, Andrew

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Donohoe, Brian H

Amess, David

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Bailey, Adrian

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

Baldry, Tony

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Barker, Gregory

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Barnes, Harry

Evans, Nigel

Battle, John

Fallon, Michael

Beard, Nigel

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Bellingham, Henry

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Benton, Joe

Flight, Howard

Bercow, John

Flint, Caroline

Betts, Clive

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Blizzard, Bob

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Borrow, David

Foulkes, George

Boswell, Tim

Fox, Dr Liam

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Gale, Roger

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gapes, Mike

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Gerrard, Neil

Brady, Graham

Gibson, Dr Ian

Brazier, Julian

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Goggins, Paul

Gray, James

Burgon, Colin

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Burns, Simon

Grieve, Dominic

Burt, Alistair

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Cairns, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hain, Rt Hon Peter

Cash, William

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Chope, Christopher

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clappison, James

Hammond, Philip

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hawkins, Nick

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hayes, John

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Heald, Oliver

Clelland, David

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Coaker, Vernon

Hendrick, Mark

Cohen, Harry

Hendry, Charles

Collins, Tim

Hoban, Mark

Connarty, Michael

Hope, Phil

Conway, Derek

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cruddas, Jon

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cummings, John

Howells, Dr Kim

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hunter, Andrew

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jamieson, David

David, Wayne

Jenkin, Bernard

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

720

Joyce, Eric

Quinn, Lawrie

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Rammell, Bill

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Randall, John

Key, Robert

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Rooney, Terry

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Ross, Ernie

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Ruane, Chris

Laxton, Bob

Ruffley, David

Leigh, Edward

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Leslie, Christopher

Ryan, Joan

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Sawford, Phil

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lidington, David

Shaw, Jonathan

Loughton, Tim

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Luff, Peter

Skinner, Dennis

Luke, Iain

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McAvoy, Thomas

Southworth, Helen

McCabe, Stephen

Spellar, Rt Hon John

McFall, John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Spicer, Sir Michael

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Spring, Richard

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Steinberg, Gerry

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Stoate, Dr Howard

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stringer, Graham

McNulty, Tony

Stuart, Ms Gisela

MacShane, Denis

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Malins, Humfrey

Swayne, Desmond

Mann, John

Syms, Robert

Martlew, Eric

Tami, Mark

May, Mrs Theresa

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Morley, Elliot

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Moss, Malcolm

Tipping, Paddy

Mountford, Kali

Todd, Mark

Mudie, George

Touhig, Don

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Trickett, Jon

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Truswell, Paul

Norris, Dan

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

O'Brien. Bill (Normanton)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

>Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Olner, Bill

Ward, Ms Claire

Ottaway, Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Paice, James

Wilkinson, John

Paterson, Owen

Wilshire, David

Pickles, Eric

Wilson, Brian

Pickthall, Colin

Wray, James

Plaskitt, James

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Pollard, Kerry

Wright, David (Telford)

Pond, Chris

Yeo, Tim

Pope, Greg

Tellers for the Noes:

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

Purnell, James

Mr. Ian Pearson

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Government Whips to stand outside the Lobby—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
Mr. Prentice: On a free vote, is it in order for the Government Whips to point to the No Lobby saying "PLP this way"?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I would hope that hon. Members would be able to make up their own mind.

PAYMENT FOR CHAIRMEN
Motion made, and Question put,
That this House considers that there should be no differences in remuneration among Members who are not Ministers of the Crown beyond those already authorised.—[Stephen Twigg.]
The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 197.

Division No.238]

[8.13 Pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Amess, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Baldry, Tony

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Barnes, Harry

Hammond, Philip

Barrett, John

Hanson, David

Bennett, Andrew

Harvey, Nick

Best, Harold

Heath, David

Blizzard, Bob

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Borrow, David

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Hendrick, Mark

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Hermon, Lady

Brake, Tom

Hinchiliffe, David

Breed, Colin

Hoban, Mark

Burgon, Cohn

Hope, Phil

Burnett, John

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Caton, Martin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Challen, Colin

Iddon, Dr Brian

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Chope, Christopher

Jamieson, David

Clapham, Michael

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Clelland, David

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Coaker, Vernon

Keetch, Paul

Coffey, Ms Ann

Khabra, Piara S

Cohen, Harry

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Cousins, Jim

Laxton, Bob

cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Lepper, David

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Leslie, Christopher

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Curry, Rt Hon David

Lloyd, Tony

Dalyell, Tam

Lucas, Ian

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Luke, Iain

David, Wayne

McAvoy, Thomas

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

McCabe, Stephen

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

Mackinlay, Andrew

McNulty, Tony

Dhanda, Parmjit

Mactaggart, Fiona

Dismore, Andrew

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Donohoe, Brian H

Malins, Humfrey

Drown, Ms Julia

Mann, John

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Marris, Rob

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Morgan, Julie

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Munn, Ms Meg

Edwards, Huw

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Ewing, Annabelle

Norris, Dan

Fallon, Michael

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Farrelly, Paul

Olner, Bill

Flint, Caroline

Ottaway, Richard

Foulkes, George

Owen, Albert

Francis, Dr Hywel

Pickthall, Colin

Gapes, Mike

Pollard, Kerry

Garnier, Edward

Pond, Chris

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Gerrard, Neil

Prosser, Gwyn

Gibson, Dr Ian

Pugh, Dr John

Gilroy, Linda

Quinn, Lawrie

Goggins, Paul

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

722

Render, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Robathan, Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Rooney, Terry

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Ross, Ernie

Touhig, Don

Ruane, Chris

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Ryan, Joan

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Salmond, Alex

Tyler, Paul

Sanders, Adrian

Tyrie, Andrew

Sheridan, Jim

Vis, Dr Rudi

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Walley, Ms Joan

Skinner, Dennis

Ward, Ms Claire

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wareing, Robert N

Spellar, Rt Hon John

Webb, Steve

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Weir, Michael

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

White, Brian

Steinberg, Gerry

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wilkinson, John

Stoate, Dr Howard

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Stunell, Andrew

Wishart, Pete

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Syms, Robert

Wright, David (Telford)

Tami, Mark

Younger-Ross, Richard

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mr. John Heppell and

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Mr. Fraser Kemp.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Cranston, Ross

Ainger, Nick

Cruddas, Jon

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Cummings, John

Allen, Graham

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

Atherton, Ms Candy

(Copeland)

Bacon, Richard

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bailey, Adrian

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Barker, Gregory

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Beard, Nigel

Dean, Mrs Janet

Begg, Miss Anne

Doran, Frank

Bell, Stuart

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Benn, Hilary

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Bercow, John

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

Betts, Clive

Efford, Clive

Blackman, Liz

Evans, Nigel

Blears, Ms Hazel

Fabricant, Michael

Blunt, Crispin

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Boswell, Tim

Fisher, Mark

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Brady, Graham

Flight, Howard

Brazier, Julian

Flynn, Paul

Brennan, Kevin

Follett, Barbara

Bruce, Malcolm

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bryant, Chris

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Buck, Ms Karen

Fox, Dr Liam

Burnham, Andy

Gale, Roger

Burns, Simon

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Burt, Alistair

Goodman, Paul

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Gray, James

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Grieve, Dominic

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Casale, Roger

Hague, Rt Hon William

Cash, William

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Cawsey, Ian

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Chaytor, David

Hawkins, Nick

Clappison, James

Hayes, John

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Heald, Oliver

Hendry, Charles

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hodge, Margaret

Holmes, Paul

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Collins, Tim

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Connarty, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Conway, Derek

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Corston, Jean

Jenkin, Bernard

723

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Key, Robert

Page, Richard

Kidney, David

Paice, James

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Paterson, Owen

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Pickles, Eric

Kirkwood, Archy

Pike, Peter

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Plaskitt, James

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Pope, Greg

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Laws, David

Price, Adam

Lazarowicz, Mark

Purnell, James

Letwin, Oliver

Randall, John

Levitt, Tom

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Ruddock, Joan

Lidington, David

Ruffley, David

Llwyd, Elfyn

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Loughton, Tim

Salter, Martin

Love, Andrew

Sawford, Phil

Luff, Peter

Sayeed, Jonathan

McCafferty, Chris

Shaw, Jonathan

McDonnell, John

Sheerman, Barry

McFall, John

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Smith, Jacqui (Radditch)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Spring, Richard

McKechin, Ann

Squire, Rachel

McKenna, Rosemary

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Stringer, Graham

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stuart, Ms Gisela

MacShane, Denis

Swayne, Desmond

McWalter, Tony

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

McWilliam, John

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Tipping, Paddy

Martlew, Eric

Trickett, Jon

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Truswell, Paul

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

May, Mrs Theresa

Tynan, Bill

Miliband, David

Waterson, Nigel

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Willetts, David

Moffatt, Laura

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Mole, Chris

(Swansea W)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Morgan, Julie

Wilshire, David

Moss, Malcolm

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Mountford, Kali

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mudie, George

Wray, James

Mullin, Chris

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Munn, Ms Meg

Yeo, Tim

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Tellers for the Noes:

Öpik, Lembit

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Mr. Ian Pearson.

Question accordingly negatived.

PAYMENT FOR CHAIRMEN
Motion made and Question put,
That, in the opinion of this House, the Review Body on Senior Salaries should be invited to consider what additional remuneration is appropriate for chairmen of select committees.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 158.

Division No. 239]

[8.25 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Ainger, Nick

Bacon, Richard

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Bailey, Adrian

Allen, Graham

Beard, Nigel

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Begg, Miss Anne

Benn, Hilary

724

Bercow, John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Betts, Clive

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Blackman, Liz

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Blears, Ms Hazel

Iddon, Dr Brian

Blunt, Crispin

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Boswell, Tim

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Jamieson, David

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Jenkin, Bernard

Brady, Graham

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Brazier, Julian

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Brennan, Kevin

Key, Robert

Bruce, Malcolm

Kidney, David

Bryant, Chris

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Buck, Ms Karen

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Burnham, Andy

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Burns, Simon

Kirkwood, Archy

Burt, Alistair

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Laws, David

Casale, Roger

Lazarowicz, Mark

Cash, William

Levitt, Tom

Cawsey, Ian

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Chaytor, David

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Clappison, James

Lidington, David

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Loughton, Tim

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Love, Andrew

Lucas, Ian

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Luff, Peter

Coffey, Ms Ann

McCafferty, Chris

Collins, Tim

McDonnell, John

Conway, Derek

McFall, John

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Corston, Jean

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Cranston, Ross

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Cruddas, Jon

McKechin, Ann

Cummings, John

McKenna, Rosemary

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

McLoughlin, Patrick

David, Wayne

MacShane, Denis

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

McWalter, Tony

Dean, Mrs Janet

Martlew, Eric

Doran, Frank

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Edwards, Huw

May, Mrs Theresa

Efford, Clive

Miliband, David

Evans, Nigel

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Fabricant, Michael

Moffatt, Laura

Fallon, Michael

Mole, Chris

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Fisher, Mark

Morgan, Julie

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Morley, Elliot

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Moss, Malcolm

Flight, Howard

Mountford, Kali

Flynn, Paul

Mullin, Chris

Follett, Barbara

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Norman, Archie

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Fox, Dr Liam

Öpik, Lembit

Gale, Roger

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Goodman, Paul

Owen, Albert

Gray, James

Paice, James

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Paterson, Owen

Grieve, Dominic

Pickles, Eric

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Pike, Peter

Hague, Rt Hon William

Plaskitt, James

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Pope, Greg

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hawkins, Nick

Price, Adam

Hayes, John

Purchase, Ken

Heald, Oliver

Purnell, James

Hendry, Charles

Quinn, Lawrie

Hinchliffe, David

Randall, John

Hodge, Margaret

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

725

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Ruane, Chris

Timms, Stephen

Ruddock, Joan

Tipping, Paddy

Ruffley, David

Truswell, paul

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Salter, Martin

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Sawford, Phil

Tynan, Bill

Sayeed, Jonathan

Waterson, Nigel

Shaw, Jonathan

Wicks, Malcolm

Sheerman, Barry

Wilkinson, John

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

(Swansea W)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Wilshire, David

Spring, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Squire, Rachel

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Stringer, Graham

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Swayne, Desmond

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Mr. John Heppell and

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mr. Fraser Kemp.

NOES

Allan, Richard

Francis, Dr Hywel

Amess, David

Gapes, Mike

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Garnier, Edward

Baldry, Tony

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Barnes, Harry

Gerrard, Neil

Barrett, John

Gibson, Dr Ian

Bennett, Andrew

Gilroy, Linda

Best, Harold

Goggins, Paul

Blizzard, Bob

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Borrow, David

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Hanson, David

Brake, Tom

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Breed, Colin

Harvey, Nick

Burgon, Colin

Heath, David

Burnett, John

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hendrick, Mark

Caton, Martin

Hoban, Mark

Challen, Colin

Holmes, Paul

Chope, Christopher

Hope, Phil

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Clelland, David

Illsley, Eric

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Coaker, Vernon

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cohen, Harry

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Keetch, Paul

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Khabra, Piara S

Curry, Rt Hon David

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Dalyell, Tam

Laxton, Bob

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Leslie, Christopher

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

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

Luke, Iain

McAvoy, Thomas

Dhanda, Parmjit

McCabe, Stephen

Dismore, Andrew

MacKinlay, Andrew

Drown, Ms Julia

McNulty, Tony

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Mallaber, Judy

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Mann, John

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Marris, Rob

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Ewing, Annabelle

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Farrelly, Paul

Munn, Ms Meg

Flint, Caroline

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Foulkes, George

Naysmith, Dr Doug

726

Norris, Dan

Tami, Mark

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Olner, Bill

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Pollard, Kerry

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pond, Chris

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Prosser, Gwyn

Touhig, Don

Pugh, Dr John

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rendel, David

Tyler, Paul

Robathan, Andrew

Tyrie, Andrew

Rooney, Terry

Vis, Dr Rudi

Ross, Ernie

Walley, Ms Joan

Ryan, Joan

Ward, Ms Claire

Salmond, Alex

Wareing, Robert N

Sanders, Adrian

Webb, Steve

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Weir, Michael

Skinner, Dennis

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Spellar, Rt Hon John

Wishart, Pete

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Woolas, Phil

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Wray, James

Steinberg, Gerry

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wright, David (Telford)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Younger-Ross, Richard

Stunell, Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mr. Ivor Caplin and

Syms, Robert

Mr. Ian Pearson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEES (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 137A (Select committees: power to work with other committees) be amended as follows:
Line 12, leave out "and";
Line 15, at end insert—"and
(d) to agree in the choice of a chairman for any concurrent meetings."; and
(2) the following Standing Order (Term limits for chairmen of select committees) be made:
"Unless the House otherwise orders, no select committee may choose as its chairman any Member who has served as chairman of that committee for the two previous Parliaments."—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
Amendment made: (a), in line 11, at end add
'or a continuous period of 8 years, whichever is the greater period.'.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

TAX LAW REWRITE
Motion made and Question put,
That the following changes to Standing Orders be made:
Standing Order No. 60 (Tax simplification bills)
Title, leave out 'simplification' and insert law rewrite'
Lines 1, 9, 15, 22, 24, 29, leave out 'simplification' and insert `law rewrite'
Standing Order No 63 (Committal of bills)
Line 2, leave out 'simplification' and insert 'law rewrite'
Standing Order No. 152C (Tax simplification (Joint Committee)
Title, leave out 'simplification' and insert 'law rewrite'
Line 4, leave out 'simplification' and insert 'law rewrite' (in both places)—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
Question agreed to.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Motion made and Question put,
That the following amendments to Standing Orders be made:
Standing Order No. 151 [Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments]
Line 19, leave out 'and'
Line 19, leave out "of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974" and insert "(1) of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000".
Line 20, leave out "under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 or"
Line 24, after 'Act', insert 'and any remedial order or draft remedial order under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998'.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
Question agreed to.

LIAISON COMMITTEE: POWER TO TAKE EVIDENCE
Motion made and Question proposed,
That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
Line 12, at end insert `(1A) The Committee may also hear evidence from the Prime Minister on matters of public policy'.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
Amendment proposed: (a), in line 3, at end add
', but such meetings shall only be attended by the Chairman of the Liaison Committee and the Chairmen of Select Committees appointed under S.O. Nos. 146 and 152.'.—[Mr. Bryant.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 261.

Division No. 240]

[8.38 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Hague, Rt Hon William

Bailey, Adrian

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Barnes, Harry

Harris, Tom, (Glasgow Cathcart)

Begg, Miss Anne

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Bennett, Andrew

Hinchliffe, David

Best, Harold

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Betts, Clive

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Blunt, Crispin

Iddon, Dr Brian

Brennan, Kevin

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Bryant, Chris

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Buck, Ms Karen

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Challen, Colin

Lazarowicz, Mark

Clapham, Michael

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Coaker, Vernon

Lloyd, Tony

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

McCafferty, Chris

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

McKechin, Ann

David, Wayne

MacKinlay, Andrew

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Dawson, Hilton

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dhanda, Parmjit

Mallaber, Judy

Dismore, Andrew

Marris, Rob

Doran, Frank

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Mole, Chris

Fallon, Michael

Morgan, Julie

Farrelly, Paul

Mullin, Chris

Flint, Caroline

Munn, Ms Meg

Flynn, Paul

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Pearson, Ian

Foulkes, George

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Gapes, Mike

Prosser, Gwyn

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Purnell, James

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Ryan, Joan

728

Salter, Martin

Truswell, Paul

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Tyrie, Andrew

Stinchcombe, Paul

Vis, Dr Rudi

Stuart, Ms Gisela

White, Brian

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tipping, Paddy

Angela Smith and

Trickett, Jon

Dan Norris.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Allan, Richard

Donohoe, Brian H

Allen, Graham

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Amess, David

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Edwards, Huw

Atherton, Ms Candy

Efford, Clive

Bacon, Richard

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Barrett, John

Evans, Nigel

Beard, Nigel

Ewing, Annabelle

Benn, Hilary

Fabricant, Michael

Bercow, John

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Blizzard, Bob

Fisher, Mark

Borrow, David

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Boswell, Tim

Flight, Howard

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Follett, Barbara

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fox, Dr Liam

Brady, Graham

Francis, Dr Hywel

Brake, Tom

Gale, Roger

Brazier, Julian

Garnier, Edward

Breed, Colin

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Bruce, Malcolm

Gerrard, Neil

Burgon, Colin

Gibson, Dr Ian

Burnett, John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Burns, Simon

Gilroy, Linda

Burt, Alistair

Goggins, Paul

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Goodman, Paul

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gray, James

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Green, Damian, (Ashford)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Grieve, Dominic

Hall, Patrick, (Bedford)

Caplin, Ivor

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Casale, Roger

Hammond, Philip

Cash, William

Hanson, David

Caton, Martin

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Cawsey, Ian

Harvey, Nick

Chaytor, David

Hawkins, Nick

Chope, Christopher

Hayes, John

Clappison, James

Heald, Oliver

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Heath, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Hendrick, Mark

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hendry, Charles

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Heppell, John

Clelland, David

Hoban, Mark

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hodge, Margaret

Coffey, Ms Ann

Holmes, Paul

Cohen, Harry

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Collins, Tim

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Conway, Derek

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Illsley, Eric

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Corston, Jean

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cousins, Jim

Jamieson, David

Cranston, Ross

Jenkin, Bernard

Cruddas, Jon

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Curry, Rt Hon David

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dalyell, Tam

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Keen, Alan (Brentford & Isleworth)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Keetch, Paul

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

Key, Robert

Kidney, David

729

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Purchase, Ken

Kirkwood, Archy

Quinn, Lawrie

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

Randall, John

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Rendel, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Laws, David

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Laxton, Bob

Ross, Ernie

Lepper, David

Ruane, Chris

Levitt, Tom

Ruffley, David

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Salmond, Alex

Lidington, David

Sanders, Adrian

Llwyd, Elfyn

Sawford, Phil

Loughton, Tim

Sayeed, Jonathan

Love, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

Lucas, Ian

Sheerman, Barry

Luff, Peter

Sheridan, Jim

Luke, Iain

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Lyons, John

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

McAvoy, Thomas

Skinner, Dennis

McCabe, Stephen

Spellar, Rt Hon John

McDonnell, John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

McFall, John

Spicer, Sir Michael

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Spring, Richard

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Squire, Rachel

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Steinberg, Gerry

McNulty, Tony

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

MacShane, Denis

Stoate, Dr Howard

McWalter, Tony

Stunell, Andrew

Mc William, John

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Malins, Humfrey

Swayne, Desmond

Mann, John

Syms, Robert

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Tami, Mark

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Taylor, John (Solihull)

May, Mrs Theresa

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Miliband, David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Moffatt, Laura

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Moss, Malcolm

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Mountford, Kali

Touhig, Don

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Olner, Bill

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Öpik, Lembit

Tyler, Paul

Osborne, George (Talton)

Tynan, Bill

Ottaway, Richard

Walley, Ms Joan

Owen, Albert

Ward, Ms Claire

Paice, James

Wareing, Robert N

Paterson, Owen

Waterson, Nigel

Picking, Anne

Webb, Steve

Pickles, Eric

Weir, Michael

Pickthall, Colin

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Pike, Peter

Wicks, Malcolm

Plaskitt, James

Wilkinson, John

Pollard, Kerry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Pond, Chris

(Swansea W)

Pope, Greg

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Price, Adam

Wilshire, David

Pugh, Dr John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

730

Wishart, Pete

Younger-Ross, Richard

Wray, James

Wright, David (Telford)

Tellers for the Noes:

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Jim Fitzpatrick and

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Mr. Phil Woolas.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM
Motion made, and Question put,
That the following amendments to Standing Orders be made:
Standing Order No. 141 (Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee)
Title, leave out "Deregulation and"
Line 22, leave out "Deregulation and"
Line 5, leave out from "section" to "6" in line 7.
Line 7, leave out "(the 2001 Act)"
Line 10, leave out "1994 Act or section 1 of the 2001"
Line 14, leave out "2001"
Line 14, at end insert "(except those not made by a Minister of the Crown)".
Line 58, leave out lines 58 to 60
Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft deregulation etc orders)
Title, leave out "Deregulation, etc" and insert "regulatory reform"
Line 1, leave out "Deregulation and"
Line 4, leave out from "House" to "under" in line 6.
Standing Order No. 98 (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation))
Line 14, leave out "deregulation order or"
Standing Order No. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation))
Line 15, leave out "deregulation order or"
Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation)
Line 13, leave out "deregulation order or"—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
Question agreed to.

POWER TO EXCHANGE PAPERS WITH DEVOLVED LEGISLATURES
Motion made, and Question put,
That Standing Order No. 137A (Select committees: power to work with other committees) be amended as follows:
Line 6, after "Parliament" insert "or to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly or to any of their Committees"
Line 10, leave out "such"
Line 11, after "sub-committee" insert "of either House of Parliament".—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
Question agreed to.

Code of Conduct
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) this House approves the Ninth Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, (House of Commons Paper No. 763), A new Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules;
(2) the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members shall be amended, at the end, by adding the words 'or any approach, whether oral or in writing, to Ministers or servants of the Crown';
(3) the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Employment Agreements shall be redesignated 'Agreements for the Provision of Services;' and shall be amended, as follows:

(a) by leaving out the words 'up to £1,000, £1,000-£5,000, £5,000-£10,000' in each of paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) and inserting the words 'up to £5,000, £5,001-£10,000';

(b) after the word 'inspection' in each of paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), by inserting the words 'and reproduction';

(c) at the end, by adding the words—

'Provided that the requirement to deposit a copy of an agreement with the Commissioner shall not apply—

(a) if the fees or benefits payable do not exceed one per cent. of the current parliamentary salary; nor

(b) in the case of media work (but in that case the Member shall deposit a statement of the fees or benefits payable in the bands specified above)';

(4) the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members (House of Commons Paper No. 688 (1995–96)) shall be amended as proposed in Annex 2 to the Report; and
(5) the registration forms submitted for the next published Register of Members' interests shall comply with the new rules on the registration of Members' interests; and any requirement under the new rules to register an interest which is not registrable now shall come into force on the publication of the next Register.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
8.51 pm
Sir George Young: I invite the House to endorse the new code of conduct and guide to the rules on the conduct of Members that the Standards and Privileges Committee has drawn up. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for finding time to resolve this matter so soon after the publication of our report.
The last time that I spoke as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee was the debate in February when we appointed Philip Mawer as the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Mr. Mawer has now taken up his appointment, made an excellent start and is fully in command of his role. He is working the full three days a week for which he was appointed, and if his duties require him to do more, more will be done. He has already dealt with several complaints and the Committee entirely endorsed the conclusions that he reached in the one case that he brought to us. However, I do not want to place too much emphasis on investigations. I hope that Mr. Mawer will continue to develop a new strategy that gives priority to advice and prevention, of which clear guidance is a key component; that is where the revised code of conduct and guide to the rules come in.
The changes that we have proposed are intended to simplify and clarify the guidance that is provided for Members; to alleviate unnecessary burdens without compromising the transparency and effectiveness of the
732
system; and, where practicable, to align the House's rules more closely with those of the Electoral Commission. The new code and guide have gone through a lengthy gestation period. The former Committee began the work of revision more than two years ago, and it introduced many of the detailed changes shortly before the last election, but the two most radical changes are the work of the new Committee and are recommended in this report.
The first change relates to the advocacy rule, which bans Members from paid lobbying. As the rule stands, a Member may not initiate a parliamentary proceeding—for example, by tabling a question or applying for an Adjournment debate—that relates specifically and directly to the affairs of a body, or of a wider group, in which the Member has a pecuniary interest. The rule was introduced with the best of intentions, but in practice it has imposed unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on Members' parliamentary activities.
When the new Committee was established at the beginning of this Parliament, we became aware of a degree of feeling, both inside and outside the House, about the rule's restrictive effects. Shortly before Christmas, we published a consultation paper seeking views on two possible options for relaxing the rule. We decided to adopt the recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life to the effect that the rules on initiation should be relaxed and brought into line with the more lenient rules on participation in a proceeding initiated by another Member. If the House agrees to this change, from now on the only restriction on Members' freedom of action will be that they must not seek to confer benefit exclusively on a body in which they have a pecuniary interest. That interest must, of course, be properly registered and declared.
I believe that the change will be welcomed especially in the context of travel overseas. Hon. Members have a duty to keep themselves informed about what is going on in the wider world. Often the only way to do that is when foreign Governments or other organisations outside the House pay for the travel. From now on, hon. Members who travel abroad at someone else's expense will be able to make full use in the House of what they have learned. They will not face difficulties in tabling questions or introducing Adjournment debates that are relevant to their visit. That will help them and, I believe, the House.
Our second fundamental reform is that there should be a realistic de minimis threshold for the registration of interests. We do not want the Register of Members' Interests to be cluttered with low-value entries; nor do we want the complaints process to be brought into disrepute by allegations of failure to register relatively insignificant interests.
The solution that we propose is to take such items out of the scope of registration altogether by setting a threshold of 1 per cent. of the parliamentary salary. At present, that amounts to about £550. Below that threshold, interests would not have to be registered. That means that hon. Members need no longer register gifts or hospitality that are worth less than £550. However, benefits from a single source that individually are worth less than £550 should be registered if, cumulatively, they amount to more than 1 per cent. of salary in a calendar year.
The change in the rule also means that earned income, including directorships, needs to be registered only if it exceeds 1 per cent. of salary. The requirement to deposit

733
an agreement with the commissioner if an hon. Member is providing parliamentary services of any kind will also be dropped if the remuneration does not exceed 1 per cent. of salary.
Finally, I shall refer briefly to some of the detailed changes to the rules that we are proposing. Hon. Members will see that these are highlighted in red type in the proposed new guide and code that is printed as an annexe to the report.
The rules relating to sponsorship have been revised substantially and now cover donations to constituency associations that are linked to an hon. Member's candidacy or membership of the House, as well as other support that an hon. Member receives in his capacity as a Member of the House, with a threshold of £1,000. That takes account of the changed nature of trade union sponsorship, and of the reporting requirements of the Electoral Commission.
In common with other one-off benefits, such as gifts and hospitality, donations to constituency associations will be removed from the Register of Members' Interests after a year. Such donations will be registerable only if they are expressly tied to the hon. Member by name—an example might be contributions to an hon. Member's fighting fund—or are donations that have been solicited for the party by the hon. Member. Donations to constituency associations that are not linked to the hon. Member but which are an expression of general political support will not have to be registered.
We have clarified the circumstances in which land and property, including houses, that is rented out may need to be registered. There are new rules on the registration of shareholdings. A shareholding wil be registerable in future if it amounts to more than 15 per cent. of the company's share capital, rather then 1 per cent. A shareholding of 15 per cent. or less will be registerable if it is worth more than an hon. Member's parliamentary salary.
Until now, the threshold for registration has been a nominal value of £25,000, but the nominal value often bears no relation to the real value. The Committee believes that it is not unreasonable to require hon. Members to revalue their large shareholdings once each year for the purposes of the register. After all, an hon. Member is likely to have few holdings that are registerable, and the end of the tax year is a convenient time to check what they are worth.
The rules covering political journalism, speaking engagements and other forms of media work connected to membership of the House have been greatly simplified. The requirement to deposit an employment agreement, which in many cases simply did not fit the relationship between the hon. Member and the outside body, has been dropped altogether. However, hon. Members will still have to declare in the register their income from this source, in the appropriate band.
The new Committee is working alongside Philip Mawer, the new commissioner, with this new strategy, a new code of conduct and a new register. I appreciate that it is less than a year since hon. Members had to fill in their registration forms at the start of this Parliament, but if we are going to have a new register it will be in everyone's interest to have one that reflects the new rules as soon as possible.
734
Shortly after the forthcoming recess, the commissioner will write to every hon. Member. He will send a copy of the new code and guide, a registration form and details of the seminars arranged to explain the new rules to hon. Members. There will also be guidance about how to complete the registration form. Hon. Members will be asked to return their forms before the summer recess, so that the new register can be published in the autumn.
The registration form should be completed in accordance with the new rules, so hon. Members will be able to delete from their current entries the minor benefits that fall below the 1 per cent. threshold. However, I hope that the House will look especially carefully at the new rules on sponsorships and shareholdings, which have been changed, and also on land and property, on which the guidance has been clarified.
If the House agrees to the motion, the new code and guide will come into force and the relaxation of the advocacy rule and the higher thresholds for the registration of benefits will apply immediately. However, any requirement under the new rules to register an interest that is not registrable under the current rules—for example, with some shareholdings—will not come into force until the new register is published, so all Members will have a reasonable period in which to ensure that their entries comply with the new rules.
I strongly encourage any Member who may be in any doubt about how the new rules will apply to him or her to seek the advice of either the Standards Commissioner or the Registrar of Members' Interests, who will be glad to help.
I believe that the changes that we have recommended will give the House clearer, simpler rules that are, in some respects, less onerous for Members to comply with, but still rigorous and consistent with the fundamental principles that the House adopted when it implemented the Nolan reforms in 1995–96. We have, of course, asked the Wicks committee for its comments on what is proposed.
My committee will keep all these changes actively under review. I ask the House to support the changes.
9.1 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and thanking the Committee and all its members for their work.
Last year, the House agreed with the Committee on Standards in Public Life that a senior Opposition Member should be Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The impartiality of that Committee is clearly very important, and I am pleased that it is so clearly demonstrated in this report. I cannot imagine a person better fitted for the post than the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young).
The report and the consultation papers on which it is based speak for themselves. We need to ensure that we uphold the highest standards and that our work is not hampered by rules that inadvertently prohibit legitimate parliamentary activity. We should not forget that the purpose of having a code in the first place is to make sure that our standards are high; it is not a substitute for, or a shelter from, the criminal law. It is important that

735
Members have the freedoms needed to operate effectively. The main freedom that we have is the freedom of speech necessary to enable us to pursue matters in the House or through its Committees. In the United Kingdom, our immunity extends only as far as formal proceedings in Parliament. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has made it clear that it expects the commissioner to refer any cases where it appears that a Member may have broken the law to the police. It has added that if the commissioner failed to call in the police, it would do so. I am sure that we all welcome that. If we always remembered that, and took pains to make it clear, it might ensure that some of the wider public debate on standards kept a proper sense of perspective.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the most important change proposed today is the reform of the advocacy rule. This is not a thoughtless change aimed at making life easier for MPs. Our current rules have been widely criticised, not only in the House but by knowledgeable outsiders, for being overly stringent. It has become apparent that although the broad thrust of the rule is correct, and it is right to have a blanket prohibition on what the Committee graphically describes as
"lobbying for consideration or reward"
its very breadth has caused some problems. That was well illustrated by the controversy surrounding the appointment of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to the Opposition Front Bench, but it has also been picked up by the non-parliamentary Committee on Standards in Public Life when reviewing its earlier work.
The advocacy rule is an important safeguard, but as the Neill committee, as it then was, noted, when it operates too stringently it can prevent Members from dealing with precisely the subjects about which we are most knowledgeable. The proposed new rules should ensure that lobbying for reward or consideration remains completely banned, yet allow Members to deal with matters of genuine and general interest.
The introduction of a system for rectifying minor or inadvertent failures to register is also welcome, as is the Committee's willingness to censure those who come forward with frivolous or partisan complaints.
I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Wicks committee last week, when he said that he and his Committee wished to do more on education, prevention and advice-giving. I am sure that that will help us all.
We must, as a House, try to uphold the highest standards. We must deal severely with those who knowingly fail to do so, but we must also accept that none of us is infallible and ensure that the system operates in a way that punishes the seriously guilty while helping the merely misguided to do better next time. I am convinced that these proposals will assist us in that, and I commend them to the House.
9.5 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I very much agree with the Minister's remarks, both in their content and context. I welcome the report produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee. Let
736
the House not underestimate the difficulty of the work of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Committee strives to strike a tricky balance between the desire of many to see the application of the strictest possible standards to the House and those who want standards that are sensible, workable and, indeed, comprehensible to Members themselves.
The code of conduct—vital and central as it is—should never be seen as set in stone, as some permanent oracle; it must be flexible and something to which we can return from time to time, and the Committee is right to have done so. In the previous Parliament, the Committee struggled with both the advocacy rule and the limits on gifts and hospitality and found it difficult to reach a conclusion. I very much welcome the fact that the new Committee, under my right hon. Friend, has managed to pick its way through the thicket and emerge with sensible, practical and balanced proposals on those matters.
I always thought that it was—and still is—ridiculous to suggest that Members of Parliament can be suborned or bribed by trivial gifts and hospitality. The suggested new limits are a move in the right direction and refute that suggestion.
I simply want to acknowledge the work of the Committee and to recommend to my colleagues and to the House that we adopt the proposals, but that we continue to monitor them closely to ensure that they reassure the public and us that we are adhering to proper standards and that we shall continue to do so.
9.6 pm
Andrew Mackinlay: I am not entirely comfortable with the proposals—I have some reservations.
I fully accept that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members—if not all of us—would not consciously be influenced by the chance of a free trip from a particular Government or interest group. However, human nature being what it is, it is much more difficult—despite one's intentions—not to be influenced by the warmth, hospitality and kindness that is offered when one goes abroad at the invitation of a Government. That is manifestly true and can occur almost unconsciously.
We are going about the problem in the wrong way, however. Parliament should not say—as it is saying—that we cannot get full travel budgets for Members of Parliament from the public purse—
Mr. Forth: What?
Andrew Mackinlay: If the right hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I shall finish my point.
Our travel budget is not comparable to that of similar legislatures in other countries, where the facility is at the discretion of the Member and he or she can travel unhindered—independent of a host Government. Our system is deficient in that respect.
When the right hon. Gentleman intervened, perhaps the fact had crossed his mind that recently we agreed a provision that allowed MPs to visit European Union states, or EU applicant states, up to three times a year, provided that they touched base with the Parliament of that state. The provision is confined to those countries.
Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Mackinlay: I promise that I shall give way when I have completed this point.

737
That provision offers an adequate travel budget for Members who want to learn more about the EU or its applicant states, but it does not allow us to visit Israel, Palestine, the People's Republic of China, the Koreas or the United States of America; it applies only to EU countries or EU applicants. We should have allowed an extension of that provision, with stringent ground rules, so that any hon. Member could make such visits—perhaps up to three times a year. If we had, we would not need to relax the advocacy rule. We could visit any country in the world at the invitation of a Government or interest group without breaching the advocacy rule.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that I rather agree with him. However, why did he not table an amendment to the motion that was on the Order Paper the other day to make this point and to allow the House to vote on it? Why did he allow that restrictive measure that he is criticising, on grounds with which I rather agree, to pass through the House unamended and without even a vote?
Andrew Mackinlay: I beat my breast three times—mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. One often wishes that one had amended a motion. However, I regret that personal circumstances have meant that I have not been around as much as I would have wanted in the past couple of weeks. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's admonishment and that is why I said in carefully crafted terms that I wished to express my reservations about this motion.
I do not suppose that this will be the end of the tale. I hope and imagine that we will revisit the issue. The compelling case for not restricting hon. Members to visiting European Union or accession countries just three times a year should be reconsidered. If we do that, I hope that we will also reconsider the relaxation of the advocacy rule. In my view, it is not the right way to go about the problem.
I also wish to make another confession. In the past, I was one of those who often included things in the register that now appear in the category of frivolous. I did not register those things in a frivolous way, but as an open declaration. For example, I put down the fact that I was the honorary patron of Tilbury Town football club, but my local newspaper, the Evening Echo, described me as a director of the club. As much as I love the club, it is not the most sexy place in the world or the most wonderful football club. It is wonderful to me, but its immediate prospects of reaching the premiership are not enormous. I made a declaration, but it was trivialised.
I raise that point because I listened to the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee and it struck me that we should all be very sensible and not register such things in future. The previous form invited us to declare non-pecuniary interests, and we declared them for a variety of reasons. For example, we could show our pride in our association with a particular organisation or to show our breadth of interests. However, the guidance and instructions that we are about to receive should make it clear that we are registering our pecuniary interests and not the wider interests that can often be malevolently twisted or inadvertently confused for pecuniary interests.
I hope that the Chairman of the Committee will take that point on board. What was an invitation hitherto to make a wide declaration of one's enthusiasm and support
738
for various organisations should now go. Perhaps there should be a separate document to show the scope of one's enthusiasms for organisations. We should not muddy the waters by making such declarations in the register of pecuniary interests.
9.13 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I do not intend to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) in great detail, but I have some sympathy for the points that he has just made. When I was the Liberal Democrat spokesman on food, I received a large Wensleydale cheese. As that was not a major event attracting much publicity, I thought that the best way to advertise the fact that the home of Wallace and Gromit was alive and well and producing excellent cheese was to declare the fact in the Register of Members' Interests. Unfortunately, the gift was not considered a sufficient financial inducement, so I was prevented from declaring it—but the hon. Gentleman is right. We must take the register seriously. If we allow it to be used in a frivolous way, we will debase the whole exercise.
The point that I wanted to make was about timing. The report is workmanlike, and I give full credit to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee. It is always difficult to know the right moment to produce a review. However, I suggest that this is an odd moment to produce one, because the right hon. Gentleman himself, the Leader of the House, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) all gave evidence—either last week or at the beginning of this week—to the Wicks committee. It is considering the whole strategy of how we regulate ourselves—or, indeed, whether we should regulate ourselves at all. This is an odd moment to introduce the proposals not just for debate but for decision, given that those discussions will continue for several weeks, and possibly for months.
I accept that timing is a problem. Clearly, there was a need to make our rules compatible with those of the Electoral Commission. That probably could not wait. I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire will respond briefly to the debate and will tell us whether there really is an imperative.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I listened carefully to the impressive evidence that the hon. Gentleman gave to the Wicks committee last Wednesday. I was there throughout the day and I got the impression from its members' line of questioning that they had already made up their minds against self-regulation. Was that his impression?
Mr. Tyler: The Father of the House has an advantage over me: he sat there right through the whole day—in fact, two days. I did not, but all those to whom I have spoken who gave evidence certainly seem to have gained that impression. I hope that it is not right, and that the committee is reaching its view unprejudiced by any presumption of whether it would be right to change the basis on which we in the House regulate our conduct. However, if that impression is true, it is even more peculiar that we should be taking steps today to review the rules, however peripheral they may be.

739
In fact, the rules are not peripheral. I give credit to the Standards and Privileges Committee and its Chairman, because tidying up the question of advocacy is central to that Committee's role and to the way in which we operate in the House. Reference has already been made to the fact that real experience and expertise were being effectively excluded from the workings of the House by the way in which the advocacy rule was interpreted. That is critical to the work of the House.
If we are preventing people from bringing their knowledge and experience to the work of Parliament, that is a serious issue. It is not peripheral, nor is it peripheral to deal with such provisions, which the Chairman of the Committee properly describes as being de minimis. De minimis, by its very nature, is a relative term. If we are to have a de minimis provision, I hope that it will remove some of the overload on the register and the investigative system. That is extremely important.
My concern is simply about timing. I wonder whether this is the right moment even to clarify, let alone to relax, the remit of the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as we are being reviewed by the Wicks committee.
Mr. Tom Levitt: As a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about timing. In a sense, there is never a right time. Ideally, it would have been good for the new Parliament to have started a year ago with a new set of rules. The proposals have been made partly because a body of evidence and experience has built up and led us to believe that the time is right, and partly because it is probably not a bad idea to coincide with the beginning of the new commissioner's term. So all sorts of features are involved. In addition, Wicks is not concentrating on the issues before us tonight; he is considering the structures rather than the content of the rules, certainly at present.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that very helpful intervention, but I think that he would agree that the structure and the tactics—the details of which we are concerned with this evening—interrelate at the very least.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said in his introduction that such matters would be kept under review. He also said that he had made a submission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Wicks committee. I must accept that that is probably our best way forward at this stage. It would be rather absurd to leave things hanging in the air for several months until the completion of the Wicks committee's review.
I hope that we are making it clear this evening—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would make it clear himself—that the proposals are provisional and transitional and that Parliament still has to face the big issues. Incidentally, it is important not just to have compatibility with the Electoral Commission; I hope that we will have compatibility with the House of Lords, too, in due course. However the other place is reformed in future, it would be ridiculous if one set of rules applied here and quite another applied at the other end of the building. Again, the right hon. Gentleman may like to address that point.
740
Given assurances, which I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to give, that the proposals for review, and—it must be said—for relaxation, are being made only for the time being, and that he and his Committee will be prepared to enter into a dialogue with the House as well as with the Wicks committee in due course, I am prepared to accept them. Without those assurances, however, I would be bound to say that I find the timing most inappropriate.
9.20 pm
David Winnick: If I register a slight note of dissent it is because I would not wish it to be felt that all of us necessarily agree with the recommendations of the Standards and Privileges Committee. I shall not, like my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), try to force a vote. No purpose would be served by that. The matter is not of such substance that a vote would be justified. I am somewhat uneasy, however, so it is only right and proper that, as a Member of the House, I should say so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said in his intervention that the Committee on Standards in Public Life might come to the view that self-regulation should come to an end. I do not know what recommendations it will make—my hon. Friend may have far better knowledge of that than I do—but if it does recommend that, it will be our fault. I do not want to recount all that happened in relation to the dismissal, as I would describe it, of the last Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, but my view is that that led to a number of questions being raised in the minds of a good many people involved with integrity and honesty in public life, not only in Parliament.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my hon. Friend accept that the previous parliamentary commissioner was given a virtually impossible job, and that the new parliamentary commissioner may have a more sensible job as a result?
David Winnick: I have made it clear both in debate and in correspondence that I wish the new parliamentary commissioner well. I genuinely mean that. He is in no way responsible for what happened previously, and it would be quite wrong to hold what happened to Mrs. Filkin against him in any way whatever. I want to put that clearly on record.
I also have great respect for the members and Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Self-regulation is always difficult. Passing judgment on one's colleagues, especially if they are in one's own party, is a job that not many would wish to do, but it is part and parcel of self-regulation. After all, in the medical profession, for example, if a member of a General Medical Council panel discussing a disciplinary case knew the person against whom the complaint was being made, we can rest assured that that panel member would not take part in those proceedings.
As for the proposals in front of us, I have reservations about the fact that a sum of £550 will not have to be declared if we agree to the report. Members may say, "What is £550 these days?" As has been pointed out, it is 1 per cent. of our salary. To many people outside, however—certainly to many of my constituents—£550 is quite a large sum. If the argument is, "We don't want to litter the register with smaller sums," I understand that.

741
I hope that I will not be misunderstood—there is always a danger of sounding pious—but I would say, "Why accept gifts to the value of £550?" I do not want to give the impression that I am showered with gifts all the time in my constituency or elsewhere, but like most Members, I may be kindly offered a box of chocolates, for example, because of casework that I have done. Clearly, although I would not want to enter that gift in the register, I would explain that I much appreciate what is being offered and I accept it, but that, without wishing to be discourteous, I will give the gift—as would most if not all Members—to the local hospital. The important thing is not to be under any obligation. One could ask what obligation a Member would be under for —550, but that sum still seems too large to me.
9.25 pm
Peter Bottomley: Some people think that Members of Parliament should have no outside earnings, and to them the debate might seem beside the point. Although such a rule is not proposed, if it were, it would be impractical. For example, what would happen to a writer or a farmer? Are those people seriously suggesting that the only people who should come into the House of Commons are those who have no continuing interests that they want to maintain? I remember that when Peter Thurnham was out of work, he set up an engineering firm to give him a living. To ask such a person to give up his family-owned firm to become a Member of Parliament strikes me as wrong. Although we need a code of conduct that regulates hon. Members' outside interests, it is also true that many of our non-remunerated interests may cost us quite a lot, and bias us in favour of a particular interest or organisation far more than the possibility of receiving £550, or twice that sum.
The only part of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that I would rephrase is the idea that giving advice is a new strategy. It is clear from the second commissioner's words and work that she gave a great deal of advice not only to members of the public who had queries about the behaviour of Members of Parliament and possible complaints, but to Members of Parliament who approached her. The registrar also gave advice to Members of Parliament who requested it.
It was plain from one or two of the cases considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee that if the behaviour of a Member of Parliament could be judged to contradict the code of practice or the requirements of the register, a complaint would not be upheld had he or she taken the advice of the commissioner or the registrar. I am glad that the third commissioner is following that strategy. Sir Gordon Downey created that principle when he was the first commissioner, and he would have wanted it maintained.
Now is not the time to re-run our debate about the appointment of Philip Mawer as commissioner. I note the remarks of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), but if the House is arguing for a continuation of self-regulation, we should make a change that we regard as sensible, on which we have consulted and received the advice of the Wicks committee, despite the fact that the committee's review is still taking place—not only because it is right in itself, but because the issues that the committee is considering go further than the
742
changes to the code of conduct and the advocacy rule. If experience shows that we are right and the Committee on Standards in Public Life is, in our view, wrong, and we maintain our independent regulation, with an independent commissioner to help us, it is important that the committee does not, for example, recommend that we bring in outsiders for a tribunal, including lawyers, because we have already rejected that proposal. It is important that we avoid such repetition.
When the Wicks committee interviewed me, I thought that its members approached the subject with open minds. I must tell the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), that I did not get the idea, either on the day before I gave evidence or on the day that I went before the committee, that its members approached the subject with their minds made up. I may be wrong, but that was my impression.
I told the committee that I have the strong view, as my right hon. Friend spelt out, that neither the commissioner nor the Committee on Standards and Privileges considers criminal action. The procedures of the commissioner and the committee would halt were there to be any serious suggestion of even potential criminal charges. That is one of the reasons why I say clearly to the House that there is no question of Members being asked to incriminate themselves when they are asked or required to assist the commissioner in considering a query or complaint, or when they are helping the Committee on Standards and Privileges in its consideration of a commissioner's report and possible further action.
If there is no crime, there is no incrimination. There is the House of Commons obligation to co-operate with the process from beginning to end, by fulfilling the requirements of the register, which we shall adapt this evening, and by answering questions from the commissioner, whether or not the Member concerned thinks that the commissioner has the right to ask those questions. "Answer the questions" is the best advice that the House can give to any Member involved. The experience of some of our colleagues who have had questions raised, who have co-operated and adjusted their register entry and, in some cases, apologised for getting things wrong—or for not getting them quite right—is that the House, the general public and their constituents have not made much of a fuss about it. We all have to learn from that experience.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his view that there should be no judgment or leak until a final judgment is arrived at?
Peter Bottomley: Yes, but I disagree with those who have publicly or privately said that the second commissioner or her office leaked information of that nature. Most of the time, when information came out which should not have done, I believe that it came from the Member complained of or from people around him or her. In a number of examples that has been demonstrated to be true, although in some cases one cannot demonstrate it. I have spent some time listening to journalists, especially those few who have watched the standards process, and not one has suggested to me that any information ever came improperly from the commissioner or her office.
The change in the limit to £550 is reasonably sensible. It could have been half that sum, but I do not think it should be much higher. I am glad that we are to sweep

743
away the rather ridiculous declarations that one has received £25 from a research organisation, which may then have been passed on to a charity. Such declarations of sums up to £500 are misleading and unnecessary. I would advise hon. Members—this is the only part of my behaviour that I commend to others—that if they are to co-operate with a research organisation, it is far better not to take the money, even to give it to a charity. If we want to help a research organisation, we ought to take 15 minutes or even an hour to do so without any money changing hands at all. It is demeaning for Members of Parliament to give the impression that they will co-operate with research in association with, although not quite on condition of, the payment of such sums. That is unnecessary and sends the wrong signals.
I hope that the standards process becomes pretty dull and uninteresting. A number of the higher profile cases in the past were associated with newspaper investigations, or concerned a Member failing to co-operate with the commissioner's inquires and the Committee on Standards and Privileges. There were also other high profile cases that I do not want to go into this evening.
I have a comment to place on the record that I hope the Prime Minister picks up. The incorporation of the Members' code of conduct into the ministerial code, as announced by the Leader of the House when he appeared in front of the Wicks committee, was welcome and overdue. In many senses, it flatly contradicted the Prime Minister's answer to me during oral questions two or three weeks beforehand. I put the point to him, and he said that if there was a complaint about Ministers it should be put to the normal authorities in the normal way. The Prime Minister is the only person who invigilates the ministerial code, and he ought to have known that. I am sorry that on the spur of the moment he gave an answer that displayed his lack of understanding of the importance of what Ministers do.
I add to that this codicil: if Ministers at any time again fail to co-operate as fully as possible, or if officials of a political party fail to do so, as has happened recently, the Prime Minister, as leader both of his party and of the Government, should sack the Minister without question on the first day. That would enable the commissioner to discharge his or her duties even by working only three days a week—Elizabeth Filkin could have done so—and the House would not have had its reputation besmirched by the impression, which I share, that someone who gets close to people close to the Prime Minister is likely to suffer from whispering and direct action. I wish that I did not have to make that accusation in the House.
9.35 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Instant first-day sacking without the opportunity to examine the facts seems a bit reckless. When I interrupted the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I said that my impression—it was no more than that—from questions asked by the Wicks committee was that perhaps it was against self-regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) is right; none of us can know exactly how it will report, as it will make that decision in the fullness in time. I have just one question for my hon. Friend the Minister, if I can have his attention for a moment. Why are we debating the code of conduct
744
tonight? If I were Sir Nigel Wicks or one of his colleagues, I would be pretty cheesed off about that apparent fait accompli.
In fact, the interrogation conducted by the busy people who serve on the Wicks committee was extremely fascinating, as they asked several questions that had not occurred to many of us who had to try to answer them on the spur on the moment. All credit to them, but can we not keep the subject in cold storage until the committee has reported? We cannot take up the time of the busy, highly pressured members of the Wicks committee when, at the end of the day, they seem to have wasted their time because we have made up our minds anyway.
9.37 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As the Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to give me advance warning that he would cite my case, perhaps I should begin by declaring my farming and agricultural interest, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, which led to a recommendation of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your role in my case; I also thank the Committee Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and members of the Committee for looking at the evidence that I submitted, considering it impartially and coming up with recommendations in the report to change the rules on initiation and advocacy.
It is worth putting on the record what happened to me, as it is an example of the way in which a rule drafted too restrictively can have unintended consequences. When the leader of the Opposition asked me to become a Front-Bench spokesman on agriculture, part of his reason for doing so, I believe, was my first-hand knowledge of the farming industry. While I was aware that under the rules on the declaration of Members' interests and advocacy there might be a problem, I had no idea of the scale of the difficulty that would confront me. With that in mind, to prepare for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 18 October 2001, and to be certain that I had complied with the rules correctly, I sought advice on 17 October from David Doig, the then Registrar of Members' Interests. In summary, his advice was that my first oral question would have to be preceded by a full declaration of my interests; let me say straight away that I have no problem whatsoever with making a full and absolute declaration of my interests at every opportunity. Although it was not an absolute requirement in the rules, David Doig strongly recommended—with a general caveat that all farming issues are inter—related that any subsequent question that I asked, particularly one relating to arable farming, should be accompanied by a similar declaration.
The parallel set of rules, the advocacy rules, stated at that time that
"a Member who has a pecuniary benefit from a body or individual outside Parliament may not initiate any Parliamentary proceeding which relates specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of that body or individual".
As you are aware from my subsequent letter and meeting with you, Mr. Speaker, that would have prevented me at the time from signing any Opposition motion or amendment, proposing or opening any debate or tabling any written question—not just a written question with an

745
"R" by my name, but any written question. Given that I am not just a farmer but represent a large rural constituency with many farming interests, the rules would effectively have prevented me from asking questions on behalf of my constituents.
In my letter to you, Mr. Speaker, I went on:
"In essence this meant that my job as an Opposition Agriculture Spokesman was unworkable and untenable. I believe the same problem would also apply to any back-bencher from any party."
Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: If I may complete the quote from my letter to the Speaker, I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
My letter continued:
"It seems that anyone who has had any sort of commercial interest prior to coming into the House and continues to hold that interest as a Member of Parliament would have great difficulty in using the expert knowledge that they have gained, which might be of benefit to their constituents, party and to the function of the House in general.
I consider that the rules are unnecessarily restrictive. There must be a difference between general advocacy of a topic and specific advocacy of a particular interest where a Member stands to benefit, personally or financially; for example, in my case a general advocacy of agriculture as distinct from calling for a specific subsidy that would benefit my business."
I cannot believe that when the rules were drafted, that was the intended consequence. I fully accept that there must be a balance between Members' declaration of interests and public confidence in the integrity of Members of Parliament. However, I do not believe that with that interpretation of the rules as they stood at that time the balance was correct.
I give way to the Father of the House.
Mr. Dalyell: How did the rules put the hon. Gentleman in that position, but allow Michael Jopling to be an Agriculture Minister?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have pondered that question. I am not sure whether the rules were the same at the time, but that is the advice that I got from the Registrar of Members' Interests concerning the interpretation of the rules in the case of somebody in my position who had a pecuniary interest in farming. I was informed by the registrar that, with the rules as they stood, the same restrictions on initiation and advocacy would have applied to a practising doctor taking a job as a health spokesman, or to a teacher taking a job as an education spokesman.
Mr. Levitt: The hon. Gentleman is performing a service by reminding the House of the reasons behind the change in the rules. I think I am right in saying that the present rules date back to 1996, so they would not have caught the Jopling case. It is also worth putting it on record that the Sheldon case at about this time last year was at the front of our minds when we were formulating the recommendations, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, were prompted by his experience.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. The position was as I suggested to the Father of the House.
746
Having put on record what the problem was, I wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, and you kindly asked me to come and see you. We had a full and frank discussion about the matter, and you asked me to write in the same terms to the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which I did. The Committee examined the matter, considered my first evidence and my subsequent evidence, and came up with two possibilities. One was the disproportionate benefit rule, and the other the less onerous exclusive benefit rule, which, as the Chairman said, would prevent a Member from seeking to confer a benefit exclusively on a body in which he had or expected to have a pecuniary interest.
I suspect that the House will return to that definition, as its precise meaning is still unclear. In my case, would I fall foul of it if I were to ask from the Front Bench for a subsidy for arable farmers from which I would benefit, even if a large number of my constituents would also benefit and had been asking me to lobby for such a measure? I am not certain about that and I think that the House will need to revisit the subject, although it is clearer than it was. To that extent, I am grateful to the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee.
Why have I raised this subject? A fundamental matter of principle is involved, and it was raised earlier, during the previous debate. What do we want in this House? Do we want to be bumbling amateurs or do we want people to come into the House who have real knowledge of the outside world? I suggest that we want Members to come into the House with real knowledge of the outside world. That serves Parliament and this country well. I do not think that we want professional politicians who do not have experience of the outside world. One of the great strengths of the other place is that whatever it is debating, there are people of nationally—if not internationally—renowned reputation in the field in question. That is what enhances and gives quality to debates in the other place.
Mr. Alan Williams: The word "exclusive" refers to whether an exclusive benefit would be conferred in terms of the interest that the hon. Member in question had found to be personally registrable. It would not apply to a generic group including all arable farmers. That is the difference. There is a paradox that we have not addressed and which I regard as nonsensical: hon. Members could speak against their own interest, but if they had not declared it, they would be in breach of the rules. Even though they had spoken against their interest, they would be in breach of the rules for having spoken about it at all.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for trying to clarify the matter, but let me throw the issue back at him. Suppose I was a member of the National Farmers Union as a farmer with a pecuniary interest in farming, and was advocating a specific topic on which the union had lobbied me and which would confer an "exclusive benefit" on a trade or body, to use the words of the report. Would I fall foul or not?
Mr. Williams rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: It appears that the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell me.
Mr. Williams: If the Member was the sole operator in the trade, the answer would be yes; if he was not the sole operator, the answer would be no.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. When people get into problems subsequently, they may look back at his words, which might help to provide clarification.
I think that I have adequately described my situation. If the House accepts the report and the change on rules and initiation, it will be doing the country and our constituents a service. I recommend and endorse the change and thank the Chairman and his Committee.
9.48 pm
Ross Cranston: I am a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee and want briefly to express my support for the recommendations.
The major change that we are recommending relates to the advocacy rule, which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has just addressed. In fact, it was his problem that brought clearly to mind the fact that the rule had become unworkable. We propose that the advocacy rule be the rule that was originally recommended by what is now called the Wicks committee—the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We are doing nothing more than adopting the approach of what is now the Wicks committee as a method of ensuring that legitimate parliamentary activity is permitted.
We could sum up the other changes that the report recommends by saying that they attempt to simplify and update the rules in various ways. One effect is to reduce the number of registrable interests by introducing a £550 limit, to which I shall refer shortly. I emphasise that the recommendations will tighten the rules—for example, those that apply to property that hon. Members own. They should therefore consider that carefully. The rules on shareholdings have also been tightened. A new definition brings partners within the scope of the rules, and that definition now refers not only to spouses. The changes do not all constitute relaxation of the rules; some are tightened. We are trying to update the rules—the rule on partners is an example of that—and also to simplify them.
I want to comment on the points that hon. Members made in the debate. First, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked why the recommendations were being made now when the Wicks committee is considering the matter. We are examining the substance of the code, whereas the Wicks committee is dealing with the machinery to enforce the registration system and the code of conduct. It is considering a different aspect of the problem. However, I take the point that we do not want to examine such matters often because it is a burden on hon. Members, who have to register their interests. If we constantly change the rules, it places a heavy onus on them. I accept the general point of the hon. Member for North Cornwall that we must keep the matter under review, but not too frequently because that would create confusion.
I always find the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) stimulating. He often makes me go away and think about things. I want to reassure him that the rules contained several financial limits, and we believed, in the interests of simplification, that we should adopt one cut-off point or threshold. We decided on the figure of 1 per cent. of the parliamentary salary. One could argue that it should be 0.5 per cent. or 2 per cent., but we fixed on 1 per cent. as a relatively simple threshold.
748
My hon. Friend mentioned foreign travel. It is registrable if it falls above the threshold. If the foreign sponsorship involved a total payment of £600 in air fares, accommodation and so on, it would have to be registered. I am not sure that the threshold in that instance will mean that large amounts of foreign travel will not be subject to registration. I believe that they will.
Andrew Mackinlay: With respect, I believe that my hon. and learned Friend misses my point. The rules are unfair to hon. Members who go abroad and register that they have travelled at the invitation of a specific Government because they are interested in the country. The answer is for the House to facilitate adequate travel budgets so that hon. Members can travel unencumbered, unembarrassed and uninfluenced by a host Government. That should be the objective.
Ross Cranston: My hon. Friend anticipates my point: I was about to say that he had made me think about the matter. I agree with him, but that is not in the remit of our Committee. It is a good point, because Members of other legislatures get much more sponsored travel than us. There is a good argument for saying that we should receive more. There is already a limited amount, but perhaps it should cover trips to other parts of the world as well as to the EU.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) made a point about incorporating the code into the ministerial code. There is a good argument for that, and I suspect that it will not be long before that is done. I agree with that point, but, again, it was not in the remit of the report. We were looking at the substance of the rules, and at how they ought to be changed.
Finally, I do not think that we have a purely self-regulatory system.
David Winnick: Before my hon. and learned Friend makes his final point, may I ask him a question relating to free gifts? Would he or his colleagues be in favour of the proposal that Members should send a copy of their annual tax return to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? Is there any reason why we should not do that? The information would not necessarily go into the public domain; it could be held in private by the Commissioner. What is the argument against that?
Ross Cranston: There are big issues of privacy involved, and I would not go along with my hon. Friend on that proposal. The registration rules are quite clear. I shall read out part of rule 9, because it is important.
"Apart from the specific rules, there is a more general obligation upon Members to keep the overall definition of the Register's purpose in mind when registering their interests."
In other words, if an hon. Member thinks that a gift whose value falls below the threshold could be seen by outsiders as leading to the perception of a conflict of interest, they ought to register it, under the rules. If they thought that something below the value of —550 fell within the general definition of the register's purpose, the onus would be on them to register it. I should have thought that, in most cases, that would not apply, but my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) might take a different view about the very expensive box of chocolates that he receives and, under rule 9, he would be obliged to register it.

749
As I mentioned, I do not think that we have a purely self-regulatory system. As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear, we are subject, in some cases, to the criminal law. We are subject to outside regulators, in that sense. We are also subject to constant public review by the press and, ultimately, we are accountable to the electorate. The most extreme example of that involved the former Member for Tatton, when the electorate said that his behaviour was not acceptable and that they would therefore not elect him—if that is how we interpret that particular result.
These rules are self-enforcing in the sense that the onus is on all of us to comply with them. If Members adopt a reasonable interpretation of the rules, they should not be subject to criticism. I adopt that view in a fairly legalistic way. If it is quite clear that a particular case does not fall within the rules, I do not think that Members should be subject to criticism on the basis that they should have sought advice and should have registered. I do not think that that is the way to go about it. These are self-enforcing rules, and Members have to read them. Yes, they should seek advice if they are in any doubt, but if they have no doubt, and if their interpretation of the rules is reasonable, they should not be subject to criticism.
On the whole, then, I commend these proposals to the House. We have tidied up the rules and brought them up to date. We have also dealt with the unworkability of the rule in relation to advocacy, which the hon. Member for Cotswold so amply illustrated in his speech. I commend the proposals to the House.
9.59 pm
Sir George Young: By leave of the House, may I say that I am very grateful, on behalf of the Committee, for the kind words that have been said about the report? I should like to reply briefly. I understand that business can go on after 10 o'clock, so if we hit 10 o'clock, I shall not turn into a pumpkin.
I want to say to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that a number of his hon. Friends have expressed the view to the Committee that the one group of people that is precluded from initiating a debate about a country overseas is often the group that knows most about it because it has recently visited it. That is the reason behind that change. I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman utter some disobliging remarks about Tilbury football club, in which case, he is a very brave man. Whatever honorary position he is now obliged to declare in the register as an officer of that club may shortly be removed from him. As for minor interests, I think that he will find that the letter from the commissioner will discourage the registration of trivial matters so that what really needs to be registered is registered.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned timing. Some of the recommendations were made more than a year ago. There is a case for getting on with things when the House or the Select Committee has formed a view, which means that there may never be a right time, but I would be surprised if the Wicks committee took offence at what we are doing tonight.
I say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), that I think that the Wicks committee is more interested in the overall structure for maintaining standards of conduct in the House than in the details of the code. When I was examined, it was
750
interested in an appeal process, the composition of the committee, the independence of the commissioner and the seniority of those serving on the committee.
Peter Bottomley: One of the changes made by the House a few months ago was the introduction of the rectification procedure, suggested, I think, by the former commissioner. Under that useful procedure, if a Member thinks his or her entry should be changed, that can be done without the need for a report from the commissioner.
Sir George Young: Many of the changes that we are introducing are welcome. It would have been wrong to postpone them, especially that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
Of course we will keep these matters under review, and of course there will be a dialogue with the Wicks committee. The hon. Member for North Cornwall described the proposals as provisional and transitional. That implies a degree of mortality to which I would not subscribe, but they will be kept under review. It is rather like painting the Forth bridge.
I understand what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said about limits. In paragraph 2 of the report, we point out that wherever the line is drawn there will be an argument for drawing it somewhere else. But there is a line in regard to gifts, which concerned him, along with the rules on hospitality and earnings. The £125 rule had not been reviewed for some time, and we felt that 1 per cent. was right.
Mr. Levitt: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that there used to be a number of de minimis rules in different parts of the code. Is it not much more consistent to apply a 1 per cent. threshold to all the different categories?
Sir George Young: Yes. One of our guidelines was a requirement for consistency and clarity.
Mr. Alan Williams: Was not one of the reasons for our switching to a percentage basis the fact that it was self-indexing, and did not need future adjusting?
Sir George Young: There was also the argument that people might not remember the £125 figure, but most know what Members of Parliament are paid and can work out what I per cent. of that is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) said he hoped that our proceedings would be dull. I can only say that they are more dull now that he has left.
Mr. Tyler: It may be rather early to ask this question, but can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, now that he and other Chairmen of Select Committees are apparently to receive additional remuneration, the 1 per cent. will apply to that extra money?
Sir George Young: The 1 per cent. is 1 per cent. of the parliamentary salary. If the hon. Gentleman reads the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, he will see that my Committee was excluded from the benefit of additional remuneration for its Chairman. That is quite right, and I do not seek such remuneration myself.

751
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold for making the case so eloquently, and for helping us to make a change to the advocacy rule. That will benefit not just those caught by it but the House, in allowing us to gain from their wisdom.
I hope that some time will elapse before we have to do this again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That—
(1) this House approves the Ninth Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, (House of Commons Paper No. 763), A new Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules;
(2) the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members shall be amended, at the end, by adding the words 'or any approach, whether oral or in writing, to Ministers or servants of the Crown';
(3) the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Employment Agreements shall be redesignated 'Agreements for the Provision of Services;' and shall be amended, as follows:

(a) by leaving out the words 'up to £1,000, £1,000-£5,000, £5,000—£10,000' in each of paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) and inserting the words 'up to £5,000, £5,001-£10,000';

(b) after the word 'inspection' in each of paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), by inserting the words 'and reproduction';

(c) at the end, by adding the words—

`Provided that the requirement to deposit a copy of an agreement with the Commissioner shall not apply—

(a) if the fees or benefits payable do not exceed one per cent. of the current parliamentary salary; nor

(b) in the case of media work (but in that case the Member shall deposit a statement of the fees or benefits payable in the bands specified above)';

(4) the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members (House of Commons Paper No. 688 (1995–96)) shall be amended as proposed in Annex 2 to the Report; and
(5) the registration forms submitted for the next published Register of Members' interests shall comply with the new rules on the registration of Members' interests; and any requirement under the new rules to register an interest which is not registrable now shall come into force on the publication of the next Register.

Alcohol Abuse (Young People)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
10.5 pm
Jim Sheridan: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of binge drinking and its effect on youngsters, and to share with other hon. Members my experiences and concerns.
Binge drinking is a problem with proven links to many of the more serious aspects of antisocial behaviour in our communities. The debate is important because it will consider many issues associated with binge drinking, such as teenage drinking. As we know, our teenagers are tomorrow's policy makers. A recent report on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, by Communities That Care, covered some 14,000 secondary schools throughout England, Scotland and Wales. It stated that the widespread misuse of alcohol among under-age drinkers
"cannot safely be ignored by parents or policy makers."
Alcohol Concern stated that the report
"is the latest in a series of studies indicating that young people are drinking worrying amounts of alcohol".
It adds that drinking among teenagers is linked to antisocial behaviour and the use of other drugs.
The following figures from a survey show the scale of binge drinking among British teenagers. Up to 25 per cent. of 13 and 1-year-olds claim to have downed at least five alcoholic drinks in a single session. That figure rises to 50 per cent. of all 15 and 16-year-olds. Some 27 per cent. of 15 and 16-year-olds reported going on three or more binges in the past month. The survey also found that 9 per cent. of boys and 5 per cent. of 11 and 12-year-old girls describe themselves as regular drinkers. Those figures rise to 39 per cent. of boys and 33 per cent. of girls aged 15 to 16. The majority of children surveyed stated that their parents would think it wrong for them to steal or to use illegal drugs. but the proportion who said that their parents would object to under-age drinking declined significantly.
Mr. John Lyons: I should point out to my hon. Friend that most research shows that young people do not regard themselves at as risk from alcohol. According to various surveys in Scotland and the rest of the UK, education for children about alcohol is almost non-existent in some schools. Perhaps some attention can be given to that in this debate.
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall deal with education later.
The national picture gives cause for concern, given the association of binge drinking with criminal activities committed by teenage drinkers. Some 10 per cent. of schoolchildren admitted that they had committed burglary, and 25 per cent. of 15 to 16-year-olds admitted to carrying offensive weapons. The report's findings simply replicated the conclusion of earlier reports that British teenagers are more likely to get drunk than their European contemporaries. Some researchers would claim that that is attributable to a more relaxed attitude to alcohol use in Britain.

753
In a recent case in Stirling, three boys aged between 10 and 12 were admitted to Stirling royal infirmary, suffering from the effects of alcohol. The two boys aged 12 were described as suffering from drowsiness and vomiting. The condition of the 10-year-old boy gave greater cause for concern. His body temperature had to be raised, as it was dangerously low. Coupled with severe vomiting, his condition could have led to cardiac arrest. Police in Stirling are still trying to discover who supplied the boys with alcohol—and therein lies another problem.
Consumer advocates and anti-alcohol groups have recently called for regulations to place stricter controls on the marketing to teenagers of fruit-flavoured alcoholic drinks. Such drinks are known as alcopops and are designed to appeal to the younger drinker. The groups say that the new hard lemonades and other fruit-flavoured malt beverages are primarily targeted at teenage consumers. Alcopop drinks are clearly child-oriented products that are designed to get children to consume alcohol at an early age. The complaint called for an investigation into whether labelling and marketing of fruit-flavoured alcoholic beverages could be construed as unfair marketing practice under law. In response to the complaints, drinks manufacturers and distributors stated:
"It's ridiculous to suggest that the flavour of a drink is what stands between a teen abiding by the law or illegally breaking the law."
The chief executive of the charity Communities That Care recently called for urgent Government action to spearhead a joined-up approach by all agencies to provide support for young people, addressing drinking and other problematic factors that contribute to their lifestyle. A recent World Health Organisation report stated that one in eight deaths among young men in the UK are caused by alcohol abuse. While children in most European countries are given wine with their meals by their parents in an effort to encourage responsible alcohol consumption, most British children cannot wait to reach the legal age to drink in order to emulate the drinking habits of their parents. The report states:
"While we are developing a growing appreciation of wine and food, we are still a nation that does most of its glass raising just before closing time."
Older British drinkers have developed a last drink syndrome, in which they have a ritual that when last orders are called at the bar, they order two drinks or more just to squeeze in a final one for the road. That means that they are attempting to swallow two pints in the time that they would normally only drink half a pint. That quick intake means that they get drunk and stagger out into the night to get involved in brawls and fights in late-night carry-out shops and taxi ranks, leading to more public disorder.
The British Entertainment and Discotheque Association, a representative body for late-night venues with more than 1,000 members across the UK, has been heavily involved in the debate on binge drinking and the impact that alcohol discounting has on the late-night environment in our communities. It is calling for a solution to the problem that still gives operators some freedom to offer promotions while removing the ability to offer the deep discounts and irresponsible promotions that cause so much trouble in our communities.
The British drinker does not know how to drink sensibly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) said, we need a programme to
754
educate and inform the British public about sensible drinking and the horrific problems associated with binge drinking. To that end, I welcome the current initiative from the Scottish Executive to attempt to provide such a programme for the people of Scotland. I ask that the Government give serious and urgent consideration to a similar programme throughout the UK.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) for raising those important issues. As he pointed out, all hon. Members are rightly concerned about the welfare of children, and alcohol abuse by the young is a vitally important issue for every parent. He has spoken eloquently about matters that are causing a great deal of anxiety in all our constituencies.
The protection of our children is one of the key purposes of licensing law and is a primary aim of licensing reform and the modernisation for which I am now responsible as a Minister. I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to this debate, because we have a very good story to tell of positive steps taken since 1997 to tackle directly the problems associated with under-age drinking.
The issues affect many Departments, as my hon. Friend suggested. They need joined-up government and joined-up thinking. The Home Office is actively addressing alcohol-related crime and drunkenness on the streets involving the young. The Department of Health is concerned about sensible drinking by all of us, but especially by the young. It is developing a national alcohol strategy that will embrace many of the issues that I will mention this evening. The Department for Education and Skills includes alcohol education in the national curriculum as part of general teaching about substance misuse, which is another point that my hon. Friend made. The Department of Trade and Industry regulates the advertising, marketing and packaging of alcoholic beverages, which can be made overly attractive to the young. Customs and Excise is actively seeking to prevent smuggled alcohol being sold on the cheap to kids and adults. In the terrible example that my hon. Friend gave, the alcohol may have come from such a source, because streets in some areas are awash with it. The Treasury has changed the duty rates on mixed drinks made of spirits mixed with soft fruit drinks so that they are now taxed as spirits rather than wine. This will make them more expensive and less accessible to the very young.
We in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are responsible for the licensing laws and the age at which alcohol may be purchased in England and Wales. Moreover, the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office have a similar role in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Hon. Members will recall that the Government came to power in 1997 promising to tackle the problem of alcopops. It was an issue of great concern to many parents, and a very worrying trend. Working closely with the Portman Group, we called upon producers and suppliers of alcohol to discharge their social responsibilities with regard to the problem of under-age drinking. A range of additional controls within the

755
Portman Group's code of practice were introduced and had a significant impact on the merchandising and packaging of alcoholic drinks.
The number of complaints made to the Portman Group's independent panel about the marketing of alcohol to children and its packaging has now dwindled to almost nothing. That is an achievement of which the Portman Group and the Government should be proud.
In 1999, we gave our wholehearted support to the private Member's Bill presented by hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), following the tragic death of his 14-year-old constituent, David Knowles. The Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000 closed a loophole in the main licensing statutes that had allowed some staff in licensed premises to sell alcohol to children without fear of prosecution or conviction. The Act also introduced for the first time a new offence that prevents adults hanging around off-licences from buying alcohol on behalf of minors. We know that there are clear links between that and the sale of other drugs.
In April 2000, the Government included a raft of measures to tackle under-age purchase and consumption of alcohol in the White Paper entitled "Time for Reform." My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire has urged us to implement these reforms at the first opportunity. Although I know that many in the House would have liked us to move more swiftly on reform generally, we certainly cannot be criticised for any delay on the measures regarding children.
The White Paper proposals will tackle under-age drinking. They were given priority ahead of general reform and were included in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Three crucial measures have been brought into force since last year's general election.
On 1 December last year, the test purchasing of alcohol was put on a statutory footing for the first time in England and Wales, bringing it into line with the arrangements for tobacco. Trading standards officers can now send minors into licensed premises to attempt to buy alcohol. This is a valuable deterrent that has heightened the risk of detection and prosecution for those unscrupulous traders making profit out of causing harm to our children.
The Act also placed a new positive duty on licensees and their staff in England and Wales not to sell alcohol to children. The defences that can be mounted against prosecutions have been amended, and it has been made easier for enforcement agencies to secure convictions. Retailers now know that in the case of any doubt about age they simply should not make the sale.
The Act has also made it easier for local authorities to designate areas in their towns and cities where alcohol may not be consumed publicly, and it has expanded the powers of the police to confiscate alcohol carried by children in those areas.
As I made clear at the outset, licensing law can only be one element of a much wider strategy. Data from research sponsored by the Portman Group strongly suggest that children are obtaining a great deal of cheap alcohol from unlicensed individuals peddling smuggled alcohol. This is a cynical trade, with little regard for the consequences for the young and, indeed, for parents. The Government have stepped up their campaign to defeat the bootleggers, with the Treasury providing more customs officers dedicated to detecting those involved.
756
Our wider strategy includes the work of the Departments for Education and Skills and of Health and the Portman Group in providing more health education resources for children and parents to learn about sensible drinking. I was shocked to hear my hon. Friend say that some schools in Scotland provide no education about alcohol, and I hope that those schools will realise that that is vital work. A great deal of research shows that most of the alcohol obtained and consumed by minors is provided by their parents, and public education to change some of our entrenched attitudes is essential.
A great deal has been and is being done in the public and private sectors relating to licensing, health and education. However, I emphasise that there are no easy or quick fixes when it comes to under-age drinking. Education, as my hon. Friend suggested, lies at the heart of much of the problem. By the time children are in their teenage years, bad habits will often have been formed. We need to reach them earlier, as we have done with some success—although it is by no means complete success—on tobacco. I acknowledge that there is a great deal more that we can do regarding the general reform of licensing. Our laws are archaic and incomprehensible to many parents.
My hon. Friend talked about binge drinking. When, over the 2001–02 new year period, I managed to get the Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2001 through the House to extend drinking hours to 36 hours, the police informed us that it was the quietest new year's eve they could remember, with the least amount of violence. My hon. Friend is right to point out that although binge drinking may not result in fights inside pubs or even outside those pubs, it certainly results in violence in the fast-food outlets where people steam in when they are thrown out of the pub, usually at the same time and in their hundreds.
Minors cannot purchase alcohol in pubs and nightclubs, but children as young as five can lawfully consume alcohol in pub gardens and some family rooms. Consumption is prohibited only in the area of licensed premises known as "the bar". This also means that children aged over four can, in theory, drink alcohol freely in a licensed restaurant that has no bar. We must not be fooled by the counter from which drinks are supplied in a restaurant—that is often not a bar as understood in the law. These are archaic and complex areas of the law, and it is no wonder that most parents find it all utterly confusing. We intend to sort all this out through the general reform of licensing law, and a Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.
Once again, I thank my hon Friend for raising these important matters for debate and for giving us the opportunity to set out our approach to them. If we do not sort these matters out, I fear for the future of many of our young people and also for the future of communities like the ones in which I and many colleagues here tonight grew up. This problem undermines the social cohesion that has made those communities such remarkable and good places in which to raise children. This is a very serious issue and I hope that I have shown my hon. Friend that the Government are taking it very seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Accident and Emergency Provision
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
9.30 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I welcome the opportunity to debate the important subject of accident and emergency services, and to question the Government on their national strategy. As we witnessed in the tragic events of last week, the national health service is brilliant in emergencies. All the emergency services rose to the occasion in Potters Bar, and for that we are most grateful.
I want to focus on the national picture, but I speak also from personal, local experience. In my constituency of Meriden, the local accident and emergency department has already been radically downgraded. Solihull hospital is a relatively new hospital; it was opened in June 1994 with an all-singing, all-dancing accident and emergency department. In 1997, after the merger with Heartlands, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) pledged the future security of services at the hospital, particularly the A&E services. The present Minister was given a copy of that pledge in a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).
Over the years, however, doubts have been raised about the future of A&E services at the hospital. When we questioned the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), on the strength of that pledge in a debate on Solihull, she said:
"I am not in a position to say that the position"—
the pledge—
"will never change".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 20 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 130WH.]
I know that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend will be listening closely to the Minister to discover whether that pledge is now worthless.
Doubts were raised about the need for a 24-hour service on such a scale. Ambulances were asked to take emergency cases straight to the sister hospital, the bigger Birmingham Heartlands hospital, because there was no longer an emergency surgeon on duty at Solihull. Solihull was undergoing a downgrading by stealth, and the manoeuvre became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The local hospital trust argued that figures for A&E treatment in Solihull were too low to justify keeping it open, and organised A&E services, including the ambulance service, to make it true.
When local people started to get wind of that, it caused dismay. Dismay has turned into anger, and the issue has become one of the hottest in my constituency. On 25 March, protesters from five other areas of the country that are similarly threatened—Gosport,
176WH
Penzance, Kidderminster, Canterbury and Crawley—marched on Downing street to deliver a letter to the Prime Minister, to which as yet there has been no response. However, the Secretary of State for Health, who received the same letter, did respond. Someone from his Department replied saying that it is a local matter and that it must be addressed with the consent of local opinion.
The question is: what is local opinion? Local people, the potential patients, have made their views entirely clear. It is something that people feel passionately about; to them it is a life or death issue. It can also make the difference between keeping or losing a parliamentary seat, as the Government know only too well from their experience in Wyre Forest. It is not something that the Government can afford to ignore. The Government's response suggests that they do not have a national policy.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Is not another interpretation that the Government have a policy of rationalisation, but they are not prepared to admit it and are implementing it by stealth?
Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend comes to the heart of the matter. It is the tension caused by the hidden and unpopular policy that we want to bring out today.
I do not want to dwell for too long on Solihull hospital, because the debate is about the national strategy. However, before I move on to that, and with the memory of the Potters I3ar train crash in mind, I shall make one further point. Such an emergency could happen in Solihull. There has recently been a huge increase in the area's daytime population, in part because of the new and popular Touchwood centre, which attracts 60,000 shoppers every day from outlying areas. Solihull is also at the confluence of the M42, M40, M5, M45 and the M69, and near Birmingham international airport and the national exhibition centre. One does not want to be a harbinger of doom, but it is as well to be aware of such salient facts when considering decisions about accident and emergency services at our hospital.
My job is to represent my constituents, who have said loud and clear that they want Solihull accident and emergency department kept open 24 hours a day and properly staffed, so that it can deal with any emergency. The local hospital trust may have genuine reasons for believing that that would not be a good idea and that it could not justify restoring the department to full strength on clinical grounds. It may also have genuine reasons for thinking that such an approach would not be in local residents' best interests and that it would not be safe or practical. If that is so, it has not succeeded in making its case.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: The hon. Lady will know that I share her concerns about the hospital. In the interests of accuracy, however, will she confirm that the accident and emergency unit at Solihull has never taken all cases? Paediatric cases, for example, have never gone there since the outset.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, when the hospital opened in 1994, the local

177WH
population collected sufficient charitable moneys for a paediatric ward. At the outset, a full range of services was supplied, but they have been withdrawn over time. Nothing is more shattering for our constituents than seeing the charitable money that they raised for a paediatric ward put to no use.
This issue will not quietly go away. The Government are committing themselves to extra cash for the NHS.
Mr. John Taylor: My hon. Friend has come to the matter of resources. Most of the recent Budget was smoke and mirrors, but one thing was clear: heavy Government receipts in the form of increased national insurance contributions from our constituencies will be targeted at national health service provision. Given the opening position at Solihull—including the charitable contributions to it—and the enormous amount that is now being raised through national insurance contributions, is it not clear that we should resource 24-hour accident and emergency provision at the hospital, which services our constituencies?
Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend comes to the same conclusion as I: extra money is being raised specifically for health, and constituents want additional resources to be spent on keeping accident and emergency units open 24 hours a day. That is the message that they want the Government to get loud and clear from this debate. If it is not feasible to fund such a service, the Government must properly explain why, and make the experience of going to Solihull's sister hospital at Heartlands more pleasant and convincing.
I must, however, move on to the wider issue of accident and emergency strategy as it affects the country generally. In their emergency care report, which was updated in April, the Government produced a plan called "Reforming Emergency Care: First Steps to a New Approach". At this stage in their term in office, however, such an approach is a little tentative. People want improvements that they can see now, but the report reads a little like a wish list, with targets such as:
"By the year 2004 no-one to wait for more than 4 hours in an A&E department before their case is dealt with".
I picked that example almost at random, but the paucity of the ambition is striking. Anyone who has had the misfortune to use a typical accident and emergency facility in a large hospital knows what an unpleasant experience it can be, yet the goal is to reduce a patient's wait to four hours in two years' time. Surely another model for dealing with accident and emergency admissions should be studied and taken on board.
In a previous debate, which was specifically about Solihull hospital, I brought to the Minister's attention the findings of a working group of the Royal College of Physicians. The group's radical proposals reversed current thinking, and advocated that accident and emergency facilities be no more than 10 minutes away from the patients that they serve. I commended that report for consideration by the Government some while ago.
The Government also refuse to believe that any system in any other country is worth studying and learning from. Their report notes that the NHS is second
178WH
to none in responding to major emergencies, and I have applauded that fact. To be fair, however, the report also admits to failures in the system. Under a general heading, it deals with patients having to wait too long from care to treatment at each stage of the emergency care system. It starts with the time that it takes to get an appointment with a general practitioner, and goes through to inadequacies in the system that compound delays, including the notorious bed-blocking scandals with which we have become familiar.
The report offers various solutions to those problems, but no radical approaches. The main recommendations are for more money to be allocated, but within the same system. I am passionately committed to the ideals of the NHS, but that does not mean that better practice elsewhere cannot be incorporated into the service. The Wanless report found that accident and emergency departments in Germany, for example, see patients in a couple of minutes—we can dream on.
The report claims that things have improved and that, for example, nearly 80 per cent. of all accident and emergency patients spend four hours or less in A&E units. I checked on Heartlands hospital, to which our constituents are now sent, but the latest figures tell a different story. Some 74 per cent. of patients are seen within four hours, which leaves 26 per cent. waiting for longer, and I have heard of waits of up to eight hours.
Those figures are backed up by the Audit Commission's report on A&E waits, which was published in October 2001. In 1996—an important reference year—89 per cent. of patients were admitted within four hours, but the figure had fallen to 76 per cent. by 2000. The percentage of patients seen by a doctor within an hour was 73 per cent. in 1996, but 53.5 per cent. in 2000. So, despite the Government having been in power for five years, the situation has got worse.
The anecdotal evidence is also far from happy. Ambulances must often queue outside Heartlands before even an initial admission. Once there, patients find that the conditions are crowded and impersonal, which is not conducive to helping people who are in pain and distress. Ambulance crews are, however, subject to a local protocol. A letter that I have just received from the West Midlands ambulance service states that, in respect of
'"999' emergency calls, Solihull Hospital will ONLY receive `Adult Medical' patients and 'Maternity' cases, and that ALL `Paediatric' cases and 'Adult trauma' patients are taken to Heartlands Hospital".
That will continue unless, of course, those responsible are confronted by people power.
A local councillor has told me that ambulance drivers are increasingly meeting fierce opposition when trying to take patients to Heartlands. One ambulance crew was on its way to admit an elderly woman who was having her cataracts removed at Heartlands—that, in itself, was a strange decision—but she demanded to be taken to Solihull. Eventually the ambulance men allowed her to contact her consultant, who agreed with her request to have the operation in Solihull hospital, and that is where she was taken.
I secured this debate partly because certain questions have still not been answered.
Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is delivering a powerful oration, and the pattern that she

179WH
describes is, sadly, repeated elsewhere. There is pressure on ambulance crews to take people not only from Canterbury, but from a range of settlements in east Kent, to the Kent and Canterbury hospital, where the number of beds has been reduced. Crews face pressure when they try to take people to other hospitals, which are being expanded.
Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend gives another example of downgrading by stealth. We want to bring that issue into the open today so that it can be properly debated.
In a written question, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness was asked how many nurses are employed in accident and emergency departments in England. His response was:
"It is not possible to separately identify nurses employed in accident and emergency (A&E) departments.—[Official Report, 10 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 490W.]
The emergency care report says that the number of nurses working in accident and emergency will increase by 600 by 2003. That seems a little delphic in the circumstances. Asked about both ambulance response times and the proportion of patients seen by a doctor within an hour of arrival at accident and emergency in the last six years, the answer was the same:
"The information requested is not collected centrally."
That all seems a bit haphazard. For the Government to have an effective national accident and emergency strategy, the figures must be collected centrally. Otherwise, how do the Government have any idea whether targets are being met?
There is also the matter of what constitutes an accident and emergency department. In some local hospitals—such as Solihull—it is proposed that accident and emergency departments should be run by specialised nurses who are able to treat minor accidents and emergencies. However, that is not the public's perception of an accident and emergency service. Clinically, doctors would argue, that might be the way ahead; but that is where the public and specialist medical opinion seem to part company.
In preparing for the debate, I consulted the independent organisations that represent accident and emergency specialists. They took a pragmatic approach. They told me that having an all-singing, all-dancing accident and emergency department in every town was what the public wanted—they are aware of the demand. However, it is not clinically safe, given the number of available doctors, staffing restrictions and the Government's strategic direction. As an analogy, Ian Anderson, who is president of the Faculty of Emergency Medicine, said that keeping an under-staffed, under-qualified accident and emergency department open would be like a shopkeeper using all the staff to serve customers in the front of a shop and no one to replenish the stock behind the scenes. It is difficult to get away from the fact that there is a constraint because of the lack of adequately qualified doctors. However, the Government have been in power for five years and the matter could have been tackled at a much earlier date.
The jury is still out in Solihull—there is a formal consultation process to go through—but strength of opinion is running high. We must listen to expert
180WH
independent opinion in order properly to inform the debate. However, as politicians, we must also listen carefully to the wishes expressed by our constituents. Ultimately, they fund this public service provision.
Given that we are considering plans for the future of a service that is of vital importance to my constituents and to those of other hon. Members—many of whom will speak in the debate—the Government's report and some of the debate in Parliament can seem far removed from reality. The bottom line is that unless the people who actually use the facilities are happy with them, they are not working and all the wish-lists, reports and vague promises made by the Government will cut no ice.
Councillor Don Blake, chairman of the health service monitoring sub-committee in my constituency, is waiting for answers to the following four questions. Why, unlike coronary heart disease, services for older people, mental health and so on, is there no national service framework for emergency care? How do the changes at Solihull hospital fit in with the wider plans for accident and emergency provision within the Birmingham and black country strategic health authority? How will the proposed changes affect accessibility to accident and emergency in our part of the west midlands? How do ideas about accident and emergency fit in with plans for the long-term development, of Solihull hospital on the principle of one hospital on two sites?
If those questions are not answered satisfactorily, people will increasingly take power into their own hands by protesting or forming action groups or, like my constituent, by blind refusal to adhere to protocols that seem to ignore patients' wishes.
9.49 am
Mr. Peter Viggers: This is a timely debate, because thinking about accident and emergency units is changing. The old thinking was that every accident and emergency unit should be part of a major hospital where every specialty was available because, for example, a child might be brought in who needed paediatric care or specialist treatment such as vascular surgery might be required. If every specialty is offered, it is not just a matter of having one consultant; three or four must be available in order to provide 24-hour cover.
There was also a strong feeling among the royal colleges that there could be no joint-site working. The consultants had to be working at one hospital in order to get accreditation. Doctors and nurses could not be accredited if they were working in smaller hospitals with no leading consultants available to advise them. For all those reasons, the old certainty was that an accident and emergency unit could only be part of a district general hospital. Increasingly, across the whole of the country, accident and emergency units have been closing and specialisation has been focused on the larger district general hospitals.
That model—very large district general hospitals with accident and emergency units—has proved to have significant disadvantages. The first is that not every patient who is taken by ambulance to the accident and emergency unit at a large hospital some miles away needs to go there. A significant proportion of those who are taken on the blue light into the large, distant, district hospital prove not to require its care. The problem then

181WH
is what to do with such patients. Either they have to be sent back to local hospitals, or they have to be admitted and it is difficult to discharge them because—for reasons known to medical science but not to non-specialists—district general hospitals and local hospitals have different cultures and it can be difficult for a district general hospital to discharge patients to the local hospitals.
Secondly, because of the Government policy of tightening regulations on nursing homes, fewer nursing home beds are available, so suitable patients cannot be discharged from district general hospitals back into the community or to local care centres.
Medical and technical advances now enable diagnosis to be made at a distance: telemedicine has advanced considerably. In my constituency, the Royal Hospital Haslar treats patients around the world through telemedicine. The armed forces cannot have leading specialists available in every area served by their personnel. Telemedicine allows specialists to advise on patients in Cyprus, Bosnia or Sierra Leone. Such advances also make it possible to treat patients in local hospitals rather than taking them all the way to a district general hospital. There can be considerable advantages in taking a patient quickly into a local hospital. In medicine, the priority is often not to have long-term highly specialised care, but to stabilise the patient, particularly in a cardiac case. Once the patient is stable, he or she can be moved in comfort to a larger hospital where specialist care can be administered.
The final reason why the old model of large accident and emergency units attached to district general hospitals has proved to be disadvantageous is the one that has been spelled out so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). People do not want it. They want their medical care to be provided as locally as possible, because an extremely important part of medical care and well-being is the opportunity for family and friends to visit. People do not want to run the risk of lying in the back of an ambulance that has to make its way through busy traffic to a district general hospital some miles away. They want medical care to be provided locally.
Therefore, plenty of thought is being given to a new model. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), is kind enough to nod at that. The word "reconfiguration" prevailed during a meeting of residents from Gosport who came to see her. The reconfiguration of our medical care is being given much thought, to see whether further medical care can be provided locally and through telemedicine and split-site working. The idea of specialists working in more than one hospital was thought to be unpopular. Certainly, the Royal College of Surgeons was opposed to it at one point, but increasingly specialists are aware that good medical care can be provided through split-site working, with some provision made in one hospital and other specialist experience provided in another. Reconfiguration can lead to improvements in medicine.
I shall apply those general arguments to my local case. On 10 December 1998, a date never to be forgotten, the Government announced their proposal to close the Royal Hospital Haslar in my constituency. It is and has
182WH
been the only Ministry of Defence hospital, but a committee in the Ministry of Defence that included no one with any medical skills decided to close it. To put it mildly, there was disagreement locally. We formed the Haslar task force and the "Save Haslar" campaign, which I have chaired since its creation. We thought that our rally and march would attract only a few hundred people, or perhaps a thousand or two, but 22,000 came to demonstrate their concern about the retention of Haslar hospital. It is thought by the House of Commons Library to be the largest demonstration ever in support of a hospital.
The official plan for Haslar—hon. Members should suspend their disbelief—is to increase the number of out-patients from 55,000 a year to 60,000. A new accident treatment centre is now available there for suitable patients, and the hospital has recently been nominated as the new diagnostic and treatment centre for south Hampshire. That will involve some of the best operating facilities in the United Kingdom. The official plan says that all those advances and improvements will happen and that Haslar will close in 2007. It beggars belief to suggest that the closure of such superb facilities makes sense, but that is the official policy.
We are working in the right direction. The accident treatment centre is a good step. The diagnostic and treatment centre will be an extremely valuable facility to reduce waiting lists for cold surgery, and the increased use of Haslar for out-patients is fine. We agree with all those steps, but we do not agree that the hospital should close in 2007, when the nearby Queen Alexandra hospital at Cosham is rebuilt under private finance initiatives.
We hope and believe that plenty of support will be given to the retention of Haslar and the continued use of its site and outstanding facilities, including the operating theatres and telemedicine equipment. We want to encourage the use of the accident treatment centre and expand the range of emergency medical conditions that can be referred to it. Also, we want a fundamental review of the plan to close Haslar after 2007. It makes no sense, and we want to give Haslar the certainty and confidence that it needs for the longer term by confirmation that the hospital will remain after 2007.
I have not yet referred to defence medical services. There is no doubt that Defence Costs Study 15, which reduced the number of hospitals in the defence medical services from four to one, dealt a blow to the service and a blow to the morale of those who work in it. However, that was nothing compared with the decision to close Haslar. In the key specialties of general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, anaesthetics and general medicine, there are now gaps in the establishment as high as 75 per cent. In other words, in some of those key areas, there are only a quarter of the required number of specialists. There is no doubt that if the armed forces were deployed in strength, their capabilities would be restricted by the inability to provide adequate medical back-up. That is extremely serious from a defence point of view, so I hope that, for that reason, as well as for the support of the local civilian population, the decision to close Haslar will be reviewed.
10 am
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on securing the debate.

183WH
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) about the need for earlier assessment of patients and greater or more flexible use of available resources. It strikes me that that will be one of the major shifts in medicine in future. When the hon. Member for Meriden was telling us about the origins of Solihull hospital, I reflected that, had we known what medical provision would be available, we might have looked differently at how we configured all our services, although that is not a criticism of what was done when Solihull hospital was built.
I shall give one simple example. In my constituency in south Birmingham, we are examining proposals for a new medical centre at Green Bank, combining several GP practices. If it is successful, it will provide several localised services for people in Hall Green and, I suspect, for some people in Solihull, including provision for minor day surgery. That will assist people who would previously have gone to hospital. In that context, any future plan for A&E provision should have a national element but should also take account of local considerations. I should be interested to know what the primary care trusts in the area are proposing, so that we can consider their proposals in the context of the overall provision of hospital and other medical services.
I share the concerns that have been expressed about Solihull hospital. I have been at pains to establish with the trust authorities that there are no plans to close the hospital. I am reassured on that front because I understand that about two thirds of the population of Meriden, Solihull and Hall Green currently use the hospital, and that is unlikely to change. There is tremendous scope for joint-site working, and I am not sure that the trust authorities have considered that as seriously as they might. With the advent of telemedicine, there is much greater scope to share key personnel, and I hope that that, too, will be carefully considered. However, I am aware that the trust claims to have advertised at least 11 times for senior house officers and is having some difficulty attracting staff. I would not want, in pursuit of any campaign to defend a local service, to ignore a reality such as that. The hon. Member for Meriden referred to issues of clinical safety. Much as I want to protect and defend local services, I would personally find it extremely difficult to take the risk of sending someone to a unit where the level of treatment could not be guaranteed.
Mr. John Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is perverse to expect recruitment of high-quality personnel to the accident and emergency facility at Solihull hospital when ambulance crews are under strict instructions to take patients to Heartlands hospital? It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If nobody goes there because ambulance crew are instructed not to take them, who will apply for a job there?
Mr. McCabe: It depends where we start with that issue. If the plan starts with a decision to downgrade a unit and to instruct ambulance crew not to take patients there, the hon. Gentleman is right. However, if there is already a shortage of key medical personnel and that gives rise to some level of clinical risk, and in individual cases judgments are made to take people elsewhere, that is a different matter. It will take some time to recruit the additional doctors and nurses that we need. In the
184WH
meantime, my instinct is that the trust should consider making greater use of the existing personnel across the sites. We should make the best use of the facilities that we have.
Mrs. Spelman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is aware that the previous management had an arrangement to rotate its doctors between the two sites and secured the agreement of the royal colleges for that to be acceptable for accreditation. With a change of management, that appears to be no longer possible. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the emergency surgeons were removed without any consultation with the public? That had a massive demoralising effect on the accident and emergency staff, who saw their department's remit being downgraded before their very eyes.
Mr. McCabe: I hope that I have made it abundantly clear that I think that there should be greater sharing of staff. That seems a perfectly reasonable way to proceed. However, we should also achieve a balance between the level of treatment and the skill of the personnel available. If I were making a judgment on behalf of an injured friend, that factor would weigh on my mind.
Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that recruitment difficulties are sufficient reason for downgrading or closing A&E departments? If so, that would make the situation difficult in areas such as my constituency in Hertfordshire. The area is very expensive and it is difficult to recruit, but we still need our A&E departments.
Mr. McCabe: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am saying that where there is a shortage of key personnel, the judgment must concern how we use the resources at our disposal. It would be ludicrous to argue that a facility should be kept open and available all the time if there is doubt about levels of clinical safety. That would be absurd and I cannot imagine any constituent signing up for it. My understanding is that people want good local services as close as possible to their immediate environment, but they want to balance that with the level of safety and treatment that they would reasonably expect. That is all that I am saying.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman's point is important. My understanding is that he is suggesting that we should have a geographically two-tier NHS: in areas where it is relatively easy to recruit staff, we should have the kind of provision that we expect at the moment, and in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), we should pragmatically reduce the provision because we do not have the staff. That seems a rather bankrupt philosophy, to which I hope that he does not genuinely subscribe.
Mr. McCabe: The hon. Gentleman has either misunderstood me or is talking about a personal fantasy, because I am not saying that at all. In areas where there are staff shortages, we should maximise the use of the existing provision as flexibly as possible. On occasions, that may mean that establishments must share doctors. We all want acceptable minimum standards that apply throughout the country.

185WH
The hon. Member for Meriden told us that Labour has been in power for five years, which no one is disputing. However, as Stephen Thornton, the former chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said, the health service experienced decades of underfunding before that. The question is whether the new investment proposals and the direction suggested by the Wanless report will provide the route to improving the long-term efficiency of our health service for everyone, or whether we should switch to an as yet unspecified alternative, which the hon. Member for Meriden flirts with but will not spell out. Until we know what that alternative may be. we have to wonder at the crocodile tears that the Opposition are spilling over the health service.
Mrs. Spelman: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that any party in opposition has the perfect opportunity to consider the statistics and the question of supply and demand and plan for the changes that it wants to make? It does not have to wait five years until it is in a position to implement changes.
Mr. McCabe: I make three obvious points in response. First, the hon. Lady's party has a history of trying to destroy the health service. Secondly, the Conservative spokesman on health has admitted that he has a stealth plan to wreck public confidence in the health service. Thirdly, it seems absurd for the Opposition to refer to alternatives if they are not prepared to disclose to the public, in the interests of allowing them to make choices about health, what those alternatives are and how much they will cost.
My final point for the Minister is that we need to strike a balance between what is locally viable and desirable and what resources can be used, set against a national framework for A&E. Will the Minister tell us how the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will work on that problem? Recently, there was a dispute about the long-term future of heart transplants at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, and at other hospitals. The resolution of that dispute came in setting standards to be monitored by the Commission for Health Improvement, so that services could be provided on the basis that treatment would be safe and reliable. Some similar guide to the operation of A&E treatment centres and units would be useful.
10.13 am
Dr. Richard Taylor: I thank the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for securing the debate and for referring to a national strategy. We must consider the national outlook for A&E provision before we relate it back to our own areas.
My presence in the House is entirely due to the importance that local people put on A&E services. People are prepared to travel for high-powered elective or emergency treatment, but not for bread and butter emergencies. If they live in or move to an area with local emergency services, they do not expect them to be taken away.
As the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said, recognition is coming for local people's priorities. The first glimpse of that recognition came with the Scottish review of acute services in 1998, which states that
186WH
"the critical mass needed to achieve the benefits which might flow from this increased volume of activity can come through managed clinical networks rather than the centralisation or concentration of services."
As recently as May last year, the Northern Ireland acute services review tackled the question of A&E. The report suggested that there should be three grades of A&E. Of course, we cannot all have the top grade—the all-singing all-dancing provision for major head injuries and major chest and cardiac surgery. The second grade is represented by the sort of A&E department that commonly exists at the moment, which does not deal with the major procedures. The third grade is lower, but is more than a minor injuries unit because a doctor is always present. In Northern Ireland, they have begun to consider making some sensible alterations.
After last year's general election, the Royal College of Physicians realised that there must be a rethink and, along with the Nuffield Trust, began to consider a model that would keep emergency services local in the first instance. A lead article in the BMJ from 4 August 2001 sums up the situation when it states:
"The first advantage of such a system"—
that is, emergencies going locally first—
"would be that patients with emergencies would reach hospital within 10 rather than 30 minutes. Links with primary care would be better. Those who didn't need admission could be quickly discharged home, which seems to be logistically impossible to achieve in one day with the current arrangements. Some patients need never go to the central hospital. Those who did would not need to be assessed again, and transfer could be faster because fewer transfers would be needed overall."
We were tremendously helped by the admission from Sir George Alberti, the president of the Royal College of Physicians, that medicine could exist without surgery. That made a huge difference, as most emergency services are medical.
The greatest step forward, however, is contained in the Darzi report from County Durham. Professor Ara Darzi is part of the NHS Modernisation Agency, so he speaks with authority. He takes into account local and staffing issues and what it is and not possible to achieve.
Country Durham and Darlington have three acute hospitals between them: in Durham in the north, Bishop Auckland in the middle and Darlington in the south. The Bishop Auckland hospital is the smallest, is 12 miles from Darlington and 13 miles from Durham, and serves a population of less than 40,000. Clearly, it would not be possible to run all services at Bishop Auckland, but Ara Darzi's suggested model includes a doctor-led A&E service and most of medicine, along with a diagnostic and treatment centre, which is a modern idea that has much to commend it as it separates much elective surgery from the emergency work that blocks beds. Such a model might be applied to many hospitals that are under threat.
Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is basically talking about an A&E with everything except major trauma facilities?
Dr. Taylor: The details of the facilities in each area would be decided according to local opinion and decisions. I shall return to that later, as it is the most important point of all. As I read it, the Darzi model would not be exactly the same in other places, but it gives a flavour of what is possible with medical staffing and local desires. It is incredibly important.
Something has to be done politically, as my presence in the House shows. Far more importantly, something has to be done for the patient. The three A&Es in Worcestershire have been reduced to two, and I have received many letters that suggest that that change is not working. I could talk for many hours about trolley and ambulance waits, staff stress and ambulance distances, but I will not. However, I will give one fact. Before the downgrading of facilities in Kidderminster, the monthly mileage of the Wyre Forest ambulance service was 8,000 miles, but is now 24,000 miles. Change must take place, and it could be made on the Darzi model.
I shall end with some pleas to the Minister and her colleagues, the first of which is that they consider the Darzi model.
Mr. John Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Darzi model, based on the views of that expert gentleman. Did he say that the hospital in Bishop Auckland served a mere 40,000 people? Did I hear him correctly?
Dr. Richard Taylor: That is the population of the town, but the hospital serves a large rural area, which makes the population that it covers much greater. We would see from a map that Durham, Bishop Auckland and Darlington are on a north-south line. The people in the country to the west will not be that much further from Durham to the north than Darlington in the south. The Darzi model must be considered as a blueprint for a national strategy.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden for mentioning the Secretary of State's response. On the Floor of the House, he told me that local matters must be decided by local opinion. I ask that that be the case, without pressure from the Department of Health and its Ministers. Makers of local opinion—that must include citizens as well as members of the professions—should be given freedom.
Dr. Evan Harris: Given the democratic deficit in local decision making on the health service, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is some merit in still being able to refer significant changes such as hospital closures to the Secretary of State, because it means that someone in an elected position takes responsibility for the result of policy or the general financial picture'? That is perhaps the only merit of referring such decisions. I say yes to local decision making, but we have to make it more accountable if we are to dispense with the taking of responsibility by politicians elected at a national level.
Dr. Taylor: I could not agree more that there must be local accountability. That is why I am desperately sad that it seems that community health councils, which have some democratically elected members, will disappear. I believe that the Government are sincere
188WH
about trying to involve local people in decision making. I remind the Minister that she wrote in a letter last September that
"The views of patients and citizens should be not only valued but listened to and acted upon as well."
If my pleas are heard, crises will be avoided, and in Worcestershire, the devastation of hospital services forced by the now abolished health authority could be undone and repaired.
David Taylor (in the Chair): Before I call the next speaker, I should tell the House that I intend to call the Liberal Democrat health spokesman at 10.30 am. I call Dr. Murrison.
10.24 am
Dr. Andrew Murrison: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this timely debate. The tragic events of last Friday have highlighted the importance that we place on front-line services and there is no doubt that casualty departments are at the forefront of the national health service. I pay tribute to the dedicated professionals of Barnet general hospital.
The six months that I spent as a senior house officer in the accident and emergency service were the most exhausting months of my career, but they were some of the most fulfilling. I am sure that other hon. Members here today who are medically qualified would share those sentiments. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised the subject of telemedicine at the Royal Hospital Haslar and I remember offering medical advice to patients many thousands of miles away during my time as a casualty officer in that hospital. I agree with absolutely everything that my hon. Friend said.
I know that the Royal United hospital at Bath that serves many of my constituents has recently been taxing the minds of Ministers. However, if we set aside end-of year deficits, suspensions and fiddled waiting lists, we are left with a hospital that provides a remarkable service to my constituents in Wiltshire. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the hospital's casualty department.
The Minister is a keen admirer of community health councils, so she will be delighted to note that our debate coincides with a meeting of the RUH standing group of the Bath and district community health council. As luck would have it, the council is debating as we speak the hospital's accident and emergency department, and particularly the council's recent survey of patients and carers attending the casualty department. The survey gave people the opportunity to comment on a raft of issues, with 35 detailed questions on issues such as travel and car parking, A&E waiting times, and the support given to patients and carers on discharge. I regret that our debate and that meeting are simultaneous, as it prevents me from conveying the council's findings, which I know will be illuminating.
While we can, we should draw upon our community health councils because, if the Minister has her way—I hope that she will not—they will shortly fall silent. Today's CHC agenda is a treasure-trove of useful activity. We learn for example that the council will participate in the nationwide casualty watch exercise on 20 May. There is a detailed critique of the plans for a

189WH
new casualty dept in Bath; and the CHC asks several questions. It asks about the drop-off car parking facilities for the unit; we should remember that the hospital serves a vast rural area, so it is extremely important for those of my constituents who have to use the hospital. It wants to know whether the toilet facilities are adequate, and particularly about access for disabled people. It also asks whether the bereavement suite is fit for the task and whether its relationship to the mortuary is sympathetic. Those are down-to-earth questions, which planners forget and neglect— particularly planners of casualty departments—but community health councils give a powerful voice to local people on such important matters.
The council has been advised that it may not be possible to change the plans on which it has commented without causing undue delay or expense. What a shame that is, because it is a useful catalogue of concerns from an organisation with its ear to the ground. It is a shame that those comments were not used to inform the decision-making process at an earlier stage. The NHS machinery appears to be running down our community health councils already. That is lamentable in the extreme, but what a fantastic demonstration it is of the value of community health councils. I know that all Conservative Members will join me in condemning the Government's plans for closing community health councils and for proving completely recalcitrant to the wise words of Conservative Members, during the Committee stage of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, that CHCs should be reformed, not abolished.
Last year, I attended a major accident on the A36 in my constituency, in which four people lost their lives. I saw at first hand the superlative quality of our emergency personnel. The weak link is a system that obliges ambulances in certain parts of the country to stack up outside casualty departments, waiting to discharge patients, like aircraft at Heathrow. or to circle district general hospitals like planes on a holding pattern. Is anything more likely to demoralise all the health care professionals involved? Despite the best efforts of our health care professionals, the NHS front-of-house is in crisis. It is no wonder that community health councils feel obliged to take a special interest and that the Government are hell-bent on silencing them.
10.30 am
Dr. Evan Harris: As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said, we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for giving us the opportunity to debate some of the wider issues beyond individual hospitals. We heard an interesting debate between the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), who made some valid points, as well as some contentious ones, and other hon. Members.
I remember meeting some of the staff at Solihull hospital and noting their concern, and that of local people, about its downgrading. Indeed, this weekend, I visited West Cornwall hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who cannot be with us today, which drew my attention to the fact that threats to the provision of local services
190WH
occur in rural areas as much, if not more than, in urban and suburban areas. I know that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has been active on the issue of Haslar hospital, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson), so many campaigns are cross-party. I know of the work done by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in relation to the Kent and Canterbury hospital, which I have also visited. It is remarkable that many of those hospitals are not found in the constituencies of Labour Members. Indeed, Bishop Auckland general hospital, which is due to be reprieved from threat because of its size, is in the middle of a Labour constituency. It is questionable whether that is a coincidence.
As the hon. Member for Meriden said, much stealth and shifting the blame is involved in the closure of hospitals. We touched on that issue in our discussion about whether decisions are truly local. If decisions are to be made locally, they must be democratically accountable. Governments, who generally seek to centralise praise and decentralise blame, like proposals to be led by local managers, who can be, and all too often are, demonised, although the buck should stop with the politicians who make policy decisions. In relation to the health service, that means Westminster politicians, including those who make the financial decisions. It need not be that way, but it is. Until we have an accountable tier of politicians helping to run the health service on a regional and local level, politicians at Westminster will rightly continue to debate such issues and the Minister and her colleagues will be held responsible.
Hospitals are being closed by stealth, bit by bit. First, one part of the service is lost, and that is deemed to make another part of the service unsustainable. If we are to have an open approach, we must ask the Government, through their proxies—the local managers who come up with the proposals—to set out a clear plan, which can be debated, at the outset. We know that many closures are financially driven and hidden behind allegations about the need to provide a safer service. The issues at stake can be directly financial, as they were in Worcestershire, where closure was required to fund a private finance initiative, or financial by proxy—a shortage of staff may well be related to the inability of successive Governments to fund the necessary consultant expansion.
Financial decisions are hidden behind issues related to the working time directive and junior doctors' hours. I used to work in that field as both an expert on a national basis and an employee on a regional one. There was no problem with junior doctors' hours that could not be solved by the adequate provision of a consultant-led service, with the training and the creation of new posts that go with that.
Those who make the point that patient safety is the key issue must provide evidence. Our approaches must be evidence-based. It is not just a question of the provision of adequate back-up and specialties leading to a safer service. There is also the issue of travel time for casualties going to hospitals. If all small units are to be closed, we have to balance the alleged safety gains of that measure against the worries about increased transit time for people who are not yet stabilised.

191WH
It is not sufficient for decisions on patient safety to be handed down from on high without adequate debate and scrutiny. Such scrutiny needs to be much more explicit. Reports produced by the royal colleges are informed by expert opinion, but have baggage attached to do with the working patterns of consultants. They need to be debated. They should be published, and the basis on which they are formed should be scrutinised. We need elected politicians to take responsibility, preferably locally.
We must remember that safety has many aspects. It was not a lack of access to surgery that caused the disasters in Bristol, but too much being done by specialists beyond their competence and with insufficient regard to the suitability of patients for particular procedures. That is one of the best examples of a failure of patient safety. It arose not from inadequate medical cover, but from too much medical interference.
When we consider the staffing problems that underlie some of the stresses placed on smaller hospitals, we must recognise that we are dealing with the legacy of underfunding, which lasted until at least 1999. Medical staffing levels were determined by a decision taken not by the previous Conservative Government, but by the last but one. The failure to invest in medical schools and medical student numbers in the early 1980s and the failure of successive Governments to expand the consultant grade—
Mrs. Spelman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, perversely, there is a wave of redundancies in our medical colleges, at precisely the moment at which the Government claim that they want to increase the number of students?
Dr. Harris: We need now to be at the point at which the Government claim we will be after five years of expansion of medical schools. That expansion will produce the junior doctors needed to staff the departments, but a shortage of junior doctors is only partly due to a shortage of newly qualified people. There is also a shortage of consultants to provide the training opportunities upon which responsible expansion of junior doctors' posts is based.
It is no good creating new senior house officer posts and sucking people in from South Africa or Australia if no adequate training is to be provided. That is why the provision of adequate medical staffing begins and ends with expanding the provision of consultants. I have said that again and again, but until very recently there has been a complete failure to increase the number of consultants.
I entirely agree that small hospitals can be supported in the provision of senior house officers by rotation through larger hospitals. It happens in Banbury in my constituency, with rotation from the Radcliffe infirmary, and it happens in Solihull. It should be a question not for local hospital managers but for the postgraduate deans charged with ensuring adequate training. The neutering of those deans by service-driven reforms to medical work force planning—introduced by the previous Government and added to by this one—has damaged flexibility.
Dr. Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Harris: I do not have much time. I come finally to accident and emergency departments being treated as scapegoats in relation to waiting times. If those are anybody's responsibility, they are not that of accident and emergency departments. They see patients and treat them, but then cannot move them to other parts of the hospital because of a lack of capacity due to under-bedding or delayed discharges.
What we see in accident and emergency departments is a fiddling of the figures and delays in starting and premature stopping of the clock when it comes to the time between decision to admit and finding a bed. Because 75 per cent. of people have to be seen within four hours, minor cases are seen quickly while the more complex ones are seen later. That is a terrible distortion of clinical priorities. The hon. Member for Meriden spoke of the Government's inability to specify how many accident and emergency nurses there are. That was a case of adverb substitution—those figures are not "not collected centrally", they are "not collected deliberately". We now see noun substitution as well. Such data can only be provided at disproportionate embarrassment to the politicians, not "disproportionate cost". Changes might have to happen, but I advise the Government to sort out the capacity problems in the larger hospitals before they start closing the smaller ones.
10.40 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: I start by echoing the point made by a number of hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) whom I congratulate on having secured the debate—that we should thank the staff in the accident and emergency departments of hospitals, particularly Barnet, who did such a wonderful job following the Potters Bar crash.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden pointed out that the accident and emergency department in Solihull hospital had been downgraded by stealth through the instruction to ambulance crews to take patients to another hospital and by the removal, without notice, of a surgeon. The effect, over time, was to damage the ability of Solihull to deliver accident and emergency services. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) intervened and said that the same thing was happening to the Kent and Canterbury hospital: patients were being diverted away from it, against their wishes, by ambulance.
Mr. Brazier: The loss of 90 beds due to the closure of the satellite geriatric hospital at Nunnery Fields resulted in queues in our accident and emergency unit that made the national press again and again. The vicious circle described by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is happening. When they are told that there is no capacity, the morale of staff, particularly nursing staff, is affected and they become overloaded. The rotten plan put forward by the local health authority is then fulfilled.
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend reflects the sort of comments that were made in the report on east Kent by

193WH
the Commission for Health Improvement, which quoted one member of staff who did not know how long patients had been in his accident and emergency department, or what day it was, because of the sheer stress of numbers and the chaos in the department. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that the same was happening in west Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) then told us about the Royal Hospital Haslar, a famous defence hospital, which had also been downgraded. He explained that the old thinking that the large accident and emergency department is best had led to the change in his local hospital, and pointed out some of the problems caused by that thinking— beds blocked and modern methods ignored.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) shared the concerns about Solihull hospital and agreed that people want good local services. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) told us that his hospital—as we know—had seen services downgraded, and he spoke of the latest thinking and of the County Durham report. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) paid tribute to the work of community health councils in standing up for patients.
What is the Government's policy on rationalisation of accident and emergency departments? It cannot be coincidence that across the country— we have heard about many constituencies today, and many others are relevant—A&E departments and the supporting specialties seem to be in the process of reconfiguration by stealth. The Government document entitled "Reforming Emergency Care—Practical Steps" refers to access to emergency care being simplified and the extension of streaming of patients. However, it does not mention closing down A&E departments and developing minor-injuries units instead, or merging medium-sized units, but that is what is happening.
The argument for such measures, locally and in medical circles, is that rationalisation improves standards. Hospitals in which more than 50,000 patients use the A&E will apparently tend to have a full, 24-hour supporting service. It is said that they are more cost-effective, their doctor training is better and rostering and the quality of outcomes can be improved.
Do the Government want the rationalisation that is taking place? What guidance have they given on the subject? How has it been disseminated? What is the evidence for it?
Ms Julia Drown: Everything that the hon. Gentleman says rings true with what has happened over many years, rather than in only the past five years. He referred to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and the difficulties with the defence medical services establishment. The Princess Alexandra military hospital at Wroughton closed in my constituency under the Conservative Government, despite huge passion and support for it. The same pressure that the hon. Member for Gosport is bringing to bear was exerted on the Conservatives when they were in control.
194WH
Can the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) offer the Government any lessons that he may have learned from that time, or suggest any changes in policy that he may wish that there had been? The issues have been the same for many years.
Mr. Heald: The Government are in the position to conduct all the research in the world and tell us what the evidence is. The hon. Lady is right to say that A&E departments have been closed before, but the process seems to be gathering pace. Even in my county, Hertfordshire, a consultation exercise on reconfiguration is taking place, and there is rightly much local unhappiness at the thought that hospitals that are much at the heart of people's security—how people feel about what would happen if they were ill—might be in danger of closing or losing their A&E departments.
Is there any evidence of improved outcomes following the closure or mergers of A&E departments? If so, will the Minister publish it so that we can all consider it? It is often said that such measures are cost-effective. What evidence suggests that there is a release of resources as a result of them? If there is such evidence, will she publish it so that we can have an informed debate on the issue?
Is the Minister taken by the accounts that we have heard today of new thinking? The hon. Member for Wyre Forest described the experience in Durham, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport gave an example about combining diagnostic and treatment services with a form of accident and emergency in his local hospital. What is the Government's policy? It would be wrong for them simply to shuffle the blame on to local health managers, and say, "Oh well, they are just doing what seems right locally." There must be a plan for the whole country, or at least a network provided by the A&E departments. If so, the Government must have a policy on it.
The state of accident and emergency departments has declined rapidly under this Government. When he spoke to the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts in 1996, the Prime Minister said that we would see an end to trolley waits and the causes of trolley waits. Since then, however, the number of patients seen within an hour has declined from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent., and the number admitted within four hours has fallen from 90 per cent. to 75 per cent.
The Audit Commission report described a host of organisational and managerial problems; and we have also heard evidence from nurses, including from the senior nurse who addressed the recent Royal College of Nursing conference. He spoke of grieving relatives being kept away from untended corpses that had been
"dotted about in various offices and cubby holes".
He also spoke of people waiting for hour upon hour, and about the recent protest at Liverpool, where people had been waiting for 40 hours. What does the Minister say about the appalling decline in emergency services?
10.51 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): First, I join others in paying tribute to all the emergency services, which responded magnificently to last week's rail crash. That is the case in every major emergency. I am sure that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) knows that if such a terrible

195WH
event were to happen in her community, the emergency services would again respond magnificently, and I confirm that there is a major contingency plan for her area. The hon. Lady put forward the possibility of an incident in her area, and explained that the growth of shopping and tourism mean that a large number of people are there during the day. I can give her the strong reassurance that the emergency services are prepared and able to cope with matters excellently for local people.
The debate has been passionate on both sides. That delights me, because it shows how much local services, particularly emergency services, are valued. The fact that so many hon. Members attended today, contributed to the debate and made their views clear gladdens my heart. I was quite surprised, however, to be criticised by the hon. Member for Meriden for humility; our document "Reforming Emergency Care: First Steps to a New Approach" was a deliberate attempt to deal with a complex matter. We do not have a magic wand, and the position cannot be resolved overnight.
As many hon. Members said, the pressures on accident and emergency departments have existed for many years— and many of them suffered also under previous Governments. However, the debate should not be about accident and emergency departments only, but about the whole system of care. Many hon. Members highlighted the fact that it is also about primary care, access to general practitioners, social services, the overall capacity of hospitals and the effective and proper discharge of their duty— and the fact that if one part of the service is not working properly the effects are inevitably felt most acutely in A&E departments. Hon. Members have made it clear that the problems in overstretched A&E departments are sometimes the result of pressures that are not under their control but which they are unfortunately left to deal with and involve a complex set of interlinked and interrelated matters.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Meriden was in stark contrast to the more thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I had the opportunity, with the hon. Gentleman, of discussing with local councillors and members of the local community their real concerns. We talked about the way in which emergency services are changing, and whether it will be possible to provide more services closer to home. However, we recognised that they will not always include full a trauma service with a complete range of critical care back-up. because it is not realistic that it should be available within 10 minutes for everyone in the country. I hope that Opposition Members will be prepared to engage in a realistic and mature dialogue with their communities about that. Yes; we want to provide as many services as we can as close as possible to people's homes, but that aim will always be tempered by issues of clinical safety, organisation, resources and training, and by the need to ensure that the royal colleges can accredit such circumstances. The picture is complex; it is not simply a matter of having a full range of accident and emergency services within 10 minutes of where every single person in the country lives.
Mr. John Taylor: Respectfully, I need no lectures on how to keep in touch with my community, having been born there and having had a continuous mandate from
196WH
the people of Solihull for 31 years. I should, however, draw the Minister's attention to the perversity of justifying the downgrading of accident and emergency provisions on the grounds of lack of throughput, when throughput has been intentionally diminished by instructions to ambulance crews.
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman knows that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) said, a variety of services has been available at Solihull and Birmingham Heartlands over the years. There have been different protocol referrals, according to the needs of the patients who were being transported and referred. That links with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor). If we are to explore different kinds of accident and emergency treatment and provision, it is crucial that we get the protocols right, so that the right patients go to the right place for the right treatment by the right members of staff. That will ensure that people do not end up being processed through one place before being transferred somewhere else, which would create difficult delays for patients.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Blears: I want to respond to the other points that hon. Members have raised, and I have four minutes to do so, so I want to press on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green made an important point about ensuring that there is a local dimension to such issues. A wider range of facilities is beginning to appear. There are not only accident and emergency departments, but nurse-led minor injury care centres and one-stop primary care centres, and walk-in centres are being developed. All those are about providing different elements of emergency care. We must challenge ourselves to think more imaginatively and more creatively about the provision of emergency care. We should think not only about the A&E department, but about the whole system, and it is crucial to ensure that it is interlinked.
Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Minister respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) about providing information? When provision at St. Albans was merged with that at Hemel Hempstead— against strong opposition from locals and myself— we were told that the move was necessary to improve health outcomes. Since then, evidence of such improvements has not been forthcoming. We have asked that Ministers carry out a nationwide study of mergers to clarify whether they have produced better health outcomes, before further mergers, including the possible closure of half or three quarters of the accident and emergency units in Hertfordshire, are carried forward. Will the Minister promise to provide that information, and if not, why not?
Ms Blears: What is important is that we are talking about what local people can decide to do for themselves. The hon. Member for Meriden will know that there were about eight options for various configurations of emergency services in her area. No decision has been taken on which options will go out for public

197WH
consultation, but it is crucial that the detailed weighing-up of what is best for the local community and what combination of services will properly provide for local people is done at the local level, with the primary care trusts in the lead. It is crucial that we bring together clinicians, local patients and all those who make up the neighbourhood. It is not simply a case of the Government coming up with a national template—a top-down solution— that will act as a blueprint for everyone. Local communities must be involved.
Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Taylor. Is it in order for the Minister to misrepresent the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)? He asked whether she would publish the evidence on whether mergers and reconfigurations make a difference.
David Taylor (in the Chair): That is a matter for debate, not a point of order.
Ms Blears: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. In the minute that I have left, I should commend the emergency care strategy to hon. Members. It is complex, and refers to streaming, extra investment and reform. It is key.
I challenge Opposition Members to be more creative and more imaginative in their approach to the issue, and I urge them to read the strategy. It has the full support of the British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine, which looks forward to implementing it with the Government. The strategy was formulated with local people, so local communities have had a chance to ensure that it can work.
Opposition Members should not take such a simplistic view of emergency care. It is a complex issue and all the services are interrelated, but the arrangements can work. As usual, Opposition Members are being harbingers of doom and gloom, and feel that nothing can ever improve. I can promise that things will improve, however, provided that the strategy is properly implemented.

Farming
11 am
Paddy Tipping: As you well know, Mr. Taylor, there is no doubt that farming is facing serious difficulties at the moment: farm incomes have been very low for the past Live years, the commodity price cycle is depressed, and the pound is very strong against the euro. To compound all that, there have been great difficulties, first, with BSE and, last year, with foot and mouth disease. The memory of the pyres and the pain of foot and mouth disease may well have brought people to the point where they are beginning to look for change in the farming industry.
I believe that a new consensus for change in the funding of farming is emerging. That mood of change is strengthened by a desire to reform the common agricultural policy. I am not entirely sure whether the entry of candidate countries such as Hungary and Poland will bring about major change. One school of thought suggests that that will cement the status quo, but there is an argument that the accession of those new member countries will at least provoke debate. The midterm review, which will take place shortly, gives us another opportunity for discussion.
I simply wish to tell the Minister and other colleagues that CAP reform is long overdue. It is no good just to wish for reform; the Government must be a key player—an active partner— in those debates. The Government, who want to be at the centre of Europe, have an opportunity to produce and influence change, but at the end of the day the £3 billion spent on the CAP could be spent more effectively.
The Curry report is another driver for change. It is important to recognise the fact that that report, "Farming and Food: a sustainable future", did not just magically appear; there was a manifesto commitment at the last general election to create such a policy commission. What is important is not the change itself, but the scope, scale and timetable for change.
The CAP will not be reformed overnight. Some voices have argued that we should follow the New Zealand example and get rid of subsidies overnight. That is a false view—it is unachievable for a member of the European Union— but there is a feeling among the public at large, the consumers of food, that we ought to scale down the food subsidy support that we give. However, we can embark on a process that has already begun— the process of switching funding from food production subsidies to payments for environmental gain and benefit. That process is not new; stewardship encapsulates it in a sense.
Of course the English rural development regulations allow us to transfer money—as they say in the trade—from pillar 1 to pillar 2. At the moment, that is funded by modulation at a rate of 4.5 per cent. The Curry report acknowledges that and argues that we must do much more. The Government have taken the Curry report seriously. They have broadly welcomed it, and the Prime Minister hosted a summit at Downing street not long ago. There will be further reaction to the report after regional discussions in September.
Some important initiatives have already been taken—for example, on the need to have benchmarks, to set up demonstration farms and to shorten the food chain.

199WH
Lying behind the Curry report is an understanding that it is not just farming that brings wealth and investment to rural areas. The big lesson from the foot and mouth outbreak, when the countryside was closed, is that small businesses— pubs, bed and breakfasts and tourist attractions—faced very real problems. One of the important roles of farming and landowning is to develop a countryside and landscape that people are keen to visit. The notion of farmers and landholders as stewards of a changing countryside is very important.
However, there has not been much progress on the important recommendation in the Curry report to the effect that we need to continue to move away from subsidising crop production to payments for environmental gain and benefits. There are real problems with doing that, but I want the Minister today and the Government in the next few weeks and months to provide some clear signposts and milestones against which to measure change. We now have an opportunity—it may not come very often—to take forward that consensus for change.
In my own county. Nottinghamshire, farmers know that change is inevitable, and they are beginning to plan and influence change. My friend John Clarke, who is the chairman of the Nottinghamshire branch of the National Farmers Union and who farms at the White Post in Farnsfield, has convened a series of meetings involving farmers from north Nottinghamshire and, significantly, the East Midlands development agency to try to take some of the Curry theory and put it into practice in Nottinghamshire.
I notice that large business farmers in Nottinghamshire—people such as Tony Strawson, for example, who farms at Featherstone farm—have entered into stewardship in a big way. I noticed, too, when I was talking to him the other day, that he recycles the water and debris produced by washing his carrots and beet back on to his fields. He is also involved in short-term rotation coppicing. Just down the road, Richard Thomas, a large potato producer, has moved into stewardship and is moving quickly into organic production.
The central issue remains to be resolved: how can we achieve the Curry recommendation to have a broad and shallow environmental scheme? Curry suggests the only approach now available— the only show in town —which is to modulate not at 4.5 per cent., but at 20 per cent. by 2006–07. The difficult issue for the Minister and the Government is how to fund that change. Modulation has to be match funded and the price tag on that proposal is £500 million over three years. The key issue is how that £500 million lever for change can be matched against the Government's other spending commitments and priorities. I mention that as we move quickly into the current spending review.
I believe that the Curry report is welcomed not just by most elements of the farming and landowning community. but by the lobby groups and interests groups. It is significant that this week the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Woodland Trust and 15 other organisations have launched a postcard campaign called "Invest in Our Countryside Now", in which they argue strongly that this opportunity to transfer funding into environmental gain and benefits is the way forward.
200WH
Sir Don himself is anxious that his report is not cherry picked, but seen as a whole. The Country Landowners Association is strongly in favour of moves towards payments for environmental gain and benefits.
In that context, the position of the NFU is interesting. When the report was launched, the NFU was a staunch opponent of modulation. However, if we read the small print and look at what NFU members are saying in the south-west, for example, we see that there is a growing awareness that this kind of approach may have real possibilities. My challenge to the Minister is that, given this opportunity, it is important that we set out signposts and mileposts. The mileposts that 1 would like us to set for the next financial year, 2003–04, would be to move to modulation at 10 per cent. That would be a big step change. I estimate—perhaps the Minister will correct me—that that would cost about an extra £150 million. If we are serious about wanting change, and I believe we are, spending of that kind would provide a significant indicator that that is the route the Government want to take.
What is important for farmers and landowners at the moment is to have real understanding and real knowledge about the way forward. People cannot live with uncertainty. They want to know the direction of travel. If the modulation proposals and the move towards a broad and shallow scheme are not taken forward, there will be real despair and disillusionment in the countryside. We must not let this consensus overwhelm us, however, as there are clear difficulties with this kind of approach that need to be overcome. Our commitment to the philosophy underlying Curry should not underestimate some of the practical difficulties of implementing such an approach.
First, if we are to move towards payment for environmental gain, we need to be able to measure success. A very real issue is how we define public goods, which this kind of approach entails. Different organisations will have different opinions of the public goods that they want delivered. The RSPB has a firm view of the way forward, as does the Woodland Trust. Their priorities may be complementary, but there might be concerns within the access lobby—in the Ramblers Association, for example, of which I am a member— that a desire for payments for greater access could put conservation in difficulty. We overcame those difficulties in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and we can overcome those difficulties again. The issue is how we measure the output from this kind of approach and how we put a value on the environmental good, whether it is a plant, wildlife, hedgerows, access or new walls. Of course, for a payment of £150 million, one would need to be able to demonstrate clear outcomes.
Secondly, experience of agri-environment schemes shows that they can be complicated and have a heavy administrative cost. Any broad and shallow scheme of the kind that Curry has recommended should, in relative terms, be fairly simple. It needs to have easily defined goals, and the farmers and landowners involved in it need to have some degree of self-assessment. There may be a case for a whole farm approach towards environmental gain.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is opening this debate and taking it forward in a thoughtful and useful way. My constituency

201WH
contains a large proportion of the Peak District national park, which he knows well, and it therefore attracts a huge number of visitors to the Peak district. Some farmers say to me that they do not want farming to be seen as a museum, and that agriculture is very much an industry. Although I fully accept that new arrangements need to be introduced, we should be careful not to make them over-complicated. My slight worry about some of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions is that they might be a little over-prescriptive in telling farmers how to farm. I hope that he can address that in the rest of his remarks.
Paddy Tipping: I visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency frequently, tramp the footpaths and look at the farming practices there. When I take my children up into the countryside to look down over the surrounding areas, they say to me, "Isn't it marvellous, Dad, it's never changed", but the countryside is always changing. It is man-made—we create it. It is how we handle and manage that change that is important. The lesson of the last year, during which I have not been able to go to the Peak district, was clear: the tourists and visitors to the countryside provide the real wealth. The other side of the coin is that farmers and landowners have a real role to play in creating a countryside that people want to visit.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point: it is a persistent complaint, as I have just acknowledged, that some of the agri-environment schemes can be very bureaucratic and over-prescriptive. I do not want us to fall into a trap—we have an elaborate system of CAP payments, through integrated administration and control system payments and the rest, and we must be careful not to move into a green system of payments that is similarly difficult and similarly over-complex. The reason that I argue for 10 per cent. modulation in 2003–04 is that that would give us a chance to experiment. We should not set these initiatives in stone; we should be relaxed about change. As I said, the countryside is always changing, and it will continue to change.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that with greater bureaucracy there must be a responsibility on Government to set up the right mechanisms to ensure independent arbitration or the intervention of an ombudsman when there is a problem? It seems that, all too often, when the Department makes a decision, it is right, whatever the circumstances, and the farmer is wrong. We have all had that experience with IACS, but it is becoming increasingly clear that that also applies to the sort of schemes to which he refers.
Paddy Tipping: I, too, have heard those concerns, and on several occasions I have taken up concerns about payments, late payments and wrong payments. My experience is rather different—I have found the Department willing to look at issues. It is a year since the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and although much remains to be done in that new organisation, significant changes are taking place, which we need to encourage further.
I want to make a third point about the difficulties of this kind of approach. A broad and shallow scheme must be overlaid by other schemes. The environment
202WH
has different hierarchies; in a sense, there is a pyramid of things that we need to protect. For example, if we want to protect limestone pavements or the dales, or if we want to protect ancient forest, as the Woodland Trust does, or, if we want to create new heathland in Sherwood forest in Nottinghamshire, such initiatives will cost more than the broad and shallow scheme. A big challenge for Government is to explore the urban fringes, where cars are dumped and abandoned and where antisocial behaviour occurs. We need to look imaginatively at how, using funding mechanisms, we can create informal places that people can visit. I therefore welcome the review of agri-environment schemes currently taking place. I hope that they will become simpler, but they need to mesh strongly with the broad and shallow scheme set out by Curry.
The final practical difficulty is the urgent need to demonstrate the consequences of the approach set out by Curry, which switches from payments for subsidies to payments for the environment. The Curry report was produced in the early part of the year. Farmers and landowners are looking for a message, one of which could well be: what is the consequence of taking that approach? Will farmers in the west country, for example, stand to gain more than large arable farmers in the eastern part of the country? We urgently need a model for the approach. The difficulty for the Minister is that our thinking is at an early stage, but it will be important for academics and the Government's resources to propose a series of ideas—examples—of what might happen if we proceed with Curry.
I began by saying that farming faces severe difficulties. The severity of the problem has opened up a real debate about the way forward for agriculture. There is an opportunity to change things and, after five very bad years, a determination to find a better way forward. The emerging consensus is that it is right to switch from subsidies on production to a system that makes direct payments for environmental benefits. Such opportunities do not arise often. There is a danger that unless the Department and the Government show leadership now and make the switch, farmers and landowners will face genuine despair. The programme is challenging, but I strongly believe that we should take that challenge and make the changes that I advocate.
11.22 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on securing the debate. In particular, I appreciate the thoughtful way in which he introduced it. He, at least two other Members in the Chamber and, indeed, you, Mr. Taylor, are members of the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is exploring the issues raised. That attention needs to be paid to the future funding of farming is beyond doubt. If there had been any doubt about that, the impact of the foot and mouth crisis and the outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia illustrated in a truly appallingly vivid way to urban and suburban areas just what happens when the rural economy collapses. It certainly surprised some people in high places who thought that rural Britain was a minority pastime.
An article published in The Sunday Times on 28 August 2001 pointed out that the average family farm income has fallen in five years from £80,000 annually to

203WH
£8,000, and that farmers and farm workers are leaving the industry at the rate of 450 a week. As the chairman of the National Farmers Union put it to the Select Committee last week, that is like closing down Vauxhall Motors twice a year for two years.
The same article asked: who needs farmers? It said:
"In a global economy where anything can be imported from anywhere, chicken from Brazil, pork from Poland, beans from Kenya, production will always gravitate to where it is cheapest. And cheapest is rarely going to mean British. So why shouldn't food follow industries that have gone the same way, steel and coal for example?"
The article continued:
"There is a superficially attractive argument in favour of letting farming die. We won't starve. Raw materials can be brought abroad and we can still earn huge profits from processing them."
It is to challenge such assumptions that I welcome the chance to participate briefly in the debate.
It is obviously nonsense to suppose that if Britain stopped farming, food would handily come into the country in raw material form, leaving our processing intact. From Thailand would come not chicken, but chicken McNuggets, chicken Kiev and all the rest of it; from Eastern Europe would come not milk powder, but various desserts and milk shakes. Leaving aside the human and animal implications for health of such an import policy—although in passing I point out that most experts believe that the foot and mouth epidemic and classical swine fever outbreaks originated in imported infected food—it is clear that if the British farmer goes down, with him go millions of jobs in food processing, packaging, labelling and haulage. That sector of the national economy amounts to 14 per cent. of the total. Only the foolish would suggest that that can be jettisoned without national harm.
Mr. Mark Oaten: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in the past three years there has not been a single prosecution in respect of meat imports? Does not that suggest that there must be something wrong with the Customs system that monitors meat coming into England?
Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman—indeed, anyone interested in such matters—will know that that subject has been raised a number of times in the House. Back Benchers have exerted great pressure on the Government to clarify what they are doing in the face of our anxieties. Perhaps the Minister will address that in his response.
I support what the hon. Member for Sherwood said about the importance of the countryside for rural tourism and the part it play s in the national economic effort. Some 80 per cent. of our land is farmed. Rural tourism accounts for 6 per cent. of the national economic effort. We have to ask who would come to view a rural wasteland, yet that is what we may come to see as land is abandoned or farmed in ever larger parcels, and as farmers, who are more and more financially squeezed, cut out the care of hedges, headlands and drainage—in short, when they no longer care for the rural environment because they cannot afford to do so.
Will the Minister comment on the de facto restructuring in the industry? Anecdotally, and in my county, huge farm holdings, amounting to many
204WH
thousands of acres, are being broken up, returned to tenancies or given over to contractors or to share farming. I know that it is difficult to collect statistics on that, but such practices will have an impact on the environment. Some of the land that is being broken up will be well farmed, but some will not. Indeed, in my county, the contractor who has undertaken to farm thousands of acres is also under severe financial pressure.
It is beyond debate that farming is essential economically and environmentally. However, one of the fascinating features about the debate in this country is that the public want to have it both ways. They want cheap food; one has only to map the price wars between rival supermarket chains to see that. As we heard in the Select Committee, although the supermarkets and other lobby groups claim that people are deeply interested in how food is produced— whether it is imported, organic or whatever—I see scant evidence of that in my weekly shopping. In any case, what explanation is there for the shocking fact that five years ago 4 to 5 per cent. of all chicken consumed in Britain was imported, and today that percentage is 40 per cent. and rising? How does our determination to have cheap food square with the other demands that we are told we make for high standards of landscape and environmental management?
There is certainly no shortage of literature devoted to the matter. When the Select Committee interviewed representatives from the Countryside Agency, we were interested to learn that no fewer than 62 organisations are devoting their attention to the problems of the rural economy. To those we must add a plethora of other bodies that will emanate from the proposed regional assemblies. Let us hope that their advice will be more welcome to the agriculture industry than the example given by the chairman of the East of England development agency who, at the Norfolk NFU annual meeting in March this year, pointed out that the agency's principal help to the sector over the past year had been a project to market pickled herring. I am sure, Mr. Taylor, that you can imagine how well that went down.
I also hope that the enormous amounts paid out by the agency will be better used in future than the resources it devotes to publicising the excellent publication that is before me. It gives 10 case studies of farmers coping with their difficulties and was produced in my constituency. When I rang up the offshoot of the agency to tell it how excellent I thought the publication was, I also asked how the agency was distributing it, but it did not have the least idea and did not have a database of farmers.
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. May I ask the right hon. Lady to refer to the title of the document so that the record will be clear?
Mrs. Shephard: Certainly, Mr. Taylor. It is called "Managing the Future", and I am happy to hand it in with my notes.
As we are debating the future funding of farming, it is worth looking at the current situation. I hope that when the Select Committee produces its report it will focus on the product—that is to say, on food, other crops and then public good. That would be a welcome change because our experience in the Committee has been that too much debate is devoted to structures and systems.

205WH
There needs to be a drastic simplification of the bodies, grant aiding and otherwise, concerned with farming. Both the Country Landowners Association and the NFU advocate a simplification, not to say a great reduction, in regulation for farmers. Greater clarity in planning law is needed if farmers are to be encouraged to diversify, and in the absence of other agencies and organisations that are able to do so, DEFRA should examine the economic and environmental impact of the current restructuring, no matter how difficult that is. There is a lot of talk about the food chain. Farmers producing our food should be closer to the food chain. It is difficult for mixed farmers, who have to see to everything, to engage in discussions on the price of wheat when that is not under their control.
These observations are minor and circumstantial. It is of more strategic interest to the industry that farmers know what view the Government take of their interests. What do Ministers think will be the future of the CAP? What influence can they have on its development and future shape? What can they practically achieve in the face of strongly nationalistic attitudes to agriculture in some EU member states, not to mention the current attitudes in the United States?
Do Ministers think that farming has a global future? If so, how will they ensure that the regional assemblies, where they exist—and if they exist—will give proper weight to rural issues, because their forerunners, the regional development agencies, certainly have not done so? What is to be done about food imports and labelling? Should farming move to a market-oriented system, and if so how soon?
Farming, in its creation of our rural landscape and its production of high-quality, healthy food, has served this country well. It is for this generation of Ministers and this Government to demonstrate that they value the contribution that farming has made to the well-being of Britain. The ball is in their court.
Several honMembers rose—
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. There are seven Members standing, and I intend to call the first of the Front-Bench speakers at 12 o'clock, so if hon. Members could confine their remarks to five minutes or so, the great majority of them will be called.
11.32 am
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful to be called in this important debate. Sometimes it is helpful to think about how we came to be where we are, and although I do not propose to go back to biblical times, some reflection on past centuries will not be unhelpful.
All of us who represent rural constituencies will have spoken to old boys whose grandfathers came to East Anglia in the 1930s, when land was effectively being given away. One could lease land rent-free for three or five years, just so that the landowner could have it farmed. In the '20s and '30s agriculture was in an absolutely appalling state. It was essentially rescued by the second world war —occasionally, good comes out of bad. We appreciate how important it was at that time to
206WH
have our own agriculture and not to rely on the idea, which the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) read from a newspaper, that we can buy what we like from anywhere in the world. That did not seem to be the case in 1942. As a consequence of that we came to certain conclusions.
The Labour Government after the war enacted the regime of subsidy and support which has been carried on in essence to the common agricultural policy. Probably most of us have heard the story of the East Anglian farmer who in 1949 applied to join his local Conservative club. The secretary said, "You have to be a Conservative." The farmer replied that he had always been a Conservative, and when the secretary asked, "So why haven't you joined?", he said, "Well, it's only since the blessed socialists have been in that I can afford the membership fee." The moral of that story is alleged to be that the condition of farming substantially improved, as indeed it did, from the second world war onwards.
There are now other trends in the world that will affect support and subsidy in any event. The World Trade Organisation has certain views about what it perceives to be uncompetitive practices, and by moving a certain amount of support into environmental schemes, one may at least elude or evade too much of its investigation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), with whose comments I substantially agree, apprised us of the difficulties of too rapid a move in that direction.
We must be aware that environmental subsidy and support is a fine thing, but we need to ensure that the overwhelming majority of it goes to support the continuation of farming and is not frittered away on the fringes and—in saying this I do not in any way denigrate cake shops—on things that are not integral to the rural economy. We appreciate the value that farming puts back into the community. It is common to quote the figure of £3 billion—I believe that it was higher than that at one stage—that is spent in support of farming in this country.
I do not like to use phrases such as "added value" because they are inherently meaningless, but there cannot be much doubt that the boost that tourism—just to name one industry—receives from farming is immense. If there were no farms in lakeland and elsewhere in this country, the land would be different and tourism would be that much poorer. It is almost impossible to calculate the immense value that farming adds to other industries. We need to ensure, therefore, that in any movement towards environmental support, the money goes into farming.
I can contemplate nothing worse at this time, when farming has been laid low by a series of worldwide economic problems and inherent internal disasters such as foot and mouth, BSE and classical swine fever, than saying that there may be some merit in the New Zealand model. In my judgment, for this country there is no merit at all in the New Zealand model: we are not comparing like with like. That model could not be continued in this country.
There is a limit to what we can do with environmental support. The Curry report attempts to overcome some of the difficulties by using the phrase "broad and shallow". If I have a criticism of the Curry report it is that it has slipped into using the jargonese that so

207WH
bedevils all government practice, particularly for farming. I first thought that "broad" and "shallow" were two different choices, but they are probably the same choice. As I understand the proposal, put simply, it is for a basic initial environmental payment to all farmers based on acreage. That is the lowest level of environmental support that would be given, but additional payments could be made if there were specific schemes, such as the present stewardship scheme.
The problem with the stewardship scheme is that it is almost as hard to get into as it is to get into Parliament. I believe that only 14 per cent. of farmers are members of the scheme. Its administration is by its nature very costly, so I am not certain that it always delivers rapidly the exact results that we want. We have all been to farms in our own divisions and seen the remarkable conservation that takes place. It happens not because there is a conscious attempt to conserve, but because farming has always been done that way.
I recently went to a very small farm on the edge of my division where there are splendid mixed oak and small-leaf lime woods. I asked the farmer whether he got any financial support to keep the woods in that condition, and he said, "No, they've always been there. We don't cut them down or plough them up. We keep them." I told him that he could go into preservation and he said that he was thinking of doing so. We should reward farmers who have, for generations, preserved the most attractive aspects of the countryside, rather than paying those who have been less conservation-minded in the past to introduce new schemes.
I shall not delay the Chamber for too long, but I saw a particular danger in the remark of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk about breaking up large farms and using contractors. "Contractor" reveals nothing about the qualities of the man himself: he has no interest whatsoever in conservation in the area that he is contracted to farm. He is paid to carry out a particular function; he may be sorry if he ploughs up a rare plant or destroys the nest of a ground-nesting bird, but his position is entirely different from that of the resident or tenant farmer. We need to devise a scheme, perhaps based on the Curry report—a good light for the future—which ensures that money going into agriculture goes to the farm. That would enable farming to remain a vital industry in this country and, at the same time, ensure that we gain benefits from genuine conservation and environmental improvement.
Set-aside initially meant leaving fields fallow in mediaeval times, but many such fields are an abomination today and serve no useful conservation purpose. The set-aside scheme should be based on Curry's recommendations, which would need quite a lot of money. However, subsidies would not be taken away but redirected to where they are needed. All farmers should be eligible, not just those who farm in picturesque locations.
11.41 am
Hywel Williams: Farming incomes in Wales are derived mainly from milk, beef and sheep, which comprise 87 per cent. of the gross output of Welsh agriculture, and are clearly under pressure. Farmers in Wales seek to diversify, but as we saw in the foot and mouth crisis, diversifying into tourism can be of limited
208WH
value. Farming incomes are crucial to the rural economy, so their decline is a disaster, not only for farmers but for agricultural communities as a whole. Those incomes are low, whatever certain newspapers and hon. Members say. The National Assembly for Wales' forecast for net farm incomes in 2001–02 in Wales is £5,300, not more than £8,000 as quoted earlier; that is £5,300 for working hard all hours.
Wales experiences out-migration, made worse in many rural areas by its crushing effect on the vitality of the Welsh language. We must foster and develop new and traditional agricultural skills, but young people, the carriers of those skills for future generations, are leaving the country in their thousands, pulled away by the lure of the city and pushed away by the low returns from persevering with farming that they see everywhere. They are also pushed away by the growth in the size of holdings and the resulting difficulty in getting started.
I want to raise an issue that is not always prominent in discussions of the future funding of farming—the lessons to be learned from farming in developing countries. Yesterday, I had the inspiring experience of attending the launch of the Christian Aid campaign, "Listen to Africa; please forgive the obvious plug, Mr. Taylor, but this is Christian Aid week. Christian Aid has produced a document called "Listen to Africa" which I commend to all hon. Members. I shall quote a few points from a section engagingly headed "The Blair plan for tackling poverty", which states that the Prime Minister
"called for more open markets in Europe and North America to help tackle poverty by allowing in more products from poor countries such as Ghana. He also criticised farming subsidies paid by rich nations to their own farmers. These subsidies total £230 billion annually—more than the GDP of the whole of the African continent … In March 2002, Christian Aid put the Prime Minister's theories to the test, during a fact-finding trip".
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Americans are introducing a Bill to give an extra £123 billion to just under 2 million American farmers in the next 10 years?
Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point, to which I shall return later.
As I was saying, Christian Aid put the Prime Minister's theories to the test. Its report states:
"The clear and overwhelming message from those working to combat poverty in the north— and from poor people themselves—is that access to markets in rich countries alone will not help."
Christian Aid says that the benefits of globalisation are dubious, which must strike a chord with farmers and consumers in Wales and the United Kingdom, and perhaps also with the Minister, in his heart of hearts. The picture is not simple. Developing countries can benefit from certain types of trade. Ghana, for example, benefits from trade in pineapples and organic bananas, but I suspect that there are few banana or pineapple plantations on the wind and rain-swept uplands of my constituency in Eryri. Christian Aid estimates that the more open markets in the rich world would benefit the 49 poorest countries to the tune of only £1.5 billion. I therefore plead for less piety from people pushing the panacea of open trade.

209WH
In response to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), I shall quote the Christian Aid report, which states:
"35 to 40 per cent. of Ghana's imported rice comes from the USA. If the new US Farm Bill is passed, the USA will pay US$171 billion agricultural subsidies to its farmers."
Rice farmers alone could benefit from more than $8 billion, a sum greater than Ghana's gross domestic product. Farmers struggling to survive in Wales and the UK, including hill farmers and dairy men whose incomes have tumbled disastrously, have much in common with people in other countries threatened by globalisation. The villain of the piece is not to be found in the developing world, where people are prevented from subsidising their agricultural production, but elsewhere where people can afford to ignore the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
In conclusion, there is no need to be too pessimistic. Farmers are enterprising and adaptable, but Welsh agriculture is subsidy-dependent as a result of our geography, climate and topography. The National Assembly for Wales estimates that for every 1 per cent. reduction in direct farm subsidy, farm incomes are reduced by 1.5 per cent. I am grateful to the Farmers Union of Wales for drawing that fact to my attention. Insufficient consideration has been given to the effects of cuts in general farm subsidy on farm incomes in the build-up to the CAP mid-term review. The Minister should realise that the modulation framework adopted by the UK is clearly detrimental to the future of the family farm structure in Wales.
11.47 am
Mr. David Drew: I have taken careful note of your remarks, Mr. Taylor, and shall try to speak for about five minutes to give other Members an opportunity to contribute. I shall therefore make only two points.
I shall start by looking, like other hon. Members, at the background to the current crisis, the extent of which is suggested by the fact that the income of British agriculture is some £2 billion below break-even point. The crisis has three obvious causes: the value of the pound; overproduction across the developed world, resulting in low prices for the past three or four years; and, in our own case, although we are not unique, the number of animal disease breakdowns and their implied costs.
I shall address the reform of the common agricultural policy and an issue that the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tried to tease out last week. If we are going to subsidise the industry, we need to consider what we mean by public policy, which is the key to understanding what may make this industry different from others. If it is different, we need to identify what we need to support and what we do not.
I shall make some provocative remarks about the CAP. While the Curry report is interesting, it is minimalist. It only identifies where we are and outlines the need to inch along to make changes, subject to our membership of the CAP, our obligations to the WTO and so on. The CAP doubtless served a purpose and had three aims: to increase production to ensure food
210WH
security; to support farm incomes; and to provide affordable and accessible food for the population of western Europe. Only the third of those aims can remotely be seen as being achieved. There are those of us who believe that because food poverty remains a problem in western Europe, as it does in the rest of the world, even the third aim has not been fully achieved. In recent times the other two aims of the CAP have resulted in unmitigated disaster. There has been massive overproduction, which is unnecessary and undesirable, and farm incomes have been at rock bottom. One wonders how anyone could design such a scheme, whose aims are mutually incompatible. Clearly, we must get away from the current design.
Subsidies to support production have five undesirable consequences. First, they give the wrong market signals. There is much evidence to suggest that because of the way in which the food chain has operated, subsidies give farmers the wrong message and make it easy for the all-powerful supermarkets to get what they want.
Secondly, the subsidy regime is anti-co-operative. There is little evidence in farming of the co-operation that exists in other parts of the economy. I know that cooperatives are stronger in other parts of Europe—as a Co-operative Member, I will always stress that. We need to understand that the co-operative system has not worked in this country, and 1 attribute that largely to the operation of the subsidy regime.
Thirdly, subsidies are often paid to the wrong people. They go to some of the richest farmers in this country, who could endure market strictures, and to people who farm as a hobby. I do not intend to be pejorative. It is a myth that we have fewer farmers, if we define farmers according to the definition currently used by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but there are people who come on to the land and receive subsidy without adding to the food chain. They may have a bit of land and a few animals, but it is wrong that they should receive subsidies, while people who desperately need help to remain in farming do not receive sufficient support.
The fourth undesirable outcome of the subsidy regime is fraud. I shall be careful what I say, in view of my recent remarks. However, no one can pretend that the CAP has not led to excessive fraud. Fifthly, as the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) pointed out, the subsidy regime gives the Americans all the justification that they need for offering billions of dollars to support their farmers. They say, "It's all very well being lectured by the Europeans, but they are worse than we are." That is unacceptable.
We should identify those whom we need to support in the countryside, why we need to support them and how we will do it. I am not against environmental payments, but we should not see that as the only answer. Other speakers have made that point clearly. We should support certain types of farmers, whether Welsh hill farmers or tenant farmers. I have a long history of speaking in this place on behalf of tenant farmers. If those are the people whom we need to support, let us support them and let us be open about it. Let us give them a decent standard of living so that they can farm properly.

211WH
There are other farmers who can access the market satisfactorily, and they should be encouraged to do so and to build co-operative relationships with the processors and with other producers so that they can take on the supermarkets. That is much more radical than Curry's conclusions. We need to reform the CAP. We should give our partners in Europe an ultimatum: either we reform the CAP or we repatriate much of the money going into that basket. Finally, our public policy in regard to agriculture needs to be much more sensible and much more creative than it is.
11.54 am
Mr. Hugo Swire: If the Government truly intend to move on in their relations with the farming community, they need to regain some of the confidence that they have lost among that community. On reflection, I believe—and this view is almost universally shared in the west country—that it was a mistake on the part of the Secretary of State to dismiss rather haughtily the findings of Professor Mercer's investigation of the foot and mouth outbreak in Devon. There are lessons to be learned by all those involved in farming and tourism. That was a missed opportunity.
The mistrust is further exacerbated by the recent extraordinary idea contained in the statutory instrument on animal health, which many of us see as giving the Government increased powers to enter property and slaughter animals without their owner's consent. No doubt the Minister will deal with that in his concluding remarks.
No discussion of farming and the funding of farming can take place without reference to enlargement and the common agricultural policy. We seem to be moving towards a consensus that we need to deal with that sooner rather than later. There is much of interest in the Curry report, particularly its talk of modulation. However, there are two aspects of farming in this country that need to be considered: how existing farms are to survive, and how they are to prosper in the future.
Talk of second pillars and agri-environment schemes is appropriate in some areas, and I concede that such schemes have a large role to play, but environmentally sensitive areas and the countryside stewardship schemes apply to only a limited number of farmers. Currently, only 14 per cent. of farmers in England are involved in such schemes.
For the dairy farmers of Devon the immediate problem is nothing to do with agri-enhancing schemes of one sort or another; it is simply farmgate prices. Many milk farms are going out of business each week. The price of milk is at an almost historic low—farmers are getting about 15p per litre, but that is a premium price. By the time they have given a further halfpenny per litre towards a milk scan and another halfpenny towards a cell count, many farmers are receiving 13p per litre. Under planned reforms of the European export market, the price of milk in shops will be slashed and even smaller farms will be forced out of business. That is supported by the Government's own findings.
212WH
I turn to the livestock industry in my part of the world and its future. In reply to a question from me in March this year about the impact of the regulations governing animal movements on the viability of livestock markets, the Minister conceded:
"Livestock markets have an important role to play in the marketing of farm animals between the various stages of production and some are developing a broadened range of services to farmers."
The Minister continued:
"We will be considering carefully the recommendations from the Policy Commission on future developments in livestock marketing."—[Official Report, 7 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 480W.]
The problem with the biosecurity regime is that it means, certainly to one of the markets in my part of the world, doubling the number of staff, mainly to keep records of names, addresses and registration numbers of buyers attending, plus a man on the gate to wash the wheels and another on the wash-out. That is at least five extra staff.
There is a further problem, which I ask the Minister to address. While the livestock markets were closed because of foot and mouth, many farmers made alternative arrangements with slaughterhouses throughout the country. We can criticise the supermarkets for the price that they are paying the farmers for milk, but will the Minister also look into the relationship between the slaughterhouses and the supermarkets? Tesco now controls many of the slaughterhouses. It is unwise for farming to be so dependent on the supermarkets. Indeed, the relationship between farming and supermarkets warrants careful investigation. I hope that the Minister will address that in his concluding remarks.
The west country looks the way it does because it has been intensively farmed over the years. That is why people come and spend their holidays with us, and why we have twice as many tourists in the south-west as in Scotland and Wales. Any debate on the future of farming should take those factors into account. We should have spent a little more time this morning discussing how the industry can recover its confidence, not least its confidence in the Government, and how a level playing field can be created, especially in respect of imports.
In conclusion, diversification is to be encouraged, but it must always be an add-on, not a replacement for farming.
11.59 am
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I shall highlight one specific point for the Minister's attention, as I do not have much time.
The Exmoor Trust was launched on the back of foot and mouth disease, and has raised £84,000 from the people of Exmoor to be spent on farming. As a keen ornithologist, the Minister is well aware of the problem in Exmoor: the lack of resources put into such areas from the centre. National parks have been mentioned; Exmoor is a national park and it needs resources. When local people are left having to raise money on their own, it is clear that there is something fundamentally wrong with the state of farming in this country. The money should come from the centre outwards.
The latest National Farmers Union figures for farming incomes show a decrease of one third in respect of cereal farmers, virtually no change for hill livestock

213WH
farmers and a slight increase in milk incomes, which is evident only because of the distortion caused by foot and mouth. Modulation can work only if we continue to support farmers. Otherwise there will be no farmers to support, as they will not be able to afford to work in farming.
12 noon
Mr. Colin Breed: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on securing this debate.
We are discussing the funding of farming, but we often seem to miss the idea that farming, like any other industry, is supposed to make the profits that are fundamental to the continued success of any business. Profits are vital not only in terms of paying wages and so on, but in two other very important ways: continuing a business and ensuring that it expands. If investment is to continue, a return must be gained on what has already been made, and if a business is to become more efficient and expand, further investment will be necessary.
My speech will concentrate on profitability. Although we talk an awful lot about grants, subsidies, diversification and so on, it is fundamentally the profitability of farming that will sustain it in the longer term. Members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will remember that Sir Don Curry came to the Committee to speak about his report. Under questioning, he agreed with me that there was sufficient profitability in the total food chain to provide everybody in the farming link with a decent and fair return on their investment and a reward for their labour. When he was pressed a little further, he accepted— I think that he was somewhat embarrassed to do so—that the links in that chain are very differently organised, so not every link is receiving its due profitability.
It is no great coincidence that we see tables demonstrating that farmgate prices have declined over 10 years while consumer prices for products on the shelves have risen in real terms, and that farm incomes have been decimated and supermarket profits have risen. We could consider every individual aspect of the situation, but those broad facts are correct, and they are not coincidental.
There has been talk of creating a food chain centre, and I hope that links and relative profitability in the food chain might be one of the things that such a centre would consider. To my mind, there is a distinct possibility that we shall put in public subsidy at the bottom end of the chain to support our farmers, merely to find that that funding transfers upwards through dividends to the shareholders of large supermarket operations. That cannot be a reason for us to try to support farmers; they need genuine profitability, and to be paid properly for the investment that they have made and rewarded for what they do.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is not only a question of the increased profitability of supermarkets; an increase in subsidy has a greater effect in raising land prices and tenants' rents.
Mr. Breed: That is partly true, although the tax system probably has an even greater effect on current land prices, especially through capital gains tax regulations.
214WH
I agree with all the previous speakers about the common agricultural policy, but the fact is that it is not within our gift to change it, and major changes are unlikely to be made in next year's mid-term review. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that, but we have seen in the past that such changes are unlikely to be made in that way. We must look for engines of change that are within the Government's gift, and think about what they can do now.
There may be two or three things that the Government can do. First, Sir Don Curry talked about modulation, which was the principal part of his engine for change. We would like the Government to give some indication that DEFRA will fight to ensure that in any comprehensive spending review, moneys will made available to support Sir Don Curry's proposals. If not, the whole modulation exercise will have no effect and make no change whatever.
Mr. Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Breed: I have only five minutes, so I would like to continue.
Secondly, we have revisited the idea of an early retirement scheme on many occasions. The scheme can currently be introduced within the CAP. The Government have resolutely set their face against that proposal, but it is clear that for real change to occur, we need to allow some farmers to retire with dignity, to allow new blood and fresh ideas to come in.
Thirdly, we need to restore profitability to farming, which will encourage those who work in the sector. It is no good introducing an early retirement scheme and hoping that young people will come in and new money will be invested in an industry that has no real chance of achieving profitability in its own right, but is simply a means of attracting grants and subsidies, and perhaps a marginal increase in the value of land assets. Those proposals are within the Government's gift. They do not require radical overhaul of the CAP, and they can be implemented—but political will is required for that to happen.
One sector has not yet been considered in any great depth. We often talk about milk, beef, sheep and so on, but I want to talk about the egg industry. I must declare a constituency interest, as a very large egg producer is based in my area. Those in the industry have to take some very clear investment decisions, as it still faces considerable uncertainty about the future of conventional egg laying, especially in relation to the cages that will be permitted under current EU legislation until January 2012. Thereafter, the so-called enriched cages, containing a nest box, perch and so on, will be required.
It is vital that UK egg producers be given clear assurances about the availability of each production system, to allow timely investment decisions to be made. Such decisions cannot be made one year before the regulations take effect. Farming is a long-term business that needs clear guidance. The farm animal welfare regulations that will implement the EU directive will be introduced at some stage.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Breed: I am sorry, but I really do not have much time if the Conservative spokesman, too, is to speak.

215WH
The costs for the egg industry will be heavy, at a time when it will find them extremely difficult to afford and even to plan for, especially as market access for third country eggs is set to increase as a result of Doha. The egg industry is important, but is not subsidised and has made enormous investments, not least in improving health following salmonella, including the introduction of the little lion displayed on its products and so on. The industry is still competing, but it needs a steer from Government on their proposals.
I recognise that the Minister will be short of time, but I should like to ask a few questions. If he cannot respond, may I implore him to write to me? I hope that he will be able to do so. First, will the Government clearly support the Curry report by seeking the cash that is needed from the Treasury in the comprehensive spending review? Will they reconsider the potential for introducing an early retirement scheme to provide an engine of change?
As for the egg industry, will the Minister give some categorical assurances that if the EU directive is to be implemented, it will be introduced without any amendment so that it is evenly applied throughout the whole EU? We must get away from thinking that we can do things better, and that we should try to lead Europe on such matters while at the same time sacrificing the industry that we are trying to support.
Will the Minister also ensure that there is proper consultation with the industry on the future of enriched cages? The industry needs to understand the Government's thinking on that issue, as big investment plans are being held in abeyance. If the industry cannot implement those plans in a timely fashion and get the money together, it too will be threatened by further imports, and we will see another part of UK agriculture begin to wither.
12.9 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on securing the debate and on the extremely thoughtful and constructive way in which he introduced it.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that British agriculture is at something of a turning point. Successive crises concerning animal disease and the severe and prolonged recession in all sectors have led many people in farming to wonder whether there is a future in farming enterprises—not only for them, but for their children and grandchildren. That is happening at a time when there are major international pressures on the United Kingdom to change the system of support that we have applied until now.
It is important to bear in mind the dire state of farming. According to evidence recently given to the Select Committee on Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs by the Institute of Agricultural Management, total income from farming in this country is now less than the combined value of arable and livestock direct payments. So whenever we debate in Parliament transferring money away from direct payments into environmental payment schemes or other alternatives, we are talking about transferring money away from businesses that in most cases do not have any financial cushion left to secure themselves against the risk of such changes resulting from Government policy.
216WH
It is vital to keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that farming is essentially a business, and that we should try to secure the conditions whereby it can again become profitable. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the Government will accord the Curry report recommendations that propose ways of making farming not only sustainable but profitable the same degree of importance and urgency as the parts of the report that deal with changes to support schemes and a shift towards environmental payments.
International pressures have reinforced the domestic crisis in farming, causing people to reflect on the future. I should be interested to hear the Government's view on whether recent developments in the United States are likely to make a difference to the World Trade Organisation pressures on us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) said, the proposed massive increase in subsidy for United States farmers would give them considerably more subsidy per head than farmers in the European Union. That must have an impact on the future of international negotiations.
I have a similar question about the scale of the impact of the forthcoming enlargement of the EU. As soon as applicant countries become full members they will become entitled to direct payments. Will the delay in effecting enlargement mean, as some have suggested, that there is more scope under the current budgetary ceilings than had been previously assumed for those payments to be made without bankrupting the whole common agricultural policy—at least not in the immediate term?
I shall now move on to the question at the centre both of the debate and of the Curry report—the proposal to switch from direct payments to farmers to a system based on environmental support. Do the Government think that modulation is the best method? The debate centres on that idea at the moment, but even in the period of less than a week for which I have held my current Front-Bench responsibilities, I have become aware of farmers who question it. They suggest that cross-compliance, which means making direct payments conditional upon environmental outcomes, might be a better way of approaching the subject.
Modulation is just a word—a piece of jargon—that
could be applied in several different ways. Do the Government expect the Commission to propose a compulsory scheme of modulation throughout the European Union? If so, do they expect such a scheme to be based on the United Kingdom model of a flat-rate system or the French model, in which there is a different scale depending on the type of farm involved? That decision will have a considerable impact on certain agricultural sectors, especially the arable sector.
Although the Curry report is a good read and its proposals are stimulating, it has one serious flaw: it provides no detailed analysis of the costs of its recommendations either for farmers or for taxpayers. As regards farmers, Sir Don Curry told the Select Committee that there would be very few losers by his proposals, but he did not produce any sectoral analysis of how those proposals would affect different parts of agriculture.
Given that the Government have had four months to reflect on the Curry report, they should have been able to conduct that type of analysis themselves by now.

217WH
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will shortly issue the detailed analysis that is essential if Parliament and the agricultural industry are to be able to make an informed assessment of proposals made by the Commission or the Department. An obvious question to ask is whether it is true that sectors such as pigs, poultry and horticulture, which do not receive direct payments, will be eligible for the proposed broad and shallow environmental payments scheme. If so, the money will be spread more thinly among the farmers from whom the direct payments will have been taken away.
There are similar questions about the impact of the modulation proposals on taxpayers. Curry suggested a total figure of about £0.5 billion, but he admitted in evidence to the Select Committee that that was a starting point—a ballpark figure—and that factors such as extra
checks for imported meat would probably necessitate more Government expenditure on top of that. It is difficult to assess the impact of proposals for environmental payments without knowing whether the Government are prepared to provide the match funding that Sir Don Curry proposed. He argued that without that match funding, the shift to 10 per cent., or even 20 per cent., modulation would not be a practical option.
I referred in my opening remarks to the need for us all to remember the fundamental importance of seeing farms as businesses, and that we should see it as our duty to do whatever we can to restore British agriculture to profitability. That may necessitate positive action and initiatives by the Department. It also means that the Department must reflect, pause, hesitate and cease to impose additional costs on agriculture, especially at a time when farmers have no spare cash with which to meet those extra regulatory burdens. The implementation of the nitrates directive will impose enormous costs on British farmers. The Government are floating ideas about disease insurance, which the Curry report said was likely to be prohibitively expensive for agriculture unless controls on illegal imports—a clear responsibility of the Government—are stepped up considerably.
I hope that the Government will take seriously the Curry proposal that the Department should undertake an annual assessment of the regulatory burden that it is imposing on British agriculture. That exercise would be a salutary discipline, and I hope that it would be followed by swift action to reduce that regulatory burden and the costs for our farmers.
12.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on securing the debate and on his thoughtful and comprehensive speech, which was appreciated by hon. Members from all parties. It dealt with serious and complex issues surrounding the future funding of farming in this country. I welcome the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to his new responsibilities. If he is shadowing my portfolio, I expect to see him regularly at Adjournment debates and in Standing Committees on statutory instruments. I am sure that we shall exchange views regularly.
218WH
In the time available, I shall try to deal with some of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood, for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), and the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), for East Devon (Mr. Swire), for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and for Aylesbury.
I concede that in this country, there is a consensus for change in the operation of the common agricultural policy. That encompasses farming, countryside, environmental and, indeed, political organisations. How do we achieve that change? The Food and Farming Commission report has been published, fulfilling a manifesto commitment. It was a good thoughtful report that identified many of the problems in the sector. The Government acknowledge that agriculture is suffering from undoubted difficulties, but many of them are not new. Structural problems have existed in the industry for many years, and we need to tackle them.
I was especially struck by a comment in the Curry report about the commission's identification of what it terms a "disengagement" of agriculture from the market and from consumers. There is a need to re-engage.
Mr. Roger Williams: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley: I am normally happy to give way, but I have only nine minutes to answer all the questions and my time is therefore limited. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
Part of re-engagement is the move away from production subsidies, which have distorted the market so greatly. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood wanted a clear time scale. The milestones in our approach include several regional meetings; last week I attended the Epsom meeting for the south-east of England. Their purpose is to get some feedback from stakeholders about the Curry report. We are also working hard on preparing the shape of a broad and shallow scheme, and considering its operation.
The recommendations entail significant financial implications. The match costs of modulation alone are £275 million and we have to make the case for the resultant benefits for the industry and the wider community. The spending review 2002 does that. Through consultation and the spending review, we expect to be in a position to make announcements about the way forward by the autumn. That is the road map for dealing with the proposals.
We take the proposals seriously. They are important and we can get on with several of them straight away. For example, we have set up the organic action plan, and, as I said, work on the broad and shallow scheme is under way. The nature of modulation and the whole farm approach are being considered now.
I greatly appreciate the interest of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Its involvement has been constructive and thoughtful. I have always had a high regard for it, both in opposition and in government. Its findings help shape and guide Government policy and thinking and I look forward to its reports on the matters that we are discussing.

219WH
I appreciate the points about total income from farming, but we need to be careful about the presentation of some of the statistics, and that includes current figures. According to our figures, total income from farming increased by 11 per cent. last year. We must be careful about interpretation. For example, the average subsidy for a livestock farm is approximately £30,000 a year, but after payment to the farmer and the family, it produces a net farm income of about £8,000. Such poor returns on that sort of subsidy clearly show that there is a problem with the system.
Large subsidies do not necessarily help the sector. In many ways, they distort the market and do not help farmers to get a return on their income. That applies to the milk sector among others. There are several reasons for low milk prices, but intervention sets a floor in the market that is not always helpful. There were predictions of a big drop in milk output after foot and mouth disease, but that did not happen. Production increased, and one of the problems with price is caused by supply and demand. That should even out, but I acknowledge the current pressures on the milk sector.
Let me deal with some of the questions about the shape of farming and change. There has been a longterm trend of consolidation into bigger agricultural units. Despite an overall decline in the number of farms, bigger farms have increased. It is difficult to measure some recent trends, but I shall give the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk my views. I believe that small farms are holding on and may even be increasing. That is partly because people with other forms of income are prepared to buy smallholdings. They do not therefore rely on a small farm for their total income.
Newcomers in the sector often have the freedom to innovate and show great enterprise. I have seen some good examples of that. For example, a person with a horticultural holding, which was not especially small, was voted horticulturist of the year. His background was not in farming but in the music industry. He decided that he wanted to go into farming and he has been innovative and successful.
There is a trend whereby medium-sized farms come together to co-operate and reduce their margins. That is all to the good because there is a need for greater cooperation, which we want to encourage. The Curry report acknowledged that. There is also growth in contract management, although it is difficult to specify its scale.
220WH
Hon. Members mentioned globalisation. There are pressures on our producers and their standards. Quality assurance schemes, marketing and consumer education have a strong role to play. Educating consumers about what they are paying for when they support British producers—such as animal welfare, countryside management and a range of attendant benefits—is valuable. We can do more about that, as the Curry report acknowledged.
The global market is a fact of life. It is constantly distorted, and I believe that the American announcement on subsidies is most unhelpful. It is an example of the Americans saying one thing and doing another about the free market and world trade. Those matters must be resolved in talks in the World Trade Organisation. Doha had a positive outcome because it paved the way for the sort of framework that we support.
As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, there are international implications because subsidies in rich countries cause distortions in developing countries. The problem with the EU and other countries is that surpluses in the market depress not only our prices but those of the international market. That brings down world prices even further. It must stop, and most people recognise that.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater made a succinct intervention. I support the work of community groups, such as the Exmoor Trust, that come together. There is a range of possible support, not only from DEFRA but from the Countryside Agency and national parks. I hope that they will explore all the options.
I stress to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall the fact that there are food chain initiatives, and I agree that the industry must engage more downstream. The laying hens directive will be tabled in full and unaltered. There is a need for discussion and engagement with the industry about, for example, enriched cages. However, the directive will be tabled unchanged. Any discussion about change will entail a full public consultation and the industry will have a chance to participate in it.
I hope that I have dealt with many of the main points. We have considered an important subject and we respect the work of the Curry commission, which points the way forward. There is much work to be done in the mid-term review of the CAP, and we are working on that and on the review of the agri-environment schemes. This is an exciting and challenging time for agriculture, and we intend to move forward through engaging with the industry and with other partners.

Crime (South Somerset)
12.30 pm
Mr. David Laws: I am delighted to have an opportunity to raise an issue of the greatest importance to my constituents. I am glad that the Minister is present—as is my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), with whom I share the South Somerset district council boundary.
Although I am focusing on a restricted area, and only on crime, I expect we shall find that many of the issues that arise are common to areas well beyond not just South Somerset but Avon and Somerset. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome will speak about some of those issues, as well as the local issues.
My main reason for initiating the debate is the startling rise in the Somerset and South Somerset crime statistics that has taken place over the past year. In Avon and Somerset as a whole, crime has increased by more than 19 per cent. There have been even larger increases in particular categories: burglary from dwellings has risen by 22.5 per cent., robbery by some 63 per cent., and thefts from motor vehicles by 22.2 per cent.
The increase in crime has occurred not just in the traditional problem areas in Avon and Somerset such as Bristol, but in more rural parts such as the South Somerset district council area, the constituency of Yeovil and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome. Over the past year crime has risen by 29.6 per cent. in Chard—an astonishing figure—and by 33 to 34 per cent. in the sector covering Chard, in the west of my constituency. Those are dramatic increases, which must concern the Minister as well as all who live in that part of the country.
Much of the crime has fallen into economically related categories—for instance, car theft, burglary and robbery. There is also a significant amount of retail crime, and a strong feeling that the Government are not doing enough to deal with it in all parts of the country.
What can have happened over one year to bring about such dramatic increases? It is difficult to believe that criminals have become that much more effective, or the police that much more ineffective, during a single year. Senior local police officers to whom I have spoken in the past week tell me that there are two principal reasons for the increases in South Somerset and throughout Avon and Somerset. Their first and main worry is the increase in the amount of drugs entering the area and, indeed, the country—especially crack cocaine, which is arriving in large quantities from countries such as Jamaica. It is expensive and highly addictive, and seems to be increasing the amount of crime that is necessary to fund a habit in which more and more people are becoming involved.
The second problem must be of great concern to Ministers, and should be taken into account in the making of policy on crime. Over the past year there has been a shift to what local police describe as an ethical reporting approach, which means that more crime is now being recorded. That may be the reason for the apparent extraordinary increases in some economically
222WH
related crimes such as vehicle interference and burglary from non-dwellings, which in the past might have been reported to police but not recorded as crime statistics.
That might, in a sense, make us feel more relaxed about the increase in crime. The police consider that about 10 per cent. of the 20 or 30 per cent. increase in parts of Avon and Somerset may be due to the changes in reporting practice. If the police are now able to present the full picture rather than the limited picture we saw before, however, we have reason to think about the crime levels and about what our response should be.
I want to say something about the concerns raised by the police, and how we should deal with them. The police say that drugs, particularly crack cocaine, are the most important issue for them. The Minister will have seen recent articles in national newspapers, including one that appeared in The Mirror about a week ago reporting the activities of the customs and immigration services in respect of flights from Jamaica. Recently two Air Jamaica planes were stopped and thoroughly searched as they arrived in the United Kingdom, and 27 of the 440 passengers were found to be carrying drugs. A large number were turned away because they had criminal records, or were travelling with false papers. The customs and immigration services are clearly overwhelmed by the sheer number of people who are trying to bring drugs into the country illegally, often for extremely large rewards.
The local police say that, although many of the drugs are coming into the London airports, they are rapidly spreading to areas such as Bristol, and thence to smaller market towns such as Yeovil, Chard and towns with even smaller populations. The police say that the Government should take tougher action, and give the customs and immigration services more resources.
Throughout Avon and Somerset, and probably throughout the country, we are doing far too little to give those who are involved in drugs-related crime, and who suffer from a serious addiction, a chance to overcome that addiction and return to non-offending behaviour, without relying on such substances as crack and heroin. There is a major addiction problem even in areas such as Yeovil and Chard, outside the main conurbations. I have recently talked to parents and young people with experience of the problem, who say that much more effort should be made to help people conquer their addictions so that we can stop them from offending for ever, rather than simply locking them up in prison at considerable cost.
The Minister will not be surprised when I say that another problem is that of police numbers and investment in the police. No doubt he will say that, as a result of the crime fighting fund, Avon and Somerset is gaining some 200 additional officers over a three-year period; but between 1997 and the beginning of 2001 there was no increase at all in the area, and only in the past six months or so have we seen an increase of 51—51 officers to serve an area containing 1.5 million people. That is one extra officer per 30,000 inhabitants, even if we assume that all the officers are available at any one time. Given that they probably have to spread themselves across five shifts, it is likely that in practice one extra officer per 150,000 inhabitants is available at any one time.

223WH
There has also been a dramatic reduction in the number of special constables —some 38 per cent., from 629 to 391, since 1997. No wonder the local police are struggling in terms of resources, and no wonder many of my constituents—and, no doubt, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome—feel that they cannot receive an adequate response, not just when they report crimes that can be dealt with over time rather than as emergencies but even when they report emergencies such as burglaries and violent crime in progress.
I welcome the new wardens, two of whom will come to Yeovil. I think they will help to deal with a fair amount of the lower-level crime and antisocial behaviour that take place in many parts of our constituencies. Nevertheless, we still need Government investment in more police numbers throughout the country. The Government should not rest on their laurels after their announcement of a 5,000 increase which, in practice, is not having the dramatic effect across the country for which the Minister may have hoped.
Since 11 September, many of our local police officers have had to be deployed at Bristol airport to deal with the potential terrorist threat. Police locally are concerned that that has taken out of circulation several officers who could have been deployed to bolster police numbers in areas such as Frome, Chard and other parts of South Somerset. The diversion of those resources means that the Government's extra allocation is not resulting in an increase in officer numbers in many parts of South Somerset. Can the Minister say—either today or in writing—whether it is possible to classify Bristol airport, and to discuss with the airport authority its contributing to policing costs, so that police resources can be released for areas such as Chard, Yeovil and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, in which crime is increasing dramatically?
Before I finish, I want to mention two other issues of great importance, the first of which is sentencing policy. In Yeovil, a hugely disproportionate amount of crime is committed by a very small number of people, who are well known to the police. The introduction of the antisocial behaviour order has been immensely helpful in assisting the police in coming to terms with those individuals, and it has been used well in South Somerset and Somerset as a whole. However, those well-known individuals continue to commit many crimes, and they remain difficult to deal with—even through ASBOs—not least because of the problems associated with getting witnesses to make statements, given the serious intimidation that is often involved.
That draws attention to the need for the police to have the resources to carry out proactive work, so that they can gather the evidence necessary to take decisive action against the small number of people who commit a disproportionate amount of crime. If we can get 10 or 20 people who are well known to the police off the streets of towns such as Yeovil, we will contribute enormously to reducing actual crime and the fear of crime. As Yeovil's MP, I would therefore welcome any action that the Government can take to strengthen ASBOs, and I hope that they will continue to work closely with the police and local authorities to consider what further action can be taken.
224WH
A few weeks' ago in the other place, Lord Rooker seemed to step slightly out of line when he commented on the Home Office's frustration with the Chancellor's unwillingness to release funds—given pressures on the Home Office's budget, including police pensions—not just for policing, but for long-term projects to tackle the causes of crime. Nobody in my constituency believes that the fundamental and underlying problems of crime can be tackled solely through measures such as rehabilitation. Assistance must also be given to those who are most at risk of getting involved in the world of crime at a very early age, and I should like the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills to co-operate in trying to address that problem.
12.43 pm
Mr. David Heath: I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) not only on securing this debate, but on putting such a cogent and powerful case on his constituents' behalf. As was said, I represent the other part of South Somerset. I would love to be able to say that the problems that my hon. Friend described do not exist in Somerton and Frome, but that is undoubtedly not true. There has been a substantial increase in crime and the perception of crime in several small towns in my constituency— Somerton' martock, Bruton, Wincanton—and across South Somerset. Empirically, the figures are undoubtedly less than for a large city, but as regular visits from my constituents have demonstrated, in rural areas such statistics often have a greater effect on perceived security. I have expressed those concerns to Chief Superintendent Shearer in Yeovil, and 1 am happy to say that he has arranged a meeting with my constituents in the near future.
My hon. Friend's key point concerns police numbers. I, too, congratulate the Government on their determination to increase numbers, but we should be absolutely clear about this. As former chairman, in 1996, of the Avon and Somerset police authority, I know that police numbers in Avon and Somerset have only just returned to their 1996 level. There has been no net increase. The problem for rural areas is that cities inevitably act as a magnet for resources, because they are where most crimes are committed. Chief constables have no choice in the matter—they must deploy constables to areas where crime levels are greatest. As a result, rural areas are denuded of police officers, and patrol activity, which is sometimes regarded as marginal but which I consider crucial, is reduced.
My plea to the Minister is to recognise that we still need extra police officers. I take a very old-fashioned view on this matter. I believe that extra police officers are an effective deterrent against crime; they certainly encourage a feeling of well-being among the population. We need extra resources—civilian support and equipment—to assist those officers, and a criminal justice system that complements the police force's efforts without distancing itself from the daily problems of our constituents. A current example of such distancing is the closure of local magistrates courts.
Has the Minister given further consideration to the case—for which I have argued with his predecessors for many years—for retained police officers in rural areas, which would assist in the recruitment of extra police officers? They are analogous to the retained firefighters

225WH
who do such a good job in Somerset and elsewhere. The Home Office seemed to be considering the idea, but we have heard little about it lately. Is the Home Office still actively considering it?
12.47 pm
The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing this debate. Nothing is more important to all our communities than policing, crime levels and confidence in the criminal justice system in general. The hon. Gentleman expressed the concerns of his constituents extremely well, and I hope in the brief time available to address some of the issues raised by him and by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). If there are any points that I cannot consider properly today, I shall write to the hon. Member for Yeovil giving further explanation.
Modernising the criminal justice system, to ensure that the end-to-end process has the confidence of local communities and the public, is absolutely essential. We should not view parts of that system in isolation. The public, who are often the victims and witnesses of crime, have to understand the entire process—from detection, to court, to sentencing. They must be kept informed of that process and be supported through it, so that they can participate in it. That way, we can restore confidence in the criminal justice system and ensure that we bring more offenders to justice.
On sentencing, I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil that a relatively small number of persistent offenders are responsible for the overwhelming amount of crime in our communities. The Government intend to target them and to bring them to justice. They have a disproportionate impact on our local communities, not only through crime itself, but through the fear of crime that they engender in local people. If we can bring more persistent offenders to justice, the impact on the number of offences committed will be dramatic.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's offer of clear support for antisocial behaviour orders, the more effective and efficient use of which the House is currently considering. I know from the experience of my own Manchester constituency that the well-practised implementation of an antisocial behaviour order by the various agencies involved can have a dramatic impact on a community. Its effects can range much wider than just the individual family involved or the street where it is targeted, and it can prove much more beneficial than many other current measures.
I take the point that we have to look more closely at how we can stop people getting into crime in the first place. Interventions at the earliest possible stage, with families and school —and using our communities to support families and young people—are the way to bear down on that issue and that has to be a priority.
I turn to some of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil. The first is the issue of Bristol airport and drugs. According to the chief inspector of North Somerset police, one sergeant and nine police officers were seconded to Bristol Airport Authority from September 2001. From 31 March 2002, that
226WH
number was reduced to one sergeant and five police officers, who will stay until the end of June 2002 when their position will be reviewed.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, Bristol airport is a non-designated airport, so it is not obliged to pay for any policing arrangements but only for its own security. It is apparently reluctant to pay for policing, as it will have to pass on the costs to the airline industry. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Association of Chief Police Officers are currently in negotiations with UK airport authorities about policing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to link into those discussions to see what impact they will have on Bristol airport.
Mr. Laws: Can the Minister say a little more about the designation criteria? What prospects are there for a change in the designation of Bristol so that the policing costs fall on the airport and air travellers—with some reason, perhaps—rather than on the communities in Avon and Somerset?
Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the designation of airports is not in the direct remit of the Home Office. On the hon. Gentleman's behalf, I shall refer that query to the relevant Minister at the DTLR and ensure that he or she contacts him, so that the discussions on that issue may be progressed on behalf of his constituents.
I fully support the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the amount of trafficking in drugs through our airports. We have to be more diligent on that point, and as a Manchester MP I am well aware of the problem because of m} local airport. However, I am told by officials at Customs and Excise that there is no intelligence to indicate that Bristol airport is a significant entry point for class A drugs into the UK. Several cash detections have been made in excess of £10,000. However, after investigation, none of those were found to be drug-related.
Mr. Laws: I should have clarified the point in my speech, but the local police do not suggest that drugs are coming directly into Bristol airport. They are coming into other major national airports and being moved to the south-west. In the article last week in The Mirror that recounted the story about two planes from Jamaica being prevented from entering the country, it was found that of 11 passengers carrying cocaine in their bodies—acting as "mules"—six had destinations in Bristol, even though they were caught in London.
Mr. Bradley: I understood the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I wished to give him some assurance that the information I have been given is that direct entry through Bristol airport is not the problem. I entirely accept that once drugs have been landed in this country they can be moved anywhere, including to his area. We need a more robust system in place to track those movements and to alleviate the problem.
Customs and Excise drug dogs are regularly deployed at Bristol airport to screen passengers and their baggage, and are supported by an anti-smuggling team who arrive unannounced and in sufficient numbers to conduct in-depth checks almost every day. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the level of security provided in that respect.

227WH
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned crime levels in Avon and Somerset. I accept that numbers for particular offences have risen, but I hope that he will accept that overall levels of crime in Avon and Somerset have fallen by 13 per cent. since 1997. I accept that the area has seen an increase in street crime—robbery and muggings. In response, the Government have launched the street crime initiative to target particular problems in hotspot areas. Avon and Somerset is one of the 10 areas in which that initiative has been launched.
The initiative builds new measures on top of plans that were already in progress to ensure co-ordinated action across all parts of Government to bring street robbers to swift and effective justice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, street crime is a predominantly urban phenomenon and is concentrated in relatively small areas within force areas. While Avon and Somerset are part of the drive to tackle street crime, it should be noted that the levels of robbery and street crime in the area of Yeovil and South Somerset are relatively low.
Mr. Laws: While I appreciate that in the past two years crime has fallen in Avon and Somerset, my concern is that in the past year we have seen a dramatic rise of 20 per cent. in Avon and Somerset as a whole, and of 30 per cent. in many areas. Has the Minister carried out any analysis of that increase and does he share the view of the chief constable that it is because of the extraordinary increase in the incidence of crack cocaine across the south-west, as well as reporting changes?
Mr. Bradley: I am aware of the concern about drug-related crime in the area and the Government wish to ensure that young drug users get the help they need. The crucial aspect of the issue is the need to support young people so that they do not get into the drug culture and, subsequently, crime. Working closely with the substance misuse worker on the youth offending team, a new young people's service, "On the Level-, provides specialist services for young people experiencing problems with their drug use.
Both hon. Gentleman raised the issue of police numbers. At the end of January this year, Avon and Somerset constabulary had 3,086 officers—92 more than in March 2001. Between March 2000, when numbers were at a low of 2.934, and January 2002, police strength increased by more than 5 per cent., or 152 more officers. Liberal Democrats regularly call for additional resources for more police officers on top of the money that the Government are already putting in through the crime fighting fund, but they also want more teachers and hospital workers. Let us see their sums and whether they add up.
I will write to the hon. Member for Yeovil on the other matters. We have had a brief but worthwhile debate, and I look forward to further debates on the issue in the future.

Gas Leaks (Newton Heath)
1 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: There have been a number of gas leaks and gas explosions in the north-west, the most recent of which happened over the weekend in Nelson. Fortunately, there were no fatalities. I do not want to dwell on the possible causes; however, the fact that explosions happen causes massive concern in local communities.
In November last year there were two significant explosions in Manchester. One, in Tameside, the neighbouring borough to my constituency, led to fatalities. The other occurred in Newton Heath in my constituency. Although it caused massive damage to property, it fortunately inflicted only minor injuries on people.
A second gas leak occurred in Newton Heath some time later. I shall say more about that in a little while, but people in such a small community are bound to be worried that there is something systemically wrong with the provision of gas in urban communities when two gas leaks occur so close together, with one leading to an explosion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) will speak about events in his constituency, but I shall deal with the explosion in Newton Heath, and draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister a number of questions that go to the core of the matter. We need to determine whether the system is operated safely, whether existing procedures are adequate in the event of an emergency, and whether investigations of the causes of a leak are acceptable. The answers to such questions need to be in the public domain.
The Newton Heath explosion happened on a Saturday. Local people have told me that gas could be detected from early morning. Transco found out about the leak only much later in the day-I am not seeking to claim otherwise—but it is certain that the gas had been escaping for a considerable time. The gas build-up was a danger long before the explosion actually happened. If the explosion had happened earlier, instead of loss of property and minor injury there could have been a major human catastrophe, with deaths on a large scale. The area is densely populated, and an explosion big enough to destroy houses is surely big enough to destroy people. The scale of the leak is therefore a matter for concern. I do not know whether Transco can do more in terms of early detection, but there are questions that need to be addressed.
I want to place on record my appreciation of the role of the emergency services. The police and others acted quickly to move people out of the area once the extent of the leak became known. The various statutory services and the local authority ensured that the evacuees were housed overnight. One or two boundary problems aside, the population of the area were treated relatively well, given the extraordinary circumstances.
However, once it had been informed of the leak, Transco took some hours to begin the process of shutting the system down. The system had not been shut down even by the time the explosion took place. I am not competent or expert in these matters so I do not know whether that is in the nature of the system that we

229WH
operate, but most people would hold the common-sense view that, once a leak is identified, the necessary safety valves should be turned off and the system closed down in a way that rendered it at least safer. When the gas that had escaped already had dispersed, the system would be safe.
Clearly, that is not what happened in the Newton Heath explosion. Is my hon. Friend the Minister satisfied that Transco had installed the necessary technology? Is the company able to close systems down as quickly as humanly possible?
I accept that, in some circumstances, the process cannot be immediate, but we need to know, beyond peradventure, that the system on that day was being closed down with all possible speed. As I said, it is not clear to me that it was.
The second matter that concerns me has to do with the inquiry that was held into the explosion. I contacted the Health and Safety Executive immediately after the explosion. I was told that the HSE did not play an active role in the leak investigation, but allowed Transco to carry that out.
We know that self-regulation can work in some areas, but we also know—to our cost—that it is not always helpful, especially when official regulators do not put pressure on those who regulate themselves to drive the case for safety hard and efficiently. We have seen that with the railways. Is my hon. Friend the Minister satisfied that it is right and proper that the HSE does not consider a life-threatening explosion such as occurred in my constituency sufficiently important to require that it move in and take over the investigation to guarantee public confidence in the results?
I have seen a copy of the official report. I am grateful to Transco and the HSE for making it available. However, it does not reach a definitive conclusion. As far as I understand it, it says that the pipe that fractured had suffered from corrosion over the years, and from road vibration. Those and other factors led to the pipe cracking, ultimately, with the result that gas escaped.
Worryingly, the report does not suggest that the leak was a one-off accident that occurred to a unique pipe in a unique set of circumstances. People need to be confident that Transco's stock of piping is not riddled with the faults that led to the leak and explosion in my constituency. Much of the piping network was laid at roughly the same time, using contemporary techniques and technology. Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that a lot of the piping stock has become time-expired? If so, a genuine, broad-based risk exists. If not, we need expert and independent reassurance that we can sleep safely, and that the same problem will not arise again with pipes that lie under roads which carry heavy traffic.
To give the company credit, Transco has paid out small amounts in compensation for the inconvenience caused to people. Such people include those who lost the contents of their freezers when the electricity was shut down and they had to leave their houses. I understand that such compensation was paid out pretty much on the nod.
However, Transco has not yet responded to people whose homes were destroyed in the blast. I understand that it has not accepted responsibility for the explosion.
230WH
That defies common sense. Mrs. Dennisor and Mrs. Charlesworth resided in homes that were destroyed. Six months on. they are entitled to feel that real progress should have been made with their predicament.
Finally, I wish to turn briefly to the second leak in Newton Heath, which occurred some months after the original explosion. Once again, my constituents were evacuated from their homes and taken to emergency centres. Again, the emergency services and the local authority responded well. Fortunately, there was no explosion as Transco was able to work on the leak and close the system down. Nothing untoward took place, but it is clear that the potential existed for a major gas leak causing major damage.
One of the rumours abroad is that the pipe was supposedly disused and that Transco's own records had it down as no longer carrying a gas supply. I cannot emphasise enough the sense of the bizarre and the human tragedy that could be caused if our urban and other areas contain pipes that are full of gas but are believed to be empty. Those pipes, by definition, would not undergo maintenance or routine repair because they presumably do not exist on the repair and maintenance record books. This is a matter of fundamental importance. If the rumour is wrong, can the official situation be put on the record independently? Can we know what really did take place?
Gas is a necessary part of our lives. No one wants to disinvent the supply system. What we want is a Transco that is commercially successful and technically competent. However, the supply of gas carries with it a price, and that price is made much higher if the technical system and its maintenance are such that we cannot sleep comfortably at night. We must be able to believe that we can sleep without gas explosions becoming a feature of our lives.
I do not know what the pattern of leaks and explosions is and how the recent events tie in with Transco's record over a longer period. Perhaps because my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and I have recently been exposed—almost literally—to these problems, we have become sensitised. In any event, these important issues must be satisfactorily answered and put in the public domain. Without that, my constituents will continue to believe that they are in peril. I need answers—I need to be able to tell my constituents that they are not at risk and that they live in a safe environment. That has to be done in a way that is transparent and seen to be independent.
1.12 pm
Mr. David Heyes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on securing a debate on this most important subject and for giving me the opportunity to make a brief contribution.
My hon. Friend's constituency and mine share a border. Many of his constituents in Clayton and Newton Heath have kinship and workplace connections with mine in Droylsden and Failsworth and other parts of my constituency. We share the same accident and emergency services—Greater Manchester fire, police and ambulance—and in the context of today's debate the same gas emergency services from Transco.

231WH
The terrible events that my hon. Friend referred to and which took place on 17 November in his constituency were preceded just a few days earlier by a horrific gas explosion and fire just a couple of miles away in my constituency. In that incident, about 300 residents were evacuated from their homes in Cavendish Mill after reporting a smell of gas. After a few hours, Transco engineers declared the building safe and allowed residents back in. Less than an hour later, a massive explosion occurred, as a result of which many residents were made homeless, several were injured and, tragically, one man lost his life.
In the knowledge of this incident, it is easy to understand the heightened sense of alarm and enormous loss of confidence in the gas emergency services felt by my hon. Friend's constituents and, indeed, by many others across Greater Manchester and throughout our region. The explosion in north Lancashire this week will have rekindled that sense of alarm among our constituents.
I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the Health and Safety Executive's investigations into these incidents. Indeed, I understand that the coroner will, this week, receive the final reports of the fire service and the Health and Safety Executive into the Ashton-under-Lyne case, so their findings should soon be in the public domain. However, it is clear that something went terribly wrong to produce the sequence of events that led to the tragedies in Newton Heath and Ashton back in November. and some very serious questions need to be answered.
The Health and Safety Executive says on its website of the gas supply pipes:
"Within 20 or 30 years, parts of the network could, conceivably, reach the end of their reliable mechanical life."
It goes on to say that if that point were reached, a rapid increase might occur in both the rate of failure and the number of incidents, some of which could well involve multiple fatalities. I am sure that many of my hon. Friend's constituents, like mine, feel that that point has been reached already.
The big question is what the regulatory authorities—Ofgem and the Health and Safety Executive—and Transco are doing to deal with the problems and to eliminate the risk. The track record of Transco in particular does not fill me with confidence about its willingness or ability to deal competently with the issue. Obviously, the answer is for substantial investment to go into the replacement of worn-out gas supply pipes and installations. The wrangle over the true cost of funding and the appropriate length of the replacement period goes on between the regulator and Transco but, ultimately, the integrity of the supply and the safety of the public is in the hands of the gas engineers and fitters who install and maintain the pipework.
Five years ago, Transco made 1,000 engineers redundant as part of a cost-saving programme. Now we hear from industry experts—Transco admits that this is true—that it is 1,000 engineers short of the number needed just to maintain the network. The recruitment and training of apprentices has been slashed. The leader of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union told the Public Administration Select Committee just a few months ago:
"We now have half of the skilled gas workers in this country going to retire in the next five years with no substantial plans for replacing them".
232WH
The time taken to repair gas leaks is on the increase, as my hon. Friend has mentioned. We hear that Transco does not have proper records of its supply system. Subcontractors carry out 60 per cent. of Transco's maintenance work, with serious questions being asked about the standard of some of that work. There are reports of skilled engineers working hours massively in excess of the legal limit just to keep up with the emergency call-out work. It has been claimed that they work 16 hours without a break at weekends and try to snatch a few minutes' sleep in their vans.
Investing in the skills of the work force requires a long-term view, but all the indicators are that Transco is preoccupied with short considerations, aimed at splitting its assets in preparation for yet more sell-offs and fragmentation in the industry and driven by the need to maximise shareholder value at the expense—potentially—of public safety.
One engineer was quoted in the press last year as saying:
"there's a Hatfield waiting to happen in the gas industry".
Another said:
"It takes a bang for people to sit up and listen".
Sadly, we have had our bangs in our part of Greater Manchester. My hon. Friend and I are listening to the concerns of our constituents. However, I am far from convinced that the industry regulators and the powers that be in Transco have really got the message and that we are not on the verge of a collapse of public confidence in the safety of the gas industry even greater than that witnessed in the railway industry.
1.17 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 Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on securing this debate and raising a number of important points of concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) made a number of wider points about gas safety and the future of the gas industry in general. These deserve a clear response, although today my comments will relate specifically to the gas leaks and explosions referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central.
My hon. Friend spoke of the gas incident in his constituency at Crawford street on 17 November. I reaffirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that Transco implements its programme to replace all iron gas mains at risk—that is, within 30 m of property—including those in excess of 12 in in diameter. That programme was recently reviewed and has been accelerated in agreement with the Health and Safety Executive, which will regulate compliance. I hope that the comprehensive information about the incident on 17 November that the HSE and Transco have already made available to my hon. Friend and their offer to meet him has helped an understanding of the cause of the incident and the subsequent action taken by Transco.
My hon. Friend noted that Transco investigated the incident and reported back to the HSE but he is concerned about the adequacy of Transco's response to the gas leak and, indeed, its management of the subsequent evacuation. I reaffirm that the HSE is

233WH
satisfied that Transco met its statutory obligations in those areas, although both my hon. Friends raised wider issues about the nature of those obligations.
I am content that, in this case, the HSE acted appropriately in not launching its own immediate investigation into the incident. Under current legislation, Transco has a duty to investigate such incidents and report back to the HSE. On being informed of the incident, Dr. Johnson—the head of the unit with overall responsibility within the HSE for gas pipeline safety—immediately contacted Transco and satisfied himself that it had already taken the action required under the emergency response arrangements: the emergency services were present; the situation was being brought under control; and, importantly, that no further people were at risk.
I also note the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central to the gas leak on 23 March this year in his constituency at Weir Pumps Ltd., Ten Acres lane. I shall also address the issues relating to that incident.
The explosion at Crawford street occurred because of the fracture of a 15 in spun iron main. Mains of that type were introduced after the second world war to transport gas between holders and keep the network in balance— they are much larger than ordinary mains supply pipes. They make up less than 2 per cent. of the total iron mains population of about 116,000 km, and historically they have given rise to very few incidents. However, as there were three similar incidents in the Manchester area in a short space of time—my hon. Friend drew attention to that point—the HSE charged Transco with conducting research to determine the risk from such mains and the priority for their replacement.
Against that background, and in given the specific points that my hon. Friend made today on the incidents in question, I assure him that we view all gas escapes as potentially serious. Transco has risk assessment procedures in place to ensure that resources are targeted at urgent preventive work and to provide an efficient response when serious incidents occur, many of which cannot be foreseen. In this instance, however, the research has specifically charged Transco with examining pipes with a diameter of more than 12 in to determine whether they are of greater concern than the rest of the iron network.
It is important that I reaffirm for my hon. Friend the key details of the incidents, as advised to me by the HSE. The HSE established that Transco logged the first report of a gas escape at 19.42 hours. The HSE has investigated statements that gas escapes were reported earlier but has found no evidence that such a report was made to Transco before 7.42 pm. At that point, a Transco competent person was dispatched to deal with the report, which was classified as an uncontrolled escape. Consistent with the seriousness that Transco views such reports, that competent person arrived at Crawford street 12 minutes later. He then assisted the police with evacuating houses in Crawford street and Briscoe lane. He also called for a distribution team to attend, as he suspected a serious escape from the gas main running down Briscoe lane.
234WH
I am satisfied that, in relation to that incident, Transco met its obligations under the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations 1996 to attend an escape as soon as reasonably practicable and to stop it within 12 hours of the first report of the leak. Those actions are necessary to protect both the public and Transco workers.
My hon. Friend referred to the switching off of the gas main. It is certainly true that the police and Transco initially concentrated on the protection of the residents and the houses near the leak, evacuating about 100 people in the initial stages of the incident. Those actions undoubtedly prevented major injury, but I think Transco acknowledges that it could have started to depressurise the gas main more promptly after the escape was reported. As a result of the lessons learned on that occasion, its procedure has been changed.
Depressurising a main is far from simple, however. If the process is not properly managed, the whole connected gas network could be at risk. It took about seven hours to complete the process of reducing the pressure, so it is unlikely that the outcome would have been significantly affected if the reduction had been started earlier.
I shall move on to Transco's investigation of the incident and the HSE's responsibilities. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations place a duty on Transco to carry out a thorough investigation of the circumstances of an incident and to send a full report to the HSE. The HSE's experience of such reports is that they are open and frank about the facts.
The HSE and I are satisfied that Transco acted promptly in initiating the investigation of the causes of the Crawford street incident and in establishing remedial action, including instructing Advantica Technology to undertake the necessary forensic work. I understand that my hon. Friend has received copies of both the Transco and Advantica reports for his information.
I am also satisfied that the HSE's initial response, on being informed of the Newton Heath incident, and its decision not to launch an immediate investigation were appropriate, taking into account the fact that Transco had taken all the necessary action and that the emergency services were in attendance. In those circumstances, the HSE's actions were consistent with its policy on the investigation of incidents.
The decision not to launch an immediate investigation was based on the duty placed on Transco by the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations to carry out a thorough investigation of the circumstances of the incident and to send a full report to the HSE. Arguably we might want to consider those arrangements, but they are the provisions under the current regulations.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend suggests that we might want to examine those arrangements. I have no doubts regarding the competence of the consultants who carried out the investigations in relation to Newton Heath. However, the public in general and I in particular would feel much happier if we knew that those who commission such investigations are independent of the operator. The question that must be answered was put by my hon. Friend the Member for

235WH
Ashton-under-Lyne: is Transco making an adequate investment in safety, or is it putting commercial pressures ahead of the safe operation of the system? Only an independent regulator can give the public the reassurance that the balance is being properly maintained in the public interest.
Dr. Whitehead: That is an arguable point. The arrangements under the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations are that Transco carries out the investigation and makes a report to the HSE. The history of those arrangements shows that the investigations and the reports are thorough but, as my hon. Friend points out, independent investigation might reinforce public confidence in the process.
The HSE has assured me that it will continue to monitor Transco's implementation of the recommendations in the report on the Newton Heath incident. My hon. Friend may also want to know that two vacant inspector posts dealing with pipeline safety in the north of England have recently been filled through recruitment and transfer, thereby considerably increasing the total number of inspectors.
The HSE will be holding a meeting with Transco on 21 May when progress on the actions will be discussed. I have asked them to update my hon. Friend on the outcome of their meeting.
I cannot comment on the Cavendish Mill incident on 17 November because the HSE is still considering the issue of legal proceedings. An investigation is under way into the Weir Pumps incident on 23 March. I understand that that incident was the result of vandalism. When the report is received, the HSE will review it and consider whether further action is necessary.
I want to talk briefly about Transco's mains replacement programme. As hon. Members will know, the responsibility for maintaining and replacing pipes falls to Transco. Some of the pipes are extremely old, dating back to the Victorian era, but there is an accelerated programme—agreed with the HSE—to replace all iron gas mains located within 30 m of buildings. Within 30 years, 91,000 km of iron mains will be replaced—five years earlier than if the mains had continued to be replaced at the rate that has prevailed since 1977.
The detail is available for everyone to see. The HSE has made a proportionate response to managing the risks presented by iron gas mains. That sends out the message that we understand public concern and will continue to respond appropriately.
I have listened carefully to the points raised by my hon. Friend and recognise his understandable concern for the health and safety of his constituents. I reassure him that the HSE has carefully considered its obligations in respect of the Crawford street incident and has offered to meet him to discuss his concerns. I confirm that the offer remains open.

999 Service (Isle of Wight and Hampshire)
1.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: On 25 April, I took the Red Jet service from Southampton at 7.30 pm and reached home in Cowes at about five minutes to 8. Within minutes the following message appeared on my pager, "News flash on TV. All emergency services on Isle of Wight down because of communications breakdown. Don't know when back up. Just thought I'd let you know." The message was signed by my assiduous assistant who was visiting friends on the mainland. She had seen the reports on television.
My repeated attempts by BT landline and by mobile phone failed to establish communication with my assistant or with my agent, who had also contacted me by pager. Eventually, I turned on the television and saw the caption that advised, "If you need the emergency services, go to a police station." I went to the local police station in Cowes partly to find out exactly what was going on, but it was closed as it usually is in the evening. Indeed, most police stations on the island are closed in the evening, so I used the direct call facility outside the police station to contact the Winchester call centre of the Hampshire constabulary which, as the Minister will know, also covers the Isle of Wight.
The call centre explained to me that Netley, which is the location of the command and control centre, was down but that 999 calls to the police were being routed to the Dorset constabulary and then relayed back by radio to the control room at Netley. I then tried to telephone the local radio station, Isle of Wight Radio, as it is the normal source of information on the island. I tried by mobile, because the telephone box on the street outside the police station was not working, and I was surprised to discover that the problem did not affect the fire or ambulance services on the island. That was my first intimation that what appeared to be a 999 service problem was, in fact, a BT problem.
Although I am sure that the Minister is aware of this, I should explain that the police for the island and for Hampshire share a call centre at Winchester and a control room at Netley. The ambulance service in Hampshire has a control centre at Winchester and on the island at Newport. The fire service has a control centre at Eastleigh, with back-up at Winchester for the mainland. The centre for the island is at Newport. The Coastguard service, which is another important emergency service that I would not like to be omitted from the debate, has its control centre at Lee-on-the-Solent and it covers the island, Hampshire and other parts of the south coast.
I was eventually able to contact my assistant on the mainland by mobile phone and she reported to me that she had spent 35 minutes with the operators trying to establish what was wrong. After that, she called the operators at 9.40 pm and got through to Birmingham. She was then put on to Inverness and then passed to someone purporting to be a manager in the chairman's office who turned out to be a "technical coach"—whatever that might mean—in Birmingham who said that he had, "no up-to-date information". He added that BT had identified a fault in the transmission equipment and that the repair team was at the incident site and would be working around the clock to repair it.

237WH
He clearly did not know when the system would be back up and the information that he gave had been posted on his system at 6.30 pm, but we received it at 10.19 on the Thursday evening.
My assistant was told that there was no one in Southampton with whom she could communicate. However, at her request, a press officer later called her from Newark. He said that many people on the island were unaffected but, when he was asked why blanket advice to go to a police station if one wanted an emergency service had appeared on the television, he said, "Nobody at BT has said that the emergency service is unavailable." Asked if he was sure of that, he said, "As far as I am aware." He then said that people should try their BT phone and, if that is not working, they should try a mobile. When he was asked where the information to go to a police station had come from, he said possibly the police and emergency services. He said that he would call back with further information.
The press officer called back at about 11.5 pm to say, "There is a problem with the power supply to network installations in Southampton.", so he was asked why there was no back-up. He said, "There is a back-up system but it has not prevented the problems that you are experiencing." He said that sorting out exactly what had gone on would take "weeks rather than hours" and that the "service is progressively being brought back up although the situation is not totally resolved." When asked how many people had been affected, he refused to give any answer other than "a lot". At five past midnight, he called to say that all customers were now back on service.
Three clear problems are apparent. First, there was no picture of the problem or of the causes of the problem available not only to me, my assistant or any other member of the public who might have called, but to the press or media locally. I put in a request to BT the following day, but I regret to say that there was no response until this debate appeared on the Order Paper. BT then asked me—I thank Tim O'Sullivan of BT for this—what I wanted to know.
The second problem is that BT did not take responsibility for notifying the public of the breakdown of the 999 service. In response to my request, it replied:
"The emergency services normally inform the public and media of loss of 999—we understand the Police did so on this occasion …Media messages to the public were being given after 20:00 on TV and radio. The BT Press Office was also dealing with media enquiries throughout the evening. The usual liaison with BT prior to any message going out was hampered by the communication problems … This subject will be part of our review of the incident with the emergency services locally."
The third part of the problem is that the back-up system did not work. BT said that
"it is not practical to provide duplicate or alternative facilities and the problem at Southampton is one such case. The strategy used here is to prevent failure as far as is reasonably possible, in this case by 3 methods that have until now been successful: provision of stand-by capacity, battery back-up and the use of alarms. Detailed investigation has shown that a number of crucial components failed at the same time. Although battery back-up did operate and protect against failure of these components for a period, the alarms that are designed to reveal such problems well before the batteries expire were also not operating. In this situation both resilience measures failed at the same time which is highly unusual and unexpected."
238WH
It was certainly unexpected
My hon. Friends the Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) have asked me to express their concerns about what happened. Parts of south Wiltshire were also affected, and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) pointed out:
"South Wiltshire was blacked out … there were security implications because of the number and density of military establishments"
in that county. He added:
"Although they run a separate military communications system it is in constant interface with the BT network and when that crashes, there are consequences …Secondly, in exactly the area of Central Southern England in which BT failed its customers, there has been the biggest loss of their market share to NTL and other cable system offering telephone services—which with new technology were unaffected. It will be interesting to see how the market moves as a result of BT's failure."
My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) told me that he was out that evening and that he was unable to use either his mobile phone or his BT landline at home.
There were three problems but, worse still, is the advice that was given. If one lives in rural west Wight—let us say at Brighstone—and one is told by the television not to make 999 calls, the natural next step is to drive to Yarmouth or to Ventnor police station, which are at least a quarter of an hour's drive away. Let us imagine what would happen if one needed an ambulance and one was told that one could not dial 999. The time taken to drive to Ventnor police station would mean that it would be difficult for an ambulance to deal with a life-threatening crisis such as a heart attack.
When I spoke to people at the BBC the following day—in fact, they volunteered to communicate with me as a result of something that I said on Radio Solent—they told me that all the telephone lines were down and that they were visited by a police officer from Southampton who said that there was an emergency on the island and in Hampshire and south Wiltshire and asked for advice to be broadcast from the Netley control centre, on radio and on television. I assume that that advice was broadcast.
As late as 1 May, the chairman of the Hampshire police authority was reported on South teletext as saying that
"questions need to be asked over BT's performance."
South teletext also says:
"A full explanation of the BT failure is yet to be received by the authority."
Assistant Chief Constable Ian Reed, who is responsible for the communications system at Netley, also reported dissatisfaction. I spoke to him earlier today, and he told me that the Hampshire constabulary had arranged separate wiring for the Netley command and control centre, so that messages were brought in and out on two independent systems. One of those systems goes through Oxford; the other through Gloucester, but it is clear that they were both subject to the same breakdown at a single point of failure. That is not acceptable. Hampshire constabulary and the

239WH
island's taxpayers have paid for what Assistant Chief Constable Reed calls resilience, but BT has not delivered that resilience.
We have to ask why the BT system failed. Why did the alarm and back-up systems fail? I understand that Assistant Chief Constable Reed has asked Oftel those questions and that it will conduct inquiries into the incident. We also have to ask what might have happened, or what might happen in future. It is very easy to portray the incident as a small millennium-style problem and to say that not many people were injured. Thankfully, not many people were injured, but it is our job to consider what might happen in future.
Assistant Chief Constable Reed is certainly concerned about the loss of radio, mobile and other telephone links and internal network computers through seven out of 11 components of the Southampton Bargate exchange. He says things were kept going simply because of the availability of VHF radio communications. BT intercepted 999 calls, where they could be made, and sent them to Dorchester, and Dorset constabulary relayed them back to Netley via VHF. He asks what would be the implications when the national airwave solution is introduced, because he tells me that that solution relies entirely on BT systems. I am sorry that I did not give the Minister notice of this question earlier, but will he carefully consider the implications of introducing the national airwave solution for the effectiveness of the police communications system?
I asked Assistant Chief Constable Reed what arrangements were made to deploy additional police officers. He said that they faced the same problems as everyone else, so they could not make telephone calls from Netley to bring in additional police. They had to visit police officers' homes by motorcycle to alert them of the need to report to Netley. Members of specialist firearms and public order teams had to go to Netley so that they could be deployed in an emergency, and I should like to record my gratitude to those policemen and women.
Assistant Chief Constable Reed assigned additional police officers who were on duty to the front desks of those police stations that were open, but he could not bring in additional police to patrol the streets because of the communications failure from which we all suffered. It was only by the greatest of good luck that people were able to establish telephone contact with Winchester because the Winchester 0845 number happened to be one of the four out of 11 components that did not fail at the Southampton Bargate exchange.
Several serious issues arise from all that, the first of which is the concentration of emergency services at Winchester. It is clearly dangerous if police, fire and ambulance services can all be accessed only through Winchester. That is not an island versus mainland point; clearly, the same problem could arise if they were all accessed via Newport. Secondly, I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the national airwaves solution.
I should like to record my appreciation of the work that the police and the other emergency services did on that occasion, but they were hampered by BT's lack of available information.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I must congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on bringing this matter before the House. He mentioned several of his hon. Friends who are also concerned about the events of 25 April. I ought to include myself among that number, as I was making my way to my constituency on the evening of 25 April and repeatedly attempted to ring home and got what appeared to be an engaged signal. Indeed, when I arrived home, I undertook the same sort of information-gathering exercise as he did into how the incident happened and in what circumstances. Like him, I found the total breakdown of the telecommunications system, on which we increasingly rely, very frustrating. It was certainly very distressing for all those in Southampton and the wider area to feel that they were out of communication in the event of any emergency or for any other reason.
We are justifiably proud in this country of our 999 arrangements. The number is universally known and children are taught almost as soon as they walk or speak that that number will bring immediate assistance in an emergency. The telephone operating companies therefore pay particular attention to the resilience and robustness of their 999 services. There are special facilities in their networks and call centres to ensure that those calls are protected and given priority handling.
Conditions in the telephone operating companies' licences, which are regulated by Oftel, require them to take all reasonably practical steps to maintain to the greatest extent possible the integrity of public telephone systems and public services provided, paying particular regard to the needs of emergency organisations. That involves the protection of the physical and functional operation of such systems and related services against malfunctions or failure.
The BT network supports some 28 million lines throughout the United Kingdom and to maintain continuity various approaches are used to protect against problems with, for example, equipment failure, cable breaks or power breakdowns. Those protections include using alternative network routes; providing stand-by capacity; duplicating crucial components; alarms to give early warning of failures; overload protection; back-up facilities, such as electricity generators or batteries; active network monitoring; and using portable equipment.
The arrangements for handling 999 calls are agreed voluntarily between the emergency services and telephone operating companies within the 999 liaison committee forum, which is managed by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The forum's membership includes representatives of all the telephone operating companies, including BT and Cable and Wireless, representatives of the emergency authorities and representatives from the appropriate Departments, including the Department of Health and the Home Office, as well as Oftel.
The committee has agreed a code of practice that sets out arrangements for dealing with 999 calls. The code is published on the DTLR website and is regularly reviewed and amended to reflect the changing needs of the public and the service providers. It recommends that

241WH
emergency authorities have contingency arrangements to cover the receipt of emergency calls during conditions of serious breakdown in the public network or the emergency authorities' communication systems. Those arrangements should be tested periodically to ensure that staff are familiar with them.
BT undertakes to notify the affected emergency authorities as soon as possible after a failure is identified or anticipated. In 2000, BT issued guidance on the loss of access to its public 999 service to the emergency authorities. Despite the size and reach of the network, there are relatively few failures that affect 999. Such losses are monitored closely by Oftel, and substantial incidents are always subject to rigorous internal inquiries so that further resilience improvements can be made. During any such incident, BT informs those emergency authorities that cover the affected area and keeps in contact until the incident is resolved. It is worth noting that, because of the range of network routes used, it is very rare for the emergency services' control rooms to be affected. All that is, as it were, despite the events of Thursday 25 April.
On those specific events, as the hon. Gentleman recalled, a fault occurred in equipment at Southampton. BT has stressed that a highly unusual sequence of events occurred that resulted in a failure affecting a wide spread of people. The failure occurred in the power supply equipment for switches and network links that serve mainly the Southampton area, but also some other switches scattered throughout Hampshire, but not on the Isle of Wight.
Mr. Andrew Turner: That is a matter of some curiosity, as, clearly, I was on the Isle of Wight when I attempted to make the calls from my landline.
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point, and it is a matter of some curiosity for me. I shall speculate on that circumstance in a moment. I am giving a factual account of the technical nature of what happened to those switches and links.
A further point to consider is that, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, although battery back-up did operate and protect against failure for a period, there was then a failure of the alarms that are designed to reveal problems in the main supply before the batteries cut in. BT engineers were therefore unaware of how long the batteries were lasting and the time scale in which emergency action needed to be taken before those batteries expired, as they did.
I am assured that there is a regular testing regime, but that could not anticipate the equipment fault. Corrective action has been taken at Southampton, and an urgent review is being carried out within BT and with its suppliers to examine solutions that will ensure no further recurrence at any BT site. No subsections on the Isle of Wight were affected. Seventy-seven subsections across Hampshire and south Wiltshire lost services, and I understand that BT has written to apologise to, among other people, the MPs whose constituents were affected.
During the incident, the BT call centres that answer 999 calls quickly liaised with the emergency services and arranged to implement contingency plans. I understand
242WH
that Hampshire and Isle of Wight police made immediate contact with radio stations in Southampton and across the area and guidance was broadcast on the radio and on television. Throughout the evening, BT did answer many 999 calls from the Hampshire area from both fixed and mobile phones, as, even though some customers in, for example, Winchester, were unable to make 999 calls, other Winchester customers could do so. Those who could make those calls were connected to the neighbouring emergency services in Dorset for the police and ambulance services, and in Berkshire for the fire service, and they could pass the information back to the responding local services. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned one way in which that was done using, for example, radio links. The Coastguard control centre on the Solent was unaffected, so there were no emergency arrangements as far as it was concerned.
I am assured by BT that the 999 service remained available to all Isle of Wight residents. During the period 6.30 pm to midnight on 25 April, 23 calls to 999 from the Isle of Wight were connected to the emergency services. Three calls were made to the fire service, nine were to the ambulance control rooms on the island and the remainder were to the police, initially to the Dorset police, but, from 9.15 pm, to a standby control room established in Basingstoke.
I understand from BT that the hon. Gentleman should have been able to make calls from his home in the Isle of Wight throughout the period as they would have been routed through the Portsmouth exchange. That is the curious circumstance that the hon. Gentleman mentions. It is possible that the breakdown could have had an indirect effect: because so many people were testing their phones at that time, all the available lines through that route may have been engaged. I believe that he is in contact with BT, and I shall be happy to pursue the matter further with BT if he does not get a satisfactory reply to what I agree is a curious set of circumstances.
However, some callers in Hampshire and south Wiltshire would not have had access to 999 on their BT lines and may only have been able to make local calls, although some will also have been able to use their mobile phones to call 999. The emergency services cover such circumstances with extra patrols, stationing vehicles at strategic points and advice through the media. BT assures me that it did everything it reasonably could to restore normal service as quickly as possible and to mitigate the impact on the emergency services, such as the police, with whom they liaised throughout the incident.
Hampshire and Isle of Wight police managed to keep every police station open until normal telephone operations were resumed. I am informed that that included the station at Cowes, but the hon. Gentleman mentioned specifically that he visited that police station and it was closed. I am happy, therefore, to investigate whether that circumstance was an aberration or whether there was wider non-coverage by police stations. BT engineers responded immediately and worked through the night to return the situation to normal, and 80 per cent. of customers had been restored to service by midnight. Almost all others were restored by 3.55 am at the latest.

243WH
When we consider the question of resilience and contingency arrangements, we must recognise that the failure of the telephone system on 25 April—in the hon. Gentleman's area and my area, unfortunately—was unprecedented. It revealed that, although contingency arrangements agreed with the 999 liaison committee were adequate, at least for more limited failures, there was a need to review them against what happened in Southampton and to examine what further changes needed to be made. Consideration will need to be given, first, to whether BT can help provide even more protection for the network links to its control rooms; and, secondly, to what other lessons can be learned regarding contingency plans for such failures, particularly with regard to communication with the public in these unusual circumstances. Among other problems, of course, one cannot use the phone to call people out to cover for contingencies or to alert people of contingencies in the first place.
Since the failure, BT has been in discussion with Hampshire and Isle of Wight police and the Association of Chief Police Officers about the changes that need to be made to BT's systems and to contingency arrangements to ensure that the public are protected against similar failures in the future. The solutions being examined will be judged by the improvements that can be offered, which include alarm strategy, changes in working practices and changes in component design.
BT will report to Oftel on the reasons for the failure on 25 April, on its impact on the 999 service and on the steps being taken to mitigate failure in the future. In
244WH
turn, Oftel will be monitoring the action taken to ensure that BT meets its licence requirements. The main effect, on which the hon. Gentleman and I can agree, was to cause many members of the public great concern about their well-being in the event of an emergency in the areas affected by this catastrophic failure of telephone services. There is no evidence that there was any practical and irreversible adverse impact on the public. The contingency arrangements worked, although it is right to review them on the basis of the experience gained. BT has made it clear to me that it is concerned that this failure occurred, it apologises for the problems caused, and it is determined to prevent a recurrence. Clearly, that determination should include reviewing the procedures for publicising advice when such incidents take place. That is one of the matters under review.
I assure the House that all those involved in the 999 arrangements take their responsibilities very seriously and are acutely aware of the importance and value that the public place on an efficient and effective service that will guarantee a rapid response from the police, the fire service, the ambulance service or the coastguard when there is a serious threat to life or property.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the move to airwave for the police service. I cannot give him an immediate answer on that, but I shall write to him on the points that he raises.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEFENCE

  Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment programme. [53520]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme work was completed in 2001. A summary of the study and its conclusions was placed in the Library of the House in February 2002.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the Multinational Brigade Centre led by the United Kingdom in Kosovo to be merged with the French-led Multinational Brigade North; and if he will make a statement. [54834]

  Mr. Ingram
  The future of the Multinational Brigades in Kosovo will be decided in the light of the major review currently being undertaken by NATO of its operations in the Balkans. The review, entitled the Joint Operational Area Review, will be discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers later this month. We welcome the review and remain committed to maintaining a military contribution to NATO peacekeeping in the Balkans. The form that this contribution will take has yet to be decided.

  NATO
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Chief of the EU military staff regarding organisational change in NATO; and if he will make a statement. [55569]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his(a) EU and (b) NATO counterparts regarding organisational change in NATO; and if he will make a statement. [55568]

  Mr. Hoon
  Preparations for this November's NATO Summit in Prague include work on a range of issues (including NATO's command and force structures, enlargement, resource management and Headquarters structures and processes) with organisational implications. I discuss these issues on a regular basis with NATO colleagues. We also work to ensure good contacts with the EU in relevant areas.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his US counterparts 514
  regarding creation of a Special Operations Coordination Centre at SHAPE; and if he will make a statement. [55571]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  European Airlift Capacity
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from his US counterpart regarding a creation of European Mobility Command to coordinate existing and future European airlift assets; and if he will make a statement.[55570]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. We are working closely with allies and with NATO staffs to develop a capabilities improvements programme to build upon NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative at the Prague Summit in November, and it is likely that improvements in airlift will continue to be a key objective. The existing European Airlift Co-ordination Cell already provides a means of sharing airlift capacity among a number of European countries.

  European Air Chiefs Conference
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the European Air Chiefs Conference meeting of 18 April. [55695]

  Mr. Hoon
  This was the latest regular meeting of the heads of 20 air forces within the forum of the European Air Chiefs Conference (EURAC) which was established in 1993. The aim of EURAC is to improve co-operation and understanding among European air forces, thereby increasing their efficiency and effectiveness.

  Copies of the recent EURAC Air Power Paper "A European Perspective on Air Power" have been placed in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Graduate Training Scheme
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is taking to establish a national graduate training scheme for local government. [56425]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Employers' Organisation (EO) has put in place a national graduate development programme (NGDP) for local government, which begins in September this year. This programme is to address the need to recruit a new generation of managers with the leadership potential to shape the future of local government.

  Vacant Council Seats
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many seats on parish and town councils in England and Wales were vacant on 1 January in each year since 1995. [55408]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is not held centrally.

  Electronic Voting
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research projects have been commissioned by his Department into electronic voting since June 2000; and if he will state in each case(a) the organisation or consortium members carrying out the research, (b) the cost, (c) the purpose and title, (d) the date on which the research was or is due to be delivered to his Department and (e) the date or expected date of publication of the results. [54138]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The Department has commissioned one research project into this area since June 2000. It is entitled 'The Implementation of Electronic Voting' and is being undertaken by De Montfort university at a cost of £84,910. The project has examined the practical requirements for the implementation of remote electronic voting. It is intended to publish the research later this month.

  Local Government
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will take steps to rectify the disparity in total external support to local authorities covering the Bromsgrove area in the local government White Paper; [54801]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that the new grant formula that will replace standard spending assessment will be (a) fairer, (b) simpler and (c) will address the needs of each classes of authority. [54798]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are working to develop options for fairer and more intelligible grant distribution formulae. We will consult on options over the summer and will consider the responses when we come to take decisions.

  MOX Fuel Shipment
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether a change in the material used to fill the package to be used to transport the mox fuel from Japan to Sellafield from argon gas to water requires the flask to be re-certified, proven and tested in compliance with the IAEA Safety Series 6 Regulations of the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials. [54365]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The certificate of approval ceases to have effect in the event of any alteration to the composition of the package, the package design or in any of the facts stated in the application unless the Competent Authority confirms the certificate notwithstanding the alteration.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the approval process for the shipment and the transport package for the mox fuel due to be returned from Japan to Sellafield has assessed the level of risk and consequences for all reasonably foreseeable incidents that could arise in United Kingdom territorial waters and during docking, handling and onward transport from Barrow to Sellafield, including(a) fuel criticality events, (b) flask drop and impact incidents, (c) fire and/or
  516
  explosion on board the ship, (d) sinking of the ship and (e) significant incidents during the rail transport phase. [54364]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The approval process assesses against the performance standards and test conditions prescribed in the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which establish standards of safety designed to provide an acceptable level of control of the radiation, criticality and thermal hazards to persons, property and the environment, taking into account routine, normal and accident conditions of transport.

  QEII Centre
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what coolant will be used in the replacement of the air conditioning and water coolant for the QEII Centre. [56389]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Specialist advisers have considered all technological alternatives for the replacement of these air conditioning chillers. The choice of refrigerant will be in accordance with the relevant Government policies and I will be happy to confirm the final refrigerant selection within the next two months.

  Parish Councils
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role parish councils will play in the revised planning procedures envisaged by the Government for(a) major infrastructure projects and (b) other planning applications. [56032]

  Ms Keeble
  Local planning authorities are required to consult or notify various organisations and bodies. This includes parish councils that have asked to be notified of certain applications. We are concerned that the present arrangements for consulting expert bodies on planning and other cases are not working as effectively as they might. The distinction between statutory and non-statutory consultees has become blurred and consultation can often be a source of delay.

  One option proposed in our consultation paper "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change" is to clarify the basis of determining whether bodies should be statutory consultees and reduce their number. Decisions about which bodies might in future be statutory consultees will be made in the light of the consultation. The consultation paper also contains a number of proposals to promote better engagement of local communities in shaping the future development of their areas.

  We have proposed the introduction of a new procedure which would enable Parliament to make a decision in principle on certain major infrastructure projects. It is for Parliament to determine how this procedure might operate and how representations from interested organisations, such as parish councils, might be considered.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list(a) the deprived local authority housing estates and (b) the

  517
  local authority and local authority wards that those estates fall into, referred to in DETR, Housing Research Summary No.91 (1998); [54610]

  (2) which of the deprived local authority housing estates referred to in DETR, Housing Research Summary No.91 (1998) have subsequently been part of a stock transfer to housing associations.[54611]

  Mr. Byers
  Housing Research Summary No. 91 (1998) is not about research on local authority estates as it presents findings from "Key research on easier home buying and selling".

  Social Housing
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the outcome of the round of applications for PFI credits for additional social housing and joint service centres. [56905]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am announcing today the names of 10 local authorities with whom my Department will work on the development of PFI schemes. There will be five schemes providing additional social housing and five for joint service centres.

  The authorities proposing the housing schemes are: Birmingham city council, London borough of Brent, London borough of Harrow, Slough borough council and Warrington borough council.

  These schemes aim to provide additional social housing. They will help to increase the supply of affordable housing, help regenerate areas of low demand or provide housing for vulnerable groups.

  The authorities seeking support for joint service centres are: Leeds city council, Manchester city council, Newcastle city council, North Tyneside council and Shropshire.

  The purpose of these schemes is to give local communities improved access to a wide range of information and services and to integrate the information and services to be provided by the local authority with other local agencies.

  We were impressed with the quality of all the bids received and it was a difficult choice as to which schemes were selected.

  I congratulate those authorities which were successful in this round. We look forward to working with them to fully develop these bids into value for money projects.

  Whether any of the above schemes ultimately proceed will depend on authorities working up business cases which satisfy the scrutiny of the interdepartmental project review group (PRG), which considers all local government PFI schemes seeking central Government support. Endorsement by PRG is essential before schemes can be put out to tender.

  The total value of the PFI credits that will be allocated, if all these schemes are endorsed and proceed to contract signature, is £100 million.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the 518W
  total cost has been of carrying out the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council Fire Cover Review; what fees have been paid to external consultants; and what the cost has been per consultant used. [53682]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Details of the costs paid to date (end March 2002) to consultants during the review of fire cover commissioned by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council are set out in the table.

  Spent £000

  Contractor

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  Entec

  16

  64

  30

  47

  157

  Systems Options

  78

  205

  203

  98

  584

  Mott MacDonald

  —

  27

  37

  7

  71

  KPMG

  —

  57

  174

  60

  291

  Greenstreet Berman

  —

  0

  0

  54

  54

  ORH Ltd.

  —

  0

  0

  61

  61

  Total

  94

  353

  444

  327

  1,218

  Costs have also arisen from time spent by DTLR and Home Office officials on aspects of the review, but it is not possible to accurately determine this amount without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The cost of staff employed by fire brigades in connection with the pathfinder trials associated with the fire cover review can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whom he plans to consult before concluding the fire cover review; and over what time frame. [53683]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The findings of the task group on the fire cover review will be considered initially by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. Following this, I expect to consult widely since I expect the review to provide the fundamental basis of planning delivery of service by fire brigades in the future.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the task group on the fire cover review will deliver its final report to the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. [53681]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The aim at present is to present the report for consideration by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council immediately after the summer recess at the latest.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to make driving tests more difficult and increase the safety aspects of the test. [55333]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: Our "Road Safety Strategy" commits us to keep the driving test up to date. Since 1999, we have added 10 minutes more general driving to the practical car driving test so candidates can be assessed driving on higher-speed dual carriageways and rural roads wherever possible. Also, candidates who commit more than 15 less serious driving faults, as well as those who commit serious faults, fail the driving test.
  519W
  Later this year we plan to introduce a moving-image hazard perception element to the theory test. This should mean that new drivers develop better skills in anticipation and reading the road.

  We have also recently published our "Introducing a more structured approach to learning to drive" consultation paper. Although this does not discuss possible changes to the content of the driving test it does, however, include discussion about extending the learning period, the use of training logs and the introduction of probationary plates for new drivers.

  Health Workers (Parking Restrictions)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to ease parking restrictions which affect essential health workers in the performance of their emergency duties; and if he will make a statement. [55846]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Parking dispensations and waivers are a matter for consideration by local traffic authorities as part of their overall parking policies. In London, a Health Emergency Badge (HEB) already exists for doctors and others involved in primary healthcare (such as nurses, midwives and health visitors). It can be used when the HEB holder is undertaking emergency or urgent work with patients away from the badge holder's normal base allowing them to park without payment in paid for parking places, in residents' bays and, if no alternative parking spaces are available, on yellow lines.

  The HEB scheme does not allow holders to park their vehicles in a dangerous or obstructive manner. Further details about the HEB scheme may be obtained from the Association of London Government Transport and Environment Committee, First Floor, New Zealand House, 80 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4TZ.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 18 April 2002,Official Report, column 1096W, on ferry services, what the nature is of the representation he has made regarding the proposed EU directive on minimum conditions of service and wages for seafarer on intra-community ferry services. [56051]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have made representations in European Community discussions generally recommending the proposed directive to fellow member states.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the financial risk to the Strategic Rail Authority of a future financial and management failure by Network Rail. [55780]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Negotiations are continuing on a commercially confidential basis. Details of any contingent liability would be notified formally to Parliament in accordance with established procedures.

  Road Works (Injuries)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many 520W
  individuals working on street or road works were (a) killed, (b) seriously injured and (c) slightly injured in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.[55852]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Following is the readily available information relating to the number of injuries to workers hit by vehicles occurring in the processes of road repairs and surfacing, and in street cleaning and verge maintenance.

  Injuries to workers hit by vehicles occurring in the processes of road repairs and surfacing, and in street cleaning and verge maintenance—1996–97 to 2000–01

  Road repairs/surfacing/ maintenance

  Road verge maintenance

  Fatal injuries

  1996–97

  3

  —

  1997–98

  2

  —

  1998–99

  2

  —

  1999–2000

  2

  —

  2000–011

  5

  1

  Major injuries

  1996–97

  14

  1

  1997–98

  10

  2

  1998–99

  12

  —

  1999–2000

  14

  1

  2000–011

  10

  —

  Over 3-day injuries

  1996–97

  23

  —

  1997–98

  20

  3

  1998–99

  19

  1

  1999–2000

  23

  2

  2000–011

  19

  2

  1Provisional

  HSE is temporarily only able to provide statistics on workers hit by vehicles because of essential enhancements currently being carried out to their database system but could provide data on all incidents covered in the processes in the table in due course. The table also only provides data from 1996–97 onwards. Access to earlier data is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Notes:

  Figures relate to employees and the self-employed.

  Injuries reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995.

  Statistics relate to the planning year from 1 April to 31 March.

  Public Transport (Recruitment and Retention)
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of rates of pay on recruitment and retention of public transport workers and the delivery of the Government's transport objectives in London. [55793]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Recruitment and retention of public transport workers and their pay rates are the responsibility of the relevant transport operators. It is for them to manage their services to deliver the various performance targets set by the transport authorities within the context of the Government's policies. Measures to improve performance are taken as necessary.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what statistics are collected by his Department on road safety; and if he will make a statement. [55853]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Personal injury road accident data in Great Britain are collected by the police and reported to the Department using the STATS 19 accident report format. A full description of the data collected and an extensive selection of statistics are published in detail in "Road Accidents Great Britain2014;The Casualty Report". The report for 2000 was published on 20 September 2001 and a copy placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Free Travel
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which local authorities provide free travel on public transport for old age pensioners and the disabled. [55701]

  Ms Keeble
  There are six areas where free travel is provided for pensioners: London boroughs, Merseyside, West Midlands, Crawley, Reading and Redditch.

  There are eight areas where free travel is provided for disabled people: London boroughs, Merseyside, Congleton, Crawley, Reading Redditch, Rutland and Warwick. In addition, there are a further 89 areas where free travel is provided for blind people.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the level of access of pensioners to free bus transport.[55848]

  Ms Keeble
  From June 2001 the Transport Act 2000 provides a standard minimum requirement for concessionary travel in England and Wales. This ensures half fares for pensioners and disabled people on local buses, with no charge for the pass. Local authorities may make more generous provision at their discretion.

  Following the introduction of the standard minimum requirement a survey taken last autumn shows that over half of authorities had a more generous scheme than previously and 17 authorities had introduced a concessionary fares scheme when none previously existed. Six areas provide free travel for pensioners.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what extra funding will be made available to county councils for road improvement in the next financial year. [55195]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are providing over £30 billion for local road maintenance over the next 10 years, an extra 9 billion (23 per cent. in real terms) above the funding levels in the previous 10 years. The exact figures for 2003–04 will be announced in December this year.

  Parking
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what restrictions are in place in respect of the spending of 522W
  moneys by local authorities in respect of revenue raised by them from parking meters and paid parking schemes; what the basis is for such restrictions; and if he will make a statement.[55798]

  Mr. Spellar
  Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 requires local authorities to keep an account of income and expenditure in respect of designated on-street parking places. This section restricts expenditure of surplus on-street parking income to making good any charges against an authority's general fund, provision and maintenance of off-street parking, highway improvements and public transport schemes. There are no restrictions on the use of surplus income from authorities' off-street parking facilities.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers he has to prevent local authorities in England and Wales from issuing a greater number of residents parking permits than the number of residents parking places that have been made available by such local authority. [55796]

  Mr. Spellar
  Local traffic authorities have powers to introduce traffic management schemes on their roads, including residents' parking schemes, by means of traffic regulation orders (TRO) made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The Secretary of State has a reserve power under the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act to intervene in the making of a TRO in a case where he believes that an authority is not satisfactorily discharging its duty under section 122 of the Act to secure the expeditious, convenient and save movement of vehicular and other traffic and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway.

  The purpose of a residents' parking scheme is to ensure residents have preferential access to on-street parking in their area over others, such as those commuting into the area. Given the limited supply of kerbside parking space and possible multiple care ownership in individual households, an authority has to judge the balance between supply of spaces and the number of permits issued in drawing up a scheme. In practice a residents' parking scheme may not necessarily guarantee permit holders access to a parking space, but could be better than having an uncontrolled parking free for all.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the rate of return will be on each of the three PPP contracts. [56211]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The payments the private sector infrastructure companies receive from London Underground will depend on the performance they actually deliver. There is no guaranteed rate of return for shareholders under the three Public Private Partnership contracts.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his reply of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 900W, on London Underground. if the appropriate regulatory clearances relating to (a) the procurement process, (b) the competition aspects and (c) the state aid aspects have been obtained; and if he will make a statement. [56207]
  523W
  Mr. Jamieson
  All appropriate regulatory clearances will be obtained before any PPP contracts take effect.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the projected efficiency savings are in each of the first seven years of the PPP contracts for each of the consortia. [56213]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the final assessment report produced by London Underground. This report, which is available on London Underground's website, contains an assessment of the underlying costs of the bids for the tube modernisation contracts compared to the underlying costs of the relevant public sector comparators over the first seven and a half years of the contracts. A year-on-year analysis is not available.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assumptions were made during PPP negotiations about the level of fare increases on London Underground in each of the first seven years. [56209]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground fares are a matter for the Mayor. London Transport has for planning purposes assumed that fares would rise in line with inflation.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much London Transport has spent on consultancy costs for the London Underground PPP.[56210]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 296W.

  Since 30 September 2001 a further 9 million has been spent.

  Community Transport (Fuel Duty Rebate)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when regulations will be made implementing the Government's commitment to extend eligibility for fuel duty rebate to a wide range of community transport services. [57134]

  Ms Keeble
  I am pleased to confirm that the Bus Service Operators Grant (England) Regulations 2002, implementing this proposal, were laid before Parliament on 10 April and came into force on 1 May 2002.

  PPP Contracts
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what payment each of the three consortia will receive in each year of the first seven years of the PPP contracts. [56208]
  Mr. Jamieson: I refer the hon. Member to the proposed comfort letter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reported to Parliament on Wednesday 20 March 2002. The actual level of payments received by the consortia will depend on the level of performance they deliver.

  Gap Funding
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received about his most recent proposals to replace gap funding.[55713]

  Ms Keeble
  We have received representations from three organisations; the St. John's Urban Village, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, in respect of the proposals for the housing, dereliction and heritage aid schemes. We are working closely with the regional development agencies, English Partnerships and English Heritage on the development of these schemes. We are also with the regional development agencies, English Partnerships and others on further possible schemes to notify to the European Commission.

  Martin Sixsmith
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the statement made by his Department on 7 May regarding the resignation of Mr. Martin Sixsmith. [55850]

  Mr. Byers
  The statement agreed by my Department and Martin Sixsmith was placed in the Library on 7 May.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 12 March 2002, Official Report, column 906W, on resignations, if he will revise his response in relation to the resignation of Mr. Martin Sixsmith [55751]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 9 May 2002.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the speeches which(a) he and (b) other Ministers from his Department have made to external organisations and businesses since 7 June 2001, in each case providing details of where the speech is publicly available; if he will place copies of speeches not available in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [55844]

  Dr. Whitehead
  DTLR Ministers have undertaken a very wide range of speaking engagements since 7 June 2001. A record of all speeches is not held centrally and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. Key ministerial speeches are available on the DTLR website address: http://www.dtlr.gov.uk/about/ministers/speeches/ index.htm. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Technical Support Contracts
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what technical support contracts were awarded by the Health and Safety Executive between 1 January and 31 December 1997. [55778]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Religious Affiliations (Staff)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will collect statistics on the religious affiliation of staff employed in local government with special reference to Muslim women in the work force; and if he will make a statement. [55441]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department has no plans to do so. Some local authorities already collect and monitor statistics relating to diversity and equal opportunity issues. However, this does not currently include religious affiliation of staff. In 2003 legislation against discrimination of grounds of religion or belief will come into force in order to comply with our responsibilities under the employment directive. All employers, including local authorities, will need to consider how best to meet their responsibilities under this legislation. The best employers will recognise the advantages of a fully diverse work force.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what publicly owned accommodation is made available to him in his official role; how many nights he has been in residence at each of these properties in the last 12 months; and what the total cost is of maintaining each of these properties. [55101]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]No publicly owned accommodation is made available to the Secretary of State in his official role.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  MOX (Sellafield)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), of 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 748W, on British Nuclear Fuels, if she will place in the Library a copy of BNFL's safety case for the receipt, handling and storage of the faulty mox on the Sellafield site. [54363]

  Mr. Wilson
  No. Safety cases submitted to meet HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate's specific regulatory requirements are "relevant information" under s28 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and may not be made public when the licensee withholds consent.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have for consulting on energy policy; and if she will make a statement. [57109]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am pleased to announce today that the Government has launched a major consultation on energy policy. I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of the House.

  We want to know how people think energy policy should develop.

  I am determined to make the consultation process as open and inclusive as possible. It will run from now till the end of the summer, leading to a White Paper around
  526W
  the turn of the year. This will include a response to the Performance and Innovation Unit's Energy Review and to its emphasis on a low-carbon economy and greater energy efficiency.

  Employment Law
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received regarding a change in the law concerning probation periods; and what plans she has to review this part of employment law. [55902]

  Alan Johnson
  None. We have no plans.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent research she has commissioned into the rights of employees working probationary periods prior to full-time contracts; and if she will publish the results of such research. [55910]

  Alan Johnson
  None.

  Work Fatalities
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to reduce the number of work-related illnesses and accidents that result in death. [55006]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The primary responsibility for avoiding fatalities arising from work-related accidents and ill health rests with employers and workers. The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and Health and Safety Executive have statutory responsibilities to promote health and safety and, with local authorities to enforce the law.

  In 1999 the Government and the HSC recognised that improvement in health and safety including reducing the number of fatalities had reached a plateau and for that reason launched a review of health and safety. This resulted in the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy and the first ever 10 year national health and safety targets.

  HSC's Strategic Plan sets out how HSC will focus its effort to deliver the Revitalising Targets. This includes priority programmes focusing on areas of major concern in relation to fatalities, as well as accidents and ill health.

  HSC will be reporting regularly on this long-term plan. The next report will be in the autumn.

  Advisory Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Restricted Committee of the Safety and Health Commission for the Mining and other extractive industries is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55240]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Restricted Committee of the Safety and Health Commission for the Mining and Other Extractive Industries (SCHMOEI) is a committee comprising

  527W
  representatives from the governments of the member states of the European Union which meets immediately prior to the full meetings of the main committee. Its role is to prepare the meetings of the main committee which is a tripartite body.

  SCHMOEI's terms of reference include:
  following the developments regarding health and safety in coalmines and other extractive industries especially in matters of accident prevention;
  advising on the issues involved in compiling comparable accident statistics;
  facilitating the exchange of information and experience among persons responsible for health and safety matters;
  proposing appropriate measures for ensuring the necessary liaison among the rescue services of the Community countries.

  The UK members of the restricted committee are the Health and Safety Executive's Chief Inspector of Mines and the Head of Division with responsibility for safety policy for mining and other extractive industries.

  The committee meets twice a year. The secretariat is provided by the European Commission, which provides interpreting services etc. The European Commission also pays the travel expenses of the representatives. The costs to UK public funds are therefore the accommodation costs for the staff attending meetings (less than £1000 per year) and their salary costs.

  SCHMOEI publishes an annual report. As a tripartite body its meetings are open to representatives of employers and employees.

  The European Commission has published proposals to merge SCHMOEI with the main Advisory Committee on Safety and Health.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bangladesh
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much in (a) overseas aid and (b) debt relief assistance has been spent per year on Bangladesh by the Government since 1997. [55475]

  Clare Short
  The Bilateral Development Assistance and Debt Relief for Bangladesh since 1997 was:

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Bilateral development assistance

  39,078

  67,361

  71,794

  76,920

  Of which was debt relief

  559

  443

  292

  0

  In addition the UK contributes development assistance via multilateral organisations. The estimated contribution for Bangladesh is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1997

  14.6

  1998

  41.8

  1999

  6.0

  2000

  37.7

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the Commonwealth debt 528
  initiative aided (a) Bangladesh and (b) other moderately-indebted countries; and what future plans the Government have to extend debt relief to Bangladesh. [55476]

  Clare Short
  The Commonwealth debt initiative does not apply to Bangladesh. The initiative was launched in 1997 to cancel aid debts of poorer Commonwealth countries who are committed to international development targets. Bangladesh had already had its UK aid debts written off under retrospective terms adjustment prior to that date.

  Aid debt worth about £50 million has been written off under the Commonwealth debt initiative for middle-income countries largely in the Caribbean.

  There are no plans to extend debt relief to Bangladesh since Bangladesh's current external debt burden is sustainable. But Bangladesh received £773.88 million in aid, of which £68.28 million came from the UK in 2000 (the latest year for which figures are available).

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many days of sick leave were taken in her Department last year; how many related to employees suffering(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to her Department. [56479]

  Clare Short
  8,399 days were taken in the year 2000, the last year for which published figures are available.

  Information on sick leave is not held by these precise categories but can be provided in terms of staff suffering from stress related illnesses generally. The number of days lost in 2000 in this category was 1,277.

  Information on costs is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Primary Education
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her budget is allocated for the provision of primary education in developing countries; and if she will make a statement. [56440]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1067W.

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to her Department. [56458]

  Clare Short
  The holders of public appointments which are the responsibility of my Department have been advised of the requirements contained in the Cabinet Office Model Code of Practice for Board Members of Advisory Non-departmental Public Bodies which require declaration of any such interests and withdrawal from any discussion of matters in which they have an interest.

  Humanitarian Assistance (Middle East)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what meetings have taken place since 1 April between members of the British diplomatic staff in Israel and Israeli officials, with regard to securing the safe delivery of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian territories occupied by the Israeli Defence Force; what the outcome of these meetings was; and if she will make a statement; [55157]

  (2) what meetings have taken place since 1 April between her Department and (a) Israeli officials and (b) members of the Israeli diplomatic staff in the UK with regard to securing the safe delivery of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian territories occupied by the Israeli Defence Force; what the outcome of these meetings was; and if she will make a statement. [55153]

  Clare Short
  In parallel with representations by Ministers and those made to Israeli officials by British diplomats in the UK, the British ambassador has on the instructions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about the safe delivery of humanitarian medical aid to those in need. The Israeli response has not been satisfactory. It is still not certain that the humanitarian agencies have unrestricted access to the affected areas. Israeli forces have obligations under international humanitarian law to allow these agencies to do their work in the Occupied Territories.

  Timber
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures were taken to ensure the use of sustainable timber in procuring timber for the refurbishment of 1 Palace street; and if she will make a statement. [56038]

  Clare Short
  The contractual documentation required all such procurement to be carried out in accordance with standards set by the Building Research Environmental Evaluation Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) in relation to materials and the environmental implications of materials selection.

  The background to this is that a small section of our new headquarters is grade 2 listed, and was built in 1861. It contains sections of mahogany doors and panelling. Under planning regulations we were required, when refurbishing the building, to match the appearance of the existing finishes. In order to do so the contractor obtained a quantity of Sapele wood veneer from F. R. Shadbolt and Sons, for use in this area of the building. Shadbolts are founder members of the WWF 19952020; group, a timber and timber buyers group set up by WWF for the purpose of improving forest management. The Sapele veneer supplied by Shadbolts came from existing stocks, bought in 1983, and which, with the consent of WWF, they are allowed to continue to supply.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the non-governmental 530W
  organisations consulted in drawing up the Second UK Periodic report under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [53773]

  Mr. Denham
  Although non-governmental organisations were involved in drawing up the Second UK Periodic report, it has not been possible to locate records of the full list of those consulted following the transfer of responsibility for this between Departments.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the teachers' pension index is linked; and if she will make a statement. [55730]

  Mr. Timms
  Teachers' Pensions, in common with all other public service pensions, are increased in line with the Retail Prices Index. The increase for the current financial year, as specified in the 2002 Pensions (Increase) Review Order, is 1.7 per cent.

  Services for the Deaf
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers are able to teach deaf children; and how many are able to teach using sign language. [55335]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not hold these statistics centrally. However we understand, from an exercise undertaken by the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf (BATOD) in January 2000, that, at that time, there were approximately 1,800 qualified teachers of the deaf in England and approximately 200 in training.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are in place to ensure that deaf students are able to continue their education to the level of their choice. [55336]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to go as far as their talents and efforts will take them. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 sets out the statutory provision for the assessment of young people with learning difficulties and disabilities and the Connexions Partnerships will deliver that requirement. From April 2002, where a Connexions Partnership is not operational, the local careers service is required to draw up action plans for all statemented young people who are in their final year of compulsory schooling and who intend to leave school for further education or training. From the academic year starting September 2002, Connexions Partnerships, where operational, will be expected to conduct assessments for all young people with learning difficulties and disabilities (whether or not they have statements) who are in their last year of compulsory schooling, who are over compulsory school age but under 25, or if they are receiving or are likely to receive post-16 education or training or higher education.

  Under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has a specific responsibility to help young people and adults with learning difficulties and/or disabilities (LDD). For those learners who wish to pursue a programme of further education, the LSC provides funding to enable colleges to provide the learning support necessary to ensure individual learners have access to their chosen programme of study, for

  531W
  example, to provide a signer to support a deaf/hearing impaired learner. Where learning needs are more complex or specialised, the LSC will work with Connexions and other agencies to secure appropriate boarding accommodation as part of a much broader learning package. Although most young people with learning difficulties should find their educational needs can be met locally, some will need to be placed in specialist colleges away from their home area. Connexions Partnerships can make flexible arrangements in the best interests of young people so that someone at a specialist college may be supported by a personal adviser from either their home or host area. We will ensure that Connexions and the LSC work together with learning providers, social services departments, health authorities and other support agencies, to ensure that young people with profound and complex learning difficulties have access to an appropriate mix of personal care and learning provision.

  The Government have also demonstrated their commitment by introducing Part IV of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Act 2001. From September 2002, it will be unlawful for bodies responsible for the provision of further education, higher education, adult and community learning and youth services to discriminate against disabled students or other disabled people by treating them less favourably than others. The Act covers everything from physical disability, hearing and visual impairment, to mental health problems and dyslexia. The Government have made £172 million available over 2002–04 to support the implementation of the Act; this will enable responsible bodies to raise awareness of and make any adjustments necessary to meet the needs of disabled people. Additional funding, guidance and support will be made available through organisations such as the Disability Rights Commission, the LSC and the Higher Education and Funding Council for England.

  Financial support is also available for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities to complete their studies via their school, Connexions/careers service, college or university.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what PFI school building schemes have been approved by her Department; and, in each case, what(a) the date of approval, (b) the names of the schools covered by the scheme, (c) the actual or planned opening date of each school, (d) the capital cost of each school and (e) the capital cost per pupil place in each school were. [55070]

  John Healey
  47 projects have now reached financial and/or commercial close, and a further 24 projects are in procurement, having been approved by the Treasury-chaired Project Review Group (PRG). Details of these projects can be found on the Department's website at www.teachernet.gov.uk/schoolsprivatefinanceinitiative. In addition there are a further 30 schemes which are currently preparing Outline Business Cases for consideration by PRG.

  It would incur disproportionate cost to provide the further information.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when a replacement scheme for individual learning accounts will be launched. [55056]

  John Healey
  There will be a replacement ILA-type scheme building on the strengths of the ILA and taking in to account findings from the recently published stakeholder consultation and Select Committee reports. We will announce our plans in due course.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the new individual learning account scheme will allow individuals to top-up the Government's financial contribution to their education and training. [55055]

  John Healey
  We are currently considering a wide range of recommendations from a number of different sources for a new ILA- style scheme. The issue of the individual's own contribution to the costs of learning is among those being considered in the work under way to develop a successor programme.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is her policy that small learning providers should continue to supply training under the new individual learning account scheme; and if she will make a statement. [55980]

  John Healey
  We are currently considering a wide range of recommendations for a new ILA-style scheme from a number of different sources, including the Education and Skills Select Committee report and the findings from our stakeholder consultation exercise. Among those consulted were small learning providers participating in the ILA scheme and the Federation of Small Businesses. We will announce our plans for a successor scheme, including delivery arrangements, in due course.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if it is her policy that Capita should be the provider of the support infrastructure for the new individual learning account scheme. [55979]

  John Healey
  We are now moving closer to settling the design for a successor programme which will incorporate the lessons which we have learned following the closure of ILAs last November. We continue to work closely with Capita to wind down the current scheme and to ensure we learn the lessons for its successor scheme. We will announce our plans for a successor scheme, including delivery arrangements, in due course.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many criminal offences have been(a) created and (b) abolished by her Department since 1997.[55436]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  A comprehensive list of new and abolished offences could only be provided at disproportionate cost. We can however provide the following information about the following education measures of the Department for Education and Employment enacted since January 1997 and before June
  533W
  2001. No criminal offences have been created or abolished by the Department for Education and Skills since June 2001.

  The Education Act 1997 created the offence of obstructing the Chief Inspector of Schools for England in the performance of his duties and a similar offence in relation to the Chief Inspector for Wales.

  The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 created two offences: obstructing a member of the Inspectorate or a registered nursery education inspector in the exercise of his duties and a similar offence in the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996 which was repealed when the 1998 Act offence came into force.

  The Learning and Skills Act 2000 created six offences, all concerned with the obstruction of persons carrying out school inspections in England or in Wales.

  The SEN and Disability Act 2001 inserted section 28J into the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, creating an offence of failing to comply with a requirement to disclose documents.

  Three offences not contained in education legislation but relating to teachers are section 3 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 (having sex with a person under 18 where in a position of trust) and section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (a person disqualified from working with children applying to work in a regulated position, including teaching, and knowingly to offer such a person such work).

  The total number of offences created and listed above is 14.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) of 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 448, on the Learning and Skills Council, what the cost is of bringing funding
  for the education of 16 to 19 years olds in further education colleges in line with that of school sixth forms. [55276]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: Given the different ways in which schools and colleges are funded and the very much broader remit of colleges, comparisons on the funding of the education of 16 to 19 year olds are far from straight forward. My Department is currently considering the best basis for making sound comparisons. The Government remains firmly committed to bring up the level of funding of colleges towards that of school sixth forms. However, as we have repeatedly made clear, this will take time and must be done as resources allow.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what publicly owned accommodation is made available to her in her official role; how many nights she has been in residence at each of these properties in the last 12 months; and what the total cost was of maintaining each of these properties in the last 12 months. [55099]
  534W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills does not have publicly owned accommodation available in her official role.

  Business Development Unit
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 906W, on the Business Development Unit, what proportion of the £7.3 million sponsorship was (a) in cash and (b) in kind; and if she will list examples of the latter. [55405]

  Mr. Timms
  The £7.3 million sponsorship referred to in my answer on 2 May is divided into £2.7 million cash, and £4.6 million in-kind support. Examples of in-kind support include the provision of free or subsidised computers; presentational equipment and other resources for teaching such as books and CD-ROMs; training for teachers; ICT support; and employer and employee time.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to introduce education maintenance allowances nationwide. [55703]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We will be taking decisions on any future extension of the scheme on the basis of the rigorous evaluation currently being conducted.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils in Luton have benefited from the educational maintenance allowance pilot scheme since its introduction.[55755]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The education maintenance allowance became available in Luton in September 2000. During the academic year 2000–01, 886 students benefited from EMAs. In the current academic year 1,588 students have received weekly payments so far. Some of these students receiving EMA in this academic year will now be benefiting from a second year of support.

  Sector Skills Council (Tourism Industry)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on the creation of a sector skills council to service the tourism industry. [56029]

  John Healey
  Five Trailblazer Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) were announced in December 2001. The expression of interest from the tourism and hospitality industry was not selected in this instance. However, non-selection as a trailblazer does not preclude a sector from submitting an expression of interest to form a SSC.

  A business adviser has been working with the tourism and hospitality sector. A readiness assessment has been carried out to determine what further work needs to be done before proposals from the sector can be considered by the Sector Skills Development Agency. The sector will be advised of the outcome shortly.

  Key Stage 1
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many classes at Key Stage 1 have more than
  535
  30 children in them; how many Key Stage 1 children are in classes of over 30; and when all Key Stage 1 children will be taught in classes of under 30 children. [55020]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 placed a duty on local education authorities and schools to ensure that infant classes for five, six and seven-year-olds taught by one teacher were limited to no more than 30 pupils by September 2001 at the latest. The legislation does allow the limit of 30 to be exceeded in certain circumstances. Such circumstances include, for example, the admission of an infant outside of the normal admission round, and for whom there is no other suitable school nearby, or on the direction of an admission appeal panel.

  The January 2002 annual schools census found that out of a total of 61,527 infant classes, 329 (0.5 per cent.) classes containing 10,398 children, were reported as containing 31 or more pupils on the day of the count. Of these classes 249 contained 31 or more pupils because of reasons permitted by the legislation. Over 99 per cent. of all infants are now in classes of 30 or fewer.

  Cleeve School, Cheltenham
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the reasons underlying her decision on the bid made by Gloucestershire county council for a PFI for Cleeve School, Bishop's Cleeve, Cheltenham. [54649]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: The application from Gloucestershire local education authority (LEA) for PFI credits in 2003–04 was not supported as it did not meet the criteria, as set out in the guidance issued to LEAs on 31 July 2001, to the same extent as those applications from other authorities which were supported. An official from the Department met with members and officers from Gloucestershire LEA on 26 April to provide detailed feedback and to explore how the application might be strengthened for future years.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many net additional staff her Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52425]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is set out in the table as follows.

  Executive Officer level

  Administrative Officer level

  Month/Type of staff

  Headcount

  FTE

  Headcount

  FTE

  June 2001

  Permanent

  –1

  –1

  –2

  –1

  Temporary

  +1

  +1

  +7

  +6

  Total

  —

  —

  +5

  +5

  July 2001

  Permanent

  +4

  +4

  +3

  +3

  Temporary

  +3

  +3

  +37

  +36

  Total

  +7

  +7

  +40

  +39

  August 2001

  Permanent

  –13

  –13

  –16

  –15

  Temporary

  +2

  +2

  –11

  –11

  Total

  –11

  –11

  –27

  –26

  536W

  Executive Officer level

  Administrative Officer level

  Month/Type of staff

  Headcount

  FTE

  Headcount

  FTE

  September 2001

  Permanent

  +4

  +4

  +5

  +5

  Temporary

  –6

  –6

  –19

  –19

  Total

  –2

  –2

  –14

  –14

  October 2001

  Permanent

  +5

  +5

  –1

  –1

  Temporary

  –1

  –1

  –7

  –6

  Total

  +4

  +4

  +6

  +5

  November 2001

  Permanent

  +25

  24

  +7

  +6

  Temporary

  –3

  –3

  –12

  –11

  Total

  +22

  +21

  –5

  –5

  December 2001

  Permanent

  +4

  +5

  +7

  +7

  Temporary

  +1

  +1

  –2

  –1

  Total

  +5

  +6

  +5

  +6

  January 2002

  Permanent

  +13

  +13

  +18

  +18

  Temporary

  +2

  +2

  +4

  +4

  Total

  +15

  +15

  +22

  +22

  February 2002

  Permanent

  +5

  +5

  +3

  +3

  Temporary

  +4

  +4

  –10

  –9

  Total

  +9

  +9

  –7

  –6

  March 2002

  Permanent

  –2

  –2

  –2

  –2

  Temporary

  +6

  +6

  –9

  –9

  Total

  +4

  +4

  –11

  –11

  + = An increase in staffing numbers

  - = A decrease in staffing numbers

  Note:

  Full-time equivalent (FTE) numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [53362]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on 25 April 2002, Official Report, column 446W.

  Teachers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) agency teachers and (b) teachers on contracts of one term or less were employed in schools in England, broken down by local education authority, in each of the last five years. [53663]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  School Transport
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school buses are in use in England. [54861]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she has introduced to increase transport for children on the daily school run. [54862]

  John Healey
  Local education authorities provide home to school transport which fulfils statutory requirements set out in the Education Act 1996. They also have discretion to make additional transport provision to meet local needs. There have been no recent changes to these arrangements.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to improve the safety of children on their journeys to and from school. [54796]

  John Healey
  Home to school transport is the responsibility of local education authorities. They must monitor the condition of vehicles used for transporting pupils from home to school and report any safety defects to the Vehicle Inspectorate, which sponsors the annual Operation Coachman inspection of buses and taxis used for the school run.

  This Department, in partnership with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, is taking steps to improve the safety of children whenever they use the roads, on the school journey and at other times, through a combination of engineering, enforcement and education measures. An example is a scheme recently announced by my transport colleagues that is giving children from vulnerable backgrounds practical roadside training.

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the functions of her 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. [42985]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  It will not be possible to answer this question without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Post-16 Funding
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what recent representations she has received on the transparency of the arrangements for post-16 funding by the Learning and Skills Council; and if she will make a statement; [55086]

  (2) what representations she has received from (a) schools, (b) local education authorities and (c) trade unions on the transition of post-16 funding from local education authorities to the Learning and Skills Council; and if she will make a statement.[55087]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My right hon. Friend has received wide-ranging representations from a number of schools, local education authorities and trade unions.
  538
  The principles of the Learning and Skills Council's (LSC) common funding approach are based on extensive consultations since 1999.

  The funding system is designed to be transparent, objective, and flexible enough to cope with different modes of learning. Key elements are: national base rates weighted to reflect the higher costs of some forms of training; rewarding achievement; additional funding recognising disadvantage factors; and an uplift to reflect the higher cost of delivery in London and related areas. The foremost principle is that funding follows the learner.

  The Real Terms Guarantee given to sixth forms means that their funding will be maintained relative to 2000–01 funding levels, provided pupil numbers are maintained. The Learning and Skills Council has calculated two figures for each sixth form2014;its adjusted RTG and its LSC formula allocation2014;and the school will receive the higher of the two. The Financing of Maintained School Regulations 2002 have been amended to ensure that sixth forms funded through the LSC formula see some benefit. For 2002–03 schools should gain a minimum of one third of the difference between the RTG and the formula allocation, where that allocation is higher. We intend to amend the regulations further for 2003–04 to ensure that such schools have a minimum two-thirds gain in that year.

  Mathematics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list reports published by the Government between 1972 and 2002 that concern mathematics, including(a) the study and teaching of mathematics of school pupils from starting age to Advanced Level, (b) the shortage of mathematics teachers, (c) the declining levels of students undertaking mathematics courses in further and higher education and (d) the failure to engage the interest of pupils studying mathematics. [49852]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A list is available of mathematics publications issued or sponsored by the Department for Education and Skills, its predecessors and non-departmental public bodies, during the period 1972–2002. However, the list is not comprehensive or official. I am placing a copy in the Libraries, together with figures for Higher Education students studying mathematics for the period 1994–95 to 2001–02.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has made to further education colleges regarding time taken off each month by students waiting for their asylum applications to be processed to report at Gatwick. [54158]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  None. Asylum processing arrangements are a matter for the Home Office. It is important that students attend Immigration Service reporting centres as required. I would expect further education colleges to plan learning for asylum seeker students as they would any other students and take account of an individual's personal circumstances wherever practicable.
  539W
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which chief education officers and other interested organisations were consulted on removing some asylum-seeking children from sections 13 and 14 of the Education Act 1996; and if she will place their responses in the Library. [54736]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: A consultation exercise was conducted with a very small number of chief education officers to gather views on the removal of some children of asylum seekers from sections 13 and 14 of the Education Act 1996. They were asked to treat this consultation as confidential. In view of the fact that those whose views were sought were approached on a confidential basis we do not consider it appropriate to list those who were consulted.

  Sure Start
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she plans to authorise a further round of local Sure Start programmes. [56841]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and I have today invited the following districts in England to set up 85 new sure start programmes:

  Ashfield

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Barnsley

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Birmingham1

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blyth Valley

  Bradford

  Breckland

  Broxtowe

  Burnley

  Camden

  Canterbury

  Charnwood

  Coventry

  Derwentside

  Doncaster

  Dudley

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Halton

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Haringey

  Hull

  Ipswich

  Islington

  Kirklees

  Knowsley

  Lambeth

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lewes

  Lewisham

  Lincoln

  Liverpool1

  Manchester1

  540

  Mansfield

  Middlesbrough

  Newcastle

  Newham

  North East Lincolnshire

  North Lincolnshire

  North Norfolk

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Oldham

  Pendle

  Penwith

  Peterborough

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Sedgefield

  Selby

  Sheffield

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  South Kesteven

  South Tyneside

  Southwark

  St. Helens

  Stockton on Tees

  Stoke on Trent

  Sunderland

  Sutton

  Tameside

  Teesdale

  Telford and Wrekin

  Tower Hamlets

  Vale Royal

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Warrington

  Warwick

  Westminster

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

  Wycombe.

  1 Denotes districts which have been invited to develop two
  programmes in the sixth wave.

  We have placed a copy of the guidance for this sixth wave of programmes in the Libraries.

  These new programmes are an addition to the 437 programmes which are already delivering services to young children and their families in disadvantaged areas or currently developing their plans. This announcement brings the total number of sure start programmes announced so far to 522. They will become operational from summer 2003 when we will be well on schedule to meeting the public service agreement target of 500 programmes operating by 2004, reaching one third of all

  541W
  poor children aged under four and their families in England. This will be a significant contribution to the Government's aim of eradicating child poverty by 2020.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Foreign Ministers of EU applicant countries to discuss enlargement issues. [54380]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I regularly meet our opposite numbers from the candidate countries. I visited Cyprus last month, and the Foreign Secretary plans to visit Bucharest, Budapest, Prague and Bratislava later this month.

  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in negotiations with EU applicant countries. [54390]

  Peter Hain
  The Laeken European Council confirmed the EU's determination to complete negotiations with those countries that are ready at the end of this year, so that they can participate in the next European Parliament elections in 2004. The negotiations are on course to meet this timetable.

  Currently 11 of the 12 countries in negotiations have opened 30 chapters. Cyprus has closed 27 chapters, Slovenia and Lithuania have both closed 26, the Czech Republic has closed 25, Hungary, Estonia, Slovakia and Latvia have closed 24, Poland has closed 23, Malta has closed 21, and Bulgaria has closed 17. Romania has opened 24 chapters and closed 11.

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking to help United Kingdom business prepare for EU enlargement.[54405]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna), at columns 635–36.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the recent ministerial visit to Cyprus; and if he will make a statement on progress on negotiations between the Greek and Turkish communities on the island. [54381]

  Peter Hain
  I visited Cyprus on 10 and 11 April and met, among others, President Clerides and Mr. Denktash. I remain hopeful that a settlement can be found that will enable a reunited island to join the EU.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the state is of the peace talks in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [56161]

  Peter Hain
  Face-to-face talks with UN involvement for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement are at an important stage. The UK and the international community hope to see a reunited Cyprus accede to the EU. We are 542
  working hard to help all involved to move negotiations forward and co-operating fully with the UN Secretary-General's special adviser, Alvaro de Soto.

  As the UN Security Council stated on 2 May, the time has now come to set down on paper areas of common ground between the two sides, with the aim of establishing the component parts of a comprehensive settlement which takes full consideration of relevant UN resolutions and treaties; and, where differences remain, to narrow and remove those through a process of negotiation focused on compromise formulations.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has welcomed UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's visit to Cyprus, from 14 to 16 May. He said:
  "it is a timely contribution to the process launched by the two leaders in Cyprus. The Cyprus problem has gone on too long. It is time we saw decisive steps towards a settlement."

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact the peace talks in Cyprus will have on Cyprus' accession to the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [56162]

  Peter Hain
  The UK and the international community want to see a reunited Cyprus accede to the European Union. We are working hard to help all involved to move negotiations forward and co-operating fully with the UN Secretary-General's special adviser, Alvaro de Soto.

  The UK supports agreement of the Helsinki European Council in 1999 that, taking into account all relevant factors, a political settlement on Cyprus would facilitate, but is not a precondition of, Cyprus' accession to the EU. Cyprus continues to make good progress in the accession negotiations and is expected to complete them at the Copenhagen European Council in December.

  Greece (British Plane Spotters)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has recently met the representatives of the British citizens recently convicted of security offences in Greece; and if he will make a statement. [54382]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have not met any representatives of the recently convicted British nationals in question. However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary intends to meet a group on 23 May at the Foreign Office. My noble Friend the Baroness Amos who has responsibility for consular matters met the group on 22 January.

  Colombia
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is giving to efforts to renew the peace process in Colombia. [54383]

  Mr. MacShane
  We continue to play an active role in efforts to renew the peace process in Colombia. We condemn the violence, kidnapping and involvement in the drugs trade by all illegal groups in Colombia. We remain in close touch on this with our EU partners, the US Administration and the United Nations, together with the Colombian Government.
  543W
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has held with British-based corporations who are involved in mineral exploration in Colombia covering the rights of local people; and if he will make a Statement.[55611]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: The FCO, in partnership with several leading international oil and mining companies, human rights NGOs and Corporate Social Responsibility organisations has developed a set of "Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights in the Extractive Industries". Launched in December 2000, they provide guidance on how companies can best fulfil their human rights objectives in security provision in conflict-prone regions. The participating companies, in dialogue with NGOs convened by Governments, have been working to implement the Principles of the ground. The Governments have organised in-country meetings in several countries, including Colombia, to promote local implementation of the Principles by oil and mining companies.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress being made to maintain democracy and peace in sub-Saharan Africa. [54384]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO is working to bring peace and security to Sierra Leone, helping to end to the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea and to resolve the conflicts in the Great Lakes Region, Sudan and Angola, as well as co-ordinating international pressure on the Mugabe regime to respect democracy.

  The United Kingdom also supports to the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), aimed at improving political and economic governance in Africa.

  Zimbabwe
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Zimbabwe. [54385]

  Mr. MacShane
  What has happened in Zimbabwe is a tragedy, imposed by Robert Mugabe. The only way back is through respect for the rule of law, and a return to democratic principles and sensible economic policies.

  Our policy towards Zimbabwe, in the aftermath of the election, is to work with Zimbabwe's friends in Africa and internationally to promote democracy, good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had discussions with the Zimbabwean authorities about the security of British passport holders living in Zimbabwe. [54393]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The security situation of British Passport holders in Zimbabwe is directly related to the general deterioration of law and order in that country and which affects all Zimbabweans. The Secretary of State has not discussed the matter with the Zimbabwean authorities. However our High Commission has made representations on behalf of British nationals and continues to provide all consular assistance it properly can to individual British Citizens when requested.
  544W
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards Zimbabwe. [54395]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our policy towards Zimbabwe, in the aftermath of the presidential election, is to work with Zimbabwe's friends in Africa and internationally to promote democracy, good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to visit Zimbabwe to discuss bilateral relations. [54403]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit Zimbabwe.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his initiatives aimed at countering international terrorism in the less-developed world.[54386]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are working with a diverse range of countries that are willing to tackle terrorism. Our approach combines political, security and development initiatives.

  Chemical Weapons
  20. Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the reasons for the dismissal of Mr. J. Bustani, Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. [54387]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A significant number of countries on the Organisation's Executive Council had lost confidence in Mr. Bustani. At a special conference called specifically to decide on the matter, a substantial majority voted to terminate his appointment.

  Caspian Sea
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political situation in the region of the Caspian sea. [54388]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Caspian basin countries face numerous challenges in pursuing political reform and in developing regional co-operation. The UK is working for security, stability and prosperity in the region.

  Guyana
  22. Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Guyana. [54389]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Guyana last month. He met President Jagdeo and the Leader of the Opposition, Desmond Hoyte. I am pleased to say our relations with Guyana are excellent.

  Future of Europe Convention
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's aims are for the conclusions of the convention on the future of Europe.[54391]

  Peter Hain
  Our objective is an EU which is better understood, more democratic and which delivers the benefits our citizens expect.

  29. Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made by the European Union convention on the future of Europe.[54398]

  Peter Hain
  The future of Europe convention is still in its early days, but has made steady progress since the inaugural meeting on 28 February. The current "listening" phase, due to last until end-Summer, will be followed by an "analytical" phase.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those(a) social partners, (b) professional associations, (c) consumer associations, (d) academic and student/youth associations, (e) Church representatives and (f) other foundations and associations of European interest, engaged in the Civic Forum for the Convention on the Future of Europe on behalf of the United Kingdom; what criteria were used for their selection; who selected them; and if he will make a statement. [55697]

  Peter Hain
  There is no selection procedure for taking part in the civic forum-any organisation can contribute. Full details of how to participate and those organisations already doing so are on the forum's website http://europa.eu.int/futurum/.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the submission of Mr. John Bruton to the Convention on the Future of Europe, with respect to improvements to parliamentary scrutiny. [55752]

  Peter Hain
  Mr. Bruton's paper is an interesting and wide-ranging contribution to the future of Europe debate.

  The Government believe that, with the new scrutiny arrangements introduced to Parliament on 17 November 1998, UK scrutiny arrangements compare favourably with arrangements in many other EU member states. The Government are committed to effective scrutiny and welcome suggestions for further improvement.

  New Delhi Declaration
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the Delhi Declaration. [54394]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The New Delhi Declaration, signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister on 6 January 2002, represents a new high-water mark in the strong and vibrant relationship between the UK and India. It identifies many areas of common interest and sets out a road map for future co-operation, both bilaterally and on the world stage. The Declaration is already having an impact.
  546W
  Elements of it were discussed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself in our meetings with our Indian counterparts in the last three months.

  Channel Tunnel Freight Services
  28. Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his French counterpart about the importance of keeping the channel tunnel open to freight services. [54396]

  Peter Hain
  We have been meeting intensively with the French at ministerial and senior official level in recent months with the aim of resolving these issues and are continuing these discussions with the new French Government. I spoke to the French Ambassador on 8 May to reinforce our concerns.

  Gujarat
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent disturbances in the Indian state of Gujarat. [54399]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain very concerned by the communal violence in Gujarat, and especially by recent reports that the scale of the violence was much worse than originally thought. We have been in close and regular contact on this issue with the Government of India, who have strongly condemned the violence in Gujarat, and have given assurances, which we welcome, that they will take action to bring to justice the perpetrators of the attacks.

  Ms Dad Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on assistance provided to UK citizens affected by the Gujarat riots.[54402]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remained in close contact with the Indian authorities, who were responsible for the safety of British nationals, during the riots.

  We immediately impressed upon the Indian authorities the need to protect British nationals, both in the cities and outlying areas. A number of requests made for assistance by British nationals were answered by the authorities, who offered escorts for those stranded.

  A 24 hour emergency number was made available at our deputy high commission in Mumbai offering advice and assistance.

  Our travel advice was also amended to report on the crisis as it developed.

  The deputy high commission maintained and added to their list of all British nationals who had registered with them. This was added to by names supplied from communities in the UK. Our staff in Mumbai did all they could to assist those in difficulty, and to seek information on those reported as missing.

  Euro
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Sweden regarding entry into the euro. [54400]
  547W
  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no recent discussions with Sweden regarding entry to the euro.

  Sudan
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sudan. [54404]

  Mr. MacShane
  We remain deeply concerned about the situation in Sudan but believe that 2002 offers a real window of opportunity for peace and that the UK has a major role to play in ensuring that this opportunity is seized. There has been some recent progress, for example in the Nuba mountains where a ceasefire appears to be holding.

  India
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's trade relationship with India. [54406]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK's trade relationship with India is a high priority for this Government. It is highlighted by a key element of the New Delhi Declaration, which was signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister during his visit to India in January.

  An important part of this relationship is the Indo British Partnership (IBP), which was created in 1993. Since it's inception, total bilateral trade in goods and services has grown by almost 70 per cent. and now stands at close to £5 billion per annum. Over 1,600 joint ventures have been signed.

  The UK is India's largest trading partner in Europe and its second largest trading partner in the world (after the US). In 2000 (the last year for which complete figures are available) the UK accounted for over 6 per cent. of India's total foreign trade.

  Trade Partners UK has a detailed business plan for further developing the trade relations with India.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the report commissioned by the UN Secretary General on the appeal proceedings at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (Lockerbie Court) in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed al-Megrahi v. HM Advocate by Professor Hans Koechler, on the basis of Security Council resolution 1192/1998. [54407]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UN Secretary-General did not commission the report from Professor Koechler. Professor Koechler's report was written on behalf of the International Progress Organisation. His assertion that the Lockerbie appeal verdict was "not a victory for justice" impugns the Scottish legal system which gave al-Megrahi a trial that met the highest standards of fairness. The Lockerbie trial demonstrated the crucial role of the criminal justice system in responding to terrorism.

  Jenin
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the United Kingdom is playing in seeking to investigate the deaths at Jenin. [54401]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was one of the first to call for an independent inquiry into what happened in Jenin. The UK played a leading role in the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1405, which asked the Secretary-General to deploy a Fact-Finding Mission into Jenin. We deplore the failure of the Israeli Government to co-operate with the UN to allow the deployment of the fact-finding team.

  The UK supported the paragraph in a UN General Assembly Resolution which requested that the Secretary-General present a report, drawing on the available resources and information, on the recent events that took place in Jenin and in other Palestinian cities.

  Civil Service (Recruitment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what percentage of his staff on the senior management system grade were educated at(a) public school, (b) Oxford university and (c) Cambridge university in each year since 1997; [50567]

  (2) what percentage of (a) ambassadors and (b) high commissioners were educated at (i) public school, (ii) Oxford university and (iii) Cambridge university in each year since 1997. [50570]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's manpower system does hold some data on education details, but they are currently incomplete. We are about to survey staff on education details and I will write to my hon. Friend with the information he has requested as soon as possible. We hope to complete this exercise in about three months.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reasons for the removal from office of Mr. Jose Bustani, formerly Director General of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons. [53023]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 8 May 2002, Official Report, column 240–41W.

  Dr. Khalil Suleiman
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning the death of Dr. Khalil Suleiman in Jenin on 4 March; what assessment he has made of the cause of death of Dr. Khalil Suleiman; and if he will make a statement. [55158]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We greatly regret the death of Dr. Suleiman who was the well-respected Director of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society's ambulance service.
  549
  We have repeatedly raised our concerns with the Israeli authorities about the need to allow ambulance workers to go about their business unimpeded and to allow humanitarian access to those in need. We have called on Israel to take all necessary precautions to spare civilians and civilian property.

  We do not have confirmation of the exact circumstances surrounding Dr. Suleiman's death and we look to the relevant authorities to investigate them.

  Advisory Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on the Arrangements for Implementing Europe Agreements with the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Free-trade Agreements with the Baltic states is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55388]

  Peter Hain
  The free trade agreements and Europe Agreements between the EU and 10 candidates for accession from central and eastern Europe (including the Baltics) are discussed at the Central European Working Group and monitored at the relevant Association Councils, Committees and specialist ad hoc subcommittee meetings.

  The Central European Working Group's mandate is to monitor the implementation of the Europe Agreements and free trade agreements. UK officials participate at the Central European Working Group and regularly attend the Association Councils and Committees to support UK policy interests. EU common positions in the group are reached by member states through consensus. Substantive issues, such as proposed regulations to reduce trade barriers, are submitted to both Houses for parliamentary scrutiny.

  Since May 2001, our records show that there have been 44 meetings of the group, 10 Association Councils and 10 Association Committees.

  Further detail on this matter could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Moluccas
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what actions Her Majesty's Government are taking to support the peace deal agreed in the Molucca Islands of Indonesia in February; [55704]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the situation in the Molucca Islands of Indonesia. [55705]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We welcome the agreement brokered by the Indonesian Government between the warring factions in Maluku to end the fighting. However, this is only the first small step to reconcile the warring communities and start the process of reconstruction and repatriation. The British Government have consistently made clear their view that long-term solutions to regional conflicts in Indonesia can he achieved only through negotiation and consultation, and that extremists who 550W
  break the law should be dealt with firmly to allow space for reconciliation efforts to take root. The arrest of Laskar Jihad leader, Ja'far Umar Thalib, for inciting the violence against the Christian village of Soya on 28 April was a positive step.

  The UK, with our EU partners, has urged the Indonesian Government to build on this early, fragile, peace and implement in full their security and law enforcement obligations under the terms of the peace agreements. The Department for International Development (DFID) has pledged more than £4 million to help establish the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Conflict Prevention and Recovery Unit in Jakarta.

  Middle East
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the incidents in which British citizens have been(a) killed and (b) wounded in (i) Israel and (ii) the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority since 1 September 2000; and if he will make a statement. [55996]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have been made aware of four fatalities and seven injuries since September 2000 involving British nationals. One death and two injuries were as a result of suicide bombs, and three fatalities and four injuries from shooting incidents in the west bank and Israeli/Lebanese border region. The majority of incidents involved dual UK/Israeli nationals resident in the area.

  Recently, three British peace protesters were also injured in the west bank following the Israeli invasion of the area.

  Our travel advice strongly advises against travel to the west bank and Gaza.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement as to whether the allegations of a massacre in Jenin were accurate. [56217]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Human Rights Watch in their report on the IDE military operations into Jenin have confirmed that at least 52 Palestinians were killed. The Israeli Government estimate is similar.

  The UN General Assembly has passed a resolution requesting that the Secretary-General present a report, drawing on the available resources and information, on the recent events that took place in Jenin and in other Palestinian cities. We shall support the Secretary-General in this and look forward to his report.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of evidence produced by the Israeli Government supporting their allegation of support by Chairman Arafat for terrorists. [56218]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have seen the dossier, but cannot verify its authenticity. The EU Commissioner for External Affairs, Chris Patten, has made it clear that he has seen no hard evidence corroborating claims about the misuse of EU funds. The Palestinian Authority has denied its allegations.

  Eurostat (Polling Questions)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to Eurostat for the inclusion of polling questions on repatriation of powers. [55696]

  Peter Hain
  The British Government have not made representations to Eurostat to include questions on this issue and has no plans to do so in the future.

  Turkey
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the requirement for Turkey to reform the National Security Council prior to accession to the European Union. [55698]

  Peter Hain
  Reform of the National Security Council is one of the medium-term priorities in the EU's Turkey Accession Partnership, which sets out key elements of Turkey's pre-accession strategy. The Government continue to support the Accession Partnership as a cornerstone of the EU's policy towards Turkey. The Turkish National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis, agreed in March 2001 as a response to the Accession Partnership, commits Turkey to reviewing the relevant articles of the constitution and other legislation in the medium-term to define more clearly the structure and functions of this council.

  Council of Ministers (Definitions)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his definition is of the Federation of Nation States as discussed at Council meetings; and if he will make a statement. [55693]

  Peter Hain
  The term "Federation of Nation States" has been used by several European leaders to describe the unique political entity that is the European Union. But it has no formal definitions, accepted by all, whether in Council meetings or elsewhere.

  COREPER
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many A points were agreed in each year since 1997 at COREPER; and what proportion of overall items of legislation passed this represents. [55699]

  Peter Hain
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The list of A points requiring clearance from London over the past five years amounts to over 8,000 items. These have not been stored in categories that fit easily into the strictures of the above question. The sifting of such a large amount of data would, therefore, amount to man-hours beyond the cost limit.

  Li Jing-Feng
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Chinese Government about the arrest and disappearance of Catholic Bishop Lucas Li Jing-Feng and his assistant; and if he will make a statement.[47643]
  552W
  Mr. MacShane
  The fate and whereabouts of Bishop Lucas Li Jing-Feng and his assistant will be raised at the next session of the UK-China human rights dialogue to be held on 15 May.

  We raise our concerns about the treatment of Christians in general, as well as some specific cases, with the Chinese both at our biannual human rights dialogue and at other ministerial and official level meetings with the Chinese.

  Occupied Territories
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the damage caused, and likely costs of repair, to the Palestinian(a) Ministry of Information, (b) Ministry of Culture, (c) Ministry of Industry, (d) Ministry of Higher Education, (e) PLC, (f) Ministry of Local Government, (g) Presidential Compound. (h) Al-Bireh Municipality, (i) Beitunia Municipality, (j) Ministry of Economy and Trade, (k) Ministry of Social Affairs, (/) Ministry of Health, (m) Ministry of Interior, (n) Ministry of Finance, (o) Ministry of Agriculture, (p) Ministry of Environmental Affairs, (q) Ministry of Education, (r) General Personnel Council, (s) Ministry of Transportation, (t) Ministry of Supply, (u) Ministry of Public Works, (v) Ministry of Civil Affairs, (w) Ramallah Municipality and (x) Vegetable Market building during Israel's military incursion into the west bank during April. [54612]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  A detailed damage assessment is being conducted by the international agencies. A joint World bank/UNSCO (UN Special Coordinator's Office) is due to be circulated by 13 May, and follow up action discussed at a Local Aid Coordination Committee meeting later next week. EU contribution to reconstruction efforts will be considered there (from the Commission and from member states).

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Garden Compost
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Environment Agency regarding the safety of garden compost; and if she will make a statement. [54906]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: As the hon. Member will know, the Government strongly support composting as a way of getting value from biodegradable waste by improving soil quality and replacing non-renewable products such as peat.

  Composting is covered on frequent occasions in discussions between my Department and the Environment Agency. However, the specific issue regarding the safety of garden compost rarely surfaces as householders who compost their garden waste are exempt from the requirement to have a licence or a permit under waste management or pollution control legislation enforced by the Environment Agency.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what clinical tests for foot and mouth disease were carried out by departmental vets in England to establish the existence of foot and mouth prior to 20 February 2001. [52313]

  Margaret Beckett
  Any person who suspects the presence of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in an animal or its carcase is legally obliged to notify MAFF/DEFRA without delay. In England and Wales in the period 1 January 1999 to 20 February 2001, there were four occasions on which a private veterinary surgeon sought a second opinion from a departmental veterinary officer in order to rule out foot and mouth disease or consider whether to treat the case as a suspect. Three were in 1999 and one in January 2001. In all four cases, clinical examination by a departmental VO ruled out the possibility of FMD without the need for laboratory tests. The last of these cases was on 1 January 2001 in Lostwithiel, Cornwall. It resulted from a post mortem inspection from a private veterinary surgeon of two sheep. The veterinary surgeon did not suspect FMD but requested confirmation from a veterinary officer from Truro Animal Health Office. A visit to inspect the carcases took place the same day. Both the veterinary surgeon and the veterinary officer were confident that FMD was not present. This list excludes the discovery of suspect FMD at Cheale's abattoir by an Official Veterinary Surgeon of the Meat Hygiene Service on 19 February 2001, which was confirmed as FMD the following day.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals have been slaughtered as a precautionary measure against foot and mouth in the last three months, broken down by(a) species, (b) location and (c) date.[41685]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the last case of foot and mouth disease on 30 September 2001 all animals that have been slaughtered have been either dangerous contacts as a result of sero-positive blood samples or slaughter on suspicion cases. All have been thoroughly investigated and in no case has evidence of foot and mouth virus been found.

  The following table provides a breakdown by location and date of the animals slaughtered since 1 January 2002. All of these have been sheep.

  Location

  Date

  Number of sheep

  Northumberland

  1 January 2002

  2,067

  Northumberland

  9 January 2002

  2

  Lancashire

  24 January 2002

  1

  Cumbria

  22 February 2002

  1

  North Yorkshire

  26 February 2002

  2

  North Yorkshire

  11 March 2002

  1

  BSE
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much compensation has been paid to farmers as a result of culling for BSE. [55017]
  554W
  Mr. Morley
  Compensation has been paid to farmers as a result of BSE since August 1988. A total of £277,988,250.45 was paid to 31 March 2002 inclusive. This comprised:Compensation for slaughter of animals suspected of having BSE the basis of clinical symptoms: £147,872,499.00
  Compensation for 'offspring cull' (slaughter of healthy animals with a theoretical risk of exposure to BSE through maternal transmission): £8,987,115.00
  Compensation of 'selective cull' (slaughter of animals coming from the same 'cohort' as BSE cases born between July 1989 and June 1993, ie animals reared with BSE cases which are likely to have been exposed to the same risk of infection by the BSE agent in animal feed): £121,128,636.45

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the recent European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office report on the implementation by the French authorities of European rules on protective measures against BSE in France; what discussions she has had with(a) her French Government counterpart and (b) the European Commission about the report's findings; and if she will make a statement on the continuing French ban on imports of British beef. [51455]

  Mr. Morley
  It is the European Commission's responsibility to ensure that member states take adequate steps to follow up findings from the reports of Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) missions, to make certain that appropriate and timely corrective actions are taken and necessary improvements achieved. In the past, the Commission has prepared infringement proceedings as a result of the FVO's findings against member states which were considered to have taken inadequate steps to implement EU rules relating to BSE. It should be noted, however, that the initial response of the French authorities to the FVO's recent inspection suggests that serious attention is being paid to following-up the mission's findings, so as to rectify the deficiencies that the visit identified.

  The Secretary of State continues to make it clear to both French Ministers and Commissioner Byrne that France should respect the 13 December 2001 judgment of the ECJ, which judged that the French ban was illegal. France should lift its ban on imports of British beef as soon as possible.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of flood defences damaged in autumn 2000 have been(a) reinstated, (b) returned to their original level and (c) enhanced. [54233]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational responsibility for flood defences rests with the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards. I understand that the Environment Agency has reinstated and returned to their original level all of their flood defences that were damaged in autumn 2000. The agency has also investigated to a pre-feasibility stage all those defences that were identified as requiring enhancement and, where
  555W
  appropriate, they have been included in capital investment programmes. Information is not readily available on this basis for local authorities and internal drainage boards.

  This Department provided contributions of £16.35 million to the Environment Agency and £1.0 million to internal drainage boards in respect of emergency costs and repairs following the autumn 2000 floods.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on measures she has taken to improve protection against flooding and to assist those affected in recent floods. [55175]

  Mr. Morley
  I plan to reduce the risk of flooding by investing in effective flood warning arrangements and in flood and coastal defences in the highest risk areas. This Department provides grants for flood and coastal defence capital works, and associated studies, which meet essential technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. However as the bulk of expenditure is ultimately met by taxpayers, both DEFRA and the operating authorities have a responsibility to ensure that value for money is obtained when funding works. Further to increases in the last two Spending Reviews, additional funding of £51 million over the four years from 2001–01 was announced in November 2000 following the severe flooding. In all DEFRA flood and coastal defence funding is set to increase from £66 million in 2000–01 to £114 million in 2003–04. Funding for future years will be considered in the Spending Review process. Responsibility for deciding which projects to promote and their timing rests with the operating authorities. The operating authority for each area draws on its local knowledge to decide what needs to be done.

  Local authorities take the lead in providing emergency support to those affected by flooding and the costs so incurred may be eligible for refund under through Bellwin Schemes that are administered by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Government do not, however, provide direct financial support to those affected by flooding as it is generally an insurable risk. We are working with the insurance industry to help ensure the continued widespread availability of affordable flood cover.

  Farm Assurance Schemes
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farm assurance schemes are open to farmers in the United Kingdom; and if her Department's regional offices are equipped to advise farmers on these farm assurance schemes. [54812]

  Mr. Morley
  Assurance schemes are private initiatives. The Department does not maintain a comprehensive record of the schemes operating in the United Kingdom, nor does it have responsibility for advising farmers on their relative merits.

  Veterinary Service
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 18 April 2002,Official Report, column 1058W,
  556W
  for what reasons she does not intend to recruit additional veterinary surgeons in 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [54220]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no plans to recruit State Veterinary Service (SVS) veterinarians during 2002–03. The Government are determined to ensure that the SVS has the ability to operate with maximum efficiency and be able to respond rapidly to any emergency. For this reason, plans are being put in place to recruit additional staff should the need arise. We have recently finalised a recruitment exercise and the number of permanent veterinary officers is broadly similar to 1997.

  SVS veterinarians are supported by approximately 7,832 Local Veterinary Inspectors who act as agents of the SVS. Temporary Veterinary Inspectors (TVIs) are also appointed throughout Great Britain, there are approximately 280, over half of whom are currently working on foot and mouth clear up.

  Veterinary Products
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will provide the declaration of interests for the members of the Veterinary Products Committee. [55471]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: The declaration of interests for members of the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) is published in the Medicines Act 1968 Advisory Bodies Annual Report, a copy of which is available in the Library. A regularly updated version is also available on the VPC website (www.vpc.gov.uk).

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will provide the declaration of interests for the members of the Veterinary Residues Committee. [55472]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: The Veterinary Residues Committee (VRC) discussed declaration of interests at their meeting on 7 March 2002. The minutes of the meeting are available on the VRC website at vet-residues-committee.gov.uk. Officials at the Veterinary Medicines Directorate subsequently wrote to all members of the Committee asking them to update their declarations. These are being placed on the VRC's website.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what data she has collated relating to the statutory programme on multiple veterinary medicines residues for(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000; and if she will make it available. [55470]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) published annual reports on surveillance for veterinary residues for the years 1996 to 2000. Copies are in the Library. Statutory surveillance is undertaken to comply with Council Directive 96/23/EC. Analysing samples for more than one substance is not required by the directive, but in practice the nature of the analytical techniques used may reveal the presence of more than one substance. Each of these would then be individually identified. Multiple

  557W
  residues are very rarely found. They would be referred to in the results reported by the VMD but they are not collated.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent research her Department has undertaken to investigate whether organic and conventional farms differ in total factor productivity growth and its composition; and if she will place copies in the Library; [54591]

  (2) what (a) measures and (b) methodology she uses to assess the relative (i) efficiency and (ii) productivity of (A) organic and (B) conventional dairy and livestock farms; and if she will make a statement; [54593]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the (a) efficiency and (b) productivity of (i) organic and (ii) conventional dairy and livestock farms; and if she will make a statement; [54592]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the relationship between a farmer's yield and their decision to switch to organic production; and if she will make a statement. [54594]

  Mr. Morley
  One of the key objectives of the DEFRA organic R & D programme is to obtain and evaluate data on the agronomic performance as well as profitability and costs of the main types of organic farm system during and after conversion. Studies are in place on stockless arable, pigs and poultry, upland sheep and beef, specialist dairy and field vegetables enterprises in which data from conventional systems is taken into account. In addition, the programme has funded the development of organic conversion planning software; a prototype is shortly to be tested with organic advisers. A summary of the Department's organic farming research programme can be found on the DEFRA website:http://www.defra.gov.uk/research/publications/OFR_Research_Project_Summaries.zip

  The Department has also funded a study of farmers' attitudes to organic conversion. The report on this study, which was carried out by the Welsh Institute of Rural Studies, can be found on the website of the University of Aberystwyth: http://www.organ.aber.ac.uk/library/Attitude%20survey.pdf

  Farmers (Retirement Schemes)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce a retirement scheme for tenant farmers; and if she will make a statement; [55914]

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made on the introduction of an early retirement scheme for farmers. [56010]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: We have no plans at present to introduce such a scheme. We consulted on the early retirement provisions of the EU Rural Development Regulation when drawing up plans for implementation of the regulation, but in the light of responses to that consultation we decided that the limited funds available for implementation would be better directed towards other measures to assist the industry. This is because the type of early retirement scheme
  558W
  available under the regulation could not be targeted effectively towards those who should benefit, such as tenant farmers.

  The general question of policy on helping farmers to leave the industry will, however, be considered further in the light of the feedback we receive on the issues we have asked stakeholders to consider following publication of the Policy Commission report.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what pecuniary incentives offered to those companies volunteering to place an absolute cap on their emissions under the UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme(a) since its inception and (b) for its duration. [48978]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: At the inception of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, the Government offered £215 million to encourage organisations to take on voluntary binding emissions reductions targets for their greenhouse gas emissions. This incentive money was allocated to organisations through an auction in March. 34 organisations hid into the final round, taking on binding emission reduction targets totalling 4,028,176 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) by the end of the five years of the scheme. The auction cleared after nine rounds at a price of £53.37 per tonne of CO, equivalent emission reduction. After tax, and when related to the reduction from the baseline for each year, this equates to about £12.50 per tonne. Firms will receive their annual incentive payments only after they have achieved their annual emission reduction targets.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by departmental special advisers on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for entertainment purposes in each of the last five years. [46831]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent by Ministers in her Department since its creation on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for official entertainment purposes. [47214]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Village Halls
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations concerning the future funding of village halls she has received from Action with Communities in Rural England; and if she will make a statement. [55031]
  559W
  Alun Michael
  Action with Communities in Rural England has sent me its report, "The Status of Funding for Village Halls", which I have read with interest. My officials will meet representatives of Action with Communities in Rural England on 17 May. We shall consider what further action may be needed after that meeting.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money has been spent on the New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme since its introduction, broken down by the different measures. [51977]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, now marketed as the Warm Front Team, was launched on 1 June 2000. The following table identifies the amount of grant spent on insulation and heating measures from June 2000 to March 2002.

  £million

  Insulation

  Heating

  HEES installed measures

  58

  13

  HEES plus installed measures1

  29

  83

  1HEES Plus measures includes central heating systems for the over 60s in receipt of an income-related benefit

  Pesticides
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the voluntary package of measures to reduce the environmental damage of pesticide use implemented by the industry and other stakeholders in April 2001; if she will place copies of related documentation in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [53712]

  Mr. Meacher
  The first progress report from the Steering Group of the Pesticides Voluntary Initiative was received in February and assessed by the Government to inform the 2002 Budget (Budget Report 20022014;Chapter 7).

  I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

  Farming/Tourism
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the changes in revenues received by the(a) farming and (b) tourism industries as a result of foot and mouth disease and the events of 11 September 2001. [54840]

  PQ 5942—UK imports of milk and milk produce (1999–2002)

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002(Jan-Feb)

  Product type

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  Liquid milk and milk product

  Buttermilk

  22,537

  22,148

  26,120

  26,623

  28,859

  25,654

  2,498

  2,280

  Condensed milk

  14,046

  12,087

  14,937

  16,611

  14,002

  15,449

  1,834

  1,932

  Skimmed milk

  54,051

  13,890

  21,813

  5,572

  12,604

  5,085

  1,984

  640

  Whole milk

  84,378

  19,999

  104,199

  23,141

  80,007

  19,479

  4,442

  1,434

  Total

  175,012

  68,124

  167,068

  71,946

  135,471

  65,667

  10,759

  6,287

  560W
  Mr. Morley
  It is difficult to separate out the effects of either of these events and estimates will depend on a range of assumptions. The best estimates that we have made, in conjunction with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is that foot and mouth imposed economic costs of some £3.1 billion on UK agriculture and the food industry (of which some £2.6 billion was met by the Exchequer). In the case of businesses dependent on tourism the economic losses were estimated at between £2.7 billion and £3.2 billion as a result of estimated loss of revenue of £4.5 billion to £5.3 billion. The overall losses to the economy will have been much smaller than these estimates as expenditure on trips to the countryside (by UK visitors) which were foregone because of foot and Mouth appear to have largely been replaced by spending elsewhere in the economy, either in alternative tourist locations or on goods and services unrelated to tourism.

  There are no comprehensive estimates of the effects of the events of 11 September on tourism or farming. However the International Passenger Survey reports that overseas residents' total expenditure on visits to the UK was down by 19 per cent. for the three months September to November 2001 and 13 per cent. for December to February 2002 compared to the same periods in 2000.

  Refrigerators and Freezers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies her Department has made into the preparation by other EU states to meet the latest EU regulations on the disposal of old refrigerators and freezers, with special reference to the equipment obtained. [34837]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 February 2002]: The Department has made inquiries via the British embassies. Five member states appear to have sufficient treatment facilities to deal with all their fridges. It appears that four, like the UK, are complying with the regulations as they have plant operating which can partly meet their requirements and are exporting the remaining fridges. Five member states do not appear to have plants currently which can remove CFCs from insulation foam and are either storing or exporting them, or do not meet the regulation.

  Dairy Produce
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much milk produce was imported into the United Kingdom(a) in total, (b) as liquid, (c) as powder, (d) as cheese and (e) as yoghurt in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2001–02. [55194]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the UK imports of milk and milk produce between 1999 and 2002.
  561W

  PQ 5942—UK imports of milk and milk produce (1999–2002)

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002 (Jan-Feb)

  Product type

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  Powdered milk and milk product

  Skimmed milk powder

  17,839

  25,144

  13,824

  21,973

  22,665

  25,974

  2,454

  3,216

  Whole milk powder

  9,561

  13,076

  10,986

  15,662

  8,314

  13,400

  2,260

  2,710

  Total

  27,400

  38,220

  24,809

  37,634

  30,980

  39,374

  4,715

  5,926

  Cheese

  277,359

  630,131

  254,753

  601,037

  273,148

  652,872

  37,857

  86,152

  Yoghurt

  68,479

  55,975

  131,858

  67,901

  144,192

  72,590

  6,856

  5,950

  Other (mainly butter and ice cream)

  203,777

  363,324

  214,753

  367,441

  224,659

  389,771

  24,334

  39,968

  Grand total

  752,026

  1,155,774

  793,241

  1,145,960

  808,450

  1,220,273

  84,521

  144,283

  Travellers (Horses)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from travellers groups regarding(a) horse management and (b) the tethering of horses. [55878]

  Mr. Morley
  Friends, families and travellers advice and information unit have responded to the consultation on an Animal Welfare Bill. Their letter deals with equine tethering.

  Intensive Farming (Ducks)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on intensive farming of ducks, with particular reference to(a) the number of ducks intensively farmed, (b) the size of cages used, (c) the type of food that is available to them, (d) the availability of fresh water and (e) the use of antibiotics to counter disease. [54980]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA does not currently collect data on the rearing methods employed by individual duck producers or on the use of medicinal antibiotics in intensive systems. Antibiotics for ducks are licensed under the Medicines Act 1968 and are only available to counter disease on prescription from a veterinary surgeon.

  Ducks are not kept in cages in the UK. Ducks must be kept in accordance with the Code of Practice on the Welfare of Ducks. The detailed recommendations for feed and water are: the birds should have easy access to adequate fresh feed each day. and have fresh water at all times; consideration should he given to the provision of water troughs which are deep enough to allow the ducks to get their heads completely under water; whatever feeding and drinking system is used sufficient trough space for feeding and drinking should be provided to prevent undue competition for feed or water; stale or contaminated feed or water should not be allowed to accumulate and should be replaced immediately; and efforts should be made to minimise the risk of drinking water freezing. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 also requires that all animals must be fed a wholesome diet that is appropriate to their age and species.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library copies of each version of the internal guidance which have been drawn up by her Department since 562W
  1 January 1999 to assist staff in her Department to answer subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. [53361]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 446W.

  Farmgate and Supermarket Prices
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 21 March 2002,Official Report, columns 5062014;07W, what the value is of 100.0 in sterling for (a) agricultural producer prices and (b) retail prices. [48191]

  Mr. Morley
  The indices shown in the previous reply were three-month moving averages of the Agricultural Price Index and the Retail Price Index. The estimated prices for the period December 1999 to February 2000 which were used to compile the base value of 100.0 for both indices are given in the following table. Also given are the equivalent prices for the period October 2001 to December 2001 to aid comparison in sterling terms.

  Estimated average producer prices for Great Britain and retail prices for the United Kingdom based on the API and RPI series

  £per kilogram

  December 1999 to February 2000

  October 2001 to December 2001

  Producer prices of finished sheep and lambs—GB1

  1·96

  1·82

  Retail price of home killed lamb— UK2

  Loin chops (with bone)

  8·14

  8·49

  Shoulder (with hone)

  3·34

  3·31

  1 Basic source: Meat and Livestock Commission. Estimated deadweight prices of Standard Quality Quotation sheep.

  2 Basic source: UK RPI, Office for National Statistics. Cut or diced lamb is also included in the RPI information quoted in the previous reply but separate prices are not published due to the variability of the individual items priced.

  Oilseed Rape
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to increase production of oilseed rape; what is the 2001–02 value of oilseed rape production to UK farmers; what percentage of agriculturally productive land is under oilseed rape in the last year for which figures are available; and what discussions she has
  563W
  h
  ad with (a) the Food Standards Agency and (b) the Department of Health about the promotion of oilseed rape oil as a healthy dietary oil. [54493]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's approach to agriculture is set out in our aims and objectives and in the recently published document "Working for the Essentials of Life". This includes increasing agriculture's responsiveness to market demands and working with the Food Standards Agency and Department of Health to encourage healthy eating.

  We are currently taking this forward by seeking to reduce production subsidies through CAP reform and by consulting on improving dietary and nutritional advice. Oilseed rape is one of a number of crops that can meet farmers or consumers choices in these circumstances. Available figures indicate that the value of oilseed rape production to UK farmers is around £275 million (including arable area aid payments) and that it accounts for about 2.6 per cent. of all agriculturally productive land or approximately 8.5 per cent. of the area of land on which arable area payments are claimed).

  Bovine TB
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much she has spent on bovine TB research and control in each of the past five years; how much compensation has been paid to farmers following enforced slaughtering of cattle due to bovine TB infection in each of the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [53203]

  Mr. Morley
  The costs of bovine TB research and control over the last five years are set out in the table. The figures for 2001–02 are not yet available. The collation method has changed during the period and the financial year figures for 1997–98 can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Amount (£)

  1997

  16,100,000

  1998–991

  24,833,000

  1999–20001

  38,244,000

  2000–011

  35,904,000

  1Financial years

  The compensation paid for cattle slaughtered to control bovine TB in each of the last five years is set out in the table. (These figures are collated on a calendar year basis for international returns.) The compensation rate was changed on 26 August 1998 from 75 per cent. of the market value of the animals (up to a ceiling based on average market price) to the full market value of the animals.

  Year

  Amount (£)

  1997

  2,386,029

  1998

  3,605,242

  1999

  5,770,983

  2000

  7,307,797

  2001

  7,074,125

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the 564W
  Government have taken since 1997 to prevent the killing of highly endangered species for bushmeat. [53652]

  Mr. Meacher
  Most endangered species are protected by national law in all the countries they inhabit; they are also protected internationally under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). While this Government cannot intervene directly in the protection of wildlife abroad we can and do make every effort to help other countries develop and implement their own wildlife protection measures and those required under CITES.

  For instance, since 1997, concern about the increasingly unsustainable nature of the bushmeat trade and its effects on endangered species led to my Department raising the issue within CITES, which resulted in the establishment of a bushmeat working group to help central and west African range states develop and implement their own solutions. We have contributed £55,000 to the working group to help the range states participate and to support the recruitment of consultants to revise and harmonise their own wildlife policies and legislation. UK work also takes place through the Convention on Biological Diversity, particularly through the forestry work programme recently adopted by parties.

  We have also funded research. The results of one project, analysing existing knowledge and expertise on the bushmeat trade, highlighting gaps in data and understanding, and making recommendations on further action, have now been published and we hope that they will be of particular benefit to the CITES bushmeat working group. We have also provided £248,000, through the Darwin Initiative, to the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust and Wildlife Conservation Research Unit to provide a model of the bushmeat problem in general and develop an integrated solution to the over-exploitation of wildlife in lowland forest areas in Africa.

  Endangered species particularly at risk from the bushmeat trade include gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees), and unsustainable trade in bushmeat will be one of the issues addressed by the United Nations Environment Programme's new Great Ape Survival Programme (GrASP). My Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have contributed £175,000 to GrASP, some 10 per cent. of the total amount sought by UNEP. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office plans to make a further donation and our embassies and high commissions overseas have been providing logistical and political support to GrASP.

  The Department for International Development (DfID), while primarily concerned with helping to eradicate world poverty, also recognises the need to address concerns about the pressures on endangered species of the bushmeat trade. DfID's concern about bushmeat is focused on the impact of the hunting, selling and consumption of bushmeat on the food security and livelihoods of poor people. For instance, DfID has supported the implementation of forestry laws in Cameroon giving communities the rights to manage their forest and wildlife resources. DfID feels the best way to encourage a sustainable bushmeat trade in Cameroon is to include it as part of a package of reforms strengthening the governance of natural resource management generally.

  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Directive
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the results of consultation on the implementation of the nitrate vulnerable zones directive; [46782]

  (2) what level of designation of nitrate vulnerable zones is (a) required by European directive and (b) proposed to be implemented in the UK; [46783]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the ways in which other EU countries are implementing the nitrate vulnerable zones directive. [46781]

  Mr. Meacher
  The nitrates directive requires that measures to control nitrate pollution are either applied throughout England or in areas draining into polluted waters and waters at risk of pollution. Details of these options were published on 20 December 2000 in a consultation document "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive."

  We are currently considering the responses to the consultation before deciding whether to implement either option 1 (the whole of England approach) or option 2 (discrete NVZ approach). We will publish an analysis of the consultation responses when we announce our decision on how we intend to implement the directive.

  Six other member states have implemented the directive by applying control measures throughout their territory. A seventh, the Republic of Ireland, is also considering this option. A number of other member states are reviewing the extent of the areas that they have designated under the directive, with a view to designating additional areas.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government's draft strategy for combined heat and power will be published. [57135]

  Margaret Beckett
  I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will be launching the Government's draft "Strategy for Combined Heat and Power to 2010" for public consultation tomorrow, Wednesday 15 May. The consultation document will be available on the DEFRA website at www.defra.gov.uk and copies will be made available in the Libraries of the House.

  The closing date for comments on the strategy will be Wednesday 7 August 2002.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Equality
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what initial conclusions the Government have reached on the long-term arrangements for offering advice, guidance and support on equality matters. [57084]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am today formally announcing the start of a project considering the long-term options for the UK's equality machinery. I intend that this project will report its initial findings in the autumn.
  566W
  Our first step will be to look at the feasibility of a single equality body.

  The project will consider the work of the existing commissions (the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and the Disability Rights Commission (DRC)), existing discrimination legislation, and put that in the context of new legislation for equal treatment in employment and training on grounds of age, sexual orientation and religion.

  We are keen to work closely with the other experts in the equalities filed on this project. The Government want to be sure that the long-term structures for equality in the UK are carefully thought out and designed to meet the needs of all, individuals and businesses alike.

  The existing commissions have over different time scales made an admirable and significant contribution to equality in this country. We need to ensure that the expertise and reputation of the commissions are preserved whatever the outcome of the review2014;and we shall be involving and consulting them at every stage to ensure this happens.

  If the outcome of the project and consultation does lead to recommendations for significant change, I would not expect any new structures to be operative in the lifetime of this Parliament.

  The terms of reference for the project have been placed in the Library.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that, in any referendum to establish a regional assembly in England, each unitary authority and county council area within that region will be required to approve the establishment of an assembly in addition to that referendum producing a positive result across the whole region. [56255]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. We do not believe that individual local authorities should be able to veto the establishment of an elected regional assembly where people in a region have voted for one at a referendum.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [52745]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office has not incurred any expenditure on training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent by his Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52705]

  Mr. Leslie
  To the best of my knowledge the Cabinet Office has not incurred any expenditure on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years.

  Government and Crown Interests
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2002,Official Report, column 1251W, on refurbishment and the answer to the hon. Member for Gordon of 24 April 2002, Official Report, column 272W, if he will make a further statement in respect of progress on the chain of supply, procurement policy and the contract relating to the Cabinet Office and other continuing refurbishment and construction projects on the Government estate. [55913]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I have received an initial report into the issues of timber procurement for the 22 Whitehall project. I have asked for further investigation to be done on some aspects of these issues and I will report to the House when the report is finalised.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Public Access and Information
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on progress in improving public access to the House and information about its work. [56901]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Providing information and access to the public is one of the four core tasks in the House of Commons Commission's strategic plan. Some improvements have already been made, some are under way, and others are at the planning stage.

  The Office of the Clerk operates as a central point of contact for media inquiries, and, where necessary, all Departments now use the services available from the specialist communications and media advisers.

  Education and schools

  The Parliamentary Education Unit, which operates on behalf of both Houses, continues to develop its services for schools and teachers including a new programme of visits, Citizenship in the 21st Century, aimed at pupils aged 8–14, begun last year.

  A new 60 minute video, "Parliament Uncovered", explains the work of Parliament to students aged 14–18. Until December 2002 the video is being made available to UK schools at cost price. "Parliament Uncovered" won silver in the education category of the March 2002 International Visual Communication Association Awards. Work on a new video aimed at students aged 8–13 began in April 2002.

  In May 2002 the Unit's series of six education sheets was re-issued as "Parliament Explained" booklets with an improved format and rewritten contents.

  The Unit's website, explore Parliament www.explore.parliament.uk, has been further developed with new material and features added.

  Visitor access

  Following two years of successful pilot schemes, both Houses decided earlier this year that the Summer Opening should become a permanent feature. This year, the Summer Opening of Parliament will run six days a week from 3 August to 26 September. The Commission attaches
  568W
  great importance to high quality public tours the year round, emphasising the role of Parliament as a working legislature. We are working towards a single official tours operation supporting both the Summer Opening and tours at other times.

  The new Jubilee Visitor Cafeteria off Westminster Hall was officially opened by Mr. Speaker this morning, Tuesday 14 May. It seats 100, serves modestly priced light refreshments, and is fully wheelchair accessible.

  A feasibility study for an information and visitor centre for Parliament has started and is due to be completed in July. This will review current ways in which visitors are received and will look at the options for both location and functions of a centre, together with likely usage levels. Architectural and security considerations will be taken into account.

  Select committees

  From the start of this year, select committee reports have had a redesigned cover, larger print and standard numbering of pages. A redesign project is under way, intended to produce reports which are more attractive and accessible to a general reader.

  The Modernisation Committee recommended that notes for visitors should be available to describe how a committee works, and who the witnesses are. This arrangement has now been initiated by over a dozen committees. The House authorities are also shortly to install electronic screens at St. Stephen's entrance: these will list the day's public meetings, and I hope that this will encourage more people to attend Select committee evidence sessions.

  Parliament online

  A one year pilot webcasting scheme began in January 2002, with www.parliamentlive.tv providing fully comprehensive live coverage of both Chambers and debates in Westminster Hall and a range of Select and Standing Committees. The pilot will be evaluated towards the end of the year.

  A redesign of the website www.parliament.uk is in progress, with the aim of improving navigation, and making it more attractive and usable for the casual inquirer as well as the specialist. The new design will go live later this year, and further improvements will be made in the future.

  Public information materials

  A new design for public information materials has been developed, to provide a more modern 'look and feel' without any increase in annual production budgets. This will be available in autumn 2002, following the upgrade of computer software. An editorial group has been established to ensure that the House's range of public information materials is up-to-date, comprehensive, and meets the needs of a range of external audiences.

  Research

  Finally, customer research completed in March 2002 has illustrated the need to continue improving the services provided to the public. Areas singled out for particular emphasis include: further improvements to the website; consolidation of the currently fragmented approach to visitors and tours; arid exploring the scope for partnership with other organisations working in related fields.

TREASURY

  Abu Hamza
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to his answer of 8 May 2002, ref 54509, what steps he is taking to freeze the assets of Abu Hamza; and if he will make a statement. [55830]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: The Government instructed the Bank of England on 19 April to issue a Notice to all UK banks and financial institutions requiring them to freeze any accounts found belonging to Abu Hamza, together with those of nine other individuals and organisations. Banks have taken appropriate action.

  In each case the Government had reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in committing or facilitating acts of terrorism with links to al-Qaeda and Taliban. The names were subsequently announced at the meeting of G7 Finance Ministers and listed under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1390 which imposes sanctions against the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and their associates. The Government remain fully committed to disrupting and closing down the sources of terrorist finances wherever they are found.

  Pension Schemes
  James Purnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings public sector pension schemes are predicted to make from the projected growth in single pension households on a like for like basis; and what the estimated costs are of introducing unmarried partner pensions across the public services. [55474]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government set out their policy regarding the provision of unmarried partner pensions in their Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions" (Cmnd 4179, December 1998): if the membership of a public service scheme wanted to extend eligibility for survivors' pensions to unmarried partners and were prepared to meet the additional costs, the Government would be prepared to consider how practicable arrangements could be devised for providing this within a statutory scheme.

  An important factor underlying this policy is cost. Estimates by the Government Actuary's department show that the additional cash cost for introducing unmarried partner pensions across the public services could range from £350 to 00A;1,000 million a year for the future service of current members, depending on the definition of dependent partner adopted and any restrictions imposed on the availability of benefit. There would be significant additional capitalised costs associated with any wider extension of unmarried partner benefits, for example, to cover past service.

  Estimates of any potential savings public service schemes might gain from the projected growth in single pension households could be derived separately only at disproportionate cost. The expected change in family structures, however, is just one of a number of factors which influence the long-term costs of the public service schemes. Many of these factors are expected to result in an increase in long-term costs, with increased life expectancy of pensioners being highly significant.
  570W

  Joint Ministerial Group on Poverty
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the membership is of the Joint Ministerial Group on Poverty; and when(a) the group has met and (b) its next meeting will be. [43491]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Joint Ministerial Committee on Poverty has met on 9 December 1999 and 26 May 2000, and will meet in July. At its last meeting the committee had the following membership:

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Chief Secretary to the Treasury

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Minister of State, Environment, Transport and the Regions (Minister for Local Government and the Regions)

  First Minister, Scottish Executive

  Minister for Communities, Scottish Executive

  First Minister, Northern Ireland Executive Committee

  Deputy First Minister, Northern Ireland Executive Committee

  First Secretary, National Assembly for Wales

  Finance Secretary, National Assembly for Wales.

  Others are invited to attend as necessary.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he uses in determining what information relating to the companies from which Ministers have received hospitality he provides in answer to written parliamentary questions. [46446]

  Ruth Kelly
  All parliamentary questions are considered on their merits by Treasury Ministers in accordance with the provisions of the Ministerial Code. Whether or not Ministers or officials have given or received hospitality from companies or individuals does not influence in any way the answers which are given to parliamentary questions.

  Employment
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the number of people employed in the(a) public sector and (b) private sector since January 2000. [55013]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Philip Hammond dated 14 May 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of people employed in the (a) public sector (b) the private sector since January 2000. I am replying in his absence. (55013)The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of people employed in each sector. The annual estimates for those in employment in the United Kingdom for each year from 2000–01 and 20001–02 are given in the table. These estimates are not seasonally adjusted.571W

  Number of people employed in public and private industry— average (spring to winter), 2000 and 2001, United Kingdom (not seasonally adjusted)

  Public

  Private

  March 2000 to February 2001 (Thousand)

  6,422

  21,596

  March 2001 to February 2002 (Thousand)

  6,479

  21,767

  Percentage change on year percentage

  0.9

  0.8

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many criminal offences have been(a) created and (b) abolished by his Department since 1997. [55429]

  Ruth Kelly
  Comprehensive information is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The principal item of legislation for which the Treasury has been responsible since 1997 is the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This created in the order of 35 criminal offences. However, in consequence of that Act much previous legislation was repealed, including the Insurance Companies Act 1982, the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Banking Act 1987, involving the abolition of at least 80 criminal offences.

  In addition the Bank of England Act 1998 created four criminal offences.

  Tax Revenue
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it would cost each year in lost tax revenue(a) to remove the cap on contributions to company pension schemes and (b) to increase the gap by the rise in the index of average earnings since it was introduced. [55457]

  Ruth Kelly
  Due to the uncertainty of the behavioural effects resulting from such a change on both past and future contributions, estimates are not available.

  VAT
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the cost to HM Treasury of reducing the liability for VAT to 5 per cent. for small museums; and if he will make a statement; [55585]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to reduce the liability for VAT to 5 per cent. for small museums; and if he will make a statement; [55587]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the impact of VAT on small museums. [55586]

  Mr. Boateng
  The impact of VAT on museums and other bodies depends upon their individual circumstances. No detailed assessment has been made either of the impact of VAT on small museums or of the cost of introducing a reduced VAT rate for them. The Government have no plans to introduce such a reduced rate.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what support has been given to LPG 572W
  conversion in terms of (a) the cost of conversion, (b) fuel tax and (c) vehicle excise duty (i) prior to and (ii) in the Budget; and if he will make a statement. [55851]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 2001–02 the Department of Transport, Local Government arid the Regions paid nearly £5 million in grants through the Powershift programme to help to meet the costs of converting vehicles to run on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Duty on LPG was cut in Budget 2001 from 15p to 9p per kilogramme and a commitment was made not to increase duty in real terms until 2004 at the earliest. Budget 2002 froze duty on LPG in cash terms. The graduated VED scheme for cars first registered after 1 March 2001 offers a reduction of up to £10 a year for cars using LPG.

  Pool Betting Duty
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the net effect to the Treasury of the abolition of the pool betting duty and replacement with the tax on pools companies' gross profits in each of the next four years. [56183]

  Mr. Boateng
  An estimate of the cost of reforming pools betting duty for each of the three years to 2004–05 was published in Table B4 of the pre-Budget report November 2001.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in(a) his Department's Vote 1 budget and (b) his Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [54707]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There were no losses to fraud or corruption from the Treasury's resources in the period mentioned.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people he estimates will pay national insurance contributions in each of the next four years. [55262]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Available estimates of the number of people estimated to be liable to pay national insurance contributions on an average weekly basis are given in the table.

  Estimated number of UK contributors, 2000–01 to 2003–04

  Million

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Class 1

  21.6

  21.4

  21.5

  21.8

  Class 2

  2.7

  2.7

  2.7

  2.8

  Class 3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  These estimates were provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what publicity he plans to give to the increase in the child component of the working families
  573W
  tax credit in June; and how many extra families will become entitled to the working families' tax credit as a result of the increase. [55792]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The basic tax credit within working families' tax credit (WFTC) will be increased by £2.50 for awards starting from 4 June 2002. This is in addition to the increase to WFTC made in April. Publicity of WFTC continues via posters and leaflets in post offices and doctors' surgeries across the country, and via Bounty Packs issued to new mothers.

SCOTLAND

  Public Expenditure
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, (1) pursuant to the Scotland Office Press Release SS0067, issued on 17 April, which elements of the additional spending allocated to Scotland(a) result from the application of the Barnett Formula and (b) are external to the formula; [52691]

  (2) pursuant to the Scotland Office Press Release SS0067, issued on 17 April, if she will place in the Library the calculations behind the announcement of an extra £8.2 billion of spending as a result of the Budget 2002. [52692]

  Mrs. Liddell
  All of the additional spending allocated to the Scottish Executive as a result of the health measures announced in the Budget were determined by application of the Barnett formula. The annual additions to the Scottish Executive Budget resulting from the Chancellor's Budget announcement on 17 April 2002 are reproduced as follows:

  £million

  Additional amount

  2003–04

  224

  2004–05

  858

  2005–06

  1,576

  2006–07

  2,341

  2007–08

  3,201

  Total

  8,200

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what subjects and on which dates her Department has recently consulted organisations representing young people; and if she will list such organisations. [52494]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The responsibilities of the Department require very few consultations. Our consultation on 18 December 2001 on the size of the Scottish Parliament included Youthlink Scotland and the Scottish Youth Parliament. My Department, along with others, carried out a wide-ranging consultation on the SEN and disability Rights in Education Bill on 17 March 2000. This involved consulting a wide variety of young people's representative bodies.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which the competent authority is to which 574W
  members of the public should refer questions relating to (a) the classification of statutory instruments and (b) whether statutory instruments should have been laid before Parliament, with reference to statutory instruments with solely Scottish applicability and which pre-date the establishment of the Scottish Parliament but relate to matters that have been devolved. [53076]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The relevant authorities are a) the Statutory Instruments Reference Committee, and b) the Scottish Courts.

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what buildings owned by her Department have solar panels installed. [53496]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department does not own any buildings with solar panels.

  Joint Ministerial Committees
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which joint ministerial committees have met since 1999; what subjects each has discussed; and on what dates each has met. [55601]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Joint Ministerial Committees that have met since 1999 are shown in the table. The subjects discussed at each Joint Ministerial Committee are confidential. Where appropriate, news releases have been issued after a Joint Ministerial Committee meeting and can be viewed on the Cabinet Office website www.cabinet—office.gov.uk.

  JMC type

  Date

  Plenary

  1 September 2000

  Plenary

  30 October 2001

  Europe

  1 March 2001

  Europe

  8 November 2001

  Europe

  7 March 2002

  Health

  7 April 2000

  Health

  5 June 2000

  Health

  16 June 2000

  Health

  26 October 2001

  Health

  22 October 2001

  Poverty

  9 December 1999

  Poverty

  26 May 2000

  Knowledge economy

  11 February 2000

  Knowledge economy

  26 May 2000

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what publicly owned accommodation is made available to her in her official role; how many nights she has been in residence at each of these properties in the last 12 months; and what the total cost was of maintaining each of these properties in the last 12 months. [55097]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: I do not have an official residence.
  575w

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many days of sick leave were taken in her Department last year; how many related to employees suffering(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to her Department. [56474]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In the year to 31 March 2002, 627 days of sick leave were taken in my Department. Details of the causes of absence are not available.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Advocate-General on what subjects and on which dates her Department has recently consulted organisations representing young people; and if she will list such organisations. [52507]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, at column 573W.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Communications Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the annual budget for communications activities, including press, public relations, marketing and internal communications, was for his Department for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [39922]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Private Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the running costs were of(a) his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) his Department in each year from May 1997 to the nearest date for which the information is available. [40989]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Running cost information for The Department for Work and Pensions, created in June 2001 from the merging of the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security, is not yet available.

  Departmental running costs, prior to the creation of the Department for Work and Pensions, is accessible in published Department of Social Security annual Appropriation Accounts and, where appropriate, Resource Accounts.

  With regard to information on the Department for Education and Employment, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my Right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills gave on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 114W.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent by his Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52719]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: No departmental costs have been incurred on voice coaching for Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions. Information on voice coaching for officials is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent by his Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52724]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: No departmental costs have been incurred on training Ministers in leadership skills in the Department for Work and Pensions. As might be expected in an organisation 130,000 strong, numerous civil servants have received leadership training as part of equipping them for the responsibilities of management. Information on leadership training for officials is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [52717]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: No departmental costs have been incurred on training, for ministers, provided by the royal Academy of Dramatic Arts in the Department for Work and Pensions. Information on training for officials by particular providers is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what loss of benefit is applied by the Benefits Agency on service users who voluntarily assist NHS trusts as a result of being in receipt of out-of-pocket expenses; what plans he has to instruct the Benefits Agency to disregard out-of-pocket expenses received by volunteers assisting NHS trusts from calculations for means-tested benefits; what assessment he has made of the Benefit Agency's rules for eligibility for means-tested benefits on the willingness of service users voluntarily to assist NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement. [53305]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The rules for volunteers already ensure that people do not lose benefit where they are undertaking genuine voluntary work.

  There are no specific instructions to Jobcentre Plus or The Pension Service staff about volunteers who help NHS trusts. However, the treatment of volunteers in the benefit system is clearly set out in benefit legislation and in guidance to staff.

  People of working age can do unlimited voluntary work without it affecting their benefit, as long as the usual entitlement conditions are met. Cases are decided on an

  577W
  individual basis according to the regulations, and people are required to report their participation in voluntary work.

  Payments made to people for expenses incurred while undertaking voluntary work are disregarded in full. However, any payment made on top of that may bring into question the person's status as a volunteer. If the Decision Maker finds that the person is not a volunteer, then they are subject to the normal rules regarding work and earnings.

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what subjects and on which dates his Department has consulted organisations representing young people; and if he will list such organisations. [52489]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department is committed to the new core principles for the involvement of children and young people published by the Minister for Children and Young People in November 2001.

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

  Overseas Pensioners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what discussions he has had with the Australian Department of Family and Community Services since the termination of the UK-Australia Pension Agreement on 1 March 2001 about the indexation of pensions in Australia; and if he will make a statement; [46894]

  (2) what discussions he (a) has had recently and (b) plans to have with the Governments of those countries with which the UK does not have a reciprocal agreement to uprate pensions annually in line with inflation; and if he will make a statement. [46896]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have had no recent substantive discussions with any Government on the issue of indexation of pensions.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications have been received for Access to Work money in(a) the Edinburgh, East and Borders district, (b) Scotland and (c) England and Wales. [53038]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The information available is in the table. Before 2001, Access to Work was delivered through a network of Disability Service Teams in Scotland and information on the number of Access to Work applications in Edinburgh, East and Borders district could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Access to Work applications

  Edinburgh, East and Borders

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  2000–01

  172

  892

  11,426

  1999–2000

  —

  703

  9,083

  1998–99

  —

  485

  5,841

  578W

  Access to Work applications

  Edinburgh, East and Borders

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  1997–98

  —

  362

  4,800

  1996–97

  —

  287

  3,352

  1995–96

  —

  792

  8,787

  Source:

  DWP Access to Work Management Information

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money Access to Work has granted to applicants in(a) East Edinburgh and Borders, (b) Scotland and (c) England and Wales. [53039]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The information available is in the table.

  Access to Work grants made

  Edinburgh East and Borders(£)

  Scotland(£million)

  England and Wales(£)

  2000–01

  1.2 million

  2.5

  29.9

  1999–2000

  620,847

  1.9

  22.5

  1998–99

  379,975

  1.4

  18.1

  1997–98

  320,123

  1.1

  13.5

  1996–97

  1—

  0.9

  11.6

  1995–96

  1—

  1.5

  18.4

  19942014;95

  1—

  1.1

  14.6

  1 Not available. Figures on actual spend for Edinburgh East and Borders can be provided only as far back as the 19972014;98 financial year.

  Source:

  DWP Access to Work Management Information

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how long the Access to Work scheme has been funded for; if he plans to end the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [53044]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: Access to Work has been funded since June 1994, when the programme began.

  There are no plans to end the Access to Work programme. On the contrary, Jobcentre Plus is investing in improvements to the delivery of Access to Work and is implementing changes to improve speed of delivery, consistency of decision-making and aftercare.

  Benefit Decision Reviews
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under what circumstances decisions taken on benefits by decision makers are reviewed; and by whom. [55580]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: Decisions taken on benefits can be changed by revision, supersession and appeal. Although there are very limited circumstances when a decision can be revised at any time, the main rule is that a decision would be revised where it is successfully disputed in the month after it has been notified (a period extendable for 12 months where special circumstances apply). The dispute can be made on any ground. A decision would he superseded where there has been a change in the customer's circumstances since the decision was made, or where the decision was successfully challenged outside the one month dispute period on a prescribed ground eg it was made in ignorance

  579W
  of or mistake as to a material fact. A decision can also be changed on appeal by an independent appeal tribunal and by the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what publicly owned accommodation is made available to him in his official role; how many nights he has been in residence at each of these properties in the last 12 months; and what the total cost is of maintaining each of these properties. [55100]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: None.

  Departmental Policies
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact his Department's policies have had on the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency since 1997. [54331]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security and parts of the Department for Education and Employment. We are currently undertaking a fundamental overhaul of the welfare system, transforming it from a passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system that fights poverty, creates opportunity and helps people become self-sufficient and independent. This is making a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:

  eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;

  promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and

  combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and future pensioners.

  Child benefit is now worth £15.75 a week for the eldest child and £10.55 a week for other children: nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Stalybridge and Hyde 11,565 families benefit.

  The number of people in work is at historically high levels of over 28.2 million. Nearly three quarters of working age people are in employment and in Stalybridge and Hyde the proportion in employment currently stands at 75.5 per cent. Unemployment is at levels last seen in the early 1970s. Our new deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, disabled people, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. Nationally well over 600,000 people have been helped into work by the new deals and in Stalybridge and Hyde over 1,300 have been helped into work.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. This winter (2001–02) we have made available a winter fuel payment of 00A34;200 for each eligible household to help with their heaviest fuel bill. We estimate that around 15,700 older people in Stalybridge and Hyde have received a payment this winter.

  We want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country. Our first priority has been to help the poorest pensioners.
  580W
  From April 2002 we will be spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms on pensioners as a result of our policies. This includes £2.5 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners.

  3,500 pensioner families in Stalybridge and Hyde are receiving the minimum income guarantee which helps our poorest pensioners. Some 14,600 pensioners in Stalybridge and Hyde will benefit from this year's increases in the basic state pension of £3 a week for single pensioners and £4.80 for couples. Those over 75, of whom we estimate there are about 6,300 in Stalybridge and Hyde, may qualify for free TV licences.

  Other reforms include the new pension credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings and the introduction of the state second pension from this April. Both of these initiatives will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners. We have also announced that from October 2003 benefits currently reduced after a hospital stay of six weeks will not be reduced until 13 weeks. This will benefit both pensioners and people of working age.

  Social Fund
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many social fund budgeting loans were made in 2000–01. [56991]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In 2000–01, there were 1,145,000 initial Budgeting Loan awards, an increase of 128,000 compared with 1999–2000. While Budgeting Loan applications increased by only 3 per cent, successful applications at the initial stage rose by 13 per cent.

  This corrects figures given in paragraph 17 of the Government's response (Cm 5237) to the third report of the Social Security Select Committee on the social fund, Session 2000–01 (HC232).

  Red Cross
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what financial support his Department has given since 1 April 2000 to projects run by the British Red Cross. [52948]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on 29 April 2002, Official Report, columns 609–10W.

  Hard-to-help Client Groups
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to involve the private sector in Jobcentre Plus and other emerging departmental programmes as a means for the social inclusion of hard-to-help client groups. [53098]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus and its predecessor the Employment Service has always involved the private sector in delivering its programmes for unemployed people.
  581W
  Its contracted provision including programme centres, worked based learning for adults, basic employability training, short intensive basic skills courses and basic skills independent assessments is largely delivered by contracts with the private sector.

  Under the New Deals, elements of the Gateway, Options and intensive activity period are also delivered by the private sector. In addition, the private sector lead in the delivery of the New Deals in ten areas of the country and there is currently a competition under way for future private sector led New Deal contracts in these areas together with two new areas. In all Jobcentre Plus has several thousand contracts with over 1,000 providers to deliver programmes for individual jobless people. These providers are drawn from the private, voluntary and public sectors; we know that the majority, probably about three quarters of the total are private sector organisations.

  Cross cutting initiatives such as action teams and new programmes such as Progress2Work, Outreach and StepUP will also involve the private sector as do employment zones which are entirely private sector led.

  Carers
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of each of his Department's initiatives to encourage carer take-up of the state second pension. [54518]

  Maria Eagle
  Most people will automatically benefit from the state second pension without having to do anything new or different. Our publicity activity therefore focuses on the groups who may not automatically start building up state second pension and may need to take appropriate action. This includes parents as well as carers.

  We have produced information both on our website and as a leaflet to inform these two groups about the state second pension and to outline any action they may need to take to build up entitlement. We are also currently conducting promotional activity for carers and parents about state second pension, which includes press advertising in national and local press and relevant magazines, and direct mail to relevant advisory organisations. The costs for the current phase of the activity (from March to May 2002) are estimated at £750,000, but will be subject to some revisions as the publicity activity is still ongoing. These costs do not include the leaflet or website costs2014;these items will be available on an ongoing basis.

  We anticipate carrying out further promotional activity in the future to continue to ensure that people are aware of the action they need to take to benefit from the availability of the state second pension.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to recognise British Sign Language as a language in its own right. [55337]

  Maria Eagle
  There have been calls for the Government to recognise British Sign Language by specifying it under the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Advice is that the charter was not intended to cover indigenous sign languages. However, the Council's582
  Parliamentary Assembly has called on the Council to give sign languages used in Europe a protection similar to that afforded by the charter. The Council is currently considering how that might be done and the Government will respond to any proposals in due course.

  Age Positive Campaign
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the impact of the Age Positive publicity campaign, with particular reference to supportive and participating companies based in the Teesside area. [48586]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Age Positive campaign seeks to promote the message that is makes good business sense to encourage age diverse practices in the work place. It is aimed at all employers and individuals across Great Britain.

  The campaign has used a wide variety of promotional methods to ensure that access to information and guidance is available as widely as possible. A range of media including advertising, PR, website, direct mail and key exhibitions has been used to promote the business benefits of an age diverse work force.

  Findings from the Evaluation of the Code of Practice indicate that between March 1999 and October 2000 the incidence of the use of age in selection halved from 27 per cent. to 13 per cent. In addition companies having a policy against employing older workers dropped from 14 per cent. to 7 per cent.
  Thirty-two Age Positive champions have submitted evidence on their commitment to Age Positive practices and have given active support to the campaign.

  Currently there are no companies in the Teesside area that have offered particular support but we are continually seeking to increase the number and range of Age Positive champions and positive case studies.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to respond to the questions from the hon. Member for Havant, refs(a) 24239, (b) 28580, (c) 33624 and (d) 33628. [47766]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Replies were given to the hon. Member on 10 April, 22 April, 10 April and 11 April.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the measures designed by his Department to reduce youth and long-term unemployment in the Greater London area. [53868]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997 in London, youth unemployment has fallen by 44 per cent. and long-term unemployment has been cut by three quarters.

  The Department's policies have played an important part in this success. Up to January 2002, the New Deal for Young People had helped 43,765 young Londoners off benefit and into work and New Deal 25 plus had helped 16,612 long-term unemployed people into jobs across the capital.
  583W
  In addition, nearly 13,000 people from some of London's most deprived areas have been helped into work through Employment Zones and Action Teams for Jobs.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact his policies have had on the unemployment level in the Tooting constituency since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [53874]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997 the overall level of unemployment in Tooting has fallen by half and long-term unemployment has been cut by three-quarters. The Department's policies have played an important role in this success. Up to January 2002, the New Deals had helped over 1,000 people into work in Tooting.

  Polygamy
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the payment of benefit to polygamous wives resident abroad. [51206]

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what rules apply for the issuing of benefits to people and their spouses who are given residency in this country and come from cultures where polygamy is culturally acceptable. [48212]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: Income-related benefits are not generally payable to, or in respect of, people who are resident abroad, regardless of whether they are in a monogamous or polygamous relationship.

  However, when a person or their partner goes abroad temporarily, Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance already in payment may continue to be paid for the first four weeks of absence. This may be extended to eight weeks if the reason for the absence is to accompany a child for medical treatment abroad.

  In Housing Benefit (HB), entitlement may continue in respect of each member of the household if there is a temporary absence from home of up to 13 weeks: this rule would include, for example, trips abroad to visit relatives or friends. But if the temporary absence is for more pressing reasons, for example medical treatment, HB can continue for up to 52 weeks. This more generous provision recognises the importance of HB in keeping roofs over people's heads.

  These temporary absence rules apply in all HB cases, including those involving polygamous marriages. To make an exception for the latter would be discriminatory.

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

  People in polygamous marriages are not entitled to contributory Social Security benefits in respect of their marital partners.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many instances there were of housing benefit fraud, broken down by local authority in England, in each year since 1997. [42236]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information available is based on local authorities' reported Weekly Benefit Savings (WBS) where fraud has been established. This information has been placed in the Library.

  Tightening of the WBS criteria in 1998 was followed by a large reduction in the WBS achieved by local authorities in 1998–99 and 1999–2000. To address this, increased rates of additional subsidy were made payable to Local Authorities and a reduced level of penalty was introduced in April 1999.

  In January 2000 the Department announced that it would replace WBS over 2 years from April 2001 with a new anti-fraud incentive scheme that gives greater financial rewards to local authorities for preventing and detecting overpayments and for punishing fraud. Since April this year all local authorities have been operating the new scheme.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many residents of each constituency are known to the CSA as(a) parents with care and (b) parents without care. [52124]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Andrew Turner dated 13 May 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.You ask, how many residents of each constituency are known to the CSA as (a) parents with care and (b) parents without care.We don't hold information on our systems in that format. I have obtained some information on the constituencies within which the address of parents with care falls by sampling our computer database. I have arranged for a document listed as: Number of Parents with Care held on the Child Support Computer System by Parliamentary Constituency at November 2001, to be placed within the Library. There will be a small degree of error because this is a 5 per cent. sample and the error will be more likely when the figures are less than 500.Unfortunately the information for non-resident parents is less reliable because for more of them we do not hold a full post code. I believe that broadly the national distribution of non-resident parents will be the same as that for parents with care.I hope this is helpful.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what systems are in place within the Jobcentre Plus network for pensioners to receive advice and assistance. [52579]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 652W.

  Industrial Action (Jobcentre Plus)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions why he has declined to meet officials of the Public and Commercial Services Union to discuss the health and safety implications for staff of the Jobcentre Plus arrangements. [32304]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consultations he has had with leaders of the Public and Commercial Services Union regarding recent industrial action taken by their members; and if he plans to meet them following the latest 48–hour strike. [32647]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answers 1 and 5 February 2002]: It is for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, as the head of the organisation, to conduct discussions on this issue with the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS).

  I am pleased to say that, following the most recent round of discussions, the PCS has, after a ballot of its members, accepted an agreement based on the proposals which Jobcentre Plus management originally put forward last October. These proposals will ensure that Jobcentre Plus operates in a predominantly unscreened environment in line with Government policy.

  Crisis Loan Expenditure
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the crisis loan expenditure on living expenses (alignment) in each year since 1996; and what such expenditure was expressed as a proportion of crisis loan expenditure. [51043]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [pursuant to the reply, 18 April 2002, c. 1119W]: The information is in the table.

  Social Fund Crisis Loan expenditure—alignment payments

  Year

  Total crisis loan expenditure£

  Alignment payment expenditure£

  Alignment payments as a percentage of crisis loan expenditure

  1996–97

  52

  14

  27

  1997–98

  54

  17

  32

  1998–99

  59

  20

  33

  1999–2000

  62

  23

  37

  2000–01

  65

  24

  38

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  2. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Source:

  Annual Reports by the Secretary of State on the Social Fund 1996–97 to 2000–01.

WALES

  Caernarfon for Healthcare Audit and Inspection
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements are intended for the organisation, operation and accountability of the Caernarfon for Healthcare Audit and Inspection in Wales. [55448]
  586W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Commission for Health and Improvement (CHI) and the Audit Commission are England and Wales bodies. The First Minister and the Assembly Cabinet are content with the proposals in principle. It will be necessary to make sure that this works properly and effectively for Wales, and these detailed issues will be addressed during the framing of the necessary legislation.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [52851]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: There is no record of any digital radios being purchased by the Department.

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the magazines and periodicals subscribed to by her Department, stating for each subscription the(a) number of copies taken and (b) annual cost. [52816]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The total annual cost of magazine and periodical subscriptions currently taken by the DCMS Information Centre is £28,275. A list specifying each title taken, the cost per copy and the total annual cost per title has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Film Tax Relief
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which films have been certified by her Department since 1997 as a qualifying film for the film tax relief introduced in the(a) 1997 and (b) 2001 Budgets; and if she will make a statement. [54982]

  Dr. Howells
  I am arranging for a list of films qualifying as British under the terms of the Films Act 1985 to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tourism (Advisory Committee)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the mandate of the Advisory Committee for Co-operation in the Field of Tourism is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [55355]

  Dr. Howells
  The Tourism Advisory Committee is mandated to facilitate exchange of information, consultation and cooperation on tourism by a Council Decision of 22 December 1986 (86/664/EEC).
  587W
  Since May 2001, the committee has met three times and the UK has been represented by officials from my Department. The costs incurred by my Department in travelling to these committee meetings is in the region of £1,300. To disaggregate the costs of the committee from the UK's total contribution to the EU budget would involve disproportionate costs.

  Currently under discussion is a Commission communication and a draft Council resolution on the future of European tourism.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the submission of Commission and Council documents to parliamentary scrutiny. Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Commission Document 5685/02). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Works of Art (Indemnities)
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total sum paid to claimants under the Government Indemnity Scheme covering loans of works of art to museums, galleries and other such public institutions has been since the inception of the scheme in 1988. [55026]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: Since 1993–94, the first year after the formation of the Department of National Heritage, a total of £579,161.06 has been paid out to claimants under the Government Indemnity Scheme. Figures for the period 1988–89 to 1992–93 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  All Saints' Church, Kingston
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on English Heritage's decision not to support the restoration of All Saints' Church, Kingston-upon-Thames; and if she will make a statement. [55415]

  Dr. Howells
  I am aware of the strength of local support for the restoration of All Saints' Church. It is for English Heritage or the Heritage Lottery Fund to make a decision on the funding of the grant application. English Heritage are keen to see that the repairs needed to All Saints' Church are carried out and have recently met the vicar and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) to discuss how to take the matter forward.

  Environmental Sustainability
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will list those bids for funding which have been turned down by her Department because they have failed to include a sustainability component in the last five years; [55174]
  588W
  (2) if she will list projects which have been funded by her Department in the last five years which have had an environmentally sustainable component, indicating what it is in each case; [55177]

  (3) what steps she has taken to promote environmental sustainability in the last five years; [55172]

  (4) what measures she has taken to encourage public involvement in sustainable initiatives; [55176]

  (5) what indicators her Department uses when assessing the sustainability component of funding bids to her Department. [55173]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture Media and Sport is fully committed to sustainable development and promotes environmental sustainability through many of the public bodies it sponsors. These range from Royal Parks, which provide many examples of good practice, to the Science and Natural History museums which are increasingly instrumental in promoting public understanding of, and engagement with, sustainable development. On 30 April 2002, DCMS held a major conference at the Science Museum for representatives of all its sectors to create greater understanding of sustainable development issues and raise awareness of how each can respond to the challenges involved.

  The Department does not directly operate funding schemes; applications for awards, mainly for lottery generated funds, are made to its non-departmental public bodies. Since 1998, DCMS has recommended to lottery distributors that the grants they award further the objectives of sustainable development, covering environmental, economic and social aspects. Bids are judged against the 15 quality of life indicators of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy (1999). As records of unsuccessful bids are not kept by distributors, there is no means of listing which bids were turned down.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many criminal offences have been(a) created and (b) abolished by her Department since 1997. [55438]

  Dr. Howells
  Since 1997, four offences have been created and one abolished in the areas for which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has responsibility.

  The offences created are:

  (a) the failure to post a Special Occasions restriction order notice2014;article 8(3) of the Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2001 (SI 2001/3937)

  (b) failure to comply with a park trading regulation2014;s.1 of the Royal Parks (Trading) Act 2000

  (c) two offences of disclosure of information2014;2014;section 3 of the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Act 2000.

  The offence repealed was that of failing to post a Millennium restriction order notice under paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 8B to the Licensing Act 1964, which was repealed by paragraph 2(6) of the Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2001 (SI 2001/3937).

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many findings there have been of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of her Department since 1997. [56319]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on the handling of complaints is set out in tabular form by the parliamentary ombudsman each year as an attachment to his annual report. For those complaints where there was evidence of maladministration which warranted a full investigation, the table sets out how many complaints were upheld as being fully or partially justified. Copies of the parliamentary ombudsman's annual reports for the period 1997–98 to 2000–01 inclusive can be viewed in the House Library, or on the parliamentary ombudsman's website at: www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what policy guidance her Department has issued relating to the flying of the Union flag over public buildings on the occasion of the Jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. [55473]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 13 May 2002]: My Department has issued guidance that the Union flag should be flown from central Government buildings from 8am on Saturday, 1 June 2002 to sunset on Tuesday, 4 June 2002 inclusive. Local authorities are not bound by these instructions. Many however, do chose to follow the Government's line and fly the flag on the specified days from their buildings.

  Television Subtitling
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what regulations govern(a) the proportion of television programmes that have subtitling and (b) the provision of television services for deaf people. [55582]

  Dr. Howells
  Statutory requirements for the provision of subtitling on Channel 3 and Channel 5, and for the provision of subtitling and sign language translation on digital terrestrial television services are included in the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting Acts respectively. The recently published draft Communications Bill proposes the extension of these services to digital cable and satellite services.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which Bills introduced by his Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans he has for the future use of such clauses. [49623]

  Mr. Wills
  No Bills introduced by this Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her policy is on overtime payments for staff in her Department. [49118]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This answer covers the Headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department and Associated Offices (LCDHQ), the Court Service (CS), and Public Guardianship Office (PGO). The standard working week across the Lord Chancellor's Department is 41 hours for offices in London and 42 hours for staff working outside London. Both these figures incorporate a daily lunch break of one hour. Part time and flexible working arrangements are agreed locally.

  Overtime may be worked with prior management authority to carry out specific work that cannot be done within normal working hours. Part time staff and staff with flexible working hours are entitled to claim overtime for hours worked over and above their own personal contracted working week. Staff are entitled to claim time off in lieu as an alternative to claiming overtime.

  Overtime is paid at the rates described as follows:

  LCDHQ Pay Bands A to D/CS Spans 1 to 5/PGO Ranges 1 to 4:

  Monday to Friday2014;at the hourly rate of time and a half.

  Saturday2014;at the hourly rate of time and a half plus Saturday
  premium (equivalent to double time).

  Sunday2014;double time.

  LCDHQ Pay Band E/CS Spans 6 and 7/PGO Ranges 5 and 6:

  Monday to Friday2014;at the hourly rate of plain time.

  Saturday2014;at the hourly rate of plain time plus Saturday premium (equivalent to time and a half).

  Sunday2014;double time.

  LCDHQ Pay Band F/CS Span 8:

  Staff in these grades qualify for excess hours payments. Additional hours worked by members of staff in this band can be recognised by excess hours payments if 25 or more extra hours are worked over a continuous three week period. The excess hours payment is the recipient's plain time rate.

  PGO Range 7:

  Minimum qualifying period is 25 excess hours over a continuous three week period at plain time rate. Pay Range 7 staff are eligible for weekend premium payments. Staff who have to work excess hours are given the opportunity to take time of in lieu as an alternative to claiming excess hours payment.

  Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's 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. [54075]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The information that the hon. Member has requested is set out in the table. The first figure after each title is the number of copies taken and the second is the total annual cost:

  £

  Newspapers

  Number of copies taken

  Total annual cost

  Monday to Saturday

  Daily Express

  2

  185.95

  Daily Mail

  3

  301.90

  Daily Mirror

  1

  103.16

  591W

  £

  Newspapers

  Number of copies taken

  Total annual cost

  Daily Telegraph

  2

  260.15

  Evening Standard

  2

  347.20

  Financial Times

  4

  994.70

  Glasgow Herald

  1

  57.60

  Guardian

  3

  442.50

  Independent

  7

  1,086.35

  Scotsman

  1

  142.55

  Sheffield Star

  1

  76.80

  Star

  1

  95.90

  Sun

  2

  170.05

  Times

  20

  2,692.40

  Sunday

  Independent on Sunday

  1

  60.40

  Mail on Sunday

  1

  55.70

  News of the World

  1

  33.10

  Observer

  1

  60.90

  Scotland on Sunday

  1

  31.80

  Sunday Business

  1

  47.00

  Sunday Express

  1

  53.00

  Sunday Mirror

  1

  34.45

  Sunday Telegraph

  1

  53.00

  Sunday Times

  1

  61.10

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's 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. [54074]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: The information that the hon. Member has requested is set out in the table. The first figure after each title is the number of copies taken and the second is the total annual cost:

  £

  Magazines/periodicals

  Number of copies taken

  Total annual cost

  Architect's Journal

  1

  82.69

  Aslib Current Awareness Abstracts

  2

  402.86

  Australian Law Journal

  1

  234

  Bookseller

  2

  320

  British Journal of Criminology

  2

  282

  British Printer

  1

  75

  British Tax Review

  2

  432

  Building

  1

  110

  Bulletin of Legal Developments

  1

  85.50

  Butterworths Family Law Journal (NZ)

  1

  495

  Cambridge Law Journal

  5

  275

  Caterer and Hotel Keeper

  1

  102

  Childright

  2

  90

  Civil Justice Quarterly

  6

  864

  Columbia Law Review

  1

  66

  Common Market Law Review

  2

  798

  Commonwealth Law Bulletin

  2

  208.54

  Commonwealth Lawyer

  1

  85

  Company Lawyer

  3

  1,035

  Computanews

  1

  25

  Computer Weekly

  1

  110

  Computers and Law

  4

  376.64

  Construction News

  1

  72.50

  Consumer Law Today

  1

  257

  Consumer Policy Review

  1

  150

  Conveyancer and Property Lawyer

  2

  288

  Corporate Briefing

  1

  20

  Counsel

  20

  486

  Credit Today

  1

  60

  Criminal Law Week

  30

  4,350

  Design Week

  1

  138

  Digit

  2

  50

  Economist

  4

  537.60

  Edinburgh Law Review

  1

  80

  592W

  £

  Magazines/periodicals

  Number of copies taken

  Total annual cost

  Equal Opportunities Review

  1

  236.50

  Estates Gazette

  7

  952

  European Human Rights Law Review

  8

  1,692

  European Law Review

  1

  333

  Family Law Quarterly

  1

  39.20

  Financial Regulatory Briefing

  4

  460

  Government Opportunities

  1

  260

  Harvard Law Review

  1

  49

  Health Law for Healthcare Professionals

  1

  135

  House of Commons Weekly Information Bulletin

  1

  48.15

  IDS Brief

  1

  25

  Index to Periodical Articles Related to Law

  2

  325

  Insolvency Intelligence

  1

  245

  Insurance Day

  1

  391

  Insurance Law Monthly

  1

  270

  International & Comparative Law Quarterly

  1

  95

  International Family Law

  1

  121.60

  International Journal of Insurance Law

  1

  79

  International Journal of Law & Information Technology

  1

  99

  International Journal of Law & the Family

  1

  106

  International Review of Law, Computers & Technology

  1

  325

  Internet Newsletter for Lawyers

  4

  160

  IRS Employment Review

  1

  630

  Journal of Business Law

  1

  202.50

  Journal of Contract Law

  1

  29

  Journal of Criminal Law

  1

  139

  Journal of International Banking Law

  1

  595

  Journal of Law and Society

  1

  226

  Journal of Legal History

  2

  480

  Journal of Personal Injury Litigation

  2

  330

  Journal of Planning & Environment Law

  2

  414

  JSB Journal

  2

  80

  Juridical Review

  1

  145

  Justice of the Peace

  53

  9,275

  Labour Market Trends

  2

  19

  Law Notes

  5

  145

  Law Quarterly Review

  6

  675

  Law Society's Gazette

  7

  672

  Law Teacher

  2

  90

  Lawyer

  20

  1,600

  Legal Action

  27

  1,405

  Legal Business

  2

  330

  Legal Executive

  1

  45

  Legal Studies

  1

  65

  Litigation Letter

  6

  1,488

  Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

  1

  150

  London Gazette

  1

  351

  The Magistrate

  5

  150

  Magnet

  1

  85

  Managing Information

  2

  165

  Medical Law Review

  1

  110

  Modern Law Review

  5

  585

  New Law Journal

  155

  25,528.50

  New Scientist

  2

  264

  New Statesman

  5

  481.60

  Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly

  1

  75

  Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

  1

  129

  Paper Market Digest

  1

  250

  Personal & Medical Injuries Law Letter

  1

  294

  Police Review

  1

  70

  Population Trends

  2

  135

  Practitioner's Child Law Bulletin

  1

  120

  Private Eye

  4

  96

  Professional Negligence

  3

  345

  Project Manager Today

  1

  32.50

  Property Law Bulletin

  1

  215

  Property Week

  1

  120

  Public Administration

  1

  29.50

  Public Law

  2

  135

  Radio Times

  1

  44.70

  RICS Abstracts & Reviews

  1

  125

  RICS Weekly Briefing

  1

  10

  Scots Law Times

  3

  1,347.30

  Social Trends

  3

  118.50

  Socio-Legal Newsletter

  2

  30

  Solicitors Journal

  87

  6,525

  593W

  £

  Magazines/periodicals

  Number of copies taken

  Total annual cost

  Spectator

  4

  383.20

  Stakeholder

  2

  78

  Statute Law Review

  1

  115

  Taxation

  4

  187.20

  Trading Law

  1

  290

  Trust Law International

  1

  128.25

  Mrs. L Odedra
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the reasons why the appeal papers in respect of Mrs. L. Odedra of ECR/419/00 104792, have not been processed. [51508]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be writing to my hon. Friend about this matter shortly.

  Immigration Cases
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the backlog of immigration cases in the IAA; what the backlog is of cases waiting for decision by an immigration adjudicator; and what the average length of time was for a case to be dealt with from receipt from the Home Office to the hearing in the last 12 months. [54500]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The 1AA, as of the end of March 2002, was dealing with 4,114 adjudicator appeals, 36 leave to appeal applications and 39 substantive tribunal appeals in relation to immigration cases (not including family visit visas). In each instance, this level of work in progress is within or in line with expectation and hence does not amount to a backlog.

  The average waiting time from receipt of an immigration case to its first substantive hearing for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 is 13.75 weeks.

  Public Records
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will arrange for the release to the Public Record Office of pre-1945 records relating to the Royal Family. [54671]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Open Government White Paper (Cm2290, July 1993) states that "Records relating to the Royal Family will be treated in the same way as all other records and only closed for longer than 30 years if they fall into one or more of the three criteria governing closure" (9.22). That practice still applies and the closure criteria used for public records relating to the Royal Family are therefore the same as for all other records. Any public record dating from before 1945 should now be open unless it is subject to one of the closure criteria, requiring a longer period of closure, in which case it will be re-reviewed when the closure period is due to come to an end.

  Consultation Document (Making Decision)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will place a copy of the consultation document, "Making Decisions: Helping People who have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves" (Cm. 05/2002), published in April, available in the Library. [55288]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The consultation document `Making Decisions: Helping People who have Difficulty Deciding for Themselves' was published on 10 April. Copies of the document were placed in the libraries of both Houses shortly thereafter.

  King Edward VIII
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which departments will be consulted and what criteria will be used to assess the release of the records concerning King Edward VIII. [554811

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to her previous question on the 1 May 2002,Official Report, column 862W. It is the responsibility for each department which has closed records relating to King Edward VIII to review them for release, in accordance with the standard criteria set out in the Open Government Code.

  1901 Census Website
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to resume public access to the Public Record Office's 1901 census website; if she will make it her policy to produce the name index to the 1901 census on CD-ROM; what plans she has to digitise census records prior to 1901; and if she will make a statement. [54367]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  QinetiQ Ltd. are the contractors who are responsible for the technical aspects of the 1901 census online. Since the closure of the site QinetiQ have been carrying out technical enhancements and, once this work is completed, rigorous testing will be undertaken on all aspects of the system. The enhancements are intended to make the site sufficiently robust to permit general Internet access and are being carried out with a sense of urgency. However, the most important consideration is to ensure that the service is re-launched successfully. The service will again be made available at designated service centres as part of the general re-introduction of the site. General on-line searches will be available as soon as practicable following testing and availability at the service centres.

  The commercial aspects of the census website are also the responsibility of QinetiQ Ltd., who are currently evaluating the financial viability of producing the 1901 census on CD-Rom, in consultation with the PRO.

  The PRO is planning to make the 1881 and 1891 census returns available on line as part of its wider strategy to digitise its major sources relating to family history by 2005. It is intended that, once the 1901 online census service is working satisfactorily, these plans will be taken forward in the current financial year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Probation Board
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the Probation Board for Northern Ireland's Business Plan for 2002–03. [56245]

  Mr. Browne
  The Probation Board's Business Plan for 2002–03 was published on 14 May 2002. The plan sets out the board's key objectives and performance targets for the year. Copies of the plan have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the Probation Board for Northern Ireland's Corporate Plan for 2002–05. [56904]

  Mr. Browne
  The Probation Board's Corporate Plan for 20022014;05 was published on 14 May 2002. The plan sets out the long-term strategic goals for the life of the plan. Copies of the plan have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Victims of Violence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on Northern Ireland since Good Friday 1998; how much has been spent on victims of violence; and how this money is being used to help such victims in Northern Ireland. [53691]

  Mr. Browne
  The amount of money spent on Northern Ireland since 1 April 1998 (figures available for full financial years only) by the Northern Ireland Office (N10) and Northern Ireland Block:

  £million

  NIO

  DEL1

  NI block AME2

  WW3

  1998–99

  975

  4,687

  3,534

  16

  1999–20004

  1,026

  4,914

  3,631

  37

  2000–014

  1,138

  5,249

  4,965

  39

  2001–025

  1,177

  6,002

  5,670

  60

  1Departmental Expenditure Limit

  2Annually Managed Expenditure

  3Welfare to Work

  4Devolution began in December 1999 and was suspended between February and May 2000, with the result that in 1999–2000 £4,221,000 for the Northern Ireland Assembly was included in the NIO totals and 2000–01 £1,733,000 for NI Assembly was included in the NIO totals.

  5Please note that final figures are not yet available for NIO2014;therefore, those given are provisional only. Provisional outturn figures are not yet available for the NI block, however the information shown is the "Final Plan Figurework" as at February monitoring.

  6Now contained within DEL

  The amount spent on victims of violence generally is not held centrally and could be provided only at
  596w
  disproportionate cost. However, since 1998, Government have committed over £18.25 million to support victims of the troubles, funding a number of initiatives including:

  £700,000 for a family trauma centre in Belfast which provides therapeutic service addressing the psychological needs of families and young people.

  £300,000 for an educational bursary pilot scheme2014;for individuals whose education vas directly affected by the troubles, 350 people received awards.

  £4 million to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund with a commitment of a further £1 million for 2003–04.

  The fund has put in place a number of schemes including:

  The small grants scheme

  The chronic pain management scheme

  The respite break scheme

  The wheelchair assessment scheme

  The amputee assessment scheme

  The education and training scheme.

  £225,000 initially for a victim support grants scheme to assist community groups and voluntary organisations to take forward recommendations in the Bloomfield report; and more recently a further £750,000 to extend this small grants scheme.

  £6.1 million core funding for groups who support victims of the troubles.

  £500,000 for initiatives in Great Britain including £250,000 for The Legacy Project. This project aims to identify and meet the needs of victims of the troubles living in Great Britain.

  £1.5 million over the next three years for the development of the Northern Ireland Centre for Trauma and Transformation.

  £1.5 million over the next two years to the devolved Administration's Strategy Implementation Fund to help NI Departments fulfil their commitment to addressing victims' needs.

  Other initiatives for victims2014;EU money

  The Northern Ireland Office was responsible for the management of funding to ( among other projects) victims groups under measure 4.6 of the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (Peace I). Victims groups received £2.8 million under this measure. In the main funding has been used to provide training and development officers and counselling services to victims and their families.

  Peace II moneys are administered by the devolved Administration. It contains a specific measure for victims with funding of approximately £6.67 million, targeted mainly at retraining and re-employment.

  Criminal compensation for victims

  Since April 1998 to end of March 2002, £87.65 million has been spent in compensation for criminal damage and £193.50 million on criminal injuries. It is not possible to break these figures down into troubles-related and other crime.

  Separate support for security force victims

  Government have established a Police Fund which aims to bring additional assistance to police officers and their families directly affected as a result of terrorism. From this fund £4.2 million was paid in a tax free, lump sum payment to police widows, widowed prior to November 1983, as a direct result of terrorism.

  The Government have funded the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust (PRRT) to a total of £8.1 million (£4.5 million allocated for three-year-period in March 1999 and £3.6 million allocated for further two years, 2002–04). The PRRT was conceived to provide assistance

  597W
  aimed at the rehabilitation of ex-officers who were injured on duty and retraining for those leaving or expected to leave the force.

  Government have made available more than £1 million to the George Cross Foundation to mark the sacrifices and honour the achievement of the RUC. (The George Cross Foundation has taken on responsibility for the establishment of a Garden of Remembrance and a new RUC museum.)

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the President of the Council how many days of sick leave were taken in his Department last year; how many related to employees suffering from(a) stress and (b) other mental health problems; and what the cost was to his Department. [56475]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Information for the year 2001 is not yet available. The latest available figures are for the calendar year 2000. During this period 363 days were lost owing to sickness absence.

  The Privy Council Office is not included in the published annual report 'Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service' but we are fully committed to working to the overall target to reduce the level of sick absence to five days per person by 2003; and reducing the number of working days lost from work-related injury and ill health by 30 per cent. by 2010. The Privy Council Office service delivery agreement confirms this commitment and our requirement to monitor sickness levels quarterly.

  Information on stress and other mental health problems in the form requested is being withheld under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information as the number involved are less than five out of a Department of 40 and could result in an individual being identified.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the sites on which he will seek planning permission for accommodation centres. [56903]

  Angela Eagle
  We will be submitting planning notifications in respect of DS DC Bicester, RAF Newton and QinetiQ Pershore as soon as possible. The notifications will be submitted using the ordinary procedure of Circular 18/84. Consultation with the relevant local authorities will continue, including public meetings.

  Further work is required on the sites at AirWest Edinburgh, Sully Hospital (Glamorgan) and Hemswell Cliff (Lincolnshire) before a decision can be taken on whether to proceed to planning notifications.
  598w
  The sites at Hooton Park (Ellesmere Port) and Killingholme (North Lincolnshire) are considered to be unsuitable for the siting of accommodation centres. No planning notifications will be submitted in respect of those sites.

  Site searching has continued since we made our initial announcement, as we said it would. In addition to the sites we have identified ourselves, a number have been put forward by potential bidders. We shall not be putting into the public domain details of such sites unless and until they are considered to be serious prospect for the siting of an accommodation centre.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provide milk tokens to asylum seekers with young children; [45473]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the provision of milk tokens to asylum seekers with young children. [45474]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Asylum seekers in receipt of support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) who have a baby are eligible to apply for a one-off maternity payment of £300 to meet the costs associated with the arrival of a baby. In addition the family's level of subsistence is re-calculated. For each child under the age of 16 the family receives £33.50 per week. Children of asylum seekers receive the same level of financial support as those of parents on job seeker's allowance or income support.

  I am aware that the issue of milk tokens to asylum seeking mothers is a concern to many members of this House. In addition, Ministers and officials in NASS have received representations from various groups including Milk for Schools, Save the Children, the Child Poverty Action Group and Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU). We have also received petitions from voluntary agencies such as Refugee Council and Migrant Helpline. We will continue to monitor the level of support provided to asylum seekers and their families.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether children and their families will be accommodated in separate units within accommodation centres. [51745]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: Children and their families will be accommodated within family units in accommodation centres, separate from those units accommodating single asylum seekers.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the factors which led to the decision to grant asylum seekers 70 per cent. of the basic income support to meet their living costs. [55330]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: The levels of asylum support for adults are set at 70 per cent. of income support levels because, unlike those in receipt of income support, National Asylum Support Service (NASS)-supported asylum seekers receive free, furnished accommodation, equipped with all necessary utensils, bedding, towels, etc. and with all their utility bills paid by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) on top of their cash subsistence payments. In addition, after six months in receipt of NASS support, asylum seekers are

  599W
  eligible for an additional single payment of £50. Taken as a package, the value of NASS support is broadly equal to the support that was provided to asylum seekers under the previous, cash-based system. The asylum support levels for children are 100 per cent. of the income support levels.

  Mohammed Umer
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make inquiries into the passport of Mr. Mohammed Umer of Southend, which is with the IND office in Croydon. [55312]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: Mr. Umer's documents were sent to his home address by recorded delivery on 9 May 2002.

  Dungavel Prison (Visitors)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is practice to fingerprint(a) charity workers, (b) teachers and (c) official visitors who may be visiting Dungavel prison. [28806]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Charity workers, teachers and official visitors who visit Dungavel removal centre on official business are not fingerprinted. They are instead required to sign in and out.

  Visitors to individual detainees are fingerprinted on arrival as part of Dungavel's standard security procedures. The record is checked on the departure of the visitor and is then automatically deleted.

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) national origin and (b) first language is of each (i) convicted and (ii) remand prisoner held in the special secure unit at HMP Belmarsh; what translation facilities are available for prisoners for (A) routine prison administrative and matters connected with good order in the prison, (B) medical examinations, (C) legal visits and (D) family visits; and how many non-English language books (1) are held by HMP Belmarsh and (2) have been borrowed in the past six months by prisoners held in the special secure unit. [52463]

  Beverley Hughes
  The facility at Belmarsh prison is designated as a high secure unit. The number of prisoners currently held in the high secure unit is 34. The national origin of those convicted is Colombian (one); United Kingdom (seven). The national origin of those unconvicted is Algerian (two); Belgium (one): Spanish (one); Egyptian (two); Irish (six); Jamaican (one); Turkish (two); United Kingdom (10). One person has declined to declare a national origin.

  All prisoners in the high secure unit are able to speak English. Translation facilities are currently available in Arabic, Spanish and Turkish to enable prisoners to communicate via the telephone or, where security issues arise, during visits. Belmarsh has continuous translation facilities for attendance at the prison to carry out
  600w
  simultaneous translation of visits and telephone calls. These facilities are also available where there is a need for staff to communicate with a prisoner on a medical or induction interview.

  Belmarsh also has the use of telephone translation facilities. Where circumstances arise, Belmarsh would also use other prisoners speaking the same language to assist in translation, or use staff who are able to speak foreign languages. There is also a contract translation service for use with mail and other written material. No translation service is provided for legal visits, on the grounds that the visiting legal representative would make such arrangements. Induction packs for newly arrived prisoners are available in a limited number of foreign languages.

  Belmarsh has approximately 700 non-English books in the library. Records are not kept to show the number of such books that have been borrowed by prisoners held in the high secure unit. All prisoners have access to the library and may borrow books.

  Prisons (Fire Precautions)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the fire precautions that will be required in the contract to build the new women's prison at Ashford, Middlesex. [54323]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The draft contract for the new prison at Ashford, Middlesex states that:
  "Generally the risk of accidental fire outbreak in prison buildings is low, due to the constant level of supervision and control. However, the serious consequences of such events, however rare, must be anticipated and controlled. Individual buildings and the site as a whole will be assessed for risk".
  The construction work at Ashford will be in line with existing Prison Service protocols and standards for fire precautions. The contractor is subject to the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 (as amended in 1999). In addition, a review into fire safety in prisons is almost complete. As the construction of the prison has not yet started it would be possible to change the specification to incorporate any changes required by the review, including the fitting of sprinklers.

  Prisoner Location
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people were moved from local authority secure accommodation to Prison Service establishments in each month since January 2001, broken down by(a) age and (b) gender. [55040]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales commission and purchase secure accommodation for remanded and sentenced young people. They have provided the information in the table: the number of young people transferred from local authority accommodation to Prison Service establishments in each month since January 2001, broken down by age and gender.
  601W

  Age 15

  Age 16

  Age 17

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Total

  2001

  January

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  4

  February

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  March

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  April

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  May

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  June

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  July

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  August

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  September

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  October

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  November

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  December

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2002

  January

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  February

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  March

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  April

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  May1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  11

  1

  6

  2

  0

  1

  21

  1First week

  Special Constables
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of special constables. [531121

  Mr. Denham
  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 anti-social behaviour. The Government believe that the special constabulary has a key role to play in the fight against crime and the fear of crime. We are accordingly introducing a range of measures to improve the recruitment and retention of specials. These include improvements to the recruitment, training, conditions, management and deployment of specials2014;focusing their role on intelligence-led patrolling and local crime reduction initiatives.

  EU Border Police Force
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the creation of a common EU border police force. [39656]

  Angela Eagle
  The United Kingdom is supportive of closer co-operation between national border authorities of European Union member states, which we believe is one of the ways to tackle the criminal networks responsible for human trafficking and illegal immigration. We are also keen to discuss practical ways of strengthening the European Union's external borders.

  The United Kingdom has given its support to the conducting of a feasibility study, led by the Italian authorities regarding the concept of a European border police. We are awaiting the results of this study. Our Frontiers Protocol entitles us to maintain our frontiers with other member states and the Government have no plans to change their policy.
  602w

  Police
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding is available for targeted policing initiatives. [48660]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: We have targeted significant levels of resources at forces through the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) to recruit 9,000 officers over and above forces previous recruitment plans in the three years to March 2003. We made available £58.9 million in 2000–01, £151.7 million in 2001–02 with provision of £244.0 million in 2002–03 and £272 million for 2003–04 to meet the estimated continuing cost of officers recruited through the CFF.

  We have made £75 million available since 2000–01 to enhance the policing service in rural areas, including £30 million for 2002–03. Spending Review (SR) 2000 provided a further £30 million for next year. Police authorities receiving the grant must demonstrate in their annual policing plans each year how the resources are used to enhance rural policing and crime reduction and community safety in rural areas.

  The Government are committed to investment in technological support for the police, and to reducing the burden of unnecessary bureaucracy and increasing efficiency. £703 million has been made available since 1999–2000. Key projects funded are AIRWAVE2014;the new national police communications system; the National Strategy for Police Information Systems2014;a suite of software applications to improve the recording and delivery of information across the police service and the wider criminal justice system; the National Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems and Police Direct2014;telephone and e-mail facilities for the reporting of non-urgent crime.

  The estimated amount of central funding for the DNA Expansion Programme from April 2000 to March 2004 is £187 million.
  603W
  £30 million has been committed to 60 targeted policing projects under the Crime Reduction Programme since 1999.

  In addition, £4 million has been made available in 2002–03 to the Police Standards Unit to drive up police performance.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the percentage increase in funding of(a) Staffordshire police and (b) all police forces in each of the past seven years. [32242]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  Increase

  Staffordshire

  All England and Wales

  1995–96 to 1996–97

  8.3

  3.7

  1996–97 to 1997–98

  2.0

  2.2

  1997–98 to 1998–99

  –1.1

  3.2

  1998–99 to 1999–2000

  1.3

  2.3

  1999–2000 to 2000–01

  4.0

  3.4

  2000–01 to 2001–02

  5.1

  6.4

  2001–02 to 2002–03

  13.6

  13.5

  1 Figures for 2001–02 are not directly comparable with 2002–03 owing to the changes in funding arrangements for the National Crime Squad/National Criminal Intelligence Service. The figures have been adjusted accordingly.

  Notes:

  1. Total Grant includes Police Principal Grant. Rural Policing Grant, Crime Fighting Fund and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) Revenue Support Grant (RSG), National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR), Standard Spending Assessment reduction grant and Central Support Protection Grant.

  2. Figures for the City of London included within the overall percentage increases for England and Wales include Police Principal Grant only. NNDR and RSG are paid to the City of London Corporation for all services, including the police.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the additional£180 million being allocated in 2002–03 to address street crime policing and counter-terrorism, referred to on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 589, will be spent in 2002–03. [52866]

  Mr. Denham
  It is intended that all the additional funding will be spent in 2002–03.

  Commonwealth Games (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to report on its assessment of the bid from Greater Manchester Police for funding of the policing costs of the Commonwealth games. [41412]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 March 2002]: My right hon. Friend The Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) announced in January 2002 a special grant payment of £3 million to Greater Manchester Police Authority towards the additional costs of policing the Commonwealth games.

  Taking account of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's appraisal of the Police Authority's request for additional support, we have now decided to increase the special grant to a maximum of £5 million, 63 per cent. of the estimated additional costs of policing the games.
  604w
  £1.7 million has already been paid to Greater Manchester Police Authority. The balance will be paid after the Commonwealth games, in the light of additional costs incurred.

  Correspondence
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on behalf of Mr. P. J. Wright of Edenbridge, dated 3 December 2001, 7 February 2002 and 15 March 2002. [54095]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 May 2002]: A reply to the right hon. Member was despatched on 7 May 2002.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters of the hon. Member for Broxbourne of(a) 6 February, (b) 5 March, (c) 4 April and (d) 1 May relating to her constituent Mrs. Kim Cannon of Wormley.[54734]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: A reply to the hon. Member was despatched on 7 May 2002.

  Appeals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases with the Appeals Section have not been despatched to the IAT. [50703]

  Angela Eagle
  Appeals to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal (IAT) are lodged directly with the IAT and not with the Appeals Support Section of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND).

  There are, however, an estimated 48,000 appeals lodged with IND that have not yet been sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority. The majority of these are asylum appeals.

  Voluntary Organisations (Disclosure)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the Criminal Records Bureau has carried out a mapping exercise to identify whether the system of disclosures for voluntary organisations and volunteers has full national coverage; [517981

  (2) whether an open umbrella group which is registered with the Criminal Records Bureau is open to anyone who wants to use it; and what restrictions apply; [51789]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the likely costs that will be incurred by voluntary organisations using the disclosure system of the Criminal Records Bureau as a result of charging by umbrella bodies; and if he will make a statement; [517991

  (4) if he will make a statement on the position of funding for voluntary organisations to enable them to access the disclosure system of the Criminal Records Bureau; [51788]

  (5) what steps he is taking to ensure that voluntary organisations who need to obtain a disclosure in respect of staff or volunteers from the Criminal Records Bureau, but cannot (a) find a suitable umbrella body and (b) afford the fee, will be able to do so.[51797]
  605W
  Mr. Denham
  since we announced in February last year that Standard and Enhanced Disclosures would be issued free by the Criminal Records Bureau in the case of volunteers, we have received some representations in favour of the provision of funding, principally to meet start-up expenses, and overhead costs of processing individual applications. Estimates by a number of organisations as to what such costs might be-whether the organisation would be acting on its own behalf or, as an umbrella body, countersigning applications at the request of others-have varied very considerably, depending upon a range of factors including the size of the organisation and the number of applications to be processed.

  We have considered the representations very carefully but are not persuaded that it would be appropriate for Government funding to be made available for this purpose. In guidance for umbrella bodies, the bureau has urged that any charges made for providing the service should be kept to a minimum. Organisations wishing to use an umbrella body are advised to inquire about, and to compare, any such charges.

  We have been determined that all those wishing to access the Criminal Records Bureau's service should have ready means of access. To assist bodies for whom registration in their own right is not appropriate, the bureau has encouraged others to register as umbrella bodies. Up to 23 April 2002, a total of 713 bodies had so registered, including 422 who are prepared to act as "open" umbrella bodies-i.e., countersign applications at the request of others outside their own circle or sector (but possibly subject to a geographical restriction stated by the umbrella body on registration). The Bureau maintains a record of umbrella bodies by geographical area, which shows that there are good numbers of such bodies in each, with the exception of mid-Wales and north Wales where numbers are lower. But organisations seeking the services of an umbrella body are not confined to their own area. Voluntary organisations needing to find an umbrella body should access the Criminal Record Bureau's website www.disclosure.gov.uk, which has an umbrella body search facility, or contact the Criminal Records Bureau direct on 0870 90 90 811. Organisations are continuing to apply for registration, and the number of umbrella bodies will increase. Officials are exploring means of developing the network further.

  Retail Crime
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide funding to local retail crime prevention initiatives in(a) town and (b) secondary shopping centres. [53500]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 27 June last year the provision of ££15 million over three years from the capital modernisation fund to assist small retailers in deprived areas to improve the security of their businesses. £3 million was available in 2001–02 financial year, with a further £6 million in both 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  This money. which is being spent on schemes identified by regional crime reduction directors, in conjunction with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, will be used to help small retailers to improve security. This will be achieved by employing a variety of interventions,
  606w
  including enhancing the security of individual premises and improving the environment of shopping centres. Nearly 3,000 shops in 114 retail schemes in some of the most deprived areas in England and Wales benefited from first year funds. More shops will be assisted in the next two years.

  The Home Office has also supported work undertaken to establish retail crime partnerships by funding a consultant post for the past two years. The consultant has worked closely with the British Retail Consortium to produce a definitive guide on how to establish and run a retail crime partnership and encouraged retailers and other stakeholders in main shopping centre areas to establish partnerships to tackle retail and related crime.

  Funding totalling £223,000 was also given to aid retail crime reduction initiatives under various programmes administered by regional crime reduction directors in the financial year ending 31 March 2002 and a further £86,500 of funding is expected to be disbursed via regional crime reduction directors specifically for retail crime reduction initiatives in the current financial year.

  Other funding under the Crime Reduction Programme, such as the £170 million for schemes for the installation of closed circuit television, particularly in town centres will help to reduce shop theft as well as other types of crime in the locations where it is installed. Other initiatives such as the street wardens schemes will also be of benefit to retailers in the areas where they operate.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the annual cost of retail crime to(a) business, (b) local authorities and (c) the police in each of the past three years; [54469]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total cost of (a) retail crime and (b) street crime in each of the last three years. [54467]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office does not collect information about the cost of retail crime. The British Retail Consortium conducts an annual retail crime survey and the most recent one, published in June 2001, estimated the total retail crime losses in the United Kingdom at £1,481 million in 2000, compared to £1,461 million in 1999. The same survey also indicated that retailers spent £626 million on crime prevention measures in 2000 compared with £554 million in 1999.

  The survey of crime affecting retailers and manufacturers announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 23 April 2002, the results of which should be available next spring, will also provide up to date information about crimes against retailers.

  The best estimates for the total cost of robberies (as a proxy for street crime) for the years 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 are shown in the table and are based on information extrapolated from the British Crime Survey.

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2,600

  2000–01

  2,200

  Information is not yet available for 2001–02.

  Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) child curfew orders, (b) parenting orders and (c) antisocial behaviour orders have been made; and how many breaches of each have taken place resulting in further proceedings in each year since their introduction. [53707]

  Mr. Denham
  No applications have been received to impose child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which took effect on 1 August 2001, extended the upper age limit to 15 and allowed the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes. Local areas are assessing the implications of these changes and we know that local consultation is taking place.

  The numbers of Parenting Orders imposed in England and Wales between April 2000 and December 2001, are set out in the table. This information comes from the Youth Justice Board. 40 of the parenting orders imposed following a crime by the child have resulted in breach action.

  England and Wales

  Type of order

  Parenting Order

  Crime

  1,268

  Education

  274

  Other

  236

  Total

  1,778

  Persons1 convicted of breaches of antisocial orders in Nottingham and England and Wales Wales, 1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001 (provisional figures)

  Nottinghamshire

  England and Wales

  Persons aged 10 to 17

  Persons aged 18 and over

  Persons aged 10 to 17

  Persons aged 18 and over

  Total found guilty

  2

  4

  83

  107

  Total for sentence

  2

  4

  83

  2101

  Absolute discharge

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Conditional discharge

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Fine

  —

  —

  14

  18

  Community rehabilitation order

  —

  —

  2

  9

  Supervision order

  —

  —

  10

  —

  Community punishment order

  —

  —

  2

  6

  Attendance centre order

  —

  —

  8

  1

  Community punishment and rehabilitation order

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Curfew order

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Reparation order

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Action plan order

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Total community sentences

  —

  —

  28

  17

  Fully suspended sentence

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Detention and training order

  1

  —

  35

  —

  Young offender institution

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Unsuspended sentence of imprisonment

  —

  —

  —

  44

  Total immediate custody

  —

  —

  35

  55

  Police cells (one day)

  —

  4

  —

  5

  Not separately dealt with

  1

  —

  2

  3

  1A person is counted once for each separate court appearance on which he is found guilty of a breach.

  2 In six cases the sentences imposed at the Crown court following summary conviction were not yet to hand.

  608W
  The available information on antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) is given in the table.

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2001—England and Wales

  Period

  Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBO)1

  Number of finalised criminal court proceedings within period for breach of an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO)2

  1 April 1999 to 31 December 2000

  235

  381

  1 January 2001 to 30 September 2001

  231

  4192

  1 October 2001 to 31 December 2001

  52

  52014;

  Total

  518

  1Issued within period.

  2 The number of occasions identified on the Home Office court appearance database that an individual has appeared in court for breaching an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) where an outcome resulted.

  3Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against in a magistrates court for the year 2000. Only those occasions within the sample are included.

  4Provisional.

  5Not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, in respect of the most recent year for which figures are available, were convicted of a breach of an antisocial behaviour order(a) in Nottingham and (b) in England and Wales; and what penalties they received, distinguishing in each case between offenders (i) over and (ii) under 18. [54067]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is contained in the table. The period covered is 1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001. The figures are provisional.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means the Criminal Case Review Commission prioritises its cases; if the Commission distinguishes between persons in prison and those who have been released; and if it distinguishes between those serving short and those serving long-term sentences. [53752]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Applications from those in custody or at liberty begin their review in date order of receipt dependent on the availability of case information. At stages two and three applications from those in custody begin their review before those at liberty. The Commission considers applications for priority on the following grounds:

  Grave ill health of the applicant, witnesses or family members

  The interests of the Criminal Justice System

  Age of applicants

  Operational effectiveness of the Commission.

  Applicants receiving a Life sentence who are released on licence are treated as if they were in custody. Once a review has begun it continues even if the custodial status of the applicant changes. Applicants released before the review begins move to At Liberty status.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet representatives of the magistracy to discuss the sentencing of young offenders. [51320]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: I have no meetings currently planned to meet representatives of the magistracy about this. However, I would be happy to meet with them in the future, diary commitments permitting. I will meet members of the Magistrates' Association on 11 June 2002.

  Theft
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has made of whether there is a relationship between the number of burglaries and street robberies in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [54021]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office has not undertaken any research in the past five years that looks specifically at the relationship between the number of burglaries and the number of street robberies.

  Racially Motivated Crime
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review policing arrangements with regard to racially motivated crime in(a) Burnley, (b) Oldham and (c) Bradford. [54058]

  Mr. Denham
  The policing arrangements are as follows:

  In Burnley the police have established a Racist Incident Unit with a team of investigators and intelligence officers, tasked with
  610W
  monitoring racist crime and incidents, and providing an in depth level of investigation. In Oldham, a Hate Crime Unit performs the same role, with the ability to pick up on trends of racist crime.
  In Bradford, the policing of racially motivated crime is supported by Community Safety Units. They have community based reporting arrangements: there are currently 29 reporting centres with a further 10 in the pipeline. They are also piloting a system of Lay Panels sitting with the Divisional Commander, who audit all racist crimes and incidents, with the power to request an investigation be re-opened. Although operational policing matters in Burnley, Oldham and Bradford, are the responsibility of the Chief Constables of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire respectively, I recognise the importance of the police to providing an effective response to racially motivated crime.

  Personal Safety
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to promote policies for instruction of the general public on personal safety from crime. [54190]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office produces a wide range of public information about personal safety and crime prevention. Police crime prevention officers and other crime reduction agencies distribute this material. Information and advice is also available on the Crime Reduction Website www.crimereduction.gov.uk

  In response to rising concern about mobile phone theft the Department has produced a leaflet which is distributed by the police and commercial organisations including Dixons, Virgin and the Carphone Warehouse.

  We have distributed leaflets, doorstickers, videos and posters about distraction burglary directly to the elderly and the professional bodies and carers who work with them.

  Advice about making homes and property secure from burglars, property marking, and specific advice about home security when moving home or going on holiday are also available and distributed by people engaged in crime prevention activity.

  Our very successful vehicle crime campaign, featuring television and radio advertising, provides security advice for motorists. It also involves developing partnerships with appropriate commercial partners to help spread vehicle crime prevention advice. Our research suggests that the campaign is having an impact on motorist behaviour.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of domestic violence were reported to the Metropolitan Police in each of the last three years. [54189]

  Mr. Denham
  Details of the numbers of domestic violence incidents in the Metropolitan Police force area, obtained from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Annual Statistical Return from the force, are given in the following. The definition of domestic violence incidents used for the figures for 1998&99 is as follows:

  "Any form of physical, sexual or emotional abuse which takes place within the context of a close relationship. In most cases, the relationship will be between partners, married, cohabiting or otherwise; or ex-partners".
  611W
  The figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 used the following definition:

  Any violence between current or former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever the violence occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional or financial abuse.

  The figures for 1998–99 are therefore not directly comparable with those for 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Domestic violence incidents—Metropolitan Police force area

  Year

  Number of incidents

  1998–99

  41,531

  1999–2000

  77,099

  2000–01

  91,154

  Volunteer Bureaux
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the £1–2 million he has awarded in special grant to voluntary bureaux; and how it will he distributed to each individual office. [55032]

  Angela Eagle
  I agreed an Emergency Fund of £500,000 to support local volunteer bureaux and Councils for Voluntary Service facing imminent closure or the substantial loss of core services due to funding cuts. The crisis situation was identified by the National Association of Volunteer Bureaux (NAVB) and the National Association of Councils for Voluntary Service (NACVS) on behalf of their members. The Fund is administered by NAVB and NACVS. Applications were invited from NAVB and NACVS member organisations and assessed by an independent panel using criteria agreed by Government. An announcement detailing which agencies have been awarded grants will be made before the end of May 2002.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average delay for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in relation to(a) deciding claims, (b) the review of such decisions and (c) hearings challenging such decisions in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [55188]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority advise that, using as the start and finish points the date of receipt of the application for the relevant stage and the date that the decision was issued, the average elapsed times for the period 1 May 2001 to 30 April 2002 were:

  Days

  Elapsed time

  Claims assessment

  305

  Review

  274

  Appeal

  408

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are electronically tagged in England and Wales. [55201]

  Beverley Hughes
  On 30 April 2002, a total of 362 women were subject to electronic tagging in England and Wales.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 12-year-old children have been remanded to local authority secure accommodation in the last month. [55041]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: One 12-year-old child was remanded to local authority secure accommodation in April 2002.

  Physical Restraint
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's policy is on the use of(a) handcuffs and (b) other implements of physical restraint on pregnant women under-18 when visiting hospitals from prison establishments. [55039]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: The current policy on the use of restraints on pregnant female prisoners is contained within Chapter 37 of the Security Manual (Prison Service Order 1000). All pregnant female prisoners (regardless of age) are subject to a thorough risk assessment before attending hospital for ante-natal checks and giving birth. This is done to assess any escape risks.
  This process allows the Governor the discretion not to use restraints where it is considered that they are unnecessary. In the exceptional circumstances that a female prisoner going to hospital to give birth does require restraints, they will be removed on her arrival at the hospital and not re-applied until her journey back to the prison. A copy of the Security Manual is retained in the Library.

  Police Numbers (Spelthorne)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were serving in the Spelthorne Division on 1 January in each of the past five years. [55036]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: Spelthorne was affected by the boundary changes on 1 April 2000 between the Metropolitan police and Surrey police when the policing of Spelthorne was transferred to Surrey police. The information before April 2000 has therefore been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Sir John Stevens) and the data for subsequent years provide by the Chief Constable of Surrey police (Mr. Denis O'Connor). The divisional boundaries of the old MPS area for Spelthorne are not coterminous with those of Surrey, consequently like with like comparisons cannot be made.
  613

  Spelthorne—police numbers

  Police strength

  Spelthorne

  North Surrey Division1

  31 December 1997

  178.4

  n/a

  31 December 1998

  180.8

  n/a

  31 December 1999

  155

  n/a

  31 March 2001

  164.5

  256.9

  31 December 2001

  130.9

  186.5

  31 March 2002

  n/a

  2376.1

  1 On 27 January 2002 the borough of Spelthorne was combined with the boroughs of Elmbridge and Epsom and Ewell to form the new A Division (North Surrey). The borough of Runneymede was transferred from the old North Surrey Division to West Surrey Division on 27 January 2002. Officers were moved in anticipation of these changes and this accounts for the fall in North Surrey numbers between March and December 2001.

  2 New North Surrey Division including Spelthorne.

  Women's Prison (Ashford)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in the negotiations with the private sector to build and operate a women's prison at Ashford, Middlesex. [55038]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 May 2002]: The negotiations are continuing in respect of the contract for designing, constructing, managing and financing the new prison at Ashford, Middlesex.

  Prisoners (Former Service Personnel)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in prison have served in the armed forces, not including national service; and if he will make a statement. [55315]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: We do not hold this information and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Anti-semitism
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes the Metropolitan police have recorded as being anti-semitic(a) in the last four weeks, (b) in the previous three months and (c) in the last year; and if he will make a statement.[54223]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: Numbers of anti-semitic crimes are not collected separately by the Home Office.

  The Government condemns all acts of anti-semitism in this country. The Government and the police are aware of the concerns of the Jewish community and we have received reports from both the police and community organisations such as the Community Security Trust. We will continue to monitor the situation carefully in co-operation with community organisations.

HEALTH

  Orthodontics
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the waiting times in Essex for orthodontist operations. [41948]

  Ms Blears
  Patients waiting for orthodontic operations will normally be listed under general surgery or plastic surgery. Waiting times for these specialities are shown in the table.

  Inpatient waiting data mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust for general surgery and plastic surgery—Data for quarter ended 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2001

  Year(December)

  Surgery speciality

  Total number of patients on waiting list

  Number waiting over 15 months

  Average (median) waiting time in months

  2000

  General

  915

  12

  3.6

  2001

  General

  1,360

  0

  3.9

  2000

  Plastic

  2,950

  82

  3.3

  2001

  Plastic

  3,413

  25

  2.9

  Source:

  DH Form KHO7

  NHS Inspections
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many, and which, NHS organisations were inspected by(a) the Commission for Health Improvement and (b) the Audit Commission in 2001; and if he will make a statement. [46286]

  Ms Blears
  During 2001, the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) began 104 reviews of national health service organisations in England and Wales as part of its routine reviews of local clinical governance arrangements. A list of organisations will be placed in the Library. Further details are also available from the CHI website via www.chi.nhs.uk/eng/cgr/current2014;rev.shtml

  CHI also commenced or was concluding four investigations during 2001, two of which are still ongoing. Further details are available via www.chi.nhs.uk/eng/inv/current.shtml

  All NHS bodies are also subject to an annual audit by auditors appointed by the Audit Commission. This currently includes an audit of performance as well as the traditional financial audit.

  Collaboratively, CHI and the Audit Commission published a joint review of the implementation of the Calman-Hine report on cancer services in December 2001. During the course of the review 11 networks, comprising 93 organisations, were visited as study sites. These will be placed in the Library.

  We recently announced our intention to introduce legislation to establish a new independent healthcare inspectorate covering both the NHS and the private sector.
  616W
  The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will bring together the health value for money work of the Audit Commission, the work of CHI and the private healthcare role of the National Care Standards Commission. Legislation to establish this new body will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Waiting Times
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of patients waited less than four hours in accident and emergency from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge in the last year; [47836]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 966W, if he will publish the waiting times in A and E since August 2001. [48286]

  Ms Blears
  Management information shows about 77 per cent. of all patients in England spent less than four hours in accident and emergency from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge between September 2001 and March 2002. This information is unvalidated. September is the first month for which full information is available.

  Hearing Aids
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will widen the availability of digital hearing aids by making it possible for private individuals to purchase these from the NHS at the price the NHS has paid for them. [47764]

  Jacqui Smith
  National health service services are provided free at the point of delivery. It is not possible for the NHS to sell digital hearing aids that are provided as part of an NHS service.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's plans regarding the treatment and care of myalgic encephalomyelitis; [48629]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the appointment and work of the Medical Research Council's independent scientific advisory group established to further research in the field of CFS/ME;[48630]

  (3) what resources the Government (a) have already made and (b) plan to make available to implement the recommendations of the CFS/ME independent working group's report published on 11 January. [48631]

  Ms Blears
  The Medical Research Council are in the process of appointing an independent scientific advisory group which will include scientists with expertise in areas such as epidemiology, physiology, immunology, infections, clinical trials and psychological medicine. The advisory group will draw on the working party report and recent expert reviews of the field. It will also take into account the concerns of patients and carers and the interests of consumers generally.
  617
  There are no plans to make extra resources available to implement the chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) independent working group report. It is for primary care trusts in partnership within the local health economy and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to provide services for their local populations, including those patients with CFS/ME.

  The Government response to the working group's report welcomed the publication of the report. We see it as the start of a process of improving awareness and understanding that we hope will lead to improved diagnosis, management and treatment.

  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 Lancaster Moor Hospital for the Bay Community NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49517]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information concerning the former Lancaster Priority Services NHS Trust in relation to the development of the Lancaster Moor Hospital is shown in the table:

  £000

  PFI

  11,702

  Public

  12,602

  Savings in net present value terms

  900

  Difference (percentage)

  7.1

  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 Mancunian Community Trust2014;Primary Care for the Mancunian NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49528]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information concerning the former Mancunian Community NHS Trust in relation to the development of the Primary Care Resource Centre is shown in the table:

  £000

  PFI

  3,724

  Public

  3,968

  Savings in net present value terms

  244

  Difference (percentage)

  6.15

  Smallpox
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what scientific assessments he has carried out of the differences between the Lister and New York strains of the smallpox vaccine. [50896]
  618W
  Mr. Hutton
  The choice of smallpox vaccine strain took into account expert advice, under the auspices of a specially convened sub-group of the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation (JCVI).

  The advice of the JCVI sub-group was that there was no difference between the two strains on scientific grounds. Vaccines based on both strains were considered to have been effective in the past.

  However, the JCVI sub-group concluded that there is a greater body of evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of the Lister strain rather than for the New York City Board of Health strain, and that the smallpox vaccine has been challenged in the field more often by the more severe form of smallpox "variola major" with the strain chosen by the UK Government. The JCVI sub-group also recommended that using a different strain of vaccine from that used in the United States offered the greatest safeguard if difficulties arose with the production of either strain ensuring that the alternative strain could act as a fall-back.

  Haemophilia
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the process by which the Government will determine whether to make recombinant available to all people with haemophilia; if he will outline the considerations being taken into account in coming to this decision; and if he will indicate when he expects this process to be complete. [50849]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government is considering whether to make recombinant clotting factors available to all haemophiliacs in England taking full account of representations made by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia, the Haemophilia Society, the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation and others. A decision will be taken later this year.

  Nursing Care Standards
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the standard of(a) medical and (b) nursing care in (i) NHS and (ii) private hospitals. [51754]

  Ms Blears
  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) plays a central role in our plans to drive up the quality of care in the national health service. CHI assess systems and processes through clinical governance reviews and comment on where and when they think the potential to deliver good care is compromised.

  CHI has published 102 clinical governance reports on NHS trust.

  Under the Registered Homes Act 1984, which was in force until 31 March 2002, health authorities carried out biannual inspections of the facilities, equipment and staffing levels in private hospitals, but had no powers to assess standards of medical or nursing care.

  On 1 April this year, under the Care Standards Act 2000, the National Care Standards Commission took over the role of registering and inspecting independent health care providers, who for the first time are required to meet national minimum standards, including those for medical and nursing care. The commission is required to provide

  619W
  information about independent health care services to the Secretary of State for Health and to the public, but as it has been operating only since 1 April, it has not yet had time to gather this information.

  We have announced our intention to establish a new tough independent healthcare regulator/inspectorate, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection which will have responsibility for inspecting both public and private health care sectors.

  Occupational Therapists
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to increase the availability of occupational therapists to health authorities in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [52875]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS plan sets out our intention to increase numbers of staff across the healthcare professions. The targets for increasing the size of the workforce include 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals by 2004 over the 1999 baseline. Occupational therapists are included in this target and

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Scientific, therapeutic and technical staff employed in the occupational therapy area of work and the ratio per population by health authority area as at 30 September 2001

  Health authority

  Whole-time equivalents

  2000 population figures

  Residents per occupational therapist

  Headcount

  England total

  11,820

  50,187,000

  4,250

  13,910

  QA2 Hillingdon

  40

  260,700

  6,520

  40

  QA3 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  200

  415,200

  2,030

  220

  QA5 Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  110

  459,800

  4,230

  120

  QA6 Bedfordshire

  120

  570,300

  4,630

  150

  QA7 Berkshire

  140

  826,500

  5,840

  180

  QA8 Buckinghamshire

  180

  702,700

  3,910

  230

  QAD Croydon

  30

  348,400

  10,260

  40

  QAE East Kent

  160

  607,100

  3,710

  206

  QAF West Kent

  160

  984,100

  6,340

  180

  QAG Kingston and Richmond

  30

  349,600

  12,760

  30

  QAH Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  210

  757,000

  3,620

  240

  QAJ Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  260

  641,300

  2,510

  290

  QAK East Surrey

  150

  427,400

  2,880

  180

  QAL West Surrey

  190

  651,200

  3,410

  240

  QAM East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  180

  765,000

  4,150

  220

  QAN West Sussex

  140

  771,600

  5,490

  170

  QAP Barking and Havering

  60

  381,200

  5,900

  70

  QAR Brent and Harrow

  70

  480,300

  7,030

  80

  QAT Camden and Islington

  150

  379,000

  2,460

  170

  QAV Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  140

  700,400

  5,050

  160

  QAW East London and the City

  170

  642,400

  3,740

  180

  QAX North Essex

  240

  911,500

  3,760

  290

  QAY South Essex

  160

  718,400

  4,590

  180

  QC1 South Lancashire

  50

  312,900

  6,480

  60

  QC2 Liverpool

  80

  454,200

  5,910

  90

  QC3 Manchester

  140

  426.500

  3,090

  160

  QC4 Morecambe Bay

  90

  313,700

  3,660

  100

  QC5 St. Helen's and Knowsley

  50

  328,100

  6,020

  60

  QC6 Salford and Trafford

  150

  445,200

  2,900

  170

  QC7 Sefton

  90

  284,100

  3,070

  110

  QC8 Stockport

  60

  294,200

  4,840

  80

  QC9 West Pennine

  100

  471,300

  4,830

  110

  QCC Northamptonshire

  120

  628,300

  5,400

  140

  QCE Oxfordshire

  150

  633,400

  4,130

  190

  QCF Suffolk

  130

  684,300

  5,220

  160

  QCG Barnsley

  40

  228,600

  5,110

  50

  QCH North Derbyshire

  100

  372,300

  3,900

  120

  QCJ Southern Derbyshire

  160

  574,300

  3,620

  200

  620
  there are 1,250 more working in the national health service now than there were in 1999. "Delivering the NHS Plan", published in April 2002, sets out the expected increase in the workforce. It is expected that there will be 30,000 more therapists and scientists (including occupational therapists) between now and 2008.

  The NHS plan also sets a target for 4,450 more therapists and other key professional staff entering training each year by 2004. Overall since 1996–97 the number of places available to train as an occupational therapist has increased by 427 (44 per cent.) This will continue to rise as we make further progress towards achieving the NHS plan target.

  Lembit 00D6;pik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many residents per occupational therapist there are in each health authority in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [52873]

  (2) how many occupational therapists are employed by each health authority in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [52872]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is in the table.
  621W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Scientific, therapeutic and technical staff employed in the occupational therapy area of work and the ratio per population by health authority area as at 30 September 2001

  Health authority

  Whole-time equivalents

  2000 population figures

  Residents per occupational therapist

  Headcount

  QCK Doncaster

  90

  288,900

  3,290

  100

  QCL Leicestershire

  230

  947,600

  4,120

  260

  QCM Lincolnshire

  90

  640,600

  7,380

  100

  QCN North Nottinghamshire

  230

  388,200

  1,720

  250

  QCP Nottingham

  150

  647,600

  4,200

  170

  QCQ Rotherham

  100

  253,100

  2,480

  120

  QCR Sheffield

  160

  530,100

  3,340

  190

  QCT Bury and Rochdale

  60

  392,800

  6,090

  70

  QCV North Cheshire

  90

  314,400

  3,560

  110

  QCW South Cheshire

  100

  680,400

  6,790

  140

  QCX East Lancashire

  100

  512,300

  4,890

  120

  QCY North West Lancashire

  140

  469,800

  3,310

  170

  QD1 North and Mid Hampshire

  50

  574,000

  10,910

  70

  QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire

  160

  552,800

  3,480

  200

  QD5 Somerset

  120

  498,900

  4,150

  150

  QD6 South and West Devon

  170

  598,700

  3,620

  200

  QD7 Wiltshire

  60

  621,200

  9,820

  80

  QD8 Avon

  350

  1,012,600

  2,890

  440

  QD9 Birmingham

  280

  1,012,800

  3,670

  310

  QDA Wigan and Bolton

  150

  577,700

  3,780

  170

  QDC Wirral

  100

  322,900

  3,170

  120

  QDD Bradford

  110

  487,500

  4,270

  130

  QDE County Durham and Darlington

  90

  607,800

  7,110

  100

  QDF East Riding and Hull

  110

  581,700

  5,180

  130

  QDG Gateshea and South Tyneside

  80

  350,500

  4,150

  100

  QDH Leeds

  180

  731,100

  3,960

  210

  QDJ Newcastle and North Tyneside

  140

  468,100

  3,380

  160

  QDK North Cumbria

  70

  321,200

  4,570

  80

  QDL South Humber

  30

  304,900

  9,860

  40

  QDM Northumberland

  70

  310,400

  4,540

  80

  QDN Sunderland

  40

  289,300

  7,050

  40

  QDP Tees

  150

  552,500

  3,790

  160

  QDQ Wakefield

  140

  317,200

  2,270

  150

  QDR North Yorkshire

  170

  756,700

  4,590

  210

  QDT Calderdale and Kirklees

  160

  587,700

  3,580

  190

  QDV Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  110

  499,000

  4,520

  130

  QDW Dorset

  230

  708,200

  3,120

  280

  QDX North and East Devon

  160

  489,200

  3,080

  200

  QDY Gloucestershire

  160

  565,600

  3,430

  200

  QEA Coventry

  70

  304,600

  4,570

  80

  QEC Dudley

  60

  311,300

  5,040

  70

  QED Herefordshire

  50

  171,900

  3,690

  60

  QEE Sandwell

  50

  288,400

  6,410

  50

  QEF Shropshire

  110

  437,100

  4,160

  120

  QEG Solihull

  12014;

  206,500

  12014;

  12014;

  QEH North Staffordshire

  140

  464,800

  3,380

  150

  QEJ South Staffordshire

  90

  599,500

  6,460

  120

  QEK Walsall

  30

  259,400

  8,320

  30

  QEL Warwickshire

  90

  513,000

  5,450

  110

  QEM Wolverhampton

  70

  240,200

  3,320

  90

  QEN Worcestershire

  120

  548,100

  4,750

  150

  QER Cambridgeshire

  170

  743,600

  4,420

  200

  QET Norfolk

  230

  806,000

  3,550

  270

  QEV Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  120

  681,600

  5,480

  150

  QEW Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  200

  854,300

  4,220

  230

  QEX Hertfordshire

  120

  1,052,300

  8,510

  160

  QEY Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  100

  736,500

  7,380

  120

  1There were no occupational therapists employed in the organisation within Solihull health authority as at 30 September 2001.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are round to the nearest 10.

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  3. Residents per occupational therapist is based on wte data.

  4. Occupational therapists are also employed by local authorities.

  Sources

  1. Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  2. Office for National Statistics (ONS)

  Opioid Prescriptions
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many opioid prescriptions were issued in the UK in each of the past ten years. [53197]

  Ms Blears
  Information for England is shown in the table. Information for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community for opioid analgesics and opioid drugs used in substance dependence, 1991 to 2001

  Thousand

  Number of prescription items

  1991

  3,444

  1992

  3,705

  1993

  3,946

  1994

  4,384

  1995

  4,918

  1996

  5,495

  1997

  6,096

  1998

  6,722

  1999

  7,336

  2000

  8,014

  2001

  8,766

  Notes:

  1. The prescription information was obtained from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system and is based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in the community, i.e. by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England. Total prescriptions include not only prescriptions originating from general medical practitioners in England but also from hospital doctors, nurses, and dentists, provided they were dispensed in the community. Also included are prescriptions written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital or private prescriptions.

  2. Opioid analgesics are those drugs defined in the British National Formulary (BNF) paragraph 4.7.2, "Opioid analgesics". The opioid drugs used in substance dependence are contained within the BNF section 4.10, and are methadone, buprenorphine and naltrexone.

  Photodynamic Therapy
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2002,Official Report, column 1240W, on photodynamic therapy, under what circumstances the NHS will charge patients for photodynamic therapy. [53649]

  Ms Blears
  Patients should not be charged for photodynamic therapy where it is being provided as an integral part of their national health service treatment.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently conducting an appraisal of photodynamic therapy. In the meantime, we have asked NHS bodies to continue with local arrangements for the managed introduction of new technologies where guidance from NICE is not available at the time the technology first became available. These arrangements should involve an assessment of all relevant factors including the available evidence on effect.

  We are expecting NICE to issue guidance to the NHS in July 2002, providing there are no appeals.
  624w
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who will go blind in each of the next four years whose sight could be saved by photodynamic therapy. [50058]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: A study sponsored by the Macular Disease Society in 2001 estimated that there were 182,000 people with age-related macular degeneration with a best eye visual acuity below that judged appropriate for certification as blind or partially sighted. Around 10 to 15 per cent. of those will have the 'wet' type of the condition, for which photodynamic therapy is intended as a treatment. However, it is not possible to say in how many cases the treatment would be effective. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently appraising the effectiveness of the treatment. We are expecting the NICE guidance to be issued to the national health service in July, providing there are no appeals.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mixed sex wards of eight or more there were in England on 1 April. [53365]

  Ms Blears
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  It is the responsibility of each national health service trust to manage patient admissions in such a manner as to ensure that patient privacy is protected. Guidance on maintaining patient privacy and dignity was issued to the service in 1997 and since then the NHS has been working towards a clear target of eliminating mixed sex accommodation in 95 per cent. of trusts by December 2002.

  Repair and Maintenance
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 300W, what figures he collates on repair and maintenance of NHS estates, broken down by region, in each of the last five years. [53371]

  Ms Blears
  Figures for the repair and maintenance backlog costs for the national health service estate in England, broken down by region over the five years from 1996–97 to 2000–01, were reported in my response to the hon. Gentleman on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 300W.

  These are repeated in the following tables with figures for the year 2000–01 updated to reflect the outcome of recent data validation.

  Total backlog maintenance—old region

  £000

  Old region

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Northern and Yorkshire

  387,253

  427,819

  Trent

  211,042

  234,193

  Anglia and Oxford

  240,769

  288,228

  North Thames

  768,942

  652,985

  South Thames

  370,659

  357,978

  South West

  227,901

  254,959

  West Midlands

  350,055

  391,575

  North West

  266,485

  291,981

  Total for England

  2,823,106

  2,899,717

  625W

  Total backlog maintenance—new region

  £000

  New region

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Northern and Yorkshire

  539,948

  433,016

  486,128

  Trent

  370,185

  267,137

  256,091

  Eastern

  262,662

  267,398

  177,968

  London

  832,901

  796,949

  708,697

  South Eastern

  383,660

  409,228

  401,196

  South West

  222,863

  165,154

  282,225

  West Midlands

  421,888

  435,101

  454,432

  North West

  336,944

  334,241

  387,131

  Total for England

  3,371,051

  3,108,224

  3,153,869

  Drug Prescriptions
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of each individual(a) benzodiazepine and (b) antidepressant was prescribed by doctors in England in 2001.[53516]

  Ms Blears
  The number of items for benzodiazepine and antidepressant drugs dispensed in the community by chemical entity is shown in the table.

  Detailed information on individual preparations dispensed in the community is published in the publication "Prescription Cost Analysis: England 2001". The preparations are listed alphabetically within chemical entity by British National Formulary therapeutic class. A copy has been placed in the Library. The data are also available on the internet at www.doh.gov.uk/prescriptionstatistics/index.htm.

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community: England, 2001

  Thousand

  Chemical entity

  Prescription item

  Benzodiazepines

  Diazepam

  4,502

  Temazepam

  4,449

  Nitrazepam

  1,963

  Lorazepam

  731

  Chlordiazepoxide hydrochloride

  368

  Clonazepam

  278

  Oxazepam

  262

  Lormetazepam

  194

  Loprazolam mesylate

  181

  Clobazam

  101

  Total

  13,028

  Antidepressant drugs

  Amitriptyline hydrochloride

  4,333

  Fluoxetine hydrochloride

  4,006

  Paroxetine hydrochloride

  3,787

  Dothiepin hydrochloride

  3,031

  Citalopram

  2,812

  Venlafaxine

  1,504

  Sertraline hydrochloride

  1,443

  Lofepramine hydrochloride

  661

  Trazodone hydrochloride

  462

  Clomipramine hydrochloride

  433

  Mirtazapine

  430

  Imipramine hydrochloride

  318

  Flupenthixol hydrochloride

  253

  Trimipramine maleate

  212

  Doxepin

  146

  Nortriptyline

  138

  Nefazodone hydrochloride

  105

  Reboxetine

  71

  626w

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community: England, 2001

  Thousand

  Chemical entity

  Prescription item

  Mianserin hydrochloride

  45

  Fluvoxamine maleate

  37

  Phenelzine sulphate

  32

  Moclobemide

  32

  Tranylcypromine sulphate

  23

  Maprotiline hydrochloride

  14

  Isocarboxazid

  5

  Tryptophan

  5

  Amoxapine

  4

  Total

  24,343

  Notes:

  1. Data cover all prescriptions dispensed in the community, i.e. by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered. Information on items dispensed in hospitals is not available.

  2. Benzodiazepines are contained within British National Formulary paragraphs 4.1.1, hypnotics and 4.1.2, anxiolitics. Benzodiazepines within 4.8.1, drugs used in the control of epilepsy, and 4.8.2, drugs used in status epilepticus, are also included as they too are used for anxiety relief. The therapeutic classifications are based on the British National Formulary No. 40, September 2000 version.

  3. Antidepressant drugs are those defined in British National Formulary section 4.3, "antidepressant drugs". The therapeutic classifications are based on the British National Formulary No. 40, September 2000 version.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [53356]

  Ms Blears
  Guidance on data protection and how to handle subject access requests has been available to staff in the Department since January 2000 on the Department's intranet site. The guidance has been regularly updated to reflect changes in organisation or legislation. The three versions, dated 22 December 1999, 24 September 2001 and 6 March 2002 will be placed in the Library as requested.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith on 11 January, regarding the potential risks to health caused by the chemical treatment of Christmas trees. [54869]

  Ms Blears
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson) replied to my hon. Friend on 13 May at column 499W.

  Quality Protects
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the outcome is of the evaluation of the Quality Protects management action plans submitted to his Department by local authorities.[56777]
  627W
  Jacqui Smith
  All local authorities with social service responsibilities submitted their Quality Protects Management Action Plans (MAPs) to the Department of Health by the end of January. The Social Services Inspectorate has now completed its evaluation of the MAPs and I have considered their findings. The MAPs from all 150 local councils have reached an acceptable standard. Therefore, subject to Parliamentary approval of the special grant report, they will receive payment of their allocation of the children's services grant from 2001–02.

  Pesticides
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the link between pesticide exposure and Parkinson's Disease. [56016]

  Jacqui Smith
  The advisory committee on pesticides has recently considered a review of the literature relating to epidemiological studies on Parkinson's Disease and pesticides, and also experiment studies in animals exploring the potential of pesticides to induce the disease. The committee agreed that a more detailed specialist assessment of the epidemiology should be carried out. The pesticides safety directorate is currently exploring ways to take this recommendation forward.

  Expenditure (NHS Bodies)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cash releasing efficiency savings NHS trusts and primary care trusts are required to achieve in 2002–03. [56288]

  Mr. Hutton
  The target for efficiency savings in the National Health Service in 2002–03 is 2 per cent.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the cash releasing efficiency savings achieved by(a) NHS trusts and (b) other NHS bodies, (i) in monetary terms and (ii) expressed as a percentage of the annual expenditure of those bodies on the basis of the information currently available to his Department in respect of 2001–01. [56289]

  Mr. Hutton
  Allocations to health authorities are based on an overall assessment of the resources required to cover inflationary pressures and deliver national targets. Allocations to health authorities 2001–02 were made net of 2 per cent. efficiency savings (equivalent to around £800 million). This means that health authorities needed to achieve the efficiency target to fully fund delivery of national targets and inflation. It is not possible to separately identify the savings made by national health service trusts.

  Mental Health (Young People)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to discuss the promotion of mental health in schools; and if he will make a statement. [56321]

  Jacqui Smith
  Ministers in the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills have many regular meetings and child mental health services are 628w
  raised at many of these meetings. Officials of both Departments meet frequently to discuss multi-agency mental health services for children.

  The promotion of children's mental health and the prevention of mental health problems in childhood are central to many Government programmes. The Department for Education and Skills issued guidance last year specifically addressing mental health promotion in schools, to which this Department contributed. This guidance is designed to increase awareness about children's mental health among teachers and to provide examples of good practice.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the need to amend legislation on mental health in order to implement United Kingdom obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; and if he will make a statement. [56320]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government published the White Paper "Reforming the Mental Health Act" in December 2000. The White Paper made clear our intention to reform mental health legislation and to bring it into line with the contemporary patterns of care and treatment including the changes and new investment set out in the NHS plan. This included commitment to introduce additional measures to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people with mental health problems where current safeguards are not considered to be sufficiently robust.

  This is a high priority for the Government. New legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the letter from the hon. Member for Twickenham regarding Mr. Peter Whitbread of 19 April 2001 has not received a reply.[44796]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: I have now replied to the hon. Member and apologise for the unacceptable delay. His letter of 19 April 2001 was unfortunately misplaced.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what trend data are available to measure progress against the PSA target for a reduction in serious accidental injury relating to admission to hospital. [47300]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The White Paper 'Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation' published in 1999 set a target of a 10 per cent. reduction by 2010 against a baseline of the age standardised hospital admission rate for the financial year 1995–96.

  Data to monitor the Public Service Agreement target to reduce the rate of hospital admission for serious accidental injury1 are obtained from information held in the Department's Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) system, which contains details of patients admitted to and treated in NHS hospitals in England. Data are for England.

  The trend data are as follows.
  629W

  Age standardised hospital admission rate for serious accidental injury

  Financial year

  per 100,000 population

  1995–96

  314.4

  1996–97

  315.6

  1997–98

  310.6

  1998–99

  315.2

  1999–20002

  320.9

  1Serious accidental injury is defined as an accidental injury resulting in a hospital inpatient stay exceeding three days.

  2The 1999–2000 figure is provisional

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what trend data are available to measure progress against the PSA target for a reduction in the death rate from accidents. [47301]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The White Paper 'Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation' set a target of a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010 against a baseline of the average age standardised mortality rate for the three years 1995–96–97.

  Data to monitor the Public Service. Agreement target to reduce the death rate from accidents and adverse effects are obtained from mortality data published by the Office for National Statistics. Data are for England.

  The trend data are as follows:

  Three-year average age standardised

  Period

  mortality rate per Period 100,000 population

  1995–96 to 97

  16.24

  1996–97 to 98

  16.36

  1997–98 to 99

  16.39

  1998–99 to 2000

  16.33

  Intensive Care Baby Incubators
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care baby incubators are available for use in the NHS. [46689]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Information on the total number of incubators in the national health service is not collected centrally. As at 31 March 2001, there was 1194 specialist neonatal intensive care cots available for use in the NHS.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of call to NHS Direct is over the last 12 months. [46700]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: It is not currently possible to provide information on what the average length of call to NHS Direct is. NHS Direct measures the performance of its sites in progressing calls received in terms of the time taken for callers to be able to speak to a nurse. The target is that 90 per cent. of callers should speak to a nurse within five minutes.

  Hepatitis C
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis his Department has made of the most common ways of contracting hepatitis C. [53278]
  630W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus that is transmitted mainly through direct blood to blood contact. Currently the greatest risk of acquiring hepatitis C infection in the UK is through the sharing of blood contaminated needles and injecting equipment among injecting drug users.

  Previously transmission occurred through transfusion of contaminated blood or blood products before the introduction of donor screening and of viral inactivation of plasma products.

  Health care and laboratory workers are at risk of infection by occupational exposure to the blood of infected patients. Infection may be passed from mother to baby and by sexual intercourse but these are generally considered to be less efficient modes of transmission. Tattooing and other forms of skin piercing also present a risk of infection if sterile equipment is not used.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what treatments are available for hepatitis C in the NHS; and how many(a) men and (b) women are receiving treatment for this condition; [53284]

  (2) what percentage of the estimated population infected with hepatitis C have received treatment; [53285]

  (3) what guidance has been provided to PCTs to make provision for the treatment and prevention of hepatitis C. [53287]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The Department does not hold information centrally on the number of patients who have or who are receiving treatment for hepatitis C infection. In October 2000, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance to the national health service on the use of Ribavirin and Interferon Alpha in the treatment of hepatitis C. Health authorities and primary care trusts are under a statutory obligation set out in directions, which came into force on 1 January 2002, to provide appropriate funding for treatments recommended by NICE.

  The Department will be considering the need to issue guidance to primary care trusts on the prevention of hepatitis C following consultation on a strategy for hepatitis C later this year, and as part of the action plans set out in the strategy on infectious diseases, "Getting Ahead of the Curve".

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects the expert steering group on hepatitis C set up in 2001 to produce its findings; [53286]

  (2) when he proposes to publish a strategy to combat hepatitis C. [53274]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: We set up a steering group last year to provide advice on a strategic approach to hepatitis C by bringing together issues relating to prevention, control and treatment. We expect to consult on a strategy for hepatitis C during the summer, which will take account of advice from the steering group.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness
  631W
  of the Miscellaneous Food Additives (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement. [53830]

  Ms Blears
  Costs associated with regulatory proposals are considered at the policy development stage. A632w
  regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is completed for regulatory proposals unless there are no or negligible costs, and sets out the impact, in terms of costs, benefits and risks of the proposed regulation which could affect businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. RIAs are available from the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half–past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Dental Care
Lord Colwynasked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to improve access to regular dental care within a service that also encourages prevention and the continuing maintenance of good oral health.
The Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, arrangements are now in place to ensure that patients can gain access to NHS dental services by calling NHS Direct. The working group, Options for Change, has proposed new methods of service delivery that would allow the NHS locally to place a greater emphasis upon preventive care and reducing oral health inequalities.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I declare an interest as a practising dental surgeon. I thank the Minister for that Answer. As ever, he is very helpful about dentistry. However, does he not agree that the fee structure of the General Dental Service remuneration scheme encourages dentists to leave the health service? Despite continual reviews and the development of alternative systems, the situation remains fundamentally unchanged. Will the Minister ensure that the Options for Change demonstration sites consider schemes which focus primarily on oral health gain and prevention with dentists being paid for maintaining oral health rather than for individual items of service?
This is "National Smile Week". I shall be interested to know whether the Minister has any official appointments during National Smile Week—his assurances will bring a smile to both patients and dental surgeons.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have not, as yet, been given ministerial responsibility for smiling, but one is ever hopeful. As to remuneration, the noble Lord is right to suggest that the discussions around Options for Change are very much concerned with changing some of the incentives for dentists so that they are rewarded more for work in relation to prevention and oral health in general and less in terms of the treatment they give to patients. The average remuneration generally for a dentist wholly committed to the NHS, after costs, is between £55,000 and £60,000 per year.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that he has a great deal to smile
134
about this week following the success of Birmingham City football club? Will he encourage the remainder of the country to be as fortunate as Birmingham in terms of having adequate access to fluoridated water as a sensible preventive measure? I declare a non–remunerative interest as president of the British Fluoride Society.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reference to Birmingham City's remarkable achievement on Sunday. As to fluoridation, I have long been convinced that for those areas of the country where there is severe dentistry disease fluoridation is one of the ways in which that problem can be tackled. It is significant that a large number of boroughs in the West Midlands, when compared to places such as Manchester, which has very poor dental health, do very much better than the national average.
We commissioned a review of the research available on the efficacy of fluoridation from the University of York. It suggested that, overall, fluoridation is beneficial. However, it was felt that the amount of research available was not sufficiently robust. We have asked the Medical Research Council to report to us on the question of further research in the area.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my family are smiling even more because they are Arsenal supporters? On a more sober note, does the Minister remember that at the Labour Party conference in 1999 the Prime Minister promised that within two years everyone would have access to an NHS dentist? When the Government came to power in 1997, 54 per cent of people had access to an NHS dentist. That has now fallen by 7 per cent. Is it not time for dental health to be regarded as part of general health with free dental checks and delivery by the Government of the Prime Minister's pledge?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to suggest that the Prime Minister has focused attention on improving access to NHS dentistry. That is why he made the pledge and why we have put in place a system whereby patients who have difficulty finding an NHS dentist can ring NHS Direct, which will refer them to the nearest NHS dentist. In many parts of the country that is having a very beneficial impact.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of the willingness of the public to come forward for dental treatment. Again, there is a large variation up and down the country, with an average overall of only 43 per cent of the adult population receiving regular dental treatment. We need to improve our oral health promotion. That will be the benefit of the discussions that are taking place with the dental profession at the moment about a potential new contract.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will tell the House about access centres. As I understand it from an Answer that he gave me recently, people are referred by NHS Direct either to a

135
local NHS dentist or to an access centre. Can the Minister confirm that setting up the 50 access centres in the country cost £50 million? What are the running costs of those centres—as I understand it, dentists work on a salaried basis—and what is their productivity in terms of how many patients are treated and how successfully?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, dental access centres are one of the ways in which we have been able to increase NHS dentistry for members of the public who have found it difficult to obtain such treatment from general dental practitioners. At present, 49 centres are being funded. Forty–seven are currently open, operating from over 120 sites. According to the figures for March 2002, some 300,000 patients receive treatment at the centres annually. A capital investment of £12 million took place in 2001–02. Those assets remain NHS assets. The revenue cost of the service in 2001–02 was £29·9 million. That is a good use of money to extend NHS dental care to many people.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most continental European countries, although every bit as keen on dental health as Her Majesty's Government, positively shun fluoridation? Indeed, some have banned it on the basis that the risks outweigh the possible benefits.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we commissioned the University of York to review evidence on fluoridation. The findings indicated that the fluoridation of water helps to reduce tooth decay. The review found no clear evidence of adverse effects on general health other than an increased risk of the mottling of the teeth.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, in regard to the concern about preventive medicine, have the Government any plans to recruit and train an increased number of dental hygienists?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am convinced that expanding the workforce in terms of the professions supplementary to dentistry—increasing not only the number of hygienists but also the number of therapists—could be of enormous help. Orders will be laid before this House this evening in relation to dental auxiliaries. Yes, the whole dental team has a role to play.

Gibraltar
2.44 p.m.
Lord Waddingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, before entering into the present negotiations with Spain about Gibraltar, they sought an undertaking from the Spanish Government that the ban on access to Gibraltar from Spain by air or ferry will cease.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we did not seek such prior undertakings because, as the Brussels communiqué of 1984 makes clear, such matters should be settled in the context of the Brussels Process talks. These talks continue. Our aim throughout has been for greater stability, greater freedom and greater prosperity for Gibraltarians.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, and that she has taken the trouble to come to the House to give it. However, I have to ask her this important question. What is the point in proceeding further with these talks when the British Government and the Spanish Government between them seem to have made it absolutely certain that any deal will be rejected by Gibraltar? The Spanish Government have made no promise to lift their illegal blockade; and the British Government have as good as indicated that they will concede the principle of joint sovereignty. Will anything be left other than disillusionment? Would it not be better to break off the talks now? There is a very good reason for doing so in view of Spanish intransigence as regards the base.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the point of the talks that we are undertaking is what it always was: to attempt to achieve a settlement in regard to a matter which has caused a great deal of difficulty between ourselves and one of our major allies in the European Union—a country for which we have great regard—in order to try to ensure that the standard of life of the people of Gibraltar is improved. What we are trying to achieve is the free flow of people, goods and services from Gibraltar to the Spanish mainland. We are trying to achieve a financial services hub for Andalucia and the wider region; to bring jobs and prosperity to people in Gibraltar; and to improve the communications— the airport and the ferry—in the way suggested by the noble Lord. I remind him that Mr Caruana himself said that there is no harm in proposals being put to Gibraltar to accept or reject, provided that the exercise is genuinely democratic. That is what we are engaged in.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, now that the 30-year rule allows us to see what was happening in 1971, is the Minister aware that in that year the then Conservative Foreign Secretary was seriously entertaining the idea of yielding sovereignty to Spain in return for a long leaseback arrangement? Is she further aware that the compromise was floated within the Foreign Office that sovereignty might be offered to the Order of St John of Malta—the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which was looking around for something to be sovereign over—and that a senior Foreign Office official scribbled in the margin of the document containing the proposal:
"I would rather entrust Gibraltar to the Young Liberals"?
Is the Minister also aware that the national chairman of the Young Liberals in 1971 is now the Minister responsible for negotiations with Spain over Gibraltar?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Well, my Lords, how very wise he was in 1971. By a lucky coincidence the Minister is now taking the negotiations forward. Interesting as the reflections on events in 1971 are, the fact is that in 1984 it was members of Her Majesty's Official Opposition who set up the Brussels Process under which we have been negotiating. It is important to concentrate on the facts rather than on the myth. The United Kingdom will not end Gibraltar's link with Britain. We would not pave the way for Spanish control of Gibraltar. We would not end the military arrangements that we have on Gibraltar. All these matters have been circulating as myths, and that is not the basis on which Her Majesty's Government have been proceeding.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may express sympathy for the Minister in regard to the minor injury that she seems to have suffered and wish her a rapid recovery. As to the matter of access to Gibraltar, is it not a fact that the ferries operated up to 1969, and the air links up to 1978? Both were terminated by unilateral action by the Spanish Government. Is not the whole question of access being used as a bargaining tool by Spain in the current, sadly mishandled negotiations—which, far from helping the Brussels Process, are clearly putting the entire system at risk? Would it not be wiser now, and a matter of common sense, to let the negotiations lapse? Should not the Prime Minister tell Mr Aznar that on Monday? If the negotiations are to be restarted, they should include Gibraltar in a proper way. They should ensure that Spain's disregard of its EU obligations to Gibraltar and its lack of respect for Gibraltar's rights under the EU are properly corrected, so that there is a genuine concern for the future of Gibraltar and that it is not settled over the heads of the people of Gibraltar?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, nothing will be settled over the heads of the people of Gibraltar, because, as the noble Lord knows full well, any agreement will be put to a referendum of the people of Gibraltar and they will have the final say. Of course it is important that proper links are established back with Gibraltar, but, as the noble Lord knows, as things stand that is not possible, given the rival expectations of the Government of Spain and the people of Gibraltar. That is what we have been trying to sort out, under a process that was established when the noble Lord's party was in office. We must continue to do what we believe to be right and in the interests of the people of Gibraltar, knowing that they will have a full say in the final decision.
I thank the noble Lord very much for his sympathy. It just goes to show that women of a certain age should not jump off garden walls.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is a long time since 1984, when the Brussels Process started. Is not the Spanish Government's ban contrary to the European Unions policy of freedom of the skies? The fact that Gibraltar is involved should be irrelevant.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, that is very much the view of the Government. Alas, it is not shared by the Government of Spain. They have a claim for sovereignty over Gibraltar, which we do not recognise, given the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht. It is not possible to over-emphasise the importance of trying to get an airport in Gibraltar, which would serve not only the people of Gibraltar, but the people of the region and would act as a magnet for prosperity in the region. The same is true of establishing a ferry in the region. At this stage it is very attractive for those who oppose what the Government are doing, for reasons that I find hard to understand, to try and pick out separate little items of discussion. We have to look at the package of agreements that will be reached at the end of this painstaking process.

Commonwealth Development Corporation
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Rawlingsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their investment policy for the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, an investment policy was put in place when CDC became a public limited company in December 1999. This requires that 70 per cent of new investments, measured over a rolling five-year period, must be in poorer developing countries and that each year CDC should aim to make 50 per cent of new investments in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The 70 per cent target has been exceeded in each of the past five years and the 50 per cent target has been exceeded in three out of the past five years.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. While we applaud CDC Capital Partners for its evident business skills, building up to the partial sell-off, does the Minister accept that in the past two years China has had little difficulty attracting inward investment? Can she explain why CDC Capital Partners has now started investing in China?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the purpose of CDC is to enlarge the resources available through the introduction of private capital in developing countries. We are doing that across a range of countries, including China. The noble Baroness is aware that our 1997 White Paper put the elimination of poverty at the core of our development strategy. That is why we are looking at poverty elimination across the world and investing in those countries where we think that a significant difference can be made.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a difference between aid and investment? Would she care to comment on the circumstances whereby, in the CDC accounts, the

139
assets that it held from the pre-1998 investments, in a difficult investment year, were written down by 10 per cent, but the assets that have been acquired since 1998 have been written down by no less than 31 per cent? In such circumstances, does the Minister believe that the company is getting its investments right?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we believe that the company is getting its investments right. This is a transition period for CDC. It became a public limited company only in 1999. We are keen to ensure that CDC observes the investment policy that 70 per cent of investments should be in the poorer countries of the world and that there should be an aim of 50 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa and in Asia. We all know that the operating environment in the past year has been extremely difficult for companies across the world.

NHS Pay System
2.56 p.m.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkeinasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the reason for the delay in reaching agreement on the new National Health Service pay system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, final decisions on pay modernisation need to take account of the recent settlement for NHS funding. Considerable progress has been made in developing the new system. We aim to reach agreement as quickly as possible this year.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging Answer. I am sure that he is aware that negotiations have been going on for a very long time, in response to ideas put forward by UNISON in late 1996. I declare an interest as a nurse and a former general secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees. In the 1980s, together with the late Trevor Clay of the Royal College of Nursing, I bore the scars of negotiating and trying to sell the new clinical grading structure.
A noble Lord: Question!
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, as my old sergeant used to say when I anticipated an order, "Wait for it. Wait for it".
Does my noble friend agree that it is important that we do not replicate the mistake that seriously damaged that clinical grading structure, when the Treasury refused to provide sufficient funding to secure the change in flexibility that was negotiated by the NHS management, CoHSE and the RCN? Instead, nurse was set against nurse. Does my noble friend agree that it is necessary that sufficient funding is available on this occasion to secure the completion of these negotiations in Agenda for Change? Does he further
140
agree that it is vital that nurses and other health professionals are encouraged and supported if professional barriers are to be brought down as part of the investment and reform so needed by the National Health Service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that was well worth waiting for. There are many lessons to be learnt from the debacle over the clinical grading restructuring that my noble friend referred to. It was a remarkable achievement some years ago to require the health service to undertake such a massive exercise, to put more money in and at the end to demoralise the whole nursing staff. It is clearly very important that we get the negotiations right and end up with a pay system that enables us to reward innovation and encourages staff to take on extra responsibility. I confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health told the RCN conference in Harrogate a few weeks ago that he is fully committed to Agenda for Change. He said:
"we now want to move to conclude the negotiations".
That remains our intent. Financially, it has to be a something for something agreement. Of course, we shall ensure that pay awards are appropriately funded on the back of the agreement that we reach on Agenda for Change.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, following on from the Minister's last point, what proportion of the annual increase in NHS expenditure announced in the Budget does he expect to be spent on increased staff costs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot possibly expect me to answer that question at the moment. We are negotiating on taking the Agenda for Change proposals forward. For me to state to your Lordships' House how much money we intend to budget for such a proposition would be ridiculous. The noble Lord cannot expect me to do so.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if the Minister does not know the answer to that question, he cannot possibly do a budget for the health service. If that is so, it may be why the National Health Service is in such a mess. They cannot get their sums right.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I fail to follow the logic of the noble Earl's argument. Only three or four weeks ago, we received the Budget settlement which sets out the resources that the NHS is to receive over a five-year period. We put the negotiations on Agenda for Change on hold until we knew the outcome of the spending review settlement. Currently, we are engaged on working through the potential costs of Agenda for Change. Later in the year, we shall be able to start negotiation. The noble Earl is asking me to reveal my negotiating hand in front of your Lordships. However tempting that may be, I shall not do it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in costing Agenda for Change, is the Minister taking into account the

141
potential savings which would arise if the NHS were able to dispense with the use of large numbers of agency personnel, who not only cost much more than nurses and other staff who are regularly employed, but impose substantial overheads in administration of the system to get them into position?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord; we spend too much money on agency staff. In November, we launched a strategy for NHS professionals which is designed as a nation-wide service to bring much greater coordination and consistency to the use of temporary staff inside the NHS. We are also urging NHS employers to become much more flexible in their employment practices so that they can offer some of the flexibility that agency nurse agencies offer in addition to the rewards of being a full member of staff in an NHS organisation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems we still have with the health service is the deplorable wages and salaries that have been paid in it for very many years, with the result that properly qualified staff are not attracted to the service? That in turn has had an effect on productivity and, therefore, on the efficiency and availability of the health service which the people of this country expect.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course pay is an issue in recruiting and retaining staff, but it is not the only issue. Other matters are important as well, including flexible working and support for staff to continue their development and professional training. It is worth reporting to the House that, since 1997, pay for nurses, midwives and health visitors has increased by at least 26 per cent in cash terms. We have also introduced new consultant nurse grades which give opportunities for earning up to just less than £47,000 per year. As the Agenda for Change negotiations culminate, we expect the result to be a much more sensible arrangement for pay which enables proper comparisons to be made across the NHS professions, encourages people to take on greater responsibility, and enables us to deliver the NHS Plan.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, will the Minister please outline his plans to ensure that physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other highly skilled people, of whom there is currently a shortage in the NHS, are encouraged to continue working within the new structures of the NHS?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, they will be covered by our general discussions on the way in which pay and other matters are dealt with in the National Health Service. There is no doubt that the staff groups which the noble Baroness mentioned have a vital role to play not only in the new health service, but in taking
142
on greater responsibility from doctors. We are keenly aware of the need to ensure that the NHS remains an attractive place for those professionals to work.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, in his answer to my noble friend Lord Onslow, was the Minister saying that in the negotiations between the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Treasury d id not secure undertakings on how much of the money being granted would be spent on staff salaries? Or is he just saying that he knows how much they are prepared to spend, but is not prepared to say it because he does not want his noble friend on the Back Benches there and the other members of the unions to know?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord will know from his wide experience in government that many discussions take place between spending departments and the Treasury, and issues to do with the cost of pay of NHS staff is of course one of the factors. However, the noble Earl seemed to suggest that because I was not prepared here and now to say the exact sum to be spent on NHS staff—
The Earl of Onslow: No.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: With the greatest respect, my Lords, he was. He was saying that if I was not prepared to do that, then we were not competent to run the National Health Service. If I were to come here today and say, "This is the exact amount of money that we have reserved for the cost of NHS salaries", when we have not yet completed the final negotiations, I would not be fit to run the health service.

Education Bill
3.6 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 31 [Responsibility for fixing dates of terms and holidays and times of sessions]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 138:
Page 18, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 138, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 138A and 140.
Amendment No. 138 proposes removing the regulations outlined in subsection (3). If I am not successful in that amendment, I would invite the Minister, as outlined in Amendment No. 138A, to say

143
when a parent is not an individual. I do not know many parents who are not individuals. The phraseology used in paragraph (d) of Clause 31(3) does seem unusual.
In Amendment No. 140, I use the five-term year as an example of the way in which the provisions in this part of the Bill are being used to impose on all schools without proper consultation a particular pattern for the year. So it would be helpful if the Minister would give us not only the Government's view on a five-term year, but assurances that, if there were to be any changes along the lines of a five or even six-term year, as is now being advocated, there will be proper safeguards in the consultation process.
I return to subsection (3). The Bill provides, I think, for a record number of sets of regulations. Each of those sets of regulations is usually supported by another document described as guidelines and/or guidance which will be sent to each school. As I have said so often, our schools are now so overburdened by the task of interpreting the legalese of regulations and following guidance and guidelines that they have to spend almost more time on that than working in the classroom with our children. Every time I seek to remove regulations from the Bill, I do so really in the interests of teachers and the time available to them. Predominantly, however, I do so in the interests of the children who wish to have teachers' attention focused on their learning rather than on interpreting regulations generated from the centre.
My second objection to the number of regulations in the Bill concerns central control. Why should the Government under Clause 31(3) prescribe the procedure to be followed,

"(a) where the governing body of a school within subsection (1) propose to make any change in the time of the school sessions;

(b) as to the implementation of any such proposal;

(c) for enabling the local education authority to determine, for any purposes of the regulations, whether any person is to be treated as a parent of a registered pupil at the school"?

Why does that require central regulation? Under paragraph (d) of subsection (3), to which I have already referred, why may regulations make provision,
"that for all or any prescribed purposes of the regulations references to parents are to be read as excluding those who are not individuals"?
I look forward with interest to hearing the noble Baroness's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I begin with Amendment No. 138. Subsection (3) of Clause 31 is the direct re-enactment of the existing Section 41(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The regulations made under that section set out the procedure to be followed where schools wish to make changes to session times. We believe that this is important. It is crucial that parents are notified of changes that may be made to session times. That is particularly pertinent, of course, to working parents but it is important for all parents to be given time to reflect upon, understand and have a say in the matter. As I say, the legislation as it stands as reflected in Clause 31 recognises that significant impact. We
144
believe, therefore, that it would be wrong to remove that protection set out in regulations, certainly without first consulting those affected. At present we detect no desire on the part of schools or education authorities to make changes to the current situation.
I turn to Amendment No. 138A. As I said, we do not believe that we can remove subsection (3) of Clause 31. However, as the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 138A would remove only paragraph (d) of Clause 31(3). That measure is also a straightforward re-enactment. The subsection exists to deal with the apparent anomaly of an authority being required to consult itself as a corporate parent about changes to school session times. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made an important point. The current regulations do not distinguish between corporate and other parents. Therefore, we are happy to accept Amendment No. 138A as drafted by the noble Baroness.
I turn to Amendment No. 140. Term dates are set by local education authorities or governing bodies depending on the category of school. As things stand, that decision is taken on a local basis. As the Committee will be aware, a small number of schools are already running a five-term year. Few representations have been made to the department to change the present arrangements under which school term dates are decided locally by those most affected. The consultation procedures appear to work well without the need for procedures to be set out in regulations.
It is, of course, inevitable that there is some variation of term dates from year to year. Variations in the date of Easter have always caused annual variations in term dates. That being the case, we do not believe that one particular model of a school year should be singled out in primary legislation. I recognise, of course, that the noble Baroness used that as an example. The Committee will also be aware that discuare that discussions are being undertaken at the moment with the Local Government Association on a fixed-term year as an alternative. Those proposals, of course, are not covered in the amendment although the Government have made it clear that for our part we would need to be convinced that there was widespread support for change before lending our support either through legislation or guidance.
Although it is not a statutory requirement, we expect local authorities to consult widely on issues that affect people in their areas. Currently, several authorities are consulting locally on changing to a six-term year. The evidence is that local education authorities understand the need for wide consultation. We therefore do not believe that a duty to consult is necessary here. I hope that in the light of those remarks the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful and, in fact, almost overwhelmed that an amendment has been accepted and so early in the day. I hope that that sets the tone for the rest of the day.

145
As regards Amendment No. 138, the noble Baroness seemed to say that because the relevant measure is a reenactment it is all right. When I stood at the government Dispatch Box I used the argument, "It has been done before and therefore why cannot we do it again"? However, that is never an intellectually sound argument for doing anything. Just because something has been done before does not necessarily make it right. I argue that there is a case for removing the regulations that we are discussing.
In responding to Amendment No. 140, the noble Baroness appeared to say that local consultation works well, that the Government expect it to continue to work well and that therefore they see no reason why the measure should be included in the Bill. However, that same argument is used in favour of requiring regulations in subsection (3); namely, that it is important that consultation and the way in which procedures work locally must be bound by regulations set from the centre. If the argument against Amendment No. 140 is a sound one, why is it not also sound in terms of supporting Amendment No. 138? There is an inconsistency here. I shall wish to read what the noble Baroness said and digest it carefully. I may return to the matter, but in the meantime I am pleased that Amendment No. 138A has been accepted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 138A:
Page 18, line 41, leave out paragraph (d).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 p m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 139:
Page 18, line 42, at end insert—
"() for the principles and procedures to be followed by the local education authorities and governing bodies of schools in determining the dates of the terms in any school year"
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to help pave the way for something that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just admitted she is fundamentally against; that is, changing the school year. The amendment must be read in conjunction with Amendment No. 157 which we have already debated, but which, lest the Committee has forgotten what it says, attempts to define the concept of the school term as those days within any discrete period of the school year,
"on which pupils are required to attend school".
Amendment No. 139 asks that an extra subsection be added after subsection (3) of Clause 31—the subsection that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said was otiose—to enable secondary legislation to set out the principles to be followed in determining the dates on which school terms and holidays are to begin and end. Together, these two amendments pave the way for local education authorities to move towards a standardised school year. Neither amendment is strictly necessary. The response given to Amendment
146
No. 157 was that the LEA, or the governing body in relation to voluntary-aided and foundation schools, has a clear duty to determine the dates of holidays as well as terms. That means that half-term holidays and faith holidays can also be fixed by the local education authority and that does not leave any ambiguity. However, some of us feel that there is a degree of ambiguity in that regard. For the sake of completeness it would be helpful to have on the face of the Bill a definition of the school term and—this is where the relevant subsection comes in—the principles that are adhered to by the local authority in determining the school year.
The case for standardising the school year is well known. With children frequently moving from one area to another and LEAs varying their holiday patterns, sometimes by as much as two weeks in one direction or another, many families can be greatly inconvenienced. The long autumn and, when Easter is early, summer terms cause stress and illness among pupils and, more particularly, staff. For exam years half the summer term is effectively lost and exams often come at the peak of the hay fever season.
City technology colleges free from LEA constraints have for the past 10 years experimented with a five-term year. They claim that part of their success derives from the smoother pattern of teaching and study that that has promoted. The current pattern of the school year with its long holidays in July and August, to coincide with the harvest, dates back to the 19th century. The Local Government Association set in train consultation among local education authorities a couple of years ago in an attempt to reach agreement on some form of standardisation. That led to the setting up of an independent commission under Mr Chris Price, which has been consulting extremely widely. It came up with two proposals involving relatively minor changes which would, in effect, create a six-term year. Those changes are: the standardisation of a two-week break for the half-term in October, making, in effect, two seven-week terms between September and Christmas; and the standardisation of a two-week break, whatever the date of Easter, in the second and third week of April, so that there would be two six-week terms between Christmas and the April break, followed by two six-week terms in the summer. That would leave the five-week summer holiday effectively intact.
Those proposals have received wide support and many LEAs will begin moving towards them in 2003–04. As has been said, strictly speaking, no new legislation is required. However, the two amendments would help to clarify the purpose and the ease of the process of standardisation. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: There are two issues in this regard. The first involves a fundamental change in the structure of the school year and the decision whether to go from the current arrangement to a four-term, a five-term or even a six-term year. I have seen the literature on the six-term year and personally I am quite attracted to it. However, that is a personal view, which I do not advocate for schools. I have a difficulty

147
about imposing a "one size fits all" policy on our education system, and I should want to think very long and hard about imposing that approach on every school in every LEA. In relation to any change in that regard, there should be full consultation and total involvement of parents and people in the local communities.
In turning to my second point, I shall speak on behalf of parents. There is incredible frustration among parents about the fact that different schools in their locality start and end terms at different times. That creates all sorts of tensions in families with two or more children, who attend different schools. Parents are run ragged trying to cope with the different dates for the beginnings and ends of terms. There is much to be done in that regard; we must have better co-ordination and put in place better arrangements so that parents are fully involved and can express views on the start and end of a term. That is a different point from that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister's response.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I was much taken by the statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the need to consider very carefully before imposing a "one size fits all" approach in this regard. As we discussed in relation to the previous amendment, term dates are currently set out by LEAs or governing bodies, depending on the category of the school. Clause 31, which will bring nursery schools into the arrangements, leaves that position intact.
We have had few representations to change the system because, I believe, the consultation procedure is working well. Members of the Committee will be aware of the relevant examples. In Wigan, the pattern of terms was changed locally. A detailed consultation was conducted—the relevant information will be available to Members of the Committee. East Sussex is often quoted as an example of an LEA that consulted on a six-term year. In light of responses to that consultation, it decided against that change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was right to say that there is not a specific statutory requirement to consult. However, we expect LEAs and school governing bodies to consult widely on issues affecting people in their area. We have no reason to believe that there is anything wrong in this regard. We believe that the procedure is working well. We should not seek to regulate LEAs and schools unless there is a clear need to do so. The evidence is that LEAs understand the need for wide consultation, give parents good notice of term dates and generally take their responsibilities in this area seriously. I believe that governing bodies of schools—often as advised by their LEAs—understand that, too.
In this context, there is no real need for regulation. The current procedures work well and there does not appear to be a need for further change. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. As she pointed out, the process of consultation has been extremely wide. LEAs that are attracted to the idea are also consulting extremely widely—there is no question of them not consulting parents. They are going along that route for precisely the reason described by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch; namely, that many parents are very frustrated by the fact that school holidays do not coincide. There would he advantages to some standardisation. It is around that notion that LEAs are consulting. That is what lies behind the approach.
I accept what the Minister says. I was asked to advance the amendment by Mr Chris Price, who is leading the consultation, because, as I said, he felt that it would clarify the position and help the consultations to proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Annual parents' meetings]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): We now come to Amendment No. 141. I point out that if Amendment No. 141 is agreed to, that will pre-empt Amendment No. 142.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 141:
Page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I wonder how independent schools exist at all. They do not have an LEA or a Department for Education and Science, and they do not have regulations galore, guidance or guidelines hut, somehow or other, they get by. That is the thinking that lies behind this amendment.
I really cannot understand why the Government believe that they have to make regulations—they will be issued from the centre by the Secretary of State—governing how schools conduct their annual parents' meeting. There is already in statute requirements about what has to be included in annual reports and about what information has to be given to parents about their children. What about the idea that there should be regulations about the purpose of the annual general meeting or about the circumstances in which a governing body will be exempt from the obligations imposed by Clause 1?
Subsection (1) states:
"Once in every school year the governing body … shall hold … an 'annual parents' meeting' … which is open to … the head teacher, and … such other persons as the governing body may invite".
Why do we need regulations on that matter? We have previously discussed innovation projects. The Government accepted that a project may be intended to raise standards in a school. It may be wholly acceptable within a project, for one reason or another, not to hold an annual general meeting or to hold it in a different manner—perhaps once every two years, for example. That could be dealt with as part of the application for the innovation project. However, as a rule, having regulations in that context is wrong.

149
We also have regulations on the procedure to be followed for any such meeting. What is there to stop a school from deciding how to run its annual parents' meeting? Schools that reside in the leafy lanes of our country have little difficulty with annual meetings—when they call a meeting, it is well attended. People arrive and are told about the school and the progress of their children. There may be a guest speaker and everybody goes away happy. In other parts of the land, head teachers and diligent governing bodies work incredibly hard to raise interest in the annual meeting but have great difficulty getting parents to attend. In those cases, they resort to different ways—perhaps more entertaining or novel ways—of encouraging parents to come along. Why not leave the way in which meetings are conducted to the schools? As I said, they are already controlled by statute in terms of the information that they have to give to parents in other ways.
Then there are regulations which make provision for imposing requirements on the governing body, the head teacher and the local education authority in relation to resolutions which have been passed at any such meeting. They include requirements framed by reference to any opinion formed by the governing body. The nanny state is going too far in this respect.
Finally, there are regulations to enable the governing body or, as the case may be, the local education authority, to determine for purposes connected with the annual meetings whether any person is to be treated as the parent of a registered pupil at the school. Again, do we really need that?
Therefore, the thrust behind the amendment is that these regulations are a step too far. The amendment gives the Government an opportunity to take at least one set of regulations out of the Bill and give schools the space and freedom to exercise their own professional judgment. Schools already have an obligation set out in statute to inform parents about what is going on. We should leave them to be as innovative as they wish and should not seek for them to he governed by regulation. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We on these Benches have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We go along with subsection (1). We are anxious that there should be an annual parents' meeting. I believe it is important for there to be an obligation on a school to arrange a time at which to acquaint parents with the developments that have taken place and to keep them in touch with ideas that are developing within the school. However, it seems to be unnecessary for regulations to stipulate precisely what goes on. If the department considers it necessary to lay down suggested guidelines, why does it not introduce guidance rather than regulations? That would be far less heavy-handed. Therefore, as I said, we have much sympathy with the amendment.
The Earl of Sandwich: I, too, warmly support the noble Baroness's amendment. I do not understand
150
why we are not all on our feet saying that here at last is an opportunity for there to be no regulations. Can one imagine a parents' meeting at which the parents have to check the regulations to see whether anything has been offended against; or can one imagine governors scurrying down the corridor to check exactly what is being said? It is unimaginable, and I hope that the noble Baroness will take this second opportunity to accept an amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Opportunities come only once in a while. I take note of what noble Lords have said. I confess that I smiled to myself slightly as I have chaired several annual parents' meetings. I believe that I fall into the category, described by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, of struggling to get parents to go along to meetings. However, I know from previous experience that parents are quick to attend an annual meeting if it is to discuss an issue of great concern to them. In other words, if something is going wrong in a school or if an issue is burning within a school, then parents feel the need to be at the school and to know exactly what the processes and procedures are. That is the thrust of what we are trying to achieve here.
I accept that one reason for seeking to introduce the regulations is so that we can reconsider these issues over time and not wait for primary legislation in order to do so. Therefore, we understand and appreciate the thrust of what Members of the Committee are saying. I also understand the desire that everyone has to ensure that the meetings are fulfilling for parents and that they are innovative and novel in terms of persuading parents to attend.
However, in this case we are in the business of introducing safeguards. It is appropriate that, where things are not as parents would wish them to be within a school, we consider how to ensure that they are able to exercise their rights. That is why, if 20 per cent of the parents of pupils at a school attended such a meeting, they would have the ability to pass resolutions. The provision is intended to give parents power if they are faced with an issue of huge concern. We believe that it is important to retain that opportunity.
Therefore, although I appreciate that the spirit of the amendment is to allow freedom within schools, the purpose behind our desire to keep the matter within regulations is to provide a safeguard for the moments when things do not go so well. Having chaired several annual meetings of parents, I do not believe that spending a great deal of time on formal business takes away from those meetings if things are going well.
I understand that the concept of such meetings was originally based on the idea of a company directors' meeting, and that is why they are rather formal. However, in terms of what can be achieved beyond the formal part of the meeting, I believe that many people have produced interesting and innovative ways of involving parents with discussions, guest speakers and so on.

151
Therefore, the regulations allow us to make adjustments and to accept that, as times goes on, things change. Nevertheless, on this occasion we believe that the safeguard is necessary. While I appreciate entirely the Committee's wish that annual meetings should not be anything other than occasions where people can debate matters, the regulations would ensure that, if something went wrong, a process would be in place to which parents could turn and use for their benefit. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: One argument that the noble Baroness employed against my amendment was that, when things went wrong, the procedures would be needed. I believe that she also said that parents can be persuaded to attend a school when things go wrong. I know of some schools where the head, the teachers and the governors work their socks off, yet where, frankly, sometimes things do go wrong. Those people would give their eye teeth for 20 per cent or more of their pupils' parents to attend their meetings and to take an interest in what is going on and appreciate what the school is trying to do to resolve some of the problems. In those circumstances, co-operation with parents would make all the difference. Those schools have to resort to non-traditional ways of holding meetings and have to employ far more innovation in order to persuade parents to go along. Therefore, I do not believe that that argument is of help.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was absolutely right. One problem in relation to regulations—we have read of more regulations passing through this House in recent times than I care to think about—is that they do not make allowance for each and every school. Whatever goes into regulations usually applies across the board. They may distinguish between primary and secondary schools or between one category of school and another. However, by and large, they usually refer to all schools in a particular group. Therefore, I am not sure that regulations are sufficiently sensitive to allow for the type of freedom that I believe, given the obligation in subsection (1), schools and teachers should have.
The other argument used by the noble Baroness was that regulations would act as a safeguard for parents who were concerned about what went on in schools. However, we have an inspectorate. When inspectors enter a school, they make judgments about the quality of the relationship between the school and its parents and the interaction between the school and the children. As I said in relation to previous amendments, the children are interviewed by the inspectors without their teachers being present.
In that way, one can obtain a feeling for the way in which a school is responding to its parents and the way in which the school is meeting its obligations under the law in terms of informing its parents. Certainly it would be possible for the inspectorate to pick up whether the school was meeting its obligations under subsection (1) of Clause 32 and, if it were, perhaps to make comment on the good, bad
152
or indifferent way that a school was trying to meet that obligation and trying to increase the number of parents who attended meetings. I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
3.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 141) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hooper, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hooson, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Howe, E.

Ashcroft, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Attlee,E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Avebury, L.

Jopling, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kimball, L.

Blaker, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blatch, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Boothroyd, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Burnham, L.

McNally, L.

Buscombe, B.

Maddock, B.

Byford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Chadlington, L.

Monson, L.

Chalfont, L.

Montrose, D.

Coe,L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cox, B.

Newby, L.

Cuckney, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk,E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northover, B.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dholakia, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve,B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Onslow, E.

Dundee, E.

Ouseley, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elles, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Plumb, L.

Elton, L.

Prior, L.

Ezra, L.

Rawlings, B.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale,L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Rennard, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Freeman, L.

Rix, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geddes, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Roper, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Glentoran, L.

Sandberg, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hanham, B.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Haslam, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Sharp of Guildford.B.

Henley, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Higgjns, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

153

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Vivian, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Waddington, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Walmsley, B.

Tope, L.

Warnock, B.

Vinson, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Alli, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Amos, B.

Andrews, B.

Jones, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bach, L.

Lipsey, L.

Barnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Berkeley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bhatia, L.

[Teller]

Billingham, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Borrie, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bragg, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Brennan, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Brookman, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mitchell, L.

Burlison, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Moser, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Nicol, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Northfield, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Orme, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Paul, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Pendry, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dixon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Serota, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield. L.

Stallard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Tenby, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Gregson, L.

Turnberg, L.

Grenfell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grocott, L.

Varley, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Weatherill, L.

Haskel, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Haskins, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hattersley, L.

Whitty, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Howie of Troon, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Winston, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.49 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: I cannot call Amendment No. 142 as it is pre-empted by the result of the Division.
Lord Rixhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 142:
Page 19, line 9, leave oul paragraph (b)
The noble Lord said: Shall I be able to return to my amendment in some form or another on Report? If that is possible, I shall want to do 30.
Lord Carter: It is pre-empted by the result of the Division, but the noble Lord may return to it on Report.
Baroness Blatch: Although the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has fallen as a result of the Division, I believe that he is saying that there is still an outstanding point to be made. My understanding is that it will be possible to bring back a free-standing amendment on Report so that the matter can be considered at that time.
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Staffing of community, voluntary controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools]:
The Chairman of Committees: I have to advise the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and others that if Amendment No. 143 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 144A because of pre-emption.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 143:
Page 20, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) Any teacher or other member of staff who is appointed to work under the direction of the headteacher of a school to which this section applies is to be employed by the local education authority under a contract of employment."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 143, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 144 to 147 and 150 to 153. This group of amendments relates to Clauses 34 and 35. Clause 34 deals with staffing of community, voluntary-controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools and Clause 35 deals with staffing of foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools.
Amendments Nos. 143, 144 and 150 seek to clarify that a member of staff, teaching or otherwise, employed at a maintained school, a voluntary foundation school or a voluntary-aided school works under the direction of the head teacher and must have a contract of employment either with the LEA or in the case of the foundation and voluntary-aided schools with the governing body. The wording of the Bill as it stands merely states that there shall be a contract of employment at a school.

155
The subtle change in the wording from that on the face of the Bill has a significant effect. It means that any member of staff who has had a conventional relationship with a head, working, in the case of teachers, under the reasonable direction of a head within the framework of the school teachers' pay and conditions document, must be an employee of the LEA under a contract of service and must not be self-employed or employed by an employment agency. That would help to resolve any problems with employment agencies over contractual terms and pay. It is a sensible measure. For teachers it will achieve a consistent application of the pay and conditions document and resolve technical legal anomalies about the subsection's powers of direction. If nothing else, it is a good issue for debate.
The amendment does not insist that all staff working for the school must be LEA or governing body employees. That would be instantly rejected as being inconsistent with a large number of the provisions of this Bill. Rather it seeks to refer the distinction between employees and others to the question of whether the head is directing the work of a subordinate staff member or managing the engagement of a self-employed contractor or employment business contractee.
Amendment No. 150 in Clause 35 has exactly the same purpose as Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. Amendments Nos. 145, 146, 151 and 152 are submitted at the behest of the National Association of Head Teachers because they feel that these issues must be spelt out by regulation. For head teachers there is no "may" in this matter. They must run their schools and need clear guidance on these delicate issues of staffing.
Amendments Nos. 147 and 153 aim to reinstate in primary legislation the principle that the LEA should have a role in the appointment of head teachers. Primary legislation currently contains the principle that LEAs can advise governing bodies on the appointment of heads, an important role if LEAs are also to have a duty of promoting high standards of educational provision in their areas. The Bill drops that provision from primary legislation. These amendments seek to reinstate it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 144A, 146A, 149, 152A, 153A and 153B. Amendment No. 144A allows LEAs to employ staff in failing schools. Amendment No. 146A explains who works at a school otherwise than under contract. It would be helpful for the noble Baroness to explain precisely who they are talking about here. If they are volunteers, why are they not referred to as such? Part-time staff work under a contract; professional people work under a contract; full-time people work under a contract. Who are the people who are employed at a school but do not work under a contract?
Amendment No. 149 would negate the need for regulations in subsection (4). Amendment No. 152A again refers to staff who work otherwise than under a contract of employment. Again, I should like to know exactly what that means. Amendments Nos. 153A and
156
153B refer to the schedule on page 130. Given that we are talking in Part 2 about foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools, I cannot understand why the arrangements for the staff in the school should be determined by the local education authority for those schools. The provision goes on to say that in foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools,
"Except with the consent of the authority, the governing body shall not—(a) appoint any teacher to work at the school, or (b) dismiss any teacher at the school".
It would be helpful to know from the noble Baroness what that means. As we have said, these provisions concern the arrangements for staffing. Staffing in those schools which are community schools and maintained schools, voluntary-controlled schools, community special schools and maintained nursery schools should be free to appoint their own staff, unless they are schools which are failing in which case it makes sense that that should come under the control of the LEA. In the case of the staffing of foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools, Clause 35(2) says,
"Except as provided by regulations under subsection (4), any teacher or member of staff who is appointed to work under a contract of employment at a school to which this section applies is to be employed by the governing body of the school".
Yet on page 130, Schedule 2, Part 2, it says that the arrangements for the staffing of the school—that is, foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools—shall be determined by the LEA; except with the consent of the LEA the governing body shall not appoint a teacher or dismiss a teacher at the school. That seems to contradict what is being said in Clause 35. It would be helpful, first, to know who these people are who are employed in schools other than on contract; secondly, it would be helpful to have better clarification about what appear to be inconsistencies on the face of the Bill as it relates to foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools and whether the Government will consider giving just a little more freedom and autonomy to schools over their staffing unless they are, through inspection or any other measure for measuring competence, not competent to do so.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I support the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I too am in some confusion as to how this relates to voluntary-aided and foundation schools. Secondly, can the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, say whether, if we replace the word "may" with "shall" in subsection (5)(e), it will place on local education authorities powers with regard to the voluntary-aided and foundation schools? I rise to ask those questions because I do not know the answers and believe that, as presently drafted, the Bill is in some confusion about the matter.
4 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The regulations and statutory guidance under Clauses 34 and 35 will enable the Secretary of State to provide detailed staffing

157
arrangements for schools. As Members of the Committee have said, Clause 34 applies to community, voluntary controlled, special and maintained nursery schools where the LEA is the employer and Clause 35 applies to foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools where the governing body is the employer. Those regulations will include arrangements for the appointment, discipline and dismissal of teachers and other staff and provision of appropriate professional advice.
I shall deal with the specific amendments in their groups. I turn first to Amendments Nos. 143, 144 and 150. They refer to employment by the local education authority or governing body. The amendments would place difficult burdens on schools as they currently operate. They would place unhelpful limitations on both their existing and future scope in utilising various staffing resources from outside schools for delivering education.
In answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about who these people are, many schools currently use staff who are not employed under contracts of employment with the local education authority or the governing body of the school. If Amendments Nos. 143, 144 and 150 were introduced, schools and LEAs would be unable to make use of teachers from supply agencies or to use contracted-out support services, such as for meals or cleaning.
Equally fundamental, the amendments prevent schools innovating by bringing resources in from outside the school to improve the education provided. For example, the amendment means that staff from other schools or from further education establishments could not be shared and that innovative arrangements for delivering education, such as the use of information and communications technology (ICT), would be restricted. That would be a backward step. The Bill does not alter basic staffing positions in schools, but we want to allow schools greater flexibility to use imaginative, collaborative arrangements, including the sharing of staff where that is appropriate, in order to raise standards.
Amendments Nos. 147 and 153 concern head teachers. I hope that I can provide the reassurance for which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, searches. Clauses 34(5)(d) and 35(5)(e) already provide scope to include provisions in staffing regulations which confer functions on LEAs in respect of the appointment of head teachers.
We intend to include in staffing regulations the current position of local education authorities in respect of the appointment of head teachers. Those include the scope for LEAs to advise governing bodies about the appointment of head teachers and an entitlement for the LEAs to make representations to governing bodies where they consider any candidates for head teacher vacancies are unsuitable. In the case of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools, the advisory role of the LEA would, as now, be subject to advisory rights being agreed with the governing bodies of each such school.
158
Amendments Nos. 145, 146, 151 and 152 seek to insert that the Secretary of State "shall" instead of "may" make staffing regulations. The amendments place a duty on the Secretary of State to make particular provisions on all the matters identified in Clauses 34(5) and 35(5). As to the appointment of a head teacher, we believe that we are justified in taking a detailed approach in the interests of educational standards. We shall make provision on this matter in staffing regulations with further details and guidance. However, we may want over time to move other detailed matters to guidance.
Regulations could ignore minor matters and those effectively covered in general employment and good practice. They could take a detailed approach to important school-specific matters where the general employment law does not suffice. We need an enabling provision to achieve that. That is why we believe that "may" rather than "shall" is the most appropriate drafting.
The policy statement which sets out our intentions under Clauses 34 and 35 is available in the Library of your Lordships' House. We shall in due course consult representatives of all interested parties about proposals for the final content of the regulations.
Amendment No. 144A seeks to make a radical change to the staffing arrangement for community voluntary controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools. It removes the general arrangements for staff at these schools to be employed under contracts of employment with the local education authority. As the noble Baroness has said, this provision for employment by the LEA would only come into force where such a school failed to satisfy Ofsted as to its general standard of education and school management.
Community schools already have the option of seeking to become foundation schools and so taking on the rights of employment. Most have chosen not to do so and to remain with the arrangement whereby most staff are employed under contracts with the local education authority. That is their choice. Forcing them to take on direct employment responsibilities could be potentially damaging for the stability and success of those schools.
The staffing of schools accounts for the greatest cost in the funding of schools. It is important that resources are spent wisely in accordance with good practice and with appropriate professional advice. It is important that all schools have workable and effective staffing arrangements. Suddenly applying those measures when schools fall into failure will not make much difference in the short term. It would be far better to have arrangements which help schools to avoid failing in the first place.
Good employment practice produces results over the long term. Bad or inappropriate appointments made over the years, poor management of staff and inadequate professional advice, are not matters which can be turned around quickly. Getting the matter right in the long term is more effective than hasty measures when the damage has been done. The amendment

159
makes it more likely for schools to stumble into failure because it takes away the checks and balances that can pick up danger signals and keep staffing arrangements in the bounds of good employment practice.
I now turn to Amendment No. 149. For similar reasons I do not support the amendment. It leaves foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools to their own devices in deciding arrangements for staffing. They would be left largely unaccountable and free to carry out those responsibilities in whatever way they saw fit until they fell—if they fell—into failure, when of course it would be too late to prevent failure caused by bad staffing practices.
Those schools are state maintained. It is right that basic arrangements for good practice and receiving appropriate professional advice should apply to them. Two examples of the kind of provision that will be covered in regulations and guidance help to highlight this aspect. The selection of a head teacher is of course the most important decision that a school takes. Getting the right person and someone who will be able to work effectively with the governing body is the bedrock of any successful school. Regulations and guidance will ensure that the selection of a head is conducted in a consistent way for all schools, following appropriate advertisement and so on.
On the question of professional advice, the local education authority will have entitlement to make representations to the governing body about unsuitable applications or where there is serious concern about the performance of a serving head teacher. In addition, and as applies at present, the local education authority will be able to agree advisory rights on all teacher appointments and dismissals. It is important that all schools are subject to those arrangements to ensure that the matters are handled appropriately and consistently.
Amendments Nos. 146A and 152A deal with the question of provision and regulations for staff otherwise than under a contract of employment. The amendments prevent the Secretary of State making regulations which deal with the appointment of teachers and other staff, otherwise than under contracts of employment with the LEA or governing body as the case may be. The regulations are intended to establish safeguards to ensure that schools act consistently and with good practice. We shall be consulting on the necessary arrangements for the employment of staff otherwise than under a contract of employment. But our overarching intention is to give schools the scope to use effectively services provided in this way.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 153A and 153B—
Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for giving way. The noble Baroness has not returned to my fundamental question: who is employed at a school otherwise than under a contract of employment? To
160
my knowledge, that could cover only voluntary labour. It is not a sessional worker, a part-time worker and/or a full-time teacher or full-time member of staff.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I thought that I answered that within my first grouping when I described those who worked as cleaners or for the provision of meals, which are contracted out services. People who come into a school from a different school or a further education establishment, or—in looking at the world of information technology—people who may be employed on a different basis other than a contract of employment to provide services to the school are examples. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness. I did cover the matter earlier.
Baroness Blatch: It does not cover the matter because Clause 35(5)(b) states that,
"teachers and other staff to work at a school otherwise than under a contract of employment".
That is not "a contract of employment to the school", but "otherwise than under a contract of employment". Anyone coming in to work at a school, whether a caretaker, cleaner, someone to mend the roof or someone to put some tarmac down in the playground, is someone who would be "under a contract", which is the actual wording on the Bill, but not necessarily under a contract to the school as the employer.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My understanding, having taken legal advice, is that the way that the amendment is framed would mean that those people would have to be under a contract of employment to a school and that people who work, for example, providing a consultancy or advisory service on technical aspects of information and communications technology may not be under a specific contract of employment. They may be self-employed individuals who give their services to a company with whom a school may sub-contract. The way that the amendment is phrased means that we would have to have contracts of employment. We are trying to ensure that schools are able to develop flexible arrangements, with which I am sure the noble Baroness agrees, under which people can work within schools under different arrangements from those of a contract of employment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her replies, which are inevitably complex because they relate to a complex set of amendments. I return to the issue of agency or contract staff employed at schools whose contract of employment is with a different employer. Regulations lay down terms for the governance of the school. School governors must follow them for employment of staff.
The distinction that we were trying to make in Amendments Nos. 143, 144 and 150 is between those who are under the direction of a head, who will have a contract of employment either with the LEA or with the governing body itself, and those who are under the direction of someone else, because they are employed by someone else. That is a useful distinction to make, which is why we tabled the amendments. I am not

161
totally convinced by the Minister's answer on that point, and we shall need to return to the issue. I shall not press the amendments but we shall probably table them again on Report to tease out the issue a little further.
The Minister's answer about the other amendments was somewhat more reassuring. I take her point about the "may"s and "shall"s. We now have the policy statement, so we have some idea of the terms of the regulations. That is reassuring to the National Association of Head Teachers. One can understand why it is worried by the provision and it is important that it has clear guidance. That is why we tabled those amendments.
On the amendments relating to local education authorities and the appointment of heads, I take on board the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. Local authorities have an advisory role but perhaps not an appointment role. We tabled the amendments to make the point that that advisory role should be maintained. The Minister's reassurances answer that point. I shall not press those amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It may save time if I return to my amendments now rather than wait until they are called in numerical order. I think that I was satisfied by one of the Minister's answers, but I shall read it to make sure. That concerned whether a community school, a maintained nursery school a community special school or a voluntary-controlled school could opt to become a foundation school, which would give it more freedom. But the Minister then negated that point by saying in relation to Amendments Nos. 153A and 153B that there was a good case for the provision in Schedule 2, Part 2, which states:
"The arrangements for the staffing of the school shall be determined by the local education authority",
for foundation, voluntary-aided and foundation special schools. It continues:
"Except with the consent of the authority, the governing body shall not … appoint any teacher to work at the school, or … dismiss any teacher at the school".
I am not sure that I totally understand the Minister's point, other than that it was important that local education authorities kept some control because those are state-funded schools. My understanding was that foundation, voluntary and voluntary-aided schools had the freedom to appoint their own staff. Indeed, that was the argument used by the Minister to argue against my point about community, voluntary-controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools. So I am in a quandary.
I am bamboozled by what the Minister said about those who work at a school otherwise than under a contract. People who work in schools are under some form of contract, whether they are sessional or part-time workers of some kind or full-time staff. That applies whether they are caretakers, cleaners, catering staff, teachers or head teachers. As the Minister rightly said, other people work in schools who are under
162
contract—who may have a maintenance contract for technical equipment. Other people provide supply teachers to the school. All sorts of other advisory people may work in the school. It is right that the school has a view about how they carry out their work on school premises and how they relate to the children.
But my understanding of how that works legally is that the contract drawn up by the agency that provides staff or with the company that provides the service to the school includes within it the constraints that will govern how those people will work on the premises and that there is no need to overlay that with another set of regulations that operate outside the direct contract of a school with either the commercial company, the voluntary sector or the teacher supply agency. So I am not entirely convinced.
If the noble Baroness is right—and I question whether she is—that "otherwise than under a contract" applies to anyone not directly employed by the school, the wording should be "otherwise than those directly employed under contract by the school". They will all be under a contract of employment with some concern—either their own employer, their agency or whatever. The contract between a school and the employer or agency will be where all the constraints and regulations should be imposed.
So I am unhappy with some of the Minister's responses and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I think that we shall return to the matter.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: On the other hand, I am relatively happy with the carefully crafted words of the Minister in response to my queries. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for conceding the point about subsection (5)(e). I do not want anything that I said to be misunderstood as being against the proper partnership between the LEA and voluntary schools. I regard that as important, not least because of the educational advice that the LEA can provide on the appointment of head teachers and staff. I am grateful for the Minister's clarification, which I shall read carefully. Some complex issues have been raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp. I shall need to consider those before deciding how to proceed.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 144 to 147 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 148:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
"EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
() In section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (application of employment law during financial delegation) there is inserted—
"(3) No order may be made under this section so as to have the effect of denying to any person employed to work at any community, voluntary controlled, community special or

163
maintained nursery school any of the rights he may have as an employee in respect of any power or duty imposed upon local education authorities by or under any enactment relating to employment as mentioned in subsection (1) and falling to be discharged by the authority in consequence of the operation of section 34(3) of the Education Act 2002 (staffing of community, voluntary controlled, community special and maintained nursery schools).
(4) Regulations made under this section shall not have effect so as to release a local education authority from any duty imposed upon it by or under any enactment relating to employment by virtue of its status as an employer consequent upon the operation of subsection (3).""
The noble Baroness said: This is another amendment that relates to employment rights. It purpose is to rectify a clear and serious anomaly in the law arising from local management of schools and its resulting three-party employment structure for teachers and other school staff. The problem was clearly identified in the courts in the case of Askew v the London Borough of Ealing. The amendment concerns the exercise of powers where a school ceases to exist as a separate entity on the occasion of a merger with another school or of its closure following a fresh start initiative.
LEAs employ teachers other than those who work in voluntary-aided and foundation schools in the legal sense that they are party to contracts of employment. The governing bodies of community and controlled schools, however, have certain employment powers conferred on them by statute. Those powers are defined in the Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) Order 1999, for which Section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 makes continuing provision, as powers of appointment, suspension and dismissal.
As governing bodies of community and controlled schools are not employers, there is no transfer of staff from one employer to another in school mergers in which the schools merging are both community or controlled schools, even though the undertaking of each school is transferring from one governing body to another. The effect is the same as if there were no TUPE protections. Teachers are dismissed from their school by reason of redundancy on closure and can do nothing but hope that they will be selected for posts in the new school, all of which are deemed to be vacancies. The issue was taken up with the right honourable David Blunkett, when he was Secretary of State, after the decision in the Askew v. London Borough of Ealing case. He was advised that his powers under primary legislation did not extend to enabling him to make the necessary changes by amending the Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) Order 1999.
An amendment similar to this was tabled by my honourable friend Mr Phil Willis in Committee and on Report in the other place. In his response on Report, the Minister, Mr Stephen Timms, said:
"First, the current arrangements for dismissals in community, voluntary controlled and community special schools, which are set out in schedule 16 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, require employing local education authorities to terminate the contracts of employees where their governing bodies have
164
made determinations that they should cease to work at their schools. That requirement ensures that the employing LEA does not have to consider, in line with normal employers' duties, alternative employment options elsewhere in the authority area, including inquiries with other schools or services, in attempting to avoid redundancies. I understand the concern about that arrangement.
"The provisions of schedule 16 will be moved to staffing regulations under clause 34. We shall consult on the content of those regulations. In doing so, we shall give attention to the drafting of the staff dismissal provision, so that governing bodies will be required to give LEAs notice of impending redundancies. We shall make it clear that LEAs will be subject to the same duties as they are for their other staff and have to consider alternatives to redundancies before resorting to terminating contracts…
"Secondly, I will give further thought to the doubt that now surrounds some transfers of staff to and from maintained schools, following the Askew judgment. That judgment was clear, but its terms and explanation raised some questions. The Bill may already clarify the employment position sufficiently to ease the problem, but I am prepared to consider it further".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/2002; col. 970.]
The amendment suggests a new formulation of the principle that might be more acceptable to the Government. However, we must know whether the Government will agree to use the opportunity to rectify the legal anomaly and put in the Bill a safeguard for teachers in such situations. Has the Minister thought further about the issue? I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In so far as it seeks to protect the employment rights of school employees, the amendment is commendable. However, it would make no difference to the principles or practice of an order modifying employment enactments for the purposes of delegated staff functions of school governing bodies. The protection of employment rights was upheld in the only order made under Section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the only order made under its predecessor, Section 222 of the Education Reform Act 1988.
I assure the Committee that we have no intention of introducing an order that might diminish pre-existing employment rights. On the contrary, the purpose of an order made under Section 81 is to give full effect to employment rights where employment powers are delegated from local education authority employers to school governing bodies. That ensures that those who take such decisions are properly accountable for them under employment law.
The order made under Section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 that currently applies does not diminish the employment rights of staff. Nor does it release any employer from duties imposed by employment enactments. Local education authority employers do not carry out all employer functions if a school is operating with delegated powers, but the authority still has a role in advising governing bodies. Depending on the circumstances, the authority may be made an additional party to proceedings if an employment tribunal application has been made against a governing body.

165
The amendment is unnecessary. In asking the noble Baroness to withdraw it, I reinforce the assurance given in the other place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for School Standards about the rights of school staff employed by LEAs when redundancies are in prospect. We shall make it clear that LEAs will be subject to the same duties as they are for their other staff and must consider alternatives to redundancies before resorting to termination of contracts, when governing bodies no longer need any of their staff. That position is not the result of an order made under Section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, but of a staffing provision in Schedule 16 to that Act, which this Bill will repeal and replace with regulations and statutory guidance issued under Clause 34.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, said, my honourable friend the Minister for School Standards said that we would give further thought to the doubts that surround some transfers of staff to and from maintained schools, following the Askew judgment. We have carefully examined transfers of staff between schools in the light of that judgment and the questions that it raised. Practical experience of current staffing arrangements does not make a clear case that there is a problem in that area. In addition, we consider that the provision for staffing arrangements in Clauses 34 and 35 will remove any adverse effects on employment rights. We will consult on the regulations and statutory guidance to be issued under those clauses before they come into effect. We will, of course, listen carefully to any representations that we receive concerning the protection of the employment rights of staff. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. I take on board the fact that she feels that the provisions of Clauses 34 and 35 and the regulations to be made under them will be sufficient.
It is, as the Minister will agree, a complex issue. We will examine her answer carefully and think about whether we need to come back to her directly or on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 149 to 153 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Effect on staffing of suspension of delegated budget]:
[Amendments Nos. 153A and 153B not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 154:
Page 24, leave out lines 3 to 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 155:
Page 24, line 10, leave out "or a maintained nursery school"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 155, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 156. They are probing amendments. There are several inconsistencies in the Bill relating to the definition and status of nursery schools. We would like to know, quite simply, whether the various provisions apply to maintained nursery schools, rather than debate whether the application of the Bill's provision would bring benefits or disadvantages to nursery schools.
I shall give detail of the places where clarification is needed. I am aware that the Minister has had notice of that. In Clauses I to 4, the measures on innovation appear to apply to nursery schools. Is that correct?
In Chapter 2, Clauses 5 to 9, we assumed that earned autonomy does not apply. Why is that? In Chapter 3, Clauses 10 to 12, are we correct in believing that the measures about companies apply? In Part 2, we wonder whether Clauses 13 to 17 in relation to grants apply.
In Part 3, Chapter 1, do the measures on the government of maintained schools apply to nursery schools? In Chapter 2, on the financing of maintained schools, will nursery school funding be part of the local education authority's school budget and the individual school's budget, as defined under Clause 39?
In Chapter 3, Clause 44, will nursery schools be represented on admissions forums? Am I right in assuming that Clause 49 on exclusions applies? Does Clause 50 relating to attendance targets apply, even though it is ridiculous to set attendance targets for non-compulsory education?
In Part 4, we believe that Clause 51 applies, but what about Clauses 52 to 56, which appear not to apply? Perhaps the Minister can give us some clarification on that.
In Part 5, does Clause 69 apply? I assume that Clause 70 applies to nursery schools and that they can be part of a federation school.
There are places where Parts 6 and 7 apply where relevant. I assume that all of Part 8 applies, but is there any clause in Part 8 which does not apply to nursery schools?
I presume that Part 9 on childcare and nursery education applies. I assume that Part 10 applies where relevant.
In Part 11, does Clause 179 apply to trainee teachers in nursery schools? We presume that it does but perhaps the Minister will clarify that. Are there any implications in terms of the provision of free school meals to part-time pupils in maintained nursery schools? Do Clauses 197 and 198 apply? I understand that they amend previous legislation to make way for the foundation stage, so clearly they affect nursery schools?
What are the implications in Clause 200 for the recoupment of funds to nursery schools? Does primary education in this clause at page 121, line 38, include education in nursery schools? I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I rise only to support the noble Baroness in asking those questions. Reading the Bill, it seems impossible to ascertain what does and does not apply. Maintained nursery schools are specifically mentioned in some parts of the Bill, but in other parts they are not. In some cases, therefore, it is implicit that they are included and it is seen fit to put that on the face of the Bill. However, it is important to ensure that we know what parts of the Bill pertain and have an impact on which category of school.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am in a little difficulty. The question is whether it would be more appropriate to write to the two noble Baronesses who have raised the points—I could certainly do that—or whether they and the Committee have the patience for me to deal in detail with all the questions that were asked. They were asked in advance and I believe that I have the answers to hand.
If that is the wish of the Committee, I will gladly do that while prefacing what will be an inordinately long reply by saying that the intention behind the Bill is to bring nursery schools within the scope of the governing body in school management requirements in Part 3. We have been out to extensive consultation on this matter and had an overwhelming response in favour of the broad framework.
Baroness Walmsley: Before the Minister goes any further, it may be helpful to him to know that I shall be content for him to write to me about the detail of my amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to add a sour note but I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has done some painstaking work in asking the questions and it is important that they should receive an answer. We in the Chamber are self-indulgent but another body of people is most interested in the answers. If we receive a letter from the Minister, that will be helpful to us in improving our understanding, but the answers will not be a matter of public knowledge. Therefore, for the sake of the record it is important that the answers are given in the Chamber. Those who are concerned and who ultimately will be affected by the clauses will then be able to read the Government's response.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am of a puritanical rather than self-indulgent frame of mind, so here goes!
The first question related to the power to innovate, earned autonomy and school companies. It is the case that maintained nursery schools are explicitly identified as qualifying schools. That is to be found on page 2, line 13, in Chapter 1 of the Bill.
As regards Chapter 2, Clauses 5 to 9, the noble Baroness asked whether earned autonomy applies and why. Maintained nursery schools are not judged against normal performance/leadership criteria. The flexibilities under earned autonomy are limited to teachers' pay and conditions and the national
168
curriculum. There is no freedom for maintained nursery schools in relation to the foundation stage of the national curriculum and therefore there is little to be gained by maintained nursery schools qualifying for earned autonomy.
On Chapter 3, Clauses 10 to 12, the noble Baroness asked whether the powers to form companies applies. Yes, those provisions do apply. Clause 10(8) defines "maintained school" to include maintained nursery schools. As regards Part 2 relating to new grant-making powers, the noble Baroness asked whether Clauses 13 to 17 apply. Yes, all those clauses apply. I think that is an obvious point.
On Part 3, Chapter 1, the provisions apply to the government of maintained schools. Clause 37(1) defines "maintained school" to include maintained nursery schools for Clauses 18 to 38. Clause 27(3) and (4) make one exception regarding the power to send pupils elsewhere for training.
On Chapter 2, the financing of maintained schools, the noble Baroness asked whether nursery school funding will be part of the local education authority's school budget and individual school's budget, as defined under Clause 39. Yes, paragraph 99 of Schedule 21 amends the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
The noble Baroness asked whether nursery schools will be represented on admissions forums, dealt with in Chapter 3, Clause 44. No, they will not. Again, that is an obvious point. As she said, Clause 49 relating to exclusions and the power of head teachers to exclude pupils, does apply, but she asked whether Clause 50 relating to attendance targets applies. No, Clause 50 does not apply. As the noble Baroness indicated, it would be rather ridiculous to set attendance requirements for pupils who are not under a statutory obligation to attend.
On Part 4 relating to the powers of intervention, the noble Baroness said that Clause 51 setting out the duty to notify where inspection shows schools causing concern applies but asked whether Clauses 52 to 56 apply. Clauses 52 to 56 do indeed apply. Paragraph 92 of Schedule 21 amends the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
As regards Part 5 on school organisation, Clauses 62 to 68 do not apply. Clause 69 proposes alteration by the governing bodies of community schools. Nursery schools are not community schools, so that does not apply.
The noble Baroness presumed that Clause 70 on proposals to establish a federated school does apply as nursery schools can be part of a federation of schools. Indeed they can and therefore those provisions apply also to nursery schools.
In Parts 6 and 7, the curriculum in England and Wales, it is correct that that applies where it is relevant. Part 9 relating to childcare and nursery education also applies.
I believe that I have dealt with the main points that the noble Baroness raised. However, if there are additional questions to which she needs answers I have

169
one or two additional points in my brief. I was not sure whether in her long list of questions she had covered everything.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I also asked whether Clause 179 would apply to trainee teachers in nursery schools. Perhaps he could respond to that point.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I apologise to the noble Baroness. She did indeed raise the point with me whether student loans, covered in Clause 179, would apply to trainee teachers in nursery schools. It would depend on the regulations governing the loans.
The noble Baroness also asked about LEA functions with regard to school lunches, school milk provision and so forth. In response to her question about whether there are any implications in terms of the provision of free school meals to part-time pupils in nursery schools, the clause would remove the entitlement of children whose attendance does not span the lunchtime period. I am sure that the noble Baroness will recognise that that is reasonable. This was done in response to LEA concerns about the impracticality of meeting the requirement when the child is not in school or the school is not open.
Any children currently receiving free school meals will of course be protected. Children currently attending stand-alone nurseries are not entitled to free school meals. The Bill rectifies that where such children attend over the lunchtime period. In due course, when funds become available in the period 2004–05, the entitlement will also be extended to non-maintained settings.
I hope that those responses have now covered most of the points raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: I realise that it may have been tiresome for the noble Lord to have to go into such detail, but it is extremely helpful for those who follow our debates to know exactly what are the Government's responses to all the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
I turn to the response that the Minister has just given to the noble Baroness in regard to student loans. My understanding from every policy statement made by the Government when referring to concessionary arrangements for teachers was that they were related to specific subjects. Indeed, those subjects have even been named. Given that people in nursery schools do not teach specific subjects as such, then when the noble Lord said that it would depend on the regulations, the policy does not include nursery school teachers. Should I take it from the noble Lord's response that the policy might be extended or that the Government are about to make another announcement?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I may have been slightly less precise than I ought with regard to the regulations on student loans. As the noble Baroness will know only too well, the issue is that the loans are subject to very significant revision and review which is being carried
170
out by the department at the present time. However, I do not want to raise the hopes of the noble Baroness that we have extended the criteria in this respect. That is not the case.
Baroness Blatch: My interpretation is not the central issue here, but I think that teachers in nursery education may well have misinterpreted what the noble Lord has said; namely, that this is all about regulations. In fact, I understand that it is about pending policy.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the noble Lord for his detailed answers. I should like to study them before seeking to respond and consider whether any of these issues will need to be brought back on Report.
I wish to make only one comment. The noble Lord said that under Clause 44 in Chapter 3, nursery schools will not be represented on admissions forums. It will be well known to Members of the Committee that the notion of schools forums is not much favoured by noble Lords on these Benches. However, we feel that if they do come into existence, then maintained nursery schools should be represented on them. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 158:
Page 24, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 159:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
"RELIGIOUS GUIDANCE
(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 91 (special arrangements to preserve religious character of foundation or voluntary aided school) after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) Before proposing any special arrangements, and at intervals of no more than five years where such special arrangements are in force, the governing body shall take note of any relevant guidance issued by any religious authorities which the governing body acknowledges as having influence over the school.""
The noble Lord said: I wish to begin by saying that I do not have any particular attachment to the wording of this amendment. It seeks more to find out what might be possible rather than to provide a recipe for a particular solution. I wish also to say that I am a strong believer in the right and the desirability of having religious foundation schools in this country. They make a great contribution to our nation's education system.
However, by such a school I refer to one in which the teaching and ethos of the school accord with a particular religious point of view. I do not see that that

171
has to imply that the school becomes a ghetto which only members of that religion can attend. It may appeal to some, but I think that in certain circumstances that may be quite a destructive way to run a school, in particular for local communities. For myself, I cannot see why an adherence of, say, over 50 per cent to a particular religion plus control over the religious beliefs of the key teaching staff should not suffice to ensure that a school is run according to a particular religious ethos. In going any further than that, a school in the maintained sector ought to take account of the effect that becoming a religious ghetto has on the surrounding community.
In the course of my business as the publisher of the Good Schools Guide, I have seen a large number of parents become extremely upset when they found that they had been excluded from their neighbouring schools. This can take place from inner-city London to leafy Hertfordshire. It is extremely difficult, when it so happens that your local school is one religion and you are not, that you then have to go a long way to locate what may be considered to be a less good school. This is now happening in the maintained sector. We do not have religious hospitals and we do not have party political schools. The system in a sense imposes a considerable inconvenience on those who are not of a particular religion. The question then arises: is such inconvenience and hurt to the local community justified by the freedom which we choose to accord to religions to run state schools?
When the Bill was considered in another place, amendments were tabled, I believe, by the Liberal Democrats proposing that there should be regulations covering what proportion of a school's intake could be selected on religious grounds. I cannot see how that would work in practice. How can that be judged when one is sitting in the centre? When dealing with a particular case on the ground, it might not matter. It might be perfectly acceptable for a particular school to comprise entirely one religion. That may not cause any noticeable diminution of the educational opportunities for the rest of the community. For myself, I cannot see that it matters that the London Oratory is entirely Catholic. It is easy to travel around London and gain access to many other schools. I cannot see that it is important to regulate to ensure that half the pupils in JFS should not be Jewish.
On the other hand, there are schools in leafy Hertfordshire which used to be open to all religions, but are now closed to all but one faith. Considerable local upset has been caused. This must be something for local decision and, again, I do not see why this power should be given to local education authorities because that would go against the whole thrust of how we are seeking to introduce greater freedom for schools. My personal inclinations, too, err towards greater freedom for schools.
I look on the amendment as another way of tackling the problem. When this point was discussed in the debate on Second Reading, the Bishops were loud in their belief that there was a social dimension to their mandate, that they did have to take the effect on local
172
communities into account, that local opinion was important to them and that it would influence how they wanted to run their schools. I believe that that is also as true of the Roman Catholic Church, as it is true of the one or two Muslim schools with which I have had opportunity to discuss this matter.
Given that that is the case and given that these major religions will account for the great majority of religion-based schools, and that Parliament and the media have ways of influencing what attitude the great religions will take towards the schooling of which they are in charge, it would be right to use those means to seek to change the way in which some Church schools have closed their doors to certain other religions and thus to have an effect on the disadvantages that that policy has brought to local communities.
I should like a system whereby the Churches have a power over the schools within their flock. They should be able to ask those schools to have regard to guidance which they had formulated on balancing the needs of the religion to which their members are adherents and those of the local community. They should be able to ask the governing body, not too frequently, to come to a decision based on that guidance. It should be of sufficient comfort if we are then able to take the Church of England or any other Church to task in the context of any perceived hurt as a result of putting that guidance into practice.
We should not try to regulate centrally on how religious schools manage their intake. From what was said at Second Reading, I believe that such a system would produce a situation with which I felt comfortable. I hope that we do not have to go down the road proposed as regards regulation. I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: As my noble friend spoke, I was at times on his side and at times not so certain. I came full circle. My noble friend makes an interesting proposition. I agree that this is not an area for regulation.
The truth is that there are faith schools. Parents of children of a particular faith, Muslim, Catholic or Anglican, would expect to be given access to a school of that faith. They would be very upset if there were some form of quota system—I understand that my noble friend is against that—which determined by informal or formal methods that X per cent of the school shall be made available to children not of that faith and that only a certain percentage of children of the faith could be received into the school. It is a stepping stone to schools becoming secular rather than faith schools. Therefore, I have difficulty on that point.
I have difficulty also as regards regulations, as proposed in an amendment in another place. First, there are a large number of faith schools in our country—Jewish, Catholic, Anglican and Muslim. They offer places predominantly to children of the faith of those schools. However, there has been a tradition, in particular in the Anglican Church, for

173
places to be made available to children who live in the local area. Many faith schools have a good record of receiving children who are not of the faith but whose parents wish them to be educated in a school with a Christian, Muslim or Jewish ethos.
I visited the King David school, an exceptionally good school in Liverpool. I understand that fewer than half the children who attend the school are of the Jewish faith. Therefore, more than half are not of the Jewish faith. In addition to the national curriculum which all those schools are required to follow, there is a distinct Jewish ethos. One walks out of that school feeling very good about education. There is an exceptional mentoring system. The ethos within the school is exceptional. There is clearly a generous approach to young people of that area being accepted into the school.
I assume, because I do not know, that places are made available to children not of the Jewish faith because there are not enough children of the Jewish faith to take those places. I should like priority to be given to children of that faith who wish to take those places rather than having them taken by children of other faiths. The same argument applies to Anglican, Catholic and Muslim schools.
With regard to Muslim schools, I am not certain whether doors are opened similarly to children not of the Muslim faith. My caveat is that there are few of those schools and they are in areas of high Muslim population. Therefore, it is likely that those schools would have almost 100 per cent of children of the Muslim faith.
Equally, I have visited an exceptional school in the Tower Hamlets area, headed by the partner of Chris Woodhead. Ninety-something per cent of the children were of the Muslim faith; yet it was not a faith school. Respect for and accommodation of the faith of those children was managed well by that school.
It is a sensitive issue. I do not believe that we should go down the road of quota systems. Nor should we follow the road proposed in the amendment passed in another place. I agree with my noble friend. I believe that there is scope for the Churches—it will be interesting to hear the right reverend Prelate if he speaks on the amendment—and faith groups themselves to consider the policy which they operate not only to meet the needs of the people of their faith in the area but also those of children of other or no faith.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I had intended to intervene in debate on this part of the Bill. I am not clear whether the noble Lord favours faith schools but he seeks to be helpful. Unfortunately, the amendment is too vague to achieve his aim, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Like the noble Baroness, I vacillated in my appreciation of what he said. The introduction of words such as "religious ghetto" is extremely unhelpful. If one wants to use the word "ghetto" about schools, there are ghetto schools in almost every class
174
of school. Community schools serve socially deprived or socially elite local communities, and so on. I would resist that phrase.
Most faith schools are community schools serving the local community, whether Roman Catholic or Anglican. That would be equally true of the few Muslim schools. For some of us the difficulty arises with regard to secondary education. As there are so few such schools the kind of things which the noble Lord described can happen. On these Benches, we do not believe that a quota system of percentages would he helpful. That would push the problem a little further down the line. One would still have to make awkward and difficult decisions. What would be best in one neighbourhood would not be best necessarily in another.
However, the noble Lord may have noticed that a further amendment has been tabled as regards this matter; namely, Amendment No. 211 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, which would deal with this question as far as concerns Anglican schools. We have deliberately asked the department, the Government, to make provision for Anglican schools in the light of criticisms that have been made about admissions policies being what I would call "eccentric" in some schools, or perhaps determined not to listen to local need, so that the diocese would have at least some part to play in that process. It is for others to say whether that kind of arrangement would be suitable to other faith communities. No doubt some noble Lords will be able to enter into that debate.
I would resist this amendment on the grounds that it is too vague. I urge the Committee to support Amendment No. 211, which our authorities have carefully negotiated with the Government. However, we must not underestimate the difficulties involved. Many people who are supporters of such schools would press the local initiative of the local governors. We must be careful that we are not, as it were, speaking double-speak: on one set of proposals we want the most local input that we can get, while on the other we want to bring in other people. It would be helpful if governors of Anglican schools had, in some way, to listen and have regard to advice given by the diocesan authority. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and to put his support behind Amendment No. 211.
5 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The name of the Liberal Democrats has been mentioned on a number of occasions; indeed, we were party to a series of amendments put forward both in Committee and on Report in the other place that did propose a quota system. However, the debate that took place in another place and which, subsequently, took place both within our party and within other forums has indicated that that is not the right way forward. That is why we have not tabled a similar amendment in this Chamber.

175
I do not know whether noble Lords have noticed, but we have tabled an amendment under the clause dealing with admission forums; namely, Amendment No. 178A. The amendment was put down rather late, and, arguably, ought to have been grouped with the amendment now under discussion. I apologise to the Committee for failing to spot the connection. Our amendment suggests a slightly different way forward. It relates to the admission forums, which cover all maintained schools and, therefore, all voluntary-aided schools, foundation schools, as well as voluntary-controlled and community schools. The amendment proposes that a voluntary-aided school that is a faith-based school should make clear to the admission forum the proportion of pupils coming forward from a particular faith.
Our amendment would also place some responsibility on the admission forum to take account of local need and the demand for faith-based places locally. I believe that it is a fairly bland amendment; it does not seek to push such proposals. However, it raises the issue that exercised people's minds when the discussion took place in the other place; namely, that such schools are substantially funded by the state, from the public purse—indeed, to the tune of 100 per cent in relation to current revenue costs. Of course, part of the capital funding comes from the Churches, which, as the right reverend Prelate said, recognise the need to serve the local community. There seems to be some inequity if some schools are excluding would-be pupils who are living right next door because they are not of that particular faith, despite the fact that a wish has been expressed to attend that school. The issue of proximity must sometimes be taken into account.
Although Amendment No. 178A has a somewhat different approach to the matter, it relates to the same issue that we believe needs to be aired; namely, the question of serving the community and, to some extent, the availability of some school places for the local community. That is precisely what the majority of faith-based schools try to achieve. Indeed, the inequity arises in a small minority of cases. That is why we have put forward our amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her observations. I am pleased to note the change in tone and, indeed, of direction from that which dominated our earlier debates on the subject. I agree that it would have been helpful if Amendment No. 178A had perhaps been grouped with the amendment now before the Committee. That would have enabled the debate to be taken in its entirety at this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is well intentioned in placing his amendment before the Committee today, but the reason for the tension on this question goes back to our Second Reading debate and the discussion on the role of faith schools in our society. Indeed, it does not just go back to the Second Reading debate, or to the debate that took place in another place; it goes right back into the mists of time. Similarly, I can tell
176
noble Lords from my former party that this is not a new argument for them. It was Mr Gladstone who said:
"As to its politics, this country has much less, I think, to fear than to hope; unless through a corruption of its religion—against which, as Conservative or Liberal, I can perhaps say I have striven all my life long".
That, in turn, led to the great debate at the turn of the 20th century, which found Hilaire Belloc, who was then a Liberal Member of Parliament and a Catholic, leading some 80,000 people in a protest to the Royal Albert Hall against his own party and government when the charge was being made that any contribution towards the new schools for poor Irish immigrants would be "Rome on the rates". Echoes of that debate emerged during the 20th century in, for example, the debates on the Education Act 1944. Indeed, such questions return to visit us from time to time.
There have been arguments over Jewish schools, and now the discussion has moved to Muslim schools. I was especially pleased to hear the remarks made by the noble Baroness on the King David High School in Liverpool, which served many of the people who I represented when I was a constituency Member of Parliament for that city. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that that school has always served people from many walks of life, and from different backgrounds. The authorities of that school would say very clearly that it is a Jewish school, and that that is its great strength. Its ethos is a Jewish ethos. If others wish to participate in that, they are welcome to do so. I know that this amendment does not seek to do so, but to dilute its ethos—as emerged in the previous debate—would be quite the wrong way to proceed. Indeed, it would alienate many people throughout the country who passionately support the provision of Church schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will know that there are others who have taken a much tougher line on such matters. For example, the former education spokesman for her party in another place said that, in an ideal world, there would be no religious state schools. He went on to say that his party would put a stop to the daily act of worship. I fundamentally disagreed with him at the time; he knows that, and we corresponded on the subject. I do not think that it is an "ideal world" to prevent people from being able to send their child to a school with a religious ethos. It would diminish all of us if we removed such practices as the daily act of worship from our schools. It is most important for us to transmit our cultural values from generation to generation.
As the right reverend Prelate said earlier, I also believe that it is something of a caricature to talk about schools as though they are "ghetto schools"—to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The schools that I visit throughout the country that are run by different Churches and faiths serve many people from beyond their own communities, but they have their own identity because of the community from which they have sprung. The facts bear out what I am saying. There is no need to impose a quota along the lines suggested in the Liberal Democrat amendment in

177
another place—for example, that 25 per cent of places should go to people from other faiths. In the United Kingdom 20 per cent of pupils in Catholic schools happen not to be Catholic.
The experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in places like Hertfordshire is true. In the Westminster archdiocese and in that of both Liverpool and Salford, demand for Catholic places is extremely high and will often outstrip the supply. More than 90 per cent of pupils in those dioceses tend to be Catholic, but they are the exception rather than the rule. In the Birmingham archdiocese, for instance, 27·1 per cent of pupils are non-Catholic; in the Clifton diocese, which serves the Avon and Bristol areas, the figure is 30·1 per cent; in Hallam in the Sheffield area it is 32·6 per cent; in Plymouth 39·5 per cent; and in the Wrexham diocese it is 24·9 per cent.
Everyone knows that in some situations and in certain areas we may be approaching a position where the character and the ethos of a school can be radically altered if the proportions become too unbalanced. This is why the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right to say that we should approach this issue with great discretion and trust the people on the ground to make the right decision. We should not have a regimented approach.
During the Second Reading debate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, promised an amendment at this stage which would be based on catchment areas. I am delighted that that amendment has not so far appeared on the Marshalled List because its effect would be to create a situation where the ability to buy a house in close proximity to a particular school would be the one reason why someone would be able to get into that school. It would not be on the basis of someone's faith, commitment, social need or the desirability of having a place in that school, but because that person could move there. It would mean replacing the sensitively worked-out approach which is pragmatically being applied on the ground with something far more arbitrary and socially damaging.
I believe the Government have got it right. I welcome the approach that the Minister has taken to this whole issue. It is a sensitive question but she has acted in accordance with the concordat that was made in 1944 between the Churches and the state by the government of the day. The Government are entitled to our support on these questions today.
But we do have to address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, one of which was the need for shared civic values. We have a right in our society to ask Church schools and schools of other faiths, "Are you teaching children in your schools to share the same civic values as the rest of us?". If a shared love of democracy, our civic institutions and the upholding of the rule of law is not being taught, we have a perfect right to ask questions. If the schools are not teaching the value of diversity, pluralism and respect, again we have a right to ask questions about that.
But my experience of such schools is that they do indeed promote precisely those things. In the City of Liverpool last night, the Cardinal Archbishop of
178
Westminster, Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, was present at a lecture at the Liverpool Philharmonic Hall. Eight bishops were present—four Roman Catholic and four Anglican. The sight of the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop, Patrick Kelly, was a great metaphor in itself of the progress that has been made in that once sectarian city and of the way in which Church schools have become the engine for that kind of rapprochement between people who were divided at one time and living in, if you like, twin houses of hate. The schools in our city—more than 40 per cent of which are Church schools—have played a very important part in achieving that.
Last night, children from some of those Church schools were receiving awards for their engagement in the civic life of the city. One of the young men present was a Young Conservative, James Maudsley, a human rights activist who went out to Burma. He is the product of a local faith school. We can all be enormously proud of him, having read in the newspapers how Aung San Suu Kyi, that marvellous beacon of democracy in Burma, was paying tribute to the risks that he took with his life, motivated and fired as he was by his faith. Another dimension is sometimes given to people as a result of their upbringing through our faith schools, so the use of the term "ghetto" in describing those faith schools is disingenuous.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was wrong to say that we do not have religious hospitals. We do have hospitals which are run by religious orders. There is one in the constituency that I represented previously in another place which serves the wider community. Religious institutions are part of the web and weave of our lives in every respect. We should value that, uphold it and ensure that they continue to prosper.
If the amendment were incorporated into the Bill, it would have a practical effect which may be undesirable from the noble Lord's own point of view. The amendment suggests that notice should be taken of,
"any relevant guidance issued by any religious authorities which the governing body acknowledges as having influence over the school".
That does not mean that it has to act on that guidance—in that sense it is not prescriptive—but if there were to be an offending school it would be the least likely to take any notice because it is not mandatory.
The amendment refers to "any religious authorities". What is a "religious authority"? Does it mean that if a cult—for instance, the Scientologists, the Moonies, the Children of God and so on—came along and said, "We have a child in this school and we wish you to take note of a prescription that we wish to impose on the school", would the school be required to do so under the terms of the amendment?
Were the amendment to be incorporated it would be unhelpful to the legislation. We should go with the amendment that the Government have placed before the Committee. We should keep the spirit of the Bill and the spirit of the agreement that has been carefully

179
worked out between the Churches, the great faiths and the state. It is an agreement which is serving this country well.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing forward this proposed amendment to Section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, not least because it has allowed us to range more freely in our discussion. In responding on behalf of the Government, I do not wish to pre-empt the discussion that we will have later when the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, brings forward her amendment, but, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I wish to draw attention again to Amendment No. 211. I look forward to the debate. I hope that we will be able to find common cause within it.
The Committee may be aware that Section 91 allows aided and foundation schools with a religious character to preserve that religious character by rejecting applications from families not of their faith or denomination. A typical Section 91 arrangement defines a limit on the number of places at a particular faith or denominational school that may go to pupils not of that faith or denomination.
Where schools give children of a faith or denomination priority for admission and are oversubscribed with pupils of that faith or denomination, a Section 91 arrangement has no additional effect. It makes a difference in practice only where fewer children of the faith or denomination apply to the school than the arrangement envisages. If that happens, the arrangement will allow the school to keep empty those places it cannot fill with pupils of the faith or denomination, even though there may be a demand for those places from other families.
The Government have been giving serious thought to whether Section 91 arrangements are compatible with our aim of establishing an admissions framework that ensures that as many parents' preferences as possible can be met. We believe that allowing schools to keep places empty when there is demand for them is at odds with our aim. We do not believe that it is an efficient use of resources for places to remain empty in some schools if overall demand for places in a local education authority's area can be met only by the authority having to meet the cost of providing additional school places elsewhere. Empty places mean less funding for the schools themselves and fewer resources available for children in those schools.
In practice, there are very few Section 91 arrangements in place. Many Catholic schools and their dioceses already take the view that it is better to fill all their places by admitting children of other faiths or denominations or of no faith than to keep places empty. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, about 14 per cent of children in Roman Catholic primary schools and more than 20 per cent of children in Roman Catholic secondary schools are not Catholic.
180
I am able to announce today that we shall be bringing forward an amendment at Report stage to repeal Section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. That will end the possibility of faith schools under-subscribed by faith adherents agreeing arrangements with their local education authority to keep places empty.
In coming to this decision we have been very grateful for the helpful approach taken by the Roman Catholic authorities. We have discussed our decision to repeal Section 91 with these authorities and will continue to discuss with them how our decision is to be implemented. Where Roman Catholic demand has been met, they are happy for the benefits of Catholic schooling to be extended to other families who appreciate and want those benefits. I hope that the Committee will agree that repealing this section is an important contribution to ensuring access in principle to faith schools for members of other faiths or none.
I can, however, assure the Committee that repealing Section 91 will in no way alter the rights of governing bodies of Catholic and other religious voluntary-aided or foundation schools to define their own admission criteria and priorities, and in particular to give priority admittance, if over-subscribed, to members of their faith or denomination. The Government recognise that many schools hold sincerely to the credo that they were established to serve their particular faith community and that that is where their primary responsibility lies.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will acknowledge that, in the light of my remarks, his amendment could be withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. What evidence does the department have of school places deliberately being kept vacant when others in the area who are not of that faith wish to attend those schools? What percentage of available places does that represent?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am afraid that I cannot supply the percentage, but we know that a few schools—only a few—have used these arrangements in order to keep places empty. This led to our discussions with the Roman Catholic authorities. They have been extremely helpful and are in agreement that we must work this through in a practical way which will make sense. On that basis, we believe that the proposal that we intend to bring forward on Report will enable us to ensure that where there is a demand for school places—the noble Baroness gave a good example; namely, the King David High School in Liverpool, where the demand for places far exceeds the number of children from that particular faith—the school will be kept full so that children will be able to enjoy the benefits of the quality of education in the school.
There is no disagreement among those who currently hold places open; it is simply something that we want to move towards. If the noble Baroness would

181
like me to write to her setting out the detail she requested, I shall do so. I apologise that I do not have the percentage in front of me.
Lord Lucas: I have been fascinated by the debate. I am delighted to hear that Amendment No. 211 will move in the direction in which I had hoped to find the Churches moving. I had presumed from the fact that it was not grouped with this amendment that that was not the case, but I shall listen to that debate with interest. I hope to hear from the Roman Catholic Church as to what it is doing of an equivalent nature. I do not know how strong a control it has over the policies pursued by its individual schools, but I very much hope that it will find a way. Not being the established Church, it does not have the advantage of our being able to legislate for it. However, I hope that we shall find that the two Churches are moving in unison.
It is important that we do not allow, more than we absolutely have to, the development of separate communities in this country. For children to grow up without experience of anyone who is not part of their immediate community can be all right in small quantities—the world is big and the rest of the world is out there for them to see outside the school gates. However, one can see the ultimate expression of that in Northern Ireland, and the beginnings of its expression in places such as Oldham.
It is possible for the Church school system to become part of an instrument separating a community into constituent parts which grow up without proper experience of each other. I hope that we shall not allow that to continue—particularly when we are examining the possibility of having more faith schools, which I am happy to see. We must make sure that the possible side-effects of that are not allowed to develop in this country. It depends very much on the determination of the great religions to make sure that that is not the way in which matters develop.
Perhaps we can arrive at a position where the Churches are freely able to found new schools, as I shall advocate in a later amendment. In that way, the Churches would be sure of having more than enough places for their own adherents and the ability to draw into their schools pupils whose parents—we are talking about selection in terms of parents, not pupils—may not be members of the religion but who want their children to be brought up in the faith, which they may admire from the outside while not accepting it themselves. I was brought up on stories of Don Camillo. I remember that Peppone had his child christened after great trials and tribulations. That is an approach that we should allow as many people as possible to follow. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Determination of specified budgets of LEA]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord:Murton of Lindisfarne): In calling Amendment No. 160, I would point out that, if it is agreed to, I shall not able to call Amendment No. 161 owing to pre-emption.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 160:
Page 25, leave out lines 30 and 31.
The noble Baroness said: in moving this amendment, I give notice that I shall not be speaking to Amendment No. 162 or Amendment No. 163, which we have effectively withdrawn from debate.
We now move to the part of the Bill dealing with the setting up of schools forums, which are dealt with in Clause 39. After dealing specifically with the amendment, I want to address more generally the provisions relating to schools forums in Clauses 39 and 40.
The Bill provides for each local authority to establish a schools forum. Most of the functions of the forum, which be made up mainly of heads and governors—it is not an elected body —will be consultative. They are set out in the draft regulations that have been circulated by the department.
However, under Clause 39 proposed new Section 45A(4) gives a forum the power to decide classes of expenditure which can be deducted from schools budgets. Under the draft regulation circulated, the provision will relate only to relatively small categories of expenditure such as primary school meals, licences, subscriptions, museums and galleries, and library services for schools. However, further classes of expenditure could be added at any time by regulation. It is for that reason that we have great reservations about the subsection.
As I have pointed out, the schools forum will not be an elected body. It will be an unelected body, effectively appointed at local level. For it to have the power of decision over classes of expenditure which the local authority, which is elected and is accountable to the local electorate, has traditionally decided is wrong. It is appropriate that where expenditures are made, there should be some accountable elected authority, rather than an unelected authority which takes decisions over and above those of the elected authority. The proposed amendment would provide for a schools forum to have consultative functions only. It would have no power to decide on classes of expenditure.
That brings me to the more general discussion of Clauses 39 and 40, which set up the statutory framework for the new system of funding councils and schools in England from April 2003. Under the new system there will be separate funding assessments (standard spending assessment blocks) for expenditure on school pupils, which are deemed to be the schools budget, and the central functions of the local education authority, which will be deemed to be the LEA budget. The bulk of the schools budget will,

183
therefore, be placed directly under the control of individual schools and will be known as the individual schools budget.
In addition to schools forums being able to set limits or conditions on some items of expenditure, there is a new requirement to notify the Secretary of State of the proposed level of the schools budget by the end of January. The Secretary of State will have a reserve power to intervene and to impose a prescribed minimum level, in all circumstances, where the council's proposal is considered to be inadequate.
This would have significant implications for budget setting. It would effectively require the education budget to be set to an earlier time-scale than that of other services, and would divorce spending decisions on the main local authority service from consideration of the council tax.
The Local Government Association has been concerned by those developments. It has consistently opposed the concept of the reserved power, which is often referred to as ring-fencing. The Government have recognised some of the arguments against ring-fencing of local government expenditure. They pointed out in the finance Green Paper of September 2000 that it weakens local accountability and democracy, whereas delegating powers to local authorities encourages democracy and encourages local authorities to take their responsibilities seriously. When funds are ring-fenced, some local authorities may give less attention to their proper responsibilities for strategic planning and quality improvement of schools.
Ring-fencing also erodes local authorities' financial responsibilities and freedoms and leads to weaker coordination between education and other local services, which can make a lot of difference to schools and families. It also creates pressure for ring-fencing in other services. If we ring-fence education funding, there will be calls to do the same for social services, transport and other services. That takes away from the basic democratic rights of local authorities. Already, many of their responsibilities have been eroded and taken by central government.
If we are to get people interested in participating in democracy, they must see it as something that affects them. If all the decisions are going to be taken away, people will think that local authorities make no difference. That is already a tendency at local election time. Ring-fencing detracts in many ways from the necessary vibrancy that we ought to be trying to inject into local democracy.
While the proposed reserved power does not constitute wholesale ring-fencing, its application would involve an erosion of local accountability and financial discretion. Although the Bill has remained unaltered after the initial stages in the Commons, we recognise that a significant number of ministerial assurances have been given that it is the Government's intention, in keeping with the local government White Paper, to reduce the number of ring-fenced and specific grants for education and to transfer resources
184
to the general budget grant. On the specific issue of the reserved power, Ministers have said that the Secretary of State will consider the implications for other council services before setting the minimum schools budget and that the reserved power will be used very sparingly.
Despite those assurances, there are still deep reservations on these Benches and from the Local Government Association about the move. We hope that greater consideration will be given to the general impact of these two clauses and their potential significance in relation to local democracy. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I have no hesitation in saying that the Government are the greatest guilty party on the funding of schools. An unprecedented amount of money is now top-sliced from the education budget. Initiative after initiative is made almost daily—certainly several each week. That comes from the main education budget. Then, the Government are guilty on a second count, by imposing additional burdens on local education authorities. This Bill, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and other legislation have created enormous burdens on local authorities. They all have to be paid for. The only place from which that money can come is the overall education budget. That erodes yet further the core funding that should go into our schools.
Make no mistake, the Government are being heavy-handed in producing an unaccountable system that second-guesses local authorities. The Government, not the local authorities, are guilty. That is inexcusable and I support much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said about giving freedom at local level and about the whole issue of the erosion of accountability.
I have serious reservations about the schools forums. They are not elected, but are simply established in the local area. Other bodies akin to the make-up of a schools forum already exist. Before setting a budget, most well run authorities—this is certainly the case in my own local authority in Cambridgeshire—will have roadshows to meet parents and the local community and will definitely talk with the local heads forum, the school teacher unions and the teacher representatives. There will be a great deal of discussion before the budget is finally set. The statistics show that most well run education authorities spend above their standard spending assessment on education, often at the expense of other services, because they consider education a priority at local level.
There is no reason to regulate in this way. If the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, wishes to press that Clause 39 should not stand part of the Bill, I shall be with her. I fully support Amendment No. 160. I am not sure what was in the noble Baroness's thinking to remove,
"or the authority's schools forum",
under Amendment No. 162, but I assume that those words would disappear anyway under Amendment No. 160.

185
Accountability is important. The members of our local education authorities are elected and have sharp accountability with their local communities—at least until the Government in their wisdom remove them and take responsibility further away to regional government. Our schools deserve more of their share of core funding. That can come only from government initiatives to relinquish some of their propensity for holding back money at the centre.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: When amendments are withdrawn on the spot, I have to adjust my speaking notes. I hope that I have got this correct. I shall speak to Amendment No. 161 and then respond to the debate on Amendment No. 160.
As drafted, the new subsection (4)(c) has the side-effect of conferring an additional power on the Secretary of State. As well as enabling her to empower the forum to decide certain matters, it also enables her to lay clown rules that need not appear in the regulations and so would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or approval. Government Amendment No. 161 corrects that position. While it may in some contexts be appropriate for a Minister to make rules in the way in which paragraph (c) would authorise, we have managed satisfactorily under the present legislation without that facility. We therefore think it right to table the amendment, which means that any rules on top-slicing that the Secretary of State wishes to make will need to be set out expressly in the regulations and laid before Parliament, as at present. I am sure that the Committee will welcome the amendment.
No doubt we shall discuss schools forums in great detail when we reach Clause 41, but they form an important part of the debate on Amendment No. 160, so it might be helpful if I say a little about our general intentions. Clause 39 provides for the establishment of a schools budget, to contain proposed expenditure on provision for pupils, and an LEA budget, which covers the LEA's essential core functions and various services—such as special educational needs statementing and transport—which are most sensibly provided by LEAs.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, the schools forums to be established under Clause 41 are essentially advisory and consultative bodies. The functions that we intend to give them will reflect that role. However, we think that there is some limited scope for giving them a small decision-making role in respect of decisions on whether to delegate to schools certain items of expenditure within the schools budget. In reaching that decision, we have of course talked at length with the Local Government Association.
We have in mind here meals for primary and special school pupils; museum services and library services for primary and special schools; and copyright and similar licence fees. However, we shall be consulting to see whether that list is right. Whether delegation of those items of expenditure is more desirable than LEA central funding will often depend on local
186
circumstances. We think that schools forums can usefully reach a collective view for schools on that issue.
For most items in which expenditure is centrally retainable, a decision to delegate will rest with the LEA, as is right and proper in the light of the authority's overall responsibility for the budget and—as the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch, said—accountability to the electorate. This is particularly so with special educational needs because of the LEA's responsibility for ensuring that SEN requirements are fulfilled and the often volatile nature of budgets for that responsibility. We therefore do not at this stage intend any significant extension of the list that I have set out. I hope that that reassurance, and the Government's willingness to introduce Amendment No. 161, will enable the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to withdraw Amendment No. 160.
As noble Lords are aware, Clause 39 modifies the framework within which LEAs fund their schools. The "Fair Funding" framework, based on a broadly defined local schools budget, has worked well. It has improved the school funding system's transparency, and the level of financial delegation to schools has risen sharply. On average, LEAs delegated more than 86 per cent of their budget last year, compared with 79 per cent in 1998. What "Fair Funding" has not addressed is the way in which LEAs themselves are funded.
The present arrangements for funding LEAs through the education spending assessment have attracted widespread criticism. Under existing local government finance legislation, we shall replace the education standard spending assessment with two separate spending needs assessments—a "school" assessment and an "LEA" assessment. I shall not go into more detail on that now as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has explained the point extremely well.
Clause 39 brings the school funding system into line with the new LEA funding system by establishing a "schools budget" and an "LEA budget" instead of the current "local schools budget". Broadly, the schools budget will cover all expenditure for which funding is generally delegated to schools at present, along with most other expenditure on actual provision for pupils, including schools meals and out-of-school education. The LEA budget will cover functions which cannot sensibly be carried out except at the level of the LEA. These are likely to include most functions which are currently funded centrally by LEAs under the heads of strategic management, school improvement and access, which include home-to-school transport. The LEA budget will also cover LEA functions which do not relate to primary and secondary education. By aligning the scope of the two budgets with that of the two needs assessments, we shall clear away the "funding fog" that results from the mismatch between the local schools budget and the education SSA. Most of the schools budget will have to be delegated to schools, although LEAs will need to retain funding for certain purposes, as I have outlined.

187
Clause 40 gives the Secretary of State for Education and Skills a power—to be used in exceptional circumstances—to set a minimum level for an authority's schools budget, as defined by Clause 39, where she considers the budget is seriously inadequate. The level may apply to the next financial year or to the financial year after that. We are introducing the measure to help to ensure that funding increases for schools made available by central government are passed on to schools by local authorities. We expect that the proposals we have made to require local authorities to provide a transparent account of school funding will put pressure on authorities to pass on funding increases. But where that does not achieve sufficient progress, we need a reserve power. As I said, in practice, we do not expect to use it except on exceptionally rare occasions.
In setting the minimum level, the Secretary of State must have regard to all the relevant circumstances. We have set out in the explanatory notes some of those circumstances: how the authority's proposed budget compares with its school funding assessment; the performance of an LEA's schools; pressures—as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said—from other services, recognising the joined-up nature of those services; and the degree to which the authority has failed to pass on the increase in funding to its schools. That is not an exhaustive list and there may be other criteria that we would wish to consider. We do not want to try to list all the criteria in the Bill only to discover later that we have missed something important which we would not then be allowed to consider. Such an omission could of course weaken the position of an LEA as much as strengthen it if the Secretary of State were not able to take on board very particular criteria which would mitigate the exercise of that power.
The clause sets out the timetable for use of this power. We shall be asking local authorities to let us know their proposed budgets by the end of January—no earlier than we did this year, and a little later than in previous years, when we have approached authorities early in January to ask them to indicate whether they intend to pass on increases in education SSA. The timetable also allows authorities to make representations if they object to the level of budget set for their schools. They will, for example, be able to explain the impact that the proposed minimum budget would have on other services run by the council. Where there is an objection, the clause allows the Secretary of State to make an order setting the level of budget, to be subject to affirmative resolution, so Parliament would be able to debate it.
This clause is important for our plans on school and LEA funding, it allows for a dialogue between central government and local government on the minimum level of the schools budget, and it recognises the real importance of education to our children. It should therefore stand part of the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leigh: I should first declare my interest as leader of a local authority. Will my noble friend clarify the position on the timing of budgeting, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned and is dealt with in subsection (5) of Clause 39? As the noble Baroness said, there are both local authority budgets and school budgets and we should not get the two out of synch. Another important factor is the announcement of central government support for local authorities. Although that usually occurs by the end of the calendar year, it does not always happen by then. The budgeting process itself occurs in the early part of the year. We have to ensure that we do not tie ourselves to a specific date which we cannot practically meet.
Baroness Blatch: I support that point. I know from my experience in local authorities the frustration of awaiting information from national government before being able to make local arrangements. I think that the purpose of Amendment No. 160 itself is to seek more time. There is an argument against establishing any time limits as they make it very difficult for local authorities.
I intervene, however, to ask the Minister to clarify a point she made at the start of her reply. In speaking to government Amendment No. 161, to remove "the Secretary of State" from subsection (4)(c), she seemed to say not only that any intention to top-slice from the education budget would be removed, but that further constraints would be imposed on other attempts to top-slice that budget. Does that apply generally to top-slicing by the Secretary of State in relation to central initiatives, or only to specific matters not mentioned in the Minister's notes?
In referring to the determinations that could be made by the schools forums, the Minister listed various services such as museums, libraries and catering. As that is to be a moveable feast, will we be given the list of services to be covered as currently envisaged by the Government? The provision gives a fairly open-ended power to the schools forums to determine the expenditure limits which will pass to schools.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In reply to my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, the information he mentioned has been available to local authorities from late November. He raises his eyebrows. However, I should expect late November to be the position. For what it is worth, that is now on the record.
I shall repeat the specific statement which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, queried in relation to removing the side effect. As I said, our amendment means that, as now, any rules on top-slicing which the Secretary of State herself wishes to make will need to be set out expressly in the regulations and laid before

189
Parliament as at present. I hope that that clarifies the position. If that is not clear, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: Does the measure relate only to the aspect of the Bill we are discussing or to any top-slicing which the Secretary of State may undertake?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I understand that the measure relates to this part of the Bill and not to any top-slicing. If that is incorrect, I shall, of course, clarify the position at the earliest opportunity. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her replies. However, I am still extremely unhappy about the whole situation. As regards Amendment No. 160, schools forums powers will be extremely limited in relation to expenditure. However, regulations are to be introduced. Those powers could easily be extended. There is no particular reason why they should not be. The Minister said that the Government have no intention at the moment to introduce any significant extension in that regard. However, I cannot be confident about the situation at some later stage. We know that there is no love lost between some parts of the Government and local education authorities or local authorities generally. It is conceivable that, just as primary care trusts are seen as being, so to speak, the focus for health at the local level, so at some point will schools forums, which also have unelected members composed of professionals and governor representatives, and local education authorities will be completely bypassed. I am not happy about that. However, I shall not test the opinion of the Committee and I shall withdraw the amendment.
As regards Clauses 39 and 40 standing part of the Bill, the whole issue of passporting or ring-fencing is unsatisfactory as it detracts from what I think are the fundamental democratic powers of the elected local body. There are some responsibilities, of which education has traditionally been one, that are run at a local level. Increasingly, those powers have been taken away and there is prescription after prescription coming from central government. As I say, if we want to rejuvenate local government, it is important that it is given real powers. I note the support we have received from the Official Opposition Benches. We need to get together to talk about these matters. Undoubtedly we shall return to them on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 161:
Page 25, line 30, leave out "the Secretary of State or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 162 to 164 not moved.]
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Power of Secretary of State to set minimum schools budget]:
Lord Roberts of Conwymoved Amendment No. 165:
Page 27, line 3, at end insert "and in Wales unless a draft of the order has been laid and approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a similar procedure applies in Wales as applies in England. The amendment proposes an addition to subsection (5) of new Section 45C. The addition seeks to ensure that just as in England a draft order prescribing a minimal schools budget after a local authority has objected to the Secretary of State's original determination must be approved by a resolution in the other place, a similar procedure is followed in Wales. It is surely right that the National Assembly should approve executive action in such circumstances where the will of an elected local authority is overridden by the Minister.
There is, I am bound to say, a glaring contrast in the Bill as it stands between the democratic approach in England and the bludgeoning approach towards local authorities in Wales. It may be argued that this is an internal matter for the Assembly and that it should be left to it to decide whether to institute an approval procedure. But that cannot be right. If by this Bill Parliament provides for a procedure to be followed by the Secretary of State, Parliament is similarly entitled to provide a procedure for the Assembly government to follow. This is, after all, primary legislation for which this Parliament alone is responsible. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, the amendment requires an order setting a minimum schools budget for a local authority in Wales to be laid before, and approved by, the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment is not necessary. The power for the National Assembly for Wales to make such an order in relation to a local education authority in Wales is already conferred on it by virtue of Clause 204 of the Bill. Any such order will be made in accordance with the procedures for making statutory instruments in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the National Assembly's own standing orders.
Under those procedures, draft orders are normally laid before the National Assembly and may be considered by the relevant subject committee which can report on them. They will be scrutinised by the Assembly's Legislation Committee. Finally, they must be considered and approved by the Assembly itself before being made. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jones: My noble friend the Minister has spoken with authority from the Dispatch Box. How frequently does she have contact with those who lead

191
on education in the National Assembly for Wales? Is it from them that she gains the confidence with which she has spoken from the Dispatch Box?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I spoke with confidence when I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, as I referred to what is in the Bill which will, therefore, be enacted.
The department is in regular contact with our friends in Wales. That is relevant and appropriate. However, of course we recognise that there is a devolved process. Therefore, we ensured that in working together on the Bill we drew it up as the National Assembly would wish.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her lucid explanation. However, I make no apology for my amendment. I tabled it in order to draw attention not only in this Chamber and in this Parliament but also in the National Assembly itself to the need to scrutinise any orders that may be made in the context we are discussing. It is surely right that if Parliament has to approve such an order, so should the National Assembly for Wales.
There is a further point. Although, as the noble Baroness said, the National Assembly has the power to scrutinise all orders made by it, nevertheless I am told that it is not in fact its practice to do so and that there is a tendency not to consider the multiplicity of orders that emanate from the Assembly. However, having drawn its attention to this particular order-making power, I am sure that no order will be made under this new section that is not scrutinised by the Assembly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Schools forums]:
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 166:
Page 27, line 17, after "shall" insert "if requested by a majority of governing bodies of maintained schools in their area"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the Question whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill. I am not absolutely certain about which other amendments may or may not be discussed in relation to the amendment.
My understanding is that the Government's thinking on Clause 41 is that establishing schools forums will be in the interests of schools and ensure that they receive as fair a share of—and as much—LEA funding as possible. One can only sympathise with the aims that lie behind the setting up of schools forums: we all want as much money as possible to go to where it belongs; that is, to schools, which can use it to benefit the education of children in their care.
192
Proposed new Section 47A in Clause 41 states:
"Every local education authority shall in accordance with regulations"—
there is no flexibility in that regard—
"establish for their area before such date as may be prescribed a body, to be known as a schools forum, representing the governing bodies and head teachers of schools maintained by the authority and, if the authority so determine, also representing such bodies as the authority may from time to time in accordance with regulations determine".
I believe that the Government wish to do well by schools. I therefore think that it should be for schools to determine whether they want to establish such a body.
The amendment would add to that subsection the phrase,
"if requested by a majority of governing bodies of maintained schools in their area".
If that is requested, a schools forum should be set up. A number of local authorities—I hazard a guess that quite a large number are involved—already have in operation a system that allows for consultation, for parents to play a part, and for the wider community to be involved. In particular, schools, governing bodies and teachers are involved in pre-budget-making discussions with the local authority. To add flexibility, it must be for schools to determine whether they want a forum.
I oppose the Question whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill as a result of a personal view. I do not believe that the clause belongs in the Bill. My view is that the perfectly satisfactory arrangements that LEAs already have in their areas with regard to pre-budget consultative arrangements should be allowed to continue. The proposal would cause duplication unless the Government's intention is that setting up schools forums would be a substitute for what is going on; in other words, the other arrangements would be dropped. It also allows schools much more autonomy in their area. If the Government believe that arrangements should be made in each local authority area for consultative arrangements, leaving schools to do that in their own way is the way to go.
In relation to earlier amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and I argued strongly that schools forums should not be given the power to determine any aspect of budgeting. We shall return to that. They are unaccountable and are not elected in any way; they will be appointed. It would be wrong to give them the power to second-guess local authorities and budgeting arrangements. I do not believe that that is necessary on the grounds that I have described or in view of the consultative arrangements.
If the Minister's only objection is that there has to be some form of pre-budget consultation in every LEA area, I shall bring forward an amendment at the next stage of the Bill that will achieve that, if I am successful in removing Clause 41 from the Bill. If I am not

193
successful in removing Clause 41 from the Bill, I hope that the Minister will at least show some flexibility and agree to Amendment No. 166. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 167, 168 and 169 and to oppose the Question whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill.
The purpose of those amendments is to limit the power of schools forums to that of giving advice to the relevant local authority. Although the Government have set out the functions of schools forums in draft regulations, if they remain committed to the new unaccountable structures, further clarification of their role in the Bill would be helpful. That is because of the danger that the role of the forums could widen in future, through further regulations, to involve decision-making, despite the reassurance that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lady Sharp in relation to an earlier amendment.
A number of problems would ensue from such an extension of the forums' powers. For example, would their determining whether some school support service budgets should he delegated to schools give them de facto employer capacity without the accountability to which LEAs taking such action are subjected? What if the amount that is given back to the authority to fulfil statutory duties in relation to special educational needs or for excluded children was not sufficient?
The whole issue of schools forums is yet another example of the fact that the Government spend time legislating when doing so is quite unnecessary; there are much more important issues to discuss. Local authorities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, are already obliged to consult all schools under the fair-funding arrangements. Most schools are happy with that. A recent report by the Audit Commission showed that more than 80 per cent of the 10,000 schools that were questioned were happy with the level of support from the LEA on the planning of schools budgets and believed that consultation had improved during the past few years. Schools are consulted not only on budgets but also on service level agreements, asset management plans, sixth-form funding, recruitment and retention, SEN reviews, delegation of school meals provision, Ofsted inspections and directorate restructuring; I could go on.
I hope that the Minister is not going to tell us that there has been an outcry demanding this extra bit of bureaucracy for schools. Does she have a file full of letters from head teachers demanding to have their time taken up with more meetings, the cost of which will be deducted from their budget? I am sure that she does not. Head teachers to whom I have spoken believe that they are well consulted by their LEA; they certainly do not have time for any more consultation and do not see the need for it.
Authorities also consult a range of other stakeholders, including teachers' unions, diocesan boards, community groups, residents, Members of another place, local health authorities, the local Racial Equality Council, pupils, elected members and others. There is plenty of evidence from Ofsted inspections
194
that consultation is being done effectively, regularly and widely. The saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", is a good one and should apply in this context.
There is a danger that if the forums are established and do not contain a representative from every school or stakeholder in the authority, the level of satisfaction that I have described will melt away and schools will become dissatisfied with the views that are expressed by their representatives. Only a small number of schools could be involved and they may not be truly representative.
While it is both desirable and possible for LEAs to further refine and improve consultation arrangements so that they take account of local needs and conditions and involve all stakeholders, there is no need to legislate for that. There is no proven need for that, and it would introduce unnecessary complexity into the LEA's budget-setting process.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 171, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and which is grouped with this amendment.
We are concerned about this aspect of the Bill. The creation of schools forums is a debatable matter in itself. It is clear to us, particularly since the Regulatory Reform (Voluntary Aided Schools Liabilities and Funding) (England) Order came into effect in April this year, that particular issues involving voluntary-aided schools have to be addressed. If the forums will give advice to local authorities on funding and school budgets, it is essential that they are at least represented on schools forums. It would be an injustice for a body to be discussing the budgeting and funding arrangements for particular schools if there was no representative of the schools on the forum. That may be an oversight in the way that the Bill has been drafted. However, it seems to me that, of all the stakeholders, this is a particularly important one, although I share many of the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, concerning the representation of all schools in this area.
I hope that, in replying, the Minister will be sympathetic to the concerns of the voluntary-aided schools. When it comes to forming a budget and the funding of a school, they have particular issues to address which are not applicable to community schools.
Lord Jones: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister from whence comes the concept of the schools forum which she promulgates today. Have there been any pilots, or is there anything that might remotely equal a pilot in the country at present? Is there, for example, any parallel in an overseas country to what is now proposed? Can she spell out the reasons or the details as to why she makes these proposals? Is it because consultations are now considered to be defective? My noble friend might respond to those questions should she gel to the Dispatch Box in the near future.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: When the Minister comes to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, no doubt she will deal with the general question of schools forums. I believe that we all wait with interest to hear what she has to say. However, my purpose in rising is simply to support the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who suggested that voluntary-aided schools should certainly be involved in the membership of schools forums where they are established.
It is paradoxical that earlier in our proceedings the complaint was made that Church or faith schools did not always play their part in the wider community. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, used the phrase "ghetto schools". Some Members of the Committee disagreed with that and said that it was an unfair caricature of those schools. However, unless we incorporate this amendment, or something like it, into the text of the Bill, there is a danger that voluntary-aided schools will be set aside in precisely the way that was suggested when concerns were expressed earlier in our proceedings. I agree with the right reverend Prelate. I suspect that there may have been an oversight in the drafting of the Bill. I hope that when the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, comes to reply, she will be able to give a helpful response.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I rise to support my noble friend on the Front Bench. My remarks will be extremely brief. This is the first time that I have intervened on this Bill, but I shall draw on the speeches that have just been made by the noble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Alton. My speech will be in the nature of the occasional comments made by the chorus in Greek tragedies.
The Minister will be aware that Clause 41, which we are now discussing, and Clauses 42 and 43 were not debated in another place due to the programming Motion. There is a degree of interlocking relationship between the clauses with which we are dealing in this part of the Bill. The logic that would have been revealed in another place if the clauses had been discussed is, of course, lacking to us. Consideration is genuinely assisted if Ministers have the chance to explain the unfolding logic, which Ministers in another place were denied the opportunity to do. However, this is not simply an animadversion on programming Motions, although I dare say that any self-respecting Greek chorus could have risen to a climax of ululation on the subject. But no chorus was confined to a single theme.
My concluding remarks, which flow from everything else that I have said, contain profound sympathy for the Minister for the extra strain that is put upon her in this place for having, as the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Jones, said, to explain issues which, frankly, we would have found easier to discuss if they had already been debated somewhere else.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: That was a very good introduction. It would have been easier for me, too, if these matters had been discussed elsewhere. I shall endeavour to ensure that I cover all the relevant points. I know that Members of the Committee will ensure that I do so before the end of this discussion.
I begin by speaking to Amendment No. 170—the government amendment. This amendment has been brought forward as a result of further consideration of the way in which the Bill is drafted. It is not a new policy; it has always been our intention that a schools forum should be consulted by its local education authority on the funding formula and various other matters, including a limited range of items which I have already discussed.
However, the clause is written in terms of the forum's, rather than the authority's, functions. Therefore, it is questionable whether, as it currently stands, it authorises regulations which compel the authority to undertake such consultation. The amendment makes it explicit that the relevant regulations can compel the LEA to consult the forum. That is my formal statement on the matter. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree to the amendment on the basis that, if we are to have forums, they need to be able to do their job well.
I turn to Amendment No. 166 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, concerning consideration about the majority of governing bodies. The noble Baroness referred to Cambridgeshire—an authority that both she and I are privileged to know something about, although obviously I know it from a different end of the telescope from the noble Baroness. As the noble Baroness said, that authority, and many others, have a good dialogue with schools about funding issues. They have established local consultative groups and those work well.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked me on what basis we brought forward this provision. We did so by looking at examples of where local education authorities and schools have worked well together. We asked what lesson could be learnt that would be applicable across all local education authorities.
Therefore, we are trying to bring forward schools forums for the benefit of schools everywhere. We believe that they have vital functions to fulfil. Those are: improved consultation on funding formulae; decisions on the delegation of funding for certain types of expenditure; advice on a range of financial issues, including the balance of spending on various services; and helping the LEA to fill a client role in letting contracts. Above all, they will be a conduit for the views of schools on the management of the schools budget, which is introduced under Clause 39.
The list of functions shows why the forums are part of our strategy for the new LEA and school funding system which we are working towards. From the representations that we have had from the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Head Teachers and the National Governors' Council, I

197
believe that this is something that schools want. The Secondary Heads Association gave me permission to quote this:
"While it is true that many local education authorities do have reasonably effective ways of consulting their schools, the current process is not consistent or evenly satisfactory".
It is precisely that that we seek to address. We want this important initiative to go ahead as soon as possible so that schools can influence decisions which will be taken by authorities in the first stage of the new funding system in 2003–04. We believe that introducing an extra stage, by polling schools as to whether or not to have a forum, would be unnecessary and bureaucratic.
We want to see this provision in every area. We believe that schools forums have an important role to play, and it is a role that we want to see every local education authority take on. The concept is based on the good practice of schools elsewhere and on the good practice of local education authorities. We want to see it universally adopted, and that is why we are putting it forward in this way.
For that reason, I cannot support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, although I agree with many things that she said. Specifically she said that schools forums would be voted in by a majority of governing bodies. But we would not want significant minorities to be unable to have a schools forum, not least because we consider them to be important.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 167 to 169. The forums are essentially advisory and consultative bodies, and the functions that we intend to give them mostly reflect that role. But we believe that there is some scope for a limited decision-making role with regard to the delegation of certain items of expenditure. Those items are the museum service, meals for primary and special school pupils, library services and so on. As I said, we shall consult to ensure that that list is the right one. In doing so, we have been holding discussions at length with the Local Government Association.
Whether or not delegation of those items is better than LEA central funding will depend on local circumstances. We believe that the schools forum can usefully reach the collective view of local schools on this matter. Therefore, we want to entrust such decisions to the forums and, through them, the schools that they represent.
As I said, we do not intend to extend the list in the future. For most items where expenditure is centrally retainable, a decision to delegate will still rest with the local education authority. That must be, and is, especially true in relation to special educational needs because the LEA has responsibility for ensuring that special educational needs requirements are fulfilled. However, the limited scope that we wish to give to forums for decision-making means that it is not right to designate them as purely advisory bodies.
I turn to Amendment No. 171 which stands in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. It requires that schools forums should automatically have head teacher and
198
governing body representation for voluntary-aided schools. I recognise that that reflects concern within the Churches that such schools may not have their particular interests adequately represented on the forums. In response to that concern we propose to insert in the regulations on forum membership a provision that permits LEAs to organise the election of school members so that there is separate representation by school type, if it appears that that is justified by local circumstances and wishes. Those on the schools forums will be elected teachers and governors from the schools within the area.
However, we do not believe that there is justification for an automatic representation for voluntary-aided schools. First, such a right would be disproportionate. In many authorities fewer than 20 per cent of schools are voluntary aided. In fairness, such a right would have to be matched by rights for other school types. Secondly, schools forums are to be concerned only with school funding matters. We believe that the category—community, voluntary or foundation—that a school falls into does not affect its funding from the education authority to any significant degree, especially now that changes have been made to governing body liability for premises of voluntary-aided schools.
That means that the situation is not analogous to school organisation committees which always have diocesan representatives. We understand that the Churches will want to have an involvement. Therefore, I say to the right reverend Prelate that in guidance on the forums, about which we shall be consulting shortly, we intend to encourage LEAs to appoint diocesan representatives as non-schools members. Furthermore, voluntary school heads and governing bodies will no doubt be keen to stand for election as schools members. We think that that is the better way, and I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
On Clause 41 stand part, we want to build on what has been successful. We believe that the consultative process set up in some local education authorities is a model that we can enhance and develop into the schools forums. We believe that the way in which we have increased the proportion of schools' funding delegated to school bodies means that the logical next step is the process that we have set up in Clause 39, which is creating separate schools and LEA budgets.
So local education authorities already have a good relationship with schools on those issues, but others do not. We want schools in those areas to share in best practice. That is what we are seeking. We shall issue a consultative paper on the way in which forums should be constituted and the functions that they will have. Responses will inform the regulations and guidance. We would like the forums to become functional by 31st October, so that they can have a meaningful input into the deliberations on school budgets for 2003–04. A first draft has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. We expect to add to that draft a provision requiring LEAs to have regard to the need for school members to be broadly representative of the types of school to be found in an area.

199
I have found this debate extremely useful. We want the forums to become a valuable tool. We believe that we have received representations from governors and head teachers that that would be welcome. We believe that it will build on the success that noble Lords have described as taking place in education authority areas. Having listened to the debate, I shall want to reflect further. I am not sure that I shall be able to find a way that will satisfy all noble Lords, but I am happy to offer to meet with noble Lords to discuss the matter further before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Jones: Regarding the consultation with the LEAs and the proposed forums, shall we assume that a substantial body of the local education authorities is deficient in consultation? If that is the case, does my noble friend have any body of research or any information that she may share with the Committee as to why she proposes the forums in the Bill?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I had hoped that I had given the noble Lord some encouragement when I described how we have been considering good practice that exists within certain local education authorities. We are seeking to set up something that is not just a talking shop but more; something that will enable that dialogue to turn into a solid relationship between schools forums and local education authorities with a respect for the role of each. On the basis of the good experience that exists, I am happy to write to the noble Lord laying out some of the examples, of which the Committee will be fully aware, that we have considered. It is for those reasons that head teachers, governors and their representative bodies have said that they want to explore the situation with us. Having said that I am happy to discuss this further with noble Lords, I hope that it will be taken forward.
Lord Jones: That is sufficient reassurance for me to say that should there be a vote I shall be with my noble friend.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Perhaps the Minister will clarify her response to the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. She suggested that in some areas where minority interests were relatively small it would not be appropriate for them to be represented on schools forums. However, in some boroughs, such as the borough of Wigan, close to 50 per cent of schools are run by the Churches. In those circumstances, who is in a majority and who is in a minority?
In subsection (10), to which I believe she referred in new Section 47A on schools forums, it says that,
"'non-school member', in relation to a schools forum, means a member other than a schools member".
Does that mean that a representative who may be placed on the schools forums from a voluntary-aided school can, in no circumstances, be someone involved in the school? That was what she implied when saying that they would be representatives of the diocese and so on. Surely that will not put them on the same basis
200
as other representatives who will come from the maintained sector. I am grateful that she has indicated that she is willing to have further consultation on these matters. Will she bear in mind those points as the consultations proceed?
Lord Lucas: As the Minister responded to the amendments I became more and more concerned that the Government are missing the point of what is being carried out so successfully in many local authorities. Local authorities are gathering consent and conducting matters in a way that, from time to time, suits a particular local authority, a particular group of schools and a particular set of problems. It is a structure that is flexible and that can respond to difficulties that may arise; for example, one particular group of schools may feel that it is not properly represented on the forum, but the forum is not charged with any statutory duty. Its object is to produce consent. Its usefulness as far as concerns the local authority is to produce something that is owned by the schools so that when the unpleasant task of cutting £1 million from the budgets to fund extra special educational needs provision arises, the exercise can be conducted with consent and with understanding all round.
The structure in the Bill appears to introduce something that is too rigid. If voluntary-aided schools were unhappy with what was going on and they were not represented, that would leave them feeling that they had not consented to a decision that the schools forum had made; they would not feel part of it. It would seem to me that that would lose the point of the good practice that has been established.
By acclamation, this Chamber is moving towards greater power for elected Members, but in local education authorities we are moving the other way and introducing mini quangos that will have powers that are not responsive to the electorate. I am not sure that that is the way that we should go. I believe that we should work through the democracy and the good practice of local education authorities. By all means let us have the power as a fall-back position for schools, but allow local authorities to produce their own solutions if the fall-back power would compel them to do it in a way that they would not like. I find that a valuable way of encouraging good practice.
I have one technical question. The Minister referred to the admission forums having powers. As far as I can see, that comes under new Section 47A(3)(a) which refers to new Section 45A(3). I cannot see that Clause 45A(3) refers in any explicit way to giving powers to schools forums. Can the Minister explain the technicalities of how something that appears to be a regulation governing what is delegated or what is not, can suddenly give powers to another body to take part in those decisions when that body is not mentioned at all in anything to do with new Section 45A(3)?
That may just be a misunderstanding on my part. But it gives me unease that one can look at the regulations in new Section 45A(3) and assume that they are a matter between the Department for

201
Education and Skills and local education authorities, and suddenly find that they are giving powers to another body. How many other bodies will they be giving power to? I am not clear on that point.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I rise for a second time, but feel better about doing so because I expressed sympathy to the Minister for the task imposed upon her by the other place. As I followed her logic—and it was about her logic that I was concerned when I first spoke—it is, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said much more articulately than I could, that things are working well on a voluntary basis and in a consultative manner in certain parts of the country and therefore we should standardise them. However, it seems possible, as my noble friend Lord Lucas implied, that it is the very circumstances in which they have hitherto been working which have made them successful. I am perfectly happy to be proved wrong.
I shall also be happy if the noble Lord, Lord Jones, will allow me to be copied with whatever letter the Minister sends to him. I am happy to keep an open mind in regard to what the Minister says. Butt have always been powerfully influenced by the observation of C S Lewis that if you hear about somebody going around doing good to others, you can always tell the others by their hunted look!
Baroness Walmsley: Did I understand the Minister to say that the schools forums would completely replace the current consultation processes? If so, we are in danger of dumbing down rather than improving the quality overall in the interests of the consistency to which the Minister referred.
I am concerned that many schools would not be involved with the schools forums. The primary schools in particular may lose out because the system will undoubtedly be dominated by the secondary schools. Nor am I convinced that there is a demand for this kind of structure. Clearly it comes to some extent from the Secondary Heads Association. But I wonder how many head teachers are behind the statement and how many school governors are demanding a structure of this kind. I am afraid that the Government will be jumping out of what they consider to be a frying pan into what the rest of us consider to be a fire.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I appear to be the only Member of your Lordships' Chamber who is quite excited by the idea of schools forums, which may say something although I do not know what.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, confused me because he mentioned admissions forums, which are different. The technical answer to his question is that new Section 45A(4)(c) relates to schools forums powers under 45A(3). I can go no further than that at this point, but shall be happy to take that up with him later if it would help.
I am sorry if I gave the illusion that schools forums are meant to replace the consultative mechanisms. They are not. Members of the Committee will know
202
that some local education authorities have extremely sophisticated systems. The Government do not want to interfere with those. This provision says that there needs to be an opportunity for some kind of representation of schools, elected by schools, to come together and discuss with local education authorities what is happening in their area. We believe this to be a good method of doing that.
As Members of the Committee will be aware—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because she has stood at this Dispatch Box—different local education authorities have different experiences, as do schools. So sometimes the role of government is to put together a package which is made to look the same across the piece in order to ensure that those schools, those education authorities and ultimately those children, receive the best possible service. That is what we are trying to create in these provisions.
As I said, I am happy to discuss the detail. I recognise the strength of feeling. It is not a question of taking away what has flowered, blossomed and grown in different areas to be something hugely successful. We are providing something to enable a dialogue to develop under a new funding regime and with the new opportunities that arise on a representative basis. It is no more and no less than that. There are some matters the forums could discuss with the LEAs. But of course the main bulk of funding provisions rests where it should; that is, either with the school or with the local education authority.
I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I was saying that we would be allowing different categories to cover precisely the point that in some areas many schools are voluntary aided and in other areas very few are, and to recognise that representatives from the diocese could be part of the forums via the group we described as a non-schools member. I hope that that reassures Members of the Committee. I look forward to continuing the debate but hope that the clause will be allowed to stand part.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I can just come back to the technical answer to my query on new Section 45A(3). I shall be happy for the noble Baroness to write to me. But what concerns me is that new Section 45A(3) refers to expenditure being determined by the authority,
"in respect of that year as they may determine should be so deducted in accordance with regulations".
That giving of power apparently allows powers to be conferred on a schools forum without the schools forum in any way being mentioned in the provision. It implies that the same regulation could be used, for instance, to confer powers on Railtrack; in other words, there is a complete unknown as to on whom those powers are being conferred because it is not mentioned on the face of the Bill. That is what concerns me about the provision. It is a technical matter but I should like it to be covered at some stage.
Baroness Blatch: I begin by saying how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. But what I find really depressing is reading the accounts of the debates in another place

203
and on coming to the end of every single sitting, finding a clutch of clauses which have received no discussion whatever. I find that to be a disgrace. I must say in passing that whatever comes out of the debate on the future of this place, if something does not put that right—I refer to the elected Chamber, the elected Members of this country, under all governments, not being allowed to discuss the merits or demerits of all the Bills that pass through their House—we shall be very remiss with regard to our obligation to do something about the democratic deficit in this country; and the democratic deficit is not in this place; it is in another place.
Having said that, the noble Baroness said a moment ago that the arrangements in this clause are not in any way meant to substitute for what local authorities are already doing. But that is not a real world comment. No local authority will keep the arrangements it already has in place, which are working well, are highly satisfactory and which are successful in its own area, if at the same time it has this obligation superimposed on it to duplicate that effort and, worse still, to pass over from the local authority to a wholly unelected body, to be called the "schools forums", powers to determine financial aspects of budget making. That is simply not acceptable.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Perhaps I may add that the schools are also going to find themselves top-sliced in order to pay for the schools forums, and of course will have to find time for the extra level of bureaucracy—10 meetings and so forth—which is probably the last thing they want.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pre-empted my next point, which was to ask who is going to meet the cost of the forums. We all know the answer. It will have to come from the overall education budget. The same applies to the time that will be involved, the logistics of meetings and the number of meetings that will have to be held; and if we are empowering these bodies to determine aspects of budget making, the meetings will have to be extremely formal.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Alton, or the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn was satisfied with the answer given to their comments. But perhaps I may make another point. I am grateful that the Minister intends to reflect on the points made about voluntary-aided schools in various LEAs. Sadly, some areas have voluntary-aided and faith schools which are not looked upon kindly by the local education authority. It is important that those schools are protected in some way. Schools in those authorities—this is a point made by the right reverend Prelate—have different obligations under funding arrangements. If we pass down powers to determine to local schools forums, it is important that they should have some form of representation. I ask the Minister to bear that point in mind.
If the Government are worried about the amount of money that goes into schools and if they believe that there is a big issue of LEAs not passing down the
204
money, there is a remedy: they could fund schools directly. I return to the point which I have made on previous amendments. The guilty party is the Government. There is the money held back by central government and the additional burdens put on local government which erode the money that would normally go into schools. A schools forum would not put that matter right. The Government have the powers to put it right.
I conclude by saying that there are two objections to the clause. First, local authorities, which have perfectly good arrangements in place, will have to substitute those with the arrangements set out in the clauses in the Bill. I think that that is absolute bunkum. If the noble Baroness is saying that the rationale for this clause is that the Government are trying to emulate what local authorities do well and pass that good practice around, I say that there needs to be a simple clause in the Bill requiring each LEA area to have good, meaningful and effective pre-budgetary consultation processes in place, and which allows the inspectorate to judge whether that provision is working properly.
The other objection to the clause is the unacceptable passing on of decision-making powers to a wholly unelected body. Perhaps I may give advance notice that I shall not be opposing that the clause stand part because we shall need to return to the matter. There is concern about it on all Benches of the House, including the Government's. If this clause remains on the face of the Bill, governing bodies should at least have the flexibility to decide whether or not they have a schools forum. That would get over the whole issue of the noble Baroness's case. Therefore, where LEAs' arrangements are working well their governing bodies could vote not to change them. In those where they are not, governing bodies could say that they need a schools forum.
6.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 166) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Flather, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Attlee, E.

Freeman, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Geddes, L.

Barker, B.

Glentoran, L.

Biffen, L.

Goodhart, L.

Blackwell, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blatch, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Haslam, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Higgins, L.

Craigavon, V.

Holderness, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Home, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Howe, E.

Dholakia, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

205

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Jopling, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Kimball, L.

Rennard, L.

Kingsland, L.

Renton, L.

Kirkham, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Rotherwick, L. [Teller]

Lucas, L.

Russell, E.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B

McNally, L.

Seccombe, B.

Maddock, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mancroft, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinfen, L.

Monson, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Montrose, D.

Tebbit, L.

Moynihan, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Newby, L.

Vivian, L.

Northbrook, L.

Wakeham, L.

Northesk, E.

Walmsley, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Wilcox, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alli, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Grocott, L.

Andrews, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harrison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Haskel, L.

Bach, L.

Hayman, B.

Barnett, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Billingham, B.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bragg, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Brennan, L.

Brookman, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Burlison, L.

Jones, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lea of Crondall, L.

Chandos, V.

Lipsey, L.

Christopher, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

[Teller]

Craig of Radley, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Crawley, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

David, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Desai, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dubs, L.

Nicol, B.

Elder, L.

Palmer, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Parekh, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Patel, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Filkin, L.

Puttnam, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B,

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Rix, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Grabiner, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

206

Serota, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Sheldon, L.

Turnberg, L.

Simon, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Varley, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Whitaker, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Whitty, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Wilkins, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Temple-Morris, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.53 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 167 to 169 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 170:
Page 27, line 29, at end insert—
"(3A) Regulations made under section 45A(3) or by virtue of subsection (3)(b) may include provision requiring relevant authorities to consult schools forums in relation 10 prescribed matters or before taking prescribed decisions."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburnmoved Amendment No. 171:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert—
"() Regulations shall secure that the membership of a schools forum includes representatives of the governing bodies and head teachers of any voluntary aided schools maintained by the authority."
The right reverend Prelate said: I must say that I am disappointed by the Minister's response, because I was one of the Members of the Committee who she might have converted to her enthusiasm. I am deeply troubled, because in the name of the introduction of good practice, we risk removing existing good practice and we underestimate a tension that may arise if voluntary-aided schools are not properly represented in the forums, if we are to have them.
However, I take some comfort—because I was given half a loaf rather than a whole one—from the promise of guidance and of the appointment of a non-schools member, which I take to be someone from a diocese or other parent body of a group of faith schools. I shall study carefully what the Minister had to say—in particular, her offer to meet those of us who are deeply concerned about the matter for further discussion to find a way forward. With those brief words, I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I rise to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I, too, am happy to be moved between now and Report by any arguments that the Minister may advance to convince me to join her in the Lobby next time. I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because I did not feel that the arguments so far advanced went far enough. I strongly believe that we should treat voluntary-aided schools in precisely the same way as we treat the maintained sector. The arguments made today as to why we should not do so were unconvincing.

207
I look forward to hearing why it is impossible to achieve that objective by the more simple route of putting all schools on the same footing, which would be much better and easier, and which the right reverend Prelate seeks to achieve by the amendment. Between now and Report, I look forward to the discussions that the Minister has offered us today.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I, too, look forward to those discussions. We are searching for what is the right footing—we agree on that. I am sorry to have given the right reverend Prelate only half a loaf. I failed him on Ascension Day; I have failed him yet again; but I live in hope. I look forward to those discussions and continuing our debate.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Accounts of maintained schools]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 172:
Page 28, line 22, at end insert ", and
() to provide information to the local education authority and the parents of pupils on roll at the school, reasons for holding reserves, if at the end of the financial year the statement of account indicates that such reserves are in excess of 1 per cent of the school's budget"
The noble Baroness said: I shall not detain the Committee long on this amendment. The clause is about how school accounts should be drawn up. The amendment provides that where schools are holding substantial reserves, not only should account be given of the reserves but information should be provided to both the local education authority and the parents on why they are holding such large reserves.
One or two schools hold reserves of well over £1 million; at least one school has reserves of more than £2 million. There appears to be no particular reason for those schools to hold those reserves, and the amendment would require them to account for why they are doing so. If there is a particular reason, they should provide it to both the local education authority and the parents. It is clear that money being held in reserves is money that is not being spent for the purposes for which it was allocated: supporting the education of the pupils at the school.
Some schools may well be holding reserves to support a particular long-term project. However, whatever their rationale, it is evident that both LEAs and parents are entitled to an explanation of why such large reserves are being kept—why the money is being retained. That is why I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness referred to at least two schools that she knew to be holding considerable reserves, and said that some schools—although not those schools in particular—have no particular good reason for holding on to reserves.
208
I have sympathy with what the noble Baroness seeks through the amendment in that any reserves held by a school should be a matter of public information. The governing body should certainly make that information available to parents. Parents should know what reserves are held.
I also have no objection in principle to that information being available to the local education authority, but I was unnerved when the noble Baroness mentioned there being no particular good reason for holding reserves. Some schools may just be concerned to save a rainy day—for that terrible teaching crisis that may loom without notice; or for a dearth of something fairly expensive that needs to be replaced, such as technical equipment or books and other equipment. They may have no particular reason but have reason to believe that holding a reserve is a good thing.
Other schools are saving for a non-revenue recurring expenditure that they can meet only by accumulating money year on year until they can purchase what they want. Or they may be using the money on an instalment basis to pay for something rather larger than could be met from normal annual funding.
We should leave schools free to accumulate reserves, if they wish to do so. I have no objection to making that a matter of public information, available to parents and covered in the annual report. I have no objection, in principle, to making it a matter of information—no more—for the local education authority, but I hope that it will not lead local education authorities to take a view about whether it is right or wrong for a school to do it and seek powers to limit the amount held or interfere, in some way, with a school's priorities. I do not know whether it is the noble Baroness's intention that the amendment should extend to giving local authorities such powers.
I am strongly in favour of schools being master in their own house in this area, but I have no objection to making it a matter of public information.
7 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My wording was too loose. There may be good reasons why a school would wish to hold reserves, but it is important that there should be transparency about the matter. The LEA and the parents, through the governing body, should know how big the reserves are and why they are held.
Lord Lucas: On the second time around, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. She was agreeing with my noble friend Lady Blatch on what the amendment is about.
For some schools, 1 per cent is nothing. A little primary school with 80 pupils will want reserves of 5 per cent. Such a school has no flexibility with regard to its teaching staff. What happens if a family moves out of the area? Such schools need a high percentage

209
reserve. However, it should be public, it should be explained to parents, and it should be treated in an upfront manner by the governors.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Amity has broken out all around. The Government share the general views expressed in the debate on the amendment. We have some reservations about the amendment itself, however, and that is why I shall ask the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, to withdraw it.
The noble Baroness spoke about substantial reserves. It would not be right to say that a school operating on just 1 per cent of surplus had substantial reserves. We would consider a figure closer to 5 per cent, the figure that we expect local authorities to use when they check out such matters. We do not quarrel with the thinking behind the debate or with what noble Lords have said. We are carrying out a pilot project relating to information for parents, and we will consider the situation positively and constructively.
We recognise the virtue of the arguments presented so well in the debate, and we shall consider the matter further. However, we disagree about the detail and would, therefore, like the amendment to be withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his encouraging reply. I am delighted that the Government intend to think further about the matter. I agree that 1 per cent is too low a level; it would be more sensible for it to be about 5 per cent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 173:
Before Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
"RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO PETITIONS AND BALLOTS
After section 106 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (ballot regulations: eligibility of parents to request or vote in ballot) there is inserted—
"106A RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO PETITIONS AND BALLOTS
Where a petition of parents has been initiated, or a ballot held and no change to admissions arrangements has been agreed, no further ballot may take place within a period of six years from the initiation of the petition.""
The noble Baroness said: This amendment will dispel any amity between these Benches and the Government Benches. It is an important amendment, and it gives the Government the opportunity to end the vendetta against grammar schools. A sword of Damocles has hung—and continues to hang—over grammar schools. There has been a war of attrition against some schools, taking the form either of threatening a petition or of actually gaining one. In the case of one school, there was indeed a ballot.
The Government do not believe that there should be petitions and ballots to determine the fate of city technology colleges, academies or specialist schools,
210
all of which, in one way or another, select their pupils. Why single out grammar schools? There is no logic in that. Although no grammar school has, to date, been closed as a result of the Government's policy, there has been disruption, there is anxiety, and precious time and energy has been spent on dealing with challenges and potential challenges. Once a group—however small—of people who object philosophically to the existence of grammar schools becomes active in an area, there is uncertainty and disquiet.
Why are grammar schools singled out for such treatment? Is it because they select? So do city technology colleges, academies and specialist schools. Is it because they select academically able pupils? If so, why should bright children be discriminated against, when those who are talented in sport, science, technology, the arts, music and other subjects do not receive such treatment? Why do the Government support specialist schools for music, art, dance? The department supports some very élitist schools of ballet and music. I approve of all of that, but there seems to be some inconsistency. We allow an élite in some of the subjects that I mentioned, but, somehow, there is discrimination against academically able children.
One argument that one hears is that there are only about 166 grammar schools. There is debate over whether it is 166 or 164, but I shall not argue about that. Some ask why, as there are only 166 schools, there should be so much fuss. That is what Mr Blunkett said, when he was Secretary of State. However, there are far fewer city technology colleges—about 15—and there are even fewer academies. So the argument that is based on the fact that there are only 166 grammar schools is no argument at all. It is pure politics—the politics of envy.
There has always been an aversion to allowing bright children—particularly those from less advantaged homes—to get their feet on the ladder into schools that provide for them. The other day, I read, out of interest, the CVs of noble Lords—on the Government Benches as well as the other Benches. Many noble Lords have enjoyed a grammar school education. There is nothing more wicked than for someone to enjoy a facility and then close the door behind him and deny it to others.
We are also told that the Government are concerned about increasing access to university for bright young people from poorer backgrounds. Grammar schools are especially successful at preparing such young people for entry into higher education. They have traditionally been successful at doing that, and they are still successful at it. I reject the idea that we should, in any way, disrupt the existence of such schools.
We know that the policy is a sop. Although there is a dichotomy between what the Liberals do locally and what they do nationally, those on the Liberal Benches made it clear that, had they been the parents of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, they would have put in a clause that would have abolished grammar schools altogether. They made no secret of that, and I accept that, although there is a tension between that and what individual Liberals do locally.

211
Even so, why is there such a vendetta against people who follow their abilities and aptitudes into appropriate education? It is inexplicable.
My amendment is cost-free. It would allow grammar schools to continue to exist without the constant annual threat of disruption. It would also allow the continuance of one sector of education that has served this country well for hundreds of years. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I do not believe that at this time of night and at this stage of the Bill it is the moment to start a debate about selection and the success of comprehensive schools. However, I agree with the noble Baroness on one point: the present system is not working at all well and there is a possibility of making it work a little better.
I should like to see the end of grammar schools. I do not believe that they have all the benefits the noble Baroness describes and I believe that the systems of petitions and so forth should be stopped. I suggest that the threshold for calling a ballot as distinct from starting a petition should be lowered so that parents can have a say on local grammar school admissions. At present they appear to be denied a choice. The amendment would stop for six years a further attempt to start a parent petition.
Do the Government believe that they can change the present arrangements so that they are fairer and parents can have a better say? The present system does not work.
Baroness Blatch: Was the noble Baroness agreeing that there should be a six-year moratorium, which my amendment calls for?
Baroness David: Six years will stop parents having any say for a long time. I should like the system to be changed.
Lord Lucas: There appears to be scope for a midway between the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend. If it were made easier to hold a ballot and then afterwards there were a long moratorium, that would be sensible from all points of view. We have a system in place and I do not see the Government changing it, but having a continual guerrilla war is not good for the parents who are complaining or for the schools which are being "got at". We need to have the matter decided, as in Ripon, get it out of the way and get everyone existing together in a happier frame of mind. If progress could be made in that direction, I should be delighted.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I recall the Minister saying at Second Reading that she had not had the privilege of meeting the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley. I have had the great privilege of knowing the noble Lord for 47 years and have debated with him on and off throughout that period. When I saw him in the Chamber earlier today, I immediately asked myself why he was here and I am sorry that he left before we
212
reached this debate. He and I even got so far as to contest a place on the executive of the National Union of Students.
Politicians enjoy bust-ups and therefore I understand why people want to have the kind of contest that is involved in this matter. Furthermore, I realise that there are strong feelings on both sides. However, my experience of the British people is that they are less enthusiastic about having permanent bust-ups and would rather that politicians did not have them so often. My proof of that is the astonishing boredom which develops during general elections. In their third week people are longing for them to end so that there will not be another for five years. Most importantly, in the human condition uncertainty is a profound source of demoralisation and it seems to me to be a very bad thing to produce such a degree of uncertainty on a constant basis.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I share with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, a sadness that my noble friend Lord Hattersley is not with us in the Chamber—he may suddenly reappear—because I know that he would want to engage in this debate.
I intend to reflect far more on the essence of the amendment, but I do so because this Chamber has had the opportunity to debate these issues at great length and I do not wish to reopen that debate on this Bill and this particular clause.
All of us in this Chamber are striving to provide the best education system we can for every child in the country. That unites us. What divides us is the means by which we seek to achieve that. I had the benefit of a grammar school education. I am the first and only woman in my family to have gone to university and I hope that my daughter will be the second. I watched so many of my friends fail their 11-plus and fail to enjoy the benefits. They were men and women I considered to be as bright as I was. We had a system which said, "If you go to grammar school you are this and if you go somewhere else you are that and the 'that' is not as good as the 'this'". That is why I, as an individual as well as a Minister, philosophically do not support selection by ability at 11.
That does not mean that I do not value diversity. I believe that all Members of the Committee will agree with diversity of ability within our society: that people who can dance should go to the Royal Ballet School and that people who can play instruments or sing like angels should go to music schools. Many people can do things which I cannot do, whether that is fixing the plumbing—which I certainly cannot do—or creating a building, because we are all different. We are striving for an education system which values that difference and which values and enables us all to grow and develop. For me, that is the comprehensive system, but for other Members of the Committee it may be a different system. That is where I stand and from where I cannot move.
The clause makes two changes. First, it makes a change to the moratorium period of five years from the date on which the ballot result is announced to six

213
years from the date on which the petition is initiated. We have considered that matter carefully and believe that in practice it will take the better part of a year for campaigners to gather names for a petition, for a ballot company to check validity, and for a ballot to be held. Therefore, we believe that in that respect the clause would have no practical effect.
Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the new clause would introduce a new moratorium in the event of an unsuccessful petition when a ballot had not been held. We have said that we want parents to he in the driving seat on this issue and it is right that when a ballot clearly demonstrates local support for the existing admission arrangements, as in Rippon, for example, the school concerned should enjoy a period of stability. That is why our procedures allow a five-year moratorium on further campaigns.
However, where there has been no ballot and therefore no expression of local feeling, we do not believe it can be right to deny parents the opportunity to reconsider the issue. It is possible for the new clause to leave the system open to abuse. Someone would only have to register a petition with a ballot company and then without collecting a single signature during the year, that person would be able to prevent any attempt in the next five years to gauge support among local parents. We believe that introducing a provision which would open the door to such potential abuse cannot be right.
Grammar school ballot arrangement were debated in great detail during the passage of the School Standards and Framework Act and I believe that all sides of your Lordships' House had great opportunity to put their arguments forward. We continue to believe that the arrangements currently in place strike a sensible balance between the stability that schools need and the parent's right to express a view. We believe that it represents the best way forward. I am grateful to the noble Baroness because the amendment has given us time to reflect on that further, but we are still firmly of that view. I hope that she will feel persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady David, does not believe that this is a good time to start an argument. We will probably be starting arguments at 11 o'clock tonight on some issues and I regard 7.20 p.m. as almost morning in terms of how we conduct business in this place.
I am also disappointed in the Minister's comment that as the matter has been debated at length in this House, she has no intention of debating it again. We return to some issues again and again. The fact that a matter has been debated once does not mean that it is done and dusted and should never be debated again. The merits—or demerits, as I see them—of an issue should he revisited because no government have the wisdom of getting things right all the time.
The Minister argued that although she has been to a grammar school, many people have not. I have certainly heard that argument before and have argued that one of the problems was that there was not
214
enough of them. There could have been more. The Minister might like me to bore her at the next stage of the Bill—I may—with some of the evidence, by citing cases in Northern Ireland, for instance, where there are grammar, secondary modern and other types of school, as there are in Kent and other counties. In those areas, the secondary modern schools do better by their pupils, just as the grammar schools do better by theirs. That is because each school deals with a limited range of ability and is therefore able to focus on the particular needs of its pupils.
I turn to the issue of making decisions at the age of 11 years. I agree that that is a debatable point; I have always thought so. There is a debate to be had about whether decisions should be made at the age of 11, 12 or 13. We know that in the independent sector decisions are made at 13, which those schools regard as a better stage for children to move from what are essentially junior into senior schools.
But the fact that there is a constant, almost political and philosophical objection to bright young people being taught appropriately in a grammar school setting seems to me to be absurd. I really must ask the noble Baroness to tell me why it should be that in an area with a city technology college, which creams off many children, and where three, four and sometimes five applications are received for each place—and parents whose children are unlucky and do not receive a place in those schools probably feel as disappointed as those whose children did not pass the 11-plus —there is no system in place for local parents to take a view on whether such a school should continue to cream off the 20 per cent of successful applicants who are fortunate enough to get a place.
I certainly do not argue that there should be a system in place to do that, but I wish to put a straight question to the noble Baroness: why should grammar schools be on the receiving end of this rather pernicious system of petitioning and balloting while, for example, city technology colleges are not?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We shall not allow any more city technology colleges to be created under the Bill. The noble Baroness has raised an important point which I shall take back to the department.
However, I am concerned about the need to ensure that all our children receive the high-quality education they deserve, appropriate to their needs. On that we are agreed. Where we disagree is that there should be one system which declares that, at the age of 11, a decision is made that certain children are able to move forward, while children who may not have developed fully at that age are left disappointed. I think that "disappointment" is an underestimate of the feeling of some children who fail the 11-plus examination and their families. In a sense, it felt as though the system had written them off. I cannot support a system that is designed to do that.
The noble Baroness raised an issue with regard to the age at which children develop. We can discuss that matter and I shall be happy to return to it on Report. But it is important that I make our position absolutely

215
clear. We think that ballots provide the right and appropriate way for parents to express their views and, in so doing, ensure continued stability for the schools concerned. That is a reasonable position for the Government to take.
Baroness Blatch: That response was interesting and extremely revealing, on two counts. First, I turn to the matter of city technology colleges. Ministers have gone on the record lauding them. Ministers have gone on the record congratulating my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking for initiating the city technology colleges. They have remained a part of the patchwork offering variety in educational provision. Indeed, the Minister's colleagues in another place have quite rightly built on the model of the city technology colleges in their plans for specialist schools. They are looking at ways of conferring greater economic freedom and autonomy at the school level. However, the noble Baroness says, "We have had enough of them and there will not be any more".
Secondly, I turn to grammar schools. Ministers on the Government Benches both here and in another place have said: "We are neutral on grammar schools and we take no view on whether they stay or they go". Indeed, the right honourable Mr Blunkett has commented that, "there are only 166 of them and I have other things to worry about in education". However, the noble Baroness has revealed her petticoat on this matter in that she has argued against them philosophically. She has argued against their existence and why we should have them. She has argued that they are wrong.
The noble Baroness made a comment with which I absolutely agree: all children should have the best possible quality of education appropriate to their needs. That is what I am arguing for here. A very bright child living in a part of the country where the schools are not able to offer the kind of highly academic, fast-stream education appropriate to that child's needs has nowhere to go. If there are some grammar schools, or if such a child could take advantage of something like the assisted places scheme to take it to an independent school, at least those provided an avenue. The latter scheme has already been denied to such children. Furthermore, over time, however painful it might be under the pernicious system supported by the noble Baroness and her colleagues, they would like to see the demise of our grammar schools. That is lamentable.
Perhaps the noble Baroness wishes to intervene.
Lord Baker of Dorking: Before the Minister rises to reply, perhaps I may commiserate with her in her moral dilemma. She has made it clear that she loathes—perhaps that is too strong a word—grammar schools. She said that she attended such a school, and that she does not want to see a system of selection at the age of 11. I think she used words along the lines of, "very harmful to our education system".
The noble Baroness is speaking as a Minister of the Government rather than as a Whip who is shared around the departments. The Minister is a
216
representative of the Department for Education and Skills. She is therefore able to bring forward an amendment to fulfil her principles; namely, to abolish grammar schools. If she is so strongly opposed to grammar schools, then surely she should bring forward an amendment to the Bill to abolish them. She spoke most movingly about how she—if not loathed—disliked grammar schools and how they are harmful to the system.
If the Minister really believes what she has said and really believes that this is how she wants to improve the education system, then it is up to her to move an amendment. But of course she will not do so. The Government introduced a proposal to hold ballots because they wanted to shift the moral dilemma from the Government to some other body. They did not themselves want to be responsible for making the decision. They did not want to stand by their principles. Instead they declared that, "We must find some other body that can make the decision for us". Hence the introduction of what in my view is a rigged system of parental ballots.
However, that system has failed. It has failed not marginally, but totally and completely. In one ballot held in Ripon, those who, like the noble Baroness, Lady David, wanted grammar schools to be abolished, campaigned vigorously in that vein. That campaign was decisively rejected. In many other places they have not even been able to get sufficient numbers of people interested in the matter. Do not the Government realise that when something has failed, then they should perhaps recognise that? When they are in a hole, they should stop digging.
The ballot system has failed and it would be better for it to be forgotten and much better for the legislation to be repealed. Then there would be no moral dilemma for the Minister. Although she may believe it, it would no longer be government policy.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is very kind of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, to worry about my moral dilemma, but I do not feel that I have one. The reason I say that is because I made it clear that what I do not agree with is the 11-plus examination. The Government too have made their position clear on that. We believe that, as far as we possibly can, we should put parents in the driving seat when it comes to education. We know that parents want to do what is best for their children.
On the question of the grammar school system, we do not want to spend our time dismantling a system because we believe that parents in the relevant areas should have a right to say what kind of system they wish to see in place. That is a straightforward attitude.
The noble Lord may say that the ballot system has failed, but when considering the Ripon experience, surely those who support the grammar school system should be pleased with that result. We think that we have in place a system that represents the best way forward. We shall leave it there. It is for parents to use. Those who wish to do so can take advantage of it. The system creates stability.

217
I recognise the comments made by the noble Baroness with regard to city technology colleges. Of course they are independent schools. We have built on their experience in terms of our academies; namely, looking at the different ways in which schools can be funded. However, academies will be bound by the admission arrangements in place in the local education authority.
We believe that we have a consistent view in this area and so I have no moral dilemma. However, what I am not prepared to do is to start ripping apart structures and thus preventing parents from taking the opportunity to have their say. We believe that we have the balance right.
Baroness Blatch: That is a wholly illogical argument. Parents have the right to say whether they want the future of bright children to be secure in a grammar school, but they have no right to determine whether city technology colleges should continue to exist.
The primary objection of the noble Baroness appears to be the 11-plus examination. As I have said, I think that that is a matter for debate. If the noble Baroness felt able to bring forward suggestions that such an examination should be changed to the age of 12 or 13 years, that would be more honest. My noble friend has even suggested bringing forward a policy to abolish those tests altogether.
What I find extraordinary and illogical in this argument is that, while taking an examination and attending an interview to go to a grammar school smacks of winners and losers—some pass and gain a place while others do not—exactly the same thing happens in higher education. Young people apply through an examination system to get into a university. Some will succeed; others will not. Entry into what I may call the "Ivy League" universities is even more difficult. There will also be changes there. I understand that the Government are about to dumb down the higher education sector until it resembles the comprehensive system. We have debated the issue already; we shall do so again.
The noble Baroness rightly said that the gaining of a petition can take up to a year. Beyond a year the matter has to be dropped and begun all over again. Therefore, the matter would take the best part of a year. If my amendment were taken at face value, the process would simply have to be initiated—a signature may not have been collected—and the moratorium would apply. I shall consider that point.
The noble Baroness said that the process would take the best part of a year and, therefore, there would be no practical effect. I do not understand that. Even if the process took the best part of a year and I were to modify the provision so that it took effect at the end of the collection of signatures rather than at the initiating of them—in effect, that would be five years—it would have an effect. Those schools would be left alone for five years. I chose six years because that is the period for a child at a grammar school. At present, the life of a child in a grammar school is disrupted—this has occurred in the north-west—in his first, second, third,
218
fourth, fifth and sixth years. My amendment seeks to avoid that. Once there has been a major disruption in the school, with signatures collected by a petition which has failed, the school should then be left alone for another five to six years.
The argument is that parents must have a say. If parents have a say with regard to bright children, why do they not have a say with regard to all the other talented people for whom specialist provision is made by the education system through city technology colleges, specialist schools and dance, music and drama schools? The policy seems to be borne out of politics only. I shall not press the amendment but we shall return to the issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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 8.33 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 2002
7.36 p.m.
Lord Filkinrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th April be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the draft regulations, perhaps I may speak to the two draft statutory instruments together. The Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 2002 contain the substance of the changes we wish to make to extend the role of dental hygienists and therapists. The Dentists Act 1984 (Dental Auxiliaries) Order 2002 provides that a particular restriction imposed by the Dentists Act on the range of duties and the fields of dentistry in which dental auxiliaries may work shall not apply to dental therapists.
As the House will know, the Government are committed to modernising the regulation of the healthcare professions. That includes the dental health professions. Last November we debated an order made under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999 which empowered the General Dental Council to modernise the constitution of its council and made continuing professional development mandatory for dentists. This draft legislation governing dental auxiliaries is the next step necessary for implementation of the regulatory section of our dental strategy, Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan.
The draft legislation provides a means whereby we can extend the role of dental hygienists and dental therapists using delegated powers in the current Dentists Act. Our intention is to enable these staff to undertake a wider range of duties subject to varying

219
degrees of supervision by the dentist/team leader. We also wish to permit dental therapists to work in all fields of dentistry.
I turn first to dental hygienists and the detail of the amending regulations. Regulation 3 of the amending regulations extends the scaling power to enable a hygienist to treat a patient who has previously undergone a course of treatment and who, with the reduction in swelling of the gums, is found to have excess cement around teeth that have been crowned. A rotary instrument is a burr fitted on a drill which the hygienist can use in addition to a scaling probe.
Next, we want dental hygienists to be able to undertake some impressions in dental work. The impressions we have in mind are those taken for study models at the outset of a course of orthodontic treatment.
We also think it right that dental hygienists be able to undertake inferior dental nerve block anaesthesia used in the lower jaw where a deeper, more precisely located injection is needed. However, a dental hygienist will be allowed to administer only inferior block anaesthesia under the direct supervision of a dentist on the premises. We believe that they should have the power to replace crowns when they become loose in the course of an examination.
Lastly, the proposed new Regulation 23(7) would allow a hygienist to carry out a scale and polish on a patient who had been sedated for a more invasive dental treatment. It would save the dentist from carrying out work that could be delegated and enable the patient to receive the full programme of treatment on one occasion without, one hopes, feeling any pain.
I turn to dental therapists. Regulation 4 of the amending regulations amends Regulation 27 of the principal regulations which relate to dental therapists. Under the 1957 Dentists Act, therapists were allowed to work only in dental hospitals and community dental services because those were the only places where they were direct NHS employees—mainly clinics for the dental care of children and for people with special needs. Therapists cannot work in the general dental services because although these are NHS services they are delivered by self-employed independent practice owners. Nor can they work in private dental practices. We believe that that should be changed. The omission of paragraph 27(2)(a) of the principal regulations (under Regulation 4(3) of the amending regulations) will permit dental therapists to work in all fields of dentistry—the NHS general dental services, private practices or elsewhere.
In many other respects the amendments in Regulation 4 provide for dental therapists the same range of extended duties provided for dental hygienists in Regulation 3. I should draw your Lordships' attention particularly to paragraph (1)(ec) inserted into Regulation 27 of the principal regulations relating to the pulp of the tooth which is below the enamel in the area of the roots of the tooth. This would enable, therefore, dental therapists to perform virtually all
220
types of fillings required by young children with primary or, as they are sometimes known, deciduous teeth. The other amendments will enable them to make a substantial contribution to the dental care of adults, thereby using their training and skills to the maximum.
As the House will know, the General Dental Council has been extremely helpful in this respect and has promoted these changes which the Government are pleased to support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th April be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the orders which we very much welcome. I believe that they are in the interests of patients and that the extension of the duties of dental therapists and dental hygienists will enable them to make the most of their skills and experience and thus benefit the whole of the dental team. The Minister will know that the General Dental Council is currently in the process of reform through orders made under Section 60 of the Health Act to amend the Dentists Act. Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question in that context. As part of the GDC's programme of reform the council published last year its proposals for the extension of professional regulation to the whole dental team. As the noble Lord will know, the proposal is to register professionals complementary to dentistry (PCDs) via a single PCD register. That will enable all members of the dental team to make the best use of their skills in the interests of patients.
I understand that PCDs will register by protected titles, based upon their qualifications and experience, thereby ensuring that the public can distinguish those who are properly qualified from those who are not so qualified. Registration of the entire dental team will mean that all PCDs will be subject to the public protection measures that professional regulation offers, not least approved courses of training and robust fitness-to-practise procedures.
I wonder whether the Minister is in a position this evening to give the House any indication of when such orders might come forward, and of how far the preparation for them has now progressed. I repeat my welcome for both the order and the regulations, and thank the Minister again for his introduction to them.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for so clearly outlining the content of these measures. This is a very new area for me, but I was most interested to hear his introductory remarks. Noble Lords on these Benches consider these provisions to be very sensible, and are very happy to support them.
However, I should simply add that the training area is a subject upon which we should like to hear a little more. It would be most helpful if the Minister were able to enlighten us in that respect. We wholeheartedly support both the order and the regulations.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the speakers from both Front Benches opposite for the welcome that they have given to the legislation. I believe that there is a general recognition that this is part of a sensible process of deregulation and of developing good teamworking, while being prudent in ensuring that there is adequate supervision of delegated work to "dental auxiliaries", as they were formerly called. It is part of the modernisation of the dental service in general, which I know from previous debates the whole House wishes to see.
I turn to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the progress on the second Section 60 order. I can tell the noble Earl that it is in preparation, and that it will provide for the registration of all classes of professionals complementary to dentistry. It will also empower the General Dental Council to introduce a more flexible regime for defining the duties that the PCDs can undertake. Instead of a list of duties, like the one that we have just debated, the intention is that the PCDs will be able to carry the full range of duties for which they have been trained, and in which they are competent. Dental therapists and hygienists will benefit from those changes through further amendments to the legislation that we have discussed today.
I am pleased to say that we intend to consult on the order in July. After the proper process of consultation, the order will no doubt be placed before the House either at the end of the year, or at the start of next year. I believe that progress has been made in that respect.
On the subject of training, I very much agree that the training of dental therapists is most important. We must ensure that there is an adequate supply of dental therapists to allow for the effective delegation of work from dentists. That was one of the Government's earlier concerns as regards not moving too fast in this area. That is why dental auxiliaries undertook a very helpful survey of the potential take-up of such training. There are currently 54 training places available each year for dental therapists across dental schools. Most therapist courses offer dental hygienist qualifications at the same time.
However, I have to say "no" to the further question raised in that respect. We shall look to developing those services and monitoring the generation of adequate supplies to go with the increased delegation for which this order provides.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dentists Act 1984 (Dental Auxiliaries) Order 2002
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Correction of Birth and Death Entries in Registers or Other Records) Order 2002
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on llth March be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before the House is designed to simplify the procedure for correcting information about paternity contained in birth and death registers. Before an error may be corrected, the law currently requires statutory declarations to be made by two people who could have registered the birth or death—these would usually be the parents of a child—or by two people with firsthand knowledge of the facts. Where a dispute about a child's paternity follows the breakdown of a relationship, those involved are not always prepared to co-operate with each other in making the statutory declarations required to correct the register.
The purpose of the order is to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Special Provisions) Act 1957, which apply to records of events that took place outside the United Kingdom among the Armed Forces and their dependants, to extend the means of correcting an error in the official record of a child's paternity.
As the law stands, even where clear evidence exists to show that the wrong man has been named as the child's father, it is not possible to amend the register unless two suitable statutory declarations are obtained. That does not make sense to the families involved and can cause them problems when a birth certificate containing incorrect information has to be produced. There are sometimes existing court findings about paternity, made when maintenance or access disputes were settled. The proposed change would allow a specific court find of paternity to replace one of the statutory declarations needed for a correction to the record. No additional burden would be placed on those applying for a correction, because the provision for two statutory declarations to be accepted will continue. The acceptance of an existing court order in place of one of the statutory declarations is an additional facility.
There has been extensive consultation on the proposals and careful scrutiny by the parliamentary deregulation and regulatory reform committees. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in your Lordships' House expressed no concerns about the order. However, the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee in another place expressed some concern that court findings of paternity should be required to be specific, and commented on the scope of the consultation. As a result, the Office for National Statistics undertook further consultation among groups with an interest in family law. Following observations by the Official Solicitor, the order was amended to provide that where a court finding of

223
paternity was based on the sole evidence of the same person who made the required statutory declaration, corroborative evidence will be required.
In practice, even where the person who is prepared to make the statutory declaration is the same person who has obtained the court order, there is often corroborative evidence available from the other person registered as the parent of the child in the form of correspondence that he or she has had with the registrar, or a statement to the court.
The order has now been approved in the other place in its amended form. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended approval by this House. I confirm to the House that I am satisfied that the terms of the order are fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft deregulation order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [17th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.]
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches believe that this, too, is a most sensible order. It will certainly simplify what was a very technical and potentially disputative problem. We support the measure.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy in explaining the order to the House. We on these Benches are entirely content with the measure in its amended form. However, I should perhaps pick up on one point that I hope the Minister will not consider unduly churlish.
As the noble Lord will know, the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee of another place, at paragraph 11 of its report, expressed,
"dissatisfaction at the way it [the order] has been handled by the Government Departments concerned".
The order before the House is the last draft order to be brought forward under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. That measure will now be superseded in virtually every respect by the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. Accordingly, I hope that the Minister can reassure the House that appropriate lessons have been learnt from the unfortunate muddle to which this order was subject. In particular, I hope that he can reassure us that draft orders laid under the Regulatory Reform Act—I note that there are a number under consideration—will not suffer in the same way.
I acknowledge that it is a relatively small point. As I said, we are entirely content with the substance of the order.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of both noble Lords and for the welcome that the order has received.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, rightly said that this is the last order under the 1994 Act. It is covered by the transitional provisions for deregulation orders
224
included in the replacement Regulatory Reform Act. The Regulatory Reform Act came into force on 10th April 2001, last year, and replaced the provisions for deregulation orders with regulatory reform orders. The transitional provision to which I referred was for orders that had already been laid before Parliament by 10th April last year. This order, in its previous form, had been laid on 26th March 2001.
I hope that the House will agree that the delay which has occurred has been entirely benign in the sense that, although it has taken a long time, there has been the additional consultation asked for and there have been amendments for which the Official Solicitor asked. As a result of this perhaps protracted—but, in my view, entirely correct—process, this is a better order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002
7.51 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th April be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first of the draft statutory instruments before the House today makes amendments to regulations governing decision-making and appeals for social security benefits, child support, housing benefit and council tax benefit and tax credits for Great Britain. Responsibility for tax credits lies with the Inland Revenue, and so the commissioners of the Inland Revenue will join in making these regulations.
The second of the draft statutory instruments makes a number of identical amendments to those in the first set of regulations, but for tax credits in Northern Ireland only. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that tax credit issues for Northern Ireland are not devolved to the Assembly but are reserved to the Westminster Parliament and so are the responsibilities of the Inland Revenue. However, the amendments in the second set of regulations, in so far as they are needed for tax credit purposes, exactly mirror the provisions within the first set of regulations for which Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions are responsible.
With the permission of the House, I intend during the remainder of the debate to refer to individual regulations as they are numbered in the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002. In doing so, however, your Lordships will appreciate that I am referring also to the corresponding regulations, where appropriate, within the tax credits Northern Ireland regulations.
The amending regulations correct errors and omissions in the regulations that have come to light since they were subject to significant amendment in June 2000; they clarify existing provisions where there is uncertainty as to precise meaning; they implement minor changes in decision making and appeals policy

225
now that we have had the opportunity to see the policy working in practice; and they make equivalent amendments, where appropriate, to the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations.
Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of explaining the purpose of each individual amendment. I would, however, like to draw your Lordships' attention to the broad areas covered by the amendments and to some of the more noteworthy changes.
Regulations 3 to 6 make amendments to regulations dealing with decision-making and, in particular, to regulations providing for the revision of decisions. Regulations 7 to 11 make amendments to regulations dealing with general matters in relation to appeals, including time limits and rules for making appeals.
Your Lordships may be interested, in particular, in Regulation 10, which provides that first-tier decision makers may admit late appeals where the conditions in the regulation are satisfied. At present, an application for an extension of time must be determined by a legally qualified panel member. This amendment will speed up the process for dealing with late appeals and will avoid having to refer cases to a legally qualified panel member where it is clear that the conditions for a late appeal are satisfied. To ensure justice for appellants, if a first tier decision maker is not inclined to allow a late appeal, or the application is made under the reasonable prospect of success condition, then the matter will be determined by a legally qualified panel member.
Regulations 12 to 15 make amendments to regulations dealing with appeals procedure, striking out of appeals and oral hearings. Regulation 13, in particular, provides for tribunal clerks to reinstate certain appeals which they have struck out. At present, only a legally qualified panel member can reinstate a struck out appeal. This change will speed up the process for appellants and will be less costly. As with the amendment that I explained a moment ago, however, to ensure justice for appellants, if the clerk is minded not to reinstate a struck-out appeal the ultimate decision will be for a legally qualified panel member.
Your Lordships may also be interested in Regulation 14, which provides that a panel member, other than the chairman, or a party to the proceedings may be present at an oral hearing by live television link. This is conditional upon the appellant agreeing that it can take place. This amendment, which is made possible by advances in new technology, will facilitate future attendance at oral hearings by live television link where it is difficult for an individual to be present in person.
Regulations 16 to 20 amend regulations dealing with decisions of appeal tribunals and applications for leave to appeal to social security commissioners.
Regulations 21 and 22 amend schedules dealing with social security decisions against which there is no right of appeal and qualifications of persons appointed to the panel to hear appeals. Regulation 21, in
226
particular, inserts a list of non-appealable decisions made in accordance with the claims and payments regulations. Although we are not aware of any specific examples of people losing out, there has been some uncertainty about some appeal rights which were inadvertently missed under the existing provision. The new list therefore restores these appeal rights to the position that existed before the changes of 1999.
Finally, Regulations 23 to 28 make amendments to the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations to mirror the amendments to the main decisions and appeals regulations I have already outlined.
I have tried to outline some of the more significant changes introduced by these regulations. Others are of a technical nature. I intend to leave it very much at that. However, I will be happy to deal with any points that your Lordships may wish to raise on any of the amendments.
In conclusion, the regulations before us this evening make small but important changes and improvements to the decisions and appeals regulations. I am satisfied that the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th April be approved [25th Report from the Joint committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for that detailed explanation of the two orders. He did not mention that there are provisions in the orders for changing the title of the department from "Social Security" to "Work and Pensions", something which I have previously said was a mistake because "Work and Pensions" does not cover all aspects of the department's work whereas "Social Security" did.
Moreover, it is true that earlier we were not in the situation that we are in now where, having abolished the Department of Social Security, it none the less keeps turning up, rather like the smile on the face of the Cheshire Cat after the Cheshire Cat has disappeared, in terms of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations and so on.
That said, we on this side of the House welcome a number of the provisions. To mention one in particular, it is clearly important to clarify the time limits under Regulations 9 and 11, although I am not sure that "clarify" is not a euphemism for a change in the time limits—since one would have thought that the previous regulations were sufficiently clear. Similarly, we welcome the provision for the correction of accidental errors. But, again, it seems rather strange that that did not appear in the earlier regulations.
So far as concerns the substance, I welcome the provision for oral hearings by live television link. I spent many hours in another place dealing with child support cases. One of the problems we faced was the difficulties experienced by certain people in appearing in person at an appeal—for example, the person might be disabled. Also, from time to time, the person would

227
turn up for the appeal and perhaps the chairman or other members of the panel would not. So this provision should enable there to be some savings, not only in cost but in terms of improvement as regards convenience.
The Explanatory Memorandums in the two orders are not precisely the same. In the first, the reference is:
"associated amendments apply to tax credits and social security benefits"—
without specifying what they are. The Northern Ireland regulations are clearer. They include the reference:
"in relation to working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit".
What puzzles me is that, under the Tax Credits Bill which is now before the House—but for the fiasco as regards the drafting we should have been debating it this afternoon, but shall now be debating it on Thursday—the two credits referred to in the Northern Ireland regulations, which I imagine are the ones referred to in the other regulations, although the Explanatory Memorandum does not say so, are both about to be "superseded". The Bill refers to credits which are "superseded" by tax credits being abolished. One of these is the working families' tax credit; the other is the disabled person's tax credit. Why does this order include a reference to those if they are about to be abolished in the Bill that is before the House? Will there be a further set of regulations; or should some provision have been included in these regulations to allow for a likely change? At all events, it seems a rather strange moment to introduce the regulations if in fact there are about to be changes in the near future in other legislation.
Other than that, these are helpful, relieving provisions. We on this side of the House welcome them.
8 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first, I thank the Department of Social Security—the Department for Work and Pensions; I beg the noble Lord's pardon—for all its usual courtesies. It is one of the most courteous, efficient and well-run departments in Whitehall. In particular, I thank it for its latest courtesy, which is only a few minutes old—namely, providing me with a spare copy of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. I had foolishly mislaid my copy during the course of the day. It is most welcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, once told me that I was like the little girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead. I do not know which the Minister will find me to be today, but I hope that I may have some cautious optimism on the point.
There is nothing in the contents of the regulations to which I wish to object. I should like to give a particularly warm welcome to the contents of Regulation 2, dealing with partners and couples, and to the contents of Regulation 13, which the Minister covered thoroughly, dealing with the striking out of
228
appeals. Perhaps I may also be permitted to give a personal and proprietary welcome to Regulation 10. This regulation embodies an amendment which I tabled at every stage of the child support regulations. When we debated the first Bill, in 1991, it would have come up at two o'clock in the morning, so I did not move it. I then found that it had been tabled for the next stage of the Bill in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In 2001, I was not quite so lucky, but I have got there now. If the Minister will forgive me—I mean no discourtesy by this—it reminds me of one of my father-in-law's favourite First World War songs:
"The butterfly has wings of gold
The firefly of flame,
The little flea has no wings at all,
But he gets there just the same".
We have this provision now; it is law, and I am delighted.
The regulations raise another issue—and I believe that this is the answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins: why now? It is the issue of flexibility. Ministers always invoke "flexibility" when they introduce regulations. Flexibility is what Ministers rely on whenever they cannot have a hot dinner—and I hope that the noble Lord will have one later.
I remember one occasion, when wearing my other hat, trying to work out for the 17th century what were the general principles that made some matters require a statute and others not. One of them turned out to be simply that the thing that needed to be reversed had been done by legislation. That seems to apply here. We need new regulations because a great many provisions embodied in previous regulations have to be changed because they have become out of date. So regulation begets regulation, which begets regulation, which begets regulation—until we have a veritable house of cards.
The flexibility is very much that of the spider's web. I say that as one who claims several different descents from Robert the Bruce, so when I talk about spiders' webs I take them seriously. This "flexibility"—more and more regulation—reminds me of the story of the black pudding. Two Czech peasants, so very poor that they were at subsistence level, were visited by a fairy, who said that they could have any three wishes that they wanted. The man said: "I'd like a black pudding". The woman said: "What a silly wish. I hope it sticks to the end of your nose". So they had to use a third wish to get it off. So the flexibility created by regulations is somewhat illusory.
I make no comment on the Northern Ireland regulations, on which I am not an expert. I never claim the authority to speak on Northern Ireland if I can possibly avoid it. However, I have taken advice on it from Elizabeth Hanna in the Whips Office, who is a rising politician in her own right from a Northern Irish background, and I understand that she has taken advice from other Northern Irish sources in some

229
number. I am assured that the Northern Ireland regulations give no more cause for anxiety than the British ones. I am happy to welcome them both.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. The Civil Service is extraordinarily efficient. Civil servants provide Ministers not only with an opening speech, but with a closing one. It begins:
"I thank noble Lords for their comments and the good-natured and constructive approach they have taken".
So, clearly, there was a tremendous amount of good-natured anticipation in the Department for Work and Pensions. I am genuinely grateful for the warm welcome that both noble Lords have given to the regulations. The points raised are sensible and fine ones. When I read through the regulations I had similar reflections.
I was particularly taken with the point that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made about flexibility. The noble Earl is right; and he is probably right also about regulations always begetting yet more regulations.
The If you think our decision is wrong leaflet shows that the rate of change is more rapid than I had anticipated. The leaflet was originally produced in April 2001 and was obviously so popular—or had become out of date—that it had to be replaced by the same leaflet number in October 2001. The leaflets have to reflect the begotten regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised a point about the working families' tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit. The explanation is that both share access to the decision-making and appeals process and the unified appeals tribunals with the Department for Work and Pensions. That is why it is necessary to make these amendments to ensure that their operation is consistent. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I understand why the change is being made towards the Inland Revenue away from the Department for Work and Pensions, because the tax credits are to be operated by the Treasury and not by the department. However, I do not understand why we are legislating at this moment for two tax credits that the Government's plans suggest are about to be abolished under the Tax Credits Bill, which we should have been discussing this afternoon.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, probably the point is that we have to deal with the law as it is until it changes. No doubt this is a transitional point. The explanation is probably that it is covering a transitional situation. No doubt advice is speeding its way towards me as we speak.
Earl Russell: My Lords, has not the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, provided a perfect illustration of why, yet again, regulations beget regulations?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl is right. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins,
230
is that tax credit appeals will continue to be dealt with under the Social Security Contributions (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations for some period after the Tax Credits Bill comes into force.
I do not think that any other points of substance have been raised. I am grateful for the points that were raised. The regulations may be mundane, but they play an important part in our attempts to modernise and improve things. I was particularly taken by the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for the TV link, which will ensure greater access. People who are able to put their case directly on appeal or who are fortunate enough to be represented have a far higher success rate in the appeals process. Although it costs any government, it is most important that people are properly and fairly represented. If we can achieve that aim, it is all to the good and in the best interests of natural justice.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits (Decisions and Appeals) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th April be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.33 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.13 to 8.33 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 174:
Before Clause 44, insert the following new clause —
"INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 3
"Admission" in this Chapter refers to the admission by any potential pupil applying to enter any school in the area of the local education authority, especially those living in the area."
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to confirm that the LEA is responsible for providing a place for every child in its area. One of the most important functions of the LEA is to secure sufficient schools to provide appropriate education to meet the age, aptitude, ability and special educational needs of pupils of the area. The purpose of this amendment is to ask the Government to confirm that the Bill does not threaten that historic responsibility.

231
If children are not in school, their education and development will be affected and they will be at risk of getting a criminal record.
There are two areas of concern: children out of school through exclusion, and children of asylum seekers. First, I shall speak to the subject of children out of school. LEAs have a duty, from September 2002, to provide full-time education for children out of school. Pupil referral units are classified as schools. There is therefore a fear that there will be increased pressure on LEAs to provide for children at PRUs rather than to find the resources to fund education for these children at mainstream schools. Will the Government give an assurance that they are committed to maximising the number of children who are educated in mainstream schools?
Secondly, as the Government have today apparently announced the location of a number of accommodation centres, this seems a particularly appropriate time to talk about the children of asylum seekers. The Government are proposing as part of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill to exclude and segregate asylum seekers and their dependants from the community. Indeed, Clause 30(1) of that Bill states that asylum seekers and their children who are resident in accommodation centres,
"shall not be treated as part of the population".
The NUT has stated that it,
"believes that segregating asylum-seeking children from children in mainstream schools contravenes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Asylum-seeking children are children first and asylum seekers second. Their educational rights should be vigorously protected irrespective of immigration status. Education within the confines of an accommodation centre cannot equal the range of provision within a school or education authority".
The Government's education proposals seriously undermine asylum-seeking children's right to a decent education by segregating them from other children in mainstream schools. Children in mainstream schools are the key to the rapid rehabilitation of asylum-seeking children, many of whom will be traumatised by their experience of feeling persecuted or suffering torture. Although issues in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will clearly have to wait until the Bill reaches your Lordships' House, the Government may wish to feel the current strength of feeling about the proposals. I am very interested to discover the attitude of the rather few noble Lords in the Chamber at the moment to the status of asylum-seeking children. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We would like the concept of admission in the amendment to be further explained. As for the specific issue of asylum seekers, although the issue is certainly raised in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, it is not, as I understand it, raised in this Bill. However, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that it is quite shocking that we are not seeking to integrate these people into our school system. Their appeals may be pending, but many of them will be staying on in this country. It is vital that, for the time that they are in this country, we
232
make them welcome and treat them in exactly the same way as we treat our own citizens. We should do our best to integrate them happily into our society. I thoroughly agree with the remarks made by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady David for referring to locality issues. We recognise the need for children to be educated in a locality that suits them. However, we also recognise that that is not necessarily within the local education authority area. Parents often live in one local education authority area but have a preference for a school in another area, and sometimes even for the nearest school which may be in a neighbouring authority's area. Therefore, applications to a local education authority's schools from parents living outside that area must be considered alongside those of parents living within that area. As the Committee will be aware, that is particularly the case in areas such as London.
I accept what my noble friend is saying about the need to ensure that children can be educated in mainstream education and to make sure that children who are excluded from school, for example, continue to be educated properly. We are pleased to have a commitment to ensure that from September 2002 all children excluded from school permanently will receive full-time education. That will either be in pupil referral units or in other schools.
The issue of asylum children is not included in the Bill but is an area that we have to examine carefully. As that is not an area of legislation with which I am dealing, I am reluctant to go into the detail of that. However, I shall make a couple of general remarks. We need to ensure that children receive education within a system that makes sense. We shall seek to ensure that children who arrive in this country are able to receive education, bearing in mind the circumstances in which they arrive and their own particular needs. Within the Department for Education and Skills we are looking closely at how we take that forward. However, as I say, I do not wish to discuss the detail of the relevant legislation as I cannot give the Committee an accurate picture.
Lord Jones: May I tempt my noble friend the Minister to consider giving a little more detail in order that we may consider the legislation which she proposes?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The amendment we are discussing refers to,
"the admission by any potential pupil applying to enter any school in the area of the local education authority, especially those living in the area".
I believe that I have responded to the amendment. We have a long history of parents choosing schools across local education authority boundaries, not least in our cities, as they often live close to a school which is in a neighbouring authority's area. The admissions framework which is already in place, which will be strengthened by the measures in the Bill, is designed to

233
ensure that parental preference is met to the maximum possible extent. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I ask a question following on from the noble Lord, Lord Jones. I am not sure whether it is necessary to have legislation for the Government to educate asylum seekers' children in four separate establishments. Is it possible for the Secretary of State to do that without legislation? If it requires legislation, it seems to me that there is a vehicle before the Chamber—this Bill—that could deal with that provision. From what the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Sharp, said, I suspect that the Committee would like to debate the policy and the intention of corralling asylum seekers' children in four areas and not allowing them—I shall not use the word "swamp—to overwhelm LEA schools in other areas where they may initially reside.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: If the noble Baroness would like to table an appropriate amendment to the Bill, I should be happy to debate those issues. My purpose this evening is to debate the issues that are laid before me. My understanding of the amendment we are discussing is that it concerns children who are being educated in our mainstream schools. I am therefore not able to give the detail that I should be happy to give on the asylum issue. I should be reluctant to mislead the Committee by referring to a matter on which I do not have appropriate information. However, I should be more than happy to debate that matter at an appropriate moment. I hope that that reassurance will satisfy the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the noble Baroness misunderstands me. I am not advocating an amendment to the Bill; nor am I advocating necessarily that the Bill should refer to the matter we are discussing. I simply asked whether legislation was needed in order for the Secretary of State to do what we understand the Secretary of State wants to do; that is, to have concentrated areas—so far, four areas have been designated—where these young people will be educated. I am not sure whether that can be done without legislation. If so, it is not appropriate for me to proceed further. If it requires legislation, it seems to me that there is a Bill before the Chamber which could cope with that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I do not know the answer to that matter, but I am happy to find it out for the noble Baroness. However, I am sure that she appreciates that I am reluctant to speculate on that matter for all the right reasons.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I have entered the debate late. However, I wish to ask a question of the Minister. My daughter has been teaching in a school with a large ethnic mix in east London and has faced considerable problems, the largest of which is that there are no referral units for disturbed children. She
234
has two problems: first, a large number of children in her class who speak different languages; and, secondly, there is no way to refer disturbed children to a special unit that could help with their problems. Will the Minister assure me that she is giving that problem attention?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord on that matter. Later we shall discuss the whole question of children who are excluded from school. We have two measures to tackle the matter: first, the learning support units which are being provided in schools are specifically designed to support children within schools before they reach the point where they might be excluded; and, secondly, pupil referral units. Further, some of cur special schools are able to work with these children. It is a continuum of education. We are trying to find ways to support our children at every stage so that they remain within the education system but receive the right kind of care and support appropriate to their needs.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am sorry to press the noble Baroness, but the problem in Tower Hamlets is that referral units do not exist. Many teachers are experiencing problems and are abandoning the teaching profession. The noble Baroness made an agreeable statement and I agree with her sentiments, but can she assure me in stronger terms that teachers in east London are getting support where they are dealing with Somalis and Bengalis, for example, and are under enormous pressure? Teachers are suffering.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sorry if I am not telling the noble Lord precisely what he wants to hear. I am well aware that behavioural issues are of great concern to teachers. Additional burdens are created for teachers who deal with children who have differing needs. I was merely trying to illustrate the kind of measures that we are taking to help that situation. Some of the schools in Tower Hamlets have a remarkable record of working with children of all backgrounds and achieving a great deal. My hope is that the school to which the noble Lord referred will benefit from that experience. As I said, we shall require local education authorities by September to provide full-time education in pupil referral units. We are moving towards putting learning support units in as many places as we possibly can, as speedily as we can. I appreciate that the problem is not solved. However, we are tackling it. I hope that that gives the noble Lord some comfort. We want our teachers to realise that we are working closely with them.
Before the noble Lord speaks again, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that to achieve what is included in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill we certainly do need primary legislation.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I acknowledge and accept what the Minister said. However, things are not as good as she thinks. I hope that she and her department will devote attention to Tower Hamlets as regards the matter I am discussing. Bland statements

235
do not affect the situation of a teacher who is doing his or her best with children from a variety of ethnic backgrounds but has no referral unit to which to refer pupils. It is interesting that the Minister does not tell us how many referral units Tower Hamlets has.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I did not tell the noble Lord how many referral units Tower Hamlets has because I do not have that information to hand. He will forgive me; there are so many pieces of information that I could carry around with me. I shall write to him with those details, as I always do.
I am not trying to make bland statements. I recognise how difficult the matter is. I spend my time, as do the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, and other Members of the Committee, visiting and working with schools to identify ways in which we can support them. I am simply saying, "Yes, we recognise that there is a problem but we have some of the answers". We are working closely with schools and education authorities to provide them.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The Minister said that it is clear that we need primary legislation in order to carry through the requirements of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Does that mean that it would be sensible for us to amend the Bill? The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill is primary legislation. Does it contain primary legislation relating to education?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I can answer that question with certainty. That Bill contains appropriate provisions dealing with education. I am sure that Members of the Committee will want to participate in the relevant debates.
Baroness David: I knew that this would be an interesting and difficult debate. I am grateful for the support that I have received, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I am relieved to hear from the Minister that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill contains provisions that are devoted to education. When it comes to this House, we can explore this matter more thoroughly—it certainly needs exploring. People feel very strongly about it. I understand the associated difficulties. Difficult problems would arise if a large number of children arrived in a small area, such as a rural area. One does not want to make things difficult for the teachers in the school where the children might go but, on the other hand, it would be a very great mistake to segregate them. They need to get to know the language if they are going to stay here for any length of time and they need to be educated in the ways of the country.
We shall doubtless return to this matter later in this Bill and in relation to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Admission forums]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 175:
Page 29, line 33, after "shall" insert "if requested by a majority of governing bodies of maintained schools in its area"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 176, 177 and 178A, which will be spoken to by other Members of the Committee.
This amendment is very similar to that on schools forums and it applies the same principle. I know that this is a vexed issue and I suspect that I shall not receive too much support from around the Committee. It would allow local schools and governing bodies to choose whether they want an admission forum to be set up in their area. It is important to give them a view on whether they want one or not; the choice should not be automatic.
In some parts of the country, admissions is not a big issue for local areas. The schools work well together and with the local authorities, and the parents are satisfied. The issues involved in this regard are similar to those raised in our debate on schools forums in that what is right for one area does not necessarily apply to all local authorities. My point is not that it is me, LEAs or the Government who say that there should not be admissions forums automatically, although I believe that. The amendment would allow a majority of the governing bodies of maintained schools in an area to decide that they want an admissions forum. In that case, one would be set up, and that would be right.
If there is a problem with admissions in an area, the schools will be the first to know about that. It is for schools to realise that the problem is sufficient to warrant the setting up of an admission forum. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 176 and 178A, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley.
Amendment No. 176 would insert into the provisions on admission forums the phrase, "and city technology colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, city academies and academies".
It is needed because the admissions forum, unlike the schools forum, does not echo the boundaries of the LEA; it is a sub-area of most LEA areas. In my own town of Guildford, we already have an informal grouping of schools—they get together and to some extent discuss admissions. Those informal groupings already exist. The amendment would make those informal groupings into more formal groupings—that is what an admission forum will be. That makes sense because genuine problems arise sorting out admissions between secondary schools of different types—for example, with regard to foundation schools and maintained schools. It makes sense for people to get together and to sort out admissions. I have no time for schools forums but admissions forums have a valid function.

237
When looking at the overall area, it is important for all schools in the area to be included. At the moment, city technology colleges and city academies are not included although they play an important part in some towns. The admission arrangements in Southwark, for example, will be considerably affected by two new academies, one of which is in place and one of which will be set up very shortly. They are being set up deliberately to serve their local communities and are not to be exclusive in any way. We strongly feel that it is important for such technology colleges and academies to be included in the admissions procedures.
I shall also speak to Amendment No. 178A. We touched on it in our debate on the amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on faith schools with a religious bias. The amendment emerged from discussions about what, if anything, we should table in Committee on the issue of faith schools. As I said earlier, we should recognise that the concept of a quota is not the right way forward. Nevertheless, we feel that it is right for those schools—which are maintained schools in that they are 100 per cent funded in terms of revenue costs from the public purse—to recognise that questions arise about the community that they serve. We should consider whether it is possible for them to balance the needs of the community with the need to serve the faith community that they represent and which helps to support those schools through capital funds. Within the framework of admission forums, the amendment seeks to balance the requirements of the faith community and suggests that the school should advance proposals on the number of places to be taken up by members of a faith. But, equally, the amendment seeks to ask the admission forum, which must give advice to the local authority on these issues, to take into account not only that but also the need for places in the area and the demand for places in faith-based schools.
Therefore, the amendment is a deliberate attempt to reach what we consider to be a reasonably acceptable compromise. In putting it forward, we held discussions with members of all faiths, including the Muslim faith, and found that it was largely acceptable to them. We hope that it might also find favour with the Committee.
9 p.m.
Lord Jones: I am pleased to follow the reasonable line of questioning in relation to these amendments. My noble friend the Minister will know that this Bill is 214 pages long and that today Her Majesty's Government have proposed two forums. Are any more forums proposed in the Bill?
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support the arguments which were first put to the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in Amendment No. 175. In that amendment, the noble Baroness argued that whether or not an admission forum is established should be a matter for local discretion. That is logical and consistent and coherent with the arguments that
238
she advanced earlier in our proceedings in the context of schools forums being a matter for local decision-making.
I believe that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, we should trust schools to work these matters out for themselves. I agree with the noble Baroness. I can recollect instances where admissions policies became very hot political questions in a locality and in other parts—indeed, in the very same city—they had never been an issue at all. Whether or not they were hot political questions depended very much on where one lived and what the catchment areas were. If there were local demand for such a forum, it could be innovative and helpful. Therefore, I believe that the Government are on to a point here and one which, if there is local demand for it, should be met.
I believe that that approach is wholly in contradiction with that being adopted by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in Amendment No. 178A. That amendment seeks to impose from outside the requirement on faith schools to observe certain procedures so far as concerns admissions. We should be very clear about this. It is an insidious attack on the independence and integrity of Church schools, whose governing bodies at present determine these matters for themselves in accordance with the ethos of their schools and in accordance with the policies of their diocese and the authorities that administer those schools.
I believe that this is part of a drip, drip, drip approach. It is an approach which has been brought forward instead of that originally adopted—I shall return to this point in a moment—which tried to impose rigid quotas, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned. Although I am grateful that the noble Baroness has moved back to my original proposition, I believe that this comes from the same philosophical approach and should therefore be opposed. When one is run over by a tank, it is fairly self-evident that sometimes the devil arrives in carpet slippers. Therefore, one should be very much more suspicious of him on those occasions.
The first part of Amendment No. 178A seems to be fairly benign. It proposes that a voluntary-aided school may propose to the admission forum that a certain proportion of places within the school should be offered, as a priority, to members of the faith promoted by the school. If admission forums are to be established, as the Government have proposed in Clause 44, this part of the amendment can help to ensure that they respect the religious character of voluntary-aided schools within their area. I do not believe that any of us has any great problem with that.
However, any potential benefit of such faith-based input to the admission forum is fatally compromised by the second part of the amendment. When the admission forum, after receiving a proposal from a voluntary-aided school, offers its advice to the local education authority on admission arrangements., it must consider the need for places in the area and the demand for places in faith-based schools. In effect,

239
therefore, it can completely disregard the proposal from the faith-based school and offer advice that could seriously dilute the ethos and character of the school.
The amendment fails to recognise that the admission authorities of voluntary-aided schools already take into account factors such as the need for places in their area and the demand for places in faith-based schools. The Catholic Church, in particular, which was referred to in our earlier debate, has demonstrated its willingness to relinquish schools where demographic trends and the needs of the local community indicate that alternative provision is needed. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, when she said that the Government are already in discussion with the diocesan authorities and that a constructive and positive approach is being taken to deal with the tiny number of cases where such a situation arises.
In many areas where it has been the wish of the school trustees, the governing bodies and the local community, and where space has been available, Catholic schools have welcomed pupils from beyond the Catholic community. In our earlier debate I cited the figures. Nationally the figure is approximately 20 per cent, and in some diocese more than one in three pupils are not Catholic but are in Catholic schools. I believe that that mirrors the situation in Church of England and other schools, too. It shows that the populations in those schools are diverse and that they represent the communities that they serve.
During our Second Reading debate, I believe that an erroneous impression was given of some of those schools when it was suggested that only children from very privileged backgrounds would be admitted to them. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that children from rough backgrounds or, indeed, those of a particular colour would be refused admission. I have spoken to teachers who work in those schools and who have read those remarks. I know that they found them very offensive and considered them to be a considerable attack on their morale and on what goes on in those schools. I believe that anyone who looks at such schools will realise that it is a very unfair picture.
Therefore, schools should remain free to decide these questions for themselves. The amendment before the Committee tonight seeks to achieve the exact opposite by vesting authority in the proposed new admission forums. Too often in the debate thus far subterfuge has characterised the tactics of those who are fundamentally opposed to faith-based schools. There is an echo here of what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said to the Committee earlier on the issue of grammar schools. I believe that it is more straightforward if we say exactly where we stand in relation to these matters.
In the other place the idea of quotas was put forward and that faith-based schools should be obliged to admit a minimum of 25 per cent of their pupils from other faiths, notwithstanding that the vast majority of schools already do that. In the Second Reading debate
240
in your Lordships' House the idea of catchment areas was put forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, warned that,
"The Liberal Democrats will propose an amendment to the Bill that makes it unlawful for any school in receipt of state funding to deny access to a child from its local community on the grounds of faith or lack of faith".—[Official Report, 11/3/02; col. 631.]
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, that idea appears to have been quietly shelved, perhaps out of recognition that it would encourage the creation of religious ghettos around certain faith-based schools, the very thing that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, warned about in his remarks earlier. That would be the effect of the proposal mooted at Second Reading and it would achieve quite the opposite of what the proposer seeks to achieve.
Notwithstanding those points, Amendment No. 178A has now been laid before the Committee. We can see from where the idea of admission forums has come and the effect of those forums if they have the power to advise local education authorities on the admission arrangements of faith-based schools. Much would depend on who are the members of the forums, what particular ideologies and issues they pursue and what axes they want to grind, which sadly often is the case. One cannot help but wonder why, instead of the subtle variations on a theme, we do not simply hear a straightforward declaration of fundamental opposition to the existence of faith-based schools.
Of course, clarity is not at all popular with the electorate, many of whom send their children to faith schools. Not surprisingly they are aghast when they discover that some politicians would like to shut down their children's schools. That is an issue in areas such as Richmond upon Thames and in my own city of Liverpool. Accusations that such schools encourage divisiveness and social fragmentation causes widespread dismay within the teaching profession in those schools and it damages morale.
This amendment has been justified by the argument that Church schools are non-integrated. That simply is not true. Many faith-based schools are already beacons of social integration. It is a misconception that faith-based schools are like little educational islands that do not mix with others in the educational or wider community. Many of our teachers and pupils play a full and active role within their local education authorities. Catholic schools in particular have been enthusiastic participants in initiatives such as the setting up of specialist schools and sharing expertise under the beacon school arrangement.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, says, but I believe that he is maligning what I said in the earlier debate and in this debate. I have not suggested that Roman Catholic schools are not inclusive. In the earlier debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I said that there were few schools—I believe the problems apply to only a very few schools—where

241
there is a problem of excluding those from the immediate local neighbourhood in which there is some demand. That applies to an extremely small number of schools and to imply that there is a plot on our part, rather than a genuine attempt to try to arrive at some kind of compromise is totally unfair.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is upset by what I said. One can refer only to the record and in our earlier debate I quoted the former Liberal Democrat spokesman on education in another place, Mr Don Foster, who said that in an ideal world there would be no faith schools. He said that he would be in favour of, for example, the abolition of the daily act of worship. We know that a proposal was put forward by the party of the noble Baroness in another place which sought to impose rigid quotas—a 25 per cent quota. We have heard what the noble Baroness has said this evening and I have already paid tribute to her for pulling back from that position. I reiterate that comment.
However, in her remarks a moment ago she indicated that there are some schools where she believes that those children who come from a faith background should not be given a place in a school in preference to people who live closest to the school. That would be a discriminatory measure against the children of that faith who live in that area. That is an issue of concern to parents who have children in such schools. I believe it would be wrong of the noble Baroness not to appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said in his intervention, that there will not be widespread interest in these debates outside the Committee as there has been during the course of the recent local elections.
My point is that we should look to those schools to see what a fantastic contribution they make and praise them accordingly. In Ofsted's annual report, for example, HMCI's list of "particularly successful schools"—Ofsted's phrase—included a high number of Catholic schools. Ninety secondary schools were listed and of those 15 were Catholic; 206 primary schools were listed and of those 42 were Catholic. When one considers that Catholic schools provide 10 per cent of schools nationally, it is clear that Catholic schools are included to a higher proportion than their overall share of the maintained sector.
Earlier in our debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, as have others in a previous debate, that if we go down the route of supporting such schools the result could be the kind of situation that persists in Northern Ireland. The examples of Burnley and Oldham have also been cited. I want to refer to them briefly.
Over the years I have been involved with interdenominational Christian groups in Northern Ireland who have sought to establish integrated Christian schools. I supported those initiatives because I believe that, where there is sectarianism, that becomes the priority. That is not the case in England and Wales and we need to be clear about that.
242
But even in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Centre for Integrated Education—an organisation which works to promote Catholic and Protestant cooperation—says,
"Our segregated education system has not delivered our troubles—that's rubbish. Sectarianism is the lava below the surface, and whether we had an integrated school system or not, that lava would erupt".
We also heard reference made earlier today to the situation in Oldham and Burnley. I took the trouble a few months ago to visit Oldham. I was telling the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, about that visit during the break. I met some of the teachers in the schools there. I listened carefully to what Lorna Fitzsimons, the Member of Parliament for Rochdale, said when she went to review the situation there. She said that the problems did not arise from Church schools; they arose from children corning from state schools who had not been integrated into the community to learn about co-existence with children from minorities.
I have seen the evidence of the teaching of civic values, of integration, of diversity in schools in places like Oldham. And we have to face the serious issue of how we promote shared civic values. All Members of the Committee should concentrate on that question rather than trying to impose rigid quotas or admissions systems which are an attack on the independence of Church schools and are seen that way.
The Secretary of State for Education, Estelle Morris, put it well when she said,
"the strength of faith schools for those who have a faith is a shared value base—a sense of purpose, mission and being".
I believe that that is the principal reason why Church and faith schools remain so popular in our country today.
In summary, Amendment No. 178A is unnecessary. It is indicative of the various attempts that have been made to date to disparage faith-based education. I hope that the Government oppose the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I support the noble Lord, Lord Alton. There is a long history in English education that we allow the Churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church but also my own Church, to support faith schools. They have put enormous amounts of money into doing just that. And traditionally they have been allowed to decide their own admissions policies.
I can only speak for my own Church; I cannot speak for the Roman Catholic Church which has invested more money than my Church. But many faith schools admit enormous numbers of people from other faiths. An amendment which, for the first time in 140 years, allows the Government to impose on Church schools their own admissions procedures is quite a revolutionary proposal. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment. It interferes with a right that the Church schools have always had and one

243
which is highly regarded throughout the whole of Europe. I hope therefore that Church schools will be allowed to retain their integrity.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I rise to take a middle way on this matter, as one would expect from these Benches. It is possible to see a Trojan horse here. But I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for the consultations she had with a number of us in seeking to frame this amendment.
The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I am not 100 per cent in favour of her proposal. But if we are to have admissions forums—that is yet to be decided—and they are to do their work, then they have to take cognisance of the existence of Church or faith schools. It would be irresponsible of them to behave as though they were sharing out children among community schools rather than dealing with the whole of the maintained sector.
I take issue with the use of the word "propose" in the first part of Amendment No. 178A. I prefer to use "inform". I want to see the voluntary-aided schools participating in the education of children. As Members of the Committee have said, many of them carry out all the requirements asked for in terms of inclusiveness and taking children who have parents of other faiths or of no faith. That is certainly the case in my diocese, particularly at the primary level.
We are dealing with that area of life where real choices have to be made. We are dealing with success. When we are at the bottom of a pile, then few choices lie before us. But when something is popular or successful, then those who are in charge of it, be they the governors or those who dispose of education in various ways, have to make real choices as to how they proceed. I am delighted to be standing in your Lordships' Chamber tonight espousing what is a popular cause with parents the length and breadth of the country, which is why we in the Anglican Church have such great difficulty in accommodating at secondary level those who would like to attend them. In saying that, we remain faithful to our trust deeds—to be distinctive but inclusive. As the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has just said, we have educated millions of children whose parents have not espoused our faith.
As to the second part of the amendment—and we were not able to discuss this beforehand because it has only just occurred to me—what happens if the forum says, "No way, oh brothers and sisters in the faith schools and the Church schools", and takes a draconian line in its attitude to those schools before the local education authority?
I am relatively content even with that if the forum is purely advisory and if there is some appeal system, which I think there is. Therefore, I am looking for some way to share in the issue of how pupils are educated which meets parental choice whether or not they belong to the Churches or to the faith communities; which meets the desire of people who realise that they want this kind of education for their children; and which meets the needs of the local
244
community. The amendment goes some way to engage that issue. However, I should like to see the governing bodies of voluntary aided schools informing the forum of their policy. Then, if appropriate, listening to what the forum might want to say. Ultimately, however, the governors of those schools have responsibility for the faith quotient over the local aspect, which most of them exercise extremely well at the present time.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Perhaps I may reply to the right reverend Prelate. The admissions forums are purely advisory. They cover all maintained schools. The definition of "maintained schools" includes both voluntary controlled and voluntary aided schools, but of course voluntary aided schools are their own admissions authorities. New Section 85A(l)(b) says,
"advising the admission authorities for maintained schools".
Therefore, the whole idea of the amendment is to advise the governors of the voluntary aided schools where they feel there is a conflict between, say, the needs of the community and the needs of the faith and ask them to consider it. Obviously it is only advice, and ultimately those who decide, as I understand it, on the admissions to such schools are the schools themselves.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: The noble Baroness takes my point exactly. I wanted to have on the record that we are talking about advice and that the governors of a voluntarily aided school would not necessarily be bound by that advice, although I would hope that they would listen carefully to what people were trying to say.
Lord Lucas: My Amendment No. 177 is in this group. Perhaps I may first say that I do not want to abolish faith schools. My position is very much the reverse. I want more of them. I want sufficient numbers of them so that those parents who do not spend every Sunday going to a church of a particular denomination can nonetheless find places in church schools if that is what they want for their children.
The fact that only 20 or 30 per cent of places in Catholic schools are given to non-Catholics says to me that there are not enough Catholic schools and that we should have a few more. To that extent, I very much support what was proposed earlier—I forget how many months ago now—that we should have an ability to create more Church schools. Later, I suspect, we shall turn to that matter, but I should like to see that process happening. What I do not like is parents who want a Church education for their child being excluded merely because they are, in a way, "sinners" or incapable of beliefs themselves.
That is my position on the matter. I do not understand how admissions forums are meant to affect this. They are just advisory bodies. They are a place where schools can get together and talk. If other schools find a problem with a faith-based school admitting only those of its faith, I am sure that they will discuss that without the need for Amendment No. 178A.

245
I would certainly not like the idea that a body such as this could start messing with the admissions powers of voluntary aided schools—they are for the Churches. My aim is to influence the Government to create a mechanism for more Church schools and to influence the Churches by saying, "Come on. Part of the 1944 settlement is that you should provide education for children who want such education, not just for children of people who are already adherents of your faith". That is part of the deal. The kind of education that they provide should be available to those who want it rather than just those who qualify for it. That is the difference between being a private and a state school.
I tabled Amendment No. 177 to ask how, under the admissions forum arrangements, we will deal with the situation in which the natural school for people is not within the LEA but in the neighbouring LEA. Obviously, that happens a lot in London, but it also happens in the country. For example, I can think of Dorset primary schools that are half a mile from a secondary school in Hampshire, which is where people would naturally go, rather than 15 miles the other away to the nearest Dorset secondary school. How will we deal with such cross-border questions? I merely ask the question.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I apologise for rising again. I speak as the governor of Downside, which admits non-Catholic pupils. Why should not faith schools admit people of their own faith? We all concede that they admit people of variety of faiths, but my noble friend Lord Lucas seems to think—I may be misjudging him—that it is wrong to favour people of their own faith. Of course they admit other people—that is a fact. But there seems to be an argument in this Chamber that it is wrong for people who believe in a faith to go to a school of their own faith. What is wrong with that? It should be allowed.
The schools have shown themselves generous. Downside admits Anglicans. Anglican schools admit Muslims and, indeed, everyone. They do an amazing job in their communities. Why should we introduce admissions procedures when the schools themselves are doing the job all right? The myth that spreads that faith schools are little ghettos is quite wrong in relation to my faith—I cannot speak about other faiths, but I can speak about Roman Catholics and Anglicans. It is irrelevant for us to have provisions imposed on us.
Lord Lucas: I had better pick up on my noble friend's comments. Obviously, it is right that one cannot really have a Catholic school unless it admits Catholics preferentially. The same applies to an Anglican school—it must be there for its community. The difficulty arises when there are insufficient schools of a particular denomination to satisfy demand, which means that they become purely one-religion schools and exclude those who would like that kind of education but do not happen to be sufficiently committed—some parents must produce a five-year history of having attended church every Sunday,
246
which can be difficult. I want that log jam to be broken and there to be more schools of whichever kind of religion is wanted.
I refer to something else that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. I do not mean to characterise Oldham in any particular way but choose it as an example merely because it has been in the news, In Oldham an Anglican school exists as a refuge for people who can exit from the areas in which they would naturally go to school by saying, "I am an Anglican", leaving behind a school that becomes, in effect, a Muslim school. That is a destructive process.
If 100 per cent of the pupils admitted by a school are of the same religion, the school will be a force for social and racial division. Church schools should not do that; it is not part of the deal with the state. There is a responsibility to the community, and the school should recognise it. I am merely going by newspaper reports of what the head teachers of those schools in Oldham said. I find that difficult to reconcile with my view of the educational contract between state and Church.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I did not wish to intervene again, but I get excited when we come to matters affecting Lancashire. It is grossly unfair to put Oldham's problems down to what is said to have happened in two Anglican high schools. If we considered schooling in Oldham across the piece, we would find problems. We must bear in mind what the governors of those schools face.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, cannot have it both ways, in one sense. If, as he wants, the schools were open to a wider community, the chances are that they would not be attended just by people of a particular faith who were prepared to go to church for five years. I must say that I have never heard of anyone having to go for five years, but, if there are such cases, I say, "Good luck to them". I have a lot of sympathy with that idea, but that is another story. If the noble Lord wishes to take that line, he must also consider the logic the other way. Burnley is the one town in the diocese of Blackburn that has no Anglican high school. I could turn the noble Lord's logic on its head and say that, if there had been such a school, we might not have had riots in Burnley.
If we start into such a debate, we will get into dangerous water. It worries me that we do not apply the same kind of criteria to the community schools, even though we know that the wealthy will buy houses in an area so that their children will be admitted. At one stage, my wife was head teacher of a wholly Muslim school. I should say "Asian heritage", but all the pupils were Muslim. It was a county school, not a Church school. Not a single member of the indigenous Dewsbury community applied for a place in that school. Earlier in her career, she worked in a prestigious school in Sunderland. People would ring up from Australia and goodness-knows-where to ask whether there was a place at the school, so that they would know where to buy their house.

247
We must be careful about arguments about social exclusion. Sometimes, Church schools are made to bear more of the blame for the disturbances, which we all regret, than they should. One of the problems in east Lancashire is that race and religion go together; that is the way it is. In the metropolitan areas, where there are black Christians, there are Church schools—some not five miles from here—that are well racially integrated. In most schools, especially the primary schools, there is the kind of religious mix that the noble Lord seeks.
I discovered today that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is probably a friend, but I get tired of the constant repetition and refrain about schools in east Lancashire and, indeed, in Bradford, where there have been Anglican high schools only for the past year. Those schools can hardly be held responsible for creating the segregation in that community.
Baroness Blatch: I shall speak briefly to the other amendments in the group. I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said about faith schools. As long as we have faith schools, their primary objective will be to give a place to anybody of the faith who wishes to have it and is committed to that kind of education. The Minister has already said that.
I agree with the constructive point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. Where there is demand for a certain kind of ethos and education—something that we should welcome—we should try to expand the number of such schools available. It would be possible to be really innovative and set up a school run by Christians, Jews or Muslims and take all corners, if the original faith community is satisfied with the number of places at the school.
I have no problem with a school becoming all-Anglican, all-Catholic or all-Muslim if that is the demand. However, I have real problems about the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. The moment one goes down the road of social engineering one finds all kinds of difficulties. I accept the right reverend Prelate's comment that those schools are not responsible for the troubles we have seen either in Ireland, which is an extreme example of community problems, or in Oldham or Burnley. In fact, those schools are probably havens in areas where young people are learning fundamentally how to live with one another and respect cultural differences.
However, a point that has not been made in the course of this relatively long debate relates to safeguards for city technology colleges, the city colleges of technology and the arts and the city academies. I have a close knowledge of city technology colleges and I know that city colleges of technology and the arts and the city academies, which have emulated the way in which CTCs were set up, have a detailed legislative underpinning of their admissions procedures. They are wholly subscribed in great detail and are probably the most scientific comprehensive schools in the country. They have to take from across
248
the ability range in certain percentages. They have to interview and have a sophisticated system in order to create the spread. The idea of putting those schools into the melting pot with all other schools appears to be a contradiction. There would have to be a substantial reordering of the legislative statutes in order to accommodate that. I can see no point in them being part of the melting-pot approach to finding places in schools.
I return to an earlier debate about our faith schools. I believe that the Minister admitted that there is only a relatively small problem in that some schools deliberately keep places vacant in the hope that a number of children of the faith will come along and fill them. She hinted that it was mainly in Catholic schools. Current negotiations are amicable and a solution appears to be forthcoming. That is to be welcomed.
All I know of Church of England Schools and of King David and other Jewish schools is that when there are vacancies they are open and welcoming to children from the local area. I do not see that as being a problem and I would prefer to leave the matter there. I believe that the faith community should be wholly satisfied and that the local community should have open access to any vacancies which arise. However, where the demand is greater than that, we should go down the road suggested by my noble friend Lord Lucas and consider the possibility of setting up yet more faith schools to satisfy the need.
The Earl of Listowel: I want to speak briefly to Amendment No. 175 under which admission forums would be established only,
"if requested by a majority of governing bodies of maintained schools in its area".
I recognise the truth of the words spoken by my noble friend Lord Alton about subsidiarity and the importance of self-determination for schools. Perhaps that point is answered by the fact that the admissions forums will have only an advisory role. I am concerned about the situation in which there appears a pocket of deprivation within an area. The majority of schools might be happy with the admission arrangements and only one or two schools might feel unhappy with them. I would like to seek clarity about that matter. Is it a reason why there should be an obligation on forming school forums?
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may briefly reply to the right reverend Prelate. No, Church schools are not the problem but they could be an important part of the solution.
Lord Brennan: Perhaps I may ask the Committee's forgiveness for joining the debate 46 minutes after it started in order to make three short points. First, the debate has illustrated the sensitivity of the faith school issue. It requires any legislative clause or amendment which seeks to affect such institutions to be phrased with absolute clarity; to be produced in a way that provides for open debate about the fundamental issues; and not to be achieved, albeit with a notable

249
objective of compromise, by an amendment such as this. I think that our debate has illustrated that fact. When this question comes up, the best debate will be the product of the intellectual rigour with which we look to the question of faith schools.
Secondly, this vehicle for seeking to assimilate, in so far as it can be assimilated, the faith school system into the national schools system is simply not successful. As an advocate of faith schools, I find it unacceptable that an advisory body which is the product of secondary legislation should be the vehicle by which the community determines how faith schools should best function in terms of admissions. That is a very poor route in the objective of the noble cause of the best education for the many.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will forgive me if I utter a note of incredulity; we have served on several committees together. The idea that faith schools should adopt the role of soaking up the unsatisfied educational needs of a nation by ever increasing their size and numbers because people want to send their children to them is a marvellous compliment to those schools; but the ingenuity of the idea should not relieve us of our common sense. There is a limit to what religions can provide and what faith schools can sustain. The primary obligation for education in this country was, is, and will be, with the state, either directly or by subventions to faith schools.
I admire the diplomacy and energy of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, but I regret that this particular amendment is not the right vehicle for the occasion which surely will come when we properly debate the role of faith schools in our education system.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall declare briefly my ecumenical interests. My great-grandfather was an Irish-Anglican cleric who became a Unitarian minister. My maternal grandfather was a canon in the Church of Wales. His son, my uncle, was a dean in the Church of England. His sister, my aunt, began as a Protestant missionary in Uganda, but ended up as a Carmelite nun in a closed order in Birkenhead via being Mother Superior of an order in Dundalk. My late noble kinsman was much involved in the Church of England preparations for the 1944 Act. Those are modest qualifications, but they are at least ecumenical.
I hesitate to be a squeaking wheel in terms of reference to a debate which occurred earlier in the other place, but it is quite useful as a text in following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, with whose fundamental sentiments I agree profoundly.
In another place Clause 44 was discussed, but Mr Phil Willis, the spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Party—whom I greatly like—appeared to the rest of the Committee to be speaking to an amendment on Clause 45. He said: "Yes, I agree with that, but I wanted to make sure that the Government were going to raise this issue". The chairman said that the Committee would discuss the amendment concerned, Amendment No. 233, and asked the Minister, Mr Timms, whether he agreed.
250
The following sentence is difficult to parse. Mr Timms said:
"Yes, I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that the issue will be addressed in Government amendments, and it will be debated".— [Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee G, 10.1.02: col. 333.]
I have difficulty in following that particular sentence, but it gave the impression that the matter was going to be settled on Clause 45 and in Amendment No. 233.
It will come as no surprise to noble Lords to learn that Clause 45 was never reached in the Commons and so the anticipation of the Liberal Democrat spokesman was wholly foiled, despite the very long speech which he made in Committee on Clause 44. Therefore, it seems of extreme importance that the Committee reaches sensible, broadly based and wise conclusions because what we discuss will matter to many people across the country hereafter, as I implied in an earlier remark.
I shall not make a long speech. As a loyal son of the established Church, I shall repeat the speech made in the 18th century by a man who, after Edmund Burke sat down, rose briefly and said, "Ditto to Mr Burke" and sat down. My Mr Burke is my noble friend Lord Pilkington and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I subscribe to the general sentiments they expressed.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in saying that because this issue is of such importance we have to reach wise and sensible conclusions in the same way as conclusions were reached in 1944. If we do not do so, we shall be in trouble. I am certain that we shall return to this subject.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I should like to make two points. First, as drafted the clause emphasises that the admissions forums cover all maintained schools. Although they are their own admissions authority, in the primary legislation the admission forum is required to give advice to the voluntary aided schools which can then decide whether they wish to take the advice. In putting forward the amendment, we were well aware of that. The idea was that the admissions forum could be in a position to offer advice.
Secondly, the city technology colleges and academies are not part of the maintained sector in that sense. Therefore, they are not included on the face of the Bill within the remit of the admissions forum. Amendment No. 176 proposed that the city colleges be included within that remit. For the same reasons that I believe that there is a case for the Church schools to be included within the remit, there is a strong reason for including the city technology colleges.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I promised that I would not say this tonight because I have said it endlessly but it has been an interesting debate. Noble Lords have spoken with great passion.
On Amendment No. 175, our proposal for mandatory admission forums is in the Bill in order to make the school admissions process better for even

251
more parents and children. We believe that every area will benefit from having a forum. We have seen from our consultation in England that 78 per cent of respondents agreed to some extent with our suggestions for mandatory forums. Many people have told us that forums would have a greater impact if every area had to have one and admission authorities were required to have regard to their advice.
Let me outline the important role that these forums will have. They will advise all admission authorities in their area, including the LEA, on admission issues as well as considering how well existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interest of local parents and children. They will reach local agreement on new or controversial issues and broker arrangements for ensuring that vulnerable and challenging children and those who arrive in an area outside the normal admission round have fair access to local schools. We expect the core membership of admission forums to include representatives from headteachers and governors of foundation, community and voluntary maintained schools in the local education authority area.
We believe that these mandatory forums will improve the admissions process by ensuring that there is real discussion and consensus between the key admission partners in an LEA area. Our view is that this is a matter of real importance and should no longer be voluntary.
I turn to Amendment No. 176. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out that the provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 relating to school admissions apply only in relation to a "maintained school". As defined by Section 86(4) of that Act, that means a community, a foundation or a voluntary school. City technology colleges, city academies, and academies are independent schools.
We recognise that certain schools that are not maintained by the local education authority, such as academies, do have a contribution to make to admission forum discussions. Again, our recent consultation showed that 81 per cent of those who responded agreed—at least to some extent—that the proposed membership of admission forums should include any local city technology colleges, and city academies, in the area in question where there are issues regarding secondary schools. We believe that the involvement of CTCs, city academies, and academies in forums will also encourage them to consider the advice given by the forums.
Through their funding agreements, all academies will be obliged to comply with the requirements of admissions law as it applies to maintained schools. Academies will be required, therefore, through their funding agreements, to take part in statutory admission forums. More generally, we shall expect academies to use the same timetable for admissions as the LEAs in which they are situated, and to take part in co-ordinated schemes, in order to make the applications process as straightforward as possible.
252
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out, CTCs are not maintained schools, and, therefore, not subject to the admissions provisions. However, we want to encourage CTCs to participate in forum discussions. We shall, by way of regulations, require forums to invite CTCs to attend meetings. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she has enough information to enable her to withdraw the amendment.
As for Amendment No. 177, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about the membership in terms of "neighbouring" education authorities. Through this clause we intend to make regulations on the constitution of admission forums. It is our intention to specify core membership. We have also suggested that any other group representing an important section of the local community should be represented. As the noble Lord outlined, certain LEAs, especially those with a high proportion of cross-border traffic, may well wish to include representatives from neighbouring local authority areas.
However, some LEAs have several neighbours, and it would be an unnecessary burden on them if they were required to attend all their neighbours' admission forums, as well as organising their own, especially if discussions did not include cross-border issues. Each LEA has different needs and circumstances. Our desire is to be as flexible as possible, so that we can respond to such needs. Therefore, although we would encourage neighbouring LEAs to take part in admission forum discussions, we believe that it would be inappropriate to require them to do so—in other words, they "may" do so, but we do not wish to require them to do so on the face of the Bill. I hope that my response meets the noble Lord's point, and that he will see fit not to press his amendment.
As I said earlier, noble Lords have spoken with great passion on Amendment No. 178A, which is tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I was extremely impressed with the pedigree of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in this instance. I was also much taken with the desire for people to recognise that schools cannot be held responsible for what has happened in some of our communities. However, we must recognise the importance of the school as part of the sustainable development of our communities, and the need to build on that process.
The role of admission forums is to take an overview of how well existing and proposed admission arrangements work within the area represented by the forum. We want them to be platforms for discussion to facilitate a joint approach to problem solving and local agreement. However, the forum is not intended to replace the statutory admissions consultation process. We do not believe it is right that authorities should have an additional requirement to consult forums on an issue that is already part of a statutory local consultation and determination process.
It will not be the purpose of admission forums to change the fundamental character of schools. If an admission authority considers that the advice given by a forum would have that effect, it could reasonably

253
reject that advice. It is for admission authorities to consult on, and determine, their own admission arrangements; and, if they are objected to, to justify them to the Schools Adjudicator.
It is already possible for the admission authority of a faith school to give priority on the basis of faith adherence for such numbers of available places that it may decide upon. If there are sufficient applications, some state in their admission arrangements that a specified number will he allocated to a particular faith. Our code of practice on school admissions makes it clear that parents applying for a school place both need and deserve local admission arrangements that are clear and objective, as well as giving every child a fair chance to secure a satisfactory school place.
The existing admissions framework enables admission authorities, including local education authorities, to object to the independent schools adjudicator if they disagree with any aspect of a school's admission arrangements for any reason. In the case of objections to religious criteria, these are passed on to the Secretary of State for her consideration. As part of their individual considerations of an objection, either the adjudicator or the Secretary of State may, of course, take account of any advice given by an admissions forum. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
My final comment is to my noble friend Lord Jones: there are no other new forums within this Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister. We have had a long and fairly exhaustive debate. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
Lord Rixmoved Amendment No. 176A:
Page 30, leave out line 6 and insert—
"() The authority shall make available to the forum information about the views on and experience of admissions policies and practices of disabled children and children with special educational needs and their parents.
() The authority may establish sub-committees of the forum to assist the forum in preparing advice on inclusive admissions policies, or for other purposes."
The noble Lord said: Even though we are now approaching the Ten O'clock News, before I speak to the amendments standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, I should like to thank the Committee for the generous way in which it accepted my enforced absence last Thursday. I should especially like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for moving the amendments in my name and the Government for their generally helpful response.
In speaking to Amendment No. 176A, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 182 and Amendment No. 198A, which I have had decoupled from its grouping with Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 because the earlier amendments deal
254
with admission arrangements and Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 deal with admission appeals. I should also like to point out that Clause 47 stand part should follow Amendment No. 200, not precede it.
Collective responsibility for regulating the admissions process makes sense and I do not disagree with the principle behind this innovation. However, we need to clarify the relationship between the new forums and the existing requirement to monitor admissions of pupils with special educational needs and disabled children. It is essential that when schools are working corporately, as well as when they are working separately, they should be helping to develop policies which ensure the best possible appropriate education for these children.
Admissions forums should support a fair selection process which does not unfairly discriminate against pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. I also expect such a scheme to ensure that one mainstream school in a group—perhaps the school with the less favourable local reputation —does not become the special needs school.
Amendment No. 176A would guarantee that forums are proactive in ensuring a fair admissions process for these children. It would also allow the authority to form a sub-committee to advise the main forum on special educational needs policies. I am aware that Clause 44(2) of the Bill enables authorities to establish a sub-committee. However, my amendment goes further and suggests a specific use of a sub-committee. I am putting this forward as another option and I look forward to the Minister's response.
Amendment No. 182 would require local education authorities to publish information from the monitoring of admissions of children with special educational needs. This information should be used to inform the work of admissions forums and the development of any local education authority admissions schemes.
In speaking to Amendment No. 198A, I am aware that the Special Educational Consortium is concerned that any scheme to co-ordinate admissions in local education authorities might impact disproportionately on disabled children and children with special educational needs. The consortium would therefore want to make sure that parents of pupils with special educational needs and disabled children are consulted about any scheme to co-ordinate admissions. Amendment No. 198A seeks to achieve this and ensures that the voice of the child is also heard, even though it is not possible for the voice of the child to prevail. I would add on the basis of quite a lot of experience that having a learning disability, even a severe learning disability, does not stop a child having views about his or her schooling.
The Government's thinking behind these innovations is that the forums will make the admissions process work better for vulnerable children, including those with special educational needs. However, there is nothing in the Bill or in the draft policy document which states that. We have heard a number of references to a portmanteau clause

255
to cover this gap in regard to SEN and disability. I am happy to say that today Mencap has submitted a suggested draft clause to fit into the general interpretation of the Bill, the draft going to the department and to the SEC for further comments and advice. Let us hope that it, or something of a like nature, will eventually meet with general approval and appear on the face of the Bill.
In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify what will be the impact of regulations on forum responsibilities for special educational needs policies. As the evening wears on, I shall be more than happy at this stage to accept assurances. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I add my support to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on this issue. Last year, we spent a good deal of time debating the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. The issue of inclusion is very important. We were all agreed at that time on the procedures that should be followed.
For many children, the process of selecting and attending a new school is a very important one—the more so for those with special educational needs or disabilities. I entirely endorse all three amendments proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Jones: The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, are persuasive. I hope that they will have satisfaction. They certainly have a great deal of experience.
Perhaps I may briefly raise the question: do the Government have confidence in the local education authorities? In one day, Ministers have proposed two forums. Are the LEAs, therefore, falling down in their tasks? Are the LEAs hostile to consultation? Are they deaf to representations from parents and from head teachers? Is it the case that the Government have little regard today for the local education authorities? Do Ministers seek to trim the powers of the LEAs? Are the proposed forums government devices to make good the defects of LEAs? I hope that is not the Government's approach. However, given that two forums have been proposed, and given the topicality of the future of LEAs, the Minister may be able to set out the Government's thinking.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am in no way qualified to follow the wise counsel of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whose experience in these matters is well known throughout this place. However, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs in the other place produced a report on children with special educational needs in the context of the Province. On the strength of that experience, I have particular sympathy for Amendment No. 182 spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
256
The Minister may tell us that the amendment is not necessary and that such an obligation already exists. But if he does not, I am strongly in support of the noble Lord in making sure that we get that particular detail on the record.
Lord Brennan: The purpose of Amendment No. 176A is to assist admission forums to ensure that disabled children and those with special educational needs are properly catered for. On a careful reading of Clause 44, I advise the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that the amendment is not necessary, because the Government, local education authorities and admission forums should take those matters into account in any event.
Be that as it may, whether the amendment is needed or not, local communities will regard admission forums as having a special advisory responsibility in what one might call an emotional and sensitive area. I have two matters to raise. The first is the public perception of admission forums. If the idea goes about that this is the system by which the community can express its desires on admission policies in local schools, the community will expect results. If the idea is that disabled children and those with special educational needs will be carefully considered within such a system, their parents and families will expect the forum to be their advocate. It is therefore essential that the forums have credibility and that advice in this very important area is not ignored or swept aside by a local education authority simply on economic resources arguments. That would destroy the beneficial objective of the forums.
Secondly, and equally importantly, my noble friend the Minister must make it abundantly clear to the Committee that the system of admission forums is not intended to detract from or to replace the statutory responsibilities of local education authorities to cater for these children in need. It is their responsibility. It is not the responsibility of an advisory body, whose function is to bring local needs in that area to the attention of the local education authority.
Why is that important? It is not only for humanitarian reasons, but also for legal reasons. It would be a shocking result if the local community got the idea that if an admission forum had agreed with a proposal then it was going to happen, and then it did not. The community would wonder what was the function of the forum, what was the division of responsibility between it and the local education authority and how they could remedy what they thought to be a wrong.
I want to reassure the Committee that there is a small group solicitors and barristers who concentrate on educational cases purely out of dedication and at little or no profit to themselves. In the past 10 or 15 years, they have ensured two things legally. First, local education authorities are required to be consistent in the way they apply the law for the general benefit of children. Secondly, by bringing test cases they can achieve results that apply to the many. I do not want a state of affairs in which families and the lawyers who help them have no idea whether they should be seeking recourse from the admission forum, the local

257
education authority or both—or what? That would be a very unhappy result. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will ensure, as I think she said a moment ago, that LEAs are still required to observe statutory admission criteria and cannot foist their responsibilities on to the forums.
I adopt the sentiment of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whether necessary or not, but bearing in mind the cautions that I have just expressed.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I strongly support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Rix said in moving his amendment about the requirement that should be placed on schools and local education authorities to meet the needs of parents who have children with special needs. I worked in that sector for five years some years ago and I share my noble friend's concerns. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, no one in the House has more experience in these matters. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for raising the issue.
I have considerable concerns, however, about the possibility of creating talking shops. I do not believe that the forums will be able to deliver the objectives that my noble friend Lord Rix has described so eloquently. The real danger is that we shall only raise people's aspirations and hopes. They will go to a forum thinking that it can deliver their requirements, but will he disappointed when they find that that is not true. That will bring local democracy into further disrepute. Some local education authorities have education committees which address issues such as special needs education. Like me, other noble Lords may have served on such committees. The committees have proper appeals mechanisms that allow parents to make their representations, and include real local councillors with real local political clout who can put right some of these problems.
As we discussed in an earlier group of amendments, it is possible that the forums could be used for mischief making if someone has a particular axe to grind. As I said, I fear that they could simply become talking shops. The more we discuss the issue, the more I am taken by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about the lack of debate about these issues in another place. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had that in mind when she spoke earlier. We have not yet really answered the questions of principle about whether these forums are necessary. That issue should have been debated extensively in another place. I hope that, between now and Report, we shall reflect on whether they are needed at all.
Baroness Blatch: One of the issues raised by the amendments in this group is the degree to which parents of children with special educational needs are properly satisfied by admission arrangements and appropriate provision. This is "Autism Awareness Year", and only yesterday evening, as noble Lords may have seen, the "Newsnight" programme had a report that included the views of an organization
258
representing children with autism. The organisation emphasised the number of children who are not diagnosed sufficiently early or have missing diagnoses, so that provision for them is made too late in their educational career or, more sadly, not at all.
I share the concerns just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. There is a danger that the creation of forums will simply raise expectations. The forums have no clout; they have no more than advisory powers. Consequently they could be no more than talking shops. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is right that the local education authority has the legal obligation to make provision for school access for young people. We should not support or underwrite anything that would inhibit the local authority from meeting its legal obligation.
From his record in the House, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is territorial about the way in which this end is achieved. The important thing is that it is achieved. We want to ensure, first, that nothing in this Bill will inhibit proper provision for children with special educational needs. Secondly, we want to ensure that, as far as possible, provision for children with special needs is appropriate to their educational needs.
I believe that there was a body called—I cannot recall its precise name; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, can remind me—the informal resolution procedure procedural body. It addressed issues such as appropriate admissions for children with special educational needs and resolved disputes before they became candidates for the tribunal system, thereby keeping them out of court. It would be very helpful, not for education forums but for local authorities, to have an annual appraisal within local education areas to detail where gaps exist, the degree to which proper provision is being made for children with special educational needs, and the degree to which those gaps are not being filled. I do not mind how that is achieved. However, there needs to be a body to submit a systematic annual report to the body that has legal responsibility—that is, the local authority—and to codify the degree to which special educational needs have been met. It could also report the extent to which that is due to wrongful admissions. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, wants to achieve, but I am not absolutely certain that it is achieved by the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Rix: I fully understand that admission forums could well become talking shops; all I am interested to ensure is that if they do become talking shops, they talk sense.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have participated in this truly enlightening debate. I wish to begin by emphasising one or two cardinal principles behind our thinking. There is nothing in the proposals with regard to the forum that in any way, shape or form detracts from the provisions which, as the noble Baroness,

259
Lady Blatch, reminded us, we worked upon during the passage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill which became an Act last year. I give the fundamental reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that there is no proposal with regard to the forum which in any way invalidates or reduces the significance and salience of that legislation in terms of advancing the needs of children with special educational needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Brennan expressed anxieties about whether representations to the forum on individual cases would be met with the same effective response as that given by the relevant legal authority which, as my noble friend Lord Brennan reminded us, is the local authority. I emphasise that the forums are not the places to discuss individual grievances. It is not expected that parents will lobby forums on behalf of individual grievances. Forums are not extensions of the appeal machinery; they are areas in which policies with regard to admissions in general are discussed and evaluated. Forums are consultative bodies. I hope that I have reassured my noble friend Lord Jones that it is not a question of the Government losing confidence in local authorities but rather of enhancing the services that local authorities offer by creating a consultative framework within which these matters can be discussed. Local authorities will thus be able to reach more intelligent, effective and better informed judgments on the basis of the work that the forums do.
Against that general background I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that we would expect admission authorities to make available relevant information to the forum for all groups of children and parents, not just those of disabled children and children with special educational needs. I repeat my assurance that there is no way in which parents of children with special educational needs will be disadvantaged by the proposals.
Children who have statements of special educational needs naming a particular school have their interests fully protected already and we have made it clear in statutory guidance that admission authorities must treat children with special educational needs who do not have statements and disabled children as fairly as others and may not refuse admission because they consider that they are unable to cater for special needs.
Admission forums will consider how well existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interests of all local parents and children. They will broker arrangements for ensuring that vulnerable children, including children with special educational needs who do not have statements and disabled children, have fair access to local schools. All admission authorities in an LEA's area will be required to have regard to any advice given by the forum when determining their admission arrangements.
We intend to make clear in regulations that the core membership of admission forums should include the parent representatives elected by all the parent
260
governors of the LEA in question. Parents of disabled and SEN children, like other parents, will be able to channel views through them to the admission forum.
I remind Members of the Committee that from September of this year—this consolidates the point that I made earlier—admission authorities will have to comply with Sections 28A, 28B and 28C of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. They clearly place legal duties on admission authorities not to treat disabled pupils less favourably than their non-disabled peers without justification and to take reasonable steps to ensure that disabled pupils are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled pupils.
I can also give a clear assurance that admission authorities will be able to establish sub-committees of the forum, should they wish to do so. That would not be appropriate for all areas—smaller authorities may not find it necessary. We therefore considered that the decision to establish a sub-committee, and for what purpose, should be wholly at the discretion of the authority. If LEAs consider it appropriate to establish a sub-committee to assist the forum in preparing advice, they already have the discretion to do that.
I turn to Amendment No. 182, which is not appropriately placed in relation to this clause, which deals with admission forums. I reassure Members of the Committee that the admissions framework that we have put in place ensures that all admission authorities in an area do not place prospective pupils who are disabled or have SEN at any disadvantage. I reiterate the fact that nothing in the Bill changes that. As I have already said, the Disability Discrimination Act and the special educational needs legislation will apply to access to education for the first time.
On Amendment No. 198A, the aim of co-ordinating admissions is simply to avoid the situation in which multiple applications by parents can lead to some parents receiving more than one offer of a school place for their children while others get none. Co-ordinated schemes will not change schools admissions criteria; they will simply provide general ground-rules for deciding which place an LEA should offer to any given parent if their child is potentially eligible for more than one school. A typical ground-rule, but not the only possible one, would be that the parents should be offered the place at whichever school they ranked the higher. Co-ordinated arrangements will not in any way change the position for children who have statements of SEN naming a particular school. Those children must be admitted to the named school, regardless of the school's general admission arrangements or criteria. Indeed, from 2003, when a child with a statement transfers between phases of schooling—for example, from primary to secondary—the Education (Special Education Needs) (England) (Consolidation) Regulations require the LEA to amend the statement and to name the school that the child will be attending by 15th February in the year of transfer. LEAs will have to take those allocations as a fait accompli when allocating the remaining places under any coordinated admissions schemes for their area.

261
I recognise the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her constructive idea about how to refine the way in which we deal with some of the problems associated with children with SEN and how a local authority can handle that with the greatest sensitivity and effectiveness. I shall take that issue away, consider it further and come back with further responses. I do not have the capacity to respond to it in detail at this point. It is an extremely useful suggestion, which I know is prompted by the noble Baroness's concern about those children, which I share.
I hope that I have assured noble Lords that all of the issues that have been raised—they are tremendously important issues—indicate that the Government are avoiding the division between the talking shop, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, worried about, and the committee that wiped out the significance of local authorities in Britain to which my noble friend Lord Jones referred. All that I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is that he will recall that one of the founding fathers of conservatism said that our constitution is balanced upon a nice equipoise; so is the concept of the forum.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Perhaps the Minister will allow a comment on what he has said. He did not treat Amendment No. 182, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on its merits; he simply told us that it was not the right amendment for this particular part of the Bill. He provided reassurance about other aspects of the law, and that of course was comforting. But can he tell the Committee whether he believes that Amendment No. 182 could sensibly be moved to another part of the Bill?
Lord Davies of Oldham: It is for the noble Lord to see whether he can find another part of the Bill where the amendment would be more appropriately placed. Clearly it does not fit into this framework. I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is always motivated by the concerns of the group of children and their parents on behalf of whom he speaks. We shall of course consider an amendment in detail when it is placed more appropriately in the Bill.
Lord Rix: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken so cogently and splendidly in support of, or at least have commented upon, the amendment which I have just moved. I am most grateful to them all. I am grateful, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for bringing up the question of my Amendment No. 182. I shall, of course, go away and seek advice from Mencap and the Special Educational Consortium as to a more suitable place for the amendment to be placed in the Bill. I am sorry that the Minister could not find the necessary place in his brief. But no doubt he will write to me on the matter, if he is so minded, in the next day or two.
I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her suggestion, which has been taken up by the Minister. I am sure that it will prove very fruitful in future discussions on special educational needs and disability.
262
I am delighted to have received so many assurances. Again, in consultation with Mencap and the Special Educational Consortium, I shall see whether I need to return to these amendments in some form or another at the next stage of the Bill. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 177 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 178:
Page 30, line 15, at end insert "but need not accept that advice".
The noble Baroness said: I hope that I can be brief in speaking to this amendment. It refers to LEA and admission authorities which, I understand, under the law will have to have regard to any relevant advice given to them by the admission forum. My understanding of the phrase "having regard to" is that it gives statutory underpinning to any advice that is given by the admission forum to the LEA and the admission authorities. In principle, I have no argument with that. My amendment states,
"but need not accept that advice".
I am almost certain that, if I were in the Minister's shoes, I would say, "No, this is not going on the face of the Bill". I shall understand if that is the answer.
However, I believe that it is important to have on the record that all that is being proffered is advice. Of course, such advice could be challenged in any tribunal and it would be important for the admission authority and/or the LEA to prove in a court of law that, in coming to whatever decision or conclusion it reached, en passant it had had proper regard to the advice that it was given. But it would not necessarily in law bind the LEA or the admission authority to accept that advice. I should be grateful to have confirmation of that on the record. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I rise briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said. I am reminded of the debate about community health councils and the reasons that Parliament decided that community health councils had outlived their usefulness. One reason that the Government decided that they could do without CHCs was that they had become talking shops. They said that they were ineffective in championing the cause of patients and users of the health service. It seems strange to me that in the context of this other legislation we are setting up something that is not dissimilar. I have a fear that they will have a limited life expectancy. When people discover that the real decisions are still to be made by local councillors, they will properly go to their local councillors who will represent their interests to the local education authority.
Although I am all in favour of people being involved wherever possible on the ground—participation and involvement is crucially important—I return to the point about the devaluation of that process if we simply create talking shops. On the wall of my study at home I have a poster that says, "God so loved the world that he did not send a committee". Although I realise that committees are an essential part of our

263
civic life and of our political existence, nevertheless we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time in committees. Sometimes we know that they can be extremely futile.
I hope that further consideration will be given to this matter before Report stage. If all that is to be given on many of these issues is advice, and if people know that the real power and the real decisions will be taken elsewhere in local authorities, they will be reluctant to serve on such bodies. It is already difficult to find people to serve as school governors and in local authorities where they feel that their powers have been emasculated, so why on earth should anyone want to serve on one of these advisory forums?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: On Amendment No. 178, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was correct in her assumption that had she been standing here she would not want to put that particular phrase on the face of the Bill. The Bill does not require admission authorities to accept any advice that the admission forums may agree to give. Quite deliberately, the clause says that such bodies should have regard to the advice, as the noble Baroness has pointed out. Those words are carefully chosen so as to leave those who receive advice some discretion. They do not have to follow the advice without question, but we would normally expect them to do so unless there were a good reason not to do so.
Perhaps I can give an example. If an admission forum made a recommendation at odds with the fundamental character of a school, such as that a single sex school should become co-educational or that a grammar school should cease to be selective, the admission authority could reasonably reject that advice after giving it due consideration. In that sense, the current drafting already provides that an admissions authority need not accept advice. I am happy to make that clear. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I hesitate to sound excited about admission forums because I remember what happened when I said that I was excited about schools forums, but I genuinely am excited about them. That is partly because as a parent I have been on the receiving end of one that has worked well. They are not meant to be part of a large bureaucracy and I take the noble Lord's point about committees.
We are thinking about the meetings taking place twice a year. They will consider how the arrangements are working; the impact on children, on parents, on vulnerable children, on children with special educational needs and on those who arrive from outside the area; and how best our most vulnerable and challenging children can be shared, in the best sense of that word, between the different schools so that they come together. The task will not be onerous but the forums are meant to do a real job. The experience of parents on the receiving end of those that are already in place and working well is a happy and
264
positive one. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured and able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Of course, I shall withdraw the amendment. I take with a slight pinch of salt what the noble Baroness has said about this being a committee that will have a light touch and meet only occasionally. Subsection (3) states:
"Regulations may make provision—

(a) as to the constitution, meetings and proceedings of an admission forum and of any such sub-committee,

(b) as to the manner in which advice is to be given by a forum, and

(c) as to the establishment by local education authorities of joint admission forums".

Of course, it will have sub-committees. So I am not absolutely certain that they will be anything like that. I believe that we shall see here the establishment of something that will be a talking shop. No doubt, two or three years down the line we shall see the monster that has been created. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 178A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 179 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Listowelmoved Amendment No. 180:
Page 30, line 19, at end insert—
"() Admission Forums shall seek the views of carers of children in public care and make these known to the admission authorities."
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 180, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 181. The purpose of these two probing amendments is to ensure that children in public care are gaining fair access to the better performing schools. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, referred to two similar amendments. Without wishing to make a case of special pleading, I ask the Committee to bear in mind that these children do not have parents to act as advocates for them. In that sense they are unique.
Currently those children are not gaining fair access to the better performing schools. Schools preoccupied with league table performance are averse to accepting needy children. There is a concern that many schools are prejudiced against children in public care. Such children are often still perceived as "bad", when in fact they are "needy".
Children are taken into public care throughout the school year. The better performing schools are unlikely to have places available mid-year. Better performing schools are of particular benefit to looked-after children. An ordered school environment helps to remedy the experience many of these children have had of a chaotic family environment and often an unsettled experience in public care. Good schools can help remedy the lack of clear boundaries the child has experienced, as well as put right the child's interrupted schooling.

265
I thank the Minister for the draft regulations. I welcome the inclusion, among the topics for forum deliberations, of arrangements for ensuring that vulnerable and challenging children are fairly shared. I ask for clarification: does the reference to "parents" also apply to carers of looked-after children?
Can the Minister assure the Committee that her measures are sufficiently robust? There has been a problem in engaging the interest of carers of looked-after children in the education of their charges. Can the Minister assure the Committee that forums will seek out, welcome and encourage the views of such carers? Can she assure the Committee that forums will give active consideration to the inclusion of carers or care agencies among their membership? What safeguards are there to ensure that admissions forums seek the views of carers of children in public care and reflect the needs of those children in any decisions they make on admissions?
Given the impact of admission arrangements on school improvements and school performance, what role does Ofsted play in reporting on the fair distribution of vulnerable and/or challenging children between local schools? I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: I rise briefly to support the amendments in principle and also to elaborate a little on why the views of carers in particular need to be given more prominence.
If we look at the performance of children in care, we see huge disparities in terms of their achievements. It is critical that we are more pro-active, both in involving carers themselves, who are notoriously reluctant to take part in the formal arrangements that are often made for parents, but also to make it as easy as possible for their views and experiences to be collected.
In the joint guidance for children in public care published 18 months ago, which followed the QPO initiative, 15 different reasons were identified as to why children were failing to thrive in schools. They included a lack of information being available—there is obviously a crucial problem here—as well as a low value being put on education traditionally within the care services. Things have improved a great deal.
I welcome the admission forums as a positive step and as a way of introducing transparency and confidence to parents. I do not share the fears of Members opposite that they will simply be a talking shop. We have had nothing which can inform parents as to why admissions are determined the way they are and what arrangements there are for fairness and equality. They are absolutely justifiable.
Four years ago hardly any local authority in the country knew where its children in public care were. I was astonished by that. Two years ago only half of all local authorities knew what those children were achieving in schools. There is a "Bermuda Triangle" regarding information about children in public care. If the admission forums have the power to invite information and potential representation—I do not know whether they would have that power—it could be positive. We should take the opportunity that the
266
Bill presents to encourage carers to he involved and schools and public authorities to know what is happening to children in public care.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I entirely support the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in his intention to protect the interests of children in public care. I agree with him that these are some of our most vulnerable children. Members of the Committee will be aware that most children are in care because they have been subjected to neglect or abuse. Therefore, they are extremely vulnerable and need to be protected.
As my noble friend Lady Andrews has said, it is only in recent times that we have enabled ourselves to get to grips with the issues facing these children. We are beginning to target them as a group to ensure that they achieve an education and that they are able to take their place in society with the best possible support.
Therefore, we consider it right that responsibility for ensuring that admission arrangements work for all children should rest with the admission forums for that particular area. One of their responsibilities will be to broker arrangements for ensuring that vulnerable children, including those in public care, have fair access to local schools. All admission authorities will be required to have regard to any advice given by the forum.
One of the key functions of the admission forums will be to advise on local protocols to aid the swift placement of vulnerable children. We shall shortly be consulting on proposed regulations that will give admission forums responsibility to consider the issues relating to the issue of children in public care, and how to ensure that such children are placed in schools that meet their social, pastoral and academic needs. Subject to parliamentary approval we also propose to give extra guidance on suitable protocols in the admissions code.
In addition, we propose through regulations to introduce a requirement that social services are included as a member of admissions forums and to explain in the admission code that they should be in attendance for consideration of all aspects relating to vulnerable children and in-year admissions.
Finally, we also propose to consult on the possibility of recommending as good practice that all admission authorities give top priority on their over-subscription criteria and on any waiting lists to children in public care.
I am well aware of the issues surrounding the way that we want Ofsted to be involved in this matter. It is looking at the role of local education authorities which have the remit to ensure that these children are cared for in terms of education. The good news is that the picture is beginning to look more positive. We have a long way to go, but it is looking increasingly positive. I am a member of a group chaired by my honourable friend Jacqui Smith from the Department of Health. That group is specifically looking at support for children in care. I shall be very pleased to pass on the noble Earl's comments about the role of Ofsted and his

267
general views, if that would help. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for her very helpful and full reply to my concerns. In particular, I thank her for the welcome news about the inclusion of social services on the admission forums and about the top priority which is to be given to children in public care. I shall reflect on what she has said and consider what further steps need to be taken at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 181 and 182 not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 183:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
"PARENTAL PREFERENCES
(1) Section 86 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (parental preference) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) after paragraph (c) there is inserted "; or
(d) if compliance with the preference would result in an unsustainable balance between boarding places and day places at a maintained boarding school."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 183 addresses a small but significant issue, particularly for those who represent service interests. State boarding schools cater for some 700 families of servicemen and women. Essentially, the difficulty they face is an inability to ring-fence a certain number of places for boarders. That places the financial viability of the schools at risk. If during the course of a year a number of pupils decide to switch from boarding to day places, the boarding house can become uneconomic to maintain.
Perhaps I may set out the problem. Let us take a school with an admission number of, say, 120. Over the five years—years seven to 11—the school may therefore expect to have five times 120, that is 600, pupils. Let us suppose that 300 boarders and 300 day pupils were the optimum balance based on classroom and boarding accommodation. That would appear to imply 60 day pupils and 60 boarders per year, but that is incorrect. The pattern for demand for boarding places differs from that for day places. Schools often want to take in a smaller total number in year seven and subsequently grow by taking boarders into later years, following the actual numbers that apply. They may want to take in only, say, 40 boarders in year seven, but to take in extra boarders in subsequent years in response to demand—with often particularly strong demand in years nine and 10.
Furthermore, boarders often apply much later in the academic year than do day students, as the need for a boarding place is not always predictable well in advance because of an unexpected posting overseas, a change of job or even a change in family circumstances. Under current legislation, an appeals panel may allow appeals from unsuccessful day
268
applicants and force the school to take in 80 day pupils and 40 boarders. That may prevent or limit the ability of the school subsequently to take in further boarders to fill its boarding capacity, because its classroom capacity is fully taken up. That is to say that, even though pupils could be accommodated for boarding, they could not be taught in the classroom.
The solution favoured by the Minister—this has been elicited from correspondence—is to have different admission numbers for each year. For example, in year seven, there could be 60 day pupils and 40 boarders, equalling 100 children; in year eight, no extra day pupils and 10 extra boarders; in year nine, no extra day pupils and 12 extra boarders; in year 10, no extra day pupils and 12 extra boarders; and in year 11, no extra children at all. That totals 600 in all.
There are two real problems with such a solution. The pattern of demand is not sufficiently predictable, and if it varies from the above numbers of boarders, places could still be given to day applicants, as occurs at present. Secondly, there would be nothing to prevent any or all boarders unilaterally switching from boarding to day status. Thus, such a solution can never adequately safeguard a school's ability to provide boarding. The only solution that will adequately protect state boarding schools is for them to be able to ring-fence a certain number of places as boarding only.
I cannot understand the department's reluctance to do something practical on those lines. I know that it is sympathetic, but it needs to do something to resolve the problem and prevent the possibility of some of those schools going out of business altogether. That would affect only the small number of schools with boarding places and would not create an issue for other schools.
I understand that this was another clause that was not discussed at all in another place, which is unfortunate. Nevertheless, I also understand that the Liberal Democrats were sympathetic to the case made and I look forward to their support for the amendment tonight. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to say briefly that yes, we entirely support the amendment. In fact, we tabled an alternative amendment to achieve the same thing. It is an important issue for that small number of schools that are state boarding schools as well as day schools. The problem is that because they cannot ring-fence boarding places under existing legislation, there is nothing to prevent parents from accepting a boarding place and then unilaterally declaring that they want it to be taken up as a day place.
For example, in one school last year, an admissions appeals panel allowed 13 successful appeals from day applicants to fill up the boarding places. That is not a major problem, but it is a problem. A small number of schools offer boarding places as well. They provide a useful service to service families, families of people who go abroad unexpectedly, families that have suffered bereavements and families in which there have been separations and divorces. There are all kinds

269
of issues. A boarding place can be a useful thing, and those schools serve a useful purpose. We hope that the Government can come up with a solution to that little problem.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, my honourable friend the Minister of State has met representatives of the state boarding schools. We understand their difficulties and sympathise with them.
I shall give the short answer this evening, not the long answer. I hope that it will be of some help to noble Lords. An amendment similar to Amendment No. 185 holds out some promise of a solution because it would make things clear for parents. That approach may not commend itself to all maintained boarding schools because it is not particularly flexible. They would need to publish separate admissions numbers for boarding and day pupils for every year group in which they normally admit pupils and stick to those numbers. I can see the potential value for some schools.
I hope that, on the basis that we will come back on Report with our own proposals to address the problem, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I understand that the hour dictated that we should have a short answer, but it was unsatisfactory.
The Minister knows that the people who represent boarding schools have been offered the proposition that they publish admissions numbers for each year. However, running the schools is an unpredictable business. Economic viability is important to them. I would like to think that the Minister could persuade the department to accept—even on a pilot scheme basis—that the schools should be run in the way that they themselves propose. If that caused any unfairness or disruption elsewhere in the system, it could be reversed.
The proposition offered to the Boarding Schools' Association by the Minister's colleagues in another place is not satisfactory. No doubt, we will return to the matter. I hope that, in the meantime, the Minister will reflect on the case that has been put. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Admission numbers]:
[Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 186 to 189 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas: I would appreciate a short discussion of what Clause 45 is intended to change about the current arrangements. I have found it reasonably impenetrable and would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall certainly try. Essentially, we want to streamline the local decision-making process and reduce the burden on governors, education authorities and others involved.
The problem that standard numbers were introduced in the 1980s to deal with —schools refusing children places by saying that they were full when they were not—is no longer current. The changes that we introduced in 1998 have made standard number controls redundant. Admission authorities must now consult each other annually on their proposed admission arrangements, including admission numbers. Other admission authorities may object to the schools adjudicator about any aspect of admission arrangements, and admission authorities must follow their published admission arrangements.
There is significant support for a change. In our recent consultation, 81 per cent of respondents agreed to some extent with our proposals to abolish standard numbers and introduce a new capacity assessment formula. Under the old system, the standard number was the highest number when one considered the school capacity and two numbers based on the numbers in the school on two particular dates of overcrowding. The admission numbers were then set at or above that standard number. Any changes to those numbers required statutory proposals decided by the school organisation committee. It was a lengthy process. Under the new system, schools will simply publish admission numbers, and that will be it. Any other admission authority can object, as can any group of 10 parents. However, the process is straightforward and more effective.
I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that the measure is about reducing the administrative burden on admission authorities and school organisation committees which currently find the process of setting and changing standard numbers onerous and not worth while. Taken together with the provision relating to the publishing of admission numbers, we believe that abolishing standard numbers will reduce that burden while still underpinning the protection for parental preference. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord is able to withdraw his objection.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Co-ordination of admission arrangements]:
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 191:
Page 31, line 8, leave out "arrangements" and insert "dates"
The noble Baroness said: The arrangements for admission and the actual admission of pupils are one of the most important functions which any school carries out. Schools which are their own admissions authority should be left as free as possible to make arrangements according to their own admissions criteria—which in any case have to be within the law. As far as possible, the criteria should be educational or academic in line with the major purpose of education.

271
The major exception to that concerns dates, because it is not helpful to parents or to schools if there is a range of dates by which parents will know whether or not their child has been accepted. Other aspects of admission should be the domain of the individual admissions authorities. If not, what would be the point of holding admissions authority status? If any school or local education authority makes that particularly onerous, it is likely to suffer by losing pupils and in the event losing popularity.
Most current admissions criteria are not educational at all; for instance, distance from school, sibling family connections, connection with staff, parental preference and so forth. But academic criteria are more and more ruled out; for example, ability, aptitude, subject preference, interviews and assessment of parental support. Increasingly, that creates problems for far too many schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sure that, like me, the noble Baroness will have seen the distress caused to parents and children as the start of secondary schooling approaches and they have still not received an offer of a place. Other parents meanwhile have received multiple offers and sometimes hold on to them while deciding in their own time which to accept.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would destroy the whole point of Clause 46, which is designed to ensure that admission arrangements in a local education authority area leading to the single offer of a school place are co-ordinated. Merely co-ordinating the dates on which children are admitted to a school would not achieve that.
We know that there are a few foundation and voluntary-aided schools which were concerned that co-ordinated admission arrangements would in some way reduce their right to decide and apply their own admissions policy and criteria. I can safely say "minority" because in response to our consultation only 22 per cent of voluntary-aided schools disagreed with our proposal.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that any such fears on their part are groundless. Foundation and voluntary-aided schools will continue to receive all applications from parents who wish their children to attend them. They will also continue to apply their own admissions and oversubscription criteria in order to identify which applicants meet their admissions criteria and in what order.
The main difference a co-ordinated scheme will make to foundation and voluntary-aided schools is that, rather than put forward the offer themselves, they will notify the relevant education authority as to which schools are eligible. Each local education authority will then check in relation to all pupils resident in its area the potential offers to be made. Applying the rules applicable to the co-ordinated scheme in question, the education authority will then
272
decide what offer will be made to those who would otherwise receive multiple offers, or none, and then the local education authority will transmit the single offer of a school place to residents in their area. But where any such offer is for a foundation or a voluntary-aided school place, the education authority will be making that offer on behalf of the school concerned.
The measure is not only about dates; it is about making sure that when children are applying to schools they receive an appropriate offer. However, that will not interfere with the admission arrangements of any of the schools which control their own admission arrangements. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I shall need to read more carefully the noble Baroness's response. However, I think that my amendment would resolve some of those problems. If the dates by which parents are informed are set by the authority; that is, people are not allowed to stagger information with a whole range of dates in operation—that leads to one school waiting on other schools and parents waiting on offers of places from different schools—and if no decision is made by that date then the offer would go by the board, I think that would be helpful. That would leave the arrangements up to the individual admissions authorities, whether they are the LEA or the individual schools.
As I have said, I shall read with care the response of the noble Baroness. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 192 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 194:
Page 31, line 12, at end insert—
"() Powers under these regulations shall not be used in such a way as to interfere with the admissions procedures of schools that select pupils by ability or aptitude."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment specifies that any admissions arrangements shall not,
"interfere with the admissions procedures of schools that select pupils by ability or aptitude".
I know that there are philosophical objections to the idea of any selection on the basis of ability, but there are schools that, under the current system, are allowed bona fide to select pupils by ability. Of course other schools have now been added to the system that are allowed to select by aptitude.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the powers under these regulations are not used in such a way that they would interfere with the admissions procedures of schools selecting by ability and/or aptitude. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am happy to give that assurance to the noble Baroness. Co-ordinated

273
admission arrangements will not affect the current rights of schools which are their own admission authorities to decide their own admission policies, apply them to applicants, identify those who meet their admissions criteria, and in what order. I am happy to make the position clear.
However, the amendment as drafted would go further than that since it rules out any changes in admissions procedures. We believe that admissions "procedures" are not confined to schools' admission policies, but include all aspects of the processing of admission applications, such as timetables, where application forms are to be sent, how any potential multiple offers are dealt with, transmitting offers and so forth. Inevitably, co-ordinating admission arrangements will mean changes in such processing aspects. The amendment would undermine our objective of assuring that each child is offered a single place.
I hope, therefore, that with the clear assurance that nothing here would disturb admission policies, the noble Baroness will recognise that her amendment would raise some difficulties and that she will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: I think I take the point made by the noble Lord about admission procedures in his response. I think that the noble Lord knows what I am asking for by way of this amendment and I think that he has given me the assurance that I seek. I am not quite sure whether the admissions procedures of schools that do select by ability and/or aptitude could be affected by the regulations.
However, I take on trust what the noble Lord has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195 to 197 not moved.]
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 198:
Page 31, line 43, at end insert ", or
"(c) that in considering admissions to a particular school, no admission authority shall be permitted to take into consideration information relating to parental preferences other than the fact that a parent has expressed a preference for that school, and that no local education authority shall supply an admissions authority with information relating to parental preferences other than that which they are entitled to take into consideration"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 198. I am concerned that the admissions arrangements should be managed in as parent-friendly a way as possible. At last, for the coming year, we have a situation with UCAS applications whereby universities will not know to which other universities people have applied. There had been a growing practice for some universities automatically to refuse admission to candidates who had applied for Oxford or Cambridge because they wished to see only those candidates who had placed themselves first. I do not think that that was constructive so far as the students were concerned. The process became a competitive
274
system for universities seeking to admit the best candidates and thus was antipathetic to the best interests of students.
In the private sector, that process is a common means of competition between schools. If the school is in the second rank, an early admissions date is set, scholarships are offered to anyone one considers will get into the schools of the first rank, and the cut-off date for acceptance is set before parents can know whether they have a place at the school they would prefer their child to attend.
The private sector is the private sector. It will have many ways of making parents' lives difficult under those circumstances. I suppose that all is fair in commercial competition. Life should not be like that in the state sector, but in some places it is. For example, in Kent—I understand why the schools do so—if one wants to get into one of the better nonselective schools, one must put that school first. If one puts a grammar school first, one never gets a chance.
I hope that under the arrangements described today by the Minister we shall have a system whereby a school which receives an application from a pupil will not know to which other schools that pupil has applied. The school does not need to know. It simply needs to know that the pupil has applied to that school. The school matches the pupil against its admission criteria and decides whether the pupil should be accepted. It is then up to the LEA, or whichever body is co-ordinating the admission arrangements, to say, "Yes, this pupil has received two offers under the scheme. The offer he or she ends up receiving is A or B". That means that everything is as good as it could be for the pupils. There is no prejudice. For a parent who wants to put a non-standard school first, there is none of the terrible competition and difficulties attached, with the possibility of losing any chance of a place in their neighbourhood school.
Parents who are Catholic may want a chance of a place at a Catholic school 20 miles away which is heavily over-subscribed. If they did not manage to achieve that, they would be content for the child to go to the neighbourhood school. However, because that school is over-subscribed and they put it second, they are off the list. I do not think that that is the way things should be in the state system. The state system should look at an application on its merits as though it were the only application for that child. All the school should know is that a child with these qualifications wants to go to that school; and the school should decide on that basis. The "unders" and "overs" and double offers should be dealt with by the LEA on the basis of its published scheme. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will agree that my amendment is unnecessary. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but I am not sure that I understand. If I do understand, I am not sure how the system will work. How will the Catholic school 20 miles away know why that parent wishes to have a Catholic education for the child? In the case of specialist or faith schools, or schools of a religious

275
character, the admission authority will need to know slightly more than that the parents had a preference for that school.
The Churches went quickly for the comprehensive principle. I do not think that there is a single voluntary-aided, Church-sponsored grammar school left. I do not comment on whether that is good or bad. If a parent from a deprived area, who was a practising member of whichever Church or faith it happened to be, wanted his child to go to a school in the leafy suburbs which was seen by some to be élitist, how could the governors of that school know that the parents were members of that faith community, or wanted the specialism that might be required, if this amendment is agreed to as worded? I pose that as a question because I may not quite understand what the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord Lucas: I did not intend the words of the amendment to be capable of the construction the right reverend Prelate gives them. A parent expresses a choice by saying, "This first, that second, and that third". A school should not know that it is the third choice. It should be able to have information necessary to satisfy its other criteria: where the parent lives; their religious background; special educational needs; and anything else that is important in deciding to admit the child. The school should not know whether it has been the first, second or third choice, merely that a preference has been expressed for the school.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I really do not believe that the amendment before the Committee actually says that; it just refers to "parental preferences". It could limit the social mix that I know the noble Lord is very keen to see evolve. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw the amendment, and perhaps return later with another composed of different wording.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. Indeed, he has presented rather more effectively the case that I intended to make. Perhaps I may begin by expressing a segment of agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I believe that LEAs should only share information about the order of preference if it is relevant to the admission arrangements of a school. Regulations and guidance will ensure that that is the case.
My reservations about the amendment follow directly on the argument advanced by the right reverend Prelate; namely, that schools will need to know more than just the preference. Indeed, they will need to know why a parent has chosen that school in the context, for example, of denominational choice. In passing, I should point out to the noble Lord that I do not believe that school admissions are quite comparable to those that apply to UCCA. However, I accept his arguments about the previous practices that obtained with regard to university entrance. Like the noble Lord, I welcome the changes.
Once again in this House, when we are discussing admissions to secondary schools, I regret the fact that higher education has been brought into the argument.
276
All too often, our education debates are suffused with information about higher education so as to detract from the point at hand. I shall not, therefore, follow the noble Lord too far down that road. However, I wish to emphasise exactly what the right reverend Prelate indicated.
I share the objectives of the noble Lord, and recognise exactly what he is trying to achieve. But, unfortunately, the amendment would leave us in a position where appropriate information would not be available to the school authorities seeking to make the decision. That would occur especially where the parent was seeking admission for a child to another smaller school outside the immediate local authority. In such a situation, the sharing of such information would be directly in the interests both of the parent and of the child.
I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that he has at least had the opportunity to express a sentiment which I significantly share. However, he must realise that the present amendment has certain defects. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I agree that the amendment is badly drafted. As I understand it, the Minister has said that the point that I am trying to make will be covered in guidance. Under those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 198A not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Admission appeals]:
Baroness Darcy de Knaythmoved Amendment No. 199:
Page 32, line 41, at end insert—
"() Regulations shall make provision for a legally qualified person, trained in an understanding of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50), as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (c. 10), to chair any appeal panel where a claim of disability discrimination is being heard as part of an admissions appeal."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would ensure that a "legally qualified person" chairs any appeal panel where a claim of disability discrimination is being heard as part of an admission appeal. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 amended the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (the DDA) to cover education in all aspects of school life—admissions, exclusion, education and associated services. The provision comes into effect this September.
The DDA duties are new. Whereas duties under the special educational needs legislation were about provision meeting needs, the DDA requires schools: first, not to treat disabled pupils less favourably; and, secondly, to make "reasonable adjustments". Those duties have been widely welcomed, because they bring reasonable protection from unlawful discrimination. The National Autistic Society says that children on the autistic spectrum without a statement are frequently turned away from the school of their choice, especially

277
those with Asperger's syndrome who are above average academically but need support and social interaction, as well as communication.
The SEC argues that determining whether or not unlawful discrimination has taken place—the questions of less favourable treatment, reasonable adjustments and, perhaps hardest of all, an adequate understanding of the definition of "disability"—is a complex matter. That is why it feels the amendment is necessary.
Other claims of unlawful discrimination will be heard by SENDIST, which has legally qualified chairs and members who will be specially trained over a number of days and develop expertise in hearing cases. This level of knowledge and expertise must be available locally if we are to avoid errors being made.
I hope that the Minister can give an encouraging reply. At any rate, can she say how much training members will have in the DDA? Will the clerk have legal training in the DDA specifically? How will panel members access specialist advice on the DDA? Could a parent feel confident that every panel member will be properly equipped to hear claims of disability discrimination? I beg to move.
Lord Rix: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 200, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford.
There will be some children for whom some schools at particular times can provide an appropriate education without risk of prejudice to the education of other children. However, it is easy for an admissions authority to use this escape clause to deny admission to children who are simply difficult in as much as they require extra effort, extra resources or extra skills because of their special educational needs.
Amendment No. 200 would increase parents' confidence that SENDA tribunals will not conspire with schools in turning special needs into unnecessary barriers. It will do so by ensuring that effective ways of meeting special needs have been fully considered before a decision to deny admission is confirmed, thus avoiding any possible prejudices to the interests of other children. I look forward to a favourable reply.
Lord Lucas: So far as concerns the clause stand part, I merely hope that the noble Baroness will cover a little of what the new clause changes.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall begin by doing precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has asked me to do. Very briefly, this clause amends Section 94 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. We intend to prescribe in regulation the arrangements for parents whose child is not offered a place at their preferred school to be able to appeal to an independent appeal panel. Those regulations will simply replicate the existing provisions in Schedule 24 to the 1998 Act.
Apart from replicating Schedule 24 in regulations, we do not intend to make any changes to the arrangements for admission appeal panels at the moment. However, we are monitoring how admission
278
appeal panels work and, if any changes become necessary, we will be able to make them more quickly than at present by amending the regulations.
We believe that the current arrangements are sensible and workable. Indeed, recent research by Sheffield Hallam University agrees with this conclusion. Changes are therefore unnecessary. But, as I said, we would like to have the flexibility to respond and make changes if and when they are needed. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
As to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, in regard to the training for chairs of appeal panels, from this September the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, will apply to access to education for the first time. Schools and local education authorities will be subject to new legal duties not to treat disabled pupils or prospective pupils less favourably than their non-disabled peers without justification and to take reasonable steps to ensure that disabled pupils are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to non-disabled pupils.
In regard to Amendment No. 199, I suggest that legal qualification is not necessary. By way of comparison, magistrates routinely administer the criminal law without being legally qualified persons but they do of course have access to legal advice from their clerk. Similarly, an appeal panel needs good sense and access to a clerk having legal knowledge and training. We have made it clear in statutory guidance that the clerk to the appeal panel should have legal training and be familiar with admissions and equal opportunities legislation. In addition, specific, targeted training is being developed for chairs of appeal panels that will include training on disability discrimination cases. We also intend to provide additional training material for other panel members.
We are confident, therefore, in relation to Amendment No. 199 that admission appeals panels will be well prepared for their new responsibilities and will be an effective forum for redress in disability discrimination cases in relation to admission to education authority maintained schools. I also make the point that we ought perhaps to wait to see the provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act in operation before we consider further change.
In addition, Amendment No. 199 presupposes that it will always be possible to identify beforehand those cases in which a claim of disability discrimination is involved. However, this may sometimes not be apparent until an admission appeal is actually being heard. In such cases, if the chair of the panel in question were not legally qualified, the amendment would require the hearing to be discontinued and a new panel convened with a legally qualified chair. This again could be unsatisfactory for the parents and child concerned.
Finally, I would argue that Amendment No. 199 would also be impractical, simply because of the number of appeals that take place each year. Perhaps I

279
may remind Members of the Committee that these are locally arranged by individual local education authorities and governing bodies of schools that are their own admission authority, such as foundation and voluntary-aided schools. Appeals panel members are unpaid volunteers. Requiring the panels to include a legally qualified volunteer chair would inevitably mean delays in the appeals process, leaving parents and children with uncertainty for even longer, while a suitable person is found and the panel is arranged.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, will find these views persuasive.
I turn finally to the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Current legislation already provides children with special educational needs with the protection that the amendment seems to be seeking.
Section 86 of the School Standards and Framework Act places a duty on education authorities and governing bodies of maintained schools to comply with any parental preference, expressed in accordance with local arrangements, as to the school at which they want their child to be educated. However, this duty does not apply in relation to any child where compliance with the duty would prejudice efficient education or would be incompatible with wholly selective admission arrangements. These admission provisions apply to the majority of children with special educational needs, since the majority do not have special educational needs statements.
The school admissions code of practice advises that, so far as possible, any arrangements for testing ability or aptitude should be accessible to children with special educational needs, and gives examples of how this might be achieved. The code also makes clear that children with special educational needs but no statement should be treated as fairly under a school's admission criteria, including its over-subscription criteria, as other applicants.
Where children with special educational needs, but for whom statements are not maintained, fulfil the criteria to be admitted to a selective maintained school, the school is under a duty to use its best endeavours to make the provision which their learning difficulties call for. This might include support for any particular aptitudes and abilities which such children may have.
The admissions provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act, including those relating to appeals, generally do not apply to children with statements of special educational needs. Under the
280
1996 Act, the admission route for such children is through a school being named in a statement; parental appeals against the content of the statement (including the school named) are considered by the Special Educational Needs Tribunal rather than by local admission appeals panels. Where parents express a preference for a school, it must be one that is suitable for the child, bearing in mind his or her age, aptitude and ability, if it is to be named in the statement.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will agree, therefore, that the proposed amendment is unnecessary and will not press it.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Before I decide what to do with my amendment, I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Rix wishes to comment.
Lord Rix: No. I shall obviously have to read the Minister's words tomorrow morning, when my mind is a little clearer.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the Minister for her reply. Obviously, I should have liked her to accept the amendment. I am grateful for what she has said. I am very pleased that the clerk will have legal training. I think that she referred to fair admissions and equal opportunities, but I am not sure that she said anything about DDA training for the clerk. It is very important that he is familiar with the DDA. She also mentioned DDA training for chairmen. That is important not only for chairmen; all members of the panel should have training on the DDA and access to advice. I see the Minister nodding again. Good. I am ticking off my shopping list.
That is reasonably satisfactory. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said and go back to see what the SEC says. If necessary, perhaps we could discuss these points further outwith the Chamber, but meanwhile I am grateful to the Minister for her careful answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Overseas Territories: European Convention on Human Rights
  Overseas Territories: European Convention on Human Rights
  Immigration Control: Migrant Workers
  Immigration Control: Migrant Workers
  Prisons: Child-centred Visits
  Prisons: Child-centred Visits
  Asylum Procedures: EU Common Standards
  Asylum Procedures: EU Common Standards
  Criminal Records Bureau: Registered Bodies
  Criminal Records Bureau: Registered Bodies
  Older People: Physical Activity
  Older People: Physical Activity
  Alleged War Crimes: Discussions with US Authorities
  Alleged War Crimes: Discussions with US Authorities
  Vibration: Physical Agents Directive
  Vibration: Physical Agents Directive
  Ladders: Use of Work Equipment Directive
  Ladders: Use of Work Equipment Directive
  Protest Site, Parliament Square
  Protest Site, Parliament Square
  DVLA Customer Documents: Address Checks
  DVLA Customer Documents: Address Checks
  Housing in Rural Areas
  Housing in Rural Areas
  Council Tax Bands
  Council Tax Bands
  Homeless People: Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Homeless People: Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Electoral Registers: Access and Sale
  Electoral Registers: Access and Sale
  Infrastructure Projects: Inquiry Procedures
  Infrastructure Projects: Inquiry Procedures
  Litter on Roads
  Litter on Roads
  Integrated Product Policy
  Integrated Product Policy
  Heddon-on-the-Wall: Tests for Foot and Mouth
  Heddon-on-the-Wall: Tests for Foot and Mouth
  Smallpox Vaccines
  Smallpox Vaccines
  Equality Proposals
  Equality Proposals
  Members' Correspondence: Handling by Departments
  Members' Correspondence: Handling by Departments